Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

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[1] 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 [2][3][4][5]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:[6]. 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 [7][8] 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)

• 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 [9]. 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: [10] [11], [12]. Why? Notice that he again edit war to remove information about pogroms from the lead of the page. Why? He could not explain [13].
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 [14]) 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 [15], 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 [16]. This page was in a poor condition. I looked at it and decided to improve [17]. 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 [18].
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 [19] 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)

Edit warring and accusations by User:Certified Gangsta

• 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 [20] 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 [21] (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 [22]. Bish agreed that User:Chris troutman and others were in violation of WP:OWN [23] (IMO it was more gang-patrol than OWN) and User:RexxS, who noticed our conversation on Bish's talkpage [24], was kind enough to step in [25].

That was when a funny thing happened. User:Corkythehornetfan, who was so adamantly against the move [26] mere weeks ago, suddenly sang a different tune and supported the move [27]. 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 [28], changing it to a more commonly used nickname [29]. Want source? This article alone [30] called D'Angelo Russell DAR at least NINE times. He was also named DAR here [31] and here [32]. 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 [33][34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. 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 [46] [47]? 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 [48].

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 [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. [54], 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 [55] 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 [56] 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)

Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl

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

Eyes still needed on Jweiss11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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[57] by @Bbb23 so I posted[58] it on my talk rather than discard it.

However as I was wrapping up I spotted that @Jweiss11 has posted[59] 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[60]. 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]",[61] 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pro Regnum Siciliæ

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, [62]) 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)

Ujishadow and copyright violations

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [63] 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 [64]. 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)

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 [[65]], [[66]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor made a highly contentious suggestion backed by some OR analysis of Greek etymology [67], aimed at pushing an obviously FRINGE position [68]. I opposed it, and made two comments on its factual inaccuracy and circumstances [69][70]. Others have done the same [71]. 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)

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, [72], [73], [74], [75], and [76], 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 [77], [78], [79], and [80]).

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)

my accounts

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)

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

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)

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...

Full Talk Page breakdown:

Me: "Thewolfchild seems intent on reverting my valid correction to the plot for some completely unexplained reason. As it stands, the plot can't stay the way it is, because any reader who hasn't seen the film for themselves is going to assume that Tracey is envy. The current plot is unclear and far from "fine the way it is" (as wolfchild put it). It is a requirement that plot summaries be accessible to all readers (not just those who are already familiar with the article's subject matter), so some substantial elucidation is needed to justify their reverts."

My opening statement. Very straightforward and to the point, explaining why I made the edit. At this point, I fully expected this to be an ordinary content dispute.

Thewolfchild: "Oh relax. You made an edit and you were [[WP:BRD|reverted]]. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in. If not, then it doesn't. AFAIC, the plot was fine the way it is. It's been that way for awhile and it's not as if people have been struggling to understand it. Hope your day gets better..."

In other words, "Eh, as far as I am concerned, the previous edit was fine. No one has said anything before, so whatever." The user first begins to show WP:OWN tendencies, providing no explanation for their reverts, with an edge of subtle condescension that implies that I'm being emotional simply for opposing them in an editing discussion. He also begins to Wiki-Lawyer with WP:BRD by implying that he is entitled to have his edit in the article simply because he made a (notably unexplained) revert.

Me: "You say that as if you are entitled to have your preferred edit in the article just because you made a revert. That's not how Wikipedia works. Honestly, if you can't provide a genuine argument as to how it's "just fine", then your edit will be reverted by default. In the meantime, I would suggest you read our policies on articles and plot summaries. Sometimes, problems in articles will go by unnoticed or unfixed for years at a time. Just because no one has spoken up about it (until now) doesn't mean the plot summary was clear. Hell, it isn't even the only part of this frankly poorly written article that will confuse the vast number of readers not already well versed in the subject matter. Shrug my genuine points off all you want, but you do not [[WP:OWN|own]] the article and talk pages are for actual discussion. Also, I suggest you read WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense exists, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Please avoid Wiki-Lawyering, as your very arguments (and lack of a valid one) are against policy."

