Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive982

User:Mansukhsurin

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

---

I have contacted this editor fourteen times since January trying to discuss their creation of unreferenced articles. Unfortunately they wouldn't reply and continued to create unreferenced articles (see User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources, User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources and communication and the several messages below User talk:Mansukhsurin#ANI.

The discussion at ANI was auto-archived, although they did receive a 'final warning' on 13th April that 'Any further disruption in any form will result in you losing your editing privileges completely' User_talk:Mansukhsurin#Final warning, ([1]. Barudih is an example of one of their creations, where they have been asked to add their sources or discuss the issue, but won't. They don't even use edit summaries, so there's no indicatino of why they make their edits at all, although they have been editing (though not that much) for 4 years.

The original ANI was for refusing to communicate (and they did not comment at the ANI) and for continually creating articles with serious issues, including no sources. They then left me messages at my talk page User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution and User talk:Boleyn#Rules don't necessarily make any one a perfect person. which I found rude and not showing the attitude we want from a Wikipedia editor. I then saw they had left further similar messages at User talk:PamD because of PamD's comments at my talk page. Since then, they have created another unreferenced page, National Coalition of People Living with HIV In India, which another editor swiftly tagged for speedy deletion. I don't know how to communicate to this editor that we collaborate, don't leave messages like this for other editors, and that we do add our sources. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• The user obviously believes they are editing in good faith but the level of English, the lack of communication and edit summaries, and the large number of deleted contributions give me pause. I'm leaning to a short block, but will wait until the community has made some comments here, or if indeed Mansukhsurin responds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

• Everybody is new at some point but being willing/able to learn is essential. I support a block to get their attention and see if this will change their approach. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• @SpacemanSpiff: Pinging admin who left this editor a final warning on 13 April. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, I haven't followed this editor's work after my warning, but this, that, and the other talk page responses to warnings or suggestions don't give me any confidence that a short term block will be of any help here. Let him contribute to hi.wiki and then apply for an unblock here after six months. While we can be empathetic to such editors, it should not be at the cost of our productive editors. —SpacemanSpiff 02:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Came here from the note Mansukhsurin left on Kudpung's talk page. After glancing over Mansukhsurin's talk, I'm surprised they were not blocked before over WP:CIR and I don't know why the prior post here did not result in some remedy. If they cannot or will not cite sources, and this seems likely, then a block here is in order. Do they cite sources at hi.wiki? I'll have a look. Perhaps it is best the take their own suggestion (e.g. User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution) and concentrate their efforts there.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

They've copy pasted the same non response to my talk page. Feel a long term block is in order.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked now and asked to apply for an unblock after six months of editing at hi.wiki (which would be the native language Wikipedia for him), he's just continued to spam talk pages after this started, but nothing meaningful. I see no need to bend over backwards for this anymore. —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 24 April 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.

Question about category addition

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 like to have your opinion regarding the addition of the category Arab inventions for the Arabic numerals article. It is indisputable fact that these numbers in their current form were developed by Arabs of North Africa and Muslim Spain. The question is whether these numbers are worthy enough to be considered an invention or not. Some users have raised their doubts over the claim citing the fact that no other numeral glyphs have been labelled as an inventions in Wikipedia. My stance is that the Arabic numerals are a special case since they are the most used glyphs in the world. So in your opinion, should the Category:Arab inventions be added to the article or not ? Viaros17 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator attention. Please pose your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Fish+Karate 07:59, 25 April 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:Skaiser1234

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:Skaiser1234 and User:Skaiser12345 are very obvious socks. It may be useful to perform a sleeper check too. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look through the user creation log some time, you'll see that it's exceedingly common for users, especially new users, to create more than one account. These are not usually classed as "socks", especially when declared[2] and only one account has made any edits. Is there a wider issue or a problem with their edits? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I just saw that and I wasn't really sure what to do. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:25, 26 April 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.

84.250.17.211 and MarnetteD

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.

---

• 84.250.17.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• MarnetteD (talk · contribs)
• Amerifit Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm reporting myself and MarnetteD for edit warring at said article (now hopefully ceased). There is/was a dispute in each contributor's assumptions of good faith, where both saw each other in bad faith?

Additionally, MarnetteD said please do not post here again at Special:Diff/838513527, which doesn't seem to be seeking collaboration while I admit to being rude too. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC); edited 14:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A) this is not the edit warring notice board. B) the edits in question do not constitute a 3rr violation. C) per WP:OWNTALK my removal of the IPs posts were permissible and D) I'm off to see Infinity War so it will be several hours before I can make any further responses here. MarnetteD|Talk 14:39, 27 April 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

I just reverted/deleted legal threats here and here, and I've blocked the account. It came shortly after this and this, both apparent attempts to remove the same person's name. The username suggests it is this UK law firm, and the IP geolocates to Edinburgh (though UK IP geolocation is often unreliable). I'm bringing this here just to ask for a few other eyes on these pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I invited them to address any concerns/take down requests to the WMF, where they have people who get paid to wade through legal mumbo-jumbo.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor making massive ammount of non-consensus edits

Windhunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making a controversial edit in an enormous ammount of articles. His edit has to do with the grammatiically wrong change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in the lede of many bios. Another thing is his unsourced addition of ethnic categories. He was warned at his talk-page by another editor (see User talk:Windhunter). He has been reverted by varios editors but has been edit-warring and ignoring others. FkpCascais (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First User:FkpCascais lying about facts, Bosnia and Herzegovina is full name of the country.

Bosnian-Herzegovinian is properly term in Croatian, Serbian and Bosniak language.

Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region.

Bosnian-Herzegovinian is grammaticaly correct.

Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Windhunter, the name in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian here is totally irrelevant, this is an English-language Wikipedia and we write English here. Second thing, before making a massive ammount of changes as you are doing, since you noteced many editors had reverted you, you should stop reverting and edit-warring and start building consensus. If you believe each person from Bosnia and Herzegovina should have in the lede chaged its labeling as "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" you should be aware that it is a widely-scoped edit which if accepted would be changed all around, but if not, it want, so there is no point in changing a hundred articles without consensus for it. PS: "Bosnian" is certainly not insulting in any way to anyone from Bosnia and Herzegovina (maybe only for a hand-full of extreme nationalists which refuse to accept being part of Bosnia and still hope to revive Herzeg-Bosnia?), that just sounds as a bad excuse for your edit. @Iridescent:, I am an over-decade long editor at en.wiki preciselly at this area. I brought the issue here so it could be noteced by the community preciselly so I wouldnt do any unilateral decitions myself. You templating me with warning of discretionary sanctions looks bad and actually disencourages ediors from next time bringing an issue to the attentioon of the community. It was not me who opposed this editor, but other users before me, I just brought it here because it implies numerous articles. I am fully aware obviously of the template you gave me, but I dont think your procedure was correct as I just brought the issue to your attention here and thsi way seems I am participating in some wrongdoing. FkpCascais (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, Windhunter, before this goes any further I'm putting a {{alert}} template on each of your talk pages. This does not imply any wrongdoing by either of you, but is a formal notification to ensure you're aware that this is a topic on which Wikipedia policy varies from the norm; please make sure you both read it before continuing any further with this discussion. The linked page looks complicated, but the part you have to be aware of is Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the full name of the country on English Wikipedia. Some people in colloquial talk often shorten Bosnia and Herzegovina only to Bosnia while others say only Herzegovina. I don't think we should use colloquial talk in the articles or prefer one over another. If there are a lot of articles that need that change, Windhunter I suggest you to open a RfC. I have some experience in opening RfCs so I can help if you are not familiar with the procedure. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Still not making an account? You have "some experience" do you? But you were indef-banned (case Asdinsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). However, your advice is acceptable (you know WP procedures too well to be an IP), Windhuter should really aim for consensus for such wide-range edit as he has been doing, and certainly not appliying it by force and edit-warring. I personally have no sides here, but the adjective "Bosnian" is clearly the one correct in Engligh language rather then "Bosnian-Herzegovinian". FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fkp, as always, you would just like to ban people. You could have asked this editor to seek a consensus over talk page, without a report. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As an observer, I'd like to comment that whilst we should apply wp:commonname when writing about foreign language topics, the question of whether "Bosnian" vs "Bosno-herzegovinian" is the common name is murky as both seem to be used commonly. Perhaps a compromise such as the one currently in place for anglo vs american spelling can be applied here. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All I asked is just for the editor as a newby not to make such an ammount of edits without consensus first, and since I noteced him having been reverted by several editors, not to agressivelly edit-war to reinsert his edit. And, as a personal remark, specially to drop the "I know it all, you guys who have been editing here for over a decade you know shit"...-behavior. That is an absolute no-no in an already sensitive area. FkpCascais (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This editor is nationalistically motivated, as he said at top "Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region." The background of this lies actually in the inability to drop the expansionistic aspirations of some extremists ammong the Croatian community in Bosnia and Herzegovina (concentrated in Western regions of Herzegovina) and their denial of Bosnia and Herzegovina and revival of Herzeg-Bosnia. The fact is that his statement is untruth. None of the editors reverting him are Bosniak, nore "Bosnian" is imposed by Bosniaks, but rather inn English there is a wide use of the adjective "Bosnian" to refer to people, things or events from Bosnia and Herzegovina. A clear exemple is the Bosnian War (and not "Bosnian-Herzegovinian War" despite having taken place in Herzegovina as much as in Bosnia (region)). We all know sports teams of Bosnia and Herrzegovina are largelly named in English-language press as "Bosnian team"s. The user must leave aside his political motivations and just demonstrate that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" has more use in English than "Bosnian" when refering to something or someone from Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The main point here is that the term "Bosnian" has been widely used without problems for almost two decades here on en.wikipedia. This relatively new editor arrives and starts making this change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in hundreds of articles. He was reverted by numerous editors. Per Wikipedia:BRD he should not continue edit-warring, but rather discuss and reach consensus for his edit. But he opted for agressively edit-warring. That is why I am here, his attitude is unecceptable whereas he is wright or wrong. He should demonstrate English-language literature and sources use more "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" than "Bosnian" which by now doesnt seem to be the case, and till then his edit-warring should be sanctioned. FkpCascais (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais First you lied that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is grammaticaly incorrect. "Bosnian" is sometimes shorten version of Bosnian-Herzegovinian maybe because its a very long demonym when we speak about nationality, but only "Bosnian" has other connotations such as regional because Bosnia is one of the smaller regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe you are nationalistically motivated? You called a whole constitutive community as a extremists only because I think the whole demonym is more correct. And for your information, Herzegovinians of other nations term Bosnians consider as a offence. Football site transfermarkt for all players put Bosnia-Herzegovina as nationality mark, not only Bosnia or Bosnian. There is more examples like: the Bosnian-Herzegovinian American Academy of Arts and sciences, Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film festival, Bosnian-Herzegovinian American community center in Chicago, Chicago festival of Bosnian-Herzegovinian film, Bosnian-Herzegovinian islamic center of New York, etc. I think nobody is offended with a whole denomination.

Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is incorrect because the subject here is Bosnia and Herzegovina and not "Bosnia-Herzegovina". FkpCascais (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Transfermarkt.com argument is invalid because they simply use the name of the country, just as we do here always use "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as birthplace, and never Bosnia. The issue is not that one. Also, could you please provide links to all those institutions you claim are called that way? FkpCascais (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, Transfermarkt argument is not invalid, [3]they referred teams who won the title as Bosnian-Herzegovinian champions and Bosnian-Herzegovinian cup winners, and all players have in their achievmement lists [4] full denomination. And all this institutions [5], [6], [7],[8], [9] proved that your grammer argument is funny. Demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovian" is grammaticaly correct and I don't see a problem. My "edit war" mostly was with banned user HankMoodyTZ and his IP. Your Bosnian war argument is not very strong, we also have a Bosnian-Herzegovinian Infantry. Windhunter (talk)

Thank you for providing the links.

I went to Wiktionary to see and all I found is Bosnian. The article confirms that it refers to Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais As I said before, I proved that demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovian" is grammaticaly correct, and that your opinion is incorrect about grammer. Yes "Bosnian" is often used because it is shorter but has other meanings such as regional, etc. Demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is more precie than "Bosnian". I think I don't break any rules. I reverted your edits because I thought you were banned user hankmoodyTz or his new account. So is there a problem with "Bosnian-Herzegovian" for players from Bosnia and Herzegovina if I continue editing?Windhunter (talk)

Indef request for Comefrombeyond

We are truly beset by cryptocurrency advocacy. We are always beset by organized online groups but the cryptofolks have taken this to a new level, and there is very clear financial COI driving this trend as well.

I now present:

• Comefrombeyond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count

This user has made all of 54 edits, only 15 of which are visible as the rest are to the now-deleted IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) page.

100% SPA, 100% promotional, does not care a whit about the content or behavioral policies and guidelines. They had edit warred last summer (EWN, were warned to stop, and just vanished instead.

They showed up on the 16th and made this diff adding a huge bolus of unsourced or primary-sources-sourced promotional content and removed COI and advert templates.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 14:57, 18 April 2018, restoring it
2. diff 16:55, 18 April 2018, restoring it
3. diff 10:13, 21 April 2018, restoring it
4. diff 08:49, 22 April 2018, reverting tagging
5. again reverting to their version, what they called "vandalism" 21:36, 22 April 2018
6. again 21:40, 22 April 2018
7. diff 21:45, 22 April 2018

etc.

They have finally started using the talk page ( see this section) but their comments there are awful. It is clear that they want to make the WP page into an FAQ or "how to" page per this comment and this and this (the latter citing Iota's userguide). Their second-to-last one was this personal attack.

This person doesn't care about WP or the policies and guidelines. They are purely here as an advocate. I filed at EWN here but have withdrawn that, and am seeking an indef. This person is NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I note for the benefit of Comefrombeyond that the Bitcoin wiki may be a more appropriate outlet for this type of contribution. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"100% promotional"? Sorry, but it's YOUR version which looks as 100% marketing, MINE contains a lot of technical information. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand Wikipedia nor care about it. Providing users with a how-to guideline like you are trying to do, is aimed at getting people to adopt Iota. WP does not exist to facilitate uptake of anything. And we don't just write what we know, or try to replicate userguides. You are treating WP like it is some shitty blog. You are ignoring what everyone else is telling you. You are not here to build an encyclopedia working in a community, which is what we are here to do. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This thread drew the attention of two other people, who have reverted Comefrombeyond, and Comefrombeyond has reverted them both -- diff, diff. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is starting to look like a good case for an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Indef Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a block for edit warring? I don't care how long, and we can talk about indef later. Right now he's vandalizing Wikipedia and I'd appreciate if that was stopped. --Tarage (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for edit warring. I warned and they persisted. Discussion of an indefinite block can continue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to get used to you dropping the blockhammer, Cullen--for so many years you did everything you did without that sometimes blunt tool. Don't get me wrong--I'm happy you joined the club, but still, it's odd. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I have had the mop for nine months now, and am not yet fully comfortable with the job, Drmies. But the community gave me those tools for a reason and I am trying my best to use them wisely for the benefit of the encyclopedia. If I screw up, please let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, you're looking good from what I can see, Cullen. Jimbo Wales should put you on payroll, and get you a designated parking spot for that hot rod you're doubtlessly getting. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am still driving my ten year old Honda Fit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see I am not the only one who drives it till it dies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Or till it becomes un-Fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk socking, because I have a strong suspicion that the TWO new accounts that popped up directly after Comefrombeyond was banned, and immediately went to work making edit requests on the article talk page... Lokesh1699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ZimtX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know how much more blatant you can get. --Tarage (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and while we're at it, User:Lokesh1699 requesting the adition of text DIRECTLY LIFTED from what Comefrombeyond was revert warring about... Look, this is either sock puppetry or meat puppetry and I don't care which. --Tarage (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaand while we're at it, I need to bring attention to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/800ft2/help_build_iota_wikipedia_page/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7x0ny4/call_for_wikipedia_editors_and_the_wider_community/ Now correct me if I'm wrong but translating Wikipedia articles from one wiki to another requires attribution does it not? Might have a bigger issue on our hands. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, attribution is required. See WP:TFOLWP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I claim no expertise in detecting sockpuppets but those two instant accounts are "suspicious", I think that it is safe to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)&diff=837808652&oldid=837779383 Can we get a lock on the talk page? This is nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are cryptocurrencies under DS, and if not, should they be? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Another sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Simonmalaga --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't IOTA (cryptocurrency) be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology)? Dorsetonian (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've blocked several obvious socks and have imposed a short semi-protection on the talk page. I won't delete the article as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology) as I don't have time to investigate properly to see if it's still essentially the same article - but someone could always nominate it as WP:G4. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged it as suggested (incidentally, it has also been moved to IOTA (technology)) Dorsetonian (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted IOTA (technology) as G8, since when I got to it it was a redirect to IOTA (cryptocurrency) which DGG has deleted and salted. If anyone feels G8 is a little too IAR here, feel free to revert. GoldenRing (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there is another copy of the article in draft space, which I have nominated for deletion. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• So I IARed and blanked the draft page (accidentally removing the MfD notice in the process, which has been restored. My apologies for that.)

I think we should keep the draft page, as a place for the Iota people to try to work constructively in. I left a note at the talk page and one person from that community has responded in the way we want. I would like to see if we can channel their energy - teach any of the Iota folks who are willing to learn what they should do - and perhaps we can resolve this without too much further drama.

I am hearing the problem with attribution from the copy/paste. Perhaps we can handle that via revdel... Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: They are not. Many cryptocurrency related articles are indefinitely semi-protected due to spamming, but it's still not enough. I agree community sanctions should be considered. MER-C 20:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Possibly related? GMG^talk 12:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Comefrombeyond GMG^talk 13:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• another day, another version of this shit dumped into WP, now at Talk:IOTA (cryptocurrency). Please delete and salt that page too.

Please indefinitely block User:Pyrekkk Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Black Kite! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with a new editor

I need some help with a new editor Felix Montana. I think he is a good faith editor, but unfortunately he has been non-responsive to multiple attempts to communicate and there are a couple of issues that require attention. I am concerned this may have BLP implications and that a copyrighted image appears to have been reuploaded after this note informating the editor of WP:UPIMAGE. This message on talk from MifterBot and others have been ignored.

I'm not sure what I can do if the editor is not willing to communicate. I am hoping that by posting here it will encourage him to communicate with us. I don't want to make anymore unilateral changes to the article because I am already at 3 reverts, but maybe he will be more responsive to another editor. I stubifyed this article and passed it at AfC because I thought the topic was notable, and I tried to improve it in the hopes that the editor would be willing to discuss changes on the talk page, but it has been unsuccessful. I don't think I have any choice but to involve others, and I very much hope sanctions can be avoided.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy tag won't transclude

I tagged TimedText:Maniac (Michael Sembello song - sample).ogg.en.srt (whatever this page is) for speedy deletion as an obvious copyvio of song lyrics, but the speedy tag won't transclude onto the page properly. Can someone please delete this page? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it a copyvio though? The sample has been on Maniac (Michael Sembello song) for over a decade; making the thing useful to deaf readers shouldn't suddenly make it a copyvio. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert by any means, but this seems to fall under fair use per WP:LYRICS and WP:NFCCP; the fair-use tag that is on File:Maniac (Michael Sembello song - sample).ogg should apply. As for the technical issue: similar to .js pages, while adding the tag text as you did seems to do nothing, it still adds the page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations, which is all that's needed. ansh666 07:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Randomnickname567

Resolved

 – CheckUser blocked as a sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Randomnickname567: said that "Saudis need to be bombed." He continued after being warned.

After that, he denied that WP is neutral and insulted me " Although if you seriously believe Wikipedia isn't POV you should check with a doctor."

Also, he didn't Assume good faith : "I also see now from your talk/contributions page that you feel very strongly for Saudi Arabia, which makes me suspect you are not really neutral on the topic either." and He's probably trying to swarm the page with templates so that it would appear bloated so that he can finally remove the template".

Also, he said " the news get tracking something their propaganda media don't show", so WP is not a media.

--Panam2014 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

He's only been here a week, and at this rate, he won't be here much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That first comment alone warranted a block in my opinion. This is someone clearly WP:NOTHERE. And it looks like this was a sock, per their block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Onel5969, mistakes in automated edits, and problematic attitude

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onel5969 has been using tools to make mass edits to disambiguate pages. Ok, all well and good, except that one day's worth of activity can result in dozens of serious mistakes.

Here's just the ones I've had to revert relating to just one link, over about an hour: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].

Now, would you rather go to a general disambiguation page that includes the right option among others, or would you rather be sent directly to the wrong result? Because among the edits I linked to, he identifies a number of people who died well before Helena Blavatsky was even born as followers of Blavatsky's theosophy, including Jakob Böhme, the founder of the tradition Blavatsky got the word "Theosophy" from. I'll admit that my edit summary when he did that did nothing to hide my frustration at this incredibly stupid error. Before anyone says "content dispute," this is like having the etymology of York go to the New York City article. If a brand new account made nothing but edits like this, they would be blocked as a vandalism only account and claims by them to the contrary would be dismissed as trolling.

But I assumed good faith and all, and figured that asking him to be more careful would not be unreasonable. When this issue was raised with him, he referred to this constructive criticism as "non-constructive", acted like it was my fault for not cleaning up his mess before he made it, and sought to ban me from his talk page.

Later, when Shenme asked Onel5969 to be more careful because he had once again linked to the wrong article, Onel5969 replied by reverting with the summary "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful". That's right, the wrong link is somehow better than a general disambig page. Shenme tried once again, quite patiently and politely, to address the problem. Onel5969 once again replied by reverting with a summary banning Shenme and calling anything he said "unhelpful". Granted, he did restore the post to provide a more "thoughtful" reply, accusing Shenme of being WP:NOTHERE and arguing that a general disambig page is somehow far worse than linking to the wrong page.

I admit that I replied despite Onel5969 previously telling me not to post again, to warn him that his behavior has been completely inappropriate and that this thread would be started if he did not change his attitude. His response was that it was "uncivil POV commentary"... Uh, what? Now, if he had just reverted, sure, that's one thing, but where exactly was I uncivil and how does POV apply to this? I understand that users are allowed to ban others from their talk page, but how is this site going to function if a user responds to all legitimate criticism (no matter how constructive or polite) with illogical hostility and blame-shifting?

Unless anyone can get it across to Onel5969 that he needs to try to:

• be way more careful when making mass automated changes
• accept that general disambig pages are actually more useful than the wrong page
• reply to editors who point out mistakes with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind

...The easiest solution would be restricting Onel5969 from using tools (such as but not limited to DisamAssist) to perform mass disambiguations. I would hope that manual disambiguation shouldn't be an issue. If someone can just get across two out of three of those bullet points, that'd be a drastic improvement.

But I'm fine with this resolving without restrictions, apologies, or whatever -- my concern is that we have an editor who causing serious messes and responding to those who clean up after those messes with illogical hostility, blame-shifting, and refusal to communicate. The less work it takes to resolve that, the better, but that's really in Onel5969's field. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. First, I admit I screwed up on the Theosophy dab, due to my conflating the two meanings. In fact, I was about to place a message on Ian's page, except when I read his totally uncivil edit summaries on some of the reverts. And I could have slowed down a bit, but when you're slogging through 1200 dabs, work created by a different editor, not sure that some 30 odd errors is that bad, actually (0.25%). Second, I do reply to editors who are civil and constructive. Ian's comments in edit summaries were, at times, uncivil, and I never respond to uncivil editors, instead attempting to avoid conflict. Third, POV, Ian came on to my talk page, after being asked not to (which is in itself an uncivil action), and lectured my on AGF. However, he never once looked at the other editor's post and asked them to assume AGF. I responded to the editor, pointing out that their comment was directly contrary to their actions. That if they truly believed in the comment they left, they would have targeted the dab to the correct article (clubfoot), instead of sending it back to the dab page. In fact, they did not simply revert my edit, but instead manually changed it back to the dab, instead of taking the time to make the accurate correction. Bottom line is that I have no time for incivility. And no time for lecturing. If you have a disagreement with an edit I make, be civil and lets discuss it. Otherwise I will continue to delete such posts from my talk page. I'm human, I make mistakes. Sometimes they are mis-clicks, such as was pointed out by Ynhockey here, while other times it's a case of my making a dab change, and then the dab being reverted, as was the case with MilborneOne's correction here (this is one area where current WP policies can create extra unneeded work for editors, as the thread on my talk page will show). And other times, it is a glitch that I was unaware about, as was the case when Certes pointed this out to me. Other times it's a simple disagreement, as I had with Smtchahal here, Regardless, will abide by the decision reached here. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Onel5969: can you address why you responded equally uncivilly to User:Shenme despite the constructive comment on your talk page? I can understand responding in kind to User:Ian.thomson after reading his edit summaries, but surely you don't have any bones to pick with Shenme after s/he suggested that you take care in what your tools are doing? I believe the comment was meant to address the fact that the change in question made the article worse, and it seems like your response is the equivalent Tu Quoque. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly AlexEng - I take any failure of AGF as an uncivil action. And that other editor certainly did not assume AGF, as is indicated in the tone of his post. If they had asked, "why did you do that?", "what was you're thinking here?" (as evidenced in other threads on my talk page), I would have engaged in a discussion. That's in response to his first edit. My edit summary when I removed their comment, "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful", is not fallacious, simply my viewpoint on their actions. Folks can disagree and still have civil discussions. I felt the article was better off not pointing to the dab page, they didn't. His second edit, imho, was clearly hypocritical, since they had a clear choice to improve the article (assuming AGF on their part, and that they knew it should point to clubfoot), and made the conscious decision NOT to improve the article, instead redirecting back to the dab page. While at the same time lecturing me on how edits should improve the article. In order for Tu Quoque argument to be valid, they would have had to actually pointed the target to the correct article. Then my argument would have been fallacious. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

William John Little has severe hamster feet?

Oh dear, I think I'm going to need some disambiguation of the above. I'm at a loss to understand Onel5969's distaste at editor interactions, given their length of service and prolificity here.

An edit was done, using a tool which did not understand the weirdness at talipes, where someone earlier had put elaboration on foot deformities. It is quite obvious that the tool simplemindedly took the first 'real' link at that location and substituted that for the dab. That was the point of my first talk page post, that the tool got it wrong, that it was the wrong result for the reader, and the tool betrayed Onel5969 when not reviewing the results.

That Onel5969 felt I was attacking them is concerning. I would have thought it obvious I was criticizing these simpleminded tools, as they are not automatic, and *require* reviewing each result at length, lest they betray all and sundry.

After the bewildering defense of a bad result (he has a foot), I then went and investigated further, finding the original attempt at elaborating on clubfoot by extending the dab entry at PES#Pes_(anatomy) back in 2016. And wondering whether the user name really seemed familiar, checked whether Onel5969 was perhaps 'new', to see how to respond to the apparent confusion. At 254000 edits in 4+ years, 500+ edits a day, not new at all.

So responding to the lack of discussion I reiterated the wrongness of the results, and suggested a course of action if Onel5969 really hated non-specific dabs that much - make it a specific dab. (In a sense, achieving what user Quercus solaris could have done better back in 2016 - a dab specifically for talipes)

I'm afraid I just don't know how to reply constructively to

Instead you deliberately chose not to improve the article. So don't post on my page again. Your actions make it clear that you are not here to help the encyclopedia.

Is that really saying "if my results are bad, your job is to fix them" ? And further, that discussion of edits is a bad thing? Please tell me what I've gotten wrong here, that has earned such dismay from Onel5969. Shenme (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Onel5969's dabfixes have been something of an issue for some time. Among those of their edits that have washed up on my watchlist, I have felt that an unusually high proportion have been incorrect: these haven't been cases of vague borderline links that different editors could have fixed differently, but "fixes" that have been obviously incorrect given the immediate context of the link: like repointing to an article about the wrong type of entity or about a place in the wrong part of the world. I Of course, there are dablinks that can be fixed almost without looking, like links to New York or English (his work in this area is appreciated), but in many cases a bit more diligence is required. I remember having tried a couple of times to suggest to him this need for occasionally greater care, but I'm not sure this has had much of an effect (though let me add that civility has never been an issue). – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I don't usually like to be the first one to propose sanctions in venues such as this, however I feel there is an ongoing problem here, and Onel5969 doesn't appear to get the issues - and a quick review of the editing history seems to indicate there is a far issue of changing links without due regard for the new topic. I think a topic ban from (semi)automated edits to DABLINKS for 3 months may well be the best way forward here for the minute. Mdann52 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'll admit the civility issue is debatable (and it's not like there's anything we can do to adjust his attitude at any rate), but accuracy is a definite problem and also a source of issues where civility may be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Can you please clarify if you're including the use of tools such as WP:Twinkle, or just User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment2 What is the purpose of the 3 month ban? Do you anticipate that the user will change his/her behavior after this time period? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Some clarification is needed here. I've only seen problems with DisamAssist (but haven't gone looking for trouble). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson and AlexEng: I've modified the proposal accordingly - unfortunately it looks like my follow-up edit failed to save. 3 month ban is to prevent the immediate issue ongoing, and allow Onel5969 to have time to look into the issue more widely as needed. It also avoids the inherent issues with trying to get out of an indef ban. Mdann52 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Lukewarm support The faith in tools as a means to quickly earn zillions of edits is misplaced. The belief that review of tool edits is not needed is mistaken. The idea that a (self-defined) acceptably low error rate over 100's edits per day is a "good thing" is frightening. My part in all this was pointing out a ridiculously bad result using tools and being rebuffed with... I'm still not sure. "The tools are perfect"? "My edits are perfect"? "My edits using tools are unassailably perfect"? My support is based on this - the editor needs to get back to editing. If they don't like editing, they shouldn't. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aside: in my discipline there is an ideal called egoless programming. In my work bug reports are treasures leading to improved results. Is there an essay here about egoless editing? It is sorely needed. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support As someone to whom the assumption of good faith is important, I feel the user in question has badly misunderstood the intent; a polite criticism is not a breach of good faith, nor is it something to get up in arms about, even if it is an erroneous one, and if one knows one's tool can lead to errors, one must be open to corrections of those errors. Icarosaurvus (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. A topic-ban from automated edits might act as a deterrent from making hasty dabfixes, but I don't know if it will address the underlying problem. Even without the help of automated tool, one can still disambiguate links in a rapid and careless manner. And conversely, I don't think anyone of us will have issues with Onel5969 using any tool they wish to fix easy links like New York. I'm thinking that the proper solution would be to adopt some form of supervision and coaching from an experienced member of the DPL project. But this would depend on Onel5969's willingness and cooperation. – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolution - didn't realize this was still going on. To save everyone time and effort, I'll simply stop fixing dabs. That should solve the issue. Was simply trying to help. Take care everyone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback request

Please could someone with rollback review recent edits by User:Cote d'Azur per User talk:Cote d'Azur#caps, and preceding 'Timeline of...' edits per MOS:BOLDTITLE. Thanks. 82.132.226.208 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

IP, these particular cases look somewhat ambiguous, and hence this isn't a suitable venue for rollback. You may, of course, undo their contributions, although Cote d'Azur is an experienced editor. Looking at the most recent no reason was provided reverting you, which isn't courteous, but is hardly an AN/I issue. Looking at [39] the first bit is wrong, since there is a the, however the rest of the edit is correct. MOS:JOBTITLES is fairly subtle, so it's not hard to misinterpret (indeed, I might be myself!). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not useful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Next up: Born2cycle will demand that the user is renamed to user:Ivory Coast. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) User:République de Côte d'Ivoire would be more accurate. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Even more accurately, should be renamed to User:French Riviera. See: Cote D'Azur. AlexEng(TALK) 22:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by Jakob9999 – need a rangeblock

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

---

Jakob9999 was blocked October 2017. Since late September 2017, he has been using IPs from Arkansas, in the range Special:Contributions/2600:8804:8440:30B:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock?

As proof of the connection, here is Jakob9999 citing a discussion thread at radiodiscussions.com where a user named Jakob9999 has posted a reply. Here is an Arkansas IP citing another discussion at radiodiscussions.com where Jakob9999 has started a new thread. Same thing here. I think we have to assume block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks pretty obvious to me.  Range blocked one month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

But wait, NinjaRobotPirate, there's one more. See this edit at a page which has very recently been of interest to four different rangeblocked IPs. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's a statically or dynamically allocated IP address, so I blocked it 31 hours. It looks static, but I'd rather be more sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:11, 25 April 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 vandalism by User:TheFirstRedBaron80

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, TheFirstRedBaron80 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted vandalism into these two pages [40] [41]. I have warned them twice on their talk page, and subsequent to the last warning, they have reverted one of the two edits to restore the vandalism. --Theredproject (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they are branching out to other pages too [42] --Theredproject (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Indef'd -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 26 April 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:JCGDIMAIWAT

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.

---

JCGDIMAIWAT has already been to ANI a few weeks ago. They were blocked for one week, and made no promises to change. They have edited the same since they returned: refusing to answer messages although I have directed them to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required as well as pointing out that communication is a matter of policy per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE but the editor just ignores all the messages. They have not addressed the original concern either (unsourced article creations) and have added small pieces of unverified information to articles since their block. I have sent them eight messages, all ignored. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the utter lack of response to attempts to engage the user, and persistence of unsourced editing despite previous block, I've blocked them indefinitely. Once the concerns are addressed, I'd be happy to unblock. Any admin can reverse or modify or unblock at their discretion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:01, 27 April 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 reverts and Page Ownership on Jahannam article

I want to protest about the attitude of User:VenusFeuerFalle who dominantly reverted my edits (and the others' edit) on Jahannam article with some hard reasons to accept because several of the reversions did not follow the rules of Wikipedia. Based on my observation on her edits on Jahannam Revision History, I may blame her for doing "Page Owning" since the majority of edits are checked and reverted by herself. I also have several objections to her nonconstructive demeanor in content article improvement:

• First, she wanted that my sources in Jahannam should be from well-known Muslim scholars, then I provided the sources from Harun Yahya, and other scholars. Yet she insisted on removing my contributions.

• Second, she however said that I had only to provide primary sources from Quran instead of published secondary sources (or third-party sources) that are more reliable as encyclopedic content which is included in the Wikipedia principle.
  "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
  Eventually, I reminded her that I would bring this dispute to Wikipedia:ANI if she keep reverting my edits. But she continued to do that. Moreover, She mocked a verse of Muslim Holy Book as "a useless reference" and deny the importance of secondary source for lead content of the Jahannam article.

• Third, She insist on refuse any importance for the Islam Quranic references in the lead of Jahannam article, although the Jahannam itself is the concept of Hell in Islam, and Quran is the most honored source in the religion.

Therefore, I expect the help from the Administrators to mediate me and that user whose dispute has not came into consensus or even give warning to her since she insisted on the rejection and reverts without considering that my reverted edits did not violate any Wikipedia rule.

I also expect that there is a blocking rule concerning disruptive edit from user (who repeatedly try to revert the useful contributions) that result in temporary edit-blocking because the unnecessary reverts are strongly discouraging the newbies or good-faith editors to make further contributions to Wikipedia, which means the quality of article content is not going better due to harsh reactions from other users. — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

I recently made an edit on Insurgency in Balochistan which was reverted because of an alleged "copyright violation" (without demonstrating how its a copyright violation). A few editors were involved in edit warring there which resulted in the article being protected. When I looked at their contributions I found this happened across other pages as well recently. These editors seem to gang up and censor anything they dont like by reverting contributions made by others. There definitely is a pattern that seems fishy.

On Insurgency in Balochistan

Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023

Previous reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 between 7 April 2018‎ to 18 April 2018‎

MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, Capitals00, Raymond3023

Also inserting the same point of view at Siachen conflict between 21 April 2018‎ to 22 April 2018

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00

Regards, --Uncle Sargam (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Given you are an obvious sock who is quacking loud per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital, I am kinda surprised that you are still not bored of your deceptive games. Capitals00 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

::Your evidence on that SPI is ripped open by me, it’s guts splattered all over the place and dead body stinking and being decomposed. It is just waiting for the clerk to take it to the graveyard and bury it (close and archive). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And after blocking the filer indefinitely. You forgot to mention that. @Bbb23: can you check this above comment by SherrifsIsInTown? I deem it to be clear cut example of WP:BATTLEGROUND and that he is importing same offense here for which he was warned in SPI several times. Capitals00 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What are you asking Bbb23 to check here? I did not say anything about you, this is all about the evidence. Why do you complain so much? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

MBlazeLightning listed (one of) the sources it was copied from. I've rev/deleted the edits. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I endorse the pattern mentioned by Uncle Sargam, I noticed such pattern as well but in a different area which I mentioned here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• And the "pattern" was removed by Bbb23 as a personal attack.[43] Since you are repeating same false allegations here, by endorsing a paid editing sock, you are doing nothing but turning this thread into a request where we must seek sanction for your disruption. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 02:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This was just to mention what he noticed, I noticed as well. What is your proof of that user being a "paid editing sock"? You cannot call him that until you prove so and for that your evidence is not going to hold the ground so stop calling him that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just another of MBL's (and Capitals00s) frustration with users they do not agree with. MBL has been busy filing SPIs, including the one against me a few months ago. He has been trailing me on and off, most recently removing a reliably sourced edit on "Hinduism", but this time aided by his team tag member Capitals00. And as usual they are both desperate to try and frame (mostly by SPIs and baseless AN reports) anyone with an opposing sentiment blocked. I would recommend a restriction against their repeated filings. Perhaps a topic restriction on filing reports to once a week. I would prefer to let the Arbcom decide that. But something should be done. Otherwise anyone who falls in their path will have to face this kind of repeated tormenting.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You probably favor copyright violations given you were recently indefinitely banned from uploading images[44] for your copyright violations and there are no chances if that sanction will ever be removed, but don't expect us to tolerate copyright violation. This complaint was not filed by me or Mblaze, it was filed by an obvious sock belonging to a disruptive sock farm. Talking about your "edit" on Hinduism, it was a POV edit and you have engaged in same POV pushing on Talk:Hindu earlier where your all edits were rejected. You had to use a nonsensical edit summary to back up your edit[45], that alone leaves no doubt. Given your continued WP:CIR issues and you are already under restriction from uploading images, it would be better to have you site banned once again. Capitals00 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What is your special interest in my topic ban from uploading images? Most images I added were accepted not to mention the countless free use files from commons and my removal of copyright content on various occasions. The very same administrator blocked you as well and on the same topic area that you are currently team tag edit warring on. That's exactly what I meant. Labelling anyone with an opposing POV a sockpuppet or always proposing site bans instead of pointing out where they're wrong appears more CIR. I can only wish someone neutral with better judgement decide on how to handle this. One thing is also apparent that not only does your team tag refuse any edits on India or "Hindu" word-related topics, but who also team tag on topics on Pakistan and continue to attack anyone who resists your questionable edits.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It shows that you lack understanding of copyrights and it is very concerning that when you have been blocked many times, site banned, topic banned for copyrights before and obviously you should be more aware about them than any of us, but clearly you are not and you are supporting an obvious sock who is lamenting that he didn't got to violate copyrights, and your reason is nothing behind it except that you didn't got to push your POV in the articles that have been long edited by me and MBlaze. There was consensus among admins to impose topic ban on you from uploading images, there was not one single admin who imposed it. I am not proposing site ban but only suggesting you a solution of the problems that you are raising, where no one but only you are the offender. You can prove otherwise how there are no CIR issues with you which is contradicted by your block log and also prove that this editor is not a sock on SPI, despite it is a WP:DUCK. In fact you still haven't admitted that you had a misunderstanding that this complaint was filed by me or MBlaze. Use talk page for continuing your petty content dispute, not this board and prove how "questionable" those reverts are over there after noting your history on Talk:Hindu and those discussions didn't even involved me. Capitals00 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this how you respond to complaints and remove reliably sourced edits without explanations and instead calling it "POV" when I clearly provided the ref? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadirAli (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What about your way of responding to a sensible revert, after changing longstanding content without an edit summary[46]? But you sure use edit summary when you believe you can organize a WP:BATTLE[47]? D4iNa4 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Radovan Savić – long-term vandalism

Someone from Serbia has been adding the name Radovan Savić or Radovan Savic to articles for two years or so. The main article affected is BSC Young Boys (see e.g. Special:Diff/718505076, Special:Diff/796385947, Special:Diff/838236245 and many more), but there were others, too. Would it be an option to create an edit filter that avoids the continuation of this kind of vandalism? I would prefer to not to apply a long-term protection. --Leyo 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

what about my image

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 admins , can you look through /File:Canberra_MRT_station_vicinity_map_-_Streetdirectory.PNG. marked for deletion by not. agree with bot bit there are some other licensing with regard to the map. either delete or keep as I would need some closure . sorry for the trouble and if inappropriate forum I apologise Quek157 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

to add I intent to use on Canberra Mrt station to illustrate nearby notable development where the external map may not be the best Quek157 (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The ad hoc license used by Street Directory is not compatible with Wikipedia's license (specifically the requirement that the creator's blurb be listed below each instance of the image, and the prohibition against selling). Unless a valid fair use rationale is added to the image, it will and should be deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I can. so could you delete it thanks--Quek157 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 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: 108.180.193.239 - Constantly vandalising page to say BC/AD instead of accepted BCE/CE

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

---

As can be seen from the revision history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tetragrammaton&action=history (which I've reversed four times now), whoever's posting from IP 108.180.193.239 needs to be either warned by an admin or banned. It's not like they're contributing anything. Stephen Walch (talk)

The user deserves a warning maybe for not giving a rationale for their changes against consensus, but they're not at the point where a block is reasonable. You didn't notify them on their user talk page of this discussion, which you are required to do. Elassint ^Hi 22:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, had missed that requirement. Has now be done. Thank you. Stephen Walch (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As they seem to have stopped of their own occur, I suppose I could close this. Feel free to revert if I've been presumptuous.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:40, 29 April 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.

Undisclosed paid editing

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.

---

Per this Twitter post by Marco Arment which contains an e-mail pitching "Wikipedia Consultant" services from a person named "Craig S," last name redacted, at least the following articles were substantially contributed to by a paid editor: NTENT, Digital Science, Urban Produce, LLC, Carlisle Homes. None of the pages appear to have paid editing disclosures. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, checking the Twitter comments, I see that shortly after (and perhaps because of) your post here, an arbitrator asked mr Arment to forward the e-mail with full headers to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and he complied, so I guess the affair is more or less under control. Thank you for reporting, and for adding COI tags to the articles. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

P.S. I've now PRODded Carlisle Homes and Urban Produce, LLC, not that I expect it to stick, if the creator is watching. But there's always AfD as the next step. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

Urban Produce opened their doors in Irvine, California where they currently grow USDA certified organic microgreens, wheatgrass and a variety of specialty leafy greens and herbs in their CEA (Controlled Environmental Agriculture) vertical farm using their patented High Density Vertical Growing System (HDVGS).

Eww. No. God no. Burn it with fire G11. Obvious advertisement is obvious. GMG^talk 21:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Endorse G11's, won't delete 'cause someone should come to them fresh, à nouveau .--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Help fixing a mistake I made

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 moved Pontiac to Pontiac (automobile brand) because I didn't remember that I had proposed that move once before a couple of years ago and it didn't get consensus. Now I need to move it back but I can't. So if an admin would please help me move the automobile back to its original title I would appreciate that. Thanks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)  Done--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you forgot the talkpage, though. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL No the stupid move button forgot the talk page.  Done again.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:14, 29 April 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 at Shooting of Michael Brown

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.

---

2600:100a:b025:f2c7:c0fd:75a1:6465:4e9d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Multiple re-reverts including after multiple user talk warnings. User refuses to respect long-standing consensus as to inclusion of the race of the officer, while falsely claiming that most sources support the word "thug" with reference to Brown. I'm requesting a block and, as they have not shown any desire to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, I would prefer an indefinite one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:14, 28 April 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.

• You're right, Mandruss, I fat-fingered the protection length, but I did mean to protect it for the duration of the block given how trivial IPv6 blocks are to evade. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

FrankCesco26, umpteenth wave of disruptive POV edits

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

---

User:FrankCesco26 has a history of blocks for repeated edit-warring and POV-pushing in articles related to religion. In the last hours he is nearing violation of 3RR in Religion in the Czech Republic and has made extensive, unwarranted removals in Religion in Russia based merely on the fact that he doesn't like that the best sources available say something different than what he personally thinks or reads around the Internet. Recently, he also engaged in an umpteenth case of WP:PA against me, calling me a "problematic user", while consensus in that discussion went in the opposite direction of what he wanted.

I ask a decisive solution against this user.--Wddan (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

1. You have a block log too. 2. Neither of you went to the talk page, you just yelled at each other in edit summaries. 3. This is a content dispute and will be closed with no action. Go talk about it on the talk page and get consensus. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a block log because I unfortunately found myself engaged in editing the same articles that FrankCesco26 usually edits. There already is a history of discussions and consensus about these topics in the respective talk pages.

This is not a content dispute, but a complain about the behaviour of user FrankCesco26.--Wddan (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are both not using the talk page. Let me be more clear. USE THE TALK PAGE. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I repeat that there is an extensive history of discussions about these topics and a general consensus about what and how data should be shown. FrankCesco26 is not the type of user who respects consensus. He has a LONG history of disruptive edit warring in this type of articles. I suggest to see this first case and this second one.--Wddan (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Users who in the past crossed their ways with FrankCesco26 could have something to say about the behaviour of the user: Boing! said Zebedee, Iryna Harpy.--Wddan (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_the_Czech_Republic Last talk page edit was in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_Russia Last talk page edit was in January. Neither have talk page comments from EITHER OF YOU for THIS ISSUE. Use. The. Talk. Page. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting the intervention of administrators. However, Tarage, this edit by FrankCesco26 (the edit of today) is glaring vandalism. He removed two sets of data (Ministry of Education and European Social Survey), and in the past he tried to wipe out Arena Atlas, which has been chosen as the best set of data by both reason and consensus. All the relevant discussions can be found here. There's nothing new. The only solution against vandalism is to revert it.--Wddan (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you're waiting for the intervention of an administrator. USE THE TALK PAGE!!!! This is what it's there for. You are complaining about someone and doing the exact same thing, though in fact it's you who is violating WP:BRD. You edited, they reverted (very partially, not even the entire thing) with a reasonable sounding explanation, so you decided to start an edit war. Go use the talk pages.Canterbury Tail talk 22:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not impressed by someone calling edits they disagree with vandalism. Tarage has a point. These are tedious and disruptive and just plain annoying. My options are blocking both or closing this or playing with my dog. I'll let you know.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and by go to the talk pages, we didn't mean go to the talk pages and accuse other editors of vandalism and edit warring (when you're the one edit warring.) Seriously if you can't learn to play well with others and assume good faith maybe it's just better if we block you now. I suggest you refactor those talk page comments to remove the accusations and be more civil to other editors. From where I'm standing it's looking like you're the editor with the issue here. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the removal of well-sourced content is a type of vandalism. I am an editor with a history of good contributions and frankly I am amazed at how I am being treated here and how the issue is being handled. I did not assume the good faith of user FrankCesco26 because I already had to do with him in the past, and what he tried to do in Talk:Religion in Italy, that is, manipulation of sources (see this case, in which I was not involved) was enough for me to lose any trust in the user. What I tried to do opening this case was actually to prevent any other exhausting edit war from happening.--Wddan (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no. The removal of well-sourced content is only vandalism if it is done maliciously. If it is done as bold editing in a content dispute, it is usually undesirable but needs to be discussed, on talk pages, of all places. Yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute doesn't make it vandalism and doesn't win the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You know what prevents edit warring? Not edit warring and using the talk page. USE THE TALK PAGE. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like we are talking to a wall. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 05:33, 28 April 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.

Vandalism and "todd howard"

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 if this is the right place to say this but—has anyone else noticed a spike in vandalism involving "todd howard" or something sounding similar? Accounts use that name (1 2), vandalism uses this (1 2 3 these are just a few examples). Why is this happening? The IP edits look like they're coming from different places, so it doesn't seem like just one person is doing it. The Todd Howard that the vandalism is about is probably Todd Howard (video game designer). Anyone know what can be done? SemiHypercube (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: An influx of idiots. We are blocking the trolls and protecting articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ah. A vandalism raid against Wikipedia. SemiHypercube (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube:,@NeilN:. Just to give some more context: This was discussed quite a bit at WP:RPP, you can see it here. This vandalism is based off a popular Tumblr post which leaked over to Twitter that specifically mentioned today being the day protection of his page expired. Many editors sought to protect the page before this all happened, but per Wikipedia bureaucracy it was declined. Sorry to vent here, but I think this is a textbook example of how WP:PP needs to re-evaluate its policy against "pre-emptive protection" when there is a demonstrated, organized interest in vandalism. I am cleaning up Todd Howard from totally unrelated pages. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The target page was protected, what, 24 hours ago? This is a good example of why we don't preemptively protect: it means nothing. The actual page was quickly protected and then the overflow went elsewhere. It's not like sysops were about to protect every page with "todd" or "howard" in the name. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That's because an editor chose to be proactive, even then it required increased protection and editors time to fight that vandalism that could be spent combating other vandalism that is slipping through. I'm not saying everything should be preemptively protected, but pages that we can see a demonstrated outside campaign to vandalize. Again sorry, I am venting a little how much time is wasted fighting vandalism that can be easily prevented. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

scratches his head Not sure what you are expecting though. The main page was kept semi-protected when it was clear it would be vandalized, as it was already occurring on the talk page. Which, and how many, and at what volume, other pages might be targeted from that point on is not something we could easily guess before hand. I'd like to believe blocks and semi-protections have been quite responsive through this. -- ferret (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we make a temporary edit filter that tags and maybe warns editors if they try to add "Todd Coward" to any article? Some of the places that they're being added are VERY random and unexpected. I recently just reverted vandalism related to this in Weasel (disambiguation) and Chris Coward. This might be more effective than locking a bunch of pages. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Weasel related article vandalism is targeting me. :) I don't know edit filters myself, but I'd suggest a temporary filter for "Todd Coward" and "Todd Howard" (In general) for a while. Perhaps "Godd Howard" as well, though I haven't seen that one much. -- ferret (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear above, ferret. I didn't mean guessing the outside/random pages that would be subject to the vandalism; I meant the pages that are expressly being targeted by the online campaigns, i.e. Todd Howard (video game designer). This has happened before and the response is always something like "wait until the vandalism actually happens." Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, and unless I'm not seeing something, the semiprotection at the Todd Howard article never lapsed, although a preemptive extension was declined once or twice at RFPP. I think some media reported that the vandals pounced as soon as the protection lapsed, but all the damage was from autoconfirmed accounts, which is slightly trickier to anticipate and defend against. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. I had to upgrade the semi to an ECP which is rare. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Many pages are being linked to the disambiguation page Todd Howard. Any article namespace links to that page should be checked for vandalism - I've reverted as much of it as I could find. ʬʬ (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• And Special:Contributions/Potatopotatopotato666. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• the sickness spreads and here laughes hysterically, then sobs--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Revdel'd. The first one is particularly bad. The second was more cartoonish but I'd rather play it safe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Like shootin' fish in a barrel-- Special:Contributions/KaptainAndy.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:08, 27 April 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.

