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

User:DePiep and DYK

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

I hate to come here, but DePiep's actions leave me with little option. DePiep has, over the past weeks, made a series of edits and/or suggestions on the technical side of DYK: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and several others.

These changes are made in good faith. However, when reverted or otherwise questioned about them, DePiep has responded with startling amounts of off-topic bellicosity, and very little genuine explanation. Thus, we've had there have been edit-wars on multiple pages here, and here. We've also had There have also been a number of discussions with a poor heat to light ratio: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

In all of these situations, DePiep has repeatedly:

1. Refused to explain what he is trying to do, instead using vague language like "cleanup" and "improvement"
2. Treated all demands for explanation as allegations of bad faith,
3. Refused to acknowledge that when his changes are queried, he needs to obtain consensus for them, and not the person who reverted him.

Ideally, I would simply like somebody to convince DePiep to cut out the bad faith, follow BRD, and tell us what he is trying to achieve. Failing that, it may be an unfortunate necessity that he be removed from the maintenance areas of DYK. Pinging @EEng, David Eppstein, Zanhe, and The Rambling Man: Vanamonde (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Replies to this post are below in #Reply by DePiep. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I was called a "dickhead" and "dickname"(diff) and had my username equated to "IPA:Auschwitz"(diff, diff) on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 58#enwiki has lost the WP:Palestine community by DePiep last month after I removed a duplicated WP Palestine (leaving it on top) - I'm still clueless as to why this was so offensive - removing a duplicate wikiproject seems to be a trivial non-contentious correction.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Now I get it! Icewhiz = Auschwitz! Such perception! Such insight! EEng 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed. Icewhiz has a thick skin, that sort of remark to some editors would end up here immediately. Icewhiz is active with WP:ISRAEL, and some will conclude that IW is Jewish (it's not on his user page though). It's hard to AGF a remark like the above, as opposed to a highly offensive, targeted attack against a [perceived] Jewish editor. I can't think of any way to vindicate the above comment, in fact. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  What really puzzles me here is what prompted this. I've made edits that I can understand why some other editors see as contentious. But removing a duplicate WP Palestine (it was there - twice)? Ignore the particular invectives - why the anger over this particular action of mine? At the time I chalked this up to perhaps editing not under the best circumstances that day or something similar - and did not pursue this - but it is perhaps relevant if there is a continued pattern.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: See my reply below. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I chanced upon a sudden slew of discussions on the DYK talkpage, all raised by DePiep. Most were causing heated debates, with the majority of the heat relating to the fact that DePiep seemed technically unable to sufficiently describe what he was trying to achieve in most instances. I certainly had trouble understanding a number of his comments. Even from today we have "For the rest: that going into the BF area, I think you should base that. - DePiep (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)" for example. No idea. So when eventually DePiep accused me of a (mild) PA, and then claimed he was leaving the discussion with a "See you elsewhere, TRM. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)", I stated that I hoped not. He then petulantly left me a message on my talk page with his very next edit. Generally it the whole series of posts has felt like an enormous waste of time from a disruptive editor who doesn't really appear to have the competence to make these kinds of edits or suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: A slew of discussions, all raised by DePiep -- Did I start too many talks? Isn’t that contradicting the OP notion? Or do I misread your post? A (mild) PA -- When I wrote “some other place” that refers to the WP:advice not to escalate a PA in the same thread. There is nothing more to it. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• The user in question has an unfortunate history with the block log. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • DePiep also has significant history here at ANI. E.g., just last June he took a voluntary one-year topic ban (on anything related to earthquakes) in lieu of a six-month block.

Across a broad swath of topics he has shown a characteristic pattern: he jumps into something he thinks needs doing (often with wide-ranging effect), but sometimes not quite in tune with what others think should be done. And when challenged he generally does not respond well. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I think this is an incorrect description of that ANI. There was nothing “in lieu of” a voluntary ban. Instead, I can see this as an example of me deescalating & solving. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In precisely what way is "he took a voluntary one-year topic ban ... in lieu of a six-month block" incorrect? Do you dispute that there was not a topic ban? Or that you did not voluntarily accept it? Or that it was not for one year? Or do you deny that there was any possibility of an involuntary block?

