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)

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.

Axxxion

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

They have been previously blocked on several occasions, last time a couple of weeks ago. Now they are move-warring at Luhansk People's Republic despite being told clearly that a RM is needed, and the move needs to be discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've move protected it for 2 weeks. Someone else can decide if anything else needs to be done re: the behavior. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope it may not be necessary with further sanctions at this time. This user has now engaged in somewhat constructive discussions on the talk page of the article. Heptor (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm finding it difficult to establish where Axxxion is trying to engage constructively. All I can see is a non-argument that the spelling is used by outlets such as TASS (which is a Russian government outlet) in their English language version, not English language WP:RS in Anglophone countries. There hasn't been any form on communication since 10 May on the article's talk page, but a heck of a lot of arguing with other editors on his own talk page. The long and the short of it is that it's either an RM or no tampering with the contents of the article against consensus. Ninja changes are not acceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears we got through to him[28], for now at least... I don't think he was acting in bad faith, he just assumed that we weren't. Heptor (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not actually getting through to him, it's more of an indictment than a show of good faith. Why are these disturbing 'joke' responses (designed to provoke the reporting administrator) appearing on his own talk instead of addressing this thread? He is not a newbie, nor is it the first time he has demonstrated problematic behaviour... and eluding scrutiny strikes the wrong chord (i.e., trying to fly under the radar rather than recognition of any form of disruptive behaviour). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards interpreting those 'jokes' as somewhat slow restocking in the sanity department, rather than an indictment towards anyone in particular. Not saying that you are wrong though, he could be disruptive in bad faith also. But I think there is some reasonable doubt in this particular case. Heptor (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I just see four blocks, quite some disruption after the latest block expired, and no useful contributions, at east not recently.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on this user's behavior during the time we had this discussion I have to agree with Ymblanter and Iryna Harpy. There is a legitimate disagreement on the topics that we are discussing, but Axxxion isn't discussing. His edits are designed to provoke, not to improve Wikipedia. Heptor (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Axxxion wrote on on his talk page that he understood Ymblanter's explanation of the policy and understood his mistake [29], so I thought he misinterpreted the policy in good faith. But he just continued editing in the same manner as before [30], a pattern he was apparently following for years. Based on this, I now reluctantly support further sanctions against this editor. Heptor (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he is engaging in WP:BLUDGEON. His purportedly non-"idealogically/politically motivated" rationale does not hold water and is, in reality, antithetical to what he claims to be NPOV. Despite the fact that other editors have clearly explained COMMONNAME for the context, as well as having understood his WP:POINT from the inception, he's flogging the same line relentlessly. I honestly think that a TBAN is in order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

NFL Undrafted Players section

An anonymous user who employs different IP addresses (2606:6000:ce83:8400:a0f1:8aad:7470:2c88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:b11d:cf36:5130:2d32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:848d:f811:202d:ed5c (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:c569:4f92:ca28:4a7a (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), etc)

Has reverted the edits in the Notable Undrafted Player section of the 1995 NFL Draft, 1996 NFL Draft, 1998 NFL Draft, 1999 NFL Draft, 2007 NFL Draft, 2009 NFL Draft, 2011 NFL Draft, 2012 NFL Draft, and others. Putting players that did not have a notable career and are just classified as undrafted. This is not the first time that it has happened with this user, so I would ask for somebody to review this case, because the essence of this section is to be selective with the players being put there.Makers267 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm failing to see a problem in their behaviour, at least on the 1996 NFL Draft article, which I chose at random. Their contributions consisted of adding players who (1) Played only a couple NFL games but was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame, (2) played 64 NFL games, (3) played only one NFL game, but played professionally in four leagues and is a notable head (CFL) and assistant (NFL) coach. Anon's edits are very clearly made in good faith. The problem is that you and they have a different POV over what that section should include. That's a discusison for WP:NFL, not WP:ANI. Resolute 19:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You know, Makers267, I have to say it's problematic that you bring this here with every IP you listed having a red letter talk page. For one, you are required (and that is noted in big red letters in the edit window you opened twice to make this report) to notify them. Second, you are required to make a good faith effort to work things out. Please point us to where you did that. The only one I see misbehaving here is you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As you can see this is a user that keeps changing his IP address, so if you see my edit history, I tried to contact him previously about this situation when he had the address 2605:A000:140D:4329:4024:3347:1857:C89B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). If you don't see an issue with the type of players that he is including in that section I don't have a problem that you close this threadMakers267 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Makers267, your ignorance of how IPv6 works does not mean the editor is doing something wrong. They change. The editor is NOT changing it. Where have you started talk page discussion? Where are your diffs showing somewhere his behavior has violated policy? What policies are you alleging he's violated? Lacking this information, from what you have given us, it is just as likely you are violating WP:OWN as anything else. And if you call what you wrote on one of the tables pages an attempt at discussion, IMO the project may be just as well served by sanctioning you as him. John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee and WP:Votestacking

Springee may have engaged in WP:Votestacking with this edit, following her/his comment here. The second comment indicates that Springee knew or believed that the group of editors s/he notified had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion" (c.f. WP:Votestacking). Springee failed to notify dlthewave, a participant in that same discussion who (based on previous comments) would likely have come down on the opposite side of the issue. So of nine editors involved in discussing "Proposal" here [31] that had not yet commented, user:Springee notified all eight on her/his side, and left out the one that would likely have been opposed.

Furthermore Springee failed to notify the editors on the involved in the closely related discussion of Proposal 2 here [32], including User:London Hall, User:Fluous, User:JustinFranks, and User:Icewhiz, at least several of whom would likely have been opposed to Springee's position.

Lastly, Springee was previously warned of canvassing here and here, and it appears there was already a discussion on the ANI board about Springee (see here). (All these previous talk page warnings were reverted by Springee.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleswatcher (talk • contribs)

• On my phone so I will reply in detail later today. This is an attempt by an editor to win a content dispute via an ANI. The only editor I rightly failed to notify was due to an oversight. @Dlthewave:'s singular edit in the section in question was buried several replies down and I missed it. The comment about not notifying the other editors is easy. They weren't involved. Waleswatcher added material to the article that was rejected by consensus in February. I notified the editors involved in that discussion but not the Port Athur discussion which was in the same section. Springee (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "rightly failed to notify"? I do not think you mean that the way it sounds.Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, did not notify the editors only involved with the Port Arthur discussion. Springee (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The rightfully fail to notify and response here is confusing. I'm guessing what Springee is saying is that they do not consider the other failures to notifyno notifications and as wrong, therefore they don't consider these as relevant or proper examples of 'failure to notify'. The Dlthewave they accept was wrong therefore they consider this a legitimateas a relevant or correct example of a failure to notify, but it was an honest mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 10:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant to add that in case it's relevant, User:Springee's edits in question are related to gun control and fall under discretionary sanctions. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply: OK, has some computer time. High level, no this isn't canvassing as per WP:APPNOTE it is acceptable to notify editors involved in previous same or similar discussion. The origin of this complaint is based on an edit Waleswatcher made this morning. WW boldly added this content to the Colt AR-15 article [[33]].

According to the New York Times,[15], AR-15 style rifles are among the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, and were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history.[16]

The content of this edit was almost identical to material that was rejected by consensus in February ["Proposal (1)"] (not Proposal 2 which was later under the same header).

Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, according to the New York Times.[1] It has been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association. It has also been the weapon used in many mass shootings in the US. [1] Several million are estimated to be in circulation in the United States.[1]

Per WP:APPNOTE, I notified all editors who had participated in the previous discussion (Proposal 1) but were not active in the current discussion. I missed Dlthewave who didn't actually vote but replied to another editor. This was an honest oversight and WW didn't even know I had missed it when posting a canvasing warning to my talk page earlier today[[34]]. I have to assume WW didn't understand the allowances in APPNOTE.

I did not notify editors involved in the unrelated Port Arther inclusion discussion (Proposal 2). Dlthewave notified those editors [[35]] which was, unintentionally, canvassing. Most of the editors who opposed Proposal 1 also opposed Proposal 2. Thus the editors from Proposal 2 who weren't notified could be assumed to be largely sympathetic to the edit in question and thus reverse vote stacking (again, unintentionally). This was noted by Red Rock Canyon (talk · contribs)[[36]].