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

• User:ViriiK
• User:DrFleischman
• User:Mikist4
• User:Snooganssnoogans

Edit war taking place at this article. Admin intervention necessary. DrFleischman and Snooganassnoogans are restoring contested BLP material. All editors have been notified re: DS sanctions. – Lionel^(talk) 02:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For edit warring see WP:ANEW. Note also this issue is under discussion at WP:BLPN#Dana_Loesch. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought DS violations were handled here. I'll go to ANEW.– Lionel^(talk) 02:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected article for two days. And Lionelt, you need to ease back a bit. Asking for discretionary sanctions to be levied because contested BLP material is being restored is overkill in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for protection. About DS, I don't know if I agree with you. Even after I posted this report, K.e.coffman and James J Lamden joined the brawl. That's 6 editors. DrFleischman and ViriiK are both at 2RR at the article. ARBAPDS says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours." A quick glance at Snooganssnoogans' contribs appears to show they are no stranger to disruptive behavior. If editors are discouraged from reporting this kind of behavior at post 1932 articles then why do we even have DS?– Lionel^(talk) 03:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I mentioned this at ANEW but no admin has indicated that article is under AP discretionary sanctions let alone placed any editing restrictions on that article. Editing restrictions must be explicitly announced and logged. I have no idea where you're getting ARBAPDS saying 1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Really? In the middle of the edit war, DrFleischman posted two Discretionary Sanctions notices on the talk pages of the editors opposing him [48] and [49]. That's why I thought the article is under DS. So he posted those DS notices even though the article was not under DS? I'm really confused now.– Lionel^(talk) 03:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the DS notice: it says "Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks (emphasis added)." It doesn't say all articles under the topic automatically are subject to edit restrictions. An admin first has to impose and log any restrictions on a specific article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Okay, I'll try to explain. All post-1932 AP articles are under discretionary sanctions. Taken by itself, DS simply means "edit carefully". DS also gives individual admins the power to enact specific editing restrictions on specific articles. These restrictions are enacted by the admin, not Arbcom, and must be listed at the article and logged. There are no editing restrictions across all AP articles. ARBAPDS does not automatically set editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I got it now. Incidentally the DS notice says "all pages related to post-1932 politics" but it does not say "Editing restrictions must be explicitly announced and logged" and just between you and me, Neil, I suspect that this notice is being used to gain leverage over unsuspecting editors in content disputes. But I'm not naming any names.– Lionel^(talk) 04:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I hear you on the wording. Coincidentally, I and other editors are working on addressing this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt:I'm not entirely clear what the issue is. These are not called notices but alerts, and I don't see why they would have to say that individual restrictions placed on specific articles need to be announced and logged. An editor once notified can be sanctioned for things other than breaking individual restrictions, as those only exist on some of the article covered by DS. Also, as you did name someone, saying that you aren't naming names isn't helpful and is not the same as "I'm not thinking of anyone in particular" Doug Weller talk 12:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Persistent promotional edits to BLPs

• Gillian Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Juliet Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Devorahanna (talk · contribs)
• 68.197.73.244 (talk · contribs)

After final warning, continuing to create a spammy intro to the Gillian Sorensen bio, [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54]; and removing sourced negative content from Juliet Sorensen [55]; [56]. This is a reasonably experienced editor who probably knows better. COI or paid contributor. There may also be longstanding copyright violation issues at the Gillian article, so a look at that would be appreciated. User block or page protection? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

All I am attempting to do is update the information regarding Gillian Sorensen. She no longer works for the U.N., as the opening sentence now reads. I am not sure how to proceed, since each time I make edits and changes, in order to create a more accurate Wikipedia site, the edits are rejected. There is nothing "spammy" here, but rather this is an honest attempt to improve and update the Gillian Sorensen entry. - devorahanna

• Devorahanna, there is nothing remotely acceptable about an article lede like this, which by my count you've posted five times today:

Gillian Sorensen has had a long career working for the United Nations, most prominently as Assistant Secretary-General for External Relations on appointment by Kofi Annan.[1] An experienced public speaker and compelling advocate, she has addressed audiences as diverse as Rotary International (with an audience of 22,000);[2] West Point Military Academy; and the United States Air Force Academy; university students; journalists, and leaders of civil society. She works with groups committed to peace, justice, development, refugees, and human rights and has recently addressed a National Model United Nations (NMUN) with students from over 130 countries.

In recent years she has made over 1000 public appearances. She currently serves as a Member of the Board of the International Rescue Committee[3] and as a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

• You've edited biographies here before, and know how to write. This is promotional, and only now have you chosen to respond. Divulgence of WP:COI and paid contributions is a requirement, not an option. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• By the way, I haven't addressed willfully misleading edit summaries [57]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• comment I have boldly fully protected both pages to enhance the discussion. Any admin may unprotect at will.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've unprotected, Dlohcierekim. (It doesn't seem to be the first time you and I have disagreed about fullprotecting when one of the opposing parties is editing disruptively.) I've also warned Devorahanna on their page that they must respond to the COI inquiry before editing the articles further, and must in any case stop editing promotionally. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

SO I saw. Well, the idea was to encourage her to engage in meaningful discussion. Didn't work. Discussion, sadly, does not seem to be her strong suit. I hope you got her attention.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, she does not seem to understand that part about promotional editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your attention to this, and I can appreciate the rationale behind each of your actions. Perhaps more contributors will watchlist the articles now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: You are welcome. Feel free to ping me if I'm around when the problem resumes.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviewdekhlo8822

• Reviewdekhlo8822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked this user for spamming, but someone with bottomless reserves of good faith might feel they can convert them into a productive user - if so, feel free to unblock. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have plenty of good faith, but I will not unblock an editor who added a source called "Guru Randhawa (Punjabi Singer) Height, Weight, Age, Family, Biography, Songs, Wiki", Guy.That just does not come across as a reliable source to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Me neither, my friend, but it could just be a clueless newbie in need of patient help. Very, very patient. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In the rename request, we learn they have the same name as the spam link they added. Yes, we all make mistakes, but I think they need to stay blocked till they know not to repeat this one--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protect a BLP

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, not sure of the best way to ask this, so I figured I would just jump in. There is a WP:BLP which is frequently edited to include private information that the subject of the page has requested not be posted. The cases of this happening that I have seen weren't from signed in accounts, so I was thinking that semi-protected status might do the trick. The page in question is CGP_Grey. Not sure what other information I should include, please let me know. Zchrykng (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a secret. There are references going back at least six years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

CBS News reported this person's full name back in 2011. Several other media outlets have also done so. What is the policy based argument for excluding the full name from the biography? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, marginally. I'm of the opinion (an unpopular one, I'm aware) that generally these types of things should not be included if the subject requests it; just because it's reported in the media doesn't mean we have to include it. Compare it to an editor's name - if the media reported linking an account to an individual and someone posted this information on-wiki, that person would be sanctioned for WP:OUTING pretty dang fast. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our public-facing article subjects? ansh666 03:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not someone who is completely anonymous, as is your example Wikipedia editor, Ansh666. This person uses their real initials and their real surname, and their complete name has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources for seven years. The Wikipedia biography is not their personal social media page where they control the content. I fail to see any reason to keep their full name out of the article. We routinely report the full names of public figures who are best known by shortened versions of their real names. So, why should we make an exception in this case? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Where has the subject requested not to have his name used? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I am the person in question and I am requesting here that my name not be listed. I have never in any of the work that I have ever produced intentionally revealed my full name. The places that post my name do so against my wishes. Obviously, I cannot control what Wikipedia does, but if you want to know what I request it is to not mention my name. CGPGrey (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See various comments by User:CGPGrey. I do not know whether the identity has been verified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, though, does reporting the subject's complete name add anything of value to the article? It seems to read perfectly fine as-is, so why not err on the side of caution and leave it out, right? As I said, I am aware that my extremely privacy-oriented take on BLP isn't particularly popular. ansh666 04:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does reporting President John Kennedy's full name add anything of value to his article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ansh666, I an reminded that I recently ran across mention of C. L. R. James, a writer whose work I had first encountered nearly 50 years ago. Curious about his full name, I visited the Wikipedia article about him, and discovered his full name, and lots of other useful information about him. That is how encyclopedias ought to work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. That's not the type of thing that I'd personally ever be curious about. ansh666 05:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Compared to C.L.R James, CGP grey hides his identity online and is a BLP who has requested not to show his name Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We have had a perfectly good arrangement these past few years of keeping those details off wiki, as the subject had been a Wikipedia editor. Fans, of course, insist on writing the narrative and cannot leave well enough alone. I find the details unnecessary and the disclosure to be pure fan service. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel compelled to remind people that assertions are not sufficient to move the needle at Wikipedia. Evidence is. Per WP:BURDEN, it is imperative that the person wishing to include the real name provide scrupulously reliable sources. Removing such information, where it lacks a direct cite, is perfectly allowed. In summation: what do the sources show: if the name is just kinda "out there" in sources of poor reliability, that's one thing. If the name is well-reported in reliable sources which show that the subject has revealed it, that's another. However, if it is clear that the subject has intentionally kept their name from public sources, then we should err on the side of "doing no harm" and respecting the subject's wishes. Plenty of Wikipedia articles are known under pseudonymous titles, like Satoshi Nakamoto, and I see no reason to do differently here. --Jayron32 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It would need a solid citation to be included. And if it has that, any claim that the subject wants it excluded would likewise need a solid verification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Right here and that's not the first time. I think it's reasonable that we suppress some private details when dealing with Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the second part is too easy. User:CGPGrey just needs to verify their identity to OTRS by emailing info-enwikimedia.org. And anyway, pretty sure WP:REALNAME applies even to pseudonyms in the case where they are the primary means of identification of a real person, so they probably should do so anyway out of an abundance of propriety. If done, ping me and I'll snatch it out of the queue real quick. A message from the cgpgrey.com domain should work just fine for our purposes. GMG^talk 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be the point. Someone claiming to be someone is not "solid" evidence. I could claim to actually be Mel Blanc, and the only evidence to disprove it is that he's reportedly deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Verified. GMG^talk 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, then it's just a matter of whether his full name can be verified, and I'm not so sure about that. The sources I've seen for it look a little shaky. Then there's always the issue of a subject's notability, but it looks like this one passes that test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And I do think the page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Not enough disruption to outpace normal reversion and normal consensus building. In fact, this can probably be closed. GMG^talk 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Ansh666: could I just ask that you please read WP:Oversight#Policy, paying special attention to the first bolded point and how it might apply to this discussion? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

AlexEng, let me start by saying that I am not supporting including this person's full name in the biography at this time, since we now have OTRS verification of the editor's identity, and I think that we should honor his request, based on his wishes and talk page consensus. I am not an oversighter and claim no expertise in the fine points of oversight policy. Feel free to discuss the matter with actual oversighters. But the relevant phrase is "Removal of non-public personal information". (Emphasis added). As I already pointed out, the person's full name was reported by CBS News in 2011. He formerly maintained a website that included the names he now wishes to hide as part of the domain name itself. He uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons in 2006, crediting that old website as the source of the image, and later uploaded a better version of the same image, crediting his current website. He had a Flikr account that included photos tagged with his full name. I understand that an element of his current online persona is to not mention his full name or include photos of his face, since he now prefers stick figure representation. I get that. But I do not think that there is justification for oversighting since he was once happy to reveal his various names online, and specifically on Wikimedia projects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to CGPGrey. Are there any inaccuracies in what I wrote above? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

From an oversight perspective, I agree with Cullen328 on this one; the content has been in and out of the page's history, and while Grey would prefer for his identity to remain completely anonymous that cat is unfortunately out of the bag. The best we can really do is try to ensure people don't re-add the full name. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

To be fair, Grey has always just said he is not happy with the degree of publicity that being in the page would cause, not that he wants total privacy. I think oversight has been mentioned to him before on Talk:CGP Grey, but he did not respond. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:01, 26 April 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.

Film Fan and poster uploads

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.

---

Film Fan always uploads posters without updating sources, and ignores advices to update sources. The current poster for Venom is not found anywhere on the net, and he replaced User:Brojam's legitimately sourced version (http://collider.com/new-venom-trailer/ ) as well as mine (http://www.impawards.com/2018/venom_ver2.html) without saying anything. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a proper source is needed, I easily found that poster image on the net from numerous sources via Google Image Search. --Masem (t) 05:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: The specific poster caption is what is difficult to find, I believe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the caption (in the film infobox) is an issue. There's generally a clear distinction between a teaser poster which usually lacks a textblock identifying key stars, director, etc., and the theatrical release that does have that, and that can be made by examining the poster image itself. ( eg this edit is perfectly fine). It's the lack of a legitimate source in the File: space that is a problem. Eg taking the same edit, the new image uploaded File:Hotel Artemis poster.png has a nonsense source "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor." that fails NFC requirements. --Masem (t) 05:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I see from below what the "caption" issue is, that being the film date under the title. I do see a large amount of variety in that in Google Image Search, looks like many regional versions, but yes, there's no immediate source for one that has "October 4". I see "10.4.18", "4 October", and "Coming Soon" among variations, but not the one uploaded. That is definitely a problem. --Masem (t) 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that initial issue was raised for edit warring. Film Fan was given a 1RR for this in the past, which is still in place. Along with the continued edit-warring, the lack of adding any rationles for new poster uploads suggest a much serious issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh, Lugnuts. Lugnuts, Lugnuts, Lugnuts. You never miss a chance, do you. There hasn't been any edit-warring. But grasp at any straws you can, mate. — Film Fan 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The version uploaded by Film Fan reads the date as "OCTOBER 5" whereas my version (from IMPAwards) and Brojam's version (from Collider) read "10.5.18". I cannot find the "OCTOBER 5" version anywhere on the net, and using this version in Google's Search-by-image feature, this is all I found. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If I get emails from distributors, "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor" is perfectly acceptable. — Film Fan 09:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: Can you please explain why you replaced well-sourced versions with yours? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it. — Film Fan 13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. The source needs to meet WP:V, and that means that a published version needs to be identified. --Masem (t) 13:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it"... But the source you've given is GoldPoster; isn't that just a Chinese knock-off site? Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I think Film Fan is receiving emails containing film posters, directly sent by the distributors. So does this violate WP:COI? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, or at least, not anything actionable. It is a violation of WP:V, private emails are not usable sources. We need something previously published, and ideally from a reasonable reliable source (to know they likely didn't edit the poster, etc.). For purposes of NFC, we should be treating this as a citation, so core parts of WP:V should be followed. --Masem (t) 14:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of FF's posters don't seem to have any rationale, all failing WP:V. This could be 2018's SvG problem. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's not an issue. In that list, where there is no text in the third column, those are all updated images where the original uploaded supplied a rationale. When FF uploads a new image, they add a rationale. They are following NFC in all cases except a valid source field. --Masem (t) 14:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying that when I add a poster from a PR email, I have to find some website that is also hosting the file? News to me. — Film Fan 14:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: It's analogous to a well-known scientist emailing an unpublished paper to an editor. We're not going to use that in an article either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. — Film Fan 12:39, 26 April 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 not participating in discussion; 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.

---

MusicalGenius2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to edit constructively at the encyclopedia. At the Kelly Rowland article, I removed sources in the "Discography" section, as they were unnecessary — an annonymous editor 2606:A000:4249:CA00:51E5:A7BE:48B7:F0DE reverting them, stating: These sources are supposed to show that the albums are official albums. When reverted, again, MusicGenius2 appeared, and stating (via-edit summary): es but now we are making it so the albums MUST be sourced with an iTunes or Amazon link so we can tell if it is real or fake. As an editor of music-related articles, I am unaware of any discussions of doing this, and even posted a question on their talk page (here: [58]) about the discussion, in the hopes of maybe being linked to it. Instead of responding, the user ignored me and made [ this edit], with the summary: fuck you cunt and instead of discussing it, they reverted the edits. Clearly, this should not be acceptable behaviour on this encyclopedia, and is against civility policies here. livelikemusic talk! 12:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

MusicalGenius2 has been adding promotional falsehoods about Kelly Rowland, along with IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2606:A000:4249:CA00:0:0:0:0/52. I think we need a rangeblock and an indefinite block for the username. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Another involved IP is Special:Contributions/174.99.91.53. FYI. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I left MG2 a note about how iTunes and Amazon are more promotional than RS.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:32, 29 April 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:Huw Nathan

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

---

I have been trying to contact this editor for six weeks or so, but they ignore all messages. Please see User talk:Huw Nathan#Ways to improve List of Middlesex cricket captains. They regularly add unverified material to articles and I was contacting them about creating an article with no clear references, as part of my work on New Page Patrol. I have directed them to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required as well as pointing out that communication is a matter of policy per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE but the editor just ignores all the messages. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As regards the List of Middlesex cricket captains, this was clearly referenced by the first of the external links provided by the creator. The titling of the section "External links" rather than "References" is hardly a reason to bombard the creator with messages and then bring this to ANI. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is the overall concerns - refusal to colloborate/communicate, adding unsourced content to article and creating unsourced articles - that led me to start a discussion here. I wouldn't say asking someone questions over time is bombarding them, and I asked specifically if that was their source (if they'd replied yes, I'd have just clarified the heading myself, as I have done on other occasions). Unfortunately, they wouldn't answer whether that was their source. Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But why did you need to ask if that was their source? All you have to do is to follow the link and you can see for yourself that it was. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's what we do on Wikipedia - we discuss things, check things, if things aren't clear to us. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 27 April 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:Mr.TinjuRaj - IDHT SPA

I've never brought somebody to ANI before, but as the saying goes, there's a first time for everything. Mr.TinjuRaj has a history fraught with warnings, e.g. [59], in December 2017. This month, the user has been adding what utcursch refers to as "castecruft", to the article Panicker. Mr.TinjuRaj has been repeatedly reverting several editors, and has violated 3RR in the process (there is a seperate EWN thread). However, the issue is more wide than a simple 3RR violation. The standard block that I anticipate will result means that there is no immediate risk of disruption, we should instead assess the long term picture.

IDHT

The user has been repeatedly reverting other editors without addressing their concerns. Look at the talk page - Talk:Panicker#Misuse of the article, and they just provide some quasi-english reference to prove that their edits were factually accurate - completely ignoring the concerns actually raised by the editors.

CIR

In fairness on the above point, the took away from the talk page WTAF. So they create a vast number of "articles" - single sentence sub-stubs that neither demonstrate any kind of notability nor are coherent English (some did vaguely make some form of claim of notability, however). They then proceed to continue their overarching purpose of adding a load of castes to the Panicker article, while still, returning to IDHT, not grasping the central point made by 2 other editors. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: You are required to notify anyone you're reporting here. I've done for you. I've given Mr.TinjuRaj a caste warning and agree he needs to be blocked if he won't communicate and change his editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I know and indeed I did, here, immediately after I posted this. It just got buried in the avalanche of speedies resulting from the beginning of this section. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Avalanche is right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The user also systematically removes the speedy tag from the articles they create (something that increases the avalanche). I've given them a final warning. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

• I've blocked indef. This user is not contributing anything to the project but disruption, which is something we can't work with if they are unable or unwilling to communicate. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant digression--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again? Seriously? Yes, they are not communicating and yes, they are probably a net negative to the project, but this "warn, no edits, then block" nonsense needs to stop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the definition of wheel warring is it not? --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC) I understand you're still mad about me blocking you, but I think you're projecting your outrage onto an uncontroversial indef of an incompetent user. Bishonen's warning was not related to their overall conduct, but for their conduct regarding article creation. I thought the block was warranted for reasons other than their conduct regarding article creation. I don't think Bish would agree that their warning precluded me from the block, or that the block was inappropriate. Swarm ♠ 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Issuing warnings is not part of the admin toolkit. It's not wheel warring. GMGtalk 21:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Yep. And even if it was, overriding an admin action is not wheel warring either. But, even at this point, Bishonen could disagree with my block and overturn it and it still wouldn't be wheel warring. @Tarage: I say this with nothing but respect, but it's over. It went to Arbcom, where I received plenty of feedback and taken lessons out of the whole debacle surrounding my block of you. We never have to interact again. Let's just agree to steer clear of each other. You do not need to be policing my admin actions or even opining on them and frankly you have a negative opinion of me so it's not fair of you to be doing so. Swarm ♠ 21:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Meh. Something something...whatever the Wikipedia version of prior restraint might be. We all police each other. That's the way things work. Both yall chill out. GMGtalk 21:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC) My 'policing' of you is no such thing. I'd be calling out anyone who blocks after a user got warned and then did absolutely no edits. You can say it's fine, but I don't think it is. Please don't cast aspirations on me again. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC) I think you mean Aspersions, not aspirations. AlexEng(TALK) 23:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block - Edit warring, adding a ton of crap to various talkpages, Cluelessness such as here, This editor would've been blocked sooner or later - No amount of rope would've helped them. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• endorse indef block amazing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree with the block too. Thank you for reporting, Bellezzasolo. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC).
• Sound block. Let's see if the user appeals and/or comes up with any plausible rationale for unblocking. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Elirbosley

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.

---

Elirbosley recently replaced all of the images on the Girl article with inappropriate photos. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I just checked their edit history, and it turns out that they have done the same to the Shower article. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Shower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Does this warrant a warning or block? After viewing their talk page, I saw that they have previously been warned for similar edits. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

I have given them a Level 4im image vandalism warning, based on these and previous incidents. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(drama board stalker) While I fully endorse this block based on the edits to Girl, I’m not so sure how the edit to Shower was as disruptive as the ones to Girl. Sure, the new image didn’t really improve the article, but I don’t think that it significantly harmed it either. Sure, some people could say that the other image was obscene, risqué or pornographic, but, after all, it was factually accurate, and Wikipedia is not censored (or at least it’s not supposed to be). Again, I don’t object to the block as the replacement of the images on Girl crossed the line IMHO. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — 66.31.81.200 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet.

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.

Vandalism at Blanchard's transsexualism typology

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 article Blanchard's transsexualism typology has been repeatedly vandalized by Landfill baby, as visible here, here, here, and most recently here. I realize that I could have reported this at WP:AIV, but I am making a note of it here as I'd like to ask that the edit summary used in the last of the difs I've provided be removed as a form of pure disruption. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC) The edits here and here have additional outrageous edit summaries that need to go. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours and some edit summaries revdelled. No objection if another admin wants to indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• IMO, 72 hours was too lenient. Indeffed, no need to waste more time on this 42 edit account. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• It will always be a magnet for this. More admins should watchlist it. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 27 April 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.

91st Scripps National Spelling Bee

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.

---

IP editor 38.102.61.227 (talk · contribs) is attempting to an unsourced list of hundreds of the children who have qualified for the US National Spelling Bee. In addition to just being a wall of text, these are living persons being discussed without citation, and well against our norms for discussing competitions like this. I've reverted them twice and would like some assistance. (Also I miss ANI, I haven't been dragged here in years, what happened to me!?!?) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Semied for BLP vios. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted the page back again. Using the previous years of the spelling bee as a guide, all that is needed is to say something like "There were X number of children that participated." Listing them all is insane to be honest and yes agreed with the Semi. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I was IP 38.102.61.227 and I didn't know how to use sources at the time, but when the protection expires, I will put it back, but this time with the proper sources. Also, I didn't discuss them, I listed them. -Erfson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is no amount of sources that would make including this list okay. Zchrykng (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Probably only the actual winner would merit a mention. We strive for thoroughness, but we also need to remember we are an encyclopedia, and that some sort of notability must guide that thoroughness.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:15, 29 April 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 Kritkritkrit

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 check on this user Kritkritkrit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) His Contributions look like...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he may is sockpuppets of Choccobkk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). thank you--NamiNami666 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666: If you suspect they're using multiple accounts inappropriately, better file SPI case, that's better venue than here. Unless, if you mean something else. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666 and Kritkritkrit: Y'all's funny.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666: u are funny and really imagine about me as a sockpuppet, i think u have to stop to watching Thai soap opera. u personalities looks like a girl who like to imagine in Thai soap opera stories.--Kritkritkrit (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I never sad even if you laugh my action because I had done my right way (for me).--NamiNami666 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Kritkritkrit is possibly a sock of Golf-ben10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note that I said possibly, and not definitely. Check the SPI case. ClimaxApproaching (Contribs) (CSDs) 13:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@ClimaxApproaching: i'm not a sockpuppet of Golf-ben10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) i just edited on the face pages, and never edited on other page like Golf-ben10 such as Music page, sport pages, korean reality tv. page. or southern Thailand province page.--Kritkritkrit (talk) 14:51, 29 April 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 Djambo75

• Djumbo75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account created with account Royalhouse to delete a specific page that have been publish after 1 moonth in draft with 5/6 contributors. The only actions of accounts is vandalizing page Benjamin Charles-Lemaire, and war editions like deleting all my conversation with a user (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&action=history). AfD is opened, that's not the way it works... Was vandalyzing before with account John_doe123456987, that he finfally admit it was him Tifftiff1234 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Investigations shown that Djumbo75 had multiples accounts even if he said below it was false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Djumbo75

Users keep vandalizing even the vandalisme page undoing SQLBot modifications...

Tifftiff1234 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, after doing the SPI, I'm inclined to block them both for abusing multiple accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• EDIT: Investigations shown that Tifftiff1234 had too multiples accounts even if he said below it was false (Group 2: 1°)Plantinaute, 2°)Tifftiff1234, 3°)Martingally !! My old account John doe123456987 I change my account see "talk" with ut: ToBeFree at my request! Too multiple accounts are now clear and his history shows that he always undoing modifcations (even on this page, he did 3 times! Me only Djumbo75 not JohnDoe123456 bcoz closed defty)--Djumbo75 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please not that my fake account Martingally was not a real fake account, just a stupidy to show that anybody could come and vote ;) (as said on his profile page 92.90.20.140 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• What a sock-infested mess. I have blocked the socks as suggested above. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Christian evangelism promoted by 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.

---

The template pages of Christianity in India has a cross on the map of India.

How can it be allowed that Wikipedia openly and unabashedly is promoting Christian evangelisation and proselytisation?

Under what rule or bylaws of Wikipedia is the portal being used for such overt evangelism and proselytism? Please clarify.

On pointing this out and editing the template, an avowed "Catholic" user reverts it and another admin threatens me. Is this how Wikipedia treats its contributors?

The admin is "Ohnoitsjamie" and the avowedly "Catholic" user is "LeoFrank". Additionally, LeoFrank reverted an edit I have done with a proper citation (page titled "Madurai_Adheenam"), in what appears to be a revenge. What kind of behaviour is this?

Is such bullying allowed on Wikipedia? Please clarify and fix this.

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkv22 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to abuse the template to promote your own views concerning Christianity. Your edits to the template are disruptive, and you were warned correctly. Please reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia, and please notify other editors when you post at ANI as is required. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't look like you notified anyone of this discussion, as required. Home Lander (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've taken care of that. Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've replied on this user's talk page regarding their perception of that image, and there is clearly no basis for this complaint. Reviewing this user's contributions, I'm not convinced they're a net positive to the project. Swarm ♠ 21:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Nor am I convinced of a net positive, given their unilateral and aggressive approach to editing and communicating (i.e., deciding that a image with a cross on a Christanity-related template is "evangelism"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • My concern as well. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments and would strongly encourage the OP to withdraw their complaint before this gets ugly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a nice complaint. This user is free to believe whatever they like but they should not be using Wikipedia to promote their anti-Christian beliefs. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mkv22: You have not supplied any dif's to back your assertion, and I do not want to plow through many edits to find what your are referring to. Otherwise, these are just wild, unfounded accusarions that may lead to you being blocked. Please provide dif's.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mkv22: Now as to the template from which you removed the image, it seems appropriate to me, and I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. Its statement is obviously on target, "Christianity in India". You seem to be allowing your personal feelings on Christianity to cloud your judgment. There is nothing promotional or evangelical about it.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Further, I think dragging another user's religion into a discussion at AN/I says the dragger is probably the one acting out of bias or prejudice. Concur with foregoing comments above mine.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

OP appears to be on a mission.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

.....and he seems to not really listen, either....💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I have seen just enough cases where someone has come to the site for purposes of proselytism that mentioning their religion in a report is not an automatic red flag for me, but that they're complaining about the most obvious symbol for "Christianity" put in the most obvious placement for "inside" in relation to the most obvious symbol for "the physical nation of India" does scream a special mixture of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Where these the only edits the user had made, I would have already blocked them. As is, I'm waiting just a little bit more before pulling the trigger.

I can start to see how this complaint could be made in good-faith, up until they say Using bible verses to showcase Grantha script is overt evangelism and Christian propaganda. That's a failure of WP:AGF there, and a sign that this may be a recurring problem. Using a piece of Hindu scripture (with an English translation) or a secular text could be more appropriate, just as it'd be more appropriate to use either the Tanakh or a secular text for Hebrew rather than the works of Johann Reuchlin.

However, it also follows with this and this. At this point, if I see one more bit of bigotry or disruptive behavior coming from them, I'm going to block under WP:NOTHERE. If someone else blocks them before then, so be it.

@Mkv22: You need to realize that you've got a pretty obvious bias against Christianity and against Christian users. While you are entitled to your opinion regarding Christianity, you are are being illogically disruptive when it comes to topics relating to Christianity. While you are entitled to your opinion regarding Christians, this site operates on civil behavior and the assumption of good faith, which you are not demonstrating to anyone you can accuse of being a Christian. If I see one more incident where you are disruptive or uncivil because of your attitude toward any belief system, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I will respond to you all in a summary format. Please allow me to do so. I posted a version of this on my own talk page. It is mostly relevant here too. So I will post it (a version) here –

1. Does Christianity in Pakistan, Bangladesh or any other non-Christian country's (or perhaps even a Christian country) corresponding page have such a template? Please show by sufficient examples and/or data, before threatening to block me or accusing me of "bigotry".

2. Whatever I have stated, I stand by it. None of it was without evidence or baseless. They were factually and empirically provable. More importantly, I used very polite language and "no" abusive language. That does not mean I should also refrain from stating unpleasant empirical facts from history. If you deny my empirical factual statements, please counter with evidence (say, academic-quality citations, or other such reasonable evidence). But kindly do not accuse me of bad behaviour or bigotry or bias or such.

I hope this is an evidence-based forum and would remain so.

3. Given 1 and 2 above, is the threat to block me morally and ethically valid? Kindly clarify.

Please be fair to an evidence-based approach to facts. This is not a forum for political correctness at the cost of facts. This is a wiki-pedia / encylopedia. As long as the language is civil and not abusive, and edits / reverts are evidence-based empricial-factual based, threats of blocking, accusations of bigotry and bias, etc. is inappropriate.

If I am wrong, please clarify and justify, particularly about (1) and (2) immediately above. Many thanks for your constructive engagement. Much appreciated.

Mkv22 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 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.

Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock

Resolved: student unblocked, with Piotrus' assurance that they will coach the user in areas of difficulty. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

---

I've been teaching with Wikipedia for a decade, had few hundred students in my courses, and usually their work is good enough to qualify for WP:GA/WP:DYK (see User:Piotrus/Teaching or the WMNF blog about me). I am not here to brag, I am just saying this so people unfamiliar with me don't say something like "read the WP:SUP guide" or such. I wrote most of such guides, m'kay? And generally my students don't cause problems, because I try to ensure they know the basics and more. I am quite aware we have had bad experiences with some educational projects, but that's what happens when people (instructors) don't bother to follow our guides or even don't know about them, despite all that the Wiki Education Foundation and some volunteers has been doing. Anyway, over those ten years I've never had such a strange and rather unpleasant accident happen to one of my students: User:SungMinSeung got suddenly accused of vandalism, and blocked for some vague reasons "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". She asked for an unblock that was declined on the same grounds, after she make it perfectly clear she is a student who is learning how to contribute to Wikipedia. Well, it's ridiculous - she IS here to contribute to encyclopedia, like each and every one of my students, who are enrolled in my courses (including what I think is the longest running college-level course about Wikipedia). Some of her edits were incorrectly reverted because some editors mistakenly thought she was citing Korean search engine sources; a discussion she started (as an anon) at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_758#My_quotations made it clear she is not doing that, and some uninformed and revert-trigger recent changes (?) patrollers cannot distinguish between Korean search engine and encyclopedias, so she ended up with several unfair warning templates on her talk page, and being a newbie she didn't blank them (and I didn't do it, neither). I am guessing that a quick glance at her talk page caused the next tired RC/admin patrolled to conclude she is a problematic editor in need of a long block. Anyway, an indef block for [60] is an unhelpful example of WP:BITE. Her edit was actually the best referenced edition to that page... She is an ESL so some of her edits suffer from grammar/vocabulary problems, but she didn't get a single warning about that, and anyway we are not in habit of blocking people for having imperfect command of English (and anyway, nobody complained about her language skills before - and it is the only possible problem with the edit that got her blocked, because other than that it is on topic and cited to a reliable source, Korean Doosan Encyclopedia). So I hope we can get her unblocked, and somebody can offer her an apology. Ironically, I was teaching today a module on civility and such, and was telling students about WP:BITE - and her block was a "helpful" illustration here, through I'd prefer not to have such an example at all. PS. I'd also add that if the warning / blocking editors bothered to look at her user page, they'd have noticed she is a student in a course. And her block caused a disruption in my live classroom due to IP issues, as suddenly several students and myself found ourselves unable to edit due to IP issues (relevant bug T193378 reported). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hard to not see this edit [[61]] as not vandalism, did they not even bother to read the articles? Or this [[62]]. Maybe it is a competence issues, but these really do not look like constructive edits so much as attempts to include extraneous information.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Since when adding referenced information is a vandalism? Yes, the first edit seems not relevant, but the second, outside some translation issue (ballet?) added referenced information on the cheese's inception (currently article doesn't have a reference for that), and production (ditto). I'd understand if someone would warn her to be more careful with grammar/vocabulary (I did so, in class, twice at least). But that's not what happened. Repeating myself: nobody posted on her talk page about grammar/vocabulary issues. She got warned about bad references (unfairly) and then blocked, despite being a student who is clearly acting in good faith and is trying to be constructive (if albeit not careful enough on grammar/etc.). Nothing here is 'vandalism', however. PS. And she is clearly improving, there's nothing wrong with most of her recent edits like [63]. Again, I can see a warning about 'please be careful with your grammar' or such, but a block for vandalism? Seriously? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is that the blocked user's command of English is not very good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? That's not a blockable offense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If an editor is incapable of writing proper English, they have no business being here. See WP:Competence is required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a block policy. Any admin that blocks others based on an essay shouldn't be an admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I expected you'd be de-sysoping over half of the active admin corps and probably more if you decide that it's not acceptable to block for lack of competence. That's probably why there's fairly widespread support for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Does the community agree with WP:CIR?. I have not checked the discussion extensively, but I didn't actually see anyone even disagreeing that we already do so. The closest is people saying it's not necessary to cite the essay. Many of course do acknowledge that the vagueness can lead to problems including excessively hasty blocks of people with a poorer command of English. That's quite different from suggesting we should never block for competence. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: That's a nice essay and I agree with the spirit of it. The point is, I don't think the spirit intended for CiR to be used to justify 'now we can block any newbie who makes several mistakes, without warning them first, since by making mistakes they've clearly shown they are incompetent and dangerous'. Welcome to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia anyone can edit, assuming you don't make a single mistake. If you do, indef ban for you. Welcome! (And don't let the door hit you on the way out, we will throw you out of the window anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone should put effort in turning the essay into policy. KingAndGod 11:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It is called a pattern, two edits that add extraneous information (one of which cannot be due to poor language skills). Plus these edits [[64]], [[65]] adding information already in the article (in the former case the paragraph immediately below it (which taking into account my first diff again raises the question of are they even bothering to read the articles they are editing?)), in fact this seems to be their main style of contribution. We have this bizarre edit [[66]]. There is also overuse of this source [[67]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As was discussed in the teahouse, there is nothing wrong with terms.naver.com (it was declined from a spamlist). Despite the name, it is not a dictionary, but it is an encyclopedia. I do agree with you that in some cases she does not appear to have read all the information, but the correct response would be to POINT IT OUT to her. Nobody bothered to do so (well, I did, in class, verbally, but that's not the issue here). People should really keep in mind WP:BITE, WP:AGF and such. Making mistakes is not a blockable offense, not unless said mistakes are explained, and the editor continues to ignore this. Nobody bothered to explained such issues to her on the talk page before a block, and hence, the block is totally unfair. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You've been here since 2004. You should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I know better: years ago I wrote a mini-essay about a major problem being some admin's fondness to solve everything with a banhammer. I am disappointed, but not surprised, this destructive mentality is still doing well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"read an article before editing it" should not have to be explained...seriously that should be basic common sense. But OK lets unblock them with a warning that they must read articles before editing them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That IS a (more) constructive approach. She does need a warning about that, unlike other irrelevant stuff she previously got (mostly about sources, which are fine), this one is indeed relevant as I agree, it doesn't seem like she always reads the articles carefully enough. The point is, she should never have been blocked in the first place. Not before getting said warning first. Now, if she continues to make problematic edits, a block would be justified (through there is also the issue of duration, few hours, or a day or two, is usually sufficient, nuking a newbie with an indef block is an overkill that is part of the problem here - it's like WP:BITE, kaiju-level... ). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, I have to say "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" as a block reason seems obviously wrong to me, and even if there are CIR reasons for a block then I still think it was premature. I support unblock, with assistance being offered instead of a boot. User:Piotrus, if you're happy to keep an eye on them and lend some help, that's good enough for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The complainant here should be compelled to review every new edit by the blocked user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Which I do. And I warned her, verbally, about grammar, vocabulary, and context. Nothing however seemed, nor seems to me, like requiring an admin level intervention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • You did more than that. You restored this[68] ridiculous edit, which brings your own competency into question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to try to defend that edit - it looks like the product of machine translation - but where did Piotrus "restore" it? —Cryptic 10:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) You might have the wrong diff? At any rate, let's not all go on a hunt for each other's errors if they are more exceptions than the norm.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. While we do block for CIR, it doesn't seem necessary here yet and the actual rational seems even more wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That foreign-language page should not be allowed as a source. This is the English Wikipedia. That page could be saying "Death to all English-speakers!" for all we know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Take it up with WP:V then Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not been here long enough, if WP:NOENG is not something you are familiar with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I'm willing to guess that using sites like www.doopedia.co.kr and naver.com, along with a few mistakes by a new editor whose first language is not English gave the impression that she was a spammer. And then the first unblock was denied because her unblock reason said she didn't vandalize, but that was not the block reason. However, "not here" would make little sense to someone who honestly thinks that they are here to help. Unfortunate set of circumstances for the editor, but not very surprising either.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • First, the complainant needs to explain why he restored this[69] edit, which is nonsensical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Where's the restoration? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • My apologies. Wrong editor. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I do not see any problems unblocking as soon as Piotrus promises to look after her edits (and he already did so). May be explanations on how to communicate better would not harm, but that is it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'll paraphrase what I said at her talk page. Just unblock her. Few subpar edits or something from someone in good faith isn't a reason for blocking. Neither is somewhat poor english, unless it is too the point that her contributions become negative and she refuses to listen. And trout everyone who here who is saying otherwise (and maybe TBAN baseball bugs from ANI for good measure). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

• That was one fucked-up thread. EEng 13:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Piotrus: I made rule clarification on the amount of expected language proficiency as described at Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_required#Required_level_of_English. Being more welcoming to people whose native language is something other than English is only part of what needs to change, but this is my go at contributing something right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, very disturbing. Fortunately it was actioned fairly quickly, but OP was still subjected to a hour-and-a-half of grueling argument over whether to keep his student blocked, even though his initial statement was more than sufficient to overturn the NOTHERE without controversy. Piotrus Very sorry you had to go through all of this. No doubt the involved admins will take a lesson from this incident and we will all be better for it going forward. Swarm ♠ 00:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Wow, thanks. Seeing an apology on Wikipedia is such a rare occurrence (of course, it was not you who did anything wrong, but I've long ago ceased to expect an apology from an admin that makes an ill judgement). It is indeed a shame that nobody thought that the argument like 'this block is disrupting an ongoing class in progress' merits any action. Of course, I still think that the main person who is owed an apology is the student herself, who was unfairly blocked for "not being here to build and encyclopedia". A warning about language/grammar/CiR would be fair, but she was nuked. Then, of course, WP:BITE is a dead policy. What recourse does a n00b has against an admin or an experienced editor? Leaving the project, that's it. No wonder we have so much retention problems with new editors; I'll be very surprised if that student makes a single wiki edit in her entire life once the class is finished - why should she, given the stressful event that just occurred? (I am saying this with my scholar hat on, I've published peer reviewed articles about this topic). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wholly agree. This is a good reminder that WP:BITE exists for a reason, and it's literally to avoid incidents that turn off new editors such as this. Ideally, she should have never received any of those templated warnings, much less a final warning for vandalism. I've dropped her a message with apologies and wiped her talk page clean, in part to give her a clean slate, in part to avoid any continued perception that this is a problem user. I'll keep an eye on her talk page going forward as well. Swarm ♠ 06:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yup, those RC patrollers needed to pay much more attention before presupposing vandalism. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I boldly moved the discussions about Bugs to a new section below, #Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI leaving behind those comments that seem connected to this thread. If this was controversial, please undo. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Libelous material at article "Christopher Cantwell (white supremacist)"

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 libelous material at the article "Christopher Cantwell (white supremacist)" I wouuld remove it myself, but it is protected from edit. WP:BLP states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I have made comments on the Talk page. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The material in question is sourced from multiple reliable sources, including CNN, the Washington Post and TIME Magazine. Any further discussion needs to be had on the article's talk page, not here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 30 April 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.

Malicious editing and AfD actions by Jytdog

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 like to report malicious editing and AfD actions by Jytdog. His/her edits and deletions for the entry for American journalist Mark Worth, Native American scalps at Karl May Museum, and other entries concerning Mark Worth are bizarre, random, mean-spirited and unprofessional. Jytdog makes dozens of edits per day -- sometimes one minute to the next. Looking at his/her edit history, the decision to delete Mark Worth was made in 1 minute. Is this how things are done? A person can delete an entry after thinking about it for 1 minute? There have been many complaints about Jytdog. The deletion of Mark Worth is outrageous and nonsensical. I request remedial action, and sanctioning of Jytdog. Thank you. Quinn2425 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog doesn't seem to have done anything out of the ordinary here. His concerns about Quinn2425's potential COI in relation to Mark Worth seem completely justified, given that their edits are exclusively related to him and yet Quinn2425 has not responded to the request as to whether or not they have a COI, despite repeated reminders. Note also that prior to filing this case Quinn2425 let loose with a particularly foul-mouthed tirade against Jytdog that I have revdelled. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It's worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Worth, where there's not much evidence that the OP is in tune with the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well this is one way to end this matter. The WP:APPARENTCOI is very obvious as a quick glance at their contribs shows, as does a glance over their talk page, at all the promotional stuff they added to WP that has been deleted. Quinn2425 simply ignored my request to disclose and follow the COI guideline, as well as Guy's followup here. They bludgeoned the AFD about Worth as the revision statisics show.

Quinn2425 is here only to promote Mark Worth and should be indefinitely blocked per WP:PROMO/WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been following this dispute from the start. But I think that I am seeing a sockfarm trying to defend the deleted material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Quinn2425 is probably currently experiencing an autoblock, in case anyone's waiting for their response. We already have Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quinn2425/Archive. You can add Arcata168 (talk · contribs · block log) to the list. A sock used for abuse after those previous edits is not a good thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's enough from this OP. Indeffed for socking and egregious personal attacks. NOTHERE if you want to throw it in, too. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I have some questions:

1. Why do you say, Jytdog that this user is an SPA? Neither their top edited articles nor their contribs show that; for example, they were quite focused on Transparency International for a while. Is TI related to this Worth fellow? Perhaps there is a piece I'm missing.
2. Given that the user was involved at a number of other articles, are they obliged to answer a query about COI? Perhaps that thought they didn't have to answer as they considered the question had no basis. Perhaps there is an ESL issue.
3. Courcelles are you going to put that standard thingie on the user's talk page about how to request an unblock?
4. Jyt, the scalps of dead Native Americans are a painful thing to many, or at least, some people. Do you think this whole affair might have gone more smoothly if you had avoided comparing Native American scalps on the AFD to "industrial waste" and "an advertisement to buy some gadget"? [70] I realize you didn't explicitly say Native American scalps were "gadgets" but it can be taken that way. Would we not expect a vehement reaction to that? Even if this user turns out to be up to no good, and socking all over the place, and an SPA, could you at least remove those words for the sake of others who come to the AFD? That is hard stuff to read.
5. Considering this issue involved Native American body pieces in a museum, I would expect there to be a number of activists up in arms about this deletion, and there's a lot of blocking going on with no CU yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, Sandy, and there were quite a few CUs ran, for the record. Courcelles (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Courcelles; I suppose the CUs just haven't had the time to post them yet, since this thing went from 0 to 60 pretty fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Since Mark Worth was deleted, any edits to that page aren't appearing. I believe that they had a lot of edits to that page. Emk9 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I assumed as much; there are still considerable edits outside of the Worth/May realm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is untrue that "there are still considerable edits outside of the Worth/May realm."

What I wrote above, was that Quinn promoted Worth. That means writing about a) Worth himself and b) issues that Worth advocates about in the real world. I realize that you don't have an easy way to see what he advocates for, since the article about him is deleted now. But if you actually do more than just glance over their contribs and follow them you will see that the edits often mention Worth in the content, and cite things Worth had written. Like this diff to the Nordstroms page, of all things. The whistleblower stuff, the union stuff, the real estate stuff -- all things that Worth has advocated about, and the Quinn account was sure to mention Worth's name. The museum/scalp page is a perfect example of abuse of WP for promotion - it is completely UNDUE. We don't even have a page on the museum. And the only person's name that was mentioned as advocating for the return of the scalps? Worth.

Quinn did make a very few edits clearly unrelated to Worth, like this one.

The account was used abusively to promote Worth and Worth's causes. This is not ambiguous.

This did not go from 0 to 60 very fast. Things started over two weeks ago and came to a head today when the Worth page was deleted, and the person behind the account filed this and wrote very ugly shit on my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The Worth article is still google cached, so I have seen it (it's dreadful, so I didn't even bother to see if there are any real sources in there.) Is Worth involved with Transparency International or Quinn2425's other editing areas? The other problem I see with what went on here is that it heavily involved WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, and anyone who has followed my edits knows that some of us take 10 edits to do what others can do in 1, so I don't know what that means in this editor's case. The other problem is that just because one (maybe) bad editor got onto one article does not make that a non-notable article; there are plenty of sources for Native American scalps at Karl May Museum.

Would you consider removing the inflammatory remarks that compare Native American scalps to "industrial waste" and "gadgets" from the AFD? That reflects very poorly on Wikipedia, particularly on an issue that Native American are likely to be following. The reason I said this went from 0 to 60 fast is that it appears to me that no one even looked at what might have enraged this editor so; when I saw the "industrial waste" reference to Native American scalps after he came to your talk page, I had a very big ouch. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

People who looked at this closely understand that the account was a SPA, did not follow the COI guideline, socked, and made a vicious personal attack. You want to make drama over their block, knock yourself out.

I did not compare native american scalps to industrial waste (i said that the SOAP page was industrial waste) and if you continue to misrepresent me I will seek an IBAN, and it will be very easy to get with the kind of blatant thing you just did there. I'll not be responding here further. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I just had a look at all of the sources for the article at Native American scalps at Karl May Museum, and as far as I can tell, of the seven or eight sources specifically about the scalps, only one of them mentions Worth. I am sorry you don't see how how the statements on the AFD [71] can reflect on Wikipedia. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm sorry you don't see that doubling down on your clear misreading of the text so you can get the last word isn't helpful. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 1 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 Libracarol and edit to Toronto van 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.

---

Hello - I draw your attention to the edit comments of this edit related to the Toronto van attack, where user Libracarol objected terribly strongly to having his/her edit undone. I don't know whether or not the edit comment can be hidden in some way. Can somebody in authority please deal with this person? Thanks in advance, PKT(alk) 19:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Diff: [72]. I've reverted again, we'll see how long that lasts. ansh666 20:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary personal attacks are not covered by WP:CRD. However, the user should probably be warned against incivility. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Has not edited since opining on article talk page about 20 hours ago.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 27 April 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.

Davey2010 (2)

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 happy about the archiving of this thread earlier this month. I wish to comment further because the explanation for the swearing (that it was an unusual one-off because of that single day and was due to the removal of an in use template) is unconvincing. The incivility occurred before the in use template was added,[73][74] and it is not a one-off.[75][76][77][78][79].