The closing admin (Dennis Brown) stated: "The evidence presented herein demonstrate there is a serious problem with DePiep's behavior." And: "Technically, I could block for 6 months here and no one would bat an eye." And concluded: "if you start causing serious problems with this topic, a (long) block will probably result." What you "deescalated" was your liklihood of getting blocked, which I believe was understood by all present to be in the offing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I previously interacted with this user over a major revision of the {{OEIS}} template series. I think his changes were, ultimately, constructive, but they involved a similar "my way or the highway" attitude from DePiep, a distressing level of unconcern for making sure that the hundreds or thousands of existing uses of the template rendered correctly before making such changes, and a hostile response to any form of constructive criticism. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I think you refer to this (first section) discussion. I don’t think that discussion illustrates what this thread is about. In short, you protested that the /sandbox /testcases were broken (not the mainspace template), which I called irrelevant; also, I solved that afterwards and created a follow up thread for future improvements. i.e., constructive editing & discussing. If anything, this actually illustrates my start-a-talk approach we all consider good editing. Note the “I want” sentence. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep is very active at WP:WikiProject Pharmacology, where he tends to focus on stuff like templates more than on content. I also have seen, repeatedly, the obnoxious interaction style and the inflexibility, but he also does contribute in useful ways. I don't have any knowledge about the DYK problems, but I think that the situation does not go quite so far as WP:NOTHERE. It's somewhere between that and OK, not entirely one or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A skim through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 13 gives a pretty good view of what I'm referring to: mostly useful, occasionally unpleasant (the latter in one part of the "USAN etc in drugbox" thread). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: about the example you mention: there I started follow up sections #Restart and #Proposal (which went live eventually; also note I pinged editors). I can see this as an example of desired talkpage behaviour. I reject the suggestion of WP:NOTHERE, maybe you meant to say something else? - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. For the time being, I am going to comment only in regard to your response to me here. When I made my original comment, I was primarily pointing out that you make positive contributions to WikiProject Pharmacology. I agree with you that #Proposal, which was the outcome of the discussion, was a good outcome. As for #Restart, I'm pretty sure that another editor, Jytdog, started that part of the discussion, not you. What I saw as a problem was your interactions with Doc James, where you said: [11], [12], [13], [14]. It started out as a simple misunderstanding between the two of you, but you unilaterally escalated it to (from last two edit summaries), "thanks for stating that you (Doc James) cannot be trusted" and "three dicks and you're out?". I then tried to intervene, and your response to me: [15], was completely one of deflecting your own responsibility to the other editor. That was bad, and the reason I did not pursue it was that the discussion got back on the right track after the other editors started the "restart". You appeared not to understand it then, and you appear not to understand it now. About my reference to "NOTHERE", I said it "does not" go that far, but you seem to be missing my use of the word "not". Maybe that indicates some language or communications difficulty, but much of what I am seeing indicates a behavioral problem that goes significantly beyond just language comprehension. I'm disappointed, therefore, in your response to me. As I said, I'm commenting for now just on this, but having also read all of your responses, I think I'm seeing a lot of deflection there too. If other editors confirm that hunch, my earlier willingness to cut you some slack will vanish. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• As a DYK regular, I have never come across this user before nor had any interaction with him yet it appears to me that he has come into DYK out of the blue and made a number of edits to the technical workings of the project. Personally I don't see the logical reasoning behind his actions. The fact that there is consensus that he appears to be unaware that his tinkering is being disruptive suggests that maybe he should be advised to back off doing that. I never like to see topic bans but maybe this could be on the table. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• More concerning is that he doesn't appear to understand basic concepts. Looking at this history and this one (on which he broke 3RR), plus the current discussion at WT:DYK, he doesn't seem to grasp the BRD cycle or the facat that consensus should be gained for contentious edits. That's actually a WP:CIR issue, when one is repeatedly told by multiple editors not to do something, and you carry on doing it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Skimmed through here. User has not edited in some hours. Concerned that a very constructive editor in some areas has become overwrought. I think with DYK, they'd bit off too much, and they should leave it alone a while. DePiep, very interested in seeing your response.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim for this careful post. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• perhaps we are having a life issue?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is out of the ordinary for this editor at all. The limited interactions I've had with De Piep have also led to me tumbling down a rabbit hole of odd accusations and some of the most obstinate WP:IDHT behaviour I've ever seen here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• How odd -- since this thread began DePiep has fallen silent. I've never seen that happen before. EEng 12:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Seems unnecessary for me to pile on the chorus of accusations. I've already said enough about DePiep at WT:DYK#DYKbox improvements and other threads. I just want to add that it baffles me why a seemingly experienced and productive user like DePiep would behave as if he'd never heard of WP:BRD and consistently ignore the advice and arguments presented by numerous other users. -Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Below I will reply to my BRD issues. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• i am not able to read and respond, also for the next days. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  Don't worry, DePiep -- "ANI flu" always clears up as soon as the thread in question is closed. EEng 09:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have given a hefty block for the Auschwitz slur on its own. There's significant evidence here that this is a user who has talent and much to contribute but simply does not have personality type to be able to work collaboratively, making him totally unsuitable for contributing to Wikipedia. He communicates poorly, dislikes explaining himself, becomes incredibly irate over very small things and uses appalling slurs, including racial. I'm fairly well known for preferring lenient course of action with users, but I'll be proposing a community site ban for this user, unless they have some very persuasive things to say. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• This user has a long history of awful behavior and refusal to make any kind of sense when their actions are questioned. Looks like the bn discussion below isn’t going through, but that doesn’t mean a block can’t be issued, and if they return without addressing these issues, a block can and will be issued. They’ve already been blocked ten times and have just ridden them all out and gone right back to their old ways. This must stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• I would also support a block should DePiep return to editing without addressing the issues. It's clear from his long-term record that something fundamental needs to change in his interaction with other editors. If we do not see evidence of any willingness for that to happen, a forced preventative measure would be appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and Beyond My Ken: the topic ban is for areas outside of mainspace and user space, so the editor is not topic banned from the entire project except this thread, and can return to editing without engaging in further discussion. This would, of course, limit the potential for future problematic behaviour. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

I have issued an indefinite block. It seems obvious that their sudden suspension of activity was in response to these concerns, and their pattern of being blocked and just taking it without filing a formal unblock request suggests that anything less than an indefinite block will not achieve acceptable results. As I noted when blocking, they may be unblocked at any time so long as they agree to the re-opening of this discussion and pledge to actively particpate in it. They have dodged criticism by hiding for far too long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So ANI flu can be fatal after all. EEng 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I support the block - I'm still appalled by that "Auschwitz" slur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; normally I'd have a little bit of a problem with an admin coming over the top and instituting a different sanction than that which was just agreed to by the community. But given that the conduct here was so egregious that any admin could arguably have indeffed them at any point without likely objection from the community, and given the "out" which Beeblebrox has supplied DePiep with, with regard to returning here to discuss the community's concerns, I can't say as I have much issue with this in the present case. Besides, after Swarm closed their proposal below, I began to second-guess the wisdom of allowing a user to have access to mainspace while otherwise effectively banned, considering how that situation could be gamed. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep has just requested an unblock to address this discussion, so I have undone the close as suggested by the closer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Redux

Ok, it looks like this would be an appropriate time to restart this discussion since they are back and able to edit again. I believe this are the points that need to be addressed, but feel free to add on if I’ve missed anything:

• A pattern of becoming extremely defensive and/or refusing to clearly explain themselves when their edits are questioned
• Edit warring
• Responding to good-faith attempts at discussion with personal attacks
• specifcally the “Auschwitz” comments, which several users and admins have commented are reason enough for a block in and of themselves
• The fact that this is a highly experienced user who, despite 10 previous blocks, still doesn’t seem to have managed to learn to behave within minimum expected standards.

