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

Multi-user edit war at Somalis

There appears to be a multi-user edit war unfolding at Somalis. I have tried to help resolve the issue on the article talk page, but I have to admit that I am struggling to fully understand the dispute. Note that this discussion resulted in a verdict that it might be necessary to adopt a 1RR policy on Somalia-related articles. I think the issue would benefit from the eyes of some administrators at this point. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I protected it fully for three days. Yes, the wrong version, of course! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Should the latest edit be reverted? I've kind of lost track of what the consensus version was! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm just a little birdie who blocks on instinct... Drmies (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As a wp:Rouge admin he is obliged to protect wrong version. It's in our membership agreements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Kudos to anyone who can work out what the wrong version is! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure what to do here, should I explain the situation or wait for admins' contribution? The protected version was not the consensus version (obviously!). --Kzl55 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kzl55: Could you link to that version. If it's the last stable, pre-edit war version, an admin could restore. The purpose of PP though is to induce stakeholders to discuss competing versions as consensus can change. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Could I also request that the editors involved in the dispute try to agree on a brief talk-page summary of the two different versions of the article that are being advocated? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I reverted the latest edit but only because the user was a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: If you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group (as supported by Soupforone and Cabuwaaqwanaag a confirmed sock of serial disruptive editor), then it is this version [1] though it is neither stable (due primarily to opposition by editor Soupforone who states that "...there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [2]). It has been restored now due to editor Cabuwaaqwanaag being confirmed as a sock. I would like to add that following a request to take the matter to the talk page by Cordless Larry [3], everyone was discussing the issue exclusively in the talk page until Soupforone's unilateral decision to go back to editing the page [4], which they continued despite requests to continue the discussion in the talk page [5], [6]. @Cordless Larry: I can do that no problem. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've summarized the file stuff on the talkpage. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have also placed (a somewhat long, but necessary) summary in the talk page.

@Dlohcierekim, Cordless Larry, and Drmies: May I also add that editor Soupforone has a history of unhelpful edits of the Sultan Abdillahi's file in Commons? They attempted to get the file deleted, [7]. This was unsuccessful and the a decision of keep was reached. They then employed the same combative style of editing even after a decision of keep was reached, which forced a moderator to protect the file due to ("continued unsuccessful attempts to get the file deleted by one editor") [8]. Which started this discussion on their talk page [9]. On another file I have uploaded they have made a name change request stating that the file source does not specify ethnicity or clan the skull owner belonged to [10]. This is despite the the source clearly stating both [11]. What was particularly problematic about that edit was their removal of relevant categories from file and replacement with 'fossils' [12]. This resulted in this Common's Administrator's Noticeboard discussion [13] where a number of editors agreed the behaviour was disruptive. They only managed to escape sanctions after acknowledgement of their mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet they are employing the same contentious, pov pushing, style of editing across a number of pages. One example of that being the current discussion at Somalis, another example of current disruptive editing on the Mahmoud Ali Shire page includes addition of unsourced content and content from self-published and user-generated sources (as well as travel guides) despite multiple requests to only add content from reliable sources [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. On both occasions they were supported by long term vandal and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. Can anything be done about them? --Kzl55 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Commons situation is unfortunately not nearly as cut and dry as presented above since the administrator who nominated the sultan file for deletion (and later protected the file description page in their preferred version, despite being an involved editor) has since been desysoped and indefinitely blocked for socking [21]. As for the sultan files on the Wikipedia page, I've summarized the actual situation on the talkpage, as Cordless Larry requested above [22]. Soupforone (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The subsequent history of the moderator is not relevant to this discussion. Your behaviour was disruptive as deemed by other uninvolved editors on Commons. You have only escaped sanctions after acknowledgement of your mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet you continue the same pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen in the edits above. This in turn is causing issues on multiple pages within the project and is an issue that needs addressing. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That administrator was desysoped for general disruption, so of course it's relevant. But I don't expect you to agree. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not relevant. Their subsequent actions have no relation to the topic at hand. You have not commented on their actions during the incident referenced above, but rather on some unrelated actions that happened after that situation. And they were not the only party to deem your behaviour disruptive. Other uninvolved editors did as well. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the desysop did not just pertain to their subsequent edits. It pertained to their entire log list. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Still not relevant. Unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their dealing with you, which we know is not the case. That moderator protected the file due to your disruptive behaviour. Other uninvolved editors also deemed your behaviour disruptive. You only managed to escape sanctions because you accepted that judgment and promised to cease that behaviour. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That desysoped administrator protected the file page in their preferred version, which (at least on Wikipedia) is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I don't expect you to think this matters, but it does. Soupforone (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you think about their actions, the desysoping is not relevant to this discussion, unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their actions in that incident. I repeat, other editors also found your behaviour to be disruptive, and you only managed to avoid sanctions because you have accepted that judgment with an understanding that you will cease that disruptive behaviour.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The url above is actually website policy. Soupforone (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

War Zone Comment

Another dispute about the Horn of Africa!!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles.