The incident was archived on the basis that Davey2010 apologised and promised to 'not post anything like that again'. But it's still continuing: [80][81][82]. Instead of a pat on the head, users should be told in no uncertain terms that using the F word is uncivil and should stop. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, fuck that. Editors regularly cuss shit out. Its incivility when directed towards individuals, not just because he said "fuck". If it isn't clear: "fuck off" (referring to an article, not an editor), "tough fucking shit" and "fuckssake" are not examples of incivility. Of your other diffs, "idiot" is the only genuine incivility to be found. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I find your response offensive. You may enjoy offending other editors. I neither enjoy doing it nor receiving it. "F* off" was directed at the creator of the article, but that is beside the point. There is no need or excuse for foul language of any sort. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear: We do not censor, and we do not police people's word choices; except racial slurs and the suchlike. We are a community of mostly adults, adult language is to be expected. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not censor articles as a general rule. However, we do identify uncivil behavior by policy as "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions" -- that's clearly happening here. I request that you remove the profanity and cease continued use. There may be a place for it in an article, but this is not an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In what variety of English would the "fuck off"s linked above not being referring to a user (e.g.)?? Now, granted, since I don't know the context for that exchange, and since Winkelvi might (don't want to assume) give as good as he gets with that sort of thing, I would want to see him complain about it rather than Celia, but yes, that's pretty much textbook incivility outside of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. None of this is to say I think there's anything to be done here (I don't know) -- it's just a pet peeve to see people eat away at WP:CIVILITY at ANI by declaring that telling someone to "fuck off" is in the spirit of WP:5P4. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites One of you might have chosen to ping me so that I can respond. My reading of it was that the article could "fuck off", not any individual (I am referring to the AfD). Am I wrong? Celia suggests that it was directed at the author of the article. If so, then yes I'd agree with you and Celia that it is uncivil. With regards to "fuck off" from somebody's talk page, I can link you to any number of AN/I cases which closed with the summary of "if someone tells you to fuck off their page, it's a strongly worded leave me alone". As I said, and as I maintain: profanity in itself is not incivility, directed at somebody then yes. Gross profanity, Paulmcdonald is a rather subjective term. How gross is gross. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: My own preference is to be pinged each time, too, but some people get testy when pinged to a page/section that I [should?] know they're watching. Meh. Anyway, I cannot think of how reverting someone's comment with an edit summary "fuck off" on a user talk page (the one I linked) could be understood as talking to an article. I appreciate you may have been talking about a different diff. Regardless, it sounds like we agree on the general principle if not the particular reading. I do think it's best on Wikipedia, as in any place where you have to work with lots of people you don't know particularly well, to avoid immediately alienating other people with choice of language, but also agree that it's not the sort of incivility that's going to get anyone sanctioned unless it's targeted at another user. (edit conflict) Regarding the "fuck off" on someone's user page, directed at another user, any admin who says that it's perfectly acceptable behavior and that it's the responsibility of others to avoid triggering that person should not be an admin (or, at least, should not be speaking/acting as an admin in matters of civility), if I may be so blunt. I can't disagree that there won't be sanctions, though, but that there haven't been sanctions for certain people in the past should not be an argument not to enforce civility in the future (i.e. that it has happened that a small number of people have had enough defenders to get away with such things enough times that ANI regulars became jaded by the erosion of WP:CIVILITY, does not mean it's a good idea to discourage people from raising pretty basic civility issues here). Anyway, $0.02, and tangential. I'll leave it at that, since I'm talking in very general terms rather than this specific case, so realize I'm not contributing much here. (edit conflict) again — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I was talking about a different diff. Yes. I saw afterwards that you were linking to the UP diff. Hence my later additions to my comment. I agree with you on substance regarding "fuck off" from user talk pages. I don't appreciate it, and neither would anybody else. My standard is strictly is it targeted yes? incivility, no? profanity but not incivility. The UP issue is just precedent that I have seen on multiple occasions. If anybody wants to change that precedent, count me as a supporter. I am not one to get testy over pings, but I've seen it annoy people myself. I understand withholding the ping for that reason. For future reference, you are free to ping me whenever needed irrespective of whether I am likely to see your comment or not. I won't be annoyed by it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Celia Homeford Of the three "it's still continuing" diffs you provided, the first one was a heart-felt but non-specific expletive in an AfD (maybe stronger than strictly merited, but not entirely uncalled for), the second one occurred in a discussion about a singularly unpleasant troll, and the third one was also a general expletive which Davey2010 furthermore retracted and apologised for, and the editor involved clearly accepted the apology (before you posted this thread here). So no, "it" is not continuing, and none of these diffs is relevant unless one has a general objection to swearing, but that's never going to fly here. I can't see where you were involved in any of those three discussions, so what am I missing? --bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility seems clear to me. It doesn't say profanity, aggressiveness and sarcasm are acceptable. It says to avoid them,(Edit summary dos and don'ts and Identifying incivility: Direct rudeness sections) and when approaching the editor directly doesn't work, to seek dispute resolution at places such as this board (Dealing with incivility section). Celia Homeford (talk)

Celia Homeford, I tend to agree with you that we really should be striving for better civility and less verbal aggression, but whenever it's come up for discussion the community consensus has essentially been that anyone can use whatever language they please providing it's not a direct personal attack. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Celia Homeford The policy talks about "direct rudeness" (boldface mine). To my mind, cherry-picking isolated instances of language that is not to our personal liking (including an example of such language that had already been explicitly retracted and apologised for) and dragging a fellow editor to ANI over them is rather worse than the use of a few general expletives (which are not "direct rudeness", since they are not directed at a specific contributor). And I'm sorry, but I'm still not seeing where your involvement was in these discussions. --bonadea contributions talk 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to those discussions. And given that they are nasty, won't be doing so. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Right I'll explain my diffs:

Diffs [83] and [84] are explained here [85] and I also explained this on the last ANI report you opened[86],

Diff [87] was in response to this (IMHO that editor blows everything out of proportion and over-exaggerates on things),

Diff [88] was me giving up on the AN3 report for the IP in Diff 106,

Diff [89] was an IP who thought it was hilarious to undo my "removing a space" edit whilst making their own changes - The challenged bit was way out of order and shouldn't have been said (I did note it in that report and did say "it shouldn't of been said"[90])

Diff [91] again was the same IP and again the idiot part shouldn't of been said,

Diff [92] was in response to this where I removed that thread stating "It's 3 in the morning I'm not arguing - If you want it changed start an RFC."[93] - I realised after all of that drama that summary could've and should've certainly been better,

In 2 of the diffs I was out of order and so I apologise to that IP (107.77.209.32) for those 2 incidents .... The rest are more or less me getting in a huff,

If I'm out of order in what I say A) I recognise it and B) I always apologise after [94] (where this happened),

As I've said before whilst "Fuck off" may not be nice to see It's my only way with dealing with things and I'd rather say "Fuck off" than to give stupid replies such as this,

That all being said It's very rare I tell anyone to F off and I wouldn't really call the other diffs as incivil as such .....,

Celia Homeford I would kindly suggest you drop whatever stick you have with me and focus all of your time and energy on improving the 5 million articles we have here. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just spotted the other 3 - Diff [95] was a flippant comment I guess which I had already explained here but in hindsight that probably shouldn't of been said (I've now apologised and reworded it[96])

Diff [97] - I was annoyed at the fact an editor who returns after creating 700 socks and causes a lot of mayhem here returns with "Apologise for past transgressions & request unblock. It's been 11 years+. Time's come" which to me comes across as "Boo hoo I made a mistake, Now unblock me" .... There was no remorse, no "I apologise for my very bad mistakes and will do x and x in future" .... know what I mean ? well that's how I read it anyway

Diff [98] is already explained above and again was waaaay out of order - I assumed everyone here know what "indeffed" meant but having realised that editor didn't I reinstated their post apologising for that[99],

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Also just spotted the "Davey2010 apologised and promised to 'not post anything like that again" comment above - I promised I wouldn't make replies such as this this (which was a first and will be the last) but I never promised "I wouldn't use the f word" .... Just thought I should add that in.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think my 'stick' is really with you specifically. It's with an attitude among male editors that it is fun and normal to use disgusting language: [100][101][102]. (And before anyone says anything further about gender, yes, the editors all identify as male. And then wikipedia wonders why women don't participate?) Celia Homeford (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't claim that this is in any way a gender issue, unless you have actual data about actual gender differences - specific isolated diffs from three individuals who have consciously chosen to use a word for a specific pragmatic purpose are entirely irrelevant. We could all dig up diffs of editors identifying as male being upset about people using the word that offends you personally so much, and diffs of editors identifying as female using that word. Not to mention the fact that none of us have any idea what any other editor, male-identified, female-identified, or neither, thinks about something unless they tell us - I'd ask you to kindly not try to speak on behalf of a huge, amorphous group of people of very varying backgrounds. I find that just as offensive as you appear to find the use of swear words. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Some may like it and others may not but this thread isn't going to end its use nor is it really helping you or I, As for the male thing - That's just hilarious and I agree with everything bonadea's just said. –Davey2010^Talk 14:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Both these responses are a variety of 'I can offend you, but please don't offend me'. If it's not acceptable for me to say a comparatively weakly worded statement that offends; why is it acceptable to make a much stronger one? Celia Homeford (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Fuck men am I rite? I don't really think Bonadea or Davey2010 are offended at all. Certainly not as offended as you are at vulgarity. Honestly this just reminds me of the Cathy Newman and Jordan B. Peterson debate. I'll summarize the critical point on offense for you. Every time you speak, no matter how innocuous what you have to say is, you risk offending someone. It is not possible to speak on a platform with thousands of readers and not offend someone. I will not seek to shut you down for being offensive. Rebuke you, sure; but revoke your right to say silly things? only if it becomes disruptive. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"It's very rare I tell anyone to F off" Yeah, not so rare. And fairly recently, as well. See edit summary from April 5 here [103] and edit summary from April 14 here [104]. The entire story can be seen here [105] and here [106] (if anyone's interested). I had decided to let Davey's unwarranted personal attacks and hounding of me go, but when I saw this thread, and his claim that using F-Off is something he rarely does... decided to not let it go after all because it's a blatant lie. And apparently, the use of "F-off" as personal attacks for him is an increasing, developing trend. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Winkelvi, Nice to see you!, I feel I should correct you there - You state "It's a developing trend" however without digging my own grave this has been an issue since 2016 12 and even before that! - The only difference is that in those 2 years I've learnt to control the anger and am a lot more calmer now than I was back then, I also don't swear as much as I did back then (I still do sure but not as much), I shan't reply to the "hounding" because that's wholy unrelated to this report, Many thanks for your comments. –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I'll clarify: It's a recent aggressive behavior trend. It's also obviously violating WP:NPA. As someone pointed out below it's a vio of WP:CIVIL and for further explanation, see WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Truth is, you're being intentionally untruthful when you claim it's rare for you to say these things, and that's further supported by your claim that you were once worse behavior-wise in Wikipedia. Rare? Definitely not. Now frequent and recent. Better than before? Sorry, that's not acceptable as an excuse. Just because your old behavior became normalized in your psyche, that doesn't mean we have to accept your aggressive and uncivil verbal attacks toward other editors for behavior in the now. I'll also note that while not a personal attack toward me using the f-bomb, the following is yet another example of your uncivil use of the same word/tone in another edit summary "close ffs." ("ffs" = for fuck's sake), knowing you were asked to abandon that type of edit summary wording earlier in the month. I might also note, that you - who has stated at your Userpage that you edit "Transport, Actors, Actresses, Character, TV shows and Film articles", somehow found yourself using that edit summary and !voting 'no'at a U.S. Politics RfC I started. Kinda odd for a Brit who has no interest in U.S. Politics editing-wise and has never edited that particular article or article talk page before. In other words, I believe you intentionally sought out yet another one of my edits and RfCs just to WP:POKE by your no !vote, your presence there, and the use of "for fuck's sake" in an edit summary. This, with everything I've presented here evidence-wise, along with what the OP presented evidence-wise, definitely shows an aggressive trend. You said to Chris troutman at his talk page (linked above), "Hi Chris, I never want anyone to feel like they're being bullied that certainly isn't who I an although the from an outside perspective I can see it may look different, Will do, Thank for your comments". That was on April 8, here. Sounds to me like someone else is feeling bullied by you, and not long after you said you'd stop with that behavior.-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Give it a rest!, The same old "YOU'RE FOLLOWING ME AROUND AND HOUNDING AND BULLYING ME" is rather boring now, I commented on quite a few RFCs that day and I was in no way "hounding" you but again we've been over this again, again and again, Just because I put what I edit on my userpage doesn't mean I edit just those!, You have an axe to grind and that's the whole reason you're here - If you wanna start a HOUNDING report knock yourself out otherwise kindly stop derailing the report, Many thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Striking as would rather not have this derailed by this silly squabble. –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: If you pinged me in the hopes that I'd help you railroad Davey, then you really have perception problems. My intent was that the two of you should stop interacting. Jumping on this ANI thread with the hope of making a case against him says a lot about you, especially in light of your past. How about you keep the peace by not getting involved? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"If you pinged me in the hopes that I'd help you railroad Davey, then you really have perception problems." I did not, Chris. I pinged you because I referenced a discussion that included you, and did it out of courtesy. Not to mention, I'm not interested in seeing Davey railroaded. But something needs to change -- if you're interested look at the pile of diffs at the bottom of this thread. I'd much rather see him have some sort of agreement to stop the vile and vulgar attacks than to be blocked. Why? Because it's just plain wrong for him to continue like this and for editors to be treated in such a manner. WP:CIVIL is still a thing, you know. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's not acceptable for me to say a comparatively weakly worded statement that offends; why is it acceptable to make a much stronger one? I did not say that would be acceptable. I tried to make very sure not to use any language that you might have found offensive - you'll notice that I consciously avoided even quoting the word you dislike. If I said something specific that you found offensive, I apologise, and would like to know what it was so I can avoid it in future. The offensive content of your statement had nothing to do with the wording, but with the substance. Making incorrect generalisations is not a matter of offending me (it does that as well, but that's obviously irrelevant here), it is a matter of perpetuating destructive myths. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice you did not use the word. There is nothing in your comments which is offensive or for which it is necessary to apologise. My point is that your comments here are along the lines of 'Editors are allowed to use language that offends but not to state beliefs that are offensive'. My view is more like 'You can discuss points of view that others might find offensive provided that the discussion is a courteous one'. You ask for evidence regarding female participation. There have been surveys that show hostile environments are especially uninviting for women and that women are more sensitive to negative comments: see https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia as a starting point. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm relieved to hear that I hadn't put my foot in it. The Harvard Business Review article makes a number of generalisations, some of them are more sound than others, but I believe I read it very differently from you. I don't think this is the place to discuss that, but I will make the observation that for me it is very different when someone uses profanity in a playful way on the user talk page of another editor who is known not to mind - that is, to me, a way of creating a more open, welcoming, and friendly encyclopedia - the opposite of a hostile environment. If used on the talk page of someone who gets upset by profanity, it is a different matter, and I don't particularly like being sworn at in anger, either. The context is vital. --bonadea contributions talk 17:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think what we're seeing is a clash of culture, and not actionable. Clearly, "go fuck yourself" was unacceptable, as it was directed at a person. That's already been addressed. I also note Celia, that you "quoted" while redacting the quote. Clearly, you don't even want to repeat what others have said, and that's fine too (although, when I did a similar thing IRL, I was advised strongly not to do so). The simple fact of the matter is that, in different parts of society, in different societies, the frequency of profanity varies. That's just something we have to live with. I would ask Davey2010 to try and make a conscious effort to reduce profanity somewhat, as it will avoid needless conflict. However, it's certainly nothing actionable, in and of itself. Please don't make this a gender issue, Celia. Everybody swears. Maybe in some places, there's a gender difference in the words used (i.e. "fuck" vs "bitch"). However, I'd ask that you please try and avoid getting offended when somebody swears, for the mere word. If it's not Davey2010, it'll be somebody else: like what I asked of Davey2010, taking such an approach will avoid needless conflict. Hopefully, there won't be another ANI report on this. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comments like "fuck you", "go fuck yourself", "fucking idiot", "fucking moron", "shit for brains", and the like, when aimed (directly or indirectly) at other editors are extreme, aggressive, and unacceptable violations of WP:CIVIL. For many users, these phrases are highly, highly offensive, and their use should absolutely not be tolerated. Cbl62 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cbl62. While some cultures may view profanity as acceptable and others do not, that does not matter. What matters is how do we view it here on Wikipedia. For that, go to the policy WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL which states that direct rudeness including "gross profanity" is uncivil.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And bear in mind WP:CIVIL is one of our core principles. This is block-worthy conduct IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• My 2¢ How one communicates with others is a direct reflection on their respect for those around them and how they wish others to view and treat themselves. Which is to say that polite people do not use potty language casually when speaking (or writing) unless it is their intent to offend or declare to all that they have no consideration for their sensibilities. Some allowance should be made for those who are greatly agitated or provoked. But unless the language is clearly directed at another editor there is no "rule" other than the normal ones involving common courtesy. I should also note that there is no rule requiring that any response or even acknowledgement be extended to those who choose to be rude and or crass as a matter of course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum Apparently the gratuitous use of gutter language is considered WP:UNCIVIL. I stand very happily corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I feel I should add I treat everyone with respect - "Treat others how you want to be treated" is something I've always been brought with and followed, Ofcourse at times I've fell short of that sentiment but we're not perfect, I expect to be spoken too with respect just like I'm expected to treat others with respect and as I've said I've for the majority always spoken to editors here with respect. –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WTF, as they say in Saudi Arabia. I guess it's still better than saying faggot? But it's certainly not just Davey. Some editors can't help but make an exhibition of their edit summaries. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that (as Bellzzasolo pointed out) most of this conflict is due to what people define as "gross" profanity. I would suggest an RFC, but I am not confident that an RFC would help. Personally, I think that both sides have a point. No, I don't think profanity should be eliminated, however, try not to be too extreme. I do think that Davey's swearing is too gratuitous, however, opposing the word "fuck" being used at all is too strict of a measure, as it is a normal part of language used by people. My opinion is that this ANI should be closed, with reminders to all parties involved that what is viewed as excessive profanity varies from person to person, and to try not to use profanity if the other person in the conversation is uncomfortable with it. Don't unnecessarily aggravate people by using profanity. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Waht ThePlatypusofDoom said. That said, I guess we'll never return to the days when greater decorum was required. We can complain all we wish about such examples of the vernacular, but I don't see it having an effect w/o a massively contentious RfC.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"I guess we'll never return to the days when greater decorum was required." Depends on what you mean by "decorum". WP:CIVIL is a core principle, and it expressly prohibits "gross profanity". Using profane words in an encyclopedic sense, as part of a content discussion, is one thing. Spraying gross profanity in talk page discussions, directly or indirectly targeting other editors, is an entirely different matter and plainly violates WP:CIVIL. Such incivility is perceived by many as pure aggression and bullying. We need to maintain civility. It is time to enforce our core principles. Doing so will be a huge plus in our efforts at editor retention. Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note In response to my evidence, diffs, and comments above, Davey first says, "Many thanks for your comments", then posts that my comments are "rather boring now", "you have an axe to grind and that's the whole reason you're here", shouts by using all caps in order to discredit my comments/diffs/evidence, and "stop derailing the report". Three minutes later he responds to Ad Orientem with, "I treat everyone with respect". His treatment of the OP is/was not respect, his comments in response to my own show no respect - that's why we are posting the diffs and general complaint. Is anyone else starting to see a real disconnect here (I'm hesitating to flat out call it denial) from Davey? At any rate, I think we're dealing with something larger than the occasional and now escalating use of "Fuck off!". I'll let others come to their own conclusions and be done with this report now, unless someone has a particular comment or question for me specifically. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh dear oh dear!, I struck it to avoid a derailing!, Any opportunity to stick the axe in eh!, Don't you have better things to do like I dunno .... Improve the encyclopedia? .... –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• A silly squabble, it seems, but only potentially. If only edit summaries could be as easily struck, retracted or modified(?) And heaven knows I've left a few in that category. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A separate ANI case may be needed to resolve the conflict between Davey2010 and Winkelvi, as it seems separate to the focus of this thread. I'd prefer that the respective editors would work it out on their talk pages (as going ANI isn't a very good way to resolve disputes), but it's clear that that won't happen. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

messed up the template again, putting this comment so Davey2010 will see this ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intent here, ThePlatypusofDoom. I'm not here to bring up my recent unpleasant and problematic encounters with Davey2010 to seek sanctions as a result of them, I'm here to show that there is an increasing pattern of behavior that he's denying, not seeing, or being dishonest about. What he's doing/has done to the OP is just as troubling as how he's been interacting with me for a month, and after saying he would not longer behave in such a manner, obviously has been -- and not with just one editor. That's a problem. If he has had similar incidents addressed here in the past (as he states above) but on a grander scale and now, out of nowhere, the same sort of behavior is escalating in frequency and affecting more than one editor, that's also a problem, as well as a likely harbinger if something isn't done to cut it off at the knees (so to speak). I don't need anything done for my specific complaints/evidence presented, the community needs something done to keep this from becoming a habit with Davey that will repeat itself and likely further escalate (if his past behavior - which he brought up freely - is an indicator of what things could become once again). Anytime you see an old, bad behavior resurface - even if just a little ad especially when it's behavior that hurts others and the general editing environment in the way of civility - attention needs to be paid and measures need to be taken. Let me make it clear: I'm not here for me, I'm here because this problematic and harmful behavior is affecting others and will continue to do so unless it's adequately recognized for what it is and dealt with appropriately. You have two people who are reporting that they feel needlessly attacked, disrespected and bullied because of behavior that's against policy. What does it say about civility policy and the Five Pillars in general if this is brushed under the carpet and a blind eye is turned? Answer: it gives permission for the individual being reported to continue in the same manner. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Again to clarify I said I wouldn't say "Go and fuck yourself" again ..... I never said I wouldn't say the f word or specifically "f off" again ..... I've always said FO in rage always have and always will do ..... As I said I've learnt to control the anger and not get irate so easily and so I still stand by the fact that the FOs are rare ..... It still happens sure but certainly not as much as it used too,

As I've said elsewhere I've always had short-patience/anger issues .... Always have and always will ..... I'm not suddenly going to become this cool-headed/plenty of patience guy .... that'll never happen,

Celia has brought up diffs of me using the f word word .... if they were all "f offs" or being generally abusive then I could understand the report but saying the f word alone isn't really "harmful" as such but some of the diffs above are certainly below par and below standards expected here and as a decent humanbeing for which I have and still do apologise for,

As noted in the 2016 discussion realistically a huge discussion needs to happen on Meta or somewhere that addresses the Civility issue - That's not me "dodging a sanction" that's just me being honest, I'm not trying to dig a hole but I won't ever change .... Sure I've come a long way since 2016 and certainly control my anger and language a lot better and continue to do so but realistically and being honest I won't ever change in that when I get angry I won't swear .... because I will ..... That's just a bad trait I have ... Wish I didn't ... but I do. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If you could limit yourself to just the odd one, people would be so pleased. That way you'll be pressing less buttons and folks might even raise a toast and buy you a jar? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC) ... or maybe being hauled here every few months, to defend yourself, is penalty enough?

• Additional note Now we have Davey admitting above he has a personal problem with temper/anger issues. That when he says "fuck off" (which he has done more than once here in the last 30 days), it was because he was "in a rage". He says he's always done that and always will. First concern with this admission from my perspective is that he's going into rages while editing here, second concern is that he has no intention of doing anything to change his response when he goes into a rage (which is to say/type "fuck off"). He says he has anger issues and he's not going to become cool headed or have patience. Indeed, "that'll never happen", he states. Let me point out that Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY. If one cannot control their anger issues in a text-only environment where the delete key is literally at their fingertips, if they can't stop themselves from hitting <enter> when they should, if people are complaining about outbursts that occur because of the reported editor's anger and rage issues, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for them (again, WP:NOTTHERAPY) -- unless something substantive can be done to facilitate the individual getting themselves together impulse-wise and only editing when capable of following policy on civility (as well as closings - see below for explanation on this). Do I want to see a productive editor leave? No, I do not. That said, this is not the first time he has been brought here for the exact same thing: incivility and inability to control their impulses when both have been harmful and disruptive. The following AN/I occurred on this very topic in January 2016: [107]. Also please note that the report was over both a huge amount of early closures in addition to civility and that just a few days ago, early closure via Davey2010 was again an issue: [108]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• So instead of discussing it like a normal human being you resort to more bullshittery like the above, God give me strength, It's worth nothing I've never made my anger/temper a secret .... I said it in the 2016 discussion and elsewhere since ...... Winkelvi you're not even worth a reply, Kindly go elsewhere where you'll be more help because right now you really aren't of any help whatsoever, Fuel to the fire and all that. –Davey2010^Talk 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to impose an editing restriction-- "Davey2010" will not use the word in question in a comment or edit summary for six months, restriction to be reviewed at that time." Y'all can work out the nuts and bolts. There is a whole plethora of words one might use in lieu of the word in question, many of them less grating. I know W can be edited by anyone, but I think we can all labor to increase our word power.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - Having looked at my edit summary search last year I've used the word every month bar January .... and it's virtually continued this year too which I'm genuinely very shocked at, Could I ask that we hold off this for now as I would like to change my ways without the community monitoring me 24/7 .... That's not me escaping it that's me genuinely wanting to do it for myself, I've got myself into this mess so would like get myself out of it if that makes sense. –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was left this edit summary for wanting to add the nac tag to a close which I add when I see its missing, just so folks know. I really don't mind Davey2010's language, I more mind him telling me and others what to work on and saying our additions are a waste and "do something productive" ect. --Malerooster (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• ouch, even Dappy wouldn't like that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Malerooster - Not having a go and I know we improve the project in all our little ways but I personally don't see how adding NAC tags is an improvement .... sure it tells people I'm not an admin but everyone knows that anyway so I personally don't see the need to it but that being said that certainly doesn't justify that comment for which I sincerely apologise for, –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but everyone knows that anyway How so? Anybody wandering by wouldn't. Anyways, apologes accepted and I am not recommending any admin action be taken here. --Malerooster (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I just don't see how this is actionable. We don't police vulgarity, we don't even enforce the civility policy like this. It's understandable that the OP was deeply offended by the original comment. "Go fuck yourself" is a very strong personal attack. But the core problem there was the personal attack, not the use of vulgarity specifically. And, Davey apologized for that. Now comes the OP again, saying that the same behavior is continuing. The diffs don't support that. The three examples are him using the F word in a completely different context. While it is still uncivil to use vulgarity like that, we simply don't police language like this (provided it isn't a personal attack). For anyone. We just don't. And, I think it's unfair that Davey is being singled out for those diffs, none of which are particularly severe. I agree with the above assessment that this is more of a culture clash than anything. OP is clearly sensitive to this kind of language. But has anyone thought to approach Davey about his use of language, and ask him to temper it? We can't have people reported to AN/I just because they drop the F bomb like this. Swarm ♠ 00:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This entire argument has gone on for too long, as there has clearly not been any resolution. I agree with Swarm. We just need to close this discussion, as no progress has been made. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, @Martinevans123: I don't understand why you are creating so many links in your responses. It's slightly annoying (to me, anyways), so could you please stop? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As Davey has acknowledged this as an area of potential personal growth, and as a journey he is prepared to make, I think we are done here.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, the incivility and the "fuck you/fuck off" personal attacks in edit summaries are much, much more frequent than even I realized. I will be providing diffs soon. It goes back months, and months. This is extremely disappointing. Both that it's been ignored and that Davey has been either so incredibly oblivious re: his behavior and how it's a vio of both WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, but also because he's not been forthright about it until he was cornered as the discussion above went on and more evidence was presented. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll just dump this here - You clearly want me blocked and it's clearly not going to happen - I've admitted my issues and have stated I'll try and change that (and this is true I will) .... so why not accept that instead of continuing this stupid nonsense ? ....., Also as for the diffs don't bother - I've already stated this has gone on throughout 2017 and 2018 so all's your doing is backing up what i've already just said ..... (ie you're wasting your time and mine)..... Can someone close this before Winkelvi ends up blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To be continued here with edit summary diffs. Keep in mind that this is only the result of edit summaries with the use of "fuck off" and similar attacks - this does not include any other personal attacks in edit summaries by Davey2010:

• April 2018 - "Fucking idiot" [109]; "Go & fuck yourself" [110]; "get off your lazy arse and help source it instead of removing the entire fucking thing!" [111]; "Oh do fuck off seriously" [112]; "fuck it" [113]; "the IP is mentally challenged and is seemingly unaware they can add fucking content without reverting .... All this over a fucking space" [114]; "Fucking idiot!" [115]; "Fuck off!, Just sayin'" [116]
• March 2018: "Rv table fuck-up" [117];
• February 2018: "Fuck off" [118]; "Fucking snowflake generation" [119]; "Don't be fucking stupid!" [120]; "Well dipshit remove the offending edit!, Don't fucking revert everyone" [121];
• January 2018: "Fuck off and read WP:AGF" [122]; "Fucksake man wake up" [123]; "Fucksake - again rm plastic dates" [124]; "fucksake" [125]; "RV as not tests or fucking wreckage" [126]; "How fucking sad and pathetic" [127]; "That can fuck off aswell" [128]; "What the actual fuck has happened to COMMON SENSE on this place ?" [129]; "fucksake" [130];
• December 2017: "Fuck it not arguing with a brick wall, If you didnt have your head so far up your arse you'd see I'm trying to help you but whatever!" [131]; "Fuck off (and whilst you're at it go read WP:DTTR" [132]; "You could've told me that not ALL the dates were changed back instead of acting like a total twat over it!, Give me fucking strength" [133];
• November 2017: "How about you both knock it the fuck off" [134]; "you can fuck right off...Stay the fuck off this page" [135]; "fuck it restored" [136]; "Time wasting article: fuck it" [137];
• October 2017: "Fuck off." [138]; "The logo is small enough for fucksake" [139]; "fuck it" [140]; "Seriously just fuck off." [141]; "fixed another fuck up" [142];
• September 2017: "Removed rfc as utter waste of fucking time" [143]; "fuck it, Absolute waste of fucking time" [144]; "fuck it" [145];
• July 2017: "fuck off." [146]; "Fuck off dickhead." [147]; "I couldn't give a flying fuck - Keeping this open is adding fuel to the fire - If you don't like my actions drag me to ANI!" [148]; "fuck off." [149];
• June 2017: "fuck off and stop wasting my time!" [150]; "oh fuck off!" [151]; "fuck off then" [152]: "fuck it" [153];
• May 2017: "go to the talkpage for fucksake" [154]; "Well genius if you added a source I would fuck off!" [155]; "Fuck it." [156]; "stop edit warring and fucking discuss it" [157];
• April 2017: "Yeah dude I've been here 4 fucking years I think I know how to warn people!, Might I suggest you go and read wp:dttr!?" [158]; "good fucking god who decided yellow was a great idea ?" [159]; "doens't need a fuckton of numbers!" [160];
• March 2017: "Removing depracted syntax isn't fucking vandalism" [161]; "fuck it not edit warring over something so stupid" [162];
• February 2017: "What part of "unsourced" do you not fucking understand ?, It's even linked for fucksake!" [163];
• December 2016: "fuck off" [164];
• November 2016: "Stop fucking around with the indents -No one cares about LISTGAP" [165];
• September 2016: "Fucksake does everyone have to copy me?" [166]; "Fuck it I'm wasting my time, What's the fucking point of consensus if we're going to throw the "I disagree" towel in, Utter bullshit" [167]; "Fuck off prick!" [168]; "leave my comment the fuck alone" [169];
• August 2016: "Grow the fuck up man" [170]; "Either talk to me in a polite and civil manner or stay the fuck off of this page." [171]; "fucksake nvm" [172];
• June 2016: "FUCK IT CAPS IT SHALL BE" [173]; "What idiot replaces a photo with an even shitter one and of a model that's not even fucking known outside of Australia?" [174]; "NVM will fuck off to the talkpage" [175];
• May 2016: "change it back for fucksake" [176]; "Consensus is to delete for fucksake." [177]; "fuckign eit confs" [178];
• April 2016: "you win fuck it" [179]; "fuck it" [180]; "grow the fuck up" [181]; "Oh fuck off." [182]; "fuck it" [183];
• March 2016: "Fuck off troll" [184]; "shove your apology up your arse - I have twice apologized and still you wanna argue so fuck it I'm done with ya" [185]; "Aren't you a happy fucker!" [186]; "are you fucking kidding me?" [187]; "I don't give a fuck, mate" [188];
• February 2016: "todays generation is fucked beyond all hope" [[189];
• January 2016: "No now fuck off." [190]; "Give it a rest for fucksake" [191]; "As I just fucking said the linking doesn't fucking work!" [192]; "No fuck off." [193].

Houston, we have a problem. The above is more than two years of evidence of what Davey claims he rarely does. If this isn't a completely unnecessary overuse of gross profanity, I don't know what is. If this isn't vile, repeated abuse toward other editors using gross profanity, I don't know what is. As you can see, there were hundreds of edits where Davey didn't give in to his inability to control himself and his immaturity in communication style, and then he would go on total tares in edit summary after edit summary. You can also see that it's been escalating over the last several months - this totally discounts his claim that he rarely tells people to "fuck off". But overall, this is just abusive and egregious, plain and simple. He admits above that he has no intention to change, that he cannot control his impulses to personally attack, abuse via language, and act in an uncivil manner and doesn't want to control it. Wikipedia is not therapy; we aren't obligated to allow him to find himself through this behavior and turn himself around and I believe it would be irresponsible to allow him to continue in this manner without some sort of restriction. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Might be time to drop the stick... Doesn't seem like this will go anywhere useful for anyone. Zchrykng (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Time well spent Winkelvi time well spent!, Looking at that is what truly made me realise I need to stop with the anger and certainly need to stop with the language (Had I looked at my edit summary sooner I would've certainly got a grip sooner), I find it rather sad that Winkelvi is using this whole thing to get me blocked after our little altercation a few months ago .... They clearly dislike me which clearly shows above. –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel I should add this again but despite Winklevis desperate attempt in having me blocked .... As noted under Dlohcierekim's reply I have certainly acknowledged my language is very poor (very being an understatement) however allowing one to get a grip and (excuse the language) fix their shit is better than pointlessly blocking, Whilst the incivility is a bad trait I do have good ones such as improving and rescuing articles so I'm not all doom and gloom :),

It's a new month ..... I've not said the f word once (even tho I've wanted too!) .... so I'm on a roll already! :). –Davey2010^Talk 02:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support block. Having read all of the above, I strongly support a block for Davey2010 for a period of at least 24 hours with escalating blocks if the behavior persists. The persistent use of aggressive, hostile, uncivil, and bullying language has no place on Wikipedia. I can't believe that we've gotten to a point where some commentators actually believe it's no big deal or that we should "drop the stick". To the contrary, behavior like this is precisely why the stick was invented! Cbl62 (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cbl62 .... " The persistent use of aggressive, hostile, uncivil, and bullying language has no place on Wikipedia" - Agreed which is why I've said for the uumpteenth time I'll change the way I say things in future, What would blocking achieve ? ... Plenty of editors here use the word and it's not hard to find them .... You being one of them[194] (One comment, 8 years ago - Point still stands), Hardly fair to block someone whilst it continues with everyone else, As I said a more sensible resolution would be to start a meta discussion on it ......, I've admitted my mistakes and offered to put that right ...... There isn't more one can do.... –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your stated willingness to change. The fact remains, however, that a 24-hour block is warranted and represents a fairly minimal slap on the wrist that hopefully will reinforce the message. The fact that you thought it important to dig through 10 years of my history simply because I spoke up here is concerning; it suggests a mindset that anyone who speaks up against you ought to be met with some form of reprisal. Not good. In any event, the item you noted from 8 years ago relates to an article concerning the city of Fucking, Austria. Use of "Fucking" in this context is encyclopedic and appropriate; not even remotely comparable to telling another editor to "fuck off" or calling them a "fucking idiot". Cbl62 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cbl62, the blocking policy is that blocks are not issued for the sake of punishing individuals, but as a preventative measure to stop disruption or damage. Given that Davey2010 has folded completely to this discussion, what are you preventing? Your comments read very much like you want smack Davey on the nose and say "bad dog".
Davey2010, some of those diffs that Winkelvi has presented are of unacceptable behaviour. Calling the IP "mentally challeged", referring to editors as "idiots" or "dipshits", and other personal attacks are beyond the pale. I'm all for people being allowed to curse on occasion, but not to attack other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCKDETERRENT: Blocks are appropriate to "deter" disruptive behavior and to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Given the egregious and lengthy abuse, a short block is appropriate to "deter" and "encourage". An apology and promise to do better are good steps indeed, but a gentle application of the stick may assist Davey2010 in controlling his admitted impulse-anger-control problem. Cbl62 (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: See WP:NOPUNISH blocks shouldn't be used as punishment against editors. If Davey2010 was arguing that they didn't need to make any changes, you might have a point, but since they have acknowledged things need to change, a block seems unwarranted. Zchrykng (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose would not be to "punish"; it would be to "deter" and "encourage". A promise is great, but it has added force when the promisor realizes that the community enforces its core policies. Cbl62 (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Davey2010 used to be a very mild-mannered and very civil editor, mild-mannered to the point of often not fully standing up for his concerns. About a year or two ago his interaction style did a 180 and he is rarely able to be civil now when he disagrees with someone or when he dislikes something. I find it baffling, but there it is. We had the same thing happen with Chris troutman (talk · contribs), whose interaction style also did a 180 into near-constant incivility, and after a couple of ANI threads similar to these re: Davey2010, Chris got an official final admonishment from an administrator that he would be sanctioned or blocked at the sign of further incivility [195]. I personally think the same thing needs to happen here. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 1 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.

It's often surprising how folks can get so easily annoyed. It seems use of the F-word is pretty widespread, even in this encyclopedia. For many people it's just common parlance. Please remove this if you find it offensive. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I just wanted to take the time to sincerely apologise to the community for not only excessively using that word but for also making some of the comments I have and I also wanted to sincerely apologise to those I've used personal attacks at,

Having taken a few days to self-reflect I've realised I certainly had fell below the standards as a Wikipedian here and as I said above a decent human being,

Having seen a few incivility-blocks lately I've realised I certainly should've been blocked for a good half of what I said and more over some of the incivil comments in other threads haven't been anywhere near grossly incivil as mine and yet those editors have/had been blocked,

For whatever reason whether it was anger or general annoyance I ended up relying on that word all to much and all too often and it certainly shouldn't of been that way - I thought the usage wasn't as frequent but instead it was on a daily basis and as I said it shouldn't of been like that,

I don't take the "not blocked" as "Waheey escaped a block" I take it as "I was very lucky but using it as a personal attack could see a rather long block"

Ofcourse as I've realistically been using it since I've been here[196] (and as I use it when in anger IRL) I'm not going to be able to fully eradicate it here so there is going to be the odd time where I'll tell someone to FO in a rage but there's a stark difference with saying FO in rage and using the word all day everyday - Ofcourse that's not me doubling down I'll still work on it and will clearly stop with the PAs,

I got an "Editor of the month" award years ago for being peaceful but I feel like I've gone from as Softlavender says a mild-mannered guy to someone who screams "FUCK YOU, FUCK OFF, FUCKSAKE, FUCK, FUCK, FUCK" at everyone and that really isn't me,

Anyway I feel like I've waffled on enough for one day but just wanted to sincerely apologise to the community as well as to everyone I've launched the PAs at (I'd ping you all if there wasn't so many people!),

Anyway thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparent behavioral problems at Portal:Baltimore

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 became aware of a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Baltimore. My work to improve the portal has been called "vandalism" by User:Legacypac who has reverted the changes, calling them "ugly". They probably ARE and I requested help with colors, but reversion is not helpful. Editor has made multiple comments that appear uncivil and now the reversion of the edits that the AFD calls for in the improvement are becoming disruptive to the process of collaboration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand this struck me as rather questionable behavior, but on the other, it looks as though the moment has passed, and the changes will be allowed to remain. So I don't see that there is anything to do other than a Sternly Worded Message. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 30 April 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.

Link spammer

MirkaNur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding spamming articles with links that he is affiliated with. I and others have warned them about this, but they don't seem to get the message. Eik Corell (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This alone would raise WP:CIR concerns. The draft they made (and I deleted) was to a pirating site that set off my security software. I'm inclined to believe that the other links they were adding were to malware-ridden software. I've blocked them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic/trolling at Talk:Cathy Newman

Would a neutral admin mind looking into Talk:Cathy Newman § Conflict of interest? There seem to be a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS being thrown around by several editors, e.g. here, here, and here. I doubt whether any sanctions are warranted, but maybe hatting the discussion would encourage editors to focus on actual content discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I left an NPA warning for 4serendipity. The diff for Madhulovespotatoes is old; if it had been more recent I would have blocked for it, but I will leave them a templated warning also. Now that we're here, I think it's a good idea if we have more eyes (admin eyes, BLP eyes) on this biography: there does seem to be a smear campaign happening here, waged by highly wiki-literate SPIs in whose honesty I have little faith; esp. Madhulovespotatoes is, it seems to me, a former regular. So, if any admins here can look at this--for edit warring, BLP violations (or DS), personal attacks and unfounded accusations, possible collusion, etc., that would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. DS related to gender-related controversies also apply (and are sometimes easier to enforce). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm article

The Wikipedia article about The Times journalist Oliver Kamm is being altered with the addition of a non-reliable source by User:86.63.4.158 (Talk). The user will not be persuaded one of the sources he adds is inadmissible. An apparently forthcoming court case he references, between Kamm and Neil Clark (in which I have a COI, as the inadmissible source, Clark's blog, mentions myself), is so far not covered by any reliable source. The other citation is an entirely inappropriate article from 2006 (although an RS, as it comes from The Guardian) which mentions an earlier court case between the same plaintiff and defendant which was dismissed and, as it is the only usable source, is clearly non-notable. Philip Cross (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Draft:Official narrative is a fun read. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• I was going to leave a warning but NeilN (thank you) has already done so. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk issuse

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 saw Yudhacahyo move his own user talk page to another unregistered user talk page, see [197], thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:42, 3 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.

Complaint about Akandkur

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.

---

Akandkur is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, he just wants to throw people off. For instance, in KTVU and KRON-TV, he puts information on cable channels in the "Digital channels" section. [198] [199]. He has also added inaccurate or irrelevant information into many other articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I think WP:AGF applies to this case. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:59, 3 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 by User:LMB2239

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:LMB2239 is making legal threats concerning the deletion of Dan DeBono (SEAL). See [200] reddogsix (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks RickinBaltimore for beating me to it. NLTs are $10, so I guess we won't eat meat this weekend. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 3 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.

NLT

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.

---

Here. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for the obvious threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

John just f***ing run for admin already so you don't have to bother us with this stuff, OK? Drmies (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't afford the cut in pay. Don't you realize how much scratch I make removing puffery from school articles? John from Idegon (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude. They pay you for that? That explains a lot... Drmies (talk) 01:46, 3 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.

Serious personal attacks by User:*Treker

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 editor has continually directed insults toward other users like "pathetic hypocritical edit warrior",[201] "retard",[202] "tool",[203] "dictator",[204] "dumb",[205] "incompetent"[206] and "dense",[207] often while using profanity. He told one user to "Fuck off and die".[208] *Treker has a previous block on his resume, as well as multiple talk page warnings that have been removed with hostile edit summaries. I propose another block, in the hope of dissuading these ongoing, massive WP:CIVIL vios (and lack of respect for WP:3RR). 31.14.75.44 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• As the term Retard is offensive in the UK (whereas in the US it's used freely) I shan't comment on that but no one IRL or on any website deserves to be told "Fuck off and die" that's IMHO blockable right there. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have placed the required notice on the user's talk page. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 I live in the United States. Calling someone a retard is offensive. There are a lot of hate speech terminology used on both sides of the Atlantic, but they are not acceptable, neither in normal conversation nor on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah right my apologies, In that case I would say that comment too warrants a block, It's one thing calling someone an idiot or moron but another to call them that. –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Per edit summary "Undid revision 839351054 by Maile66 (talk) Already got one, and a ping. Was too hard to check that first I guess. Stop contacting me, I'm not going to engage." At least we tried to open dialogue with the editor. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked for 48 hours log. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you BrownHairedGirl. I was looking into this and I thought I knew what I was going to say: yeah some of those are bad, but most are old, Treker do that again and I'll block you". I think it certainly is bad enough for a block, and I was working toward an argument for an indefinite block unless the user addresses this immediately. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User:*Treker, I hope you are listening. You may well have gotten off easy. This stuff is completely unacceptable, and that you did it in edit summaries makes it even worse. User:BrownHairedGirl, I'm considering rev-deletion for a couple of them. What do you think? Drmies (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Yes several rev-deletions needed. Some of that stuff is appalling.
      There is indeed a case for an indefinite block, but per WP:ROPE I thought it best to start with a bloc just a little longer than the usual 24 hours, to give them a chance to reform. With that awful history, I would support an indef if there is any recurrence ... and the immediate reversion[209] of my bloc notice suggests that no lessons will be learnt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Yeah. Well they're pissed, and "pointlessness" (no idea what that refers to) is better than the ones I just rev-deleted. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Not the communicative sort, I guess. I did leave them a piece of my mind. A small piece, as I've not that much to spare.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:58, 2 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 TPA for 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.

---

self explanatory. Spamming racist garbage, personal attacks all over talk page.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:29, 2 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.

Asking for mediation on Hunayn ibn Ishaq article

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

---

Hi, could some admin please check on Hunayn ibn Ishaq article and find a solution for the dispute there? The dispute is regarding the ethnicity of Hunayn ibn Ishaq. All reliable sources including all big authorities on Islamic history agree that Hunayn was an Arab who belonged to a Nestorian Christian community known as the "Ibad. For example, Encyclopaedia of Islam [210], The Oxford History of Islam [211], Encyclopædia Britannica [212], to mention only a few.
The user Chaldean however, tried to change the article claiming that there was an equally sourced claim that says Hunayn was an Assyrian. I had a discussion with him in the talk-page and refuted all of his claims. The user failed to produce even one reliable source for his statements, instead he brought up two sources one of them is written by a psychiatrist and the other by a books editor. None of them has a specialty on Islamic history and so, per Wikipedia rules, are unreliable. To spare you the trouble of reading the long discussion, you can easily go and read my last reply there. It sums up the discussion and presents both my sources and his ones. You can then decide which version of the article should be used given the available sources. My version or His version. Viaros17 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Viaros17: This noticeboard is not for content disputes such as what you describe. There are forms of dispute resolution for precisely these kind of issues—click that link. Also, there is a "request for comment" procedure in which uninvolved editors give opinions with which a consensus can be established. But, I advise you (all of you—Chaldean, Kingesh and Farawahar) that a perfectly policy-based response for a passing admin would be 24-hour blocks all round for edit-warring. That page is a complete mess, you need to stick to talking about it on the talk page, not carry on edit-warring through the discussion. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. Believe me I tried my best to find a solution for the dispute on the talk-page. However, the concerned user had a clear POV to push and never accepted the fragility of his stance and sources. Viaros17 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Viaros7: Also, you must notify editors if you are discussing them here: there is a big yellow box at the top of the page when you have the edit-window open that states: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page—and even gives you the template to do so. I have done so for you, but pease remember. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Thanks serial number, but Viaros17 is pushing his POV, saying no reliable sources exist for Assyrian claim. I’n not going to discuss this here and am going to the talk page of the article, but just to give you a perspective, here are two sources for the Assyrian claim :[213], [214]. I found these sources with a five minutes research on google. Now the article is protected with the false version of Viaros17 who removed a legit claim and its associated sources. See you on the talk page Viaros17 ...—>Farawahar (talk) 14:48, 2 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 Korean vandal

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

---

• 47살 윤 모 씨 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been spamming "Why block." in Korean and later a personal attack on the blocking admin, Cryptic. Can anyone pull the talk page plug on him? Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Account has been globally locked, so there's no longer a need to revoke ralk. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 07:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also filed a global lock request around the same time as this; I did not expect it to be locked quickly than revoking talk page access. The account appears to be an LTA, according to -revi, who is the one who quickly locked it. It's now done, so closing this. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:54, 2 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.

Revdel request

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, Can someone block Djakins01 as well as revdel their edits here and here please?,
I reported it at AIV where Ad Orientem blocked them and then unblocked them "because they were insufficiently warned" ..... As far as I knew edits such as those made by this editor certainly do not require warnings but please correct me if I'm wrong. –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Revdeled the BLP vio. The editor has been warned. They only had three edits but if there is anymore of this re-report to AIV or ping me and I will reblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Not having a go but if you're interested in editing here then you don't go around calling BLPs THAT do you?, IMHO it's a vandalism only account and the edit summary "changed general info back. only did it for the meme" backs that up, Ofcourse I'm not the admin so what do I know eh. Thanks anyway –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If I am going to err, and I do now and then, I prefer to do so on the side of restraint. If they persist in their behavior blocking them is fairly easy and there really isn't anything they can do that can't be fixed with a few clicks. But I do agree that their behavior, all of 3 edits, does smell like NOTHERE. Another admin might easily look at the same edits and just block them. If it's any comfort you are not the first editor to grumble that I am overly reluctant to pull the trigger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. It's getting late here so I will be offline until tomorrow morning. If there is anymore trouble from them tonight just send it back to AIV and reference this discussion. Their next disruptive edit (if there is one) will be their last. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is linked to the mass vandalism from. Facebook group thread just above. Vandalism only account blocked indefinitely. Fish+Karate 06:10, 2 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.

Morocco

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

---

I am writing because moroccan people, always think almoravid and almohad was morrocan, but they was Berber countries (Sanhaya and Masmuda respectively).

Not always Berber is Morrocan...

I can find any historical link between Almoravid and Morocco, because the legitimate heir was Banu Ghaniya not their rebels Almoravids.Lucas-Recio (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, Lucas-Recio, but you are describing a content dispute. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Discuss your concerns on the talk pages of the articles in question, keeping in mind that Wikipedia articles ought to summarize what the range of various reliable sources say about a topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lucas-Recio: However, calling someone a "racist troll" is a matter for this board, and is not looked upon kindly. Also advise you to not continue changing articles to remove mentions of Morocco in relation Almoravid or Almohad until you've gained a consensus to do so, as doing changes on numerous articles like this is disruptive, especially after people already have contested them with reverts Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:26, 2 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.

SPA Papaw1298: edit warring, apparent vandalism and 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.

---

A user, Papaw1298 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been changing biographical information in the articles of various country music artists. In nearly every case that I have examined, the change clearly introduces an error. (In a couple of cases, sources may disagree. I discerned that on my own, however; Papaw1298 has cited no sources.) They have edit warred repeatedly to insert what appears to be incorrect information, and they have failed to respond to any of the messages posted to their talk page. Judging from their edits, there is a strong likelihood that they are the same user as Calebf19279, which was blocked as a vandalism-only account by Oshwah on April 13. A sample of diffs:

• Changed birthplace without explanation or source;
• Changed birthdate without explanation or source to a date that contradicts information on [the subject's own website;
• Made this change eight times and were reverted by five different editors;
• Made a similar unexplained, unsourced change that remained unreverted for two weeks.