Again, feel free to add if I’ve missed anything important. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you've summed it up pretty well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would add, in light of his response to my comment of 00:24 9 May, that DePiep seems to be in denial of the circumstances where he accepted his voluntary topic ban, showing that he is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• In case it wasn't obvious, I have pulled DePiep's TE right given the current topic ban, and some other reasons I recall from his past.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• I too think Beeblebrox sums it up pretty well. I think the edit-warring and gross incivility are easily dealt with; if they recognize the problem, they're on a tight leash (a 1RR restriction may be appropriate), and can be blocked indef if they repeat that behavior; if they don't recognize the problem, we site-ban them here and now until they do. The first problem Beeblobrox describes is trickier to define, and trickier to address. I would there reiterate my proposal to remove them from maintenance areas, defined as any namespace outside articles, article talk pages, user pages, and user talk pages, with an exception for appealing and/or discussing sanctions about themselves. I proposed this below as a temporary remedy, but I believe it's the appropriate long-term step, too. This proposal is, of course, conditional on DePiep recognizing and promising to rectify the other problems with their behavior; otherwise, it is moot, and I would support a ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vanamonde, the issues have been summed up very well by Beeblebrox. If DePiep cannot explain their edits in the maintenance areas, then they should not be editing in that area, so under any circumstances this proposal should probably sustain. Alex Shih (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Preparing replies, basically to the top thread. - DePiep (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Been working continuously on this since (on/offline), but can't get it finished today. Need a rest. - DePiep (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, you may not believe this but I really would like to help you get back to assisting with the project. For that to happen, though, your response here needs to reflect an attempt to understand why everyone (everyone) is upset with you, not an extended defense explaining how you were right all along. EEng 22:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I do believe you. I am wrestling with my replies offline for days now. It is tough confrontations, and I must be honest & full out I know. Best of all is the time allowed (fast & short answers won't solve). I hope to post tomorrow, a batch of replies. I too want to join the project. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought... It can be quite traumatic facing up to your own problems, and as DePiep is keeping away from editing until this is resolved, I see no rush. I'd much rather we (DePiep and others) take the time to achieve an amicable solution that gets DePiep back to productive editing, than rush and get a poorer outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, taking some time is good, for me at least, as I can read more carefully &tc. - DePiep (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment After blocking DePiep in 2015, I received this email comment from an editor, who shall remain anonymous: In case you wonder how I got involved, I have been working on the immensely complex Module:[redacted] for nearly three years, and DePiep has been active on Template_talk:[redacted] with helpful advice for those asking questions, and by managing the documentation. I have also seen DePiep's useful work in other areas. I fully acknowledge DePiep's problems and I think your block for an extremely pointless edit war on a template was reasonable. DePiep does not speak English fluently and sometimes misunderstands colloquialisms, and finds it hard to follow long and complex sentences (like the ones I write!). DePiep's style is sometimes unhelpful.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply by DePiep

• First of all, I want to make my excuses for the edit regarding Icewhiz. That should not have happened in any case. Even worse I did not even self-correct at the time.

• Also, my 3RR breach with [16] in Template:DYKbox was unacceptable, especially since it was about visible content. (For those interested, here is a better development route I started afterwards).

• Also this visible content change should have been done via the talkpage.

• Re me being absent [17]: that was genuine in RL, it was not triggered by this ANI as some admins assumed. In the end the temporary blocks turned out as I too intended: first solve this thread (so the issue is moot). Meanwhile, these days helped me in finding a more relaxed and careful approach to the issues.

• In the top section, below the OP, I have replied to some individual complaints, that IMO are more isolated.

• For completeness, I note the discussions I started: this, [18], this, this; and I contributed to this.

• About my behaviour wrt BOLD, BRD, and talks. This is more subtle, so please bear with me. I write in reply to the three complaints that were made in the OP (now anchored):

Re #OP-1 vague language like "cleanup" and "improvement": As with many other similar template improvements I applied a technical-only edit: [19], [20]. My experience with other templates and WikiProjects is, that these are *not* considered controversial. To me, the wording in an the es like “cleanup” or “move templatedata/category to documentation” is clear enough. Elsewhere I did link to this WP-document for explanation. Sometimes the edit should be self-clarifying I thought: e.g., removing texts like “Interwikis go to the documentation page” is heavily outdated.

I add that in other WikiProjects, I have applied competence including doing bold edits, and building consensus in more difficult template issues (see talks & archives of elem, chem, drug, track). This is not to claim authority, but to point out that the DYK community is different in this. Please understand that this is my background experience, and so I am quite surprised to discover & learn that in WP:DYK the sense is more like “hey, don’t even edit bold here”. Before the DYK talks started, I already had made some 100–150 technical edits to templates & documentation without problems or breaking one, which added to the surprise effect.

I think this difference explains most of my contributions to the talkpages. This is why I kept asking for: “what is broken?”. This also explains why I missed the underlying DYK-community requests to explain more, and to simply not edit at all.

Re #OP-2 Treated all demands for explanation as allegations of bad faith. Maybe you refer to this edit, which indeed is needlessly unfriendly. In that talkpage section I first did answer what I was doing [21]. Then I got this bolded cursing, my reply asking to stay civil, canvassing/meatpuppeting, I asked to stop, ridiculing my English, then this. (BTW I am surprised that no editor here acted upon or even noted the abusive language in this last diff).

All this had happened in that section when Vanamonde93 made a fresh & clear restart with a bullet: [22]. To that I did reply with content [23], and without [24]. Rereading the section I think I did show some willingness to reply, but re Vanamonde93 I missed the deeper question obviously, and that latest diff was not clarifying, and not friendly I admit. Please note that the Vanamonde93 post appeared after the unhelpful language in the first half (diffs given above). At that point, my mood was not open for the constructive approach Vanamonde93 started.

It could be that Vanamonde93’s text “allegations of bad faith” actually meant to say “as personal attacks” (as Vanamonde93 did in their #Redux text). To this, my reply would be: in multiple occasions my knowledge of English was questioned [25], and even ridiculed [26]. I have never met this complaint before. While this appears to have a base in WP:CIR, it certainly appeared to me as a PA (amid other unhelpful posts aimed at me), hence my replies. I don't think I started out making BF/PA accusations.