I refute and point out the flaws in his comment, while highlighting the fact that he has provided no explanation for his reversion. I also point out the guidelines that go against the general attitude of his comment, including WP:BRD-NOT and WP:OWN.

Wolfchild: "You should read WP's policies & guidelines yourself before you try preaching them to others. I don't claim to have the to final say here and don't, but neither do you. And, simply reverting you does not imply ownership, but accusing someone of ownership without the basis to do so is considered a personal attack. You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment? If you're going to get this bent outta shape every time you get reverted, you might want to consider another hobby other than editing Wikipedia. In the meantime, if there is support for your changes, then in they'll go. If there is isn't, then they won't. I think you already know all this, so calm down and hopefully your day will get better."

Thewolfchild continues to dance around his refusal to provide a valid explanation for the revert, while attempting to misconstrue my statement as a baseless personal attack. And with "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", it is clear that he doesn't have one and is only holding out to see if anyone will support him. He also clearly states that, if no one responds at all, he'll take it as "Well, no one supported you!"; an excuse to keep his preferred version in the article.

Me: "There is no personal attack given that your very arguments are a violation of the policies I just named, and you still have not provided a valid reason for the revert. In fact, your only argument can be chalked up to "'Eh, as far as I am concerned, the previous edit was fine. No one has said anything before, so whatever." As previously stated, you need a valid reason to revert someone. And with your comment "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", you have pretty much confirmed that you only reverted me on the off-chance that someone might support you. You are in direct violation of WP:BRD-NOT, WP:LAWYER, WP:OWNERSHIP and, with your unsubstantiated WP:NPA accusation, WP:GAME. I will once again quote WP:OWN for you, "No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason." I would suggest that you (yes, you specifically) provide a valid reason for your revert. Otherwise, it will be reverted by default and attempting to edit war without actual elucidation will be met with a report (and any attempts to file a report on me would be an automatic WP:BOOMERANG given your statements on this post)."

I once again deconstruct the flaws in his comment and continued beating around the bush. Pretty self-explanatory.

Wolfchild: "You really expect a response to these increasingly hostile and uncivil rants? Look I didn't revert "in hope that others would support me", I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary. Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. Take a break, give others a chance to contribute (others usually do here) and if there is support for your changes, then so be it. But jeez, relax already. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button. Calm down, take the night off and come back to it tomorrow. The article isn't going anywhere and it will survive another day without your edit. Have a good evening."

Thewolfchild crosses from mere incivility into full WP:NPA territory with the continued jabs that imply that I'm being overly emotional because I called out his behaviour. He also took a rather cheap shot because I made three minor edits. He seems to be trying to buy time to see if other editors have anything to say that supports his (non)position. Please note the continued lack of explanation for the revert, save for a vague and half-hearted "I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary." Given that I went into exact detail on why it was necessary and have repeatedly asked for an explanation, we are long past the point of such vagualities. If this isn't blatant WP:OWNERSHIP, I don't know what is.

Me: "The only thing hostile and uncivil here is your increasingly condescending responses. My posts were very straightforward, but they are hardly emotional. You simply didn't like what I had to say. And with "Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button", you can (ironically) add WP:NPA to the growing list of policies you are violating. "I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary." - So you now say, suspiciously vaguely and without any proper explanation as to how they are unnecessary or in what way the previous edit was an improvement. "Look I didn't revert 'in hope that others would support me'"" - That's not what comments such as "You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in", "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", and your utter lack of explanation for the revert (not to mention the blatant wiki-lawyering of WP:BRD and now your attempts at WP:GAME) all seem to indicate."

Not surprisingly, I once again break down everything wrong with his comment.

Wolfchild: "Wow... more of the same. Is it at all possible for you to calm down, even a little, and maybe lay off the insults and accusations? Like I said, it is accomplishing nothing."

Right back to his previous (and refuted) point, with no further elucidation. Another clear attempt at deflecting blame in order to hide his blatant WP:OWN behaviour.

Me: ""more of the same" - On that we agree. You still have yet to provide a solid explanation for the revert, instead continuing to deflect what I just said by going right back to your previous points (which I already refuted) without further elucidation. This is indeed not helping your case, especially when I have outlined precisely why I made the edit I did."