Summary, I notified previous editors who hadn't weighed in on the current discussion but discussed nearly the same material in February. I missed one editor who's edit was a reply to one of the votes. I said as much but WW didn't want to assume it was a good faith oversight so here we are. Springee (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"I said as much but WW didn't want to assume it was a good faith oversight so here we are." Regarding that, I asked you about this on your talk page, and we discussed it along with User:Slatersteven. After some discussion, after learning that the only editor(s) you failed to ping were those that would likely oppose you, and after discovering that you've been warned for canvassing at least twice before, User:Slatersteven felt your behavior should be reported here. I agreed, so I went ahead and reported it. Now an admin can take a look and decide if action is needed. I don't really see the problem with that. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you are earlier today accusing me of acting in bad faith [[37]]. So now I should assume you just wanted to do the right thing? It's ironic that you started to complain before you even understood the relevant policies. Springee (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Errr he started the complaint after it turned out you had breached the right polices (which is far as I am aware say you should inform all "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)", and after it looked like you did not get that what you did (even if an honest mistake) was wrong (as with your still unexplained comment about rightly not informing one editor). This is why I said he should bring it here, as you clearly do not see that what you did was a breach of policy. Maybe it was a mistake, we do not know that. Thus if you breach the rules you should not try and claim it was the right thing to do.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to give much heed to the Dlthewave thing considering it does seem not that hard to miss their singular comment. While editors notifying others to have a responsibility to take care to avoid such mistakes to avoid biasing a discussion, it is ultimately only 1 editor even if out of 9. I have no comment on not notifying participants of proposal 2 except to say even if this was wrong, I still wouldn't consider not notifying Dlthewave from proposal 1 particularly relevant. If someone presented evidence there was frequent carelessness and they kept missing editors that would be when I'd start to worry about them not notifying Dlthewave. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I half agree. If the user was careless he should have said sorry and left it at that, rather then continuing to try and explain it away. A simple "yes I made a mistake I am sorry" would have done it. His attitude seemed to be (until the ANI threat was raised) seemed to be "well yes I did, but it was only one". I think they do need to be told that what they did was wrong, and a breach of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where they have actually have said somewhere something at all similar to "well yes I did it, but it was only one"? All comments here and in Dlthewave's talk page seem to accept they made a mistake. They do sometimes offer an explanation for how it happened and mention it was a minor mistake (which I agree with if it's only one instance), but they do not suggest it was not a mistake. Sometimes it's better to just say you made a mistake rather than explain how it happened or mention it's a minor mistake, since it can come across as if you are downplaying the mistake, but that's largely a matter of how you want to be perceived. Ultimately provided you accept that you made a mistake and need to take care in the future to try and avoid it, that is the key thing and we seem to have that here. There is no point making such a big deal over something that is ultimately a minor mistake. This is compounded by the proposal 2 issue which I've now looked into in more detail and largely agree with their POV. Because most of these discussions seem to have focuses on these two issues together, one of which seems to be a minor mistake that everyone accepts was wrong and one of which seems to have been entirely resonable, it's natural that their responses may come across as a little defensive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've now looked in to the proposal 2 issue and nearly entirely agree Springee. Proposal 2 had almost nothing to do with the other proposal nor with the recent discussion other than it happened to occur under the same section and I'm not entirely sure why that happened. If there was to be notification of participants in proposal 2, it would only be proper to notify participants of Talk:Colt AR-15#RfC: Port Arthur Massacre since that was basically the same issue as proposal 2. Frankly if there are any unique participants, people in Talk:Colt AR-15#Port Arthur Massacre and Talk:Colt AR-15#Potential RfC on Port Arthur Massacre probably should be notified too. The only thing I would suggest is that it would have been better if Springee had made it clear they did not notify participants in proposal 2 since it did happen to occur in the same subsection for some weird reason. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I should have apologized for the mistake. I have to admit that after WW's edit warring and refusal to follow BRD I was frustrated with things and some of the editors who seemed ok with such antics as the supported the changes. Notifying the unrelated Proposal 2 editors has resulted in a least one vote against my POV so vote stacking likely did occur (but I don't feel it was done in bad faith, just a failure to understand the policy). Notifying the participants of the other Port Arthur discussions (Nil Einne's above) may be a good option given only one of those discussions has been notified. Springee (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I said on your (or was it WW's talk page) in very complex discussion it might be best to not ping users as there is always the possibly of missing someone out. Do it once and it is a mistake, make a habit of it and it gets sanctioned, might be best to just not do it and avoid the risk.As you now seem to accept you did wrong (even if a genuine mistake), and it was against policy I think we can close this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case pinging the editors was absolutely the right thing to do. The previous discussion was just a few months back and a number of the editors in favor of inclusion were participants in both. We have no reason to assume consensus has changed so to ignore the recent discussion would be having the system. Contrary to WW's claim there isn't a history of this (improperly pinging previous discussions). My take away is to follow Santa's advise, when you make a list, check it twice :) Springee (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Stuff me with green apples, This is exactly what I am talking about. No one is saying that was wrong I am saying that if you want to avoid more of this kind of thing it might be best to avoid pinging (not that you should not do it, rather it might not be a good idea to do it). Santa maybe right as well. But I have to say, WW said you have a history of canvasing, not of Pinging.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've notified all participants of the other 3 recent Port Arthur massacre discussions here [38]. See here for info on the list [39]. As I remarked in the talk page, it seems to me 2 other recent discussions are equally relevant and so I would suggest participants in them should be notified, but I will leave that up to others. My last comment on this issue would be as general advice, while it's not technically wrong to leave neutral notification of all previous participants of a highly related discussion, if you have strong known feelings on an issue it generally makes sense to raise the issue before leave the notification so people can offer feedback. I actually considered doing that here, but as the previous pings had already been sent felt it was too late now as there was no real justification for notifying people who only participated in proposal 2, but then not notify participants of the other 3 recent discussions on the Port Arthur massacre, especially the RFC. But it is part of the reason I did not notify participants of the discussions on other issues. P.S. Frankly I think we're getting close to notifying anyone who has commented on the talk page in the past 3 months or so. I wonder if it might be better to just notify all talk page editors in 3 or even 6 months. That would hopefully end this IMO pointless debate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the fact that only one editor out of nine was left out seems to make it much worse, not better, because the editor left out was the only one that expressed an opinion contrary to Springee's. At least at face value, that's very unlikely to happen by chance. As for Port Arthur, it's closely connected in two ways - it's a debate about including information on a mass shooting, and it's in the same section.

More broadly, I'm certain there have been other debates on the inclusion of mass shooting incidents where a type of gun was used in the article on that gun type. I'm almost certain some of those turned out in favor of inclusion (else there would be no such material in these articles). Why weren't the participants in those debates pinged? That's another reason this looks like canvassing. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that there were a number of editors to notify because the issue being discussed has been hashed out over and over. But Waleswatcher has ignored all the other discussions and demanded it all begin again because he discovered the article. The allegation of votestacking is baseless. This shouldf be closed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is actually an ANI? (wtf?) So he missed a ping... big deal. He admitted it was mistake, the whole world knows about that discussion now, what is there left to say? Or do? Nothing. So for luv of gawd... will someone puh-leeze close this already? I'm sure there are more worthwhile things on this project to attend to. - ^theWOLFchild 05:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

S/he missed the one ping in that one discussion that probably would have disagreed, and got all the others. Not to mention all the other participants in all the other closely related discussions that turned out the other way and might have wanted to participate. That's certainly close to violation of WP:Votestacking, although whether it crosses the line I'm not qualified to judge. But on top of that, s/he's been warned twice already about canvassing, and that page is under discretionary sanctions (which s/he certainly knew, having been warned about it and also having warned me about it here). Put all that together, and it seemed to me and User:Slatersteven, following a discussion with User:Springee on their talk page, that an admin should take a look and decide whether it warrants a temporary topic ban or the like. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

They have, and it seems to me the decision is that this was a mistake and that the user accepts they made a mistake. I think banning on about this serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WW, the fact that you're still pushing this tells me a lot. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify in case there is some confusion that I am not an admin. I am, I think, the only uninvolved editor to weigh in here and I'm not sure that's going to change. Remember also that an admin can't just impose a WP:topic ban the same way they can't impose most other bans (as distinct from blocks). You'd either need community consensus or it would be need to be something covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This issue may fall under the gun control DS or maybe you could try and make the case it's under American politics. If anyone really feels there is justification for enforcement, the normal way AE is handled is via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement AFAIK. However you may want to considered whether the response here (including the lack of a response) is an indication of how such a request is likely to be perceived. Nil Einne (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus vs Local consensus

• Comment: the issue being discussed has been hashed out over and over, the qualified here is that was a matter of WikiProject:Firearms WP:local consensus. So, naturally, when previously uninvolved editors arrive at the page they are both amazed and confused about the state of affairs. That has been my experience; see for example: Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018 (2), and a couple of discussions that I started: Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Proposal & Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Proposal 2. “Proposal 2” was vigorously rejected by the page regulars, to the point that someone commented:

It's remarkable in itself that the Wikipedia article at the top of Google searches for AR-15, which has been getting 30,000 page hits a day, has nothing about the political controversy. Remarkable enough that this could be a scandal if meddling journalists found out about it.

And indeed, the journalists did write about it, sample: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page. We still had to have an RfC on this material: RfC: Port Arthur Massacre, which recently closed as “include”. As anyone can see, it took three months to arrive at a decision to include RS-supported, NPOV content. It’s perhaps time to let go of the cherished WikiProject-specific norms as consensus is clearly changing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Of course we should change everything because some writers with a POV wrote about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue with editor

Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to be a problematic editor that continues to make editing a personal thing, with edit summaries such as this one. They are an admitted sock-puppet, and despite promising to change their ways years ago and did not receive a block from AniMate, however, it appears they have yet to do so. They've been warned multiple times — which warnings usually removed from their talk page — and told not to delete sections. However, they continue to edit in this behavior. It is highly disruptive and it is clear they are not here to edit constructively for the encyclopedia. livelikemusic talk! 21:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Truth is you've been adding stuff to the pages that really don't need to be there just like you always do, and you come here and complain and saying stuff such as this right here when you don't get your way, Patty McCormack is not part of the cast and only is temporary recast of Monica Quartermaine yet you think she's part of the cast, she's not, she's a fillin, temporary, only for a few episodes. Nobody is gonna announce when she leaves, it's only for a few episodes, she doesn't need to be in the departing section of the cast list. If I been remember right LiveLike, you have been told to leave me alone, and yet here you are again, not leaving me alone, you think you are so much better than me, you are not. P.J. (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with that. Has to do with the disruptive behaviour you've continued to exhibit, and your battleground mentality is not what Wikipedia is about, and is one of the reasons why you were blocked at Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And, again, never was I told to "leave you alone," it was me who requested you not talk on my talk page, and it was AniMate who told you this, and warned you to stop. This is not a personal target, and merely has to do with your continued disruptive behaviour. livelikemusic talk! 21:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not being disruptive, I'm keeping the page clean, okay, that's what I'm doing, you were told not to talk to me and to leave me alone, and lemme do my own thing, you haven't done that. "Patty McCormack is a temporary recast, but if it makes you happy I will leave it as is, do you know how long this recast is? I don't think she's should be in the departing section yet, kinda weird to just put her there like a day after she aired, Leslie broke her leg, she could be out for a while. Has a date been announced yet? P.J. (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK, the line between content dispute and disruptive behavior is a blurry one. My suggestion is that you both start with easier works like Love in the Time of Cholera, Bliss and Cat and Mouse, before moving on to One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Tin Drum and Oscar and Lucinda.--Shirt58 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Soapfan2013, you are missing the point; this report is based on your disruptive nature of deleting sections and tables, when it's been stated — multiple times at length — that we hide them, while keeping the setup in-tact. Instead of doing so, you continue to plainly delete them, which requires revert to put the template back into place, and properly hide it That's what this report is about; that, and the other issue(s) I put into the original report. And that's what I am awaiting discussion on with TPTB. livelikemusic talk! 12:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jeez. Hm. So, let me get this straight.