Re #OP-3 Refused to acknowledge that … he needs to obtain consensus for them: Correct in general, though above I have noted that sensitivity for (objection to) BOLD/BRD editing in DYK is higher than elsewhere, even with technical edits.

Over all, I think I showed that, apart from problematic edits, also I started multiple threads myself, abided their result, and did reply with meaningfull answers (note the “also”). This is to push back against the atmosphere created that I did not engage in discussions at all. I now know & also admit many other answers were not civil/helpful/acceptable (or not to the point, not clarifying enough). In this situation, BRD should have lead me to stop making bold edits full stop. Then, a talkpage result would lead the way (could be no consensus, that is: nothing to be done).

I see that my initial attitude was that my edits were obvious, correct and self-explaining cleanups; this blinded me for the deeper concerns that were posted (like this opening by EEng, and this one by Vanamonde93). This is not to wipe complaints out, I just want to illustrate that the trespassings were not posted as a first reply or opening post.

How to prevent any future such problems? Clearly, I should take care not get carried away by fanatic editing, introducing blindness for talks and leading to frustrated uncivil replies. More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation. The bonus is that it will lead to a more healthy situation this side of my screen.

WRT WP:DYK, with its complicated processes, bot-support, difficult talks to reach improvements, and this whole experience: I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited.

• - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  @DePiep: - First of all, I accept your apology. Could you kindly answer what I did to trigger this? Or was this just a random "thing"? What truly puzzles me was not the particular wording - but the cause for the initial offense (which I assume is something I did?).Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, in your edit [27] I totally missed the "duplicate" cause, so I saw only the removal which astonished me. At that time I had noted that WP:Palestine editing is low at enwiki. - DePiep (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

OK - I could understand how that could possibly lead to anger.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep Firstly, I want to thank you for that self-reflection - it can't be an easy thing to do. I don't want to get into too much detail, so I won't reply to specifics above, but I'll just offer a few general observations.

  On the issue of being WP:BOLD and following WP:BRD, what I think I'm mostly seeing in recent interactions is a lack of understanding and poor communication. You didn't really understand why others were rejecting your template changes. But, more importantly, they didn't understand what you were trying to achieve and why. I see some attempts at discussion, but they were rather curt and I have to say I couldn't understand the details. What it needed (and I say this rarely) was more words and less action. It needed a more expansive and detailed explanation of what you were doing, and discussion until everyone understood everything. And stop making any changes until it is clear that everyone understands and there is a consensus. If you continue with further efforts to remake the same changes with modifications for what you think is the problem (but without the necessary understanding and consensus), it only causes frustration. Don't approach it from a feeling of "They need to explain what I did wrong", but more from "How can I help them understand what I'm trying to do?"

  It's not really that BOLD is not allowed, it's that the D part of BRD is by far the most important of those three letters. In areas like frequently used templates and pages with high dependencies, it is even more important that everyone involved should fully understand the implications of any changes, and when those changes are contested you should completely stop and seek consensus. In fact, in areas where there are regular editors with more specific knowledge and experience, it can indeed be wiser to seek consensus first and not be BOLD at all, as you suggest.

  Looking back over some previous interactions that others have raised, I also see times when you appear to have taken reversions or questions of what you are doing too personally and have responded poorly, similarly to what has happened here. That does seem to be a long-term issue, though again I think it's probably due to misunderstandings and/or poor communication. But when any edits you make are challenged, you really do need to engage in discussion and fully explain what you are doing - and it needs to be an explanation that's sufficient for the other editors to understand, not just one that satisfies you. And always, stop, assume good faith, and look at the whole picture again before you respond - it seems it was a failure to do this that led to the IceWhizz thing.

  Anyway, this has turned out to be a lot longer than I'd anticipated, but I hope you will find it of some use. And if you're listening to what people are saying and are taking it in and trying to do something about it (which you appear to be doing), then I don't think there's any need for any sanctions. But please do reflect on this discussion whenever you feel thwarted or frustrated in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this nicely (and more eloquently) describes my situation. - DePiep (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see DePiep apologizing for the worst of the personal attacks, and a site-ban is no longer an option I would consider. But I'm less satisfied with DePiep's replies about BRD. Especially with respect to DYK, he seems to believe that there's some sort of resistance to change anything there, and that his following BRD would have led to no changes at all. This is simply not true. DePiep made certain changes to certain templates and was reverted. His responses (when he went to a talk page at all), as far as I could make out, tended to be "I didn't break anything" or "Why not?" He didn't realize that it was incumbent upon him to answer the question "why?" first. There were similar problems with his talk page proposals; basically, they didn't always explain the problem they were trying to solve, and when folks expressed confusion and/or opposition, DePiep took things personally.

  I'm not sure where to proceed from here: on the one hand I'm worried my proposal above is now too harsh; on the other hand, I'm worried that if we do nothing, we'll be back to where we began very soon. I'd like to hear more suggestions about how to move forward. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with all of the above. DePuep is here in GF and seems to have plenty to offer, but we need to find some way to help him put the brakes on when need be. EEng 16:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