Self-explanatory.

Wolfchild: "How about some "mellow jazz? Or bingo drums? Maybe a huge bag of weed...?" Anything to help you to ctfd."

"Ctfd" is an acronym for "calm the fuck down". It was after this personal attack that I stopped replying. At this point, it was clear that he had nothing of value to say.

End Talk Page breakdown

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: [81], [82], [83], [84]). 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)

Proxies and banned users

At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan, who even claimed that he was blocked for using a proxy at [85]. Some of them are proxies, e.g. Special:Contributions/158.169.150.5, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.4, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.6, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.8, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.8 Suspected proxy servers, Special:Contributions/23.83.37.154 Network sharing device or proxy server, Special:Contributions/196.245.9.70 blocked for two years by Zzuuzz as a VPN proxy. Iovaniorgovan also has left behind a trace: [86], namely hiding Special:Contributions/2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40. Why is this important? Well, similar IPs, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B0C3:AD74:2C0B:5DC1 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:C4FD:1E27:9714:EFE1 have edited Timeline of Romanian history and are behaviorally WP:DUCKs of Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37, who was still blocked when Iovaniorgovan started editing. At [87] 158.169.150.5 has shown behaviorally being a WP:DUCK of Special:Contributions/Avpop, who has been indeffed as a WP:SOCK of Special:Contributions/Iaaasi (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi). At [88] Iovaniorgovan spilled the beans that he used the IP which Zzuuzz has blocked for two years and he is arguing with Vanjagenije, maybe because Iovaniorgovan thinks that he is still blocked (maybe he still uses a proxy/VPN, so a checkuser may investigate the matter, even if checkusers don't tell the IPs of usernames). Iovaniorgovan displays awareness of his probable wikifate, Anyway, like I said, I may get kicked off of Wiki for posting about DNA, at [89]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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 [90]. 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)

Apparent behavioral problems at Portal:Baltimore

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

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 [91][92], as well as via anonymous sock[93] and via obvious sockpuppet User:Sanki011: [94]. 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)

Davey2010 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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,[95][96] and it is not a one-off.[97][98][99][100][101].

The incident was archived on the basis that Davey2010 apologised and promised to 'not post anything like that again'. But it's still continuing: [102][103][104]. 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 [105] and [106] are explained here [107] and I also explained this on the last ANI report you opened[108],

Diff [109] was in response to this (IMHO that editor blows everything out of proportion and over-exaggerates on things),

Diff [110] was me giving up on the AN3 report for the IP in Diff 106,

Diff [111] 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"[112])

Diff [113] again was the same IP and again the idiot part shouldn't of been said,

Diff [114] 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."[115] - 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 [116] (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 [117] 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[118])

Diff [119] - 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 [120] 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[121],