• Soapfan is an admitted sock of a indeffed disruptive editor and sockpuppeteer, Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but he was allowed to continue editing with some sort of WP:ROPE second chance by AniMate, secured by livelikemusic's own insistence at SPI that he had turned a new leaf (March 2012). He quickly changed his mind, apparently, and has been complaining about him ever since.
• June 2012 (AniMate, who gave Soapfan a second chance, considers reblocking for a personal attack)
• November 2013
• November 2013 (again)
• December 2013
• October 2015
• January 2018

• Soapfan has been gently warned for personal attacks or incivility in some of these reports, and has been warned a couple of times on his talk page as well[40][41] but nothing ever rose to the level of admin intervention, and LLM had been criticized for his own problematic behavior as well. The question here is whether SF deserves a moderate response for the personal attack, an indef for failing to live up to the expected standards of his second chance, or if this is strictly a long-term interpersonal conflict that warrants an IBAN. I think some response is warranted by now, but I'm not entirely sure which kind. Additional admin opinions requested here. Swarm ♠ 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  It looks like there is no more rope left.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. Swarm ♠ 19:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• So, I've finally gotten the time to review Soapfan's edits going back several years, and I must say, given the history I gathered earlier, I expected to find the evidence to justify an indefinite block. So, let me be clear to both livelikemusic and Soapfan2013—that is truly where I was coming from. I assumed these repeated complaints and accusations were legitimate, and I had actually planned on indeffing Soapfan upon finding any examples of problematic behavior. I did not even extend Soapfan the benefit of the doubt due to his history. So, I owe Soapfan an apology for jumping to conclusions. Apart from a small handful of unpleasant run-ins with LLM, I see no evidence of any pattern of problematic behavior in edit summaries or on talk pages. It really does appear that these repeated complaints casting Soapfan as a malicious disruptive editor are frivolous and inappropriate. Soapfan is definitely HERE, and does not appear to be a disruptive editor, so I don't actually think he deserves to have his past used against him like this. I've taken a look at LLM as well, and they appear to be a good faith, valuable editor as well, so I'm not going to BOOMERANG them over this. But I do think LLM has what I would characterize as a lack of patience, an abrasive communication style, and a tendency to become upset and emotional.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Mind you, this is all from this month. It's plain to see why LLM was chastised for his own conduct in previous reports. I approached this fully believing that LLM has been given a hard time, and that Soapfan has been let off easy. I want the record to strongly state that this is not true. This pattern of reporting Soapfan for every minor offense needs to stop. Not only is it hypocritical, given your own style of communication, but it is also unjustified, motivated by a personal grudge, and borders on harassment. If you come here with another unjustified complaint, this thread is going to come up, and if that happens, I would advise future responding admins to consider a boomerang for harassment. Enough is enough. Refrain from any form of unnecessary interaction with Soapfan, keep your comments restrained and civil, use talk pages and not edit summaries to communicate with others, and I don't want to see any more of these reports unless there is a serious violation. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, I don't know where you get the idea that it's OK to review the facts, examine your own preconceptions and prejudices, and change your opinion in the spirit of fairness and intellectual honesty. If that kind of behavior becomes the norm it could upset the entire ANI ecosystem. I have half a mind to propose you be blocked. EEng 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from Yudhacahyo

Today, this user had disruptive edits:

1. [50]: He moved page against RM consensus;
2. [51]: Unexplained removal references in this article.

Note that this user had some blocks previously. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yudhacahyo - Can you please explain these recent page moves that I'm seeing on your contribution history and your logs? I'm sure that there's a reasonable explanation for them, but I just want to get your response here so that we can make sure that everyone understands and that any issues are addressed and resolved. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Since this user did not respond over 24 hours, what should we do next? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since before this discussion was created, so we can't expect them to respond until they do. We'll just need to ask them for an explanation on their user talk page so that when they resume editing, they will see the request and have an opportunity to respond. Otherwise, this discussion will stale out and they may never see the request. If they don't respond after they've begun editing again, we'll need to take the situation from there and discuss options. For now, go ahead and leave a sincere and respectful message on their user talk page and request that they explain their edits and wait for their reply from there... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, the user moved National Stadium, Warsaw to National Stadium Warsaw without any attempt to communicate. Sjö (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

How was this editor able to delete the pre-existing Johan Cruyff Arena redirect page in the first place? I always thought only admins can delete pages? Thayts ••• 17:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOR. Pages can be moved to an existing redirect's title as long as there's no other page history. When this happens, the redirect is automatically deleted. Swarm ♠ 00:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for pointing that out! Thayts ••• 09:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Seems like they edited on May 16 [52], but there is no response here. Hhkohh (talk) 08:16, 18 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 [53].

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 [54] (as "function of a real variable" is the title of the article, the emphasize on "real-valued" was intentional), [55] (here also, emphasizing on domain was intentional]] [56] (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 [57] and [58] (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: [59], [60] (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:[61], [62]

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, [63] 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)

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)

Possible votestacking by TIAYN

Further to the above, can an administrator examine this edit by the involved user? The user has pinged from all possible users who have contributed to the previous talkpage discussions only those users whose views (as explicated in the corresponding antecedent sections) align with TIAYN's to contribute to a RFC discussion in what I think is a clear attempt to stack the votes. My instinct was to expunge from that section of the talkpage all of the content discussion subsequent to this edit by User:Edaham, and it seems like that action would be consistent with what User:DarthBotto wrote here where he said that "the kind Edaham stepped in as a mediator, so it looks like this has already been addressed", but I have decided to hold off against doing that as I am not certain if I actually have the power to remove that text. Wingwraith (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's okay for him to ping editors who are actively involved with the particular issue or discussion so that they're notified and can participate - so long as he doesn't try to get the attention and involvement of editors for the purpose of swaying the discussion outcome (such as only pinging those who have a clear point of view, or encouraging them to "vote" a certain way). This is typically evident in situations where users leave messages on other editors' talk pages, not with simple pings like this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we talk about the fact that he opened this DIRECTLY AFTER the above section was closed? Oshwah, you're the one giving this editor rope. Please talk some sense into them. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And for extra bonus points, per above Wingwraith posted a pretty spurious EW report (here), I foresee a 2-way IBAN here, if not a block. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, it should be addressed that Wingwraith simultaneously opened a case at the edit-warring noticeboard- like they're covering all their bases. These administrators' boards are getting littered by these two editors' battleground dispute. An interaction ban may be in order. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: I did not take TIAYN to task so you could do exactly to them what they're doing to you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a mistake in the above. I thought it was TIAYN making the filing. Poor show Wingwraith. I support an IBAN. --Tarage (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I don't see how my 3RR report was spurious as the user started edit warring on the related article immediately after s/he got off a week-long ban (as User:DarthBotto noted here) and @DarthBotto: It wasn't unreasonable for me to read it that way and you could have made the implications of what you were writing less ambiguous, but what's done is done and I'll leave that issue as your opinion on it conflicted with mine, I don't know what you mean by "covering my base" and to be sure I don't see how this is a frivolous filing as it's dealing with a legitimate conduct issue instead of a content dispute that I could have easily dealt with that user on the related talkpage had s/he cared to raise it there FIRST. Nevertheless in light of the comments here I am wiling to settle this matter by voluntarily withdrawing the report. Wingwraith (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction Ban

• I think a two-way interaction ban is probably needed. TBH it was probably needed in the last round of these back-and-forth "report each other to ANI and AN3 to cover all bases" reports. SQL^{Query me!} 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support this seems to be the only way to prevent one (or both) of these users from inevitably being banned from the project. I'm not 100% certain that this will avoid problems if both try to edit Communist Party-related articles, but it's worth a shot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if neither of them want the IBAN and promise to tone it down, it's not worth having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support This has gotten stupid. --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I also am fine with a topic ban or banning all together. Whatever gets the message across that they need to stop this bullshit. I support any fix here. --Tarage (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been pinged a few times during the course of these reports, surprisingly - as I was merely summoned by legobot to one of their RfCs and added some consiliatory notes to one of their heavier discussions below it. They are apparently both trying to improve the article, but need to understand the importance of collaborating in a friendly way. I don’t think an IBAN is the best way to do that. A short topic ban or even a short block might be in the pipeline if those concerned don’t pull their socks up, but these two need to be encouraged to work together, not prevented from doing so. Edaham (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose but knock it the hell off. Both of you need to take a month off Communist Party of China to give somebody else a chance to fix that junk. Carrite (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough and this has been too much. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's either this, or blocks start being handed out for disruptive editing each time one of these users attempt to accuse the other of "this and that" and "tit for tat"... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - 1RR between our interactions would work best. We are collaborating on the talkpage and the problem is not so serious to warrant an interaction ban as we are only having trouble over one article. FWIW you have my formal guarantee in light of this exchange to not simultaneously file multiple AN reports again. Wingwraith (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I gave it a day, to see how these two would interact and despite them going into it on the talk page with the stance that they'd sort it out, it's already deteriorated to personal attacks. I'm in full support of a two-way interaction ban. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We are sorting it out and there hasn't been a a personal attack made (at least not on my part). Corroborate that allegation or move on from it already. The exchanges have been testy but that's to be expected on any article where there's a disagreement, that said the language has been toned down and more people are now involved in the discussions so more progress should be made. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You are sorting nothing out. Before your reply, they called you "Stalinist" and after, they called you "stupid man", complemented by all sorts of bile. I commend you for not calling them names the way they have, but you're still engaging heavily with them. Do yourself a favor and step away from this dispute and allow the administrators to sort TIAYN out. That way, they'll likely get an extensive block and you'll emerge the better man in everyone's eyes. But, thus far, it's been shown that it's impossible for constructive discourse for the foreseeable future. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for that as the dispute has been resolved we've already shown that we can collaborate, TIAYN has promised to not edit the CPC article anymore and I'll take this as a final lesson on how best to engage with that and that type of editor in the future. At this point any further discussion about the IBAN proposal is just a waste of time so let's move on from this already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I've been observing this for a while and had a look at the most recent exchange on the talk page. Since these two can't sort their shit out then, as it's been brought to ANI, it's up to the community to do so. Blackmane (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We are sorting our shit out. Wingwraith (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