On rereading some of the above I feel it must be said that something that's missing, and which I think is essential for DePiep's future here, is a recognition by him that his English really does have moderate deficiencies, so that he needs to exercise extra caution in interpreting PGs and what others say to him. EEng 21:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation." This is good self-advice from DePiep. I think they tend to get heated and then not assume good faith. The onus is on them to control this. The reality is that they will have little leeway in the future, and they could conceivably improve yet still be villified for one transgression. It's their responsibility to repair their reputation. I don't know if there is any suitable sanction at this point. They should also get their template editing rights restored.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think that Vanamonde's assessment of the situation is spot-on. I would like to find a solution that makes it possible for DePiep to stay around, including the ability to continue to work with templates, but I also see a troubling lack of self-awareness with regard to discussion with other editors, resulting in personal attacks, and I am convinced that it would be a mistake to assume that it will not happen again. So I would like to suggest an approach based on WP:ROPE. I don't see a good way to legislate a definable criterion for adequately understanding comments directed at him by other editors. But I think that we might be able to draw something of a bright line with respect to personal attacks (although I acknowledge that the community has not been able to agree on the boundaries of civility). I think that we might be able to draw up an editing restriction that specifies that any future personal attack made by DePiep during discussions of edits that he has made will result either in an escalating series of blocks, or in a site-ban. If we can flesh out that idea, perhaps we can make a formal proposal to that effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And in the case if there are no restrictions, the close here should be clear that there is little to no tolerance for future incivility, allowing for swift action in the future, if needed, without spending too much time rehashing their history and re-collecting diffs.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that this discussion should not be closed until some restrictions have been settled upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with both Bagumba and Tryptofish. For all the concern of how DePiep might be salvaged for the greater glory of the project, he has been an IMMENSE sink of time. Unless someone is inclined to engage in a close, long-term mentoring effort with him he should be put on notice that any bickering or disputation (including here at ANI) will be grounds for a block. Which means that, in any dispute, if his arguments and explanations of why he is right are not accepted he must not persist, and any escalation to ANI is prima facie grounds for a block. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is a good place to reference what I said above about DePiep's English, which I think is a key part of the problem. EEng 22:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep wrote, I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited. I think this is a good idea, and I would like this to be a formal part of the resolution here; the "invitation" should be a consensus of the DYK community on its talk page, not just a random editor. This has been an immense time sink, as noted above, and there was damage done, as edits to several templates that are designed to be transcluded caused unexpected characters to appear where they shouldn't. It's clear that DePiep wasn't sufficiently aware of the many DYK processes to safely edit DYK templates, and I've reverted their template edits there, though I've left the edits to the template documentation pages alone since they're unlikely to have done any harm. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• A "civility restriction" is also an option. Per WP:RESTRICTION: The user may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Perhaps a 1-yr editing restriction?—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK then, I think that a near-consensus is starting to emerge. How about a proposal formulated like this:

1. A topic ban from DYK, that can be subject to review in the event that other editors at DYK would like to have it lifted.
2. A 1-year editing restriction, in which DePiep is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

• How does that sound? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think restoration of TE privs should be contingent on a year's success with the above. It's a right that assumes particularly restrained judgment. EEng 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, that means specifically the Template Editor advanced permissions, but not simply the ability to do edits related to templates. If that's the case, that's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think DePiep should re-apply at PERM if they want TE rights again. Tryptofish's summary of consensus in my opinion is fair (topic ban from DYK/one year civility restriction). Personally I would prefer "indefinite" but "appealable in six months" for the civility restriction so that we don't come back to square one again after one year (somewhat reflecting on the sentiment expressed by Vanamonde and Beeblebrox). I would probably also add a reminder along the lines of "...to stop and discuss before making potentially contentious maintenance edits" or any other statement that summarise what Boing! and others have mentioned here. Alex Shih (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking over it, I think perhaps that both the DYK topic ban and the civility restriction should be "indefinite but appealable in not less than six months". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• How about: any complaint made here, that an admin judges to be well-founded, for incivility, personal attacks, edit-warring, or tendentious editing, is grounds for an immediate one-month block, and this sanction to continue until the user has edited for twelve consecutive months without any complaint. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly that sounds a touch confusing, and I'd prefer the relatively straightforward modification suggested by Alex above; both restrictions indefinite, and appealable in six months. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Vanamonde. There will be less likelihood of something going wrong if we stay closer to the typical format for sanctions, and for the application of administrator judgment. I think we are getting to the point where I will make a formal proposal soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all the agreeing with the agreement. Can someone recapitulate exactly what's being proposed now? And then (it seems to me for some reason in this particular case) I think it would be useful to hear from DePiep himself that he understands what the proposal, if approved by the community, would be asking him to do, and that he thinks he can abide by it. EEng 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait, someone already did that, a few subthreads down. Let's regroup there. EEng 03:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