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: [122][123][124]. (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 [125] and edit summary from April 14 here [126]. The entire story can be seen here [127] and here [128] (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: [129]. 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: [130]. -- 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" [131]; "Go & fuck yourself" [132]; "get off your lazy arse and help source it instead of removing the entire fucking thing!" [133]; "Oh do fuck off seriously" [134]; "fuck it" [135]; "the IP is mentally challenged and is seemingly unaware they can add fucking content without reverting .... All this over a fucking space" [136]; "Fucking idiot!" [137]; "Fuck off!, Just sayin'" [138]
• March 2018: "Rv table fuck-up" [139];
• February 2018: "Fuck off" [140]; "Fucking snowflake generation" [141]; "Don't be fucking stupid!" [142]; "Well dipshit remove the offending edit!, Don't fucking revert everyone" [143];
• January 2018: "Fuck off and read WP:AGF" [144]; "Fucksake man wake up" [145]; "Fucksake - again rm plastic dates" [146]; "fucksake" [147]; "RV as not tests or fucking wreckage" [148]; "How fucking sad and pathetic" [149]; "That can fuck off aswell" [150]; "What the actual fuck has happened to COMMON SENSE on this place ?" [151]; "fucksake" [152];
• 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!" [153]; "Fuck off (and whilst you're at it go read WP:DTTR" [154]; "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" [155];
• November 2017: "How about you both knock it the fuck off" [156]; "you can fuck right off...Stay the fuck off this page" [157]; "fuck it restored" [158]; "Time wasting article: fuck it" [159];
• October 2017: "Fuck off." [160]; "The logo is small enough for fucksake" [161]; "fuck it" [162]; "Seriously just fuck off." [163]; "fixed another fuck up" [164];
• September 2017: "Removed rfc as utter waste of fucking time" [165]; "fuck it, Absolute waste of fucking time" [166]; "fuck it" [167];
• July 2017: "fuck off." [168]; "Fuck off dickhead." [169]; "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!" [170]; "fuck off." [171];
• June 2017: "fuck off and stop wasting my time!" [172]; "oh fuck off!" [173]; "fuck off then" [174]: "fuck it" [175];
• May 2017: "go to the talkpage for fucksake" [176]; "Well genius if you added a source I would fuck off!" [177]; "Fuck it." [178]; "stop edit warring and fucking discuss it" [179];
• 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!?" [180]; "good fucking god who decided yellow was a great idea ?" [181]; "doens't need a fuckton of numbers!" [182];
• March 2017: "Removing depracted syntax isn't fucking vandalism" [183]; "fuck it not edit warring over something so stupid" [184];
• February 2017: "What part of "unsourced" do you not fucking understand ?, It's even linked for fucksake!" [185];
• December 2016: "fuck off" [186];
• November 2016: "Stop fucking around with the indents -No one cares about LISTGAP" [187];
• September 2016: "Fucksake does everyone have to copy me?" [188]; "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" [189]; "Fuck off prick!" [190]; "leave my comment the fuck alone" [191];
• August 2016: "Grow the fuck up man" [192]; "Either talk to me in a polite and civil manner or stay the fuck off of this page." [193]; "fucksake nvm" [194];
• June 2016: "FUCK IT CAPS IT SHALL BE" [195]; "What idiot replaces a photo with an even shitter one and of a model that's not even fucking known outside of Australia?" [196]; "NVM will fuck off to the talkpage" [197];
• May 2016: "change it back for fucksake" [198]; "Consensus is to delete for fucksake." [199]; "fuckign eit confs" [200];
• April 2016: "you win fuck it" [201]; "fuck it" [202]; "grow the fuck up" [203]; "Oh fuck off." [204]; "fuck it" [205];
• March 2016: "Fuck off troll" [206]; "shove your apology up your arse - I have twice apologized and still you wanna argue so fuck it I'm done with ya" [207]; "Aren't you a happy fucker!" [208]; "are you fucking kidding me?" [209]; "I don't give a fuck, mate" [210];
• February 2016: "todays generation is fucked beyond all hope" [[211];
• January 2016: "No now fuck off." [212]; "Give it a rest for fucksake" [213]; "As I just fucking said the linking doesn't fucking work!" [214]; "No fuck off." [215].

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[216] (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 [217]. 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. 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[218] (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)

Personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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)

NOTHERE/spam Block needed.

• 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)

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)

TBAN for Darlig Gitarist

• Darlig Gitarist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count
• contribs to William M. Branham

Please consider a topic ban for User:Darlig Gitarist (DG) from William M. Branham topics, or an outright Wikipedia editing ban. This editor has shown a trend of disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a platform for activism over the past six years. He often resorts to intimidation, harassment, and insults; which make objectively editing the William Branham page almost impossible except for the most experienced and confident editors.

Taxee and Darlig Gitarist are the same person; the two user names were merged in 2017. diff

It is important to note that he is a "former member of a Branhamite church” diff who engages in advocacy, mainly manifested through disruptive editing. He is a disruptive editor as defined by Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Examples of disruptive editing. The following shows that this is an ongoing pattern and not an isolated incident. I can provide many more examples if needed.

A disruptive editor: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources:

• July 2013: His edit summary states “added more extreme view as discussed in David Harrell’s book”. Not only does his summary show his non-NPOV approach, but he adds the words “born of a virgin” and attributes this to author David Harrell diff. The author does not say anything resembling “born of a virgin” in the referenced book. This is an intentional and offensive insult to those associated with William Branham’s ministry. Placing Branham as God and/or Jesus (born of a virgin) would be considered blasphemy by every Christian, Muslim, or Jew reading the article.