alternate proposal

The next time Wingwraith or TIAYN complain one about the other here, they both are instantaneously blocked for a month.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose because the incident report can be legitimate (it's irrelevant who files it). Like I said I think that a formal 1RR warning will do. Wingwraith (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think one of the combatants here has the insight to agree or disagree with limitations proposed by members of the community to stop there disruptive behavior. If they possessed and exercised such insight, none of this passion play would be unfolding before us.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But I do, to be sure the comments are free to anyone and the disruptive editing has stopped. I've already said that what I did was ill-advised and made a formal guarantee to not do that again. Emotions played a factor in all this I'll admit it and do better next time, but I don't see why you can't just issue a warning instead of going to the extreme of imposing a ban. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

alternate alternate proposal

1. Each of the involved parties should use the Template:Give_cake or similar on the other's profile along with a message, which if not straightforwardly complimentary, acknowledges the other's time spent contributing and commitment to a better article.
2. Both learn the phrase, "We're not getting anywhere fast on this point, but there's lots of other areas of the article we could work on (there really are). We don't have a deadline, why don't we file this for a bit and move onto something else." Edaham (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OTOH you can jump into the fray and (help) end it once and for all. Wingwraith (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact you consider it a "fray" looks to be reflective of a battleground mentality. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No because that's what it factually is. In any case we are collaborating, the language has been toned down and more people are now involved in the discussions so more progress should be made. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Asking both parties to just hug it out doesn't work and is condescending. --Tarage (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Asking both parties to just hug it out doesn't work" I don't believe this to be true. The recommendations at Wikipedia:Civility and at the essay Wikipedia:Apology would seem to suggest otherwise
  • There are five pillars which form the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. One of them is civility. Encouraging editors to abide by these principles is a good thing. You may find it condescending to be asked to act in what ever manner defuses a hostile or adversarial situation, but you can rest assured that the quarter of a teaspoonful of pride one has to swallow in order to assuage one's opponent in a debate is far outweighed by the benefits of collaborative engagement in article creation and maintenance. Hopefully both the involved parties will take this to heart with the result that we'll see much needed improvements to the articles they are editing in the near future. Edaham (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Being civil does not mean you have to in any way like a person or what they do. Slapping a barn star in the talk page of an editor you dislike and leaving a paltry "I like that you use periods" is stupid. Your proposal accomplishes nothing. --Tarage (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for your frank criticism. Edaham (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's over we've already shown that we can collaborate, TIAYN has promised to not edit the CPC article anymore and I'll take this as a final lesson on how best to engage with that and that type of editor in the future. Shit happened, we made mistakes, we admitted that we made our mistakes, we've both tried to fix them and not in some dumbass hug-it-out way. In any case you shouldn't be getting so self-righteous about this given the amount of NPA complaints that have been raised against you. At this point any further discussion about the whole IBAN proposal is just a waste of time so move on from this already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know this; I'll gladly stop to edit the Communist Party of China

Guys, if you think I'm the problem I'll gladly stop editing the Communist Party of China. No problem, as long as you get someone to actually fix the article, that doesn't need to be me. --TIAYN (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

here. @Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane:

I will however note this.... I have proven his edits breaches WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research.. Countless of times. Why on Earth can't you literally back that? If he can't prove the All-China Women's Federation is part of the CPC (its not, its an NGO) why on Earth don't you remove it?

I'll gladly stop editing that talk page, it makes me depressed communicating with @Wingwraith:. It really does. --TIAYN (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane: This will be my last edit on the CPC talk page for a while .... One last thing. I mean, you're saying me and Wingwraith are arguing.. Thats not correct, the majority in the talk page (even admin) wants to remove position and "authoritarian socialism" from the infobox—please count. This is not an arguement between me and Wingwraith (even if it may seem like it)... At last, while the edits regarding the women's wing, students wing and have not garnered as much attention, I have proven with WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research that they can't be there without referencing.

Again, my last edit. If you admins had actually done anything this would have been solved a long time ago. --TIAYN (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

At last, I hope don¨'t block me... 99% of my edits have been here User:Trust Is All You Need/Socialism the last day. I'll gladly follow a ban of anykind as long as I can continue to edit the infobox. Its going quite well, even if the lead is fucking terrible :P --TIAYN (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

One ping was enough. Please don't ping again. --Tarage (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think anyone has really raised an issue with the content creation, just the interaction between the two of you. An interaction ban does not prevent you from editing the article but you just need to abide by the restrictions against interacting with Wingwraith. Think of it this way, the community is voting on allowing the two of you to continue to play in the sandpit, just in opposite ends. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's over we've already shown that we can collaborate, TIAYN has promised to not edit the CPC article anymore and I'll take this as a final lesson on how best to engage with that and that type of editor in the future. At this point any further discussion about the whole IBAN proposal is just a waste of time so move on from this already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: That is very wrong. You're edits are misleading and need to be reverted in full. I'm saying the admins have to take responsibility for you're mess and willfull disregard of other users opinion. There is a clear majority against using the term authoritarian socialism in the talk page and of mentioning the political position... The admins here should take note of you're behavour. I only said i would stop for the time being, those edits will have to be reverted so as to give readers factual correct information. --TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

TO make it clear, I support a topic ban of both me and @Wingwraith: on the article "Communist Party of China". The other editors should be allowed to sort out the mess that is the infobox.. Me & Wingwraith has lost that right. Considering that the majority is against Wingwraith, I trust they will make the correct decisions. --TIAYN (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I actually think the solution here is for both Trust AND Wingwraith to step aside from this article for at least 30 days so that someone else or multiple others can work over that infobox without stupid drama following every change. It would be healthiest if neither one came back to it, frankly. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To expand: I think both are capable of doing good work. There are a million articles that could use their input; this is a "big issue = big controversy" article that is in need of a serious diet, showing signs of arteriosclerosis... Neither one NEEDS to work on that stuff, there are dozens of other editors fully capable of working on it. So both of you go do something productive somewhere else and just wave goodbye to the overstuffed deep-fried cheeseburger piece... It will survive without either of you. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban

@Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane: I support an interaction ban of both me and Wingwraith on the "Communist Party of China".. I hope you can further discuss this proposal. The other users should be allowed to reach a solution to this. Me and Wingwraith clearly aren't able too. --TIAYN (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Note, when I say ban I mean "TIAYN and Wingwraith are not allowed to edit the Communist Party of China article and its talk page for a given time period (conceivable 1-2 week) so that the other users, partaking the discussion, can reach a solution." --TIAYN (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@DOR (HK), Soman, Martopa, Wkbreaker, 113.128.150.197, Zanhe, Miacek, Vif12vf, Edaham, Carrite, and Rgr09: You've been pinged because you participated in the talk page discussion at the Communist Party of China article. If you agree with my proposal, to ban both me and Wingwraith from the Communist Party of China article and its talk page for a given time period, to implement a new version which fixes the following problems; (1) authoritarian socialism (should it be included or not), (2) political position (should it be included or not) and (3) the student wing, women's wing, and the united front (and more) sections in the infobox. If you do support a ban for a given time period to be enforced by administrators, please vote support. If you don't agree, vote oppose. --TIAYN (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. I'm not going to ask again. --Tarage (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Do i need to make further comments or is voting enough? Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support at least 60 days. Though due to Wingwraith's inability to acknowledge the problem, W may need a 2-3 month block instead.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Totally Support. In order to appease the general atmosphere on this article. --Martopa (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support: It doesn't get much plainer than this. This has gotten completely out of hand. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 15:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, although I don't think a ban is necessary for both parties. Only one seems intent on introducing a bias. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it's coming from the other/your side. Wingwraith (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Non-issue as we haven't been interacting on that talkpage already and it's not likely that the ban will get the problems solved as the editors pinged haven't been active enough on the tp (especially based on how infrequently they've edited the article). Maybe that will change with this discussion but there's reason to be doubtful as nobody involved has yet to even edit that article while this has been going on. At the very least I don't see the need to be this formal about it when we can just recuse ourselves from editing the article. @Dlohcierekim: I will fight a block of that sort if you do impose it, there was no reason for you to make that recommendation/threat. That sanction would be understandable if I was edit warring et al but I haven't been doing any of that. Wingwraith (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support @Wingwraith: doesn't understand he is the problem, and I can't fix it. No man, no problem—if we are out of the picture maybe, just maybe, we can solve it. --TIAYN (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't get it the issues won't get solved because the editors you've pinged don't seem to care to get them solved. Wingwraith (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support the page ban, in conjunction with the previous interaction ban. Even if the page ban went up to 90 days, I wouldn't be against it. As a side note, I'm less than impressed with Wingwraith's overall attitude displayed in this discussion and would not be surprised if a block gets levied down the track.~ Blackmane (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To be sure if I do get blocked I'll see to it that it's not for this. I haven't done anything throughout the discussion but to try to resolve it as peacefully as possible. I can take criticism (in fact I've taken aboard a bit from this discussion), but at the same time I'm not going to act all cute and dramatic as if I have no right of reply to them either. No battleground mentality from me here, on the CPC page I'll admit I could have done better but here I'm coming in with the same mentality that everybody else comes in with: be fair but firm. It's not like I'm desperate to get the last word in in response to any criticism that comes my way. Wingwraith (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Please close this thread I’ve been RfC summoned and pinged to this thread multiple times. In exchange for coming here and commenting as requested, I’ve been flat out ridiculed for my suggestion that the parties involved simply solve their issues by following civility guidelines and generally being nice to each other. In fact the only thing the involved parties seem to concur on is their extreme distaste for my idea that they should collaborate politely. Further more this use of the administrator’s notice board is a totally frivolous extension of the talk page discussions which have led to these irreconcilable differences between the involved editors. This isn’t the place to attempt to accrue currency for whatever position an editor is pushing on an article. The talk pages of the article serve that purpose more than adequately. Edaham (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: First, sorry! Secondly, I want to have a civilised talk with Wingwraith, but its impossible. I really wish I could. Look at the discussion; he says I support even if I've written how many times that I oppose his conception. He's forcing his views upon others. He should be blocked... I want to be able to talk civilised with him, but he refuses. --TIAYN (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

DRN/Formal Mediation

What about just taking the dispute straight to DRN or RFM? Even if the IBAN/TBAN was imposed I don't think that the dispute will be resolved by a discussion on the tp given how divided the opinions there are. Wingwraith (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I'm about ready to recommend you both be blocked as a waste of time. Go edit something else already. --Tarage (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

An user disruptively contested a move and added unencylopedic information to Century Square, Singapore

Background: I moved the contents from Century Square, Singapore to Century Square (as mentioned in the entire string of edit summaries about the move) - mainly due to no other Century Square , therefore, no need to disambug such pages. I also removed WP:NOTGUIDE issues and added sources, however, all the efforts get undone in just one undo and saying it is not valid and the user just reverted."(Undo. Not valid edit.)" This can be a mere content dispute, which should be done at talk page, and the move can be a requested contented move. Which all of those 2 will make AN/I an inappropriate forum. However, I chanced upon the talkpage of the user, a checkuser had indefinitely banned the account due to disruption [64]. This will warrant an AN/I to make sure why the block was evaded and repeated warnings have been there for content disruption before [65]. In the entire story, I am jsut making sure the page can comply to standards by adding a reference [66]. This was partially rescued by an IP, but the page get covoluted afterwards, [67].