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

---

DePiep has stated that he will be unable to comment here for a while. It is unfair to the community to expect them to hang around here till then. It is undesirable for this discussion to simply remain unfinished, thus allowing DePiep to resume his behavior if and when he chooses to return. Therefore, I propose that DePiep be banned from proposing or making edits in maintenance areas outside main space and user space, until he returns to this discussion or this noticeboard and the topic is brought to a resolution. In other words, he is to be removed from the area of conflict until the issues raised here have been resolved. This isn't meant as a permanent remedy, and I wouldn't even suggest it were it not for an unfortunate tendency for editors in general to drop out of sight for a while when their actions cause controversy. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging @EEng, David Eppstein, Zanhe, The Rambling Man, Icewhiz, Ponyo, Dlohcierekim, The C of E, Tryptofish, The C of E, Izno, Bellezzasolo, and Black Kite: With due apologies. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Pinging Dweller too, who posted above as I typed this. I agree, that slur is not okay, but I believe it part of a wider pattern that needs to be addressed in its entirety. Vanamonde (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Tentative support As I have been pinged twice(!), I feel I should comment. Giving the benefit of the doubt to DePiep for saying he cannot comment, it doesn't quite seem fair to impose a full sanction on him when he is not able to defend himself, whatever the reason may be. That being said, I feel that for the continuous altering of the syntax when being asked not to and for that Auschwitz comment which I wasn't aware of before, I think that it is justified to put a temporary restriction on until such time as he is able to fully explain why he did what he did. Then we can make a fully informed decision on what to do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support good idea. Protects the user who I'm sure has a legitimate reason to be unable to edit (we're all volunteers, after all) and also protects the community against the possibility of scrutiny evasion. I'd amend to "all 'Wikipedia:' and 'Wikipedia talk:' pages" to the terms of the topic ban though. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Is your suggested change a shrinking or enlargement of the proposed (temporary) topic ban to you? DePiep's behavior extends into the template space as well. --Izno (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  To be clear, when I said "maintenance areas" above, I mean everything that isn't articlespace and userspace. That way, even if DePiep returns and ignores this thread, we don't have to rehash everything until he chooses to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Ah. So specify forwards maybe, using that form of words? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban which prevents editing anything outside this thread. The proposal is (in spirit) fine but not tightly defined. We've had this situation before where a user develops ANI-flu, and the best way of dealing with it when there's significant concern over the disruption caused by such editors is to mandate they respond here and nowhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support anything up to and including an indef until he shows he understands what he's been doing wrong. EEng 09:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support A firm, but gentle, way of forcing the issue to be addressed. However, I agree with TRM, answering this thread should be the first thing they do when they get back to Wikipeida. If they don't edit this thread, it's a voluntary CBAN. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Caveat: I'd suggest applying the usual exemptions for 3RR here. So they can revert vandalism, as that's very much a quick operation. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure there's a dire need for a topic banned editor to revert vandalism in project space. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  I was referring to a caveat in the context of TRM's proposal, i.e. a topic ban from everything except this thread, including mainspace. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Long term contributor - who yes - has been overly aggressive of late. His block log has been clean for nearly two years. Certainly some of his comments have been disconcerting - but has anyone discussed this with him? I believe he should be warned regarding civility and cooperation prior to tbanning areas he edits. A temporary t-ban shifts the burden of evidence to him in the future. The AN/I should serve as a wake up call of how this is viewed, and he should be warned prior to more aggressive action.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the Auschwitz comment. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support "startling amounts of off-topic bellicosity" is definitely how I'd describe my (quite limited and otherwise benign) interactions with DePiep, and the cited examples are more of the same. Common-sense exceptions (a dangerous pastime, I know) for participating in ANI threads and the like about themself (or at least this one) can apply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support GiantSnowman 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support the Auschwitz comment is unacceptable, especially when considered in light of DePiep's bogus claims that other editors personally attacked him. This hypocrisy, in my view, warrants more than a topic ban from DYK, but at least this is a start. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as revised. As long as this is temporary until this ANI discussion gets resolved, it is not punitive, and allows in good faith for the possibility of something other than "ANI flu". And I personally would be quite happy if the eventual outcome were to be an indication by DiPiep that he now understands the concerns here and will try to do better, with the understanding that it will be a WP:ROPE situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Frankly, DePiep is getting off lightly here - if I'd seen the "Icewitz" comment, I'd have blocked for a serious amount of time, if not indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as specified, but would rather support full ban until this is resolved, considering the Icewhiz/Auschwitz comments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as far as it goes, but prefer a full ban. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
• Highly conditional support The proposed solution is a reasonable one under the circumstances, but I want to be clear about what I am endorsing. If the purpose of this ban is to make sure that Depiep returns here to to discuss the matter as soon as they have time to return to the project, this is a desirable way to effectuate that result. However, I believe that as soon a Depiep does return and opens a thread for the transparent purpose of picking up discussion where it left off, this ban should be dissolved immediately by that action and without need for a community resolution. In other words, as this is a procedural matter rather than a final determination by the community regarding the Depiep's conduct, there should be no presumption that there exists a more long-term ban in place on Depiep--at least, not until such time as the community explicitly declares one. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Although, incidentally, if we were discussing the long-term solution now, I would have supported a block for DePiep at a bare minimum, based on a couple of those highly uncivil comments. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as a bare minimum. That Auschwitz slur (which was repeated several times) was disgusting behaviour, and I would have indef blocked for it had I seen it at the time. However good someone's contributions, if they stoop to such appalling personal attacks during disputes they should be shown the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  Having said that, I would prefer a complete community ban until DePiep has time to come here and address his disgraceful conduct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Site ban

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

---

Given DePiep's extremely high level of activity, I find his sudden and complete inability to participate here disingenuous, and I do not think we should hold off because of it. Given the extensive history of persistent egregious behavioral problems, which have not been resolved in spite of previous lengthy blocks, as well as the support for it already expressed above, I propose the following remedy: DePiep is indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. Appealable after the usual six months. Swarm ♠ 21:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Weak procedural oppose. - Swarm, as someone whose main bugbear on this project for the last few years has been the very lax standard of enforcement of WP:CIVILITY that the community presently utilizes, you can bet I'm right there with you in finding that some of those comments were thoroughly unacceptable and warrant some degree of sanction. That said, I don't think there is a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of your resolution passing, given the broad endorsement of the proposal to wait to resolve this matter. Nor is that decision ill-advised in my opinion; indeed it's pretty consistent with how community responses (and even proceedings as serious as ArbCom cases) have always been dealt with in these circumstances. Whether we credit any one particular editor's claims of inability to participate to be genuine or an attempt to avoid scrutiny, the fact of the matter is that sometimes life does intervene and because of our inability to know the real life circumstances of most of our editors, it is considered best practice to give them the benefit of the doubt, regardless of doubts which may have been caused by their other conduct. Unfortunately, I think this is a necessary precaution to make sure that our editors maintain the ability to present their side of things. (And I can't imagine DePiep saying anything that makes those comments acceptable, but that's neither here nor there).

Given the general community standard on this sort of thing, and the near-unanimous endorsement of the approach in this particular case, I think we should stay the course. DePiep is effectively banned anyway until they return to discuss the matter and the community will still be here when they do. All the same evidence can be presented and all the same users pinged (and indeed some of them, assuming that DePiep's claims here are a dodge, will only be more likely to be hardened in their view that he should face a sanction) and another additional batch of editors will also be introduced to the matter. I'm fairly certain the ban will be extended to a non-provisional one at that time and that this is a delay of community response, not an abrogation. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• OpposeWe already have a remedy above. We don't need to keep taking bites at the apple.00:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

• I was under the impression that that's specifically a temporary remedy, pending an actual one, and the reason that was done was because DePiep claimed they couldn't participate at the moment, which is, to me, obviously not true. Multiple people are advocating for a full ban above, so it seems silly and unusual to allow him to continue to edit the mainspace freely until he's ready to answer for tendentious editing. Swarm ♠ 00:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A Sword of Damocles hangs over DePiep already, no need to cut the string and drop it on them. Blackmane (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bit convenient that the day they're taken to ANI the editing drops for a day and then 2 days later they make a "I can't respond" comment before vanishing again, That all being said unless I've read it wrong they're topic banned from the entire project apart from the thread above so I don't see much point in site banning/blocking at this time however if they return and make a edit anywhere else then I'd happily support indef, In some ways I feel the editor should be blocked per CIR and the other side remain here - Dunno but anyway oppose any sort of blocking for now. –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that the temp ban -- which effectively becomes a permanent one if DePiep doesn't want to return to editing -- is sufficient at this time. If a unreasonable period of time passes and DePiep doesn't return to editing here, or he edits other language Wikipedias, then we can talk about additional sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Editing restrictions