Just for the record, I reported this user at AIV a couple days back. There was a backlog and my report was removed as stale. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged. In the future, though, reporting sock puppets to WP:SPI makes the record-keeping easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 1 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 by Lugnuts

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 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#ESPNcricinfo_citation: "Cricket246 being a WP:DICK again. "Cricinfo" on its own is also fine. And also keep an eye on this troll's edits on 2019 Cricket World Cup too."; "Don't you have anything better to do than change a date here and there and a C from upper to lowercase? The answer is no, incase you were struggling. You add zero value to this project, a total net drain to everyone. Go find something productive to do with your life or get lost." Cricket246's great crime? Gnomily changing Cricinfo to ESPNCricinfo, among other changes (which by the way is the correct name, and is generally used in cricket articles). Other choice attacks: "idiot", "stop being a WP:DICK", "the rat is back", Need I say more? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per "troll", and "go find something better to do with your time", from a month ago, Lugnuts is continually harassing Cricket246 over minor gnomey edits, calling them "troll" for no apparent reason. But the WP:PAs done today are especially vicious, necessitating and deserving a long block and maybe an interaction ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This, this and this are, I agree, completely unacceptable. I see no attempt made to discuss this particular issue with the other user, but I do see a pattern of haranguing them (such as at User_talk:Cricket246#Future_information). I am inclined to block for a week, to give Lugnuts some time to reflect on how to participate in a collegiate editing environment, unless there are objections. Fish+Karate 09:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Those diffs are pretty egregious; go for it. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked Lugnuts (talk · contribs) for one week for gross incivility and abuse of a fellow editor. Happy for that to be reviewed here. Fish+Karate 10:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a step towards making Wikipedia a better place.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm shocked, shocked, to see WP:CRIC regulars subjecting someone to an extended campaign of abuse and harassment. Reyk _YO! 10:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reyk: I think it started here...  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Genuinely chuckled at that. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking over User_talk:Cricket246, half of it Lugnuts bullying Cricket246, over a year and a half; repeatedly tells that Cricket246 would be blocked but never really follows up (without speculating too much on the motivations of Lugnuts, that doesn't look good; seems more using the threat to get their way) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been indirectly mocked about my nationality as well and repeatedly threatened with a permanent block just because I had some opposing views and wanted more discussion on them. The evidences of those are all in my talkpage. I thank the administrators for getting me some justice as I have been subjected to such really bad personal abuse by the same user who wanted to supress my voice on the project but I never really knew what to do or how to report about it so I remained silent. I specially thank Galobtter for his help too in bringing this to everyone's notice. Regards to all and I myself look forward to maintaing good conduct in this site all time. Cricket246 (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would just add a note that we are not (yet) Wikipedia:Requests for Justice - to my great sadness, that link remains red. The aim is to maintain a civil editing environment for everyone who wants to volunteer their time to improve Wikipedia. Justice is a rare byproduct. Fish+Karate 11:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure who it was said "given a choice between justice or mercy, I'll take mercy," but it's a fair point that  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe justice isn't the right word used by me :D But I certainly thank everyone for a fair decision! Cricket246 (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Good block FWIW, a quick perusal of his block log along with scanning the ANI archives shows a history of abusiveness and attacking other editors going back years. --Jayron32 12:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Good block Miniapolis 20:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

While this may have been a good block at the time the fact is Lugnuts apologized in good faith a couple hours ago and Cricket246 accepted the apology in the same spirit. Thus maintaining the block is now "punitive" rather than "preventive" - L's unblock request needs some kind of response at the very least. MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. The worst case scenario is that Lugnuts infringes again, and will then doubtless receive a month's block and no recourse for appeal. Someone please address the unblock request post-haste, we're not here to punish people for being human. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If that sort of abuse and harassment is "being human" then I must be inhuman Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I will likely regret that I write anything here, but I have been harassed by Lugnuts for already several years. It was not in any way close to how he treated Cricket246, possibly because I was administrator until January, but it was still pretty painful, and I had to stop editing because of that in February this year for several weeks. He has been dragged because of that several times to ANI, sometimes by me, sometimes by somebody else. A couple of times he has been told to stop, stopped for a short while, and then continued. More often than that, there was consensus that there was no harassment, it is my own fault, I should shut up and not bring "old grudges" to ANI. To be honest, I was seriously disappointed by the reaction of the community to this harassment. I am disappointed as well that he was allowed to treat Cricket246 for more than a year, and nobody cared. Today indeed they sounded sincere, and I am happy that Cricket246 accepted the apology, but in my experience the situation is way more complex and needs to be closely monitored by administrators. What I would like to avoid is the situation when he gets unblocked and continues behaving like they did before. This is not his first block for harassment, and last time he was already unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This thread and the block are about a specific situation. It has been resolved. If you want a block based on behavioral grounds then you need to start a new thread and gain consensus for that. The "punitive" v "preventative" policy is quite clear. If that policy is needs changing anyone is free to start a RFC. I still do not see a response to the unblock request which is unfortunate. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no real reason to start another thread. And his past behaviour is relevant to how sincere/long-lasting we take his apologies, and in general how we treat his whole situation and the block. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts famously bullies other editors and should be blocked frequently until he gets the point. Shame on any Admin that lifts this block before it is fully served out. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If this had been a one-off instance I would unblock based on that apology. But it wasn’t a one-off instance. Just look at Cricket246’s talk page over the past year or so. There is no evidence of a single bit of remorse from Lugnuts about any of the hostility and harassment he’s displayed towards Cricket246 until he gets blocked for it, and then he’s a changed person. If another admin wants to unblock, go ahead, but I would prefer not. Fish+Karate 05:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agree 100% Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In the UK he could blow up a bus and he'd get a reduction in sentence after that apology. That is his first block in two years so I think making him serve out a 1 week block following a full and unreserved apology is a bit harsh. I would reduce it to the standard 24 hours and put him on notice i.e. any blocks for civility violations and gets the full week. Betty Logan (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Reduction for that bomber maybe from 20 years to 10 years. But a one week block is really a tepid response for 1 year of harassment and for someone blocked before twice before for personal attacks. "standard 24 hours" is for one or two comments out line and a first offense, not for dozens over a period of months. If it reoccurs if after he gets unblocked, getting "the full week" would be monumentally lenient, as we'd know that his apology was meaningless, and that he'll continue. If it reoccurs it should be at-least a month, no doubt. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that Lugnuts removing my comment from his talk page, while allowed, does not inspire confidence in me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he found your comment in any way helpful. Nor is persisting with the block which, from reading all the above, is abundantly clear now a purely punitive block. If Lugnuts transgresses again, the he'll be slapped with a fortnight or a month and no chance of early release. Try to think more clearly folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

An unblock on the condition of the next being a month seems somewhat reasonable, assuming it gets enforced. I wouldn't say the block is punitive now, I'd say it has the qualities of deterrence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, unfortunately, you'd be wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Noting everyone here's thoughts, and most of all the fact that the guy who was treated like shit (Cricket246) has graciously accepted Lugnut's apology and wants to start their editing relationship from scratch with a cordial clean slate, and that I'm always willing to assume good faith, hope for the best, and so on, I've offered to unblock Lugnuts with the caveat that he agrees all the unacceptable behaviour he's apologised for stops, for good, and that he recognizes that any resumption of this nonsense will result in a block of significantly greater length than a week. Fish+Karate 11:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts is now unblocked, after agreeing to these pretty reasonable terms. Fish+Karate 11:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi to all. Everyone deserves a second chance so I accepted Lugnuts' apology. The block being removed is fine as I consider his apology to be genuine. I hope he will be a changed person from now on. In case he repeats the improper behaviour then a stricter punishment should. For now he deserves his 2nd chance and I hope we both can forget the episode and start afresh. Regards to all and thanks for providing me a lot of support during a period of mental pain in Wikipedia. I'm grateful to all of you here. Cricket246 (talk) 12:48, 2 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.

Requesting rangeblocks for banned HarveyCarter

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.

---

Banned User:HarveyCarter has been active at the following IPs. Can we get some rangeblocks or whatever it takes? Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:6391:A500:0:0:0:0/64
• 86.133.85.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 81.135.14.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.133.84.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 81.159.7.93 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 81.132.48.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 81.132.49.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 5.81.223.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 5.81.223.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 5.81.222.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 5.81.222.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 5.81.223.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 5.81.222.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.133.255.164 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I range blocked 2A00:23C4:6380::/43 again, this time for a year. The others are range blocked for a month. I can do them longer if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Superb! Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 1 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.

Help with speedy deletion pages

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

---

Uhhhh. . . somebody deleted Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. How can the page be restored? SemiHypercube (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Restored. I suspect it was empty at the time of deletion, despite the notic eon the category telling admins not to delete it if empty. Courcelles (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

'@RHaworth: did the job.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:31, 30 April 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 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.

---

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

---

A user by the name of User:El pepe15243 has called me a homophobic slur. I know this could very well just be some kid fooling around, but I took it here because anytime someone makes a personal attack, I take it here. I'm not sure whether or not a block is in order, or if we should just let this go. UnsungKing123 (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unaware of that, so thanks for helping out. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 11:04, 30 April 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 we get their talk page keys taken away based on this? (I've reverted.) Nate • (chatter) 16:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Done by NeilN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 30 April 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.

Range block request for 2601:646:8500:EF2::/64

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

---

Requesting a range block for Special:Contributions/2601:646:8500:EF2::/64. Bunch of disruptive, unsourced, unexplained date changes from this range. Brief checks with related articles suggest the changes are to incorrect dates. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I can block longer if they resume the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 30 April 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.

my accounts

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

---

I can't log in my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Sajeb Islam (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Muhammad Sajeb Islam: which ones?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Muhammad Sajeb Islam: if you have lost your password there is a link below the login form with instructions to reset your password. If you cannot recover your password you can create a new account, but please see the advice at WP:ALTACCN to privately notify the Arbitration Committee. If you can log in to your account but are prevented from editing, and you do not have a message as to why you cannot edit, please log in to your account and then submit a request to WP:UTRS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 30 April 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.

Indefinite block for User:*Treker

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 was blocked yesterday for 48 hours (his second block here on Wikipedia) for egregious personal attacks: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive982#Serious_personal_attacks_by_User:*Treker

You will note that multiple senior users were in support of an indefinite block, were *Treker not to change his ways. Today, he has told other users "I hate you",[215] "Get fucked and die",[216] and "Get fucked and die. Like really just get fucked and die all of you cancerous human beings".[217] In the first link, he declares "Fuck this shit site". Perhaps it's time for a permanent vacation from it. 31.14.75.45 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support block - IP was 2 minutes ahead of me - Their edit summary here is beyond vile, We all vent, We all get angry especially when blocked so leeway's given to blocked users .... But there's venting and there's spewing that sort of stuff out, Words fail me. –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think the editor is having a hard time for whatever reason so I do agree they should be left in peace and to cool down for a few days and maybe they could be unblocked ?, I don't condone that comment but when you've got real life issues it's easy to derail. I'd support unblocking in a few days ofcourse. –Davey2010^Talk 16:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• oppose block :No. This was in response to what he perceived as harassment by other editors (including myself). He reverted with a comment asking if he could not just be left alone while blocked. My recommendation is to leave him alone for now. The problematic behavior is fairly recent and escalated suddenly more recently. This was a constructive editor until then. We need to give him some space and observe his behavior when he returns. He just seems truly fed up or burned out, and probably just needs to calm down and sort things out. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User was first blocked two years ago. His non-collaborative behaviour doesn't seem to be new. 31.14.75.45 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (Redacted). –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support block as proposer. Deeply egregious, incessant WP:CIVIL vios after multiple blocks and warnings. 31.14.75.45 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, support extended block with talk page access revoked - give them chance to cool down. GiantSnowman 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• User:NeilN's extended the block to indef. I don't know whether he's seen this discussion or not. —Cryptic 16:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• I indeffed with TPA revoked and a comment before I saw the subsequent comments here. Any admin is free to modify but please, no additional commentary should go on their talk page. Leave them be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Y'all (excepting NeilN) have missed one very important edit summary which I have followed procedure on. Not linking here. Please read between the lines. The user has been severely stressed for some time.--Dlohcierekim (talk)

• Just to note I've emailed the emergency team inregards to one summary - Not sure if it needed doing but would rather be safe than sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• I was going to post "Oppose indef, support extended block with talk page access revoked per GiantSnowman. Maybe a month."

Treker is clearly in a bad place right now, so best to give them timeout to calm down and a chance to bring a new attitude when they return. The indef is done now, and indef does not mean permanent: it just means until the problem has been resolved. So I now support indef. The block can be lifted when Treker is ready to play nice, whenever that is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please archive this?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 3 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.

Sweetpear2

• Sweetpear2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sweet Pear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has had two accounts over a four year period, and has only ever edited the article on Tom Devine. I deleted that article due to long-standing copyright infringement, a new stub was created, and Sweetpear2 immediately started re-adding promotional material copy-pasted form the same source, leading to further revision deletions. I have blocked indef per WP:C, WP:PROMO and in the end also WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Snoopydaniels

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

I have blocked this user per WP:NOTHERE (also possibly WP:RGW). First edit 2010-08-12 18:43, 187 edits total, 23 pages. Early edits include IP to registered account and again promoting the idea that irreducible complexity is a scientific concept (it really isn't). Next mainspace edits were all to Blaire White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), edit-warring to restore misgendering, and agitation for the restoration of the article on creationist Günter Bechly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This user seems to be here solely to fight for Truth™ against all comers. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

IP users using disruptive edit summaries

• 104.32.200.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2605:E000:1610:84F8:0:BDE2:559C:9D2E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For context, please see this prior ANI discussion.

Basically, IP user 104.32.200.134 was blocked previously (per the ANI discussion) for leaving a long trail of disruptive edit summaries (many of them dummy edits0, many of which called out other users in a disruptive manner. After the prior block, the IP has continued the same pattern of behavior -- see, among others, [218], [219], [220], [221], and [222], but just a quick look at the IP's contributions shows a recent history of dummy edits containing disruptive or ranting edit summaries.

In addition, the IP user now has a friend, 2605:E000:1610:84F8:0:BDE2:559C:9D2E, who has been tag teaming with 104.32.200.134, who has been making the exact same types of edits (see [223], [224], [225], and [226]).

Both IP users were blocked for 72 hours last week for harassment, but they started the same pattern of edits again once the blocks expired (I was alerted to this by a tattle-tale type post on my talk page). I'm posting here to request that an administrator keep an IP on these two users because I don't think they're going to stop anytime soon. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aoi: One of these IPs tripped an edit filter earlier as User:Vote (X) for Change. I put in an RPP request to protect this talk page, but it's still pending. Home Lander (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Anky95

New editor User:Anky95 has been problematic since account creation on 24 April. WP:SPA contributions have all been self-promotional, confined to what appears to be an autobio at Arindam Sharma (speedied A7 and G11 on 24 April, now in AFD), and Sharma's unreleased film Advitya (film). Multiple removals of AFD template from both articles after level 4 warning [227][228], as well as via anonymous sock[229] and via obvious sockpuppet User:Sanki011: [230]. Further diffs of disruptive behavior available on request, but I believe I've expended enough effort on this highly disruptive and self-promotional editor, who's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere DS violations

Over at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland there are DS in place, and (in my opinion) User:François Robere is now in breach them [[231]], [[232]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor made a highly contentious suggestion backed by some OR analysis of Greek etymology [233], aimed at pushing an obviously FRINGE position [234]. I opposed it, and made two comments on its factual inaccuracy and circumstances [235][236]. Others have done the same [237]. The OP chose to single me out for no apparent reason, as he has done several times before. This request is unfounded and should be dully rejected. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you're talking about the civility restriction then I don't think François Robere's comments rise to the level of breaking it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• The first diff looks like a perfectly reasonable response to your comment, which you strangely dismissed as "soapboxing". I'm wondering what exactly you felt he was promoting, because the comment comes across as purely academic. Swarm ♠ 21:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"This suggestion to break down the acts to different ethnicities, each "its own victim", is part of the "memory war" some people are engaged in, and an attempt to draw fire away from the subjects of this article: People who, despite or because of the disaster, collaborated with the Nazi forces and enabled their atrocities. Last week we saw a denialist writer offered as a source by an unscrupulous editor; this is another step down the same descent. ", hard to see how that is about improving the project, rather then commentary about off wiki politics.

"Poles as there was for some other groups - namely Jews, Roma, homosexuals, public intellectuals and artists of all dispositions, and the infirm. It may have come to that at a later time - it would probably have come to that at a later time, if there were any Poles left for them to murder - but at that time the Nazies haven't yet had a Wannsee Conference for the Poles.", blatant editorializing and OR.

As I said fair enough if no one thinks that the above is a violation of DS, but academic or not, I still see this as bringing an off wiki fight onto wiki, it is a rallying cry to oppose the "memory warriors" who would...well I will let you decide what "this is another step down the same descent." is trying to imply.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits by Jane Dawson

User:Jane Dawson is using Wikipedia to push a political stand by editing selected articles in a manner to discredit anyone and any entity linked with the Singapore Government. User intentionally commits other violations, including infringing Wikipedia's policies on living persons in doing so. User also uses rubbish sources as references for these discrediting attacks.

I removed one edit, then realised that the user's contributions are full of this, gave up, and came here instead. These are the selected articles of living persons affected:

• Charles Chong
• K. Shanmugam
• Chee Hong Tat
• Desmond Kuek
• Ng Chee Meng

--219.75.113.186 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Can you provide specific examples please, preferably as diffs? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment: It would be helpful if they were provided. Xyaena 19:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As far as I am concern, the content that I have added are of significant value and can be verified from source. Are you not on WP:ADVOCACY when you removed properly sourced content to cover up some inconvenient facts? Note that biographies belonging to WP:PUBLICFIGURE should be adhered to. Jane Dawson (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sudden increase in page blankings by unregistered users connecting via IPv6?

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.

---

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatun_Mayu&diff=prev&oldid=839035539&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Norris_Cochrane&diff=prev&oldid=839035793&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melrose_Public_Library&diff=prev&oldid=839035855&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Robertson_(footballer,_born_1915)&diff=prev&oldid=839035961&diffmode=source

These are just the few that I personally caught; I saw a lot more being reverted in front of my eyes when checking recent changes using Huggle.

This started at 20:33, 30 April 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=3

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This just seems to be a vandal resetting their IP. Widr has taken care of them already and there haven't been any trips of the EF for 15 mins. (I removed your copy and pasting of the log as this page is large enough already without 50k more text). SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Same IP range as an LTA I've been dealing with for a while – but probably unrelated. Range blocked for 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks _{(I had wrapped the log entries in "Hidden begin" and "Hidden end" tags, but I completely forgot about the inconvenience that this causes when dealing with the source code)} ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2018

‬

NinjaRobotPirate
‪  ○ ‬
 ‪く|)へ‬
‪     〉      IP Blanking‬
 ‪ ￣￣┗┓    vandal‬
‪  　 　 ┗┓　 ヾ○ｼ‬
‪   　　   ┗┓ ヘ/ 　 　 ‬
‪ 　        ┗┓ノ ‬
‪　 　 　 　   ┗┓‬

You can consider this to be a full and sincere apology for vandalizing tonight. I’m done, and it won’t happen again. Take care! The IP Blanking Vandal known as 66.87.125.25 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I want all apologies to be in ascii art form from now on. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Help

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 failed to effectively communicate the problems with the actions at User talk:Jojhnjoy by admin Leyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My attempt may be found at User talk:Leyo#Re:. I believe that section lays out enough detail; let me know if there are any questions. Please keep in mind I'm at work and response may be a bit delayed. Tiderolls 12:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted those actions and told them to seek consensus here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we let sleeping dogs lie now? de:Benutzer:Jojhnjoy/Sperre has the editor names and diffs removed. The en.wiki link to the polemic on de.wiki has been removed. The German editors have examined and discussed the whole thing. Presumably the page complies with the rules at de:Hilfe:Benutzernamensraum#Konventionen, or it will soon if it isn't deleted. Everybody is ready to drop their sticks and walk away.

I have no comment on the issues, if any, regarding page protection and talk page redirects. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 2 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.

Unjustified TBAN

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, Dear Admins, I request to revoke Topic Ban (xfd/AFDs) on me. I have not did anything disruptive, nor any proof is provided in-spite of my requests to provide the proof of TBAN on me. its unjustified decision TBAN on me, if its justified with proofs of allegations, then I request to provide the proofs; otherwise I request neutral decision from Admins here to withdraw/revoke the TBAN on me. See this unjustified discussion and its outcome. Expecting a positive and a dignified role from you. User talk:JogiAsad 10:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @JogiAsad: I was this close to NACing this as not having a snowball's chance in hell of leading to an unban, but I figured asking you why you thought it was appropriate to violate the three-month moratorium on appeals without even acknowledging that said moratorium was in place would be more constructive. You realize coming back to ANI with the kind of "appeal" you are making above is unlikely to lead to anything but further sanctions for you, right? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

First thing is that I did asked is there any proofs of which basis I have been TBANed,if yes let me know, so I may satisfy my concern.User talk:JogiAsad 10:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You linked the ANI thread where there was a clear (unanimous, in fact) consensus in favour of your being TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It might also be worth noting that JogiAsad has apparently violated their TBAN dozens of times and not been blocked or even warned yet (Ctrl+F their contribs for "delet-"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

First thing is that I think this TBAN is not justified, if some one could help me to understand how I have canvassed, and also provide sound reference and proofs, then I may satisfy my concern and accept TBAN, and could you please provide your claim violation of TBAN dozens of time?. JogiAsad (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

could you please provide your claim violation of TBAN dozens of time? Umm... I guess the only thing I can do for you is suggest you follow the advice I gave above and Ctrl+F [your own] contribs for "delet-". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I remember this. I saw no indication of the user grasping en.wiki's notability requirements at that time. I see no indication now. I think particularly user should not participate in AfD's about articles edited by himself or by Arif80s, Spasage, or مھتاب احمد. And I cannot overlook the concern that they combined efforts to keep pages that were clearly not notable in which they were involved in editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment,The Afd nominator User:Saqib has many times nominated afds, which has sufficient references to claim notability, he has some biased intentions, which should be investigated on Afds he is involved. And I just wanted to know how I have been TBANed, what are the proofs of Canvassing, somebody provide proofs, then I would accept the TBAN whole heartily.JogiAsad (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith towards others is unhelpful. You have still not mentioned that why topic ban is "unjustified". Capitals00 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• WP:SIGIMAGE is policy—please fix your signature to remove the image. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear, Johnuniq, thanks for this good thing, and advice.JogiAsad (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment To be fair, I think the OP has only flouted his TBAN deliberately once since it was enacted, with the edit to CfD. He did create a DRV report, which I deleted and warned him about, but it may have not been clear to him that DRV is related to "XfD" (hopefully it is now). Regardless, this TBAN cannot be appealed until July 9, and it would then have to show that the OP understands why they were TBANned and that it would not happen in the future. I suggest, as I did when the DRV was deleted, that any further violations are meet with increasing blocks. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)When I saw this, I let it go since "DRV" isn't strictly of the "XfD" form he was banned from, despite being a deletion discussion. There's this edit to CFD, though, and plenty of user talk edits in violation too ([238], [239], [240], [241]). Strongly inclined to block. —Cryptic 11:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'd missed the talkpage edits. Wouldn't object to a block. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the original TBAN, and I would also let this discussion serve as a final warning to JogiAsad to abide by the topic ban, lest a block come your way. No one likes a topic ban, and the next person who agrees with a topic ban placed on themselves will be the first. We don't ask you to agree that it is just (we don't expect you to), we only expect you to abide by it. If you continue to refuse to do so, the ban will be enforced by blocking you. I don't think we should block right now (unlike some comments above), but the ban is valid, and you would do well to simply abide by it. Take some time to learn Wikipedia, prove over the next several months that you intend to behave correctly going forward, and then we can revisit this. --Jayron32 12:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a afd talk page, So I ask can't I talk here, TBAN was on Afds and since the TBAN is initiated against me I have not participated in any Afd, this is one proof of abiding TBAN, and regarding the Talk pages of users, I thought TBAN does not applies to User Talk pages. If someone please elaborate the TBAN, I read TBAN, it was suppose a ban on topic Weather, so the user would not participate or edit any Weather related thing and here the TBAN on me was placed for Afds, now please clearify TBAN on me, elaborate it, is it also banned in TBAN to talk pages of users and Wikipedia: Talk pages? JogiAsad (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You read WP:TBAN and cited an example from it. Did you miss, "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Ping JogiAsad --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support block. A block is completely justified given the continued WP:IDHT. Capitals00 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• comment Not ready to support block, but JogiAsad please understand that you are worsening your situation. You might want to withdraw this and affirm that you will adhere to your TBAN and stay away from XfD.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dlohcierekim Okay I got it, and also I clarified in my above comment that I have not participated in any Xfd/afd since I got notice of TBAN, And I have now got that I had to request for TBAN revoke after 3 months not less than 3 months; and If you suggest me to withdraw this request I will withdraw, also let me know how to withdraw. but I was confused in this situation whether I only have been TBANed from Xfds/afds or also TBAN applies to user talk pages?, Can't I talk to other users on their talk pages?, Can't I talk on Wikipedia talks? If some one please understand I want to know whether the TBAN on me is only on Xfds/Afds or also it applies in user talk pages.?JogiAsad (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment, let me know how to withdraw this request, and I assure that I'll abide by the WP:TBAN during its tenure.Thanks for your valuable help and suggestionsJogiAsad (talk) 17:26, 3 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 Kurzon

• Kurzon (talk · contribs)

Is it possible that after persistently lobbying to be unblocked, this editor is resuming work on the articles which led to blocks in the past? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh my word. Looking at that user's talk page does not inspire hope that they will walk paths of righteousness. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this a COI request? What basis for this request?Lihaas (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm very worried by this edit, as the "talk" appears to be his sock-puppet comments from 2015, and jumping right into long-term disputes after an unblock generally fares poorly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This rationale is entirely remarkable [242]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

They were blocked for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. They didn't sock for the past six months, as far as we can tell, and explained to my satisfaction how their conduct would change. They have returned to the articles they edited with socks, but where relevant, they have commented on the talk pages and explained their changes or initiated discussions. I don't necessarily agree with all those changes, but that's a content dispute. Their behaviour should (and likely will) be closely scrutinized, but I don't see anything here so far that would violate policy. If there are individual edits or a pattern of conduct that's seen as violating policy, you'll need to be a little more explicit in explaining what it is. Editing an article once after months of stagnation is not edit-warring, in my book. Huon (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would point out that he reinserted the same contentious edits rejected a year ago. That's very slow-motion edit-warring. And in any case, after an editor other than me reverted him, he again inserted the contentious edit, which I think is very much edit-warring. And the reason the article was "stagnant" is because its status quo is largely perfectly fine. Anything can use touch-ups, but it certainly doesn't require wholesale upheaval.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I expected that my record would cause a reaction such as this, which is why I will display as much forbearance and patience as I can, even if I feel that in this specific case I have been treated unjustly. Kurzon (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Kurzon plays the victim, but anyone reading his talk page can see he is not and that he creates drama and problems. No sooner was his block overturned than he began edit-warring at Superman ownership disputes to reinsert the same contentious edits that caused issues last year: Sro23here reverted Kurzon's reinsertion today of his contentious edits from last year, and Kurzon again reinserted them here. He promised in his overturn request not to edit at Superman without gaining talk-page consensus for his edits ("Whenever I wish to make a major edit to the Superman article, I will propose it on the Talk page so that other editors can make remarks.") — and his idea of doing that is to dump the entirely of his preferred version, more than 26,000 characters, into the talk page and expect editors to comb through it word-by-word and compare it to the extant version.

He has been back less than a day and already edit-warring and causing time-consuming aggravation for multiple editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I brought this here because it's absurd to propose that an edit pattern considered disruptive prior to a block, which continued in evasion of a block, is acceptable once the block has been lifted. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And repeating a pattern from last year, Kurzon has again begun making snide, sarcastic and personal talk-page comments, such as here and here. Why are we allowing this behavior to continue? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mass Vandalism From a Facebook Group

There is many childish editors, both anonomous and registered, who appear to be vandalising pages related to the BBC Children's Education show "Horrible Histories" such as English Monarchs. They are in a Facebook Group which I am also in, and are making multiple unhelpful changes. The offending post is here if you wish to look at it. I am trying to do my best to undo these edits, but am very inexperienced with Wikipedia, so much that I have appeared to have gotten a warning from another user for vandalism myself, despite the fact I was trying to remove it. I hope something can be done about this (and I hope I'm in the right place for it. Sorry if I'm not) by some of the more experienced users of Wikipedia and everything can go back to normal 82.21.79.20 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Chris

Thank you. Could we have some examples of the affected articles, for the ease of admins wishing to investigate?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

See the IP's and my recent logs/contribs for some examples - mostly historical topics. Many vandals have been taken out, there's a few threads here for any still standing. Thanks to the IP user for helping with it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz for assisting. I'm happy to help. 82.21.79.20 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Chris

User:Phryne Muybridge

Phryne Muybridge has been editing since 2017. I left them a message about an unreferenced article they had created, thanking them for their work and asking if they could please add their source. They responded by deleting my message and a message from another editor inviting them to the Teahouse, here [243] replacing our words with: 'Please leave all unwanted comments below'. This doesn't demonstrate the collaborative approach I was hoping for, but they are still quite new. As you can see at User talk:Phryne Muybridge, I messaged explaining why communicating is important and asking what the sources were for two of their creations. I have sent five messages, with no response and the issues haven't been addressed. They also have continued to add unverified material to existing articles, such as [244]. This person is relatively new and I don't think English is their first langauge; I am hoping thwey will communicate here and that we can help solve this together. Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be preferable if P.M. were to acknowledge comments made on their talk page, but I'm not particularly convinced that their editing is problematic. Lists of the form "(year) in (country)" are rife with minimal sourcing. They are basically manual aggregations of material in articles. I had a quick spot check through Phyrne's recent contributions and can't see any additions to the "in Japan" list pages that don't accurately reflect the dates of birth/death in the leads of the relevant articles, or in the infoboxes of said articles. It would be preferable if there were sourcing for these facts, possibly copied over from the articles themselves. This may be something that would probably be better dealt with through some kind of Wikidata integration, perhaps, but for now, they don't seem to be editing in a way that is different from the norm. While the essay you linked notes that "communication is required", we should note that it says: "Most article updates are uncontroversial, so discussion isn't needed".

If a user wishes to quietly toil on non-controversial articles like "year list" articles, and they've shown a preference for solitude and aren't causing any trouble, we shouldn't demand they talk. While communication with other users might be preferable, we shouldn't demand they communicate unless they do something about which discussion is required. I can't see any admin action that is required (or would help) here. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Morris. So long as they're only editing "(year) in (country)" articles, and the accuracy of their changes can be verified through wikilinks, there's no need for any action here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Persistent WP:OWNERSHIP, edit warring, and WP:INCIVILITY

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

As it stands, this user is currently in violation of persistent WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, WP:LAWYER, and WP:GAMING at Seven (1995 film) and Talk:Seven (1995 film)#Plot. Because the editor has already tried deflecting blame onto me (poorly), I will be providing a full breakdown of the situation. Bare with me, as this is done to avoid wasting too much time bickering back-and-forth (should this user attempt any dishonesty here) by putting all of the cards on the table.

Breakdown of the Situation: The situation started with what appeared to merely be a run-of-the-mill content disagreement. I made this correction to the Plot section of Seven (1995 film) in concordance with our editing policies, which state in more than one instance that "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field". Thewolfchild reverted it with the vague edit summary "fine the way it was", which I reverted with the further explanation "Unclear wordings to everyone who hasn't seen the film for themselves is hardly "fine the way it is."" It was then reverted again by Thewolfchild with the summary "per WP:BRD, go to the talk page", which I subsequently did. At this point, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Thewolfchild would reply with a WP:GOODFAITH justification of their revert, right? Well, that's unfortunately not what went down...

Two days later (today), I finally reverted them on the article with the edit summary "Three days have past and no explanation of the revert has been given other than "I just don't like the edit, alright!" (A clearcut violation of WP:OWN) If you eventually think of one, the Talk Page is waiting. Otherwise, continued reverts, WP:GAMING, or personal attacks will result in immediate WP:ANI." I also left a Dummy Edit for outside observers stating "See the absurd exchange that took place at Talk:Seven (1995 film)#Plot". But, of course, Thewolfchild did not heed this warning and reverted again with the smug edit summary "Yup, your tp posts are as absurd as your edit summaries. still no support for your edit btw.". And here we are. DarkKnight2149 03:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply from thewolfchild;

Not sure if an ANI for this is necessary. This editor was pretty hostile from the start at being reverted (once!). There was not much willingness to discuss with all the anger and accusations. As it is, another editor has since agreed with the revert of this users edits. He also reverted my recent edit and I posted a more civil and mature response in an effort to discuss. Had Dk2149 been willing to discuss this in a more collegial manner, I'm sure this could've been resolved. For the record, I am still willing to discuss this on the article talk page, if Dk2149 is willing to be a little calmer with his responses and lay off the needless accusations (eg: I don't see how a single revert can constitute "OWN", especially since I rarely edit there nor do I see where "GAMING" comes in. Lastly, 2RR in 3 days is hardly "edit warring" and Dk2149's assertion that my post to TOJ is due to any warnings is plain wrong. The timelines shoud bear that out. Dk2149 should probably also watch out for boomerangs with his accusations of incivilty, looking at his comments. But above all, I'd like to have seen input from other editors on that talk page (about the edits, not the tp comments) and see if a resolution could be found. I take it by this filing Dk2149 is no longer willing to have any discussion? Bur if so, lemme know. - ^theWOLFchild 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Dishonesty such as this is precisely why I broke down the full discussion above. As has been pointed out, simply opposing someone or calling them out on their behaviour does not equate to hostility, nor does it justify being even more hostile in return. Looking at the discussion, it's clear that Thewolfchild didn't like being called out on what he was doing. Him providing no explanation for the revert beyond the vaguest "I didn't like it", changing the subject by deflecting blame after being repeatedly asked for an explanation, repeatedly urging for us to "Wait for other users to comment" when being asked for an explanation (for his revert), misconstruing WP:BRD, and trying to use other users not replying as an excuse to keep his preferred version in the article ("No one supported you!") all strongly point to WP:OWN.

"As it is, another user agreed with me" - Two days later, which is exactly what he was holding out for to happen (as shown in the breakdown above). It does not excuse his behaviour and it is no surprise that he is pointing this out.

"I don't see how a single revert can constitute "OWN", especially since I rarely edit there nor do I see where "GAMING" comes in." - First of all, he has edited there a lot lately and has been a regular on the Talk Page since January 2016. More dishonesty. Second, he reverted twice immediately when I made the edit, as shown above. Then he did it again after the final warnings on the Talk Page and edit summary, which he clearly saw given he replied to the following dummy edit. It is not the number of reverts that constitutes WP:OWN, but his statements and actions.

"Lastly, 2RR in 3 days is hardly "edit warring" and Dk2149's assertion that my post to TOJ is due to any warnings is plain wrong." You do not have to violate the 3RR in order to edit war. He reverted every single time I made the edit, even two days after he refused to give any sort of explanation for the revert on the Talk Page.

"I take it by this filing Dk2149 is no longer willing to have any discussion?" - We are here due to persistent disruption. The content itself is almost beside the point. Take a look at the thorough Talk Page breakdown above. I opened with a very straightforward explanation of my position, and Thewolfchild had plenty of opportunities to respond in good faith. That didn't happen. DarkKnight2149 04:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the original content dispute is incredibly minor, but the conduct of editors on the talk page could use discussion here. I have no confidence in either editor's ability to de-escalate disputes on their own; there's excessive heat on the talk page from both editors. Arguments over who is applying BRD correctly are almost never useful in any way. If both editors can be talked down from climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, that would be great. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thewolfchild received a warning at AE fairly recently for this type of behavior, as well as multiple talk page warnings. This "filibustering" serves to prolong discussions indefinitely with no effort to cooperate or reach consensus. I've been involved in similar discussions with this individual before and I don't think there is a way to deescalate it without admin involvement. If you ignore the accusations, TWC will continue to bring them up and insist that you respond to them before proceeding.

In this case I don't see any legitimate content dispute. It looks to me like TWC reverted an edit and insisted that DarkKnight gain consensus before reinstating it, without providing a reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This isn't how BRD works, you have to give some sort of actual objection to the content that the other editor can address. I also don't see any incivility from DarkKnight, they simply asked TWC to provide a reason for the revert and explained the relevant policy.

I would also point out that TWC's discussion style tends to draw other editors into very long and off-topic conversations in order to address TWC's concerns and accusations. There are multiple examples of this happening with other editors on the same Talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Update: I'm not going to escalate the situation by replying to any of this, but Thewolfchild doesn't seem to be taking this report very well at all (see: [245], [246], [247], [248]). Even a neutral editor involved with the article said on the Talk Page that they want nothing to do with either side of this (after Thewolfchild gave a lengthy, unsubstantiated rant). I can't say I blame them [the neutral editor], given how this is shaping up. DarkKnight2149 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (Proposal: Dual Trouting): Holy mother of lack-of-perspective. I've seen a lot of needlessly antagonistic contests of wills come through this forum over the years, but I genuinely don't know if I've ever seen a discussion go from zero to grudge match (and in record time) over such an utterly trivial difference in content. Frankly, if it were my call alone, I'd be happy to each of these users a pageban from the article in question and hope that a lesson was learned about how far you can stray from collaborative tone and process before you become disruptive to the community. But, knowing what I do about the threshold that has to be met within the current community culture, I suspect that is an unlikely result, especially as I can't recall seeing either one of the parties here before. So I instead offer the alternative of a severe trouting and admonition to behave like adults and try some of the many third-person input/dispute resolution tools available. Along with these more specific comments:

Darkknight2149: Filing this ANI truly does make your position look histrionic. You didn't attempt an WP:RfC, a WP:3O, or any sort of dispute resolution process before bringing this straight to ANI? That's not only premature, it puts the kiss of death on any easy resolution of the dispute between you two. Also, you need be careful of how you throw around your "policy" arguments. No one can "violate" WP:LAWYER (as you have said both on the talk page and in your complaint here) because it is not a policy page, it's an WP:ESSAY. And one that a significant portions of this community find tedious and irrational, I should inform you--at least in the way it is typically invoked. Regardless, it certainly does not have the effect of codified community consensus, so if you are going to make assertions of violations of policy, especially formal ones on a behavioural forum like this, please be clear as to what exactly is policy and what is not.

Thewolfchild: Look, I certainly think the DarkKnight2149 could have approached this situation with a little more WP:AGF than they did, but I gotta tell you, looking at the edits and the talk page discussion, I think he's probably right about the underlying content issue (which entangles with behaviour issues); something more was really called for there than you were offering up, in terms of predicating your position on policy--or even just simple rational explanation for why the added content was unacceptable. But frankly, that's just a side issue to me, looking at that talk page. There is a definite and pervasive tone of superiority and patronization in your interactions on that page--not just with regard to Darknight, but other editors as well. Comments like this are not in any way, shape or form conductive to collaborative work, but are in fact extremely corrosive to efforts to seek consensus in a civil fashion. And I'm quite certain that if you could hear the tone with which your fellow community members receive those kinds of "oh poor dear, you're quite worked up, I do hope you'll feel better" type comments, you'd be quite a bit less satisfied with what you seem to regard as your clever wordplay on that TP. Frankly with some of those comments, you are either actively baiting your opposition or are the type of person who thinks it's socially acceptable to walk around talking to fellow workmates as if they are a parent half-indulgently confronting a (slightly dimn-witted) child. And either of those possibilities is a problem on a collaborative project.

Now, both of you have demonstrated a marked lack of ability to know when to start reigning things in here, so I may very well see my preferred outcome, if you two manage to arms race yourselves into a WP:BOOMERANG of mutually assured destruction. Or you can go back to the talk page, RfC the matter like you should have from the start (if you really couldn't just hammer out an understanding on this issue, which--and I can't emphasize this point enough--is truly an amazingly trivial difference in content), and then move on. Or better yet, one of you be the bigger person and let it go, given the article hardly stands or falls on this basis of whether or not this one minor clause is allowed to stand in one sentence of the plot summary. Anyway, I feel like we should have a workshift system for any of our numerous articles which involve discussion of Kevin Spacey portraying a face of sociopathy, and maybe you two should go off the clock for a bit. But if you really must engage, please try some community processes and try to avoid directly addressing eachother--or, at the absolute barest minimum, keep discussion focused on the content and the policy, and stay away from comments about eachother's character (or obstinacy, or lack of logic, or mood, or whatever). Argue the point, not the other editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: There is no dispute resolution to be had, because this isn't a legitimate content dispute. As outlined in the Talk Page breakdown above, Thewolfchild repeatedly refused to give any sort of explanation for their revert besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT, instead opting to hold the article hostage on his preferred edit until I either "gained consensus" or until someone replies with a position. That's not even remotely how Wikipedia or consensus works. As Dlthewave pointed out, you need a solid reason to revert someone. You can't just revert someone without reason, claim WP:BRD, refuse to give an explanation, edit war to keep your edits in the article until someone either agrees or disagrees with you, and then claim WP:NPA when the other editor points out what you are doing. This is not a content dispute, it's a matter of blatant WP:OWNERSHIP (as thoroughly outlined above).

And nothing I said was unreasonable or hostile in any, shape, or form (at least, not from my perspective; key examples would be helpful). Calling someone out for their disruption or pointing them to the relevant policies is not incivility. I opened with a clear statement outlining my reasoning for my edit and repeatedly asked for an explanation for the revert, but was instead met with personal attacks, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Wiki-laywering, and Thewolfchild trying to shift the blame to cover up his disruption. Even here, Thewolfchild has blatantly lied (only to be immediately debunked by the proper diffs).

You can't "violate" WP:LAWYER, but you can definitely Wiki-lawyer, which is disruptive. This ANI post was never about "content". You point out that the edit is minor to support your thesis that this is just some WP:LAME content dispute, but all it does is further demonstrate the extent of Thewolfchild's WP:OWN. If you are going to revert an edit that minor and demand that it be discussed on the Talk Page, surely you must have a better reason than "Eh, let's just wait for other users to comment". DarkKnight2149 04:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, "Let's see what others have to say" is exactly how policy directs an editor to respond to a situation where they have reached a loggerheads with another contributor. Maybe I agree that the depth of Thewolfchild's explanation of their position here is underwhelming, but if that is truly the case, you should be able to prevail in a consensus discussion of the matter. Not even attempting to avail yourself of efforts to bring in a third party, but instead engaging in tit-for-tat accusations and a slow-moving edit war is where this discussion truly became WP:disruptive. The fact of the matter is, Thewolfchild is on the right side of the WP:BRD on this one; since he is arguing for the long-term stable version, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for the change. Now, because TheWolfchild is not providing a very substantive argument for their opposition to your change, and because I believe your version is a slight improvement, I'm pretty sure you could have ended this deadlock pretty easily by utilizing a third opinion process--again, if the matter was really that important to you; I can't fathom how it would be worth this much trouble, myself, even if you are annoyed at what you perceie as an WP:OWN attitude. But instead of seeking that consensus, you went nuclear on the situation and brought it here, wasting valuable community time over a trivial content dispute (and yes, it very much is a content dispute, regardless of the fact that you've both developed it into a personal dispute as well), before you even attempted the most basic WP:consensus processes that policy directs you to utilize in these circumstances.

As for your use of the term "wikilawyering" as a pejorative--I'll tell you again that you aren't doing your position any favours by leaning on the use of that term, in that fashion. Veteran editors are used to hearing that from the side that is typically losing the policy argument, especially on this notice board. Besides, most of us don't view the term in such a black and white fashion, any more so that we consider "lawyer" to be negative term in itself. One who lawyers is one who makes analytical arguments based on a set of rules arrived at by consensus processes--and to me that sounds like a pretty ideal approach to making a policy argument on this project. In any event, however you want to spin Thewolfchild's arguments, they have the right end of the policy stick; if you want to change the longterm stable version, and the value of the proposed change has been challenged by another editor, you need to secure consensus for the change. No editor is required to explain their position until such time as you are satisfied that it is reasonable and principled; if we had that standard, nothing would ever get done here. Instead, we have a consensus standard. And again, because of TWC's lackluster reasoning, I'm pretty sure you would have had that consensus by now if you had followed normal procedure instead of rushing here in the (quite unrealistic) hope that this would be judged as a one-sided behavioural issue and the community would restrain or remove your competition. It's like Thewolfchild consciously shot themselves in the foot, and then you snatched the gun from their hands, shouting "Oh yeah, well I can shoot myself in both feet!" and proceeded to do so. You've both moved beyond having a complete lack of perspective on whether this minor change warrants this much contesting and have gone straight on to choosing exactly the worst strategies to achieving your ends even within that myopic quest.

So you really have three choices here at this point: 1) WP:DROPTHESTICK about the shortcomings in TWC's approach and instead capitalize on them by using the consensus process you are meant to be using here, 2) recognize that the cost-benefit analysis of this situation is pretty abysmal and let the matter go, or 3) prepare for a very likely WP:BOOMERANG if you can't embrace one of the first two options, because that's where I see this headed if you keep using ANI to drum on the same beats you've been repeating above. Sorry, I kind of get where you are coming from on the underlying dispute here, but this is hardly a one-way street between the two of you and I don't think you want as much attention on this matter here as you think you do. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Darkknight, reviewing the matter again today, I decided I should amend my previous analysis in one respect: if there is an argument for a behavioural issue here, it is with WP:CIVILITY. And look, I will tell you straight, I really wish that policy had stronger enforcement within the contemporary community. I sometimes feel like it has become the forgotten pillar of Wikipedia policy. But the truth of the matter is that the threshold for a sanction for incivility is incredibly high at present, and I just don't think there is any realistic chance that you will secure consensus that Thewolfchild blew by it here--though personally I can see why the condescension in that discussion would grate. Unfortunately, your own approach to the situation was also not in every way in-proportion to the circumstances, which even further muddies the waters and as a pragmatic matter makes it unlikely your call for restraint on TWC will be endorsed.