User involved: Razerby96

User Informed: [68]

--Quek157 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

--Checkuser: Drmies

-- Addition, this user have been moving all malls in Singapore from X to X, Singapore (to prevent confusion of malls worldwide), isn't that not the reason why disambug, if there are more than 1 then we do such disambug?? All the malls in Singapore seems affected [69] --Quek157 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The block of Razerby96 was erroneous, and they were unblocked the next day.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Response - Replied at talkpage [70], glad to clarified that it was erroneous. Will withdrawn this and end with a level 1 warning of disruptive editing as nothing seems right after they reverted (one of reliable sources get removed in the process also), thanks the IP for firefighting also. --Quek157 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Westleft and music articles, especially articles about Whitney Houston

In 2015, I became aware of Westleft (talk · contribs). As noted at Westleft's talk page back then, I observed that Westleft was marking edits as WP:Minor when they weren't, and stating that things were a grammar correction when they weren't, and removing article content simply because he or she didn't like it. This was especially the case with regard to Whitney Houston articles. It was clear to me that the editor has a bias against Houston. Here you can see Westleft deceptively marking an edit as minor edit and removing material he or she didn't like. Here you can see Westleft removing a sourced paragraph and calling it a grammar correction. Here Westleft is removing a sourced mention of Houston. Looking at Westleft's edits back then, I saw this editing pattern over and over again. And so I warned Westleft again and again, as seen here and here. In that latter case, I addressed Westleft about editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. Westleft went silent and started editing as an IP because I'd warned that I would be bringing him/her here to ANI. After sometime, I didn't see Westleft anymore.

But just today, I saw that the editor had returned to the Whitney Houston article and to other articles, and was back to editing in the same problematic way. That is seen with this edit, where Closeapple reverted him or her and stated, "do not falsify quotes just because you think only men should be allowed to critique each other." I reverted all of Westleft's recent edits because I knew they were mostly or solely nothing but deceptive editing and removing things on an "I don't like it" basis. And sure enough, that's exactly what the edits are. I haven't yet looked at more of this editor's recent edits, but I'm sure it's mainly the same across the board. Because of Westleft's repeated deceptive WP:Edit summaries, incorrect use of WP:Minor and WP:Disruptive editing, I believe that he or she should be indefinitely blocked. The editor has had three years to change the problematic behavior, and clearly hasn't. Instead, the editor has repeatedly ignored warnings about editing in this way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Westleft (talk) I take issue with the way Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), has characterized myself in the post. When I was contacted by he/she in 2015, I told he/she that I was not editing on the basis that I didn't like something, that I wouldn't do that. I asked a question about editing and was told by Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), that maybe I should ask another use who was on my talk page as he/she seemed to be my friend. I didn't find Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) to be helpful or welcoming. I realized that one should always be leaving comments on edits. I have never editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, I've forgotten to logged in, unintentionally, and noticed and logged in and left a message. But regardless of that, I have read through wikipedia policies on editing and have left detailed description of edits.

Dealing with the current issue brought by up by Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), in regards to Closeapple revert, I merely suggested in the edit I made, that the reference being an opinion and not fact, that we shouldn't use a reference or part of a reference that knocks other artists. Closeapple obviously disagrees. The edits I made can be viewed, and I provided as much information as I could. For example ...the claim that Whitney was the first female played in heavy rotation on MTV, or that was the first female to have consisted heavy rotation on MTV, are false. Her first video was played on MTV and first in heavy rotation (Jan 86) this was 2 years and 5 months after the first female artist to be played in heavy rotation Aug 83. Whitney never had her videos played in consisted heavy rotation nor did she have prominence on the station as in the commentary on her bio page. First 2 videos being played in early 86, it was over year before the next video was played on the station it in heavy rotation. Her 4th (DWAHIA) video did not get place in heavy rotation and last only two weeks on MTV rotation, as her 7th video (OMIT) was played for only 2 weeks and dropped from rotation (fall 88). It would over 2 years before another video would be played for (IYBT) on the station the subsequent 4 videos that followed were not played on MTV, anti would be another 2 years before the the she would be played on MTV. In Short in 5 years (86, 87, 88, 89, 90), MTV played 8 of 14 videos released by Whitney in relation to her first 3 albums, and 6 of those placed in heavy rotation. Tina Turner and Janet Jackson were prominent on the station during those years. The commentary on the page also alleges that Whitney opened doors for Janet Jackson, which again is not factual, both Houston and Jackson took off in 1986. With Jackson having 5 videos played on MTV, between Houston's 2 and 3 videos; and having her 6th and 4th in heavy rotation at the same time as Houston's 3rd, with her video (IMUM) staying in heavy rotation 3 weeks longer that (IWDWS). Houston was billboards Pop Artist, and Albums artist of the year 86, Jackson was Billboards Black Artist and Singles Artist of the year. So commentary is not supported by fact or history. A lot of the commentary on the page is not supported by the reference left on the page. It wouldn't seem to me that Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) cares about the facts or truths. Is it not wikipedia policy, to remove something one knows to be untrue or not factual. The Whitney Houston bio page and her related pages are a problem. I have noticed information changing back and forth, when she passed someone added 5 millions in sales to all her albums. There have been inflated sales, RIAA certifications, award claims etc throughout her pages. With the information fluctuating it just cannot be myself, that has made edits or attempted to make correction to the pages. Perhaps Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) should have looked at my edits, instead of falsely assuming that I was changing things "just didn't like".

I must say I am disheartened by this attitude of editors not caring about truth or facts when wikipedia suppose (an encyclopedia of fact) to be factual. This false or incorrect information has been on this bio page for years, and is part of the reason that many people take issue with wikipedia. Please do read through my edits on the Whitney Houston bio page. Westleft (talk)

• Note: Anyone is free to examine what actually went on at Westleft's talk page. He or she responded once, and did not respond again. He or she repeatedly ignored warnings. And as for being cordial to someone actively editing the way Westleft was/is editing, I was stern and harsh for a reason. I did not trust the editor editing, and I noted so. Still, I took the time to ask NeilN how to approach this matter more delicately, and I noted so on Westleft's talk page. It obviously did not work. It is clear to anyone who simply glances at Westleft's contributions that he or she is still misusing the minor button, for example. And as for behavior, it is exactly like I stated above. Westleft does not care what the sources state. Westleft does what he or she wants and messes up the accuracy of articles. Even if the content is inaccurate, we go by what the sources state per WP:Verifiability. A counter source should be used to prove or indicate inaccuracy; Westleft does not do that. He or she simply changes and deletes text to his or her liking. Here, at the Whitney Houston (album) article, is Westleft changing "beating Carole King's record with Tapestry" to "equalling Carole King's record with Tapestry." Where's the source for that change? And here Westleft is at it again. The text stated, "But in '88 Jody Watley, who had been a lead vocalist in Shalamar which first charted in 1977, won the best new artist Grammy." Westleft changed the material to remove "lead vocalist," stating, "I believe that this has already been address, Jody Watley was not the lead singer for Shalamar - Howard Hewitt was - and she was not with the group in 1977 !" The source, however, clearly states, "lead vocalist." And that's just two more examples of Westleft's biased and "I don't like it" editing. Keep in mind that this editor edits sporadically. Either way, there are many examples just like those. This editor cannot be trusted to edit here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Westleft (talk) In regards to the the edits referenced above, the claim of surpassing Carole King didn't ring true, as I had read Billboard magazine faithfully for years (78-88). The supporting reference is/was not reachable on the page. I myself look at a 2015 Billboard article on Tapestry the album, which states that Carole King's album spend 46 weeks in the top 10. Then found a mention in Billboard's August 23, 1986 issue ,in chart beat saying that Whitney has equalled Carole King. The reference in regard to Jody Watley, does state incorrectly that she was the lead singer. Don Cornelius retooled Shalamar at the end of 1979 with Soul Train dancer's Jody Watley and Jeff Daniel. Howard Hewitt was the lead singer for the group. I know this because of an older sibling who bought their albums. I don't see how correcting a page or articles's inaccuracies, messes up the accuracy. Also the attitude of, even if the content is inaccurate, it should be left there; if there is a reference that can be found to support it's inaccuracy... seems very questionable. I don't recall repeated warnings, from Fyler22 Reborn, and as stated before I do remember asking for editing help, and being told to ask someone else. The way I was addressed from he/she was never helpful or cordially, just accusatory. But I guess that can be seen on here. I feel that this is a case of not caring about the truth, or accuracy. But don't correct anything in relation to Whitney Houston. So in essence what is being said by Fyler22 Reborn, is if you cannot find a reference to support the facts/truth, the supported misrepresentations should remain. I have only recently became aware revert/undo - the viewed source button etc... all my edits have been done manually. I am not the best at referencing (as I have found it's not as simple as finding the web cache), and have become aware that there are better ways to reference - so it automatically goes into the system, as a opposed to just putting the cache between the reference points. As I have stated above there is a problem with references that do not support the claims made in the commentary, of which we our discussing. And if you look at the references, you can see it for yourself. I can give you many examples, but at this point it's just back and forth. As far as me being an editor not to be trusted. As you can see for yourself I am trying to clean up the misinformation Westleft (talk)

False accusations by an editor

Hi,

I'm an author who specializes in the subject of baijiu (Chinese liquor). I have written extensively on the subject and recently began working for an American-based baijiu brand as an educator, a fact about which I have been publicly transparent. As my job is essentially to explain what baijiu is to the public and media, I was getting tired of seeing many misstatements and errors in the baijiu wikipedia page getting repeated. So about a month ago I began going through it line-by-line, adding needed context where it was missing, deleting factually incorrect statements and brand marketing spin, and reorganizing the content to be more orderly.