Following the discussion at #Reply by DePiep, above, it looks like there may be an emerging consensus to handle the situation in the following way, so I am presenting a formal proposal:

1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per my comments above; this strikes the right balance between allowing DePiep the freedom to contribute constructively, and minimizing the drain on the community's resources. Vanamonde (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As DePiep has been a perennial problem across a range of topics we should be looking to develop a generic form for future use. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Massive edits of wikilinks by Bear-rings

User Bear-rings has started a massive campaign for "fixing" wkilinks: 113 edits since the beginning of May, most of them concerning wikilinks. Many of them consist of removing from the "See also" section, the items that are linked to in the body. This is generally fine, although it may be useful to repeat a link in the See also section when it is difficult to find in the body of the article. Many of their edits amounts to unlinking repeated links. This is also generally fine, except when this consists in changing "see Zariski's lemma" into "see Zariski's lemma", which has a completely different meaning [28].

Many of these edits consists in replacing redirects by pipes. This is explicitly discouraged by WP:NOTBROKEN, and has been notified to him several times in edit summaries and in atleast eight sections of their talk page (two other sections are about disruptive edits without indication of the nature of these edits). Worst, several of these redirect "fixing" change the meaning of the sentence, such as in [29] (as "function of a real variable" is the title of the article, the emphasize on "real-valued" was intentional), [30] (here also, emphasizing on domain was intentional]] [31] (link to a different concept).

When Bear-rings's edits are reverted, they start immediately in an edit war without discussing in edit summaries nor in talk pages. See [32] and [33] (I apologize for having breaking WP:3RR here, but I thought that I could convince them by clearer explanations in edit summaries).

Even after a clear notification on their talk page, they try starting new edit wars: [34], [35] (in this case, they did three different edits, and only two needed to be reverted).

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

New edit wars by the same editor:[36], [37]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Incidentally, [38] is a good edit (the old link was incorrect). I just can’t tell whether a good edit like this is by accident or by intention... —- Taku (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

and the following proof is proposed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• And now another 3RR against WP:NOTBROKEN at Pregnancy discrimination [39] [40] [41]. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kandi Barbour "biography"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Films001 - persistent disruptive editing and vandalising

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

Earlier today I reported Films001 at AIV,[42] but the report was rejected with a direction here by KnightLago.[43]

Films001 created an article about a supposed web series called "Franco's World" at FrancosWorld(Australian TV series) (note the lack of spaces and apostrophe in "Franco's"). I found it because it appeared in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. After fixing multiple error's in the infobox and removing some content that shouldn't have been in the lead I moved the article to Franco's World per WP:NCTV and to fix the lack of spacing and apostrophe.[44] Since then, Films001 has been persistently disruptive at both pages, restoring the original, errored content at the redirect[45][46][47][48] (which has now been nominated for speedy deletion by another editor). At Franco's World he has done the same.[49][50][51][52][53][54] In fact this is now the current version of the article.[55] He has also blanked the article,[56] removed maintenance templates,[57][58] and removed the AfD notice on several occasions.[59][60][61][62][63] Looking through the edits he has clearly breached WP:3RR. All but his last edit,[64] occurred before KnightLago rejected the AIV report and I am at a loss how these actions could not be considered vandalism. To date, 5 different editors have reverted Film001's actions at both pages. (note that some of the diffs above overlap)

I have been unable to confirm the existence of "Franco's World" other than a mention at imdb and statements in the various articles that Film001 has edited. The infobox originally said it was on YouTube but I couldn't find it and, after I pointed this out at AfD, Film001 removed the line from the infobox without explanation.[65] I am concerned that many of Film001's edits appear aimed at creating hoaxes. He has, for example, added multiple urls to Robert Rabiah,[66] including a reference to Franco's World but, apart from imdb, I can't find any evidence to confirm he is even aware of Franco's World so I have contacted the actor's management company. He also created Sunrise Films, the production company supposedly responsible for it. It is describe as "an independent Australian film and television company that produces films that focus on social change" but the only Sunrise Films I could find is located in Canada.[67] Sunrise Films also mentions Robert Rabiah, who seems to be the person linking all of Film001's edits together. However, this is secondary to Film001's persistent vandalism today. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The Sunrise Films in Australia doesn't seem notable. The lead in the article has been copied from the company's Twitter page,[68] but almost all of the rest is all about Robert Rabiah's achievements, not the company. Film001 seems to be manufacturing notability so yes, this does seem an elaborate hoax. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Repeated addition of Tamil scripts by User:Visnu92 without consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree, I the very first diff I checked from their contributions at random was an apparent unexplained revert of a sourced, good faith edit,[69] which he issued a level 3 vandalism warning for[70] and refused to let them blank.[71] Regardless of the merits of the edit, OP's behavior was in the wrong. If this is a pattern, I'd support an indef. Swarm ♠ 19:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Personal attacks and absurd meatpuppetry

At [72] BernardZ wrote What are you doing just following me?? Anyway thanks for your edit. That Tgeorgescu is just a turd, prejudice and narrow-minded.

At [73] Macquaire repeated information which was already in the article. I have reverted it at [74]. Then BernardZ has reverted my revert at [75], which is absurd, because such information got repeated twice in the same article.

At [76] BernardZ wrote about sockpuppetry by Macquaire I know him actually, what he is doing is following me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Two different people who know each other, they both make the same mistake. Odd, don't you think? And as shown at [77] and [78], they both sign their usernames below their messages, instead of at the end of their messages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, I got called "turd, prejudice and narrow-minded" (before making the sockpuppetry accusations). Besides, I was not the first editor who accused the two of sockpuppetry, see [79] by Roscelese. And the edit warring was unusual (absurd): it wasn't edit warring about adding something to the article, it was edit warring about repeating twice the same information in the same article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Single-purpose editor refuses to address policy concerns with editing

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

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

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

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

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

Some copyvio here[80] from this. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass moves of genocide related articles by user:Underwritten

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Johnbod - Seriously?