• November 2014: Another deliberate misrepresentation of an author: “Branham is viewed as a false prophet by most evangelicals” diff. He attempts to attribute this to author Hank Hanegraaff by adding his own opinion right before the reference to Hanegraaff’s book. This cannot be found in the book he references. Again, displays clear bias and willingly deceptive editing.

Cites unencyclopedic sources:

• October 2014: DG references online articles written by a co-activist to a forum hosted on a San Diego State University server in an attempt to give more weight to the Jim Jones reference he also added diff (More on this below). DG later implies that the referenced material is “ from articles from University of San Diego website.” diff. After contacting the research editor where these articles are hosted, I received this reply to my questions: "Are the articles posted on your website peer-reviewed, vetted, and/or endorsed by San Diego State University?" Editor (No). "Does SDSU have oversight over what is published on your webpage? That does NOT mean that an employee works on editing the site. It means that this is an official University webpage that represents SDSU, not simply a page that is hosted on the University’s server." Editor (No) "Do you represent SDSU in an official capacity? If not, who can I contact with my concerns?" Editor (No. I could refer you to somebody, but I would want to be sure that these email exchanges be part of the record.) This is clearly and attempt to add credibility to the self-published material by saying that they are from San Diego State University when they are not. diff

• August 2012: He added a link to a web site devoted to posting daily anti-Branham blogs (a website commonly referenced by DG). diff

• September 2017: DG blocks another editor’s attempt to add newspaper references to the article “Danpeanuts - one more time - Wikipedia policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”. diff

Yet he doesn't follow his own advice, and here uses a single article to make an exceptional claim that William Branham is connected to yet another infamous character:

• October 2016: DG adds a reference to William Branham to the Paul Schäfer page, with the sole source being a single newspaper article with a two-sentence mention. diff diff Within minutes, he added a link to Paul Schäfer on the William Branham article diff. It was deleted, but he re-added it a few months later. He then added a reference and link to Jim Jones on the Paul Schäfer page diff.. There is no encyclopedic justification to add a Jim Jones link to the Paul Schäfer article other than to satisfy DG’s activist purposes. This is simply employing circular reasoning to attempt to make William Branham "guilty by association".

Is tendentious:

• August 2012: DG’s edit summary states: “reverted a biased edit that moved a pro-Branham website to the top of the list” diff This tit-for-tat reverting is common on his part, but not with other editors on the page. The other editors seem to just give up.

• August 2012: DG adds non-NPOV wording “Branham’s claim is suspect” diff and references the same anti-Branham web site.

• September 2012: DG’s edit summary: “Added link to an ebook that is critical of Branham's ministry” diff. Adding a link simply because it is “critical” does not seem appropriate for a NPOV editor.

• September 2012: DG advocates for “highly critical”, self-published blog material: “Over the past couple of years a number of ebooks and websites have come out that are highly critical of William Branham's ministry, including: A Logical Refutation of William Branham's Message, Believethesign.com, Legend of the Fall, by Peter M. Duyzer, Seek The Truth website. The information and research provided in these sources must be included in this article in order to achieve NPOV status, which I think is presently lacking" diff

Rejects or ignores community input:

• October 2017: DG protested references BEFORE reading them. “I haven't read any of the newspaper reports but I doubt if they will stand up to the scrutiny of more skeptical editors…Did they do background checks to ensure that the people that said they were healed were actually sick to begin with? Did you look for any skeptical articles with respect to Branham?” diff. ( “…I don't think it is appropriate to doubt a source is legitimate without reading it. ” diff

• September 2017: A different editor complains: “Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too…” diff

• September 2017: Another complaint about his non-NPOV when he refused to cooperate with another editor wishing to add material: “From my outside perspective, it appears valid sources are being discounted” diff

• September 2014: DG’s edit summary: “added paragraph on Branham's 1956 meetings with Jim Jones” diff. This is a BIG DEAL because it was added to make William Branham guilty by association. The inappropriate nature of this reference being in this article is best summarized by this opinion given by a respected Wiki editor here, who is at this time attempting to bring the page up to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

• There is, and has been, consensus among editors to remove the Jim Jones reference, but DG reverts any attempts to remove it. Just a few weeks ago another editor tried to remove it as others have. DG reverted it again and said in his edit summary “The majority of editors agreed to keep this paragraph as it is relevant” diff This is not true. There is consensus to remove the reference.