I finished my edit today with plans to go back and add independent sources for all of the new information over the next few weeks when I have time. Sadly, I was greeted by a message on my talk page from one of your editors Anna Frodesiak alerting me that she had deleted several links I had put up because of my potential conflict of interest. This confused me, as I had only inserted internal links to other wikipedia pages, but then she alerted me of an anonymous edit made from a New York IP address that linked to my company's web page, and accused me of covertly promoting my business. I informed her this was not the case, that I lived in Jerusalem (and was home when the edit was made), that the edit twice misspelled baijiu (I have written two books about baijiu and know how to spell it), and was unaware of the edit. Still she continued accusing me of being behind the anonymous edit and publicly questioned my integrity on both her and my talk pages.

This is highly inappropriate, and I think exactly the kind of behavior your guidelines warn against. Going back and reviewing her edits, I see that she also deleted another mention of my work posted by a competing brand several years ago, which feels punitive, but I don't ultimately care whether or not the entry makes any mention of me or my work. What I do mind is having my integrity publicly questioned by a stranger. Particularly when I was just trying to use my knowledge to improve a public service.

Thank you for your attention, Derek Sandhaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Sandhaus (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd say Anne is spot on about your WP:COI. I would add that you might want to consider reading and heeding WP:PAID.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagreed. If you or Anna Frodesiak suspect sockpuppetry, the right thing to do is open an WP:SPI rather than accuse somebody of WP:PAID editing by using the actions of an IP address as evidence. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexEng:I said nothing about socking. I said the user has a COI.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: the user knows that he has a COI, as he made clear in his original post. You said I'd say Anne is spot on about your WP:COI. So if you're not referring to the comment she made about the contribution of an IP editor (who added Derek Sandhaus's place of business) , then what were you referring to? AlexEng^(TALK) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the following, if you are unaware. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Wile we appreciate expertise, we depend on information sources unconnected with subjects.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Noted with thanks. I'll be sure to cite everything that I added with reliable third-party sources. If there was someone else to clean up the mess of that entry, I'd happily let them do it. It seemed to me the choice was either I let a bunch of false information carry on or I fix it myself. I opted for the latter. Didn't think anyone would mind.Derek Sandhaus (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the editor just told me to f*** myself, so I guess that's that. I'll just forget about them and just proceed to cite my sources as originally planned. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, an English IP editor did that, not Anna ([71]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It was signed with her name? How can you tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Sandhaus (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The editor was not logged in. In this edit, you can see at the upper right side the editor was 213.205.240.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well this corner of the internet is as lovely as the rest of them, I suppose. Glad I'm not a regular. I'll finish my piece and move on.Derek Sandhaus (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In my defense:

• The article is seldom edited.
• The edit was squeezed in using a dynamic IP between Derek Sandhaus' edits.
• The edit contained an external link to a company Derek Sandhaus recently joined.
• The IP's edit summary started "Adding...".
• Three edits later, Derek Sandhaus' edit summary started "Adding...".
• The last time someone started an edit summary at Baijiu with "Adding..." was 269 edits ago, eight years ago.
• Out of the 524 edits to Baijiu, three have used "Adding...": Elonka in 2010, ‎the IP, and Derek Sandhaus three days after the IP.
• I did not start an SPI because the IP is dynamic.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that edit wasn't me, and I don't see much point in trying to convince you any further. You will however be pleased to know that I went back and cited sources for everything in my article last night and this morning, wishing to be done with this and remove any lingering questions about my edits/additions. Feel free to let me know if you think I missed anything that requires sourcing. In the future when someone tells you they didn't do something and doesn't make any attempt to reverse your edits, I suggest politely taking their word for it. Editing a wikipedia entry was a very disappointing experience, one that I don't care to prolong or repeat. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear you sourced the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is no way to resolve this. That the IP added blatant spam is undeniable. The WP:APPARENTCOI, that Derek might be the IP is very clear. The evidence presented by Anna is very strong, but it is still inference; the thing is, we cannot know. Derek has said it wasn't him. Experienced editors know that this may or may not be true. Everybody should just move on. If Derek is here to build an encyclopedia that will show itself over time; if he is here for promotion that too will show itself over time. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I recommend in the future everyone start with this guideline rather than harassing well-meaning newcomers. It's unlikely I will be making many return trips to the editing function on this site, you can keep it. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Derek Sandhaus. Please stop being combative and defensive. Anna's concerns were entirely justified and your reaction has been brittle and overblown. Your response here is not one of resilience and understanding of what the rest of us see (and that you might see too one day). Please let this go and focus on learning how to work here. If you continue being defensive and brittle you will not last long here - you will leave angry or end up causing such disruption that you might find your editing privileges restricted or removed. Wikipedia is open to everyone (and there is radical good faith in that alone), and we value that openness greatly, but when people refuse to learn and just keep fighting, the privilege of editing Wikipedia can be restricted or removed. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: the editor has a good point. You're not helping the situation by asking people to just move on in one breath after having accused the editor of misconduct in the last. Warning Derek Sandhaus of a block is uncalled for bitey behavior, and I'll ask that you follow your own advice and just move on. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing by copying an article into a sandbox, editing there, and pasting over the page in mainspace

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

---

• Rap Chart Mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count

Rap Chart Mike is a fairly new editor who has developed a style of editing, where they copy an article into a sandbox, edit it there, and paste over the page in mainspace.

For example at Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine):

• copied page and pasted it into a sandbox perhaps with some changes already made
• made further changes there - diff series
• overwrote the page with the new version -- diff

Also did that with Religious skepticism:

• pasting into sandbox
• revising it
• overwrite

And several others, per their contribs.

In my view this is not good because a) it breaks the chain of WP:ATTRIBUTION, and on a more practical level, it makes it very hard to figure out what changed exactly. It took me about two hours to identify what was new and what was old at Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine), and then to fix the mess. Some of that work is at Talk:Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)#refs.

I asked RSM to stop doing this and they are not interested in that; see here.

Not looking for admin action necessarily (although breaking attribution is pretty serious and they were warned about this by User:Diannaa in this diff) but rather input; am hoping we can convince this person to edit normally. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are no intervenien edits between the version grabbed to sandbox and the one pasted back to mainspace, that should have zero impact as to someone doing a single massive edit in the edit field. Obviously if there were interveining edits and those contributions are not kept as they were, that's potentially problematic. --Masem (t) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I do check for that as clearly more work can be done in the interim between the initial copy and the paste of the rework. The pages I have worked in that fashion thus far have been pages that were largely dormant of activity up until I touched them.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"touch them up" is not accurate. As you said here: Full rework and here, Full rewrite and expansion from stub status. Please don't misrepresent what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Touch them up" is not what I said. Please don't misrepresent what I'm doing. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you have a problem with someone doing a "full rework" by any other route? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that RCM started the sandbox on May 9 [72] and brought it over a few days later, and there were zero edits between those points on the mainspace, this isn't actionable. What if an editor copied an article, worked it offline, and uploaded the revised version? We can't act on that. The only thing I would suggest that if this is done on wiki, that RCM include diffs links in edit summaries (the diff to the current mainspace aritlce when copying to sandbox, and the diff from the sandbox version copied back to the main article) to keep some type of chain of authority. --Masem (t) 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masem, that I can do going forward no problem. It's a sensible suggestion I should have though of.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Rap Chart Mike other folks seem to be finding what you are doing to be OK. If you are going to keep doing it, make sure that the initial paste, with that attributing diff, is the actual page only, and doesn't have additional changes. If you save that edit with changes then it becomes really impossible to see what you have done. Also please don't change the citation style when you work over articles, if it is clearly established in the version you copy. And please use edit notes to explain what you are changing, as you go in your sandbox or in mainspace. OK? Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify I wanted to respond here. Leaving notes seems an acceptable idea. I'm not really understanding what you mean by copying the page with changes. I just copy what is there as it stand and paste it to go to work. As far as I've noticed nothing I touched so far has had any intervening changes that were affected by my edits or in conflict with them. As far as citation style goes, when live editing I do preserve the inline editing style but during a full rewrite and/or work over I find it tough to read what I'm doing and so the footnote style (I guess we call it that?). Not getting why its an issue if it's a full re-do.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are rewriting the article from scratch, you can arguably change the citation style. If all you are doing is revising it (and that is all that you are doing, as you explicitly said here) then WP:CITEVAR applies. This is part of why I think your approach is not good; it creates an illusion that there is no continuity, but there is a great deal of continuity - you keep a bunch of the content and sourcing (even very bad pre-existing content and sourcing, as you had done with the repressed memory article, as we discussed at the sandbox talk page)

You keep flipping your discourse. Above you said "touch up", but just above here and in edit notes you say "complete rewrite". What you are actually doing, is just a series of normal, everyday edits, like we all do, albeit in this convoluted, nontransparent way. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I just want to point out as I am sure this is just a good faith misreading, but nowhere did he say touch up. He said he touched the articles. Touch up and Touched mean two different things. -DJSasso (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is no problem with this. MediaWiki is smart enough to give good minimal diffs, no matter whether they edit, paste or re-type an article from scratch.