There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file remaining [23]. He thanked me for that post as well. Ergo, the dispute is essentially over. Soupforone (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see my thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible, not highlighting any particular group. @Robert McClenon and Doug Weller: I have addressed a pattern of behavioural issues by editor Soupforone that is contributing to to battleground editing in the project here, would really appreciate any input on how to take this further. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller didn't indicate anything about the issue not being over, nor did he write that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of individuals as possible. Nor for that matter did I indicate that the page should not feature as broad a base of individuals as possible. Those are straw man fallacies. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not say Doug made comment on inclusivity. You attempted to suggest the issue was over because Doug thanked your post. You were corrected. This is exemplary of the kind of problematic behaviour I described earlier. The issue is not over just because you decided it is over. There is an agreement in the talk page that the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself all agree to this, though Cordless Larry did not make a statement on the edits yet). Your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti). So far you were only supported by long term disruptive editor of the project and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I only restored the original Sultan Shire file. My editing rationale for this was that he "belongs to completely separate sultanate from other rulers" [24]. I also never claimed that this file choice had anything to do with "clan" since of course it did not. Further, what I actually wrote above is that Doug Weller "thanked me for that post as well", not that "the issue was over because Doug thanked my post". The latter causal phrasing is yours. The point was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file, which is what the OP is about. Also, Cordless Larry did not indicate that "the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups". What he actually wrote is that "the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim". That "a diverse range of images" automatically means "all Somali groups" is a leap, for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan. Also, you wrote above that "all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", which would include Doug Weller. However, Doug Weller did not indicate this either. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And the argument goes on and on, and will perhaps go on until the Great Rift Valley splits the Horn of Africa off from the rest of Africa. We need draconian remedies for dealing with disruptive editing about the Horn of Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

An edit confirmation filter might be useful to better track socks and meatpuppeting and to vet ip and single purpose account edits. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind Robert McClenon but when Middayexpress was topic banned, TomStar81 included in the closing statement that "in order to effect a timely halt to any alleged sock or meat puppets that may be editing the pages, administrators may at their discretion adopt a WP:1RR policy on all Somalia-related topics to enforce this ban". Sockpuppetry isn't the only issue affecting Horn of Africa topics, but perhaps a 1RR policy is necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry - Yes. That case is a good example of why special restrictions are needed on the Horn of Africa. Any sort of editing restriction would probably be a good idea, and is consistent with my view. If the proposed restriction seems draconian, then it is probably a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone, you did not just restore the original file, you also removed the addition of Sultan Deria. You also restored the file of Sultan Shire complete with unsourced description [25] despite clear edit summary indicating it was unsourced [26]. You stated that Doug Weller thanked you, and made a comment about the dispute being "essentially over", this comment made little sense as even Doug replied to you saying how he does not see his thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. As for Cordless Larry, you are incorrect. My post specifically stated "With regards to your stance on representation, I am in agreement with Koodbuur. The section relates to the history of Somalis, it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group" and at the end of that post I asked the opinions of Koodbuur and Cordless Larry on a number of issues including representation [27] to which Cordless Larry replied: "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [28]. I have specifically stated inclusivity of all Somalis, and for the section to not be highlighting any one group. Thus it is not a leap. Please stop misrepresenting editors.

As for my statement you are quoting, it is clear "The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", I do not understand why you are involving Doug when he explicitly stated he'd rather not get involved [29]. All involved editors (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible.--Kzl55 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment above specifically pertained to the files of the sultans Shire and Kenadid, not to that of Deria ("your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti)"). Hence, that is what I addressed. That interpretation of what Cordless Larry wrote is also clearly incorrect since you similarly suggested above that "if you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group", to which Cordless Larry clarified that he actually wasn't even sure what the file issue was about ("Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are."). I also never indicated whether the article should or should not include as broad a base of Somalis as possible (which could mean anything from gender to vocation, age group, clan/subclan, or birthplace), so that was not even the issue. Likewise, by "ergo, the dispute is essentially over", I was referring to the prefacing phrase, where I pointed out that I had let Doug Weller know that I was okay with the Deria file ("I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file"). The following phrase "he thanked me for that post as well" was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file. Perhaps this could've been worded better, but that is all I indicated. One can only address what is actually written. Soupforone (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm replying to the ping, but I've still got a wicked inner ear infection, a very bad cough, and I'm on enough prescriptions medications to knock a bull elephant out for a month. That being said, having looked through this I'm not seeing that Soupforone has been accused or even suspected of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Middayexpress. Remember, the 1RR condition referenced above applies specifically to Middayexpress's perceived editing interference with the topic, if you want to adopt general sanctions for the page or for articles constantly effected by regional conflict you'll need to open a discussion specifically for that