• After another different editor tried to remove it by claiming consensus and it was again reverted, the discussion on the Talk page came under a sockpuppet attack in order to sway the consensus. (see here) DG was questioned by an admin on his Talk page concerning this: “On an unrelated note, quite a few editors who recently commented at Talk:William M. Branham were recently blocked for sockpuppetry, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarynn7/Archive. Do you know anything about that??” diff. DG answered the question in an evasive manner “I am aware of the discussion on the Willianm Branham talk page” diff as he has before when asked about his role as an advocate/COI website editor.

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: manifested in this case by resorting to personal religious attacks to editors DG believes are followers of William Branham

• July 2013: DG removes links to the official William Branham Ministries web site and others, while calling them “cult websites”. diff DG labels disagreeing editors a cult often.

• July 2013: More insults “In this case, followers of the cult of William Branham are trying to avoid the obvious concerns from those outside the cult that the outrageous claims of William Branham are given credibility.” diff

• July 2013: More insults, threats, and intimidation “at the very least, the wild claims of Branham that are perpetuated by members of the cult here on Wikipedia should be eliminated” diff

• May 18, 2015: When other editors disagree with him, he immediately infers that they must be Branham followers “I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are follower of Branham” diff

• July 2013: DG looks up editors outside Wikipedia and uses information for further intimidation. “That you are biased in respect of this article is perfectly clear, given you online comments outside of Wikipedia”.diff

• March 2018: I posted my opinion on the removal of the Jim Jones reference on the Talk page according to COI guidelines, and he harasses me by accusing me of advocating: diff I was in complete compliance, as you can see from the history. He went on to discredit and intimidate me further by saying, “but as an employee of an organization (by your admission above) that exists solely to promote William Branham and believes him to be infallible... ” Note that this is not true, and further, it is an insult to me and my faith to say that I believe any human being is infallible, and he knows it. This is another attempt to mischaracterize anyone as a cult member who challenges him, just as he did with Rev107, Eforsund, and others.

• April 2018: I went to DG’s user talk page, asking him if he is an editor of an anti-Branham web site (which he is). He again refused to answer and instead tries wikilawyering by accusing me of harassing, etc., and went on to stereotype me as he does with many of the other editors.

No other editors (other than socks) on this page have used the word “cult” or resorted to personal insults like DG has. This pattern has persisted since 2012.

Please note that I, DEvans, work for William Branham Ministries. It is my opinion that a well-written, neutral, factual page is a benefit to everyone. I plainly disclosed my COI on my user page and on every edit to the WB Talk page. DG, on the other hand, has neither disclosed his COI nor his position as editor of an anti-Branham activist web site. Please consider a Topic Ban or a complete editing ban based on DG’s advocacy and disruptive editing that has resulted in his misquoting of authors, insults, intimidation, original research (opinions published as fact), and his constant harassment of other editors. This will help secure the integrity of Wikipedia in this issue. DEvans (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished at DEvans accusations above. I think a valid question is whether DEvans is being paid by an NRM to try to influence the content of the article on William Branham?

My "crime" is that I spent a great deal of time on William Branham article and managed to get it qualified as a GA in August 31, 2017 which resulted in it being listed as such. This was the first time I have worked on getting an article GA status. It was resubmitted for good article reassessment in October 10, 2017, which result in its status as a GA being kept. I would ask that you please review the GA article conversations to see whether my actions could be considered inappropriate.

I would also ask @Display name 99: (who did a great job in conducting the GA review) or other longstanding editors such as @Theroadislong: or @Bonadea:, who have also been involved in editing the William Branham page (and whom I do not know other than through their editing on Wikipedia), whether my editing has been tendentious.