If your issue is with making large changes in one atomic saved edit change, then that's a different issue. I would agree that some forms of this are clearer in the history than others. But saving thousands of one letter changes isn't great either, and long history here is that neither has any consensus strongly either for or against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this a problem? Are they overwriting other editor's edits? Otherwise, it's no different than editing on the page itself. And make a few large edits is often less annoying than dozens of small edits in a row on the same page. Natureium (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is an issue. I am pretty sure we even encouraged people to do this at one point so that they wouldn't have millions of tiny edits in the edit history and would avoid conflicts. As long as they aren't blowing away other peoples intervening edits then this is actually a good way to go about things. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, folks are disagreeing with me. That is what it is. I strongly prefer incremental edits which makes it much easier to see exactly what the editor is doing. For a new editor like RSM this is especially important for them to learn how things work. As you can see at Talk:Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)#refs, they kept a bunch of crappy sources that never should have been there at all, and added some poor sources including a predatory publisher, along with the some very good ones. They did post at the talk page asking for the changes to be reviewed, waited one day, then noted that they were implementing the changes... but this is like some school assignment where experienced editors are asked to be TAs. I have no desire to be somebody's TA - this is way too demanding.

it would be more tolerable if there was an initial paste of the exact page into the sandbox (with the attribition in the edit note) then diffs for the changes made, so at least the specific changes could be looked at over there in the sandbox. But RSM often includes edits in their initial saved edit in the sandbox, which makes that impossible. This is not normal editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually find it much much harder to read an edit history when there are a tonne of tiny changes, large single changes make it much easier to read what is happening all in one shot. With many small changes I have to click back and forth a tonne of times to find what I am looking for which makes its a huge burden and makes it much easier to miss something. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I almost always click "← next-to-last editor" when someone edits more than once in a row. I want to see all they've changed, not all the incremental changes. Natureium (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I end up doing that a lot as well. But sometimes I need to find what actual edit made a certain change so that it can be reverted or something like that or so I can get a diff to post in a discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What isn't normal about this? Attribution is the same as it would be if they had edited in the box. They made the changes, and their name is attached. That's attribution. The diffs are the same no matter where they did the editing. It's pretty much the same as using the preview button.

Jytdog, do you use wikEdDiff? If not, that might help. It shows exactly what words are changed instead of the whole section. Natureium (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No i don't any fancy plugins or scripts. Just whatever the default software is. I'll look at that one. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally forgot that I am using that, it does make a huge difference. It really should be the default. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Same with revisionjumper. I didn't realize that wasn't default until I double checked after I mentioned it above. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I just enabled it and tried it on this diff. Not helpful. I feel people are responding abstractly and not to what it is like to work with this kind of editing, concretely. Again it was about two hours out of my day to sort out what this person had done. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You clicked the ∆, right? I think people are responding in the abstract because they aren't finding an issue with the editor's edits. It doesn't seem like a problem to me. Natureium (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we are a little stunned that someone is complaining about it. I am having a hard time trying to see where its hard to understand his edit. I literally recommend to new users to do exactly what you are complaining about because it stops people from jumping all over their edits before they are done and stops them from being scared off. It used to be atleast in my opinion the way most editors who were doing major edits to pages did things. Don't know if it is still the case. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a good practice and especially helpful for new editors. I used to use the preview button instead of saving a large number of small edits, but I've been lazier about that lately. Natureium (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No i didn't click the ∆! OH! Now I see. Well i learned something. Thanks for your time. I am going to wait to see RSM's response to my note to him above about making the initial paste with no changes and will then withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I can work with this method, if the initial paste is the actual page and not the page-with-changes already made, and there are edit notes explaining the changes made in the sandbox. The normal editing needs to happen somewhere so that specific diffs can be pointed to, and discussed. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You said, "But RSM often includes edits in their initial saved edit in the sandbox" What does that mean? I just copy the article, leave a note on the talk page, do my work on it in a sandbox and paste it back in. Before pasting back in I check to see if its been changed in a manner that matters to my rewrite. Are you suggesting that I should document everything that I do and leave each sand box for posterity? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean like this. That was the first edit you saved in your sandbox of the Repressed memory page. As we discussed on that page's talk page, that was not a copy of the article - it was a copy with changes already made. That is what you should not do, because there is no diff of the initial set of changes. You should paste the article exactly, save it, then start making changes, so there are clear diffs of all the changes to the original version. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what that initial set of changes was. So what if you can't diff it then? You can certainly diff it when they paste it back in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

People should be making careful edits somewhere, with edit notes explaining what they are doing. This is WP 101 stuff. And no the details are not easy to see, without spending a shitload of time. WP content and sourcing is specific when you are actually editing. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And again, this is a new editor. Without specific diffs to show them mistakes, it is very hard for them to learn. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is some excellent advice and information here for someone new at this. Very enlightening stuff folks.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty much the opposite of collaborative editing. If there is disagreement about any of the changes, be prepared for a reversion of your entire edit, and then do it the normal way, one change at a time. Other editors should be able to have input on each change, and that can be single letters, numbers, formatting, and sources. We're a team here, not a one-man show.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Who says that is "the normal way"? You absolutely cannot revert an edit in full because you disagree with one aspect. You need to remove the aspect you disagree with. That's collaborative editing. Natureium (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I've run into this a lot with political articles. There is a small group of editors in the habit of reverting all edits that they can find something disagreeable with. If they think your addition was grammatically incorrect, they'll remove everything instead of working collaboratively. I've mostly been actively avoiding improving political articles because of this extremely aggressive practice. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be wrong. I'm talking about multiple changes in one large edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But there's also nothing wrong with making multiple changes in one large edit. You can remove whatever changes you think are bad, but you can't revert a whole edit just because you disagree with one of the changes made. You need to remove just that change. Natureium (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Naturium that is just bizarre. Making a whole series of edits off WP (normally, like all of us do every day, but some where else,) and that dumping that whole thing into mainspace is just ick. It matters what is in mainspace. I will always revert a big dump like that if I find a couple of things that are bad. Always Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And that would be disruptive editing, if you did it enough it could easily lead to a block. If there is something wrong with an edit you remove the bad part you just don't blanket revert everything. -DJSasso (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh no. You and I have not interacted before which is odd as we have both been around a long time. Although I see that this is because (obviously) we work on very different topics usually. But not even here or some other notice board. Odd. In any case, you are apparently some kind of "every sperm is sacred" person; I focus on high quality, NPOV content, mostly on content about health and medicine. In my view every sperm is not sacred; lots of edits harm WP. I think it is good that we don't cross paths much! Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Believe me, I revert a lot. Lots of edits do harm WP and deserve to be reverted. But reverting large portions of good content to just get rid of a small amount of problematic content hurts Wikipedia. Since you edit health articles perhaps the analogy of using a scalpel instead of amputating the entire limb is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen this approach as a requirement for collorative editing, and is very much an anti-thesis to how we accept editors making large-scale revisions of articles. If this was being done on a very active article, yes, it would be a problem, but it's clearly not the case with any of the articles in question. And there's no difference about doing this in an offline editor and bringing those changes into the main article, either. --Masem (t) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe I should explain the context better. Rap Sheet Mike reached out to me to review their "improvement" (also called "my work") to the Repressed memory page, after they made this series of edits to Fecal microbiota transplant, after which I made this series cleaning that up and fixing other problems, and then left this note at their talk page. I had never edited the Repressed memory page nor its talk page.

When I got to their sandbox, it looked like this. Never having seen the actual article, I just started looking at it, and very quickly saw that it was a) not good, and b) very, VERY LONG. A shitload of work for anybody to review and provide meaningful feedback on. Really - before anybody responds to this, go look at that page as it stood there and imagine what kind of feedback you might give. Go look at the history of that sandbox and even try to figure out where the history for this "improvement" starts. really, go try. When you find the initial version, try to figure out if that is the original pasted version, or something else. You will pretty soon ask yourself, why am I using my time to do all this digging around, just figuring out what the hell I am looking at?

Like I said I just treated the page like its own thing after that realization hit me. The page was awful on a bunch of levels and I said so. This was for some reason upsetting to RSM, and it turned out that the parts I was criticizing, were not their work..

I found that bizarre. If you want me to look at a diff, show me the diff. If you want me to review a huge half-plagiarized thing, understand that if the parts you plagiarized suck, they suck.

The way that RSM is working, is not a good way of working. It is a waste of experienced volunteers' time, and not a good way for new users to learn, because what the new user actually did, is completely unclear without a shitload of digging by other people. I am not a TA and nobody here is a TA. I will gladly review some diffs, but not a whole, huge, half-plagiarized thing presented as "my improvement".

I don't understand why experienced editors here are not grasping this. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is why I said above - if RSM or anybody else wants to work this way --

1. make an initial paste of the page into a sandbox, and attribute that per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (easy for somebody else to find it, and honors the whole attribution thing)
2. go ahead and edit that, and use edit notes on each edit, to say what you are doing in each edit. This is what edit notes are for. We all expect this.
3. If you want somebody to review that final version in the sandbox, then fine. They can easily pull up the big diff or walk through the small ones, and any specific edit can be diffed and discussed on the talk page.
4. if alternatively you want to then turn and overwrite the page in mainspace, do your dump, and in the edit note clearly attribute with a diff back to your sandbox, and people can go there and see the individual diffs. (this alternative is VERY not preferred in my view)
5. either way, the attributions, the transparency, and showing of the editing steps with clear edit notes is 100% standard practice.

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that this isn't 100% standard practice. Not even close. The only thing we require and even then it isn't mandatory is a an edit summary on the edit when they post back to the main article. Everything in a sandbox is considered ephemeral and the sandbox itself is often deleted when its done being used. As numerous people above have mentioned we treat a sandbox the same way we would treat someone copying it to an offline editor like Word and then posting their changes into Wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That is wrong. WP:CWW and common sense both require attribution when copying anywhere within Wikipedia. Also, collaboration requires explanation so if someone copies Example into their sandbox they need to give a clue in the edit summary that it comes from Example for others, in addition to WP:CWW copyright policy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well yes the copy to the sandbox does need to say hey I copied it from the original. I was more talking about the keeping the sandbox as a permanent history of every change the editor made with edit summaries to everything they do in their sandbox. The copying back to the article however does not per WP:NOATT. (assuming no one else has edited in their sandbox) -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I said "permanent" no where, and it is kind of ugly that you are implying I did. I understand that you are getting all passionate about this, but please don't start distorting things. This is a new user, remember? Everybody should use good edit notes all the time, but especially somebody who is trying to learn the ropes here, should be urged to use edit notes and describe what they are doing. Communicating with other people in the flow of editing is essential to what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not passionate about this in the slightest, I could pretty much care less, I would argue it is yourself who is. You completely implied permanent by indicating that the sandbox would be there for people to go back and look at the edits individually. If they aren't there permanently then that can't be done. So yes, you did indicate permanently. -DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember ever disagreeing with Jytdog (talk · contribs) before, but I have literally no idea what the problem is here. If Rap isn't including an attribution in his sandbox creation that's a small issue, but compressing dozens of edits by one person into a single edit does not "break attribution". As others have said, if there are no intervening edits, and I'll add, if Rap is the only person editing his sandbox, then there's no problem at all. I've done this, lots of people have done this. You don't have to record each incremental change in a series when one person is responsible for all of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using a sandbox to develop edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is true, there is not a thing wrong with using a sandbox to develop edits. That is not what is going on here! It is rewriting of whole articles, where the whole article is then copied over with the revised content.