So ultimately my advice remains the same: either walk away from a situation which is certainly not worth this vitriol, or (if you feel you cannot do that), bring in outside opinion and avoid directly engaging with TWC. I know this post does not introduce anything new, but I hope it may serve to assure you that your perspective is not being entirely disregarded without an examination of the tone of the previous discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Users reverting valid change with no explanation

I have been editing this article and people keep reverting the changes without giving a reason. I've stated my reasons for changing it and have even brought it up on the talk page and no one responds. The previous wording is "Aaliyah is the 2001 third and final studio album by American R&B singer Aaliyah." I have been changing it to "Aaliyah is the third and final studio album by American R&B singer Aaliyah. It was released by Blackground and Virgin Records America on July 7, 2001." I am changing it to this to match almost every single other album article on Wikipedia and because the old wording sounds awkward when you read it. This wording was changed months ago and now a certain user added it back a month or so ago and now reverts it whenever someone changes it, and now other users are doing it too. None of them are providing a reason why. While I know that people are allowed to change things on this site, it makes zero sense to revert an edit that is benefiting the page and making it look just like very other album article. Since no one will respond to me, I would like assistance. --97.127.89.31 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@97.127.89.31: Just FYI, I notified @Mulaj: of this discussion, since you failed to do so. If you have a disagreement with other editors, you should put a ANI-notice template on their talk pages also. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There's numerous users doing it who just do it once and are never seen again, so I didn't think it was appropriate to go and do it to everyone. I did add it to the original user's page though since he was the original. --97.127.89.31 (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(Not-so) subtle image vandalism on Naruto Uzumaki and Tsubasa Oozora

Can anyone look into this? Something bizarre is going on where there's obvious image vandalism on the page, yet the code to it isn't there at all. In fact, copy-pasting the source to another page doesn't yield anything. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Blake, perhaps my eyes are glossing over the vandalism in question, but all of those images seem normal to the context to me, though granted I know nothing about either topic. Can you describe what you are seeing which you perceive as vandalism? Is it possible that it is an issue with malware on your end which is effecting your images? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably template vandalism. I'll take a look. ansh666 07:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, Blakegripling ph, and Ansh666: there was template vandalism a moment back; it was fixed. related changes is useful, can see the change and the revert. Template:Infobox_animanga_character/aux_check needs to be semid and Reknio blocked.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it was indeed Template:Infobox animanga character/aux check. It's already been reverted and I'll block the offender. If you're still seeing it, please try purging the affected pages. Thanks, ansh666 07:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I should have reported the issue here when I ran across and fixed it. And I totally forgot about Special:RecentChangesLinked... I'll have to remember that next time. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 07:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems so obvious in retrospect; you two were much quicker on the uptake. :) Thanks for the elucidation. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan

Can I get a review of the lead change by IP's at Taiwan. Got some weasel words and grandioseness with reference spam.--Moxy (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, Moxy is wrong. No weasel words have been used in the article. Everything is done in good faith and every single piece of information added in the article is backed up by reliable sourced references, please feel free to check the references. Moxy is engaging in unexplained mass deletions of information due to his personal dislike of the information, of which all are indisputably sourced and referenced. Thank you very much! 118.106.145.105 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No weasel words? I would start with "wealthy and properous" (including the mis-spelling). We avoid such adjectives in Wikipedia. And i'm sorry, but "selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent" sounds just plain sick to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I second this. The IP is not only adding a bunch of weasel worlds, but also using some less than desirable references (Mirror, Sun) to add to the article. I would expect that an article about a country should have better references. More importantly, the IP is constantly reverting and not attempting to discuss at all.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah has protected the page. However, I am not sure why Denisarona did this edit. This edit essentially restores the entire content with weasel words and reference spam. Was this edit a mistake?--DreamLinker (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Must be a mistake....informed locking admin.--Moxy (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've appealed to @Oshwah: on IRC, to no avail. The current full-protected version is not remotely acceptable; it's POV pushing (almost vandalism) from a single IP editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah is off line. Would be happy to revert to clean version.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Check my work.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, though even a blank page would have been better than Taiwan invested heavily in their infrastructure as well as in the selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent, encouraging the attainment of high levels of university and graduate school level doctoral education, as well as fostering and retaining their superior IQ geniuses to help further develop and improve Taiwan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. And the IP editor argued there were no weasel words. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Dlohcierekim, Taiwan now looks more like an encyclopedia article and less like a glossy 16 page magazine insert produced by a joint venture between a Taipei tourist agency, the Harvard Lampoon and 4Chan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Check my work, further revert.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An IP hopper has been trying to force much of this superior IQ geniuses text into the opening paragraph of Four Asian Tigers for a long time (e.g. Jun 2017, Feb 2018, Apr 2018), ignoring discussion on the talk page. Kanguole 10:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

They're back, already requested a semi at WP:RPP but also here as they're reverting back, block User:118.200.20.161 too Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The initial edit stuck around for ~3.5 hours. Need some more eyes on the page I suppose... Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the Taiwan page is no different from the South Korea page, the South Korea page also lists all of the achievements of the country.118.200.20.161 (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that the IP has pointed out the South Korea article, I noticed that Massyparcer was the one who made South Korea's lead into a mess in the same style as this (unfortunately for a full 4 years till I restored it..) along with his/her socks. Same style but a lot less subtle I suppose.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Rightpedia owner and Admins being disruptive

Three accounts were registered today, Rightpedia 1488 (talk · contribs), Eleonóra Dubiczki 1488 (talk · contribs) who identifies as Rightpedia's owner, and Wyatt from Rightpedia (talk · contribs). I can confirm that they are all editing from the same IP address and probably the same machine, although as it's a university address I'm not sure. No surprise, they are being disruptive. Wyatt's only edited once[249] to add racist nonsense to an article on a fish. User:Maunus has been told "We will be covering other left-wing Wikipedia users and those such as yourself who deny race. Our admins Mikemikev and Wyatt will be writing them all. [[User:Eleonora Goldmann" who also "Created page with 'https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Wikipedia Wikipedia is a Communist-controlled website." They've been editing Rightpedia and Metapedia to delete material about Rightpedia. Obviously I could block them, but I've got a WMF call in a minute and in any case the community might want to handle this. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There's quite a few alt right editors popping up out of nowhere. Looks like one of those lame brigading attempts they do occasionally.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 16:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I protected the Rightpedia page a little while ago for a few days. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Communist-controlled"... how 50s. EEng 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this website even notable? I see most of the sources are tagged as being primary or unreliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is relevant (I've never used the Admin noticeboard since most of my edits have been reverting simple vandalism), but I opened a sockpuppet investigation over here in the Sockpuppet investigation category... - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 17:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked those three under WP:NOTHERE. I don't care why they claim to be here, they're not here to help. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• They want the Rightpedia article deleted. I hope that doesn't have to happen. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be from them though, this isn't exactly like Breitbart News in terms of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-admin comment) Only thing I want to add is that clearly there was no attempt to be subtle here. Plastering 1488 all over their user names shows that they wanted to be recognised and to cause as much of a stink as they could, possibly to provoke us into doing the opposite of what they appear to want. The best thing we can do is to not let it change our behaviour at all. If that article needs to be deleted then delete it. If not then don't. That said, if it is kept then it needs a lot of work to get the sourcing up to minimum standards. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleonóra Dubiczki/Archive. I don't know how many of these are socks and how many meatpuppets. Wyatt's as I said an Admin, so no reason for him to be a sock. (I found out my WMF call is at 7 which is why I'm back). Doug Weller talk 17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Have a good pow-wow with those Commie elitists. EEng 18:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The above rightpedia link should be rev deleted as it contains dox of a Wikipedia user. The nazi accounts and the account above are Mikemikev, he wrote Smith's rightpedia article and has been creating hit-pieces about other Wikipedia users on Rightpedia. Rightpedia is hosted by GoDaddy, this was the hosting company that banned Daily Stormer last year. I am surprised they are still the host and have not taken action. 82.132.245.121 (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed it but yeah... another one to block. --Tarage (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not contain dox of a Wikipedia user. The person doing this obvious trolling impersonating Rightpedia editors is (Redacted) blocked as the massive Wikipedia sockpuppeteer Anglo Pyramidologist. "I can confirm that they are all editing from the same IP address and probably the same machine", so that's Rightpedia staff or one troll? Do not remove comments from ANI, you are not a "censor-in-charge" here and are acting above your authority. Go to the corner (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC) (Blocked sock, nothing to see here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC))

And you are...? Deb (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Go to the corner is a Rightpedia admin and Neo-nazi wikipedia Sockpuppet known as Mikemikev, he has a six year online internet feud with an anti-fascist called Oliver Smith. Recently he has been writing hit-piece articles about Wikipedia editors on Rightpedia. Again, "Go to the corner" has linked to a defamatory Rightpedia article on Smith that includes dox. His edits should be removed. 82.132.238.91 (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Go to the corner confirmed as sock of a banned account, blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Aligarh Muslim University

Could someone please semi-protect the article for a day or two? A flood of IPs (several of them geolocating to the university...) and new accounts are repeatedly making unconstructive edits on the article (more than 50 edits over the past two hours), and I'm tired of reverting them. I requested protection at RfPP more than an hour ago, but that page is backlogged, and nothing has happened there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's already semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It got protected at RfPP 35 minutes after I posted here, and about two hours after I posted there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We haven't been doing a great job with keeping up at RfPP. When I checked in there was a substantial backlog and I started at the back end. It took me a while to get through it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl

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:BrownHairedGirl and I had a dust-up several weeks ago, and it appears that the fallout from that collision is leading her to preference the thwarting of my editing efforts over the general improvement of the encyclopedia. This collision started in mid-February when I made a speedy group category renaming nomination for Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs and its subcategories. You can see that nomination and its discussion here.

In that discussion, I made an accusation that BrownHairedGirl was being "intellectually dishonest". The reason I made that accusation is that in her opposition to the speedy nomination, she stated "WP:C2D is inapplicable because there is no head article: Amherst Lord Jeffs and Amherst Mammoths both redirect to Amherst College#Athletics, which mentions neither 'Mammoths' nor 'Lord Jeffs'". I responded that "'Mammoths' is mentioned in the infobox and the 'Mascot' section of Amherst College," to which she replied "please read WP:C2D. It's not long and not complex. And it doesn't mention infoboxes." I considered this an intellectually dishonest move because her first comment there suggested that the presence of "Mammoths" at Amherst College would justify a C2D speedy move, but when I showed her that "Mammoths" did indeed appear there, she made a non-sequitur about "infoboxes" not being mentioned. In fact, C2D makes no reference whatsoever to any parts of articles other than their title.

BrownHairedGirl, requested that I retract this assertion of intellectual dishonesty on my talk page on February 12, just after User:SMcCandlish posted an admonishment about it there as well. Rather than explain my accusation, as I have now done here, I decided to simply move on with more productive editing.

I opened a full renaming nomination for the Amherst Lord Jeffs / Mammoths categories on February 22; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 22#Amherst Mammoths. It quickly drew unanimous support, with User:Cbl62, User:Rikster2, User:Ejgreen77, SMcCandlish, and User:UCO2009bluejay weighing in during the first two days or so. User:Paulmcdonald later added support as well. When more than a week had elapsed without closure of the nomination, despite unanimous support, I pinged BrownHairedGirl to close it, given that she appears to be most active admin at CFD, and in an effort to put the earlier episode behind us. To that she replied "@Jweiss11: after the vicious personal abuse which you heaped on me when you tried misusing WP:CFDS to do this renaming, the answer is "no way". Some other admin will close this discussion in due course.". That nomination was finally closed by User:DexDor on March 24. A similar nomination that I made for Category:Cal State East Bay Pioneers football similarly languished for nearly a month despite unanimous support. See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 4#Cal State Hayward Pioneers football.

On April 3, I nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. User:Bagumba was the only other editor to weigh in on this discussion, offering a neutral opinion. This time, User:BrownHairedGirl seemed have no lack in motivation closing the discussion, perhaps too quickly, closing it as "no consensus" on April 11.

Given the lack of resolution on this item, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, asking other editors there if they would a support a second nomination to delete the category and pinged User:UCO2009bluejay, User:Corkythehornetfan, and User:Billcasey905 since they are active editors of college sports-related categories and navboxes. All three said they would support the nomination, so I renominated the category on April 24, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. The next day BrownHairedGirl closed the discussion as "speedy keep per WP:CSK. The same proposal was made by the same nominator at CfD 2018 April 3, and closed on 11 April as no consensus. Bringing the same proposal back again less than 2 weeks later is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. Leave it for at least a few months."

I believe this to a misapplication of WP:CSK. It's clear that BrownHairedGirl is putting her personal feelings and desires for retribution before the best interests of the encyclopedia. The remedies I seek here are 1) the re-opening of the April 24 nomination for Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes and 2) an injunction against BrownHairedGirl from closing any further CFD nominations I may make. The community may also want to further investigate her behavior, assess whether she has abused her administrative powers, and determine if it is appropriate that she retain them.

I'm regretful that it's come to this. All our time would be better spent improving the content of the encyclopedia, but we have an obstructive situation here that requires resolution. Thanks everyone for your time and interest in this matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your complaint. You personally attacked an editor by calling her intellectually dishonest. You decided not to explain to her why you called her that. You then ask for her to close a discussion about the category where you feel she was intellectually dishonest and she refuses. She later closes a discussion not in the favor of what you proposed and closes it a second time. You disagree with the close and now want her to not close any CFD you open and you even think she should possibly lose her admin privileges. Did I get the summary right? ~ GB fan 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

GB, no, I would say you are missing all the spitefulness and obstruction by BrownHairedGirl in that summary. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In what summary? Are you saying I missed you being spiteful about not telling her why you felt she was intellectually dishonest? ~ GB fan 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, at the time I figured the explanation would fall on deaf ears. I did not simply move on to spite her, but, rather, in the interest of focusing instead on other things to improve the encyclopedia. I've made the full explanation now for everyone to see. Perhaps you can address the spitefulness of BrownHairedGirl, which is driving administrative decisions two months later that thwart the improvement of the encyclopedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

She probably doesn't think she is being spiteful either. One No Consensus close along with a speedy close is not enough to drag someone to ANI. Refusing to close a CFD is not a reason either. You should drop this now. ~ GB fan 17:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How much more would you need to see before you thought an ANI was warranted? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't give a definitive answer to that question. More than what you have given here and not come here as part of the problem. You also need to try to solve this directly with the editor prior to coming here. You started this by attacking an editor, walking away without having the decency to explain yourself. From What I see you have never tried to calmly discuss your concerns. Your latest discussion on her page just inflames the situation. There and here you talk about use of admin powers, what admin powers has she used, you never give one admin power she has used. ~ GB fan 18:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that the admin power I'm talking about is closing CFDs. This thread right here qualifies as an attempt to calmly discuss my concerns. My attack of this editor was a clear adjudiction of her behavior and argument style in a discussion. My sense was that she knew exactly why I was called her intellectually dishonest. The problem is that when people are intellectually dishonest, they'll typically never admin to it no matter what justification is later given. My hope is that third parties here can make their own rational judgement. BrownHairedGirl has also made attacks on me, far more disjointed from the simple logic of our arguments than my assertion of here intellectually dishonest, e.g. her accusing me of throwing a "trantrum" in that original speedy CFD discussion, then offering a psychological diagnosis of projection on her talk page today. I can get over the personal attacks. What really concerns me is that she's using her administrative powers to obstruct the improvement of the encyclopedia for what I can only imagine is spite against me. It's in everyone's interest to nip that in the bud now. That's why is have opened this ANI discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing a CFD is not an admin power. Non admins close discussions all the time. Bringing anything to ANI is not a calm discussion with the editor in question to try to resolve the issue. ANI is for things that can't be worked out by the editors involved, you haven't even tried to work through this with her. ~ GB fan 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing a CFDs of the complexity of the Ahmester Mammoths one is effectively an admin power when you have User:Marcocapelle testify that "This is too big for a non-admin to close", as he did at here. It's clear that BrownHairedGirl is acting in a state of hostility and obstruction with respect to me, two months after the fact. Third party invention is required here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#Amherst_Mammoths. She didn't even close it and when it was closed it was by a non-admin. How did she misuse any admin power? ~ GB fan 20:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

She refused to close that one when asked. She later improperly closed the the Big Sky navbox category CFDs. This is clearly because she had a beef with me and appears to delight in misdirecting my efforts to improve the database into a bureaucratic run-around where she can. The latter constitutes clear abuse of admin powers. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You REALLY need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline --Tarage (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I am indeed familiar with that essay. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? Because it runs contrary to the statement "appears to delight in misdirecting my efforts to improve the database into a bureaucratic run-around where she can". Refusing to close something on YOUR timetable is not "bureaucratic run-around". --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes does seem very premature does it not? One neutral comment and no relists is hardly enough discussion for no consensus Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It probably is premature but I don't think that is a reason to drag someone to ANI. ~ GB fan 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• You can't call someone "intellectually dishonest" and then decide "I want to move on" without so much as explaining that comment, It's no wonder BHG is rather pissed off with you, I would suggest this gets closed with the OP warned not to make silly remarks like that again. BOOMERANG applies. –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, I've clearly explained my accusation of intellectual dishonesty here. Can you address the logic of it before dismissing it as "silly"? The larger and more important issue here is whether BHG being rather pissed off with me warrants her obstructing CFD nominations that I opened two months later. Do you really thing that's warranted? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes you explained here but you didn't explain to her at the time, The CFD was closed prematurely but I'm not seeing anything that warrants a case such as this, Only one person's gonna get blocked and it's not BHG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Jweiss11, it's one thing to be abrasive to someone. It's another to then ping them specifically and demand they do something for you. She did not attack you, she told you she wouldn't close it, and then you pushed the issue. You got exactly what you asked for and then decided that the smart move was to come here and whine about it. Quite frankly, I don't see her being intellectually dishonest, I see you failing to be intellectual. --Tarage (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I did not claim that she attacked me when she told me she wouldn't close that CFD. The attacks, if any, by her were made earlier ("tantrum") and then later ("projection"). The personal attacks by her are not my main concern. My main concern is her retributive obstruction. So, what I asked for is to have her obstruct my CFD nominations in perpetuity? That sort of long-term retribution, which is at odds with that actual improvement of the encyclopedia, is the problem here. That doesn't concern you? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What part of "it was not obstruction" do you not understand? Obstruction would be to prevent you from getting things done. Refusing to close something for you is not obstruction. Admins don't HAVE to close whatever you tell them to. Quite frankly, the fact that several people have told you that you are wrong and that you still refuse to get that point is far more troubling. Again, I highly suggest you accept that you were wrong in filing this report and move on. We're telling you that you are digging yourself into a hole; your response should not be to keep digging. You won't like where you end up. --Tarage (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a case here. Categories deletion is pretty low priority non-urgent stuff. Lots of Admins are a lot worse to editors than what you describe. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like we have a wider problem with admin behavior then. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 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.

Eyes still needed on Jweiss11

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 drafted a long reply to this I wrote a long reply but the discussion was closed[250] by @Bbb23 so I posted[251] it on my talk rather than discard it.

However as I was wrapping up I spotted that @Jweiss11 has posted[252] at WT:CFB: My ANI was dismissed. I suggest someone else nominate this category unless you want to live with for I don't know how long.

It seems that the personal attacks, forum-shopping and WP:IDHT is now being followed by recruitment of meatpuppets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The hypocrisy here is utterly stunning, and your characterization of me collaborating with other college football editors to improve college football-related content is absurd. It's clear I can't a get fair assessment here. Shall we all move on? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Everyone told you to stop, and your response was to drop a borderline legal threat. What is wrong with you? --Tarage (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Jweiss11: if you want to move on, then simply accept the the ANI closure and withdraw your call for meatpuppets to make an end-run around procedure.

If you want to challenge a CfD closure, WP:DRV is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. If editors who frequently edit in areas related to the category in question are likely to reach a consensus that the category should be deleted, I see no compelling reason to prevent them from doing so. Lepricavark (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

PS here's the borderline legal threat[253]. Jweiss11, see WP:NLT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've retracted my use of the word "libel" and restated it in way should not imply a legal threat. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you attack BHG (putting aside the politically correct bullshit way of saying lying "intellectually dishonest", my ass), then when called out for it, don't even have the good grace to either justify that attack or apologise for it. The next month, you pinged BHG to close another discussion with what I see as a contemptuous display of arrogance (Can we close this slam dunk? @BrownHairedGirl: how about you do the honors?), then double down with a smug @BrownHairedGirl: nice to see that were are moving forward and putting the improvement of the encyclopedia first. Other admins, can we get some closure on this long overdue and unnecessarily laborious slam dunk move?. I see no problem in BHG's close of this discussion. It had been open for 8 days with only a couple of comments. A CFD is not a RFC so your suggestion that she closed it perhaps too quickly can be dismissed. Her second close was probably not that wise given the established history between you two. Yeah, no, you don't have a case here Blackmane (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. BHG's second close was inadvisable, especially given that a consensus, established by editors familiar with the subject, was likely forthcoming. That being said, the reaction is quite over the top. Jweiss11, I like you and the invaluable work you do, but please let this go. Like Blackmane said, you really don't have a case. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Look again at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. At the time I closed it, there was one response, and no indication of any wider interest. The nom did not disclose the wikiProj discussion, so there was no evidence of any wider interest, and no indication why JW chose to make a fresh nomination only 13 days after the previous closure. The essay WP:RENOM recommends "generally do not renominate the page for at least two months." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there was only one response, but it had only been open for less than a full 24 hours. I agree that Jweiss11 should have linked the WikiProject discussion. But now that we are all aware that there is wider interest, I don't see any need to keep the discussion closed based on the wording of an essay. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The essay describes isn't a here's-how-I-wanna-change-the-norms essay. It describes normal practice. WP:FORUMSHOP is not an essay; the assay just adds some numbers to a stable guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• For those who are interested, I have initiated a deletion review here. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In the DRV, Jweiss11 objected to "personal attacks and assertions of complete falsehood against [him]",[254] but a large part of us having to spend time in ANI is because he charged someone of "intellectual dishonesty", beginning in this case with his opposed CFDS nomination: "The issue here is that I've run into a smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat who values who own pride over other people's time." I haven't seen an apology or retraction. He threw around intellectual dishonesty and neuroses liberally over a one-month period at another discussion that began in late December 2017, where he expressed some views that had little support among almost 10 participants, myself included. Jweiss11 is otherwise one of our most productive editors, and these are the only two incidents I am aware of where he has gotten uncomfortably heated. At a minimum, I hope he curbs his use of "intellectually dishonest" and the like moving forward.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried to talk them into retracting and apologizing, but the latest advice is to steer well clear for now. ~ GB fan 11:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, he was banned from her talk page, but there's nothing preventing an apology here to the community.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given this some more thought. I think that the substantive discussion above was closed way too soon and far too equivocally. This was a classic WP:BOOMERANG complaint. As I noted above and it should not have been closed without hearing my substantive response. It should esp not have been closed so soon, so equivocally with no action.

This is not just a matter of Jweiss11's allegation of initial name-calling ("smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat" etc). It is his persistent and repeated failure to discuss disagreements civil and assume good faith from the very outset, a cycle which was repeated multiple times even unto his ANI complaint and his notification of it on my talk page ... accompanied along the way by football-field chants of "slam dunk" which have no place in consensus-forming discussion among editors of an encyclopedia.

No admin should be treated like this. No woman editor should be subjected to such vicious abuse and bullying because she does not submit to the demands of a male editor who has clearly expressed an entitlement to her time and entitlement to her compliance to his will ... and an entitlement entitlement to abuse and insult.

This whole pattern needs to be addressed properly, and not just the JWeiss11's first attack at WP:CFDS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If Jweiss11's mistreatment of you has been motivated by sexism, that's a serious problem. Do you have any specific, actionable evidence of that? Lepricavark (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Lepricavark, no, she doesn't. No one's gender has anything to do with this episode. But here she had decided to target for attack not any behavior or action on my part, but an immutable demographic trait of mine. No one chooses or is responsible for such traits. I think this takes the cake for any personal attack by anyone in this episode. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, however, that the ANI I opened should not have be closed before she had a chance to respond. That was not fair to her. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

JW & Lepricavark: please read what I actually wrote above: No woman editor should be subjected to such vicious abuse and bullying because she does not submit to the demands of a male editor who has clearly expressed an entitlement to her time and entitlement to her compliance to his will ... and an entitlement to abuse and insult.

JW considers this statement of principle a "personal attack". Your responses both chose to express indignation that a woman should object to being bullied in this way. That is a statement of principle which any decent person should support; the fact that both of you object so strongly to it encapsulates exactly why this needs to be taken further. The indulgence of male aggression against women on en.wp has been well-documented: in newspapers, in scholarly literature and by the WMF. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And now you can please read what I wrote. Nowhere did I object to anything, let alone strongly. If I so desired, I could create a strawman of my own and assert that no non-admin (i.e. me) should have his words misrepresented by an admin (i.e. you). Of course, you probably wouldn't like having your admin flag used against you anymore than Jweiss11 appreciates having his gender used against him. Lepricavark (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lepricavark, I did read what you wrote. The strawman was your assumption that I alleged sexism. I did not allege sexism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment certainly seemed to allege sexism and it was hardly a strawman for me to arrive at such a reasonable conclusion. At any rate, I am still far from thrilled by your claim that I chose to express indignation that a woman should object to being bullied in this way. That's not what I was doing. Lepricavark (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Indignation was possibly the possibly the wrong word in your case. My objection was and remains that at every step in this sub-thread it appears that your sole concern is to query the precision of my complaint about Jweiss11's unrepentant bullying rather than to challenge his bullying and his lack of apology, or to acknowledge the well-documented problem that male bullying drives women off en.wp. That is a strange set of priorities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BHG, as an admin you should well know, as well as any editor who has brought claims to ANI, that extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence. The idiosyncrasies aside, I would have to echo Lepricavark's request for evidence of sexism, if as you say these comments are symptomatic of a wider behavioural problem. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair, but let's not let those "intellectually dishonest" allegations slide either. To be fair, I think BrownHairedGirl is probably more referring to gender differences.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of JW's personal beliefs; as Bagumba notes I was referring to a particularly male pattern of bullying behaviour. Obviously only a minority of men behave this way; but is a pattern of misconduct which is mostly conducted by men and mostly against women. Such bullying is not as JW claims an immutable demographic trait; it is a form of misconduct in which some men choose to engage. JW is one who has chosen to do so.

My point is that JW's repeatedly aggressive conduct fits a pattern of male bullying: attack rather than discuss; personalise abuse rather than discuss substance; repeatedly assume bad faith; neither apologise nor withdraw; repeatedly express an entitlement to the time and work of the other person, and angrily attack if his demands are not met. Each of those misconducts was displayed by JW on multiple occasions in this ugly saga, and Cbl62's comments below make v clear that JW has previous history of protracted bullying.

All of this creates a toxic environment which is the precise opposite of en.wp's core mission and of its terms of use. It contravenes many user-conduct and procedural policies.

Two things are now clear: i) JW will not apologise or withdraw his slew of misconduct; ii) ANI will take no action to reprimand his bullying conduct, let alone impose restrictions.

This has made seriously consider walking away from en.wp. The only reason I have not done so already is that several well-established editors have contacted me privately to stay and take a stand, in order to change the culture which has allowed this episode to be handled so far without even formal rebuke to JW.

I will not take any legal action, but I have several other options for taking this further. I will pursue those options and then reconsider whether I still want to be a part of this project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe Jweiss11 was referring to his gender as an an immutable demographic trait, not his bullying of you. In fact, I believe his meaning was quite obvious and that your construction of it stretches the bounds of credulity. As for your comments about men bullying women, I find it hard to be sympathetic given that about four hours after you wrote this comment, you accused me expressing indignation that a woman should object to being bullied in this way. I had not expressed any such indignation. You complain about male aggression. Well, I believe your response to me was needlessly aggressive, especially as I did not do what you accused me of doing. Lepricavark (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree. I've been following this discussion the last few days and at no point did I find there to be an atom of support for Jweiss, but BHG's most recent comments are deeply disconcerting coming from an admin, and are (kinda-sorta) giving me pause to reconsider my previous review of the situation. BrownHairedGirl, neither your identity as a woman nor your status as an admin give you leave to ignore our policies on WP:Personal attacks, which (for very good reason) state that you cannot make allegations about bad-faith behaviour (including repeated accusations about a supposed gender-harassment agenda) unless you are willing to provide at least a miniscule amount of evidence to support that assertion.

Believe me, I can well imagine that you have faced genuine harassment (subvert and explicit) as a consequence of being a non-male admin, but, with regard to specific accusations, jumping from the fact of contentious interactions straight to the assumption that your opposition in this personal dispute must be driven from an overwhelming male desire to control you is just not a leap that I think you are going to find the majority of other community members (male or female) can make with you without some degree of indication beyond the fact that you are in a series of protracted disputes. And I personally am less than impressed that an admin would make such an accusation without something beyond an WP:INVOLVED intuition to back it up. Unless I am missing something? Do you have any comments from outside the bounds of the discussion that we have seen here that would support your assertion that there is gender harassment at work here?

Also, let me be clear that I think it would be a profound shame if you were to leave the project over this matter, but I don't think it's fair to put it on the community as if it is a consequence of project-wide implicit bias and unresponsiveness to harassment. These are problems that many of us have reason be sensitive to and which would prompt strong reactions from us where bias and harassment were clear, or even just supported by some circumstantial cause for concern. But (again, unless I missed something) these are new allegations and I think the community deserves either A) more evidence or B) at least a little bit of time to investigate the behaviour ourselves, before I think it is fair to imply that the community is failing you and that you have no choice but to leave. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: please read what I wrote. I did not make a personal attack (unlessyou consider a complaint about bullying to be a personal attack).

I did not allege gender-harassment agenda. I noted the fact of a male editor bullying a woman and I noted the existence of a significant body of literature about this problem on en.wp. @I explicitly stated that I have zero knowledge of JW's personal beliefs; as Bagumba notes I was referring to a particularly male pattern of bullying behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am tired of these insinuations that other people are not reading what you are writing. Above, you have misrepresented my words and you have done the same to Jweiss11. Do you not see the double standard? Lepricavark (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Were are deep down the rabbit hole of double standards here. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not helping your case with comments like that. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, as you must surely be aware as an admin, an accusation of misconduct which is not supported by diffs or other material clearly evidencing the purported behaviour is a WP:Personal attack under our policies. Nor are you allowed, as a member of this community, to use project spaces to speculate at length about bigotry you suspect another community member of having, if you can't provide at least incidental evidence that they have voiced such perspectives. And I'm sorry, but you clearly have intimated, repeatedly, that the conflict between you is due to gender-motivated harassment; no amount of my re-reading your comments can change that fact. I'd diff the statements that are of concern here to be more precise, but they are literally just a couple of posts above us in this very thread. I truly am trying hard not be entirely dismissive of your complaints, because (believe me) I well understand how subtle harassment of this sort can be, and I really don't want to tear down your accusations only to find out that there was truly blatant gender harassment going on here. But if there is proof of such, you haven't supplied it, you've just hinted at this supposed malicious mindset, and then trying to distance yourself from the accusation, with rhetorical tricks like "Of course I didn't say his bullying is gendered--but isn't it interesting how he acts exactly like a chauvanist bully?" That approach has seen you rapidly descend from the high ground in this thread.

And all of this becomes even more worrying because you have been predicating your unsubstantiated suspicions in a slew of comments which the male members of this community might very fairly view as gender stereotypes/slurs. In your second-to-last post alone, you suggested that men are more prone to bullying behaviours such that they: "attack rather than discuss; personalise abuse rather than discuss substance; repeatedly assume bad faith; neither apologise nor withdraw; repeatedly express an entitlement to the time and work of the other person, and angrily attack if his demands are not met." (and then, as to your point that you have not made accusations of gender harrassment against your opponent, you go on to link these supposed features of a male-dominated psychology of bullying to his conduct when you add: "Each of those misconducts was displayed by JW on multiple occasions in this ugly saga...". And I'm sorry, but your ad-hoc profile of the male psyche vis-a-vis bullying (aside from raising questions about your own possible gender biases) is just not sufficient reasoning to sustain your position that you should be allowed to speculate open-endedly about what you perceive to be the likely motivation of another editor, in clear violation of an important behavioural policy. It's just not. And I'm not saying that Jweiss is not harassing/attempting to bully you. That may very well be. I'm just saying that your relative genders do not allow you to ignore our normal rules that restrain accusations about maliciousness in another editor, speculation about their motives/character flaws, and the propagation of stereotypes of supposed negative qualities to be associated with a given gender (i.e. sexist claims). All of those are best avoided here (the first two unless/until you can at least weakly demonstrate that they are more than suspicions on your part, and the last one pretty much altogether). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think Jweiss' attack on BHG was motivated by sexism. Rather, I think it's simply an abrasive aspect of his demeanor and a belief that his opinions are infallible and that anyone who disagrees with him needs to be pressed into submission. As noted above by Bagumba, I was involved in a dispute with Jweiss in December 2017 in which he employed similar methods. The last thing I want is to resume hostilities with him, but I feel some obligation to note them here, in hopes that Jweiss may temper his future behavior. BHG has noted that the attacks were highly discouraging for her, and they were for me as well. In the course of the December discussion, Jweiss11 (1) removed en masse a lengthy group of my fully-sourced edits from 30 articles (a move for which he was roundly criticized by others), (2) resorted to an f--- bomb (diff), (3) overly personalized the debate by accusing me of being "self-centered", "flouting" policy and/or being "intellectually dishonest" (diff and diff), (4) asserted that my suggestions for simplifying certain charts amounted to seeking concessions to my purported "neuroses" (diff -- which, if one reads the wikilink, are specific "mental disorders"); (5) when called on this personal attack, doubled down by purporting to make a "clear diagnosis" of such conditions (diff), (6) engaged in perceived legal threats by asserting that another editor and I had libeled and defamed him (diff), (7) baselessly threatened to seek an "injunction or topic ban" against me (diff), and (8) when questioned about his perceived legal threat, indicated that his accusations of libel and slander weren't an actual threat to sue, but merely an "assessment" of my "ethics" (diff). When I protested his conduct, he refused to apologize and characterized my protestations as "theatrics" (diff). As I noted at the time, such overly personalized and aggressive argumentation, incivility, and rudeness create a toxic environment. Jweiss never did apologize, and he probably never will, but it is my sincere hope that he might now see that such comments are corrosive to our core mission and that he will refrain from such conduct in the future. Cbl62 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cbl62, I'm happy that we were able to put that situation behhis stind us and continue to collaborate afterwards (e.g. the WWII-era service teams stuff), as we have done for the better part of the last decade. I'm disappointed that you have given such a one-sided account of our collision over the college football schedule tables back in December. You completely skipped over the part where you knowingly contravened a longstanding consensus about a core structure for college sports articles and then refused to stop that contravention and wait for a discussion to reach a conclusion. I'm disappointed that in your advocacy for the new templates in question you neglected to acknowledge any concern for the forking that I predicted and that has indeed come to fruition, and I'm disappointed that you don't seem to care to do anything since to resolve that fork, a mess that you more or less engineered in spite of my pleas. Your editing there was highly irresponsible and you were roundly criticized for it as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

An apology would have been the best response here. Silence would have been the second best alternative. Instead, you have opted to restart your personal attacks by asserting that I "knowingly contravened" consensus, that I don't care to fix "a mess" that I supposedly "engineered", and that my editing is "highly irresponsible", and by falsely claiming that I was "roundly criticized" by anyone other than you. Your inability to see the error of your ways, let alone apologize, remains troubling. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, these are not personal attacks. There are assessments of your editing and talk page arguments. Bagumba agreed with me regarding template forking and your dismissiveness of the issue. Two other editors agreed that your editing was inappropriate/problematic; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 20#Straw poll on Cbl62's editing. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba's response to your "straw poll" was as follows: "Cbl62's edits have been fine. . . . Cbl62 has been adding verifiable facts, and anyone can enhance his presentation if they see fit." But, much more fundamentally, what you continue to ignore is this: The problem was not with whether your preferred version of schedule charts or mine was better. The problem was your aggressive and bullying approach, including repeatedly accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty", making implied legal threats by accusing me of libel and defamation, threatening to seek an "injunction" against me, and asserting that my editing preferences were due to my alleged "neuroses" (i.e., defined "mental disorders"). It is fine to disagree about content; disagreement can be healthy and good. But when you resorted to personal attacks and legal threats, that's the part that was not OK. You still don't seem to be able to understand that. Cbl62 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think a long block is in order, until JWeiss can convince us he can edit without calling people who disagree with him liars. I didn't realize this wasn't his first rodeo... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sarek, I'll make a commitment here not to accuse others of intellectually dishonesty in any future episodes. I think we should note, though, that intellectual dishonesty is not exactly the same as lying and that I have had many, many disagreements with others on Wikipedia over the years in which I haven't accused anyone of either. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that even at this late stage, Jweiss11 neither retracts either allegation nor apologises for them, let alone apologises for his repeated failures to assume good faith, for his many other personal attacks, or for his repeatedly-expressed entitlement to the time and work of other editors.

This extraordinary attitude still needs action, whether reprimand or sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has apologized for any personal attacks or failures to assume good faith. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Still extraordinary. That section opens with your repeated statements of your refusal to assume good faith ... and yet after you explicitly renounced it and made yet another barrage of personal attacks, you complain that I finally gave up extending to you the good faith which you refused me for nearly 3 months. Extraordinary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This section open as is does because that's how you decided to open it. It goes at lot of places between there and here. I'd like to apologize again for accidentally removing a comment of yours on your talk page. It may have been a bug, as another editor suggested, but it might have been oversight on my part, perhaps failing to notice that I was viewing/editing on old revision of the page. Not sure, but again, I'm sorry about that. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Jweiss11 I did not write "this section" I wrote the "that section" referring to section on my talk to which you lined and which opened with your repeated assumptions of bad faith.

Thanks for the apology for removing that comment. However it is an utterly trivial matter compared with the barrage or bullying which you conducted and for which continue to make no apology. Extraordinary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 2 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.

Concluding statement

Let us start with stating basic facts. We have an acute conflict between two very experienced users. Jweiss11 has over 250k edits, BHG has over 850k edits and is administrator. I have never intersected (as far as I can tell) with Jweiss11 before he opened this thread, I see that he is a prolific content creator with a focus on American football. (My apologies if I missed some important aspects here). BHG is also a content creator, and as an administrator she is performing a lot of community service, I interacted with her in earlier this year concerning mine and her activity related to categories, and the interaction was pleasant and unproblematic. BHG was never blocked; Jweiss11 was blocked once in 2012 for 24h for 3RR. I do not see any signs of long-term problematic behavior demonstrated by either BHG or Jweiss11. We must conclude that both of them are clearly net positive for the English Wikipedia. Even more, they are possibly among the most valuable users of this project.

What we see here is a trainwreck. As often happens, it is an amplified misunderstanding. I have first-hand experience with speedy deletion of categories, and I know policies are tricky and not always obvious there. Not everything can be speedy deleted, things often must be moved to full discussions, but admins working there often just remove the speedies without following up. Usually, if a wikiproject agrees that the category is not needed and they know how to handle it, is is easy to get deleted, but if they do not things may become complicated. Whatever. Anyway, Jweiss11 nominated a category for deletion, BHG did not delete it, there was some exchange, the actions from both sides were suboptimal, and at some point the parties stopped assuming good faith. The thread above started with accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" (which I, not being a native speaker, read as accusation of lying - at least I see how it can be read this way), and then the avalanche started, which did not make anybody good service. Which is not very much surprising, because if you stop assuming good faith, it is natural to see pretty much everything the opponent does as negative, and if you see that the opponent does smth negative it is natural to ask ANI to deal with that.

What can we do with this now? First, it has to stop. I closed the topic in the morning, and I will appreciate if the accusations will not be followed up elsewhere. They do not have any point now - we all know that to get opponent sanctioned one needs to demonstrate a long pattern of substandard behavior, and neither BHG nor Jweiss11 show this pattern. The opponent is just not going to be sanctioned, unless he or she will do smth extraordinarily stupid. I would strongly advise against doing anything extraordinarily stupid, for that part.

In the ideal world, I would like to see Jweiss11 apologizing for the "intellectual dishonesty" accusation, and I would like to see BHG to accept the apology and to admit that her reaction to this accusation was not optimal. Then they could sit together and discuss what to do with the category. In the real world, it is probably not going to happen for a multitude of reasons. I am already happy that Jweiss11 stated that in the future he will not operate with the notion of "intellectual dishonesty". It would probably be good for the sides to stop interacting for a while. Most likely the only topic they reasonably can intersect in is the discussion of categories, and there (unless smth changed after January when I was active there) multiple administrators are active on a daily basis. BHG should just not take any actions on Jweiss11's nominations, and somebody would do it for her. The sky is not going to fall if a nomination gets closed a couple of days later. If the sky is about to fall, BHG can just ask another administrator, there are plenty of them available. Concerning the category from which the whole thing started, if indeed the wikiproject has come to consensus that it is not needed, I would advise to talk to one of the admins working at CfD (not BHG, and ideally somebody not previously involve with these deletion requests) and see what would be the best and easiest route to have the category deleted.

And please remember to assume good faith, at lest until it is not possible any more to assume good faith. If you are interacting with a user who does not have a track record of long-term problematic behavior (which typically should have resulted in blocks, featuring them at ANI, AE and similar pleasant places) and the trainwreck is approaching it is most likely a miscommunication and not a systematic misconduct. At this point, just stop, think about it, try to resolve, and, if needed, ask for assistance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think we need to discuss this statement, and definitely not in the way the two threads above developed, but just in case anybody has smth important to say I take it out of the closed thread. Please in any case do not continue mutual accusations. You can accuse me in posting a bad text if you want, I can survive this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Question for closer

@Ymblanter: thank you for taking the time to close that. It must have taken some time.

However I am surprised that you ask me to admit that her reaction to this accusation was not optimal.

Jweiss11's accusation was false because I had noted that Amherst College#Athletics, which mentions neither "Mammoths" nor "Lord Jeffs". Here is that lined section as it stood then:[255] it does indeed mentions neither "Mammoths" nor "Lord Jeffs". Jweiss11's later comments assume I was referring to the entire page, a misunderstanding which could have been resolved by discussion ... but instead Jweiss11 personalised the discussion (creating busywork &c) culminating in his "intellectually dishonest" attack.

My reaction was to:

1. not respond at the WP:CFDS discussion (see discussion when delisted[256])
2. post on Jweiss11's talk asking for retraction[257] (I received no response and nor did SMcCandlish receive a response to their previous post [258])
3. My next interaction with Jweiss11 was when he pinged me to take admin action[259] which I declined in view of the attack.[260]
4. When Jweiss11 repeated the request I responded at greater length[261]
5. I had no further interaction with Jweiss11 until I closed two CfDs which I did not connect with the incident 6 weeks earlier
6. Jweiss11 did not communicate with me in any way about either close. T he next I heard from him was when he opened the ANI discussion above accusing me of Obstructive, spiteful administration, a claim which he repeated several times in the subsequent discussion along with his claim that my failure to to act on his demands was a clear abuse of admin powers

So please can you clarify how my reaction to this accusation was not optimal?

The only issue I can see is my failure to recognise that the nominator of those discussions was the angrily abusive and demanding editor from an incident 6 weeks earlier. So is my sub-optimal response my failure to maintain a blacklist of angry editors to avoid? Or something else? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I mean you should not have closed the two discussions (if I were you, I would probably also not have realized that this is the same editor, but after it became apparent I would have unclosed the discussion and ask another admin to close it), and also whatever developed into the sexism topic in the previous thread could have been avoided (again, I understand the background, but it was definitely not the best move).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It only became apparent after a barrage of personal abuse at ANI. I would have considered a post-facto request to recuse, but I do not take any such steps in response to personal attack or bullying. I make that v clear on my Editnotice.

I also I note with sadness that your close makes no mention of (let alone criticism of) Jweiss11's failure to respond either to two warnings on his talk page about personal attacks, and again when I pointed it out to him when he pinged me. I am also sad that you make no criticism of Jweiss11's decision to go directly to ANI alleging bad faith instead of discussing with me. And no rebuke either for his repeated insistence — even at ANI — that my failure to to act on his demands was a clear abuse of admin powers. Do you not consider those failings significant?

As to "the sexism topic" ... I did not and do not allege sexism. What I raised was that this was a case of a male editor bullying a woman in a context where male bullying is a systemic problem. There is extensive literature on how women are driven away from en.wp by male bullying (however motivated or whoever it is directed at); in a space where aggression and bullying are unsanctioned women tend not to hang around until it is directed at them. It makes little difference to the person targeted whether or not the aggression is motivated by sexism/misogyny; what matters is the risk of being monstered by an angry male mastodon.

So I am appalled that you entirely avoided any acknowledgement of the systemic problem and choose instead to rebuke me for noting its existence after a discussion was closed without even a summary rebuking the bully. The problem of unsanctioned aggression is one of the factors which causes low participation by women on en.wp, esp on noticeboards. In this case JW's conduct from the outset was at every stage to attack, demand and bully. What does it say about the culture on en.wp that you think it unwise to even try to discuss how this is part of a wider problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BHG, I know you don't see this, but if you are not really alleging that you were harassed because of your gender--and I think given your comments above, a lot of us are having a hard time swallowing that argument, but let's accept that premise for the moment--then your repeatedly returning to discussing the other user's gender becomes even more of a problem, not less of one. Because at that point, you are not raising the issue of his gender for any pragmatic reason, but instead just repeatedly asserting that he is a bully as consequence of his being a man. In other words, a gendered assumption--and honestly, in the way you are wording it, a slur and still very much a violation of WP:NPA. And there's a broader term for it: gender discrimination. How can you not understand that these kinds of comments are not one whit less offensive than if Jweiss had said "She can't help it, she nags--that's what female Wikipedians do. And give me a break, we all know about it." I am fairly sure that you would be (very justifiably) livid, and you can be certain it would provoke a pretty strong reaction from the other editors here, yours truly most assuredly included. Actually, to be frank, if Jweiss had dragged your gender into this particular discussion with stereotypical comments about how various of your negative qualities were typical of your gender, he would blocked by this point, if not sitebanned--I have very little doubt about that.

And what has been asked of you (keeping fidelity with our civility policies and not speculating about the motivations and qualities of other editors) does not represent a problem for Wikipedia culture with regard to gender inclusion. If you were alleging gender discrimination, the expectation would be that the community should investigate aggressively. And if it didn't take your claims seriously under those circumstances, then there would certainly have been a problem. But you haven't presented any diffs or other evidence to back up you implication of gender harassment, not even circumstantial content. And according to you, you never were making such an accusation, but rather we all just misunderstood you, so there is no cause for you to be discussing the other user's gender in this particular discussion, which would otherwise not be about gender in any way, shape, or form. Similarly, you are completely at liberty to discuss general issues of gender, harassment, and inclusion on this project (what you refer to above as the systemic issues)--there are many contexts where that is not only appropriate, but indeed broadly viewed as essential to improving community equality and accessibility. What you cannot do (if you are not alleging gender discrimination yourself) is repeatedly bring up another editor's gender in a personal dispute and then link that gender to the character flaws you perceive in that other editor. That is offensive. It is discriminatory. It is for these reasons against our behavioural policies. Please stop. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, what I said is that this issue should not have been developed to the point that it showed up at ANI. I did not on purpose list all the details how it happened and who has done what. These details would only be important if we were talking about sanctions, and here, as I said, sanctions are not going to happen. Therefore we need to concentrate on the big picture and on what we should best do to avoid the repetition in the future. And the big picture is that after a developed misunderstanding and a number of bad moves you both assumed bad faith, and after you both assumed bad faith, we eventually arrived to where we are now.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for taking this on. I think you summarized a lot of the community's sentiments on both sides. However, it sounds like you are suggesting a sanction of sorts for BrownHairedGirl to avoid any future Jweiss11 CfD nominations. You are entitled to that opinion, but I dont think it should be co-mingled with the close, unless I missed that having been a popular viewpoint. Consider starting a new thread for that topic if you think it should be pursued. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I absolutely do not suggest any sanctions. I am just saying that it would be a good idea if for some time BrownHairedGirl would not deal with Jweiss11's nominations - there are enough other admins who can do that, and nothing good could possibly come out of this interaction in the near future.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. As an admin, BrownHairGirl is already responsible for upholding WP:INVOLVED. It seems out of place to suggest in a close for her to avoid Jweiss11 CfDs, unless there is consensus that she has been biased with him as an admin, as opoosed to possibly having misjudged a CfD (DRV still pending) Otherwise, I think we can trust her best judgement whether she chooses to close them or not.—Bagumba (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually disagree, but we have another discussion running in parallel in this topic, let us may be first wait until that one ends.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

DRV Update

I just closed the related DRV. When I wrote my close, I was aware of this ANI thread, but hadn't actually read through it. Having now read it, it looks like Ymblanter and myself are pretty much on the same page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Pro Regnum Siciliæ

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

---

I have sent Pro Regnum Siciliæ several messages since February but they have ignored all. The messages were about repeatedly creating articles without clear sources, and other editors have also messaged them about adding unverified material to existing articles. This led to an ANI in March, which Pro Regnum Siciliæ did not participate in, and they were given a two-week ban. Unfortunately, Pro Regnum Siciliæ still ignores all messages, won't address the issues and continues to add unverified material to articles, post-block. Please see User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ especially User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ#Sources (again). I think the only way to get Pro Regnum Siciliæ's attention and for htem to address the issues is an indef block, which hopefully would make them communicate. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread. He has been conversant before as seen here last Summer but not since. Communication is required so if he doesn't respond within three days, I'd endorse blocking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This editor hasn't edited anywhere since the 25th; gaps like this seem fairly common so I wouldn't assume it's in any way related to this thread. They seem to be promoting Sicilian identity (for example, [262]) and doing little else. If they're doing that without proper sourcing, and don't reply to questions, the indef will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed them. Communication is required for collaboration and maybe they will oblige us.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 2 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:BalbinoFelipe

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

---

I have sent this editor several messages about sourcing on several articles over the last five months, but they haven't replied to a single message. They have also not replied to similar messages from other editors. They have continued to create unreferenced articles since they have had warnings about this. I have pointed out that WP:Communication is required, it is part of the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. They have been editing for seven years but have never responded to a message. Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 3 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:OVVL

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

---

I have sent OVVL six messages, all ignored [263]. They have only ever edited their talk page to delete people's messages. The messages were about the creation of unreferenced articles, such as 2018 French Open – Men's Singles and 2018 French Open – Women's Singles. I have directed them to WP:V and WP:BURDEN and pointed out that WP:Communication is required as part of the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE, but to no avail. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully they're not related to ovv-services, a technology marketing solutions firm. Lourdes 03:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any promotion in their edits, so I assume not, but OVVL, perhaps you'd like to answer the above? Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OVVL, you've continued to edit including adding unsourced information [264]. Please respond. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 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.

Break-in attempts to accounts belong to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics

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.

---

3 members of our very small project have had this occur within the past few hours. Given the politically charged nature of the topic, I don't think this is random. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#failed_login_attempts --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's actually an issue that's happening to a number of people. It's been reported at the village pump as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a relief then. Didn't see the other report, but I also am battling a cold today so my bad. Please disregard --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this. A site-wide issue (that's also affecting the French Wikipedia) would randomly affect the Gun politics project without necessarily being politically motivated. No one needs to explain how because of WP:BEANS, but it's really no trouble to try to log in to everyone's account. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I had an attempt too. Glad it's not just me, although I wasn't unduly worried. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There was an attempt to hack my account last night as well. In a discussion at User talk:Winkelvi, at least eight random editors report such attempts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Nothing to do with gun politics, methinks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Might be related to this? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-passwords/twitter-says-glitch-exposed-substantial-number-of-users-passwords-idUSKBN1I42JG (Change your passwords) --Tarage (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a notification too, but I have never used Twitter and don’t intend to ever do.Tvx1 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This was a bot attack on thousands of accounts. Any further discussion should take place at WP:AN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 4 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.

Use of abusive language

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

---

An anonymous user with the following IP address :@97.33.195.77: has been using abusive language on my talk page for no good reason. This can be viewed here. Please look into the matter and take relevant steps to resolve the issue.U1Quattro (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

single edit. warned. dynamic ip.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:40, 4 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.

Anti-Semitic user 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.

---

I submit that this vile, anti-Semitic talk page post by User:Pastel xenon suggests that they are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite block by JzG, who beat me to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:09, 4 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 ip of long term disruptive editor already blocked several times

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. The "false dates vandal" active on Ottoman personalities since months is again active with a new ip to block : [265]--Phso2 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There's lots of vandalism from 39.49.0.0/16 on Turkish biographies. I'll keep an eye on it. Maybe I can figure out a narrower range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 4 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.

Filthy troll - admin intervention 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.

---

Can someone please block the author and revdel my latest love note on my talk page, presumably from a sock or a banned user. The filth contained within this is unacceptable. Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ta. Cassianto^Talk 22:42, 4 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 of legal action by User:TheRealEditor101

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

---

This user has threatened to take legal action against me for a generic notice that I had placed on his talk page, advising him against editing unconstructively. Diffs: [266]. This is against policy, and there are a couple more he violated as well, namely: WP:NLT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. I understand that the action was committed a while ago, but I've just noticed this today. Might I add that as long as this user rescinds his legal threat, I'm fine with not indef-ing him (of course, administrators can override this), as I believe it was in a fit of rage that he posted that rant. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 04:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Clearly not meant as a sincere legal threat, but just part of a long string of bizarre personal attacks. The editor probably wasn't even aware that that part would be taken any worse than the rest of their ridiculous comment; heck, "one day you’ll be dead"[267] might as well be taken as a threat of violence, with how this editor seems to think it is acceptable to communicate. Anyway, indef, and consider removing talk page access off the bat since the disruption took place on the editor's own talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've got no idea if they intended that as a real legal threat or not, but regardless, their behavior shows they're not here to contribute. Indeffed accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks to all. It's that bad huh...sigh. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 04:33, 5 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.

Sockpuppetry case review

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.

---

• Note: This has been escalated on the recommendation of an admin [268].