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

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

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

The sizes of the above listed article have increased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bengal famine of 1943 and User:Otraj33

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

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

Origin of the Romanians

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fronticla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this edit [81] he removes not only the word controversial (Burzynski is currently under restrictions imposed by the Texas medical Board) but also the fact that antineoplastons are unproven. Actually they are closer to utterly discredited, but unproven is the very least we should say. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:A Simple Human

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bdog Drummond

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

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

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

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

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

International Art Museum of America and User:Beyond My Ken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broad scope

-EEng

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

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

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

• Support TBAN from IAMA & related articles, broadly construed. Seems to be some sort of persistent advocacy which is not helpful to the project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Huggums537

Huggums537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a several day streak of CIR type behavior in regards to WT:N and his interactions with other editors. See this discussion on my talk page. If I weren't involved, I would indef CIR block him for being unable to work in a collaborative editing environment, but I am involved, so I will leave that to other administrators and the community to decide. This is following his restoring revisions where he talked to Serial Number 54129 like a child on my talk page: [82], [83]. Cast aspersions about me at VPP: [84], and was just generally disruptive at WP:N and WT:N (if need be, I can provide diffs, but doing ctril+f and randomly clicking next to the username should give you some idea of what is going on, and provide a clearer sense than one or two specific issues). Now he has decided to strike a comment of Legacypac's on WT:N after I had already given him multiple warnings about ceasing disruption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Every one of my confrontations with Huggums was initiated by him, so his claim to try[ing] to avoid Hijiri88 like the plague is an obvious lie. I could go into detail if necessary, but honestly my entire history of interacting with him has been characterized by (a) him hounding me,[85] (b) him engaging in unambiguous trolling,[86] (c) him arguing with me (and a then-current member of ArbCom!) over whether it is acceptable to link bootleg YouTube uploads of copyrighted media,[87][88][89] and (d) him behaving in an exceptionally bellicose manner on project talk pages,[90] so I honestly don't know why this editor, who barely contributes to our articles to begin with (preferring to spend all of his time arguing over changes to policy) and is just a drahma-hound, has been allowed continue editing thusfar with all the trouble he has caused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • • I think it's also important to notice here that most of the examples Hijiri is providing here are from a very long time ago over disputes we had in the distant past when I was a brand new editor. The most recent one being in May, where he first PROVOKED ME by behaving in an exceptionally bellicose manner himself to begin with. The rest of the examples date well into last September and do not reflect the many months of good contributions that I have made without conflict with Hijiri or any other editor editor up until now with Tony and I think I have proven with Tony that there is no conflict between us, only that I made a mistake and am trying to make reparations. The only conflict seems to be arising from Hijiri, who will not let the past go. Huggums537 (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Here we go. Already I'm every evil thing you can possibly imagine. Chief of them being a liar, because "Every one of my confrontations with Huggums was initiated by him" except you are the one being dishonest about that. You don't remember where YOU are the one who followed ME over here and initiated YOUR hounding/trolling to the point I had to mention it in the edit summaries as well as the talk page? Or, when you initiated contact 3 different times at here? And our most recent interaction on Tony's page where you are the one who inserted yourself into the discussion. I'd really not rather rehash all the old wounds and I wish you would just leave me alone and bury the hatchet. Yes, we have had some bitter disagreements in the past, but I have let them go and I don't go around dragging your name in the mud over it as you do me. Really, I should be more angry with you than I am the way you come on here and call me all these liars, hounds, trolls, and such. But, [I'm not.] really I pity you because you are so bitter and living like that must be like drinking poison and hoping the other person will die. At any rate, this is not related to Wikipedia or policy, so I must be done with it. Huggums537 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I was sympathetic to the theory that you went about disengaging from your remarks on the notability discussion page in an awkward manner, but... I suggest you may wish to reconsider some of the preceding statement? isaacl (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • You are right. I already knew it didn't have to do with Wikipedia when I said it and it won't help make things any better between Hijiri and me. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I wonder if a TBAN on policy pages might be in order. Seems to get too het up and then cast aspersions and says unfortunate things. One wonders.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have successfully collaborated with editors in making policy changes before and I have also successfully implemented my own minor proposals while working well with other editors. This was an unusual incident for me and I honestly don't know what came over me. Huggums537 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Here are some links to my collaborations/proposals: MoS, MoS, VP, and N. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you jumped on a policy change that was going to pass whether you were involved or not, and your behaviour if anything soured the discussion: you inserted an off-topic snipe at me when I hadn't even been involved in the discussion, apparently in attempt to get me to respond.[91][92] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support indef CIR block as first choice, support TBAN on policy pages as second choice, possibly both if this seems necessary to the community. This user needs to write more articles before attempting to argue over difficult policy points that he feels he understands better than people who have been editing for years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef CIR block per the last couple of days and this thread: this person either doesn't know how to work on a collaborative project and is intentionally insulting others or is too dense to figure out how to do it. Either way, they are wasting our time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef CIR block I told them to cut out the troll behavior and they doubled down by increasing the trolling. Mainspace contributions are not worth the grief in policy and talkpages. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Rcomm1's unsubstantiated edits and personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTFORUM at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism

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

User ZScarpia is unusually resistant to any attempt to archive out or hat WP:NOTFORUM commentary he posted to Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism a year and a half ago. The article is controversial, and his comments invoke unreliable sources to no obvious purpose, there's no actionable edit request, just copmmentary based on polemic. Example: [93] It's very unusal in my experience for anyone to so determinedly revert archival of talk page commentary. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTHERE at VPR, cont.

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

Repeated ridiculous "proposals" at WP:VPR. English-challenged. Repeated missing punctuation at end of sentence. Repeated failure to sign. If this is not a sock of the Saturday-indeffed Milchsnuck I'll eat your hat, but in any case the behavior is identical to that that earned Milchsnuck an indefinite block. Milchsnuck requested adminship 2 months after Government Man asked WP:Teahouse how they could become an admin.[94] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Rapid IP block evasion and severe BLP violations

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

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