Maybe this is a subject matter thing. People don't work that way in health or medicine. Nor have I seen this done on any bios I watch. The only people I see doing things even close to this in health and medicine are students. Paid editors sometimes offer up whole drafts in their sandboxes too. Do people partially rewrite whole articles (Keeping much of the old content and sourcing -- even unsourced content and bad sources -- and adding new content and sourcing in some places) in their sandbox and then do complete overwrites in other topics? (real question!) It is this mix, of bad old content and sourcing, sometime reordered and sometimes left in place, in combination with new content, that has been crazy-making for me, with no easy way to tell what is old and new Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (clarifying Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC))

If you're implying I'm a paid editor then I'm going to have introduce my own action. There is no basis for that accusation other than your clear disbelief that people are disagreeing with you.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not what he said. Jytdog is replying to the people who think rewriting an article in a sandbox is normal procedure, or at least, not abnormal. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just want it very clear that I am not being paid to do anything.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have used the "do all the edits in one pass" method for many years in cases where a lot of article rework is required. WP:BLOWITUP is often the only solution for articles with severe and fundamental problems. Sometimes I've pasted the article to be edited into a text editor rather than a sandbox. I also watch for intervening edits in the time I have the article "offline". And I try to leave an explanation on the Talk page with a summary of changes I've made, and why. If this practice is considered unhelpful or against policy by the community, it should be documented in a guideline. Otherwise, how is anyone to know? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog - developing even a few sentences can be time-consuming, particularly when adding references. This is something that I (and, clearly, others) prefer to do with regular save points but it would be inappropriate to commit something unfinished right back in the article. In addition, revisiting the text after a suitable break allows for far more effective proof-reading. It could be done in an external editor and you'd never know - doing it using a sandbox means it is there for everyone to see what is happening plus makes it easy to correctly preview the wiki markup, internal links etc. You do not seem to be convincing anyone this is in any way problematic - I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This is spot on. --JBL (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that pretty much else finds the general process unproblematic for the most part. Hm. It still seems to me that people are not looking at how RSM is doing this. I realize that my description of this was general and people are responding generally. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am closing this, as this is hopelessly off track and focused on the general process, and that is mostly my fault. If somebody wants to re-open feel free. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Edwardadoyle - legal threat?

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

Editor Edwardadoyle appears to have made a legal threat on his talk page contrary to Wikipedia:No legal threats. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, you're referring to this edit [73]? Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Has not edited since 2018-05-17T15:05:53. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But isn't that just a few hours ago? And have they since rescinded their implied threat? Shearonink (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the target of the possible legal threat expressed dismay at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kyckr. More context can be found at COIN.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: yes. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I take a dim view of users with a COI trying to bludgeon other users with legal jargon.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing his talk page, I've given him a Template:uw-paid.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I've also chimed in to encourage them to withdraw what I see as a LT as well. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Has not complied with PAID and has not responded here, but did remove the COI. tag.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this is a legal threat; OTOH the user does not seem to be here to contribute to encyclopedia. Either an undisclosed paid editor, or just a POV editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This was not a threat, it was a request for editorial comments to be proportionate, I appreciate there is a tendency for people to make overblown statements online, but editors of all people should endeavour to keep that in check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardadoyle (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't read it yet, do read Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats. It's generally best to avoid throwing around words like libel, defamation or slander. Also remember that whatever else, you need to make sure you fully comply with WP:PAID if you want to continue to edit here. Do make sure you read the disclosure requirements so you can ensure your disclosure statement is in full compliance. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Lewisham_East, UK by-election 14 June 2018

I'm posting this here because of the time-sensitive nature of the article rather than any editor's bad behaviour as such. My request concerns the Lewisham East by-election, 2018#Candidates with the sub-headings "Labour Party" and "Other parties", the relevant discussion is at Talk:Lewisham East by-election, 2018#Other parties. I requested further comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NPOV#Lewisham_East, UK by-election 14 June 2018 and ordinarily it would be a case of gaining consensus and possibly requesting closure, but on reflection I think this needs to be settled more quickly. Also NPOV in an article about an ongoing election is important. Is it possible to bring the discussion to a quick closure? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would have appreciated it if you'd notified us on the talk page that you were requesting a discussion closure. I think Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would be a better venue for arbitration and assistance and I disagree that there is a significant urgency concerning the NPOV issues you allege. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is taking terrible advantage of the time usually required to gain consensus to discriminate against other candidates. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how a section heading can be construed as discrimination against other candidates. Go to Google News and search "Lewisham East by-election" and tell me if you can find any secondary coverage of a party other than Labour. Given that there is pretty much no such coverage, why is it wrong for Wikipedia to group a large mass of detailed coverage of the Labour Party into a subsection? Your line of reasoning essentially suggests that no matter how large the content on Labour gets, it should still be unsorted amidst coverage of other parties. I have asked you to give more detailed reasoning on why you think a "Labour Party" and "Other parties" dichotomy does not constitute WP:NPOV but, from my perspective, I feel as though your response is "it just doesn't". I'm sorry if I'm coming across as unduly forceful, but I have been trying to pin down a meaningful talkpage debate regarding your views on NPOV. It has only been 48 hours since this debate began. I'm not going to drag this out for weeks. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutral admins requested

Need a few admins watching over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrX/w where things have gotten a bit heated. MrX (talk · contribs) seems to be pretty upset and has decided to single out several commentators there with some personal attacks, How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off. I requested he retract the comment but he seems to have left in haste [74]. Thanks.--MONGO 23:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Pages like that are routinely deleted per POLEMIC if not acted upon in a timely manner. It is odd to see experienced editors voting keep and normally cool headed MrX lose his temper. Probably best to close the page and everyone move on to other things. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There are rather long-time admins present, and these sounds like PAs. Let the process process. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's all good. Momentary slip; MrX is getting his buttons pushed a little. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  I thought that myself. We can both hope he returns with a better attitude.--MONGO 01:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went from here to the MfD to see what is going on. There, it looks like a proxy war in the ongoing content disputes over current events in US politics, and the complaint here kind of looks like that too (is it a request to watch over the MfD, or a request to sanction MrX?). I agree that the comments cited here are exceedingly uncivil, but they look more like an understandable outburst of anger than a pattern over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just looked in on the MfD. Yeah, people are lining up mostly (not exclusively) along the usual political lines. It gets boring after a while. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. I would have hoped that the discretionary sanctions coming out of the multiple ArbCom cases about American politics would have gotten this stuff under control, but it is anything but. Maybe the current period in US politics is just too bizarre, and that's affecting the editing environment here. I'd hate to think that another ArbCom case is needed, and there are so many editors behaving sub-optimally that AE may be unable to handle it. Perhaps there needs to be a large-scale topic banning of numerous editors, but the status quo isn't working. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Polite even rigorous disagreements likely lead to better articles. When they degenerate into nonstop bad faith assumptions and telling those that disagree with you to f-off then it just becomes a circus.--MONGO 03:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If someone could read and comment on the Edwardadoyle post above, I would appreciate it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I jumped in and commented at the MfD, I'm now involved. If someone could throw a wet blanket on the fires, limit further comments by those that have already commented. Calm 'em down?04:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've hatted a few bits that I thought were going too far and watchlisted the page - though I'll be off for the weekend in a couple of hours. GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pragdon is keeping on reverting a change without stating any objections.

About a year ago I raised some objections to a section of the 1980 Turkish coup d'etat. I raised this objection, stated my reasons on talk page becuase the content there was unsupported by the source cited. I Waited for 6 months, no objections were raised to my point. I updated the content finding sources that work and the content was updated accordingly as it is now but this user, Pragdon, is keeping on reverting the change without stating any reason to do so. The best thing I think he raised is Wikipedia's revert and cycle rule, he himself needs to state why my update should be ignored. He reverts it without stating anything, I have presented my case and I can present it again. --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that their behavior seems a bit weird given their edit summaries and lack of any other attempts at interaction, you still have to stop edit-warring with them immediately - at a glance it looks like you're both far over the WP:3RR (and no, there's no exception for the other person being unreasonable, refusing to discuss things, or anything like that; WP:BRD is a guideline, if a good one, and not a policy, so you can't revert-war just because they're refusing to explain themselves, even in the admittedly-bizarre case of them citing WP:BRD and then declining to discuss anything.) In the future, if you run into a clear-cut case where someone is reverting every edit you make and unequivocally breaking WP:3RR in the process, you will probably get a faster response by reporting them at Wikipedia:AN/EW, but when you've been edit-warring back (as in this case) you can expect your own actions to be scrutinized and may end up sanctioned yourself. --Aquillion (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Extra Eyes at WP:ITNC Please

The school shooting has been closed and re-opened multiple times. In the past these kinds of events in the US have digressed with sometimes unpleasant WP:FORUM commentary being posted. FTR I am involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 18 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)

User:Philip Cross has COI

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

---

With 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to George Galloway. His most recent involvement was today, when he removed 1,347 bytes. That edit violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

For the past six years, Philip Cross has engaged in a running dispute on Twitter with the subject of this BLP. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a Talk page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

On May 12, 2018, George Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he today called "an unhinged stalker".

On May 14, 2018, Philip Cross acknowledged George Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross has again edited this BLP.

Now the conflict has spilled over into wider media. On May 14, 2018, RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and on May 16, 2018, Sputnik followed up with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I cite these not as WP:RS, but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and may damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye.

I request that Philip Cross be topic banned from editing George Galloway and the other "goons" with whom he is at war—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens— all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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