Some days back, an SPI case was filed involving Capitals00, a user with a history of (quote) "WP:SOCK, WP:BATTLE, pro-India WP:POV and WP:NPA" issues across WP:ARBIPA, and MapSGV, who, in their remarkably short experience of editing, has demonstrated countless violations of NPOV, NPA and WP:NOTHERE. Both accounts are active on multiple content disputes in the India-Pakistan topic area. Whilst the CU/technical data was inconclusive, I believe the behavioural evidence between these accounts is unbelievably strong and there's more than meets the eye. I'm escalating this for review here only following these remarks by the closing admin, and because I remain convinced by what I've seen. Of particular note are the following pieces of evidence from SPI:

• "MapSGV was registered in 2014, and was rarely used until February 2018 when one of its first edits involved inserting this disputed text into Siachen conflict (which Capitals00 supported on talk). For a user with below 100 edits prior to February and below 300 currently, MapSGV had surprisingly good command of Wikipedia jargon, noticeboards, acronyms, and editing know-how which was noted by admin Sandstein [269]." The account was topic banned from India-Pakistan articles (see decision here) which was removed on appeal [270]. Capitals00 opposed MapSGV's indef block and then topic ban, including on his talk. [271]

Some background

• "One of MapSGV's first 10 edits on Wikipedia in 2015: ([272]), insisting on repeated replacement of "defeat" with "ceasefire" on List of wars involving Libya ([273]), ([274]), ([275]), ([276])." Capitals00 restored the exact same edits only months later ([277]), ([278]) There's no explanation why Capitals00 restored MapSGV's edits on obscure articles like these, which Capitals00 never edited before, when these two had no interaction, and when MapSGV's own edit count was less than 20 (!). See below also.
• One of MapSGV's other first edits, replacement of "victory" with "ceasefire" on List of wars involving Egypt in 2015 ([279]), ([280]). Capitals00 restored the same result months later without previous edits to article. ([281])

• In 2013, Capitals00 replaced the infobox result for "Egyptian military victory" on Libyan–Egyptian War with "Status quo ante bellum" ([282]). In 2015, MapSGV restored the same result ([283]), ([284]), ([285]), ([286]), ([287]), and in 2016, Capitals00 again restored the exact same ([288]), ([289]), ([290]). Both accounts edit warred with one user on this article.

• Both involved on Talk:Libyan–Egyptian War on the same obscure content dispute: MapSGV ([291]); Capitals00 ([292]), ([293]), ([294])
• Same POV elsewhere; Capitals00 ([295]) and MapSGV ([296]), ([297])
• MapSGV has edited 96 pages in total, of them 32 overlap with Capitals00. Refer to the SPI for overlaps.

The style of language, editing and behaviour is virtually identical (see below).

• Removing content under the rationale of "copyvio" [sic] as per edit summaries: Capitals00 ([298]), ([299]), ([300]), ([301]); MapSGV ([302]), ([303])

• 1) Calling other users "incompetent".

MapSGV:

(but you are being too incompetent that you have to cry out loud for disruption..), (incompetent editor who can't keep discussion at one place), (He is clearly saying that editors are not allowed to be competent in Wikipedia with this much edit count, even though I am editing for 4 years) (I haven't come across any editors with this much incompetence that they can't even understand simple English)

Capitals00:

(but given your incompetence and WP:IDHT issues you just can't understand a thing), (NadirAli, let me be crystal clear that EdwardElric2016 is more competent than you and Xinjao put together.), (I can't do anything about your incompetence and WP:IDHT, I can only tell you the guidelines), (You should better blame your incompetence that you can't even detect), (and it is nothing but further indication of his lack of competence), (That's why I am in favor of indef block, due to your lack of competence)

• 2) Same grammatical mistakes e.g. use of "despite":

MapSGV:

(Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed), (I am also topic banned from "Afghanistan" despite I never edited that subject), (your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future), (despite it was correctly sourced... despite he never even asked... topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite I never even edited Afghanistan)

Capitals00:

(you have clearly singled out MapSGV despite he is the biggest victim here), (I should describe my changes with "an accurate edit summary", despite I already have), (with a meaningless edit summary despite you are being the problematic editor... you can't even detect what is a copyright violation despite you have been warned enough times), (he violates his topic ban despite it has been clarified to him very clearly.), (despite Classical period is only from 200 BCE to 5th or 6th century CE)

• 3) "Frivolous"

MapSGV:

(Sandstein first blocked me... by finding sense in a frivolous report filed by a ban evading sock... filing frivolous reports and he even trolled on SPI by claiming that CheckUser absolved him... and also for filing a frivolous report), (why are you buying into frivolous tagging... You can't edit war over such frivolous tagging... before such frivolous tagging you have to raise them here), (Frivolous SPI aside..)

Capitals00:

(frivolous notification is just another example of your WP:IDHT), (I didn't even saw your frivolous warning I just went ahead to write a note on your talk page, highlighting your history of mass disruption), (By entertaining such frivolous complaints we are only encouraging editors to misuse), (Elektricity has filed a frivolous complaint against MapSGV, just like FreeatlastChitchat had filed a frivolous complaint against D4iNa4.)

• 4) Heavy use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in comments, e.g.: MapSGV ([304]), ([305]); Capitals00 ([306]), ([307]), ([308])

• 5) Similar terms used in edit summaries/talk discussions: Capitals00 (topic banned disruptive editor), (topic ban evading sock); MapSGV (ban evading sock), (Why I have to notify that topic banned sockmaster?)

There was obviously more on the SPI, but this is the gist of it all. I've been editing long enough to know that such behavioural matches are not mere coincidence, and have never found as consistent the glaringly same idiosyncrasies (and lack of even subtle differences) as I have between these two. Irrespective of the final say, I really believe this should be of merit to at least some form of review before there's further full-blown disruption by "new" accounts like MapSGV. Mar4d (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block on Mar4d for his long term pattern of WP:GAMING, WP:BATTLE, WP:CIR, WP:NPA and failure to drop WP:STICK when repeatedly asked. Mar4d there is really no doubt that you have gross incompetence issues and your inability to give up your nationalistic POV pushing has always been a concern. Rehashing a frivolous SPI that was filed in revenge of a block on disruptive sock puppeteer FreeatlastChitchat does nothing good for anyone except you but given you have exhausted community's patience with your long term disruption, I find it best to simply get rid of you. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

^This incessant WP:BATTLE is exactly what I'm highlighting. Your comment above (attempted diversion of a thread actually about an SPI review) is exactly indicative of the issues plaguing this topic area. Your own involvement in several of the above articles with MapSGV says a lot about credibility. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Could there be a more blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black? MBlaze Lightning ^talk

• Support indef block on Mar4d, as suggested above. Mar4d's deliberate misrepresentation of checkuser results ("unlikely" as "inconclusive") and personal attacks made on this thread while engaging in mass disruption. Such a long term disruption clearly warrants an indef block. I expect no return without a topic ban from South Asia subjects, because of his lack of competence as seen in many of the recent articles, Siachen conflict, India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present), where his participation did nothing other than wasting time of every other involved editor. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: Umm ... I haven't looked into this thoroughly, but have you tried bringing this up with User:Ivanvector (courtesy ping)? They already refused, unambiguously, to block for sockpuppetry in this case, so you are essentially asking another admin to relitigate their decision without telling them. Yes, SPI sucks because oftentimes people who are obviously socking can get away with it as some SPI closers will close without even looking at the behavioral evidence, just because CU was inconclusive (don't ask...), but that doesn't appear to be the case here -- IV looked at the evidence, and didn't find it convincing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Please read the above, as it was meant to be addressed to you. Please also make your comments a little more compact, as the above wall of text is confusing and blends in with the much shorter comments that follow.

@MBlaze Lightning: Sorry, I thought you were the OP. Please ignore the above comment, as it was not meant for you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MBlaze Lightning: Ridiculous. I'm not here throwing unsubstantiated arguments, only referring to the evidence available. It was none other than the closing admin Ivanvector who suggested I raise any of my concerns on WP:ANI or WP:AE [309], which I see as valid. Here's another desperate manoeuvre at derailment by another involved editor. I'm not going to be surprised where this is going, as is the case elsewhere. Mar4d (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If an uninvolved administrator blocked every one of the disruptive editors involved in this matter, the encyclopedia would function a little bit more smoothly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks, noted. I did bring it up on Ivanvector's talk, please see the note on top. Ivan suggested I take this issue to either ANI or WP:AE, hence this request for review. Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: "Mblaze Lightning"? Or Mar4d? Mar4d has already tried bringing this issue with Ivanvector[310] and he already got his answers there, even though it was nothing but failure to WP:GETOVERIT. I think you can say now that Mar4d has clear WP:IDHT issues, though its not limited with this bogus SPI but elsewhere,[311][312] like it has been mentioned above that he engaged in nothing but disruption. Given Mar4d has been disruptive for a long time, this disruptive forum shopping and personal attacks he has made here are making me agree that Mar4d should be blocked indefinitely as his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is getting out of hands. Capitals00 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You did not respond on the SPI or on Ivanvector's talk when the case was open, or after it was closed, and were editing during that entire time. But you obviously have enough time now handing out "indefinite block" proposals, and not rebutting a thing about the subject of this thread. Mar4d (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to reply frivolous SPIs. Outcome was obvious. I understand that why you are not getting over that absurd SPI because you are asking us to block you indefinitely for your CIR issues. Capitals00 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Mar4d (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support block on Mar4d for his annoying attempts to disrupt Wiki. Ivanvector told Mar4d that: "If you feel that Capitals00 and MapSGV are disruptive influences within the topic area then WP:ANI and/or WP:AE are available to you to review their conduct".[313] This is not same as saying: "Try WP:ANI for reposting the SPI." Mar4d is clearly misrepresenting comments of Ivanvector.[314][315] This deliberate misrepresentation or failure to understand English shows there are WP:CIR issues with Mar4d. Mar4d, after having inter-actions with you before, I find the concerns from others to be correct after seeing here that it's a mammoth task for you to understand what has been told to you by Ivanvector. In this situation how can we trust you with the articles that require competence? Stop changing your comments after they have been already replied. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm confident my "English" is fine, and haven't asked for a re-interpretation on behalf of the admin. What I'm seeing here instead is a repeat of the same tendentious WP:STONEWALLING and WP:TAGTEAMING, and the above attempt to corner is no exception. Four involved editors with the same WP:NOTTHEM, and not a single response pertaining to the topic or issue raised. Speaks volumes. Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Why you are failing to understand what Ivanvector said? Clearly because you lack the grasp of English language. WP:NOTTHEM is a guideline, exclusive for guiding unblock requests. It is not for shoving your incompetence and stopping other editors from talking about your problematic conduct. SPI was just a garbage. Issue is only you that you are engaging in long term WP:DE, WP:IDHT and other problems. When you bring any issue to ANI, your conduct is always judged as default. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Problematic conduct" brings up a lot of implications - so far as the farce that this section has predictably become is concerned, and there's a serious lack of self-introspection in that respect. And WP:NOTTHEM in this context includes deflecting from the issue at hand, which I thought is self-evident. Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from admin whose actions are being reviewed and who was not notified about this discussion - Mar4d did misinterpret my last comment in our discussion, I was not inviting them to forumshop the SPI. I was suggesting that if they found Capitals00 and MapSGV to be disruptive, they could ask the community to review their conduct, but I expected that Mar4d would frame that discussion appropriately and understand that their own conduct would also be open to review. I stand by my conclusion that Capitals00 and MapSGV are not sockpuppets. I've already explained why I came to that conclusion in the SPI and again on my talk page when Mar4d inquired. There are known sockmasters operating in this topic area and we take reports seriously, notwithstanding that there are also a group of editors who run to SPI every time more than one editor disagrees with their opinion, which is precisely what you'll see if you scroll past the very first report in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive. Mar4d is the one who has ignored evidence, not me: the checkuser Yunshui (who also should have been notified) explained why their result was {{unlikely}} (which means probably but not quite definitely not related), not {{inconclusive}} (which means that no conclusion can be made). I have no opinion whether any of these users should be blocked for other reasons but they are not sockpuppets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

More specifically: Capitals00 and MapSGV are not sockpuppets of each other. I have not reviewed and am not commenting on other accounts in this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

... notwithstanding that Capitals00 has already been investigated for sockpuppetry with at least one other account that has edited this thread, and there are other accounts here with their own SPI histories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes, your conclusion is evident both on the talk page and SPI closure linked here - and there to see. It's my tacit understanding that when you suggested escalating these concerns to WP:ANI or WP:AE, it would have revolved around the same set of evidence on which I elaborated my questions on your talk, and hence here in the review (in green text above) following that suggestion. As I mentioned before, irrespective of the final say, it's the link between the two users which requires review or investigation. That includes, if nothing less, WP:MEAT (per the talkpage message), which IMHO is amply supported in the SPI evidence. As you mentioned 'conduct', are you suggesting this report should have been framed differently or should it be outside of the SPI altogether (where the evidence was presented in the first place)? Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef CIR block - Mar4d has socked for over 7 years and was unblocked in 2016 per WP:ROPE. Regardless of his continued disruption on South Asia-related articles, he is now alleging two long term active editors as socks. He has been told too many times that they are not related in any sense. Mar4d's own words confirm that he is trying to eliminate editors by engaging in this WP:FORUMSHOPPING for a laughable SPI so that he can get the chance to push his own POV that has been already rejected by other editors on concerning articles. Is there really any reason why I should not support block on Mar4d? Where Ivanvector told him to rehash a spurious SPI? Where CU told him that data is "inconclusive"? Mar4d is too incompetent to understand those words of Ivanvector and Yunshui or he is just being deceptive for making his weak case look strong by misrepresenting SPI clerk and CheckUser, either way he is a net negative. A WP:CIR block is completely necessary in this situation. Lorstaking (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If you really want to bring up user histories, please be my guest and we'll have a long discussion about everyone's block logs. This is not what this thread is about. Neither is this a venue for blatant WP:TAGTEAMING, which is more than evident. I am not sure what, if anything else, we are supposed to make of a situation where all editors from one topic area quickly turn up within moments to support a spurious "indef block" proposal whilst completely ignoring or refusing to address concerns which have been raised validly of the actual subject. This is a clear joke and gaming of the system. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 5 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:Khalid sadeq

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.

---

Khalid sadeq has been editing since 2013, and during that time has only once edited their talk page. Please see User talk:Khalid sadeq where there are numerous messages from myself and others, asking Khalid sadeq to stop adding unsourced content to articles and to stop creating unsourced articles. I have sent several messages over the last 8 months, with no response, except to continue to add unsourced information. I have directed them to WP:V, offered to help, pointed out that communication is required as part of the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE, but the same editing pattern continues. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 5 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.

Calling any admin.... We need a block. Pronto.

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.

---

Rabbi Melchizedek Soapbarstein See 2018 Armenian protests. Reported at AIV. Kleuske (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done - not seen a user with so many 'final' warnings...! GiantSnowman 08:14, 5 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 potentially libelous edit

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

---

Just to make it clear, I am not threatening any legal action here, but would appreciate an admin taking a look at an edit. An anonymous edit added a potentially libelous comment here before deleting it several minutes later. I am a member of the snooker project and follow the sport well, and never heard of any impropriety regarding the player prior to the newspaper sting. The sting was actually targeting the player's manager as far as I am aware. Anyway, even though the comment is on the talk page and was deleted, it is still a part of Wikipedia's edit history, and the player in question was never found guilty of any actual match fixing. I was wondering if this should be excised from Wikipedia's history altogether? Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Davey2010, for transparency's sake, it was me. I was in the car and managed to do the oversights but crashed my mobile browser repeatedly trying to re-load the extremely large ANI page. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Hey man, don't delete and drive! Just kidding.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Courcelles, Ah okay thanks, Could I ask for future reference - When oversight is used nothing will show in the logs will it ?, Admittingly I've never got the differences between OS and Revdel and probably never will but for future cases if it's not shown in logs then I can put "Done by the oversight team" as opposed to saying "It's been dealt with but no logs show who" which then makes that admin come forward I guess, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• RevDel and OS differ by who can see the revision. If it is RevDel, all admins can see, if OS is used instead, only our local oversighters and the stewards can see it. They're done in the exact same manner, on the same screen; it just takes one extra checkmark to do an OS versus a Revdel. RevDel will leave an entry in the public deletion logs, OS will not, there is a separate "Suppression Log" view-able only by OS, stewards, ombusds (I think) and WMF staff. And, yeah, if something looks RevDeled but there is not a corresponding entry in the deletion log for that page, it has been oversighted. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Any admin can revdel or see a revdel'd edit. Only special people can oversight/see oversighted edits, This probably just needs revdel.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Both edits have been suppressed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Out of curoiusity, why oversight something instead of revdel-ing it? Natureium (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  It's mainly used for potentially defamatory or potentially libellous BLP violations. See WP:Oversight for more info. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

To help those who are still confused: revision deletion makes it so that only administrators can see the redacted data applied to, and the logs of who rev del'd what is viewable by anyone via the deletion log. Oversight is exactly the same as revision deletion - the only difference is that they get an extra check-box that allows them to hide the data from admins as well. Only oversighters can see suppressed data and the logs are only viewable by oversighters via the oversight log. If the revision in question was an extreme case of libel, suppression is perfectly acceptable to apply and Courcelles made the right call. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles & Oshwah for that, I think in all my years of being here those 2 replies have been the ones I've actually got!, CIR and all that, Anyway thanks both. –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 - You bet; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:02, 5 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.

Leon Trotsky

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 dropped a notification at RfPP, but I know there's more eyes here than there. Some twitch streamer/youtuber summit, has practically put the page on blast for his fans to vandalize. I need someone to instate semi-protect asap. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 5 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: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.

---

Mr. Sands was not Irish he was British. It isn’t vandalism to make wiki more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamy202 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Steamy202: Please use the article's talk page to discuss and stop adding comments to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeap, no malfunction here. Edits like this should indeed be reverted. --Yamla (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is it that the people who refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki" are always clueless?EEng 21:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I dare you to go over and ask that question at WikiInAction.--Shirt58 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• INDEF Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

He has a point though. Sands was either Northern Irish (a fudge to avoid saying British) or British. He certainly wasnt an Irish national (for the purposes of 'nationality' in the infobox). Given the limited information about his parents its likely he wasnt eligible by descent prior to the 1956 act, after 1956 while he was eligible to be an Irish national it was not automatically conferred, and there isnt any evidence he took it up as far as I am aware. He died before the later amendments kicked in. So while putting 'British' in there is problematic (albeit accurate) having 'Irish' in there is wrong. There is a reason why most sources state 'republican' to avoid precisely that question. There is also the rather odd 'military service' part of the infobox. Since when has being a member of a proscribed terrorist organsation been 'military service'? Is that usual for terrorists? I see Osama Bin Laden has a similar section. Its a bit insulting to members of actual militaries who dont go around blowing up unarmed men women and children. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

wrt the above point, I agree about the infobox. Anybody interested may wish to comment at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#"Military service" - parameterize title?, which is a technical proposal to enable changing the default behaviour. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, this is not the place to debate the nationality issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 5 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 edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

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.

---

Regarding continues disruptive edits by user:יניב הורון. Based on my recent observations, user repeatedly engages in WP:Edit warring on multiple pages in the past couple of months. Case in point: previously, the article Antisemitism in Ukraine got edit protection in end of March '18 (with me getting a warning from a neutral admin [diff]), however back then we didn't establish a clear WP:Consensus on the talk page regarding the issue at hand (renaming section titles, so they are not misleading/confusing). Now we do have such consensus (every editor that had enough interest, has participated in on the talk page, while user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all), which we have found through dialogue and discussion on the talk page diff. As mentioned above user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all and have begun unilaterally reverting the updates to article's section titles (which were agreed through consensus on the talk page). Given user יניב הורון history of initiating numerous edit:wars over the last two months, his latest edit diff seems like a case of malicious edit warring, where an editor reverts against general consensus and I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future, against general consensus. Piznajko (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you've been told this already, but that's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, I removed mentioning of vandalizing and changed it to continuous edit warring.--Piznajko (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see talk page consensus for Piznajko's suggestions - I do not see anyone else agreeing to the proposal. As for this report, it seems Minority Report (film)ish, being based on I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future. A prediction which seem to apply to Piznajko as well, as he is the one reverting/edit warring against Yaniv. While Piznajko's predictions on other users seem non-actionable, his self predictions should be. In short, unless Piznajko can present where on the talk page there is consensus for his suggestion, then a boomerang may be in order to prevent self predicted edit warring.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The following edit warring report on Mikhail Bulgakov might be illustrative of the self prediction's veracity. this talk page section (and a few above) might be illustrative regarding perception of consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not bad Icewhiz, I see you're applying the old-as-the-world-itself-playbook rule #1 of discredit the editor-of-interest by referencing an unrelated-discussion-that-did-not-involve-the-user-being-discussed-here, so that the discussion would be about disliked-editor rather than the actual the-subject-of-discussion-editor. Well, if you're playing it that way - that's fine too - it's obvious you're trying to steer the conversation away from user יניב הורון and do a switcheroo, where instead of יניב הורון it would be me would be me who'd neeed to defend his edits. Fine, I'll follow your bait: regarding, you referencing this talk page section the discussion on Mikhail Bulgakov as an illustration of "my perception of consensus" - I never claimed there was consensus on the talk page of that article; we had plently of discussion there, which led to no consensus and all additions proposed by me were removed. Regarding an an edit warring report against me on this same article on Mikhail Bulgakov - it was civilly settled since unlike the editor of interest (e.g., יניב הורון) I actually engage in discussion and try to explain my edits on a talk page to try and find consensus on edits/new content among editors. Lastly, garding your request to show proof of consensus found on the talk page - please read the discussion that I have referenced - it clearly shows consensus that the section titles should be renamed to avoid confusion - see last relevant-to-discussion-about-updating-titles comment by one of the editors engaged in the discusson on the TP - beyond that point discussion went into direction of content, which is beyong the scope of that disucssion (and yes, there was no consensus on the content of the article, but I never claimed there was any consensus on the content of the article, precisely because my proposed changes were specifically about updating section titles to avoid the confusion of the old section titles) ps. it's commendable that you're trying to help your countryman, but there's no need to resort to ill-hidden personal attacks on me in order to achieve that.--Piznajko (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in the page - I do not see support for your position. As for Bulgakov (a page I only got involved with due to the RfC) - I would not say the resolution was as amicable as you present - you were clearly acting against consensus (IIRC a 5 vs. 1 situation), repeatedly inserting content that other editors rejected. To your credit, you did drop the stick after the EW report. As for this report - you basically complaining based on your prediction of Yaniv's future editing (on a page where it seems there is no consensus either way.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're pretending unintentionally that you don't see that the consensus was reached on the talk page of Antisemitism in Ukraine on the specific issue of titles headers (which is unlikely given the sheer number of years you've been on Wikipedia and your experience) or you just doing it intentionally for obvious reason.--Piznajko (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User account only a few months old seems extremely familiar with how things work here.. No way newbies are familiar with obscure policies as seen in the wditsummaries.--Moxy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, to be fair, they made some pretty new mistakes with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as editing that and Jewish topics is one of their main areas of interest, it was likely quite the introduction to obscure Wikipedia behavioral policy. I had to block them for 500/30 violations, and NeilN's recent block of them is also for something in the AE area that lends more to inexperience than anything else. Having their TP on my watchlist because of the initial block, I've never really suspected socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

look at the early edit summaries not what we see from new people.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

With their first edit[316] they perfectly used a template. On their second day of editing they were aware of policies such as WP:ERA and WP:Sandwich. These while suspicious looking to some are not indications of socking unless they are similar to another user. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be suspicious, but do we have any solid evidence to assert with confidence that this user is a sock puppet as what's being implied in these responses here? We should either be filing an SPI if we have this evidence or we should remain focused on the issue at hand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, his edits at the very first days of his registration was odd to me, too. However, I'm not saying he's certainly a "sock puppet", since that needs "solid evidence" as Oshwah said. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like the underlying issue here is if יניב הורון is/was edit warring and if action should be taken against the user, or not. The last warning I've seen on the user's talk page for 3RR violations or edit warring was back on the 26th of March. I understand that the edits recently made were misinterpreted as vandalism and the incorrectly stated warnings left on the user's talk page have been modified since this was pointed out, but that's not fair on יניב הורון. To have such such warnings left incorrectly and then changed to state that these are now edit warring notices, and then given the expectation that this should suffice as a fair warning and action taken upon the user isn't the right way to properly address the problem. As far as I'm concerned, this user hasn't been given a proper and fair warning for edit warring or violation of 3RR recently (which should be provided first, and with a report or escalation to follow if the user continues the behavior despite being given the warning) and taking action upon יניב הורון is not justifiable at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the statement I made above was not meant to call Piznajko out, scold him in any way, or to make him feel bad over what happened at all. I want to state openly that mistakes are a normal part of learning, gaining experience, and becoming a better editor - they happen. Hell, I still make mistakes, and I've made more than my fair share of them over the years that I've been here. I don't hold the mistakes against him and I know that he'll walk away from this ANI with more experience and understanding because the mistakes happened. Just don't repeat them... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this editor, who is so blatantly edit-warring, gaming the system, and being down right disruptive being allowed to get away with this???? This is a case of WP:POINTY if I have ever saw one. This editor is clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant editwarring, with a battleground mindset. Examine these 'following' outrageous edits [317][318][319][320]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6. And before you try to pass of this as some wild coincidence (yeah right), look at these ADDITIONAL edits (again directed at this same editor he is clearly stalking) where he is threatening him withOUT evidence:[321]. In fact, between March 23rd and 24th of 2018, he makes 10+ such random disruptive edits and reverts aimed solely at this editor for no good reason. Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [322][323] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Sorry...but that is one too many coincidences. Maybe someone could do a checkuser on him (as it has been suggested) if the socking allegation enough makes sense. But it really isn't necessary because this is clearly WP:DUCK of an edit-warring troll and that's bad enough. I think what offends ME more is the behavior of admins lately looking the other way very selectively with certain editors like this who clearly came to wikipedia with an agenda. It almost gives credibility to this myth that wikipedia enables paid-political operatives. If admins are going to assign more of a priority to far less offensive behavior of new people when disruptive editors like this are being giving a pass, then why should we take any of these rules seriously?!? Do with this what you will, but this disruption will continue by this editor and has no sign of stopping because of a failure to take this ANI seriously by some. I'm on break at work, so sorry I have to rush this, but I think the allegations are plenty clear and action should be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:5083:E4E0:19DB:7AFF (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Please use or create your named permanent account (whatever it might be) and complain on appropriate noticeboards, such as WP:3RRNB or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC) WP:POINTY You are not an admin, and this type of tactic distracts from the merits. Sometimes people forget to login. Take such feedback to the user’s talk page if you must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:4C82:327:BEEB:E8F8 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) It is not obvious why diffs above are "outrageous". One should know context. Besides, you accuse another contributor of sockpuppetry without evidence, but your own edit history can not be checked. Do not you think this is a little unfair? If there was a 3RR violation on their part, this should be reported to WP:3RRNB. If you think his editing in ARBPIA area was problematic, report it to WP:AE. But to do that you need a named account with editing history, so that anyone can check what you are doing in the project besides complaining about others. Does not is sound reasonable? My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang Proposal for Piznajko

• I would suggest to topic ban Piznajko from subjects related to Jewish history.

1. Piznajko continued edit war on page Antisemitism in Ukraine even after receiving a warning about it from admin [324]. He was so upset that he even brought a complaint about another user from Israel (with whom he edit war) to this noticeboard. Why? This is hard to say, but one of the changes he edit war about was removal of anti-Jewish "pogroms" from two titles on the page ("Pogroms during the Russian Revolution of 1905" and "Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution") and from a legend to a picture ("Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire").
2. He now edit war on page Antisemitism in the Russian Empire: [325] [326], [327]. Why? Notice that he again edit war to remove information about pogroms from the lead of the page. Why? He could not explain [328].
3. He also contentiously argued with several contributors on talk page page of article Joseph Brodsky. Why? He makes this comment. So, according to him, "Based on [user G] talk page he is of both Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry, so given that we are talking about Brodsky who was of Russian and Jewish ancestry, I believe [user G] can be viewed as a neutral editor." What? Why it matters to Piznajko so much that the subject of the page was Jewish (Piznajko tried to include negative and undue information about him on the page [329]) and that the WP contributor was Jewish?

I do not think Piznajko should edit such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I don't see edit warring in either of those articles by Piznajko. I see WP:BRD and attempts to follow WP:RS.
2. Disagreement is not automatically "contentious." If I understand the comment, Piznajko's suggesting you solicit the opinion of an editor most likely to disagree with him. That's ideal behavior.

I can't tell whether your misinterpretation is unintentional or an attempt at WP:GAMING but either way it's concerning. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can be wrong. Maybe Piznajko is simply the case of WP:Not here. Here is their recent edit history. During a couple of months he follows a pretty bad pattern: coming to page X (there are five such pages already), edit warring and disputing against consensus with multiple contributors, and wasting time of other contributors without being able to actually improve these pages. But OK, let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

After seeing this [330], its clear that in fact it is User:Piznajko who is edit warring on that page, against multiple editors.Tritomex (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly does, but why? He simply stalks my edits because we had content disagreements on other pages. No one edited this page for a half of a year [331]. This page was in a poor condition. I looked at it and decided to improve [332]. In a matter of hours Piznajko reverted all my edits here. He never edited this page before. How do I know this is actually a wikistalking, rather than a good faith effort to improve the page? Because

1. Unlike all other contributors, he made absolutely no effort to improve anything on the page. He was only making blind reverts of edits by 4 contributors [333].
2. He was reverting to an obviously terrible version of the page (it had no lead and a section was based on a single source where each paragraph stared from "Yuri Tabak describes the history of antisemitism in Russia as having ...", "Tabak asserts, however...", "Tabak concedes that the ...", "However, Tabak also notes that ..." "Tabak asserts that...")
3. During discussion on article talk page he failed to explain why he wants to revert to such poor version. He only cried "BRD" or posted something that is not understandable.
4. He also followed my edits elsewhere to post a vote opposite to mine. He never edited this subject too. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Piznajko is admittedly a relatively inexperienced user. But his POV pushing and edit warring such as in Mikhail Bulgakov [334] are as unsettling as the revert warring to a clearly substandard version in Antisemitism in Russia. A short temporary ban from all Eastern European topics seems to be in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Eastern Europe (or Ukraine related? or at least Ukraine vs. other nationalities) is the problematic topic area. The disruption in Mikhail Bulgakov was on a non-Jewish topic (Bulgakov was (I think) not Jewish) - the issue there were the views of Bulgakov on Ukraine vs. Russia and how much weight to given to modern post-independence Ukrainian views on Bulgakov's views on the matter. As for experience - Piznajko has been edited enwiki since the beginning of 2016 (his 1464 edits are spread out over quite some time) - and he has over 30k edits on a different wiki project.Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you both that a short topic ban from EE subjects could be implemented (and Piznajko had received a notification about DS in this area), but this is something on discretion of admins, and I would rather not push it by making an AE report. Maybe just to close this whole thread about user יניב הורו? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Anybody using Viatrovych as a reliable source for anything except for views of Viatrovych himself clearly has difficulties understanding WP:RS and ideally would not edit EE topics on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, he is back and makes comments that are not encouraging. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we have a WP:NOTHERE case here. The user is clearly on a crusade.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly is. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The following edit warring report for 4 reverts (3-4 May) on Antisemitism in the Russian Empire may be relevant to this discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 4 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.

Edit warring and accusations by User:Certified Gangsta

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.

---

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

I was originally just going to request full page protection at WP:RPP. However, after reviewing Certified Gangsta's extensive block log and their current accusations on talk pages and edit summaries, I thought this would be a better venue.

Since March 31, Certified Gangsta has been move warring from the longstanding page name of Devin Hester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to their preferred version of Devin Hester Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Open the following diffs (or open Devin Hester's page log) to see their repeated moves from "Devin Hester" to "Devin Hester Sr.":

• March 31
• April 1
• April 23
• April 24

I had started a discussion at Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, explaining why I thought the established name was WP:COMMONNAME and asking that an WP:RM request be made if anyone wanted to change consensus. EricEnfermero also agreed with my position. In the thread, Certified Gangsta charged: ... you unilaterally changed it without opening a request at WP:RM. Follow your own advise. You're not entitled to your own rules just because you're a sysop.

They also made accusations there of

• Eric Enfermero is hardly a neutral voice and has pretty clearly been Wikipedia:Wikistalking me since this exchange on my talk page
• When someone finally stands up to you, you have unsurprisingly resorted to employing low-quality tactics out of personal vendetta (i.e. a low-rent wikistalking harassment campaign) and deliberately trying to sabotage longstanding consensus/compromise.

The edit summary of their most recent revert from April 24 reads: "quit wikistalking and your harassment campaign due to disagreement on another page. consensus reached last november across multiple pages with no incident. Read Wikipedia:WIKISTALK for your own benefit"

WP:NPA advises against accusations that lack evidence: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

At List of nicknames used in basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Certified Gangsta keeps changing the content to the contested, non-verifiable nickname of "DAR":

• 05:40, 23 April
• 23:56, 23 April
• 07:15, 24 April

Their most recent edit summary from April 24 is again combative: "your version is also unsourced. either remove every single unsourced ones on this list or stop using it as a cheap excuse to keep your preferred version." Per WP:UNSOURCED: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... I have no opinion on the original text, which I did not add, but Certified Gangsta deflects the onus of their own unverifiable additions. Their response is also WP:POINTY, implying that all unsourced content, even if it is not contested, needs to be automatically removed if their own edit is. (Note: For the record, the existing nickname of DLo, though uncited, is verifiable at https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html)

Finally, Certified Gangsta's current behavior appears to be similar to logs from their block history, which includes "Disruptive editing", "Violation of Arbitration case restrictions", 3RR, and "accusing established editors of vandalism".

I am requesting that Certified Gangsta cease the move warring, stop re-adding contested text without a citation, and end their combative behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're requesting too little Bagumba. Save a really convincing apologetic reply from Certified Gangsta, this is going to be an indef block by the time this thread closes. L0URDES 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the move and move protected the article. I'd like to know what Certified Gangsta is referring to with "current fairly longstanding version" in this. If it's the version they renamed on March 31st then we have a case of WP:TE here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Longstanding? Not really. CG has moved an article to his desired name, and was reverted by 3 different users 4 times, since March 2018, based on the logs. I'm holding off judgement until Certified Gangsta comments here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• When the naming issue was discussed at WT:NFL in November, CG claimed that discussing the naming at the WP instead of at each individual article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Since potential WP:TE was mentioned above and some are also getting into the substance of Certified Gangsta's arguments, their revert edit summaries refer multiple times to an alleged November consensus that supports adding suffixes to bios' article titles, but does anyone see that kind of consensus in the full archive of that Nov discussion?—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

    I see a consensus favoring names commonly used by sources. That doesn't seem to support CG's assertion a consensus exists.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:OWN accusations This might be another common charge from Certified Gangsta. At Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, he wrote: "As for Bagumba, I highly suggest you read WP:OWN in light of your conduct at List of nicknames used in basketball." I came across this same style back in November 2017 at Jamie Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where they were similarly move warring to change the title to Jamie Collins Sr.. With this move, he accuses the other editor that "you're in violation to WP:OWN, discuss in talkpage before moving again" So the pattern seems to be that someone else must be WP:OWNer if there is conflict (and not them), someone else is responsible to start the discussion and get consensus (not them), and someone else has to source the rest of the article if Certified's one unsourced edit isn't allowed.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• See also, Golden Tate III. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, an WP:OWN accusation there too. A 2nd editor has now reverted Certified's move.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm waiting to hear Certified Gangsta's side of the story, but I realize they don't edit on an everyday basis. L0URDES 00:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'll give y'all a run-down as to why I am extremely upset about the recent chain of events. Last October, I proposed that James Mattis' page be moved to Jim Mattis in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME policy [335] and tried to gain consensus. 3 users colluded to oppose it and, instead of attacking the merit of my proposal, dredged up my block log from 10 years ago (notice a pattern here?) in order to undermine my credibility, tarnish my record (which I am very proud of btw), and sully my character [336] (note User:Chris troutman's extremely uncivil edit summary "get off my lawn"). They also tried to get me to leave Wikipedia altogether. I was very frustrated and decided to take an indefinite leave from the project.

Fast forward to late November, I approached User:Bishonen on her talkpage and requested her advice on the Jim Mattis situation [337]. Bish agreed that User:Chris troutman and others were in violation of WP:OWN [338] (IMO it was more gang-patrol than OWN) and User:RexxS, who noticed our conversation on Bish's talkpage [339], was kind enough to step in [340].

That was when a funny thing happened. User:Corkythehornetfan, who was so adamantly against the move [341] mere weeks ago, suddenly sang a different tune and supported the move [342]. User:Chris troutman, who had relentlessly hurled insults and made personal attacks against me, didn't even make a peep. And the move was supported overwhelmingly Talk:Jim_Mattis#Requested_move_23_November_2017. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Corky and Chris had opposed the move not due to any genuine policy disagreement, but personal vendetta. Any fair-minded observer would agree with such an assessment. This level of hypocrisy, vitriol, score-setting, and battleground tactics (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground have absolutely no place on Wikipedia.

The present situation so far seems like deja vu. I made a good-faith edit to List of nicknames used in basketball [343], changing it to a more commonly used nickname [344]. Want source? This article alone [345] called D'Angelo Russell DAR at least NINE times. He was also named DAR here [346] and here [347]. And frankly, I've heard more casual fans use DAR moniker than User:Bagumba's preferred version.

The crux of the issue is Bagumba clearly feels he owns this particular page and is free to add/remove any nicknames he likes without consensus and/or sources to back it up. Don't believe me? Check out the history of that page. He was revert-warring with everybody before I even touched that page and selectively mass-removing nicknames he personally doesn't like [348][349] [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359] [360]. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the nicknames on that page are either poorly sourced or unsourced. In his role as the self-appointed arbiter of basketball nicknames, only he has the authority to decide which nicknames can say and which nicknames should go. Did he week consensus on the talkpage before his unilateral changes and mass removals? No. Did he remove every nickname without sources on that page for the sake of consistency? No. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Devin Hester Sr. is a page Bagumba has shown zero interest in before our run-in at List of nicknames used in basketball and a cut-and-dry case of wikistalking. Explain how Bagumba suddenly developed an interest in Hester's page TEN MINUTES after he reverted me on List of nicknames used in basketball [361] [362]? Is there another explanation other than wikistalking? Hester's page was sitting there peacefully without incident for over 3 weeks with almost 10 intervening edits before he injected himself. The goal clearly was to taunt, harass, humiliate, and bait me into an edit war with him and then cynically exploit that as a precursor to boot me off the project because (and only because) I dared to challenge his "ownership" of one of his pet pages (List of nicknames used in basketball). Admin User:Jehochman and admin User:Bishonen are very familiar with this cynical tactics and how User:Ideogram and his allies employed them against me Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Editor_taking_advantage_of_Gangsta's_1RR_restriction_to_taunt_and_harass. During Ideogram's community ban case, Jechoman wrote that, Ideogram targets users who have been in some kind of trouble and are trying to correct themselves. Ideogram baits and trolls his targets until they relapse, and then he seeks to have them banned. This cynical behavior should not be tolerated at Wikipedia [363].

Bagumba's current behavior frankly doesn't seem all that different. And now Bagumba and others I had previously unrelated disputes with feel emboldened to dance on my grave [364] [365] [366] [367] [368]. [369], just like the Jim Mattis situation all over again. Interestingly enough, not a single one of them bothered to start Wikipedia:Requested moves or seek consensus in the talkpage before moving it to their preferred version. Not a single one of them bothered to follow their own advice. This is frankly an interesting case study. When someone with the knowledge, experience, and passion to improve this encyclopedia in good faith is being treated like shit, it doesn't take a genius figure out why editor retention is such a big issue.

I have no interest in rehashing ancient history from 10 years ago, which frankly caused me a lot of pain and anguish. But given that every time someone gets into a content dispute or policy dispute with me, they try to gain an upper hand by citing my block log (the aforementioned Chris Troutman and now Bagumba), I feel I'm entitled to defend my record. First of all, most my blocks were overturned and some of them were apologies or 1-second block from other admins noting that the block had no merit and did not meet community consensus. User:FT2 was an arbitrator at the time and he correctly noted on my block log that User:Gwen Gale's block was highly questionable (we were rival candidates for ArbCom at the time and she was trying to gain an upper hand by shutting down my insurgent candidacy) and many admonished her for blocking me (she came under fire on AN/I and ultimately lost the election). I have no comment on the 3 ArbCom enforcement blocks other than to note that ArbCom lifted my editing restriction [370] after the aforementioned Ideogram plot was fully exposed and he was community-banned for trolling me. I've considered myself fully rehabilitated since and have a clear conscience.

The User:Kurykh's block was a mistaken 3RR and he corrected it himself as he noted in the block log. The Viridae block, which came during the height of Ideogram's harassment campaign to troll me, came under intense controversy on AN/I because he blocked me for violating the spirit of 3RR, yet didn't block Ideogram who actually violated the letter of 3RR. Great double standard there. Neutral observer User:Bladestorm noted at the time The person who actually reported the "edit war" was, in fact, the same editor who avoided being blocked for literally violating 3RR. Seriously, what sort of message does this say? Ideogram clearly violates 3RR, and isn't blocked. Gangsta doesn't technically violate it, and is blocked, when he's reported by Ideogram. Does nobody else see the inconsistency here? "Do as I say, not as I do"? (For reference, I'm not saying that ideogram should've been blocked either. But it's certainly a double standard, and a disproportionate application of policies; especially for very-much related cases. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Certified.Gangsta. What was his reward for voicing his unbiased two cent on AN/I? He got harassed and stalked by Ideogram Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Separate_Dispute_between_Bladestorm_and_Ideogram. Notice a pattern here?

The User:David Levy block is now filed under Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars(Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/User_pages#User:Certified.Gangsta) and he came under heavy fire Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing and ultimately forced to note on my block log that his block did not meet community consensus.

The circumstances of Centrx' vindictive one-second block (aimed solely to assassinate my character) was discussed at-length here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#One_second_blocks (User:User:AuburnPilot noted that it was "harassment/intimidation") and ultimately led to concrete policy changes to prohibit such vindictive abuse Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#Policy_edit.

Almost everyone agreed on AN/I that [371] that Od Mishehu's 1-second dummy entry on my block log was in poor taste.

In short, I've taken a lot of abuse on Wikipedia and I'm sick and tired of being treated this way. It is impossible to edit when I'm being hounded, stalked, harassed, having my name dragged through the mud, my record distorted, my name sullied, and my character assassinated over every minor disagreements. Disagree with me on content and policies all you want, but don't resort to character assassination and personal ad hominem attack by citing blocks from over 10 years ago. To stoop that low frankly just shows your argument has no merit and how desperate you are. It is utterly pathetic. I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever. I would greatly appreciate if someone can nominate List of nicknames used in basketball for deletion. It is unencyclopedic and frankly should've been AFD/purged 10 years ago, per many past precedents of similar pages, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teen idols of the 2000s. To have a page like this frankly reflects poorly on the project because it serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, extremely subjectively, and poor sourced and researched.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• If I understand this, you justify your behavior because you believe that you have been a victim at James Mattis, a page I am not involved with, where you say others displayed OWNership. You now say that List of nicknames used in basketball is "poor sourced and researched", yet you repeatedly made an unsourced change to it, even after I contested and asked you for a source. You call my bold edits to remove unsourced text that I could not verify as evidence of OWN, even though all my edits there have an edit summary explaining why I contested their inclusion, and there being no history of edit warring on my part on that page. And now you "would greatly appreciate if someone can nominate List of nicknames used in basketball for deletion"? You then charge that there is a "cut-and-dry case of wikistalking" because I later made a change to a grand total of—one page (Devin Hester Sr.)—that you also edited, and even though I left an edit summary explaining why I contested your move, initiated the thread at Talk:Devin_Hester#Sr._suffix for which there is consensus to remove "Sr.", and even after an admin just reverted your move again and move protected the page for 3 months.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Having looked at your block log, I agree that it isn't fair for other editors to be using it against you like that. I do not, however, appreciate being falsely accused of gravedancing. If I have had prior conflicts with you, I do not remember them. As for my decision to revert your moves without going through RM, I believe the onus is on you to go through RM when you are the one seeking to change a long-standing page title. When you make such a change unilaterally, I feel no obligation to go through RM to reverse it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• "I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever." Certified Gangsta, if you're serious about this, then I'll archive this discussion and we all can move on without wasting our time on your explanation. So do confirm (because if you're not retiring, I'll list out the reasons you should be topic-banned). L0URDES 10:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: your link for "explanation" is objectionable. A long block log doesn't give other users carte blanche for abuse, especially not an administrator such as yourself. Please strike. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC). Adding: I see you handed in your admin flag for "a couple of days" in February and have not yet reclaimed it. Even so. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

• Sure. I actually expected this to be a bit on the edge. Struck. L0URDES 12:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Since I was pinged... my actions were not based off of a "personal vendetta". They were solely based off of a) I didn't believe it was the common name at the time (from what I could find) and b) I believed that because he is a high-profiled official that a RM should take place... all of this can be seen in my revert of the page move. I had had no interaction with Certified Gangsta until that moment and have not had any interaction with them since then that I can recall. I have no idea why Certified Gangsta would assume that it was a "personal vendetta" nor do I care, but I can assure everyone here that it wasn't. I am not going to watch this thread so if someone needs/wants me, you'll have to ping me. Corky 18:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged... I agree with elected non-admin Lourdes. Certified Gansta finds utility in pointing to others to bolster a claim that they're being persecuted, like re-hashing what I said in October of 2017. I gather that I should have continued to argue about Jim/ James Mattis just to look consistent, rather than recognize that a pile of sources and the opinions of editors went the other way. So much for me trying to be a better editor by backing off. Certified Gangsta is the common point in all of these arguments. I'll leave it to admins to determine if Certified Gansta is right and everyone else is wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• I recommend closing this thread as no action. Given that CG has now retired, it doesn't seem necessary to take any further action at this time. However if they do come back and resume their behavior, a topic ban discussion might be in order.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Considering the tone in Certified Gangsta's response, I see it more as pouting than having "retired". A topic ban would not be appropriate, as their disruption had not been limited to a niche area. Certified's modus operandi has been to blame everyone but themselves, and cry OWN and Wikistalking just because others disagree. Edit warring over a page move and claiming their bold move is longstanding consensus after only 3 weeks is tendentious. This was not an isolated heated moment. I've seen no good faith from them. I see no indication that this 12-year editor understands what they have been doing wrong, nor would behave any differently if allowed to return without an explanation of how they will be different. Asking only that would be preventative and not punitive.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: Feel free to propose a sanction below in a sub-thread.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose 1RR edit restriction on Certified Gangsta

I propose an editing restriction of WP:1RR be imposed on User:Certified Gangsta. I see no clear indication that they have retired, and their past explicit announcements in 2007 and again in 2008 were short lived. They fail to take responsibility for their own edit/move warring, resorting instead to blaming others. This is not a lapse of judgement in a heated moment. Since at least November 2017, they have been using WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments to blindly mandate that suffixes (Jr. Sr, etc) be added to bio's titles, while others objected that doing so was not WP:COMMONNAME.

NeilN had suggested above that it looked to be a case of WP:TE for Certified to claim their title was "current fairly longstanding version", yet Certified still responded above that the "page was sitting there peacefully without incident for over 3 weeks". After not gaining support for their name changes at a WikiProject discussion, they accused the poster of CANVASSing. Their "other stuff" arguments extend to their attacking anyone that disagrees with them, charging them with WP:OWN and wikistalking, merely because of other incidents that Certified allegedly experienced with uninvolved editors. In a 2007 arbitration case involving Certified.Gangsta (one of their many former names), they were placed on a 1RR restriction for 1 year. Fast forward 11 years to 2018, and I don't have confidence that Certified understands what edit warring is after all this time. Lourdes wrote early on: "I think you're requesting too little Bagumba. Save a really convincing apologetic reply from Certified Gangsta, this is going to be an indef block by the time this thread closes." I still might be asking for too little, but some action is needed if not a WP:BAN.—Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'm all for the 1RR. But frankly Bagumba, I don't think there'll be other editors who'll support this in the light of CG having gone into self-claimed retirement. If there's no consensus for 1RR, you may have to settle for this thread being archived with a note that if CG returns to edit. this discussion may be continued thereon. L0URDES 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Self-claimed retirement" indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as nomiator.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I think 1RR is appropriate, whether or not the user is actually in retirement. There have been a number of cases where users "retire" during conflict and come back to return to their prior behavior. The idea behind this 1RR restriction is to prevent disruption and imposing it does no harm on the editor if they retire. It will, however, prevent the community from having to deal with rehashing this again in the future. The actions of CG indicate a tendency to create tension. -- Dane ^talk 16:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Given that there's no opposition to the 1RR, and there are three established editors including yours truly supporting this restriction, I would request any administrator to close this thread with the possible summary that applies the 1RR restriction but allows Certified Gangsta to immediately reopen this discussion from exactly this juncture if they return and join discussions at ANI. (In other words, if they return to editing but do not wish to re-join discussions here, the 1RR continues to apply without our re-involvement) Lourdes 03:45, 4 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.

Ujishadow and copyright 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.