Achieving GA status was a great learning exercise for me in what makes a good Wikipedia article (and involved me removing information in the article that I and others had previously added). All references to primary source materials were removed and the entire article was thoroughly referenced to secondary source material in accordance with what I understood to be good Wikipedia practice.

The William Branham article is currently undergoing a peer review with the view to making it a feature article. I have been largely uninvolved in this significant rewrite of the article and am happy to see the article improved.

My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham. I am also interested in NRM's in general. A Wikipedia article on a new religious movement should not be a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but the focus should be to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement.

Please note that there are only 2 references to "incidents" in 2018. With respect to the first, DEvans took no offense at the time. My comment was based on the research I had done as to the beliefs of those that followed William Branham. I also commended him for being transparent. If he had taken offense at the time and corrected me in my statement, I would have apologized for misunderstanding his belief set. But he did not. I am astonished he is now taking exception to it.

With respect to his second reference to 2018, it is my understanding that speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. I chose not to respond to his speculations, which is my right.

I do understand why the word "cult" is offensive to DEvans. However, it is used in some secondary sources on William Branham and the word "cult" still can be found today in the William Branham article, even after it has undergone multiple reviews by experienced editors.

Attention should be made to DEvan's contributions which clearly show that he is only focused on one thing on Wikipedia and that is to influence the content of the article on William Branham (DEvans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would ask why he is making these accusations against me. Is it because he wants to benefit the users of Wikipedia or is it solely because he is being paid to influence the article in a particular direction? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's my take on the situation: the Branham article used to be a glowing hagiography, as can be seen in pretty much every version before mid-2014. Darlig Gitarist was one of the main editors working hard to set that situation right, by for instance removing claims in Wikipedia's voice that supernatural events took place in reality, and by adding tons of scholarly sources. I first noticed the article in August 2017 (I have forgotten what brought my attention to it, but maybe a Teahouse post?) ; I had never heard of Branham before, but it became rather obvious rather quickly that this is one of the many articles about various religious persons or organisations that suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way. That is not uncommon, I've seen it in many other articles, but that's why we have NPOV policies in place. Anyway, Darlig G is not the POV warrior here, and the fact that the article was evaluated for GA status and passed after DG's efforts to improve it is indicative of that. I don't know exactly what's been going on there recently. I removed the article in question from my watchlist a couple of months ago because I couldn't take the constant POV pushing and sniping from Branham's followers, but I applaud DG's persistance in maintaining a NPOV stance in the article. There is absolutely no cause for a tban against Darlig Gitarist. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for what's gone on at the article since the GA review, having not kept track of it, but during and before the review I saw nothing particularly wrong with Darlig Gitarist's edits. There was some disruption at the article which did cause me to consider failing the review, but it seemed to me at the time that the blame would go mostly towards other editors using the article to push an agenda. Display name 99 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• 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)

Help with speedy deletion pages

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)

Disruptive editing by User:Richhoncho

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 [219][220][221] (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)

Requesting rangeblocks for banned HarveyCarter

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)

Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI

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. [222] [223] [224] [225]). 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

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 [226], 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 - [227]. 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[228]
  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. [229]. 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)

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. 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 [230],[231]. 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. 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 topic 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)

Bring Medeis back

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)

Personal attacks by Lugnuts

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

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)

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[232] 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)

Student deliberately ignoring copyright

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 [233], which I've removed.
• User talk:Sreybruney1/sandbox and User:Sreybruney1 (same material, slightly different formatting) contains overly close paraphrasing of [234] ("Harry Dexter White...") and [235] ("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)

SPA Papaw1298: edit warring, apparent vandalism and socking

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)

user:Lucas-Recio

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 [236], 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)

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)

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)

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

Question re legal threat

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)

Certainly the same person, trying to crowdfund[237] 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)

Morocco

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

Revdel request

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

(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)

Revoke talk page access for Korean vandal

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

Asking for mediation on Hunayn ibn Ishaq article

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 [238], The Oxford History of Islam [239], Encyclopædia Britannica [240], 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)

Help

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)

Revoke TPA for IP

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