---

Hi all,

I've recently been brought to the attention of Ujishadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while reviewing a permission ticket on File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg (now deleted). After looking through their upload history, they appear to have uploaded a number of files with no evidence of permission, and the ticket for that one does not show (IMO) they represent the organisation they claim to while uploading files. I think a block to prevent further copyright infringements - as most of their history has been deleted, I'm bringing this here rather than CCI, as I don't think there's sufficient history left to investigate. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block - Classic IDHT. They were warned in May 2017 by Ad Orientem at User talk:Ujishadow#Warning: Disruptive Editing. They haven't changed their ways. Net negative to the project. If they want editing privileges back, let them go through the unblock process, acknowledge their errors, and actually engage with the community. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A look at their contrib log has satisfied me that this is not a WP:NOTHERE editor. And I very rarely start off with an indef block otherwise. That said I do agree we have a problem and it needs to be addressed. Hopefully Ujishadow will join the conversation here and let us know that they understand the serious nature of WP:COPYRIGHT and will not continue to upload non-free files. Failing which, they will be blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they've been warned more than enough and that it would not be unreasonable to block now and not unblock till they agree to desist from uploading files. As they cannot distinguish what files they must not upload, they should desist entirely. One can have a long and productive Wiki-career w/o uploading files.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Your delete on those pictures are unreasonable. They are all the pictures Titan Sports sent to me, only except the one of Shinji Okazaki. I have sent the email for approval to permission email address but you never give me reply. Only except the one I received yesterday regarding the shinji file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This response is not encouraging and I now doubt that you have an adequate understanding of copyright to be uploading files at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For reference - Ticket:2018011510003406. Following reviewing the ticket and history there to date, I'm not happy it is anywhere near close enough to even AGF they understand where the images are from. Mdann52 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose Topic Ban

• I propose that Ujishadow be topic banned from uploading files with the understanding that they can appeal the ban in not less than one year. Any appeal must be approved by the community here after Ujishadow makes it clear that he has an adequate understanding of copyright and will not upload non-free files. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The file File:Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg, uploaded today, appears on 27 web pages, many of which are copyrighted. I have deleted that one, but of course that suggests that the others may well not be valid either. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

And I note that image was previously deleted, so they simply uploaded it again. It dates back to 2014 on some web-pages, so ... Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Having a 1 year limit on appealing seems entirely unnecessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - Based on their responses here, I think a topic ban is an appropriate step to prevent further copyvios. In the event that they ignore the ban and continue, i'd support an indef block as well but only as a last resort to prevent further issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, I guess, but what about blocking? Both in this thread and in their actions leading up to it the user has been displaying serious IDHT, so a TBAN will only make the inevitable block slower. Pretending you got images from a certain source and were explicitly authorized by the copyright holder when in fact you took them from somewhere else is the worst. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to blocking on principle, but I view that as the last resort. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Against

Topic ban is not fair at all. I have written to the wiki permission email quite a long time ago but only got the 1st reply yesterday. Those photos are of no problems at all but the supervisors did not start the supervision procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In the above discussion, you stated "They are all the pictures Titan Sports sent to me". Why would Titan Sports be sending pictures to you? In all of the images in questions, you've claimed that Titan Sports is the copyright holder. If that is the case, why are you the one sending the email to the permissions address (see above where you state "I have sent the email for approval to permission email address")? -- Whpq (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It was sent to the email address firstly through (biyuan@ttplus.cn). But you never reply. Now the email address has expired. They now asked me to negotiate with wikipedia for your unreasonable deletion of their copyrighted pictures without any concrete evidence. Regarding Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg. You have no rights to delete as it is firstly produced by Titan Sports. Violation of image copyrights is common in China so it is not surprising that it could appear in other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Why are you being asked to negotiate on Titan Sports behalf? Are you being paid? I'm not finding this explanation very credible given that you claimed File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg as from Titan Sports and there was some form of email sent to permissions, but the image is in fact from Getty Images.-- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 30 April 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 edits by User:Anky95

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.

---

New editor User:Anky95 has been problematic since account creation on 24 April. WP:SPA contributions have all been self-promotional, confined to what appears to be an autobio at Arindam Sharma (speedied A7 and G11 on 24 April, now in AFD), and Sharma's unreleased film Advitya (film). Multiple removals of AFD template from both articles after level 4 warning [372][373], as well as via anonymous sock[374] and via obvious sockpuppet User:Sanki011: [375]. Further diffs of disruptive behavior available on request, but I believe I've expended enough effort on this highly disruptive and self-promotional editor, who's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(Reverting archive by Sigmabot) Could I have some admin eyes on this please? Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Last edit was April 30.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:41, 4 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.

NOTHERE/spam Block 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.

---

• UA85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has proved they're NOTHERE.. Has been inordinately promotion himself and his businesses. See, Youth Group Limited, and Youth Group Limited, Ahmad Nagar Chattha a well as File:Youth Group Limited.png. Then see the deletion log of Umair Ahmad and see the the ongoing AfD. In addition, they just recreated it under different title IamUmairAhmad. See their talkpage. It is only block that they can understand at this time. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup. I don't think they're NOTHERE, just overly enthusiastic. It's possible they should be blocked for editing disruptively, though... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - Was just about to close this but upon looking at UA85's contribs their last edit was to remove a draft submission template yesterday[376] - Not sure if a block is warranted but thought I'd let you know incase you think so (or not), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 - I can't tell. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 4 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 editing by User:Richhoncho

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.

---

Within the past 24 hours, User:Richhoncho proposed to merge Lavender (BadBadNotGood song) with Lavender (Nightfall Remix). After I objected to the proposal, Richhoncho decided to side-step any attempts to gather consensus and went ahead and merged it. I've tried multiple times to explain that consensus is needed to close the discussion, but instead the editor keeps on trying to edit-war in the decision to merge the two articles [377][378][379] (both of us are very close to breaking the WP:3RR). I believe this is the very definition of WP:Disruptive editing: attempting to close a disputed merge by repeated reversion rather than by consensus. ^Falling_Gravity 22:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone here? ^Falling_Gravity 23:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: So sorry for the delayed response, this was indeed incredibly inappropriate behavior that blatantly ignored consensus-building process. I've restored the articles and full protected for two weeks. Regards, Swarm ♠ 02:44, 6 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.

Student deliberately ignoring copyright

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.

---

ScylarA has created the same article repeatedly in article space and in his sandbox and had it deleted with the same warning about copyright violations. I can't count how many he's had deleted because I don't have admin x-ray vision but there are several messages posted on his talk page, and he has ignored them and continued to recreate the article, even adding back copyrighted material after someone from Wiki Ed removed it and explained again the rules surrounding copyright. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: I've notified them of the discussion. I see signs of IDHT. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I notified them of this discussion under the warning I posted earlier, which they of course ignored. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm counting three copyvio attempts, though that was a casual perusal after a nap and not a proper investigation. If the user wasn't a student, I'd just block them and call it a day.

I'm checking to see what other students in the course have been up to.

The teacher for the course appears to be Nwohao. I've sent a message to him. He don't have email enabled so I don't see anything further to be done if he doesn't respond. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What I found:

• User talk:Zaphany101/sandbox used a couple of lines from [380], which I've removed.
• User talk:Sreybruney1/sandbox and User:Sreybruney1 (same material, slightly different formatting) contains overly close paraphrasing of [381] ("Harry Dexter White...") and [382] ("40% of the $186 billion increase..."). I'm inclined to remove the material but have not done so yet.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Natureium, Bellezzasolo, and Ian.thomson. Wiki Education has reached out to the professor and we’ll provide updates when we have more information. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just make sure that anything copyvio that's removed gets a {{revdel}}. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed) has spoken to Nwoha, who has asked the student not to edit further without running it by Shalor (Wiki Ed) first. The student appears to be inactive now, and the copyright violations have been removed. We’ll be keeping tabs on the situation moving forward. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:36, 3 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:Lucas-Recio

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 new editor (created on 30 April 2018), Lucas-Recio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been removing "Moroccan" from Morocco history-related pages. Claiming that Morocco has nothing to do with this articles, and spamming pages with this edit summary, "X is not Morocco" (Marinid is not Morocco, Almohad is not Morocco.....). I guess this is a vandalism-only account with some trollish behaviors like in this (he added Category:Morrocan people to Constantine the Great and claimed that "According to user Atlas was Morrocan"). Other examples of his destruptive edits:

• He removed referenced content from Almohad Caliphate [383], and called me a "racist trolll".
• He removed 5 sections from Military history of Morocco without giving any reason (Why Roman times?, Morocco is since Alawite dynasty)
  After searching in this articles histories. I'm suspecting that this is a sock of the blocked user, Bokpasa. They're sharing the same anti-Moroccan agenda. I opened a Sockpuppet investigation -Aṭlas (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is Bokpasa??, ..I am not anti-Morrocan, you are anti-history that is!!!Lucas-Recio (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lucas-Recio: Intrigued. Please elaborate.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:24, 4 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.

Question re legal threat

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

---

I'm still new at this so I wanted to ask; the user Strongaingel made a clear legal threat on Talk:For Britain with these edits. I've already blocked the user, but do I also remove the threat, or leave it? 331dot (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I'd remove it as it's not really contributing anything of value to the talk page. If he had posted some three-volume screed amongst which were some suggestions for article improvement that could be taken in good faith in isolation, then I'd remove just the threat-y bits and leave the rest alone. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done so. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I forget the exact protocol here, but this is perhaps worth forwarding to WMF legal as well, given that this isn't your general vague assertion of a legal issue but rather a very concrete ultimatum based on a threat to bring suit if the article is not edited to user's satisfaction. Said user's grasp of the realities of their legal threat seems extremely tenuous, but given the specifics of the threat, WMF legal might appreciate being brought into the loop. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ian.thomson. I will also do as Snow Rise suggests. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The only time I tried that, they threatened to block me for WP:NLT. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Threatened for making legal threats by reporting legal threats? I guess Kafka works at Legal now, does he?!  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, meaning no offense to Dlohcierekim, I feel there must be a little more to that story. (i.e. some kind of miscommunication in the manner in which the report was made). Snow ^{let's rap} 00:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the same person, trying to crowdfund[384] his cause:"Weʼve raised £0 to Overthrow a Government and Media who wilfully deceive Britons and their Children about the islamic war machine preparing to wipe us out." Doug Weller talk 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's going well, then... GoldenRing (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the reference to "UCC regulation", you might be dealing with a Freemen on the land believer.[385] So i don't think they'll get very far with WMF Legal. --Calton | Talk 14:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• (IANAL) Don't overlook legal threats especially where BLPs may be concerned, but this one does seem pretty frivolous; good NLT block, anyway. The statement that For Britain is a far-right party is supported by at least four good citations in the article, and if the person behind the legal threats and clearly intending to associate themselves with that label does not like being associated with that label, there's not actually anything Wikipedia can do about that. But do contact legal, they're the ones who can offer both legal advice and support for admins who are being harassed by vexatious litigants. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 3 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:Wingwraith

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.

---

1. He lost a discussion at Talk:Communist Party of China - no one agrees him.
2. He lost another discussion there.
3. He accuses me of communism
4. He accuses me of fascism
5. He accuses me of believing in "shithole" ideology
6. He refuses to engage in discussion, and when he does, he accuses you of stuff (like that above).
7. In addition his edit is factual inaccurate. For instance the All-China Women's Federation is not part of the CPC, and neither are the student association and the trade unions
8. He adds information to the infobox which does not make sense. Why add that 19 out of 19 members of the CMC are members of the CMC... when the CMC is a party body? His inclusion to the infobox of everything doesn't either make sense... I've never seen another infobox include how many cabinet members they have (which, again, China is a one-party state).

Conclusion. Impossible to engage with Wingwraith. I've tried to uphold the consensus and bring him to diaolog. At last, I'm also reinstating the infobox to when it passed GA status.

Can anyone block him?--TIAYN (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It would help if you provide links to all of those actions, ideally diffs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Communist Party of China#Left wing / far left and Talk:Communist Party of China#Adding every ideological development in the infobox is wrong. The edit history is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_China&action=history

do you need anything more @Boing! said Zebedee:? --TIAYN (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't play it both ways, you can't accuse me when of refusing to engage with you when you claim that a term for which I provided you with an academic citation is not a "scholarly term", make false claims of consensus and ram through mass reversions without even discussing them on the talkpage beforehand. As for your specific charges, I didn't lose anything (and in any case editing on Wikipedia doesn't work by winning or losing), I never accused you of communism/fascism/believing in a shithole ideology, the refusal of engagement applies to you not me (the discussion here will make that charge clear) and your last two points are non-starters because you should have discussed them first on the talkpage. I would advise any involved administrators to dismiss this request with prejudice, if nothing else for its naked attempt to game the system. Wingwraith (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I support TIAYN’s assertions. This has gone on for far too long, and the more personal the comments, the less accurate the statements. Take a Wiki-break or something!DOR (HK) (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by TIAYN on the CPC article

Further to this, I am requesting administrative intervention for the pattern of disruptive editing that the user in question has exhibited in relation to the involved article. All attempts by me to engage constructively with that user (from proposing a compromise position to consulting a third-party opinion) has been summarily dismissed by lies or false claims of consensus. Prospective administrators will also note here that there is an emerging consensus on a key point of dispute that is in opposition to the position that the user holds (or at the least in the absence of that user's participation in the discussion), but given TIAYN's history of disruptive editing I am appealing to an administrator to enforce the rules which would allow for that emerging consensus to be implemented. Wingwraith (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: You wrote

• Proof 1 "As I said I understand that you are pro-CPC so it would make sense that you would try to eliminate any mention of its political position but that really is no excuse for refusing to compromise by resorting to these ridiculous arguments. It's a complete fucking crock what you are doing and I will not stand for it
• Proof 2 "I personally think that your ideal society is a shithole that's run by fascists"

Here he goes again, even making another section. --TIAYN (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll note that you didn't address any of the substantive points that I raised in my OP. As for the two comments:

1) Yes I said that and I stand by it, it's a complete fucking crock for you to refuse to acknowledge that a term for which there is an entire article on Wikipedia, scholarly usage and a position that can be mapped onto the same device that you use to derive your political orientation which you display in one of the infoboxes on your talkpage is "made up."

2) That is a misrepresentation of what I said which actually is that it doesn't matter what you personally think (e.g. "The CPC doesn't have a student wing for instance." which is something that you actually have to prove) just like how it doesn't matter that I personally think that your ideal society is a shithole that's run by fascists, what matters are the facts of what you've done here in the (virtual) public which is to refuse every opportunity to engage constructively. Wingwraith (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this appears to be an edit war at Communist Party of China - full protection may be needed. I note that China is NOT under discretionary sanctions. From a quick glance at the talk page, I don't see either Wingwraith (talk · contribs) or Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs) being more at fault than the other. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to take a closer to look at what is happening, especially the discussion under the "Socialism authoritarianism political position" section of the talkpage. TIAYN said there that a term for which there is an entire article on Wikipedia, scholarly usage and a position that can be mapped onto the same device that the user used to derive his/her political orientation which he/she has displayed in one of the infoboxes on his/her talkpage is "made up." There's no way that I can be more at fault than a user who edits like that. Wingwraith (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. On the other hand, he's right about your "shithole" comment (diff) being concerning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But that user has no reason (or right) to be concerned about that comment when he/she has rejected every attempt that I've made to resolve the content dispute with him/her (which you don't deny). Wingwraith (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Prospective administrators should also be aware of an edit warring report that I have filed against the user here for another page that the user has edited disruptively and involves some of the same third-party users. Wingwraith (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • TIAYN's edits look a lot more troubling when their changes on related topics are considered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: You called me shit hole, and when you don't care about the other users who oppose you.. Secondly, show good faith. Instead of arguing have you ever thought of checking the women's federation website or anything else? No, because you're only interested in edit-warring. --TIAYN (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that Wingwraith has opened a discussion at the edit warring board... so where should this discussion be moved, here or there?

Very simple

1. Authoritarian socialism is not a scholarly term... most of the sources in that article don't discuss "authoritarian socialism", rather authoritarian nature of Marxist-Leninists dictatorships.. what we commonly call communist states / socialist states / Marxist states.. You get it. That article is bull and should be deleted... But that article is smbol of what is wrong with Wikipedia. As long as you have users like Wingwraith, who pretend to know things they don't know, and instead of making constructive edits only adds ideoloogies and positions to infoboxes and start edit wars...I'm not being nice, I know, but that article is terrible... and yet again, its not a term, its not a scholarly term... yes, maybe som authors wrote "authoritarian socialism" but that doesn't mean anything, you might as well write ""authoritarian libertarianism" or "authoritarian anarchism"
2. The Chinese trade unions, women's federations and student assocations (among others) are not part of the CPC... If Wingwraith would have interested in compromise he would have visited their websites. He would have found the answer for a long time ago. But he refuses. Instead of talking in a constructive manner he's engaging in an irrational manner - I'm a mixed-raced man, he can of course not know that, but being accused of fascism is very strange indeed...
3. The infobox fails to understand the difference between ideology and theoretical tools.. For instance, Deng Xiaoping Theory and Mao Zedong Thought are thought of as ideologies to us, but to the Chinese CP they are concrete policies for specific times/eras to implemenet Marxism–Leninism. Thats why every Chinese leader gets his own - because new leader = new time period, new difficulties and so on and so on.
4. I nominated the Communist party of China article to GA. I know how it looked when it was nominated to GA. I'm literally returning to the previous good consensus version.

• If I sound arrogant it is because I am. I know more about the Communist Party of China, the Soviet party and system and communism in general then most users do... but instead of having constructive editors we get users, who instead of improving articles, make a mess out infoboxes and make edits about topics they don't understand. This is about what is correct and what is wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • While it's important to be right, it's more important for other people to be able to verify you are right, through the use of secondary sources. Some of your changes (The Internationale being the "de facto" anthem) are removals of unsourced content, which is fine. I also agree that trying to characterize the CPC on a western left-right axis is difficult if not impossible. I don't doubt that you know more about this subject than I do, maybe some other editor can help resolve this dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I know little about politics, it's not a subject for me, but Authoritarian socialism has no meaning? So why is there a full article on it? Oh, because it does have a meaning. Authoritarian libertarianism is not at all comparable. Socialism is an economic system, and can be either libertarian or authoritarian in implementation (at least in theory). Libertarianism is a social philosophy characterized by maximising personal liberties. It's the opposite of having a centralized authority which limits freedoms, i.e. authoritarianism. It is a non-starter to call something Authoritarian libertarianism. I don't know anything about the CPC, but TIAYN's comment above gives me concerns. Not least of all because point 1 is debunked with a Wikipedia search, let alone a google books search and the few brain cells that I've devoted to politics (probably not more than two digits worth). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The world doesn't just revolve around you, there are other people who also edit on Wikipedia as passionately as you do on the same topics that you are interested in and yet hold views on them that are completely opposed to the ones that you have. It's a stupid fucking story that you need to stop telling yourself and if you can't do that then you should do something else. Wingwraith (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

While I do have some concerns about the language used by Wingwraith here, the user is definitely correct that the term "Authoritarian Socialism" is used in academic parlance; Not only has it been introduced to me during the course of my anthropological studies, I have also noted its occurrence in more casual conversations between scholars. (Most recently, a discussion between myself and my mentor; in short, it is common enough that it comes up even in informal academic conversation.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus and Mr rnddude: You don't seem to get it. Authoritarian socialism is Marxism–Leninism. All socialist states have been authoritarian. All Marxits–Leninists tates have been authoritarian. All communist states have been authoritarian... The next article which is going to be created is now totalitarian socialism.. As I've said repeatedly; authoritarian socialism is not a separate scholarly term. Note how all the articles information deals with Marxist–Leninist states, states influenced by Marxism–Leninism and states that established Marxist–Leninist policies... Authoritarian socialism is covered in the Marxism–Leninism article, socialist state article, communist article and so onn... You are creating therefore one more article about the same topic.... Which is a bloody problem because socialist state and communist state are also the same bloody thing. --TIAYN (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Get over yourself already, you've already been given good reasons why your inane, pseudo-intellectual opinions about authoritarian socialism make no sense. There's already a sufficient level of agreement for the establishment of a consensus over this particular issue, so the sooner that you accept it the better. Wingwraith (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN, you are absolutely not helping your case by failing to differentiate socialism and communism. Indeed, these are two different systems. Further, while a totalitarian state might be the goal of authoritarians, it is not the same thing as an authoritarian state. Further, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-socialism exist. Please do some research; I now severely doubt that you have the expertise you previously claimed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Prospective administrators should note that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened against TIAYN. Wingwraith (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure where that SPI investigation went, but the trend I'm noticing (all issues of the nature of the content aside) is some concerning mentality/attitude on the part of TIAYN.
  • "That article is bull and should be deleted"
  • "that article is smbol of what is wrong with Wikipedia"
  • if Wingwraith would have just visited the sites TIAYN wants him to embrace, "He would have found the answer for a long time ago"
  • "The infobox fails to understand"
  • "If I sound arrogant it is because I am. I know more about the Communist Party of China, the Soviet party and system and communism in general then most users do"

My takeaway from that is that regardless of how accurate TIAYN might be, he's not engaging in collaborative behavior or editing with collaboration in mind. Those are the kinds of statements that we commonly find in folks who are on a mission to right great wrongs. Grandpallama (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: The SPI was determined to be inspired by an unconnected sock, and therefore deleted by User:DoRD. Just FYI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus and Mr rnddude: OK here it goes. Socialist states and communist states are the same thing. Here's the story.

1. A guy name Karl Marx, with a guy named Friedrich Engels, conceived of a thing called historical materialism. Historical materialism believed society was governed by universal laws. History began with primitive communism, the developed in the slave mode of production, then the feudal mode of capitalism and then finally capitalist mode of production. After capitalism society would develop into the socialist mode of production (see Socialism (Marxism) and from there develop into pure communism.
2. All the Marxist–Leninist states defined themselves as socialist states. The constitutions of China, the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, Vietnam el cetra all define themselves as "socialist state" and uses the term "socialist state"... No one has ever used the term "communist state" before because no Marxist–Leninist state ever achieved communism. So here we've proven that all "communist states" actually defined themselves as "socialist states"... if they hadn't achieved socialism, they would interchangeably refer to themselves as people's republics, people's democracy and so on.
3. So no @Icarosaurvus: I'm not making a fool of myself, you are! Marx said it. Stalin said it. The Communist Party of China is saying it.. The Chinese constitution says in Article 1 "The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.".... and, more importantly, its says its in the primary stage of socialism, which explains why capitalism exists in China.

@Grandpallama: Very true, but now, as I've understood, Wingwraith has been blocked. So I'm more collaborative now :) --TIAYN (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Any blocking of the OP does not address your own behavior (which you appear to have just confirmed was tendentious and questionable), and smugly stating that you can now edit things the way you want them to be does nothing but heighten my concerns; it should also alarm any admins who are keeping an eye on this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't interpret me correctly. I intend to consult with the other editors, as I did at the Talk:Communist Party of China. The others don't call me fascist, communist, shithole or tell me to fuck off. @Grandpallama: I literally just want to get over with this. --TIAYN (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Very important, read this comment from @DOR (HK): at Talk:Communist Party of China: "I agree with TIAYN. @Wingwraith:, you have no support for your position and are simply being obstructionist. Get over it. " (its at the very bottom of the talk page). --TIAYN (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd be thrilled to have this over with, since bringing someone to ANI with a request that they be blocked from editing inevitably results in greater scrutiny of your own behavior. Thus far, everything I've seen strongly suggests editors and admins should be alarmed about what you're saying and doing with your edits. And for the record, I don't really care what other editors say about your content position; I'm concerned about your behavior and your motivations. Grandpallama (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: I can't really respond to that, other that I do agree that I did not behave properly regarding the CPSU article.. On the CPC article I didn't escalate it, but I should have been bigger. But you're right, I've been annoyed (and I feel rightly so), and been brash and angry.

This is not an apology, but rather.. I get you're position. --TIAYN (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I know this really shouldn't be a forum for content dispute, but I think it would be helpful for everyone to note that according to page 169 of this book: "Historically, there have been three major forms of socialism — Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism), Authoritarian Socialism (Marxist Communism), and Democratic Socialism (electoral social democracy)." -Indy beetle (talk) 22:01, 5 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.

Edgarmm81 - 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.

---

Edgarmm81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[386] Give that the user is WP:NOTTHERE anyway and last time barely escaped an indefinite block, may be it is time to block them indef. There are enough more constructive users representing both sides of the Catalonian conflict.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter I am much relieved now. In the beginning, I thought you were going to investigate that, but I see you prefer to kill the messenger and conceal an impersonation (offense). Sorry, if you were not in my evocate list, maybe I should also include you. But you know, there are not more that 3-5 potential users, so the offenser will get caught soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd personally want to see diffs indicating that the behavioural issue at the last ANI report continued. I see tehy're an SPA, but I'm not well enough versed on the previous dispute to comment on their continued edits. With the issue at hand, this is very much a questionable NLT violation.

Btw, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BallenaBlanca will you request an investigation of the user and IP, expel that person and facilitate my sue or you'd rather conceal and obliterate a criminal offense?

— Edgarmm81

Since the hacking attempt is obviously from an unknown source, we don't know whether they're a Wikipedian or not. NLT is quite clear, in my view, "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors" (empahsis added). I'm not sure if there is a legal threat against BallenaBlanca there, hence I'm somewhat uncomfortable with an indef. However, Edgarmm81 did seem to be casting aspertions at Crystallizedcarbon and BallenaBlanca. "So, do you know anything about that ...". Again, nothing explicit, but perhaps grounds for 4im warnings.

Also, I edit conflicted with the user in question. Make of the above what you wil. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say that that marking the exit in question as a legal threat is marginal at best. No comment on the SPA issues or other, but this heading is asking for action under NLT, which is a stretch. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Could this be a coincidence with all the multiple reports of account access attempts here? Which he probably got a notification and thought someone was trying to break into his account and made him think it was an attempt to impersonate him? ViriiK (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite possible. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it can be indeed read this way, in which case it is not a legal threat (at least not the one they should be indeffed for). May be we can drop this, unless someone wants to investigate the NOTTHERE aspect.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming so, not least looking at the above section #Break-in attempts to accounts belong to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. Many editors affected are thinking that they've been singled out. Alas, this isn't going to be very conducive to a CIVIL environment over the next few days. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't just restricted to any single sphere of WP. There's a thread on WP:AN and the Teahouse where editors from all across the spectrum have been hit with failed login attempts, myself included, and it's not project related. @Edgarmm81: I would recommend you retract the potential legal thread in your statement to Ymblanter. This was a misunderstanding within a much bigger issue that hit WP. Blackmane (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much everyone for your feedback.

I am not a member of the WikiProject Politics and I have also suffered a failed login attempt today.

I ask Edgarmm81 to apologize to Crystallizedcarbon and me. And I repeat, once again ..., that please, put a little more interest in learning how to edit our encyclopedia: you continue without signing the messages, you have not learned to ping, you continue editing on a single article, you are casting aspertions, etc. And you are not listening to our multiple warnings.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, has anyone noticed that the name is quite similar to Edgar181? SemiHypercube (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I doubt it is intentional, and not enough to be counted as impersonation. 181-Edgar sounds more like a radio callsign. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, like every admin I've had a number of stalkers, impersonators, etc. creating multiple accounts in feeble attempts to annoy me over the years, but I don't recognize anything familiar with this account. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edgarmm81: Don't know if anyone mentioned this already, but many accounts were hit today with login attempts. This was not about you. It was a general attack.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Aye, I am virtually a nobody, and even I was hit with one. It seems they tried to cast as wide a net as possible. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The claim I saw would put the login attempts in the low hundreds of thousands. I imagine they just hit everyone who made an edit in the last month, or something like that. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221, it looks like the work of some kind of bot. I was hit once as well. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:18, 4 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.

Actions of FaZeCastorm

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.

---

FaZeCastorm has had some pretty questionable actions, and I am not sure if it should be edit war notice board, SPI or here, so I thought the more generic here was the best place. This user first is clearly editing while logging out, as you can see they even signed this post [387] while posting logged out. Besides for that comment being nothing but a pure mimic of someone attempting to actually contribute, right after they attempted to close the debate while logged in [388] (note they created this article, which I nominated). Once their action was rightfully reverted, they logged out and did it again [389] and [390]. They also attempted to remove the deletion notice from the top of the article, which they were warned against here [391], however rather than following the advice, they logged out and did it again [392].

This same user also created the page WWE 2K19 with this edit [393] which you can see is just the WWE 2K18 copied and pasted, with the exception of the marketing section, and changing 18 to 19. Their very few other edits are no different, such as this [394] were an unsourced changed and immediately reverted, or this [395] which was immediately reverted due to them just randomly adding something with a future date without a source. They also created an article with this edit [396] and The Absolution, both of which were previously deleted through an AfD.

I wouldn't be surprised if this user was connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123 due to the actions, but at this point I do not have enough evidence to support opening that case, however I believe it is clear in either scenario that this user is not here to offer constructive edits. - Galatz^Talk 03:01, 4 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.

Impersonation

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

---

Someone created a fake profile on me.using my picture.has caused tremdous damage in my family.i want to press charges and request all data from that app — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:D713:FC78:2919:B28D:57BB:BD92 (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Where? What article? What image? Please understand you are very close to violating WP:NLT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 09:41, May 4, 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 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.

---

Is this type of revert allowed? (See here and here) TIAYN is reverting my opinion on an article nomination which was initiated by that user. AFAIC that's a personal attack as it's my comment/property that s/he is reverting but don't know enough about Wikipedia's editing regulations when it comes to that kind of edit. Any third-party opinions on this would be welcomed. Wingwraith (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: He said, in his words, that I was a sockpuppet without proof and does not state any other reason to oppose the nomination except his accusation of sock puppetry. --TIAYN (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN, you do not get to vet other editor's !votes or comments, and if you do that again I will block your account. Wingwraith did not state that you are a sock, just that there has been a sock report filed - and that is factually accurate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that if you think someone else's comments at such a venue are problematic, ask for help from a third party (eg here) rather than removing them yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You can see that the vote is not serious right? @Boing! said Zebedee:? Why does he oppose it? He doesn't say. How can I persuade him? It doesn't say. What work shall I do to fix it? He doesn't say. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and thats not true and has to be removed. SO remove it @Boing! said Zebedee:! Its not fair to accuse me of something without proof! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you personally think of the validity of someone else's !vote - you do not get to be the judge of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Who can help me? Cause no one. I'm being accused all things knowing. Of white washing history, of sockpuppetering el cetra el cetra--TIAYN (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been brought here now, so leave it and see if an independent third party believes the comment should be amended, removed or left. Note that I'm not supporting or opposing the existence of that comment at all, I'm just saying that you should not be the person to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Redact the socking part' It is irrelevant to the matter discussed on that page, is just yet another jab at the other user, and is disruptive. It's what people of my generation would call a "low blow". Purely done to goad the other user. In fact, I think it merits a block for disruption. And I think that if the SPI does not pan out then filing it would be further disruption. WP:AGF does not equal close your eyes and ignore.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted you Boing. It is a personal attack. Spreading SPIs around to irrelevant places, such as FAC in this case, carries obvious implications, aspersions if you will, of wrongdoing. It has no place being allowed to stand. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, you're an independent third party and exactly the kind of editor who I hoped would make the decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. Dlohcierekim's redaction suggestion would work as well, though that would leave one word "Oppose" (struck out) and a sig. I think removal is preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that having looked closer (and having understood the SPI better than on my first inspection), I agree with you. TIAYN, I apologise for my threat of a block, as I had not fully grasped the nature of the SPI report. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever works. I still want to block Wingwraith. He started this mess, then ran here with a complaint when TIAYN took the bait.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I dispute that what I did was disruptive; at the very least I don't understand how what I did was disruptive. The point that I was making when I linked that SPI investigation to the article was that the user wasn't nominating that article for featured candidacy out of good faith which I thought was an entirely reasonable one to make given that user's pattern of disruptive editing and specific comment about how "if I sound arrogant it is because I am. I know more about the Communist Party of China, the Soviet party and system and communism in general then most users do." It wasn't (meant to be) a personal attack, low blow, entrapment or anything of that kind. On reflection I could have waited until the SPI ran its course and THEN post the outcome of that investigation to the FAC article. Or would that still not be allowed? I don't know. Like I said in my OP I don't know enough about Wikipedia's editing regulations when it comes to this kind of edit so that's why I'm trying to learn what I can about them so that this kind of misunderstanding doesn't happen again. Wingwraith (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ringthrust (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a  Confirmed match to Nasteek hunt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is linked to the Architect 134 trollsock farm. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As such, I have deleted the SPI case because this was a joe job, and there is no value in keeping the SPI active. I have also deleted the ill-advised WP:Long-term abuse/Wingwraith. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked accordingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrator note: I just realized that this is connected to the #User:Wingwraith section above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! :) But can you revert you're deletion @DoRD:? @Wingwraith: is a problem. --TIAYN (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The deletion of the LTA page? No, this doesn't rise to nearly the level required for LTA status. This is best dealt with elsewhere, such as here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:51, 4 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.

Opinion about AfD notification

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 recently participated in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination) where one editor notified multiple other editors on their talk about the AfD, almost all of whom voted keep. Link to notifications. I am not aware if any particular selection criteria was followed while nominating. Although I don't think the notification was done in bad faith, I still want to know if this is allowed and appropriate. I read WP:CANVASS and from what I understood, notification on user talk is not encouraged. What happens in a case where the notification has already happened. Is the AfD closed as a no-consensus and we wait 6 months for nominating? Or is the AfD still considered valid?--DreamLinker (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD looks valid to me, although the canvasing in another matter. The poor deletion rationale by the nom is probably the downfall here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I left a note to the closer about this thread. (I also !voted keep.) Hopefully someone can look into the canvassing. I'm off.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I admit, I did posted about it on people's talk pages. I stopped. I will not do that again. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And here I was for a moment thinking I was somehow special. I suppose I was since I was the 5th you told. But seriously, I hadn't bothered with the article in any way for more than EIGHT YEARS. And that was only because I was in 2009 straight up reading the AfD page and found it. I am curious why you sought me out after the passage of so much time. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC) CORRECTION: There were more I didn't see. I was 13th. I voted for retention in 2009 but I think I also said YouTubers annoy me. You seriously temped me to vote delete because wp:IDLI 10:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Deliriousandlost: Voting WP:IDLI is a terrible reason to vote delete. It is along the lines of WP:OSE. I used that years ago before I realize that it is bad to use that in your vote. I went through all the deletion discussions and posted on each person's talk page that are not blocked. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't look in-depth (going to do that now), but I'd guess that it was either people who contributed to the article or people who commented on previous AfDs. Anyways, it doesn't really matter. The page has survived six previous AfD nominations, and I'm not sure what would make this one different. ansh666 17:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  @DreamLinker, Lugnuts, and Dlohcierekim: If any of you looked at the user's talk page, it would have become clear what they were doing. It is indeed both. Anyways, since I was there, I also left a notice to alert them to this discussion. ansh666 17:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I dodn't know all rules and whatnot. I admit I did it. I will not do it again. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• When someone nominates an article for deletion the seventh time, and we're discussing the behavior of another editor for canvassing...well, I think we're focusing on the wrong problem. Jacona (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  @JaconaFrere: I was told people would complain about it. People have in the deletion discussion and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead2100 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 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:Stringcatt

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

---

Requesting a permanent ban of User:Stringcatt for vandalism, slander, socking and homophobic comments, diffs here: [397], [398], [399], [400], [401], [402]. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 6 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.

Anaijmjssdzsihjjenemjppjtmlmj not here 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.

---

Anaijmjssdzsihjjenemjppjtmlmj (talk · contribs) is clearly not here to improve the article Yahweh. He's adding a pov tag and on the talk age has posted "This article is very clearly biased against any and all deeply held religious beliefs and is instead motivated by radical atheism which fundamentally hates religion and seeks to discredit the Biblical accounts of God." and "Making it seem like somehow they were polytheistic when the Bible is pretty clear Yahweh is the only God of the world and there are no signs at all of any polytheism in the Bible. Typical atheist you are." I gave him a 3rr warning and his response was "Don't care". He might be a Wittgenstein sock. I don't see much chance of making progress with this editor (unlike one who started out sort of like that earlier this week hating Wikipedia but seems happy now - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose). Doug Weller talk 09:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller - easy block ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:50, 6 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 new user Sportsfan 1234

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 new user Sportsfan 1234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is vandalism and likes to show off his powers as a Administrator to other editors if they didn't agree with his edited. and he said i used word Sport same as him, only him can use word Sport and the number for a username on Wikipedia? please checking this editor, thanks--SportAddicted1234 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: I left the required ANI notice as it was missing on Sportsfan 1234's page. -- Dane ^talk 19:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

he also removed the articles with no reasons and wrote the articles with unsoureced.--SportAddicted1234 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@SportAddicted1234: - please provide diffs showing where User:Sportsfan 1234 has made the statements you allege them to have made. Please note that they are not an administrator as you claim here - nor would, as you describe them, a "new user" be an administrator anyway. Richard⁰⁶¹² 19:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) SA1234 is currently at SPI > Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Golf-ben10 and their comments over there speak for themselves. –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Was just going to post that after checking contribs. Hmm... is that quacking I hear? Richard⁰⁶¹² 19:09, 6 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.

Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI

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 started at the end of the #Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock section above (just in case it's archived while this section is open: diff at closing). In it, Bugs' comments amounted to a false allegation of restoring an edit and incorrectly repeating assertions about the use of non-English sources. As that's part of what seems like a pattern of unhelpful edits, I started this tangential thread afterwards (admittedly, I should've just started a new thread). Since that's well up the page now, I've created a new thread and moved the comments down here. Please undo if this is controversial. To be clear, I don't know that I've provided enough diffs below to formally propose a topic ban, but the idea was floated by others and I think it's worth getting some additional thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Post-move pings: @Baseball Bugs, Lepricavark, Only in death, Ymblanter, NeilN, Galobtter, Malerooster, Legacypac, and Piotrus: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Tangential, but can we just talk about how almost nothing Baseball Bugs said in this thread has any basis in WP:PAG? Ironically some of the comments were about competence. E.g. How did this xenophobic nonsense not get called out before the thread closed: That foreign-language page should not be allowed as a source. This is the English Wikipedia. That page could be saying "Death to all English-speakers!" for all we know. -- Wouldn't be bringing it up if it weren't part of a pattern (of heat-to-light ANI comments -- not the xenophobic part). Possibly worth a separate thread, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with Bugs' sentiment regarding foreign language sources, but I think you are going to far in applying the label 'xenophobic'. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Its a matter of policy (WP:V) that foreign language sources are allowed (although English are preferred where available for the same content). Complaining that something shouldnt be allowed because its not in English (when policy expressly permits this as the editor well knows) comes across as extremely xenophobic. Its deliberately inflammatory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If Bugs does not like that policy, he is free to comment accordingly, just as others are free to disagree with him. I strongly object to such reckless assessments of his motives. Lepricavark (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: motives, see below. Apart from that: ANI is not the place to disagree with clearly stated policy/guideline. This thread is not about that policy. It is about a block. If someone interjects their own opinion about a policy, stated without qualification, to weigh in on the matter of a block, that's completely inappropriate. As I've said multiple times now, this is more about Bugs' comments at ANI generally, of which this is just the latest egregious example of being not just neutral but counter-productive. In short: he can disagree with the policy all he wants, and even talk about it in discussions about that policy. What he should not be doing is weighing in on a block and the quality of someone's edits in relation to that block with his own opinions that run contrary to policy. He not only did that, but he did it in an offensive way (whether or not it was intentional). Even if we weren't at ANI, it's unacceptable to tell new users that they need to use English sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. My tendency is to play devil's advocate (speaking figuratively, I'm not literally calling Bugs the devil) when I am concerned that an editor is being misunderstood or misrepresented, but I can see the problem in this specific case. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing from a mobile device, so I'm going to be brief, blunt, and allude to some things I would usally provide links for. This reminds me of the recent KoshVorlon thread, but with one key difference: the "content" at issue is comments on wikipedia pages not content being added to articles. The "death to America comment" part was perhaps unwise, but otherwise the comment and other behavior linked is not contrary to behaviourial policies. We should not be the political corectness police but rather should defend the expression of unpopular beliefs when they are not unreasonable. I cannot support any sanction based on the evidence currently provided. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that Baseball Bugs is a xenophobe or seeks to promote some xenophobic agenda on Wikipedia. However, I stand by my characterization of that statement as a rather textbook xenophobic sentiment. Not only is it a policy-defying assertion that we should not use foreign language sources, but it jumps straight to "Death to all English speakers" as what it might mean (indeed, Bugs obviously doesn't think it says that, but offered that as a hypothetical anyway -- precisely the kind of damaging hyperbolic rhetoric we're accustomed to hearing stand in for more overt xenophobia). But the point of this isn't actually the xenophobia but to highlight the latest example of adding far more heat than light. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Part of the concept of requiring sourcing is "so that others can check your work." Using a foreign language source automatically restricts the checking that can be done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The same argument would prohibit citing paper books and paper journals.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Those things could be checked, although it would take more effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Other language sources can be checked as well, even though it takes effort. One can learn the language or ask a language speaker.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually it takes less effort than that. Google translate works remarkably well nowadays (I've tested it repeatedly on Chinese, a language I know and notoriously difficult to machine-translate). It's still not good enough for composing articles, but for verifying basic information it's quite adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It takes a lot to irritate me on here, Baseball Bugs, but this argument has done the trick. Are you bringing up the same rationale when paywalled journals, dead-tree books, subscription-based magazines, out of print academic books, etc., are used as sources? If not, I suggest you take a closer look at why you're singling out this particular type of source. I, for one, don't particularly like what I see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nor do I. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hence my comment about TBANing him. I think if you'd want to improve the atmosphere at ANI that would be what I'd do. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support this, for the record. It would take some time to do a proper dig for diffs, but just in the very recent past there's jumping in after a matter is resolved to comment about how liberal Canadians are, jumping into a thread just to call someone a bigot (and then doubling down), denying an obvious violation because of one-way ibans being "bogus", interrogating an IP, asking for personal information (then again here) (I've seen this one many, many times -- Bugs very much seems to dislike unregistered users, and jumps into discussions to interrogate them or toss in assumptions of bad faith), again commenting on someone's English... and this omits the large number of comments that aren't problematic but don't add anything (e.g. [403] [404] [405] [406]). None of these would be problematic alone, but all of them being just from the last couple months should say something. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If an editor is incapable of understanding that non-English sources are acceptable, despite it being repeatedly pointed out that that is long-standing policy, they have no business being here. See WP:Competence is required. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah its about high time Bugs be banned from the project. That's a joke, but actually the IP has a point. --Malerooster (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

My use of the word "here", as well as echoing one of Baseball Bugs's comments, was deliberately ambiguous. It could mean this specific noticeboard, all noticeboards, all of Wikipedia space or the whole project. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs has long been an unhelpful participant at ANi, much like his often thoughtless participation at help desk. I'd support a TBAN from notice boards. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I can't say that his contribution was helpful at anypoint. Until you get to be an admin, using ANI for flaming and such is not a good idea, and actually looking at BB's contributions he seems to be totally unaware of WP:NOTAFORUM, so I think Legacypac idea has a merit. Someone who is here just to discuss (flame...?) is not here to build an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually like Baseball Bugs and enjoy his remarks sometimes. But far too often, both here at ANI, and at the reference desks, he is prone to spout off with uninformed, speculative and sometimes offensive remarks. Over and over and over again. I do not know what the solution is, but this has been a problem for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Some quotes from his RfA from 9 years ago are still relevant: "His posts at ANI are atrocious"; "I've only seen the user at ANI".."From his actions, he always seemed to me as not assuming good faith, quick to judge in an overly harsh way [doesn't that seem relevant to the just concluding incident..], condoning problematic administrative behavior"; "Has a strong tendency to add fuel to fires"; and so on. His contributions are rarely helpful, and when they are only of the slight kind that can easily be done by anyone; in other times they are offtopic; and in many times too they're hostile and add fuel to fire. (For evidence, see the ANI thread just before and the diffs by Rhododendrites, and anyone who regularly looks at ANI should be able to see that too). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In the past five years, his contributions to main space articles have been trivial, and 70% to 80% of his edits are to Wikipedia space. He is basically an opinionated blogger here, not someone who actually improves the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

yup, I saw that too. It appears in the past he atleast did contribute something to article space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

+Anyone can review his contribution log. He may think Ref desk and AN/i is free wheeling spout off anything like Yahoo Answers, but sadly we can't vote his useless posts to the bottom here and are left with voting him off the board. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"In the past five years, his contributions to main space articles have been trivial, and 70% to 80% of his edits are to Wikipedia space." Several Wikipedia editors are barely active any more, but banning them is not part of policy. We are unpaid volunteers, remember? Baseball Bugs did bother to correct formation problems in Mutt and Jeff, and slightly expanded the article on the Messer Street Grounds. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And he can continue to do whatever good work you think he's doing in Article space, since nobody is proposing he be blocked from that: quite the opposite. And if it were simply about the ratio, nobody would give two shits about this: it's the ratio between useful edits and time-wasting ones which is the issue. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban on Baseball Bugs from Wikipedia Space

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.

---

TBAN from Wikipedia space (except of course if he is the subject of a notice board complaint). That covers the Ref desk and the notice boards mostly and I suppose some other stuff. If he really has a need to work on some wikiproject the closing admin can carve that out. Never seen one of these exact TBANS but this would mean he would have to ***gasp*** work on building an encyclopedia if he wants to stick around, and his chit chat would be confined to content talkpages where users can enforce keeping the topic on how to improve the article.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Ehh, let's try this then first, I suppose. (proposed an ANI TBAN above, let's merge it in then) My comment was: "See my and others comments above. Negative for ANI. If someone wants to propose a ban from reference desks/help desk/overall noticeboards too (of which Reference desks make up a staggering 30000 edits or something) feel free to do so, I don't view the reference desks/consider them mostly useless anyhow etc but from the few edits I saw they didn't seem constructive either". Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Perpetual pot-stirrer and generator of much heat and little light, about time they switch their focus to writing an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - After a look at his edit count, I’m in. 13K edits to this page alone... is enough, and his ref desk stuff is three times that. Jusdafax (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Student/editors are particularly difficult to gauge as to their intent. I think that is because their "intent" is to fulfill a class requirement, thus there is an indirectness that can be particularly indecipherable. When looking at the edits in the case here, it is hard not to see this as vandalism. A ballet company producing cheese? Since the thirteenth century? Not only involving milk from cows but also crude oil? It is understandable that one would reach the wrong conclusion about edits like that. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is more for being consistently hostile instead of reducing tension and being WP:BITEy than one incident. Baseball bugs could look at the full editing history and had the context of it being a student in good faith, so him assuming it is vandalism is bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVAND: ... sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language).—Bagumba (talk)

This is not an error in syntax. Bus stop (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nor is she editing dishonestly.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This has next to nothing to do with a student editor - that was just the latest incident. 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - He's earned it. Swarm ♠ 07:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A complete Wikipedia-space ban would also cover stuff like WP:AFD, WP:DRV, WP:DYK etc. If you want to ban him from noticeboards, it's probably best to tighten that one up a bit. Black Kite (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is intended to keep him off Ref Desk, site policy discussions and similar as well. We don't need him at XfD throwing around nonsense off topic comments either, and him banned from just notice boards, that is a likely place he would go. He is always free to appeal for a carve out for some limited purpose if his editig takes him to an area he needs Wikipedia space. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Bugs is clearly a menace at ANI so in principle I am tempted to support. However, this proposal risks driving Bugs into articles where his opposition to non-English-language sources could wreak havoc. Is that a risk worth taking? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you suggest a full site ban then? If that happens I hope we can quickly ban him completely, though I wouldn't oppose a site ban now..Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A site ban sounds harsh. I just wanted to note the risk of displacement. I don't have a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is that possibility certainly. Site ban is probably harsh; I do hope that removing him from ANI and the references desks leads to constructive editing in article space. I think we should keep aware and watch if problems as you say continue and then a site ban would be appropriate Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from ANI and Ref Desk. I oppose a permanent or unappealable TBAN. I think the TBAN should be restricted to 6 months or a year, or be appealable at six months. Bugs's month edit counts were well-balanced back in mid-2011 [407], but since then he has enexorably become a flaneur, here apparently only for his own amusement (in spite of the fact that his comments are sometimes useful). He needs to demonstrate that he is a well-functioning member of the Wikipedia community before returning to ANI and the ref desks. I'm sorry it's come to this but one could see this coming several years ago. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC); edited 09:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean every TBAN is appealable and this would be to. I'm not one to prevent appeals anyhow; but he'd definitely have to show how he has become less bitey etc, and I don't have any hope since it has been the case for 10 years or something. Even when his edit ratios were balanced, there were still problems with his ANI edits, atleast from the comments on his RfA Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - he doesn't add anything to discussions. GiantSnowman 08:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Disturbed by his nonsense assertion that we should limit ourselves to English language sources as a disruptive attempt to change the encyclopedia focus and my own experience is that she or he is argumentative or disruptive for the sake of it here at ANI. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support ~80 mainspace edits this year? None at all for the last two months? A pattern that stretches back eight years? No thanks; editors have been found to be WP:NOTHERE, and treated accordingly, for less. Or more, depending on how you look at it. When he can show six months of productive editing in other namespaces, then we can revisit. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban from ANI, initially for a fixed period of time - six months maybe. The year counts section of this link is telling - [408]. Baseball Bugs has made 1,295 edits to article space in the last 6 years; in the same period he's made 22,289 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Bugs has made 13,079 edits to AN/I alone, and a very small proportion of those have been useful. An enforced break from AN/I would do him good, and everyone else good. He's made tens of thousands of edits to the reference desks, I leave it to people who can bear to look at the reference desks to decide whether he should be barred from there or not. Fish+Karate 09:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Bugs has a lot to say here and elsewhere in WP space. They say things oft-times that I disagree with. Their take on the non-English language sources issue is a case in point, but I suggest it does come from a real problem where non-English sources at times are used in lieu of available English sources as a way of subtly pushing non-neutral POVs. I think Bugs may well be going at it a bit hard with their insistence of English language sources and certainly at times they lack tact in the way they state their case. However, it is precisely because I do not agree with them, as I suspect neither do the majority of us here, that I believe it is inappropriate to seek to silence them by issuing him a TBAN from WP space. If we seek to silence opposition then we risk becoming an echo chamber. This is not healthy for the project. I suggest instead of a topic ban, Baseball Bugs be "officially" warned that further incivility or PAs will result in a block. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing is to dislike non-english sources, it is another to help BITE a newbie about it on a forum we should try to keep friendly, however it may not be or that be difficult. This student is hardly pushing a POV with using a foreign language source. This isn't as much about silencing opposition as about improving the atmosphere at ANI. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"This isn't as much about silencing opposition as about improving the atmosphere at ANI." yes, kill the witch! Sorry, not convinced, it looks a lot more to me like stacks on the mill. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yes please! Has anyone bothered to find the last ANI discussion quite a long time ago when this was proposed. My distant recollection is that a sanction was escaped by a promise to voluntarily withdraw. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One month voluntary ANI topic ban (2012).2014, no consensus for reference desk topicban. 2008 warning about civility at ANI·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Per my comments above, I was unsure about this. Then Bugs appeared on my talk page where he a) complained that I had implied that he would engage in sockpuppetry (I hadn't); b) demonstrated no understanding of what he himself wrote about foreign-language sources. Discussion here[409]
  That combination of prolixity and lack of comprehension is a nuisance which project space doesn't need. The fact that it comes in the middle of a ban discussion when he knows he is under scrutiny gives me no reason to believe that he is likely to reform. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The notion that I would go on some sort of crusade against non-English sources is astonishingly bad faith on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I mean this as kindly as I can, but you're not exactly a poster child for assuming good faith yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Extraordinary. Bugs thinks it is bad faith to assume that he means what he says, and would therefore follow through on that principle. The alternative interpretation is that it was all just hot air and he didn't really mean it ... which only reinforces the case for a ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Like Cullen328, above, I quite like Baseball Bugs - probably through familiarity going back some years. But I have to say, Bugs' comments here at ANI seem to be turning more and more into just disruptive background noise these days, and the latest were so far off-policy that I'd really only expect them from a newcomer. The ideal solution would be for Bugs to understand the problems and make a commitment to toning things down, because I really wouldn't like to see a ban being necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is my lost post on ANI. Banning myself. Block me if I come back here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This should count as a support vote, and I think that means we can move to close this discussion enacting the topic ban, under the conditions Baseball Bugs has specified.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, if it applies to main WP-space as a whole rather than just ANI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. As shown above, the problem extends way beyond AN/I. And this last-second “sweat-promise” in the face of consensus is another sign of that. Formal remedial action is called for, I believe. Jusdafax (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NOTAFORUM. Of course he can ask for appeal after a few months or such, if he can show that he can actually contribute to building the encyclopedia first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This posting pretty much seals the deal, as it's either basic reading comprehension problem or bad faith. Neither is helpful. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - What Boing! said. I'd rather see Bugs change how he interacts here and on other noticeboards, but if a TBan is inevitable, it should be written in way that allows him to make relevant reports to AIV, AN3, etc. rather than as a blanket WP-space ban. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose such a broad topic ban. Bugs is mostly harmless; at the reference desk he does often contribute useful references on word etymology and other things (though there as elsewhere he can get a bit off topic and chatty). If he's being disruptive in specific areas, a more tailored ban may be more useful, but I can't support something as broad for him. --Jayron32 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As Baseball Bugs is fairly active at the RD, I have left a notification there of this proposal. [410]. I'd like to remind any participants that as this is a discussion, they're support and oppose it in parts if they feel that it the best solution. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Whilst BB's comments were unhelpful and offensive I am not sure that they are banable, unless they are part of a pattern (are they?). He does need to be warned that his attitude towards non English sources if wrong, and offensive. If however this is part of a pattern, blockSlatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. There IS precedent for banning time-wasting editors from Wikipedia, especially when their time-wasting is wrong, ill-informed, or disruptive. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't agree with Wikipedia witch-hunts and I find it ironic that a user such as Legacypac, who is frequently offensive, overly abrasive/insulting, and continually skirts the bounds of policy on civility and NPA is the proposer of this draconian ban. Issue a stern warning as a last chance to Bugs and watch closely for further problems. If such behavior from him rears its head within six months, bring him here again and then we can talk the ban proposed here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the previous 1 month (voluntary) ANI ban and the thread there serve as enough of a warning? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, words have consequences: please don't use the term "witch hunt" loosely. Many people don't know this, but it has a very specific meaning and a set of connotations that is frequently highly inappropriate. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies:. Guess what? I'm considerably older than you (which means I've been around the proverbial block more often) and I have the same level of education as you (and more of it). Moral: don't condescend. All that said, I'm quite aware of how words have consequences as well as the colloquial and precise meaning of the term "witch-hunt". I also know when I see a portrayal of Abigail Williams and Giles Corey occuring in AN/I (I'll allow you to figure out who's who). Good day to you, young man. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, asking sincerely here: did you just respond to perceived condescension with condescension? AlexEng^(TALK) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: On Wikipedia, we are all very much the same. Can you please adjust your signature so that it complies with WP:SIG. Many thanks, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"we are all very much the same" That's certainly the theory. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kindly don't use a discussion about another editor as a forum to continue your long term trolling of me. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

QED. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi remember this advice you received the other day about pitching in where your services aren't needed? For someone with such a long block log, you would think avoiding the drama--and starting it--would be things to avoid. I sadly will not be surprised when your name is back on one of these threads.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? And for what, exactly, does your crystal ball tell you I will be brought here for? Never mind. You don't have a crystal ball. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Partial Support - Very little of the above thread relates to comments outside of noticeboards, and this seems like an overreach without a close examination (with diffs, etc.) of, say, his WikiProject edits, his TfD comments, etc. (I don't know if there are any off-hand, and that's part of the problem here -- he has more then 100k edits, which makes such a broad ban difficult to gauge without proper discussion). The other thing is that I know that I've been part of at least one discussion about banning him from the ref desks in the past (which I would've supported -- Bugs and I got off to a very bad start on the refdesks when my very first interaction with anybody there was this thread back in 2013, where Bugs responded to a question about literary criticism by straight up insulting the concept the person asked about and offering no substance at all). I don't remember the specifics of that thread(s) but I know there was not consensus to do so, and I'm fairly certain there have been multiple other proposals to do so that have failed. Thus while I don't disagree necessarily, I feel like it's inappropriate to include the refdesks here, since this didn't start out with any discussion of his contributions to the refdesks. In short, this is an overreach. Very little of the discussion leading to this had anything to do with Wikipediaspace outside of noticeboards. Support ban on noticeboards, Abstain on the rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - a WP-wide TBAN is too broad in scope. If there is a consensus that Bugs is not contributing usefully at ANI then an ANI TBAN would be an appropriate sanction. But a TBAN from all of Wikipedia space looks like an over-reaction to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as too broad. I'd support a ban from noticeboards, but stuff like XfD should still be available. Also, very amused by the amount of pots and kettles in this thread... ansh666 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can't speak for Bug's behavior at admin talk boards, but he treats the reference desk as nothing more than a social club. He responds to many questions with non-contributing replies but sometimes goes a week or more without actually contributing a reference. He seems to live for asking unnecessary clarifying questions, even though he has no intention of providing a reference regardless to how his followup is answered. ApLundell (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support This guy has been shitposting on WP:ANI for literally years. Jtrainor (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Propose siteban forBaseball Bugs 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. Baseball Bugs doesn't just interfere in discussions - after everyone has had their say and they have been closed he comes along and removes them [411],[412]. Support as nom. 150.143.107.191 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC) This is not a reason for a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Could someone just close this subsection? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:20, 1 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. Note that I've blocked the IP for socking. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal is just too broad, how has Bugs earned a topic ban for areas outside here? I would support a short TBAN from WP:ANI as I feel it would be good for him to take a break (based on the comments of ticked off editors here). I already learned here that lurking around at WP:ANI too much bites you in the behind after awhile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too broad. The entire Wikipedia space? Really? A modest break from AN/I may be called for--possibly Bugs recognizes it--but that'a about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support I paid close attention to the thread referenced in the original post. The input from Baseball Bugs was disruptive throughout the discussion. If disruption extends to other parts of wikipedia space (as noted by other users, re: refdesk), then I agree with the substance of the TBAN as proposed. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose if every time someone were to get on the wrong side of "consensus" that person would be expelled from Wiki space, we'd be in worse shape than we are. I think that all make mistakes, some own up to them, and others need more guidance not bans. I have no reason to doubt Bugs' good faith and it seems he has owned up to mis-citations in the thread above. Move on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 3:28 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Oppose - far too broad. If Bugs is disruptive here and at the ref desk, we should be talking about a ban from here and the ref desk. Had that been proposed I'm not sure whether or not I would support it. From what's been presented here so far I'm leaning towards not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - too broad. If one of his articles were taken to AfD, he would be prevented from defending it. I doubt that is the intent here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A vast overreach for an editor whose positions are generally not vituperative nor objectionable. This precedent is, IMO, dangerous entirely, and any closer should note the potential for abuse of such bans. Collect (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support temporary ban from ANI and RefDesks, strong oppose to removal from all WP spaces: Sadly, this is a long time coming. I do believe Bugs' contributions are by and large good-faith in nature, but he's shown a marked refusal to contemplate the many, many concerns voiced by fellow community members regarding the limitations and proper purpose of certain work spaces, particularly as regards WP:NOTAFORUM (and these problems are much more pronounced at the reference desks). Unfortunately, I think a removal from those spaces for a time is the only strategy that stands a chance of stimulating a reform of habits that have long been disruptive to particular spaces. However, removing Bugs from all WP spaces is clearly overkill; if we were to do this, we might as well just give him a temporary siteban, because any and every editor who works consistently on this project is likely to have need to access community processes at some WP space or another, from time to time, and depriving them of that access while allowing them to continue to contribute is a recipe for disaster. (Indeed it has the potential to even let problem editors game their restrictions to avoid proper process in many circumstances). Further, the issues with Bugs' behaviour which we are trying to address here are not likely to arise in most WP spaces, even with his proclivity for taking discussion into random and inappropriate directions.

I'd also propose that even the ban from ANI and RD should be time-limited or set with a default period after which Bugs should seek appeal. If I'm to be perfectly frank, I am skeptical that Bugs will return to work in these areas with a more nuanced understanding of what is and is not appropriate discussion, but he nevertheless deserves a fair shake in this regard and I feel the scope and duration of the TBAN should be as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve a shot at the best possible outcome. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• oppose too broad. too overreachy. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can think of a handful of examples where Bugs had no idea how to answer a Reference Desk question in the past month or so, left a snarky comment anyway, and then other people (myself in one case) gave an actual answer. Very actively working against the spirit of the RDs, whether on purpose or not. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - wow! Bugs has always been kind and helpful to me - most recent was when I was being hounded by a sock. Sometimes we all need a little voluntary brake and Bugs seems quite capable of doing that on his own, but to pile-on like what's happening now seems quite harsh. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm opposing now, in favour of the narrower scoped proposal below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Now & then, I bring a question to the ref desks. At no time has BB annoyed me. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support either in full breadth, or in a more focused form (ANI + RefDesks). Banning repeat problem editors has been extremely effective in the past at improving general culture; for example, the recent ban of StuRat from the RefDesk has markedly improved the quality of the environment there. BB is a similarly problematic participant. --JBL (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I did a detailed analysis of RefDesk when we were TBANing StuRat from there and found that BaseballBugs was just as big a problem as StuRat. I hoped that StuRat's TBAN amd the strong community statement about acceptable behavior would be enough to push BaseballBugs into better behavior but it was not. Wikipedia space is pretty broad, but it is intend to be broad to cover RefDesk and AN amd any simolar places he might migrate to like Teahouse or policy boards when banned from AN and RefDesk. This is desigjed to make him work on content. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: No disagreement from me. The StuRat experience suggests that banning people from where they are currently causing a problem works pretty well, but as I said I would like to be counted as support for both the broader and more narrow proposed bans. --JBL (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see that some editors consider Bugs a problem -- generally speaking, I do not -- but in any case I cannot support such a broad TB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (all) "Mostly harmless". Not the most vital either, but that's no reason to start throwing tbans around. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. If we banned everyone who made a moronic misinterpretation of policy on the drama boards, there'd be practically nobody left to post here. (I wonder if that's a bad thing...) But that's not really the story with this one. The complaints about his Refdesk behavior would only underscore how little that kind of genuine Wikipedia administration work seems to matter compared to seizing an opportunity to suppress any expression of "xenophobic sentiment". To be sure, we should resist such sentiments, but not punish them: we should not join an international pattern of heavy-handed censorship in other realms of discourse that has not brought harmony, but rather has fanned the flames of fascism. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't agree because Bugs has worked hard over many years; and although through many incidents of craziness and trouble here; Wikipedia has benefited by the work put in by Bugs...Modernist (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As noted above, this is unnecessarily broad. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• I have known editors who were net negatives in project space. Bugs is not one of them, because he is a zero in project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That strikes me as a peculiar stance, given Bugs has more than 13,000 posts to ANI alone (and about 33,000 posts to the ref desks). So there may be some reasonable variation in perspectives as to his value-to-problems-generated ratio, but I can't see the argument that he is a non-factor in WP space, when close to half of his 110,000 contributions has been made to WP spaces. Maybe I am confused as to your meaning though. If you are saying that Bugs is a non factor because people know him and what to expect of his responses (that he is a "zero" in that sense), I'm not sure I can agree, because the nature of WP spaces is that they get a lot of traffic from new users trying to navigate our psuedo-bureaucracy. Similarly, if you are saying that his comments are have insubstantial impact because they can be dismissed by the informed and present no greater question of disruption, I am afraid I must disagree there too. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I still oppose a ban encompassing all of WP space because I think it is just plainly unreasonable to deprive any volunteer of access to community process, and accomodating that access via alternative means would not be remotely worth the effort, if it were feasible at all. On the other hand, if a user has, over the many years of their contribution, steadfastly refused to internalize that WP:NOTAFORUM applies to the workspaces they most like to contribute to, and will not accept broad community consensus on what is and is not appropriate and productive topic matter for those boards/desks, there comes a point at which the community can reasonably assume that no self-regulating change will be forthcoming from the editor in question and that the editor may need to simply be removed from those areas. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a clear over-reach. Lepricavark (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support a T-Ban from Wikipedia space with the exception perhaps of contructive reports to AIV. On any other web forum I would possibly enjoy Baseball Bugs' comments. However, Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a blog, its mission is to build an encyclopedia. His edits for the past 7 years have been almost exclusively to Wikipedia space including a massive 13,000 to ANI (mine by comparison - and as an fairly active admin - are only around 600) and much of the commenting by univolved editors is one of the reasons why I, and I assume many admins, don't bother much with ANI these days. Aditionally, a recent discussion about the Reference Desk largely concurred that the way it is used is not always useful. Strictly, therefore, using Wikipedia mostly to satisfy his need for socializing, his edits fall under WP:NOTHERE. With extremely negligible contributions to content, his performance is clearly not sustainable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 6 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.

Topic ban from administrators' noticeboards

Let's get this back on track. This is what this whole thread was about before the proposal above pulled all of projectspace into the discussion. Throughout the supports and opposes there looks to be pretty strong support for a topic ban from administrators' noticeboards (AN and ANI), so let's just focus on that one. Exceptions to this topic ban: opening new threads, participating in threads he opens, and responding to threads about him.

pings: @Ivanvector, Carlossuarez46, AlexEng, Wehwalt, Knowledgekid87, Ansh666, Gandalf61, Winkelvi, Calton, Nil Einne, Slatersteven, Jayron32, DoRD, Piotrus, Boing! said Zebedee, BrownHairedGirl, Johnuniq, Nick Thorne, Fish and Karate, SerialNumber54129, RichardWeiss, GiantSnowman, Softlavender, Black Kite, Swarm, Bus stop, Jusdafax, Maunus, Galobtter, and Legacypac: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and per my reasoning above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support again, per my rationale above. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I prefer the wider ban proposed above, but I would support this as a compromise if there is not a consensus for the wider ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per my comments above. He shows continual hostility/not assuming good faith, BITEyness and irrelevant comments; previously being restricted from ANI and comments still relevant from 9 years ago show this isn't a short term problem but a long term one deserving of a topic ban. This topic ban would improve the atmosphere at ANI, and isn't specifically about his views or this one incident. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per my reasoning above. The first proposal was too broad to realistically pass, but the merits are sound. Swarm ♠ 19:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. IMO could be a little bit broader (e.g. ref desk and Teahouse) but this works as a starter. ansh666 19:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly, but let's keep it simple for now. There's no real discussion of the help desk above, so IMO while probably warranted, I'd prefer to see a separate section for those so inclined (I have not spent time there and therefore don't feel comfortable opining about his comments there). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Question so this topic ban would prevent Baseball Bugs from lodging his own complaints or issues on ANI or AN? How does that work? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd support an exemption for reporting incidents too, and presumably that is meant too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's a good question. That's not the intent here, as I'm not aware of any problem Bugs has with opening threads -- just on commenting on others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• That should be clarified. He should not be prevented from using AN and ANI legitimately. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've updated the wording. How does that sound? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• That looks fair. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support apart from raising genuine issues affecting him, or responding to threads about him. Basically, he should not comment on anything else (per TRM). GiantSnowman 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support per above discussion. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Support only with exceptions as noted by GiantSnowman. Changing my !vote to oppose - As another editor said below, people can ignore his comments. AN/I or any other noticeboard isn't the United Nations -- nothing said or decided here has any real consequences outside of Wikipedia. Beyond that, I think this kind of thing - without giving a warning first - would set a bad and dangerous precedent in the way of censorship at noticeboards. Give him six months to cut back on the offensive comments and any insults or attacks that may have been part of his pattern of commenting, if it doesn't change visibly and consistently, then back here for talk of a t-ban. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Winkelvi: without giving a warning first (?!?!) -- he has received countless warnings. As Galobtter pointed out before, people were criticizing his ANI contributions 9 years ago. If you think 6 months will make any difference, you haven't looked at his edits here over many, many years and many, many warnings, requests, tips, pointers, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:: If its been years and years, then what's another six months? Put him on notice that six months is the last chance saloon. If he crosses the line, ban him from the noticeboards. If he crosses the line after the six months are over, ban him from the noticeboards. Seems pretty simple to me. But give him the opportunity to make the choice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: this kind of reasoning allows terrible users to make communities terrible indefinitely. As the ban of StuRat from RefDesk proved, the right thing to do with chronic terrible users is to ban them; the result will be immediate improvement, and in six months or whatever if BB wants to suggest reconsideration based on good works in the interim, it can be reconsidered then. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This reasoning is a catch-22. "Let's give him time to reform." "We have." "Oh, then that proves he doesn't need to reform.". ApLundell (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per TRM and Giant Snowman. It’s a start, I suppose, and thanks for the ping, but something also needs to be done about BB’s help desk blogging obsession. Jusdafax (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support but the first proposal is intended to keep him off the Ref Desk and anywhere else he should not be - focusing him on building the encyclopedia. The Oppose voters appear to have missed the point or are unfamiliar with the overall issue. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Allow me to just move my post from the above section to this section: I think the death to English speakers comment was a joke. That joke illustrated the situation of dealing with an incomprehensible edit supported by a non-English source. The comment may be unconventional but it is fairly innocuous. It should be noted that student/editors are adding material to meet the requirements of a class assignment. From what I have seen it can be difficult to decipher why they are adding the given material. Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's no question it was a joke. It was a joke that one of many blatant and disruptive misrepresentations of policy, adding nothing to the discussion, and was unintentionally offensive to boot. And that was just one diff. Regardless, this thread isn't about that one diff. By opposing you are saying that Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI (in the most recent thread and elsewhere) are, in your judgment a net positive (or, I guess, neutral at best). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly with the point made in that thread by Baseball Bugs that "[t]he complainant here should be compelled to review every new edit by the blocked user." Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to see the gain to Wikipedia, and can easily see that this sort of precedent might be a tad dangerous. Collect (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the reasonable exceptions outlined above. It is the random opinioneering that has become disruptive and sometimes offensive. Baseball Bugs should also be warned that similar disruptive conduct at the reference desks may lead to a similar topic ban there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above, I don't see this as a bad thing for Bugs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Obviously, Korean sources are great when they are well chosen. So that 페코리노 로마노 from Doosan Encyclopedia is surely reliable about Pecorino Romano, even if it could seem strange to use a Korean source about an Italian cheese (or using an Italian source about 김치전골, a Korean dish). But who can argue against when you cut the cheese and you see some whey coming out, this means that the cheese is crying to be eaten (with a strong red wine) ? Nevertheless, it remains that quite any Korean text turns into a total failure when Google translated. For example, the first paragraph of https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B1%84%EC%A0%9C%EA%B3%B5 turns into: <<Kajeonggong ( 1720 ~ 1799 ) is a tattoo, politician in the late Joseon Dynasty. Yeongjo late and tank units namin to receipt of chastity is one of the closest greetings, Jeong , yigahwan was a political party such as guardianship. He was a teacher of obsessions and omniscians, a teacher who taught the Sadducees, and one of the aides of the court. The main building is Pyeonggang, Baekgyu, Hoan, Fan 翁, and Shiho are Munseok>>. So that, to ban or not to ban, is not so clear. Pldx1 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. His posts are generally off-topic chatter or unhelpful commentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Others are free to ignore his posts if they are less than helpful.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Dlohcierekim: You're assuming everyone who reads his posts here knows they're less than helpful. For those of us who have been around a while, we know to just ignore those posts, and we know what's helpful and what's not because we know how Wikipedia works. But it's not just a distraction and time sink for us; it's problematic for anyone who doesn't know that what he says might be his own perspective that radically differs from the policies and guidelines (and/or interpretations thereof) that have broad consensus. In other words, if I look at that thread that started this and I don't already know the rules, and I don't know who I should be paying attention to, I could easily get the impression that Wikipedia is either mistrusting of or straight up disallows non-English sources. It's not enough to say we should just ignore unhelpful comments if they're not just unhelpful but detrimental. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: this kind of reasoning allows terrible users to make communities terrible indefinitely. As the ban of StuRat from RefDesk proved, the right thing to do with chronic terrible users is to ban them; the result will be an immediate improvement in the culture. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• switch to support per counter arguments. also, if the ref desk is a probabem, TBAN there too.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  per Legacypak, support TBAN ref desk as well.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: maybe the wrong link? --JBL (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Could be.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but... I am deeply concerned that the two proposals here vary between the broadest possible approach in the circumstances (all WP spaces) and the most narrow (just AN/ANI). I feel strongly that a blanket removal from all WP spaces is both overkill and also highly problematic. However, all of the problematic behaviours that this discussion seeks to address (primarily his refusal to accept WP:NOTAFORUM and that there are necessary restrictions on how one approaches discussions on this project) have become a hundred-fold more common to his routine behaviour at the RefDesks over the years, so if there is any ban, it should definitely extend to the Reference Desks as well. Thankfully, a ban from both the admin noticeboards and the reference desks seems to be the ultimate consensus implicit in the interplay between the two proposals here, so I have fingers crossed that the closer will give voice to the fact that this moderate approach best represents the opinions voiced here, when taken together. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: I hear you, but since this started with discussion of his comments at ANI, stemming directly from an ANI thread, it doesn't seem appropriate to tack on other bans when they haven't been thoroughly discussed (at least not in this thread). IMO it would be best to keep it simple, since there's no reason other threads can't address other issues. What I don't want is a bundle that people want to unbundle in various ways. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Rhod. I understand your position, but do bear in mind that the task of interpreting the consensus that results from a discussion is not predicated in what we would like the discussion to be about, but rather what people were actually !voting for. I think it's explicitly clear from the wording of numerous of the commenters above that they intended one or both of the bans they were voting for to extend to the reference desk when they voiced their support. Additionally, the single largest voting block so far wants a blanket ban from all Wikipedia pages (though I have tried to make my personal opposition to that approach plain) and obviously that certainly includes the Reference Desks (and again, numerous respondents cite it as a driver of their !vote).

I totally get where you are coming from with regard to the "bundles", as you put it; that's why I did not create a third proposal to cover the space between the first two, as I realized it would only muddy the waters, this being a complex survey already. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping the closer from looking at the spread of perspectives, the relative weight of support for each approach, and the overlap between them and deciding that consensus lays within a position which was not precisely the one voiced by either of the proposals, but that it was ultimately a third option which captured the majority of support. Indeed, that would be the most policy-consistent approach, if ultimately consensus is for an approach which straddles the two proposals. Of course, wherever the consensus may lay at the moment, there's still enough time that we can't be certain it won't shift, even if no other proposals are forthcoming. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban Anyone with such a disproportionately large ratio of ANI to main space edits is clearly not here, more so when the contributor is not an administrator. 2600:1003:B859:5752:B5FE:D6A4:22E6:81CE (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion, IPs (or registered users, for that matter) with no traceable editing history should not be calling for site bans on the basis of NOTHERE. Just my 2 cents. Lepricavark (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support ANI has enough misguided commentary. Posting a joke or passing thought might offer the poster a temporary warm glow of satisfaction, but such comments often derail issues which need attention. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Long-term intermittent AN/I observer here. I am still assuming that Bugs' interjections at AN/I are meant in good faith. But this is now pretty much the only noticeboard where new users and those who are feeling harassed can bring complaints, and it has a terrible atmosphere that we have to improve. Not only is there a long history of Bugs having been repeatedly told that his contributions to this noticeboard are more disruptive than helpful, but he was previously temporarily banned from it—I had thought that was imposed by a vote, but apparently it was self-imposed—so he is aware that his comments have been viewed as problematic. With the reasonable exceptions in the current version of the proposal, I heartily endorse the suggestion, and I hope it will lead to his returning to article space. I have noticed various threads in the past about his refdesk contributions, and I suggest the other regulars there talk about whether he should also take a break from that space. Many of us are insufficiently familiar with the refdesks. Beyond that I agree, I see no reason to preemptively ban him from the rest of the Wikipedia space. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You say this is now pretty much the only noticeboard where new users and those who are feeling harassed can bring complaints but the complaint wasn't brought by a new user. It was brought on behalf of someone who may become a new user. I wish that new user much success, but the command of English language is pretty rudimentary and it may present a challenge at the beginning. Bus stop (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This goes beyond that one case, where his comments about foreign-language sources can be said to have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was brought on behalf of a new editor, and the issue was not about the level of English required to edit here, it was about whether the indef block for making a few mistakes was excessive. Yes, English is required, but a newbie (who was very likely watching) should be treated with a bit of friendship and help, and not be subjected to the off-policy tirade she faced here. There was a clear consensus to unblock and a number of folks have offered welcoming words at her talk page, but I'm sad to see she has not edited since. She could be forgiven for thinking she was genuinely accused of saying "Death to all English-speakers!" - when speaking to or about people from different cultures, it's vital to not be flippant with aggressive "jokes". I fear we have yet another well-meaning newcomer scared away by being bitten at ANI, which is surely the nastiest forum we have. We need to stop that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

newcomer scared away by being bitten at ANI That sounds like a newspaper headline. A teacher assigned a project to a student to make edits at Wikipedia. The student was blocked by an admin because the edits looked like vandalism. The teacher, instead of addressing the blocking admin directly with an explanation of what had happened, initiated a thread on AN/I. In my opinion the teacher should have reviewed the edits made by their student for errors, and the teacher should have spoken directly to the blocking admin. This whole thing was avoidable and a joke about death to English speakers is just a joke. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and I agree the whole thing could perhaps have been handled better. But this is specifically about Bugs' contributions to the thread (and not just the death to English speakers thing), on top of a growing history of unproductive comments here at ANI. We can disagree on whether Bugs' specific behaviour was worthy of a ban, but that is what this is about, not about what the teacher might have done differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that you are overlooking that it was Bugs who said "The complainant here should be compelled to review every new edit by the blocked user" and it was Bugs who said to the teacher of that student that "You've been here since 2004. You should know better." Rather than demonizing Bugs we can give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that Bugs correctly analyzed and responded to the boondoggle that is this AN/I thread. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not overlooking that, and I'm not suggesting that every word Bugs said was a problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, you are not suggesting that every word Bugs said was a problem but can you name anything Bugs said that was a problem? This is the thread that is primarily under discussion. It is the thread that prompted this motion to take action to curtail the editor's input to this page. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already made my position quiet clear on what I see as Bugs' disruptive approach using non-policy arguments, and I'm not going to repeat it in multiple different ways or answer every wiki-lawyering change of tack you pursue here. My comments are not aimed at convincing you, but other observers and whoever closes the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You say that your comments are aimed at ... whoever closes the discussion. The closer should note that nothing has been cited from the thread ostensibly prompting the suggested action. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - he offered to take a break, give him the opportunity to do so voluntarily...^{Atsme📞📧} 06:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

He's taken a voluntary break before, and here we are again. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I would've oppose the first proposal as too broad too, but I think this is okay and even necessary measure. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure whether to support, seeing as Bugs has self-imposed a ban, which is what I'd hoped for. But I like the far narrower scope of this proposal, and I think an enforced ban is needed to increase the chances that the lesson will be learned. So I support, largely in line with Yngvadottir's words. ANI is nasty, and it's largely because of aggressive responses we see far too often. I strongly support efforts to make ANI even a little bit nicer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If he wants to recycle Borscht Belt jokes and misunderstand policies, maybe he can find another outlet for that. --Calton | Talk 09:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per my above comment in previous section. Fish+Karate 10:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral - acknowledging ping. I don't really think this will help make ANI a fun and cheerful place, if we even care about that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - How would the guy be able to report incidences, if he's barred from AN & ANI? GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  That's covered in the proposal: Exceptions to this t hiopic ban: opening new threads, participating in threads he opens, and responding to threads about him. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the exceptions listed above. Natureium (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• As above, I support (and also support extending this to the RefDesks). There is an easy fix to the problems caused by users like BB. --JBL (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If you consider his conduct bad enough to be banned from the admin boards, please don't fob him off on the Reference Desks. All the same rules of conduct apply there too. I hope the people who monitor ANI understand that he does not become different person when he's on boards you don't personally read. Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What I see here is a massive episode jumping on the bandwagon, regrettably including some editors I have come to respect. This is not main space disruption, I do not see walls of text or bludgeoning of conversations, although ironically, some of the editors in this discussion have seen fit to make numerous comments in multiple sub-threads. Yes, Bugs has made intemperate comments and should be warned to stop that. It is noted that they have made a very large number of posts here, but no-one has demonstrated that the majority of these are problematic. A tiny percentage of a very large number may well be quite a large number, but it is still a tiny percentage. This has the flavour of a moral panic and I for one find it distasteful. We diminish ourselves if we cannot bear to hear contrary voices. Stop the witch hunt now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

We have had these discussions about Baseball Bugs intermittently for more than ten years. Already his RfA ten years ago failed because of his ANI behaviour, and lack of meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia. Something this long in the making is not a moral panic or witchhunt, it is finally being fed up with someone who contributes no value to the project and drains resources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not see walls of text or bludgeoning of conversations... You're right, it's certainly true that these are the ONLY criteria we're allowed to use here. Nothing else counts. Glad you're here to set us all straight. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not wit, it's mockery, since creating strawmen and employing hyperbole are the lowest forms of rhetoric and deserving of said mockery. --Calton | Talk 23:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But, but, but I like hyperbole. And cockney rhyming slang. Oh well.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You are saying that you are fed up with someone who contributes no value to the project and drains resources and you are referencing his RfA ten years ago. Shouldn't this be about the thread supposedly prompting this block request? It can be found here. Curiously I see no reference to that thread. And speaking of draining resources, why was it even necessary for Piotrus to initiate that thread at AN/I? Couldn't Piotrus just go to the blocking admin directly on their Talk page and explain the teacher/student relationship?
Instead we have an AN/I thread started by Piotrus with a mass of text that begins with "I've been teaching with Wikipedia for a decade..." This is about a student who was blocked because her edits were mistaken for vandalism. The whole thread is a massive boondoggle. In my opinion Bugs' comments reflect the frustration with an unnecessary subsection on AN/I. But I cannot speak for Bugs. I am only reading into the sequence of inputs from the various editors weighing in. In my interpretation Bugs is responding to Piotrus for a waste of everyone's energies with a post that may not even belong on AN/I. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk about the thread then. If in it Bugs had really only wanted to express a frustration with an unnecessary subsection on AN/I, then I think they would have done something other than repeatedly troll everyone who commented. What's more concerning is that they accused Piotrus, with a diff, of reinstating a piece of vandalism: with nothing remotely relevant to be seen when clicking on the link. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala—I don't see trolling, but yes, Bugs made a mistake in claiming that Piotrus restored a problematic edit made by the student. Bugs apparently became aware of his error when NeilN questioned him about it and then Bugs apologized, saying "My apologies. Wrong editor." I think that's a simple honest mistake.
Also, you are referring to the edit as a piece of vandalism. That was the edit of the student. Or is it your understanding that the edit is vandalism? Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Since you asked and pinged me. I did ask the blocking admin, but he hasn't replied in time, and it was time sensitive block (it was disrupting my ongoing class due to IP range issues) so I had to bring it here, hoping for a speedy unblock (sadly, unblock happened only few hours later, since clearly, saying stuff like 'bad block rationale, disruptive IP block interrupts class in progress' is NOT a reason for any admin to take a speedy action). As for my support for the minor topic (noticeboard, etc.) ban here for Bugs, I stand by what I said - his arguments where not constructive or helpful. I don't see what he is doing here other than creating noise. He should focus on building encyclopedia, not talking about it in a manner that in the case here was, I repeat, not helpful. If he wasn't making noise, wrong accusations and displaying ignorance of relevant policies like WP:NOENG, maybe my student would have been unblocked faster. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Piotrus. I remain curious as to why Uanfala refers to an edit made by the student as "vandalism". Perhaps Uanfala can shed light on that. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala did no such thing, as anyone with basic reading comprehension can see. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you and I have a difference of opinion. But I can hope against hope that the referred-to editor weighs in to clarify the situation. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support A disruptive contributor at this venue causing more much more harm than good. AIRcorn (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don’t see where anyone has proved that this is necessary. I personally think more diffs are needed to establish a than. I do think that BBB should take this opportunity to read this thread and recognize that the community’s faith in them is broken. —-AdamF in MO (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: Re I do think that BBB should take this opportunity to read this thread and recognize that the community’s faith in them is broken: this kind of reasoning allows terrible users to make communities terrible indefinitely. As the ban of StuRat from RefDesk proved, the right thing to do with chronic terrible users is to ban them; the result will be immediate improvement, and in six months or whatever if BB wants to suggest reconsideration based on good works in the interim, it can be reconsidered then. --JBL (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do not see sufficient evidence to justify such a ban. It's my feeling that Bugs is a net positive here, and, frankly, I don't see where the discussion cited supports such a proposal at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I encourage Bugs to read WP:BDDR (when it comes to Sarcasm) no matter what the outcome of this discussion is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I might support if it were limited, let us say, to three months.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A disruption that we've all become used to is still a disruption. I guess he might be some sort of (humourless court jester that experienced folks have learned to ignore, but ANI (like RD) is a open space used by a lot of editors, and to most of them he probably appears as a bossy admin to whose one-sentence posts they're obliged to respond. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If Bugs is banned from the AN noticeboards, then he might want to try to stir up some of the other drama venues? WP:AE is one place that could do with some cheer! – Uanfala (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Uanfala—you say here that What's more concerning is that they accused Piotrus, with a diff, of reinstating a piece of vandalism: with nothing remotely relevant to be seen when clicking on the link. What piece of "vandalism" are you referring to? That link was to an edit made by the student of Piotrus. Do you consider it vandalism? Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding Uanfala's fairly simple point, but just to spell it out carefully: in this ANI thread, BB twice accused Piotrus of restoring this edit after it was reverted. However, the accusation was completely false: Piotrus did not restore that edit. (Other users, but not BB, characterized the edit as "vandalism".) --JBL (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi JBL—it is my assumption that Uanfala can explain why he chose to refer to the student's edits as "vandalism". As to the terms of reference—vandalism, student edits, what have you—it was established from the start of that thread that any of the referred-to edits were student edits and not edits that constitute vandalism. Although you have correctly made this point, this point bears repeating: Baseball Bugs did not refer to the edits as vandalism. Additionally, Baseball Bugs apologized for incorrect assertions regarding Piotrus restoring any of those problematic edits. Baseball Bugs said "My apologies. Wrong editor." It would be obvious to anyone looking at this thread that Baseball Bugs was apologizing for an honest mistake. Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala is also not characterizing the edit as vandalism, and so none of your comments that take that as a premise make any sense. --JBL (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala writes "What's more concerning is that they accused Piotrus, with a diff, of reinstating a piece of vandalism: with nothing remotely relevant to be seen when clicking on the link." It is not "a piece of vandalism". It is a student edit. It may be malformed. But is it vandalism? Perhaps Uanfala thinks it is vandalism. But you and I are not going to answer that question. Only Uanfala can shed some light on why they choose the term vandalism. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It is amazing that you have not understood your own misreading yet. You should strike all your posts on this topic, they make you look a complete fool. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem—I will give up trying to have a rational conversation with you. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Since this is the fifth time I'm receiving a ping from Bus stop who asks me to answer their question, I guess I ought to. I was reporting Bugs' characterisation of the student's edit. He hadn't used the term "vandalism" so I apologise that I've misrepresented him. And Bus stop, I – and probably the rest of those involved here – would be grateful if you could appreciate that this thread is not about that student's edit, neither is it about Piotrus' involvement (there wasn't any, only Bugs said there was), and it's not about Bug's accusation either (that was given merely as an example), the thread is about his long-term behaviour at ANI. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't skip the proximal cause of this thread and go on to allege long-term behaviour. This thread begins "This started at the end of the #Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock section above... " This thread presupposes wrongdoing at the thread titled "Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock". But no wrongdoing has been shown in that thread. No diffs have been provided. The editor apologized. He said: "My apologies. Wrong editor." What more is expected of someone when they make a mistake? You and others are making a mountain out of a molehill. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you can illustrate some good behavior by a person who made a mistake by striking the enormous pile of garbage edits you've added to this thread. --JBL (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I shan't waste my time responding to edits such as this and this. I find adversarial behavior counterproductive. You will notice that I will not engage in destructive conversation. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your entire contribution to this thread is destructive. An easy way to avoid problems with adversarial behavior is to not repeatedly fill up a thread with incompetent, pestering mis-readings of others' comments, then refuse to acknowledge your own errors when they are repeatedly pointed out to you. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking the liberty of collapsing this whole subthread as none of it is related to the topic. The ANI thread about the blocked student has already been resolved and archived, but those wishing to revisit the issue are free to start a new thread. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My first look in AN/I in years, and I find this. I actually interacted with Bugs in article space many years ago. I found his style off-putting, but never enough to do anything about it. I do remember him being somewhat disruptive in here. I would have supported this, but this being my first day in here in years, I'm holding back a bit. Donald Albury 01:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support I feel that this is the logical response to the user's actions. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. I find Bugs amusing, as do others, i believe, but there are times when humour does not aid a resolution, and unfortunately he has the knack of finding those times. Honestly, though, this should probably be closed (with or without an Official Pronouncement), because he has accepted the outcome, and asked to be held to it. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral, but... I have no opinion on this (haven't looked at the evidence in this thread, have seen BB be either an asset or a disruption depending on the circumstances, more often the former than the latter), but does this apply to ANEW? The title of the thread and the bolded text in the proposal imply yea, but the parenthetical elaboration implies nay. He rarely edits it, but the same is even more true of AN (5771 edits to ANI, 61 edits to ANEW, 4 to AN). Banning an editor from a specific noticeboard to which they've only given four of the 111,000 edits seems weird if you're not going to ban them from the main noticeboard (AN) and all of its subpages (ANI and ANEW). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Bugs worked hard over many years; and although through many incidents of craziness and trouble here this encyclopedia has benefited overall by the work put in by Bugs...Modernist (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Modernist: And no one's suggesting we kick Bugs off the encyclopedia. But I have yet to see any examples of how his long-term lurking at ANI has "benefited the encyclopedia". We've tolerated it, but when it crosses over from 'generally inoffensive' to 'egregious, hostile, disruptive, antagonistic, mean' as it did self-explanatory here, it's our responsibility to stand up and respond in a way that shows that there are some standards here! Swarm ♠ 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, appealable in six months if he demonstrates sufficiently that he is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to be a flaneur. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

*Neutral - I would support a ban from the Reference Desks, but my opinions on the Reference Desks are neither here nor there, and the Reference Desks still exist. AN and ANI are rough-tough drama boards. As Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but the question here is what to do with someone who keeps spitting in the soup. EEng 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Piotrus entirely blameless? I see walls of text here. If as a teacher they are sending students to wikipedia to edit it seems obvious that they have to mentor every edit. To BB's credit he pointed that out to Piotrus numerous times in numerous ways. Any admin could have unblocked the student of Piotrus. I don't think it was necessary for Piotrus to initiate that thread at AN/I. And if they were to initiate it, it could have been kept short and simple. All they had to say was that this is my student and therefore those edits are not vandalism. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop:, some advise: knock it off already. At this point you're beating a dead horse. You've made your point. Watching this discussion like a vulture and swooping in to make the same challenges isn't helping. You're currently building your own disruptive walls of text. So, walk away and let this play out. 2601:401:500:5D25:BD38:3DAE:7DF4:C58B (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Who are or were you, unregistered Mobile editor? GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• shrugs* Could ask the same of you. Doesn't matter who I am or where I am; doesn't matter who you are or where your are. All that matters is that we're both here to positively contribute, right? You elected to create an account; I haven't, which granted makes it hard to believe me. *shrugs* So do, or don't. I don't have thoughts one way or another on Baseball Bugs. I stand by my advice to Bus stop. 2601:401:500:5D25:BD38:3DAE:7DF4:C58B (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, editors come here because this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. They may be naive and not know this place's reputation, or they may know it and still not know where else to turn. Robert, are you telling them to stay out of the kitchen? 92.19.26.167 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No, IP. I am telling them to stay out of the kitchen if they don't like the steam, vegetable aromas, and noise. No one has to come to ANI, and if you don't, you won't encounter its antogaonism, just other antagonism. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There are countries where many won't go to the police for fear, justified fear, of being beaten up. You make it sound like Wikipedia's one of those countries and we just have to accept it. I've been editing as an IP for the last couple of years not because I was under a cloud - I wasn't - but to help me break my wiki-habit and stay away from the endless, pointless fights. Sometimes I start drifting back, but then I read something like this and remember. 21:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.26.167 (talk)

• Oppose - I have read the comments by Bugs in the closed thread requesting the unblock. I agree that Bugs's comments were offensive, but we are tolerant of mildly to moderately offensive comments. As to the student's lack of English, I will comment that I share Bugs' frustration about dealing with editors who cannot express themselves clearly. In particular, I have dealt with editors with very little command of English at DRN, and have had to advise them that, if they want to engage in dispute resolution, they need to do it in their first language. So I understand why Bugs expressed annoyance. His comments were inappropriate but understandable. Similarly, having a warped view of policies and guidelines that prevents the use of non-English sources is problematic, but it isn't sufficiently problematic to warrant banning him from ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe that a sufficient case has been made for banning Bugs from the noticeboards. Lepricavark (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Lepricavark: The "case" is self-explanatory. Do you care to elaborate on why you feel such a shocking display of hostility and antagonism, directed at an educator who did nothing but make an uncontroversial request for admin assistance, is insufficient for a response? Do you have an alternative, or do you think that we should just let that kind of behavior slide? Do you think that any user who comes to ANI in good faith deserves to get bullied by a non-admin like that? Swarm ♠ 02:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• I did not say that there should be no response whatsoever. Rather, I am !voting on the proposal as written and I believe that a complete ban from noticeboards goes too far. I have no obligation to propose alternatives of my own and I will not be doing so. Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you think there should be a response, but not this response, for reasons you won’t disclose, and not any other response, for reasons you won’t disclose. Swarm ♠ 06:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It is an uncontroversial request made in an overly dramatic way. The request simply had to establish that the blocked editor was the student of the person bringing the problem to AN/I. It is the initial wall of text and several subsequent smaller walls of text that impeded the resolution of the problem and invited commentary from multiple editors with multiple perspectives. You refer to someone coming to ANI in good faith. Unfortunately more is required than mere good faith. We are also required to be succinct. Extraneous commentary causes people to weigh in with opinions. Aside from Bugs, several other editors, not necessarily administrators, offered their thoughts on related issues. There were side conversations on various and sundry topics. This is a consequence of an "uncontroversial request" which was not asked in an "uncontroversial" way. AN/I is not a place for expounding on one's accomplishments or even one's lengthy involvements with the project. It is off-putting. There is a matter at hand and it should be addressed in a no-frills manner. There was not even a necessity for discussing the sourcing of those edits. Such a discussion is for a separate forum. The editor initiating the thread presented a complicated problem when it was a simple problem: my student made edits that some admins perceived as vandalism but I can vouch for the fact that this is my student and that the problematic nature of those edits were made inadvertently—can she please be unblocked—I will mentor her edits more closely in the future. By not sticking to those facts most pertinent to the immediate problem at hand, they just about invited input of various kinds by various people. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NOTAFORUM. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per BrownHairedGirl and Cullen328. In the first section I suggested one exception to a T-ban, but I would accept this if the consensus above is not sufficient. I don’t consider his edits over the past 7 years to have been particularly ‘hard work’, they have been almost exclusively to Wikipedia space and the Refrence Desk, including a massive 13,000 to ANI (mine by comparison - and as as a fairly active admin admin - are only around 600). The apparent lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines most certainly precludes his activity at ANI from being constructive (see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/In focus). Strictly, therefore, using Wikipedia mostly to satisfy his need for socializing, his edits would fall under WP:NOTHERE, and with negligible contributions to content, his collaboration without being subject to some formal limitations should not be allowed to continue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Bring Medeis back

Not something we can do here. ansh666 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Medeis were keeping each other in check, but Medeis has stopped posting here since a few months, this has caused Baseball Bugs' behavior to get off the rails a bit. So, a simple remedy may be to get Medeis back here. Count Iblis (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Yes, I have also noticed Medeis's absence, to the extent of recently checking out her latest User contributions for some clue. I hope she is OK. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I hope he's OK as well, but it can't be denied that the reference desks are better without him around. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I had also noticed her absence. Other than some vague clues as to her general location in the world based on context clues from what she has written, I don't know how to contact her to check on her state of being; a psedonymous name on a website like Wikipedia is impossible to follow up on. --Jayron32 14:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC) It looks like she can be emailed. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Entirely disagree with the premise of this section and don't know how this being an additional subsection helps the current discussion except insofar as a few people have tied in the refdesks. (none of this is a comment on Medeis at all btw -- just that I've seen Medeis and Bugs defend each other against others' complaints far more often than I've seen Bugs' comments improve while Medeis is around... regardless, that's refdesk and not ANI). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 2 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.

Ref Desk ban too

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 this was not a sufficent close. Baseball Bugs needs to also be banned from the Ref Desk - something there is sufficent support for between the two proposals. Do we need to revote on this? Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You would need to start a new section, and provide the necessary evidence. Or, you could leave well enough alone and stop what is starting to look like a personal vendetta. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Bugs' ears have been clipped enough. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I assure you there is no personal vendetta - I am strictly uninvolved. I just happened to be one of the three editors that proposed a course of action (one deleted their proposal in favor of mine). There is already plenty of editors who have assessed his participation at ref desk so additional evidence is not required nor is a whole new discussion. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I would personally support this, given the sheer volume/percentage of editors who made the RefDesks an explicit part of their !vote above and the fact that the close made no reference to these concerns (meaning no criticism of John, who was clearly doing their best with a voluminous and difficult discussion). I have no understanding of Legacypac's purported motivations in raising this issue, but it's not really relevant to my response in any event; the fact of the matter is, Bugs contributes nearly three times as many posts to the RefDesks as the noticeboards and his propensity for the behaviours that raised this discussion are even more on display on the desks than they are at ANI, as many respondents noted.

Indeed, under the circumstances, the only reason I can fathom for Bugs to have capitulated to the ANI ban is to preserve his ability to edit, without any change in his approach, to the desks, and he shouldn't be allowed to dodge the community's oversight in that manner. It feels very much like he is beign pushed "out of sight, out of mind" from these boards, while being given a green flag to just persist in the same problematic behaviours in the fora where they have always been most pronounced. This is precisely the outcome I was concerned about when advocating that Bugs should not be banned from all WP spaces, and in retrospect, its clear that we should have had a third proposal to cover the desks. And there's no harm in asking people to clarify their position on that issue now. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, enough already. There was broad agreement for an ANI ban but this is pushing it. Start it all over again, with new and solid evidence. OR JUST LEAVE IT BE. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• What Drmies said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• endorse close We are done--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it was a suboptimal close that ignored the key reason for the broader topic ban suggestion. That is why I raised it. I don't follow the ref desk much but I suggest some interested editors keep an eye on Bugs activity there. If it continues to be problematic let's revisit the issue. This thread should be a huge warning to him to find something more productive and less disruptive to do tnan post flippant comments at Ref Desk. If he does not take the warning a further topic ban from Ref Desk will be most justified. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

And there's no harm in asking people to clarify their position on that issue now. You know how this functions? Not in all cases, but in some. You ask people if someone should be blocked, banned, topic-banned—and people support this because the habitués of a page such as this self-select for prosecution. This is a page for law and order. Tolerance is on the back burner. Therefore there is "harm". It is highly improper to go on a fishing expedition to concoct a case simply because you believe you could win a conviction to impose sanctions. In such scenarios it is never clear whether vague condemnatory terms carry weight or not. And there often is a dearth of concrete examples supported by diffs. So, yes, asking people to clarify their position is, figuratively speaking, akin to asking people if they are inclined to participate in a lynching. Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So, yes, asking people to clarify their position is, figuratively speaking, akin to asking people if they are inclined to participate in a lynching. No no no no...that is a very inappropriate comparison. Lynchings are a horrific part of history and one shouldn't throw around the word willy-nilly. It is disrespectful. Please strike that comment and use a different comparison. 2601:401:500:5D25:BD38:3DAE:7DF4:C58B (talk) 23:08, 6 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.

Cautious topic ban breach

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.

---

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

Cautious was indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to Cage (organisation) in November 2017, very broadly construed [413]. They received a short block for breaching the topic ban on 12 December 2017 [414]. After that block, Cautious left this message on my talk page re: Cage, and I warned them [415] that making that comment could also be construed as breaching their topic ban, since they were continuing the behaviour that got them topic banned in the first place.

It looked Cautious had moved on, but unfortunately, they breached their topic ban again yesterday here [416]. TransporterMan reverted the edit and left a warning re: topic ban breach on Cautious' talk page [417], but Cautious then commented about Cage again on TransporterMan's talk page [418].

Apologies to TransporterMan for interfering, but I think Cautious has been given more than enough chances since their first block for breaching the topic ban. Marianna251TALK 13:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Has not edited since May 5. They believe they are only person who can keep the page up to date. They have suggested articles on their talk. Cannot let go of the one page they cannot edit.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cautious, do you agree not to edit the article again? Do you understand that editing this topic further will result in a longer block? Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:27, 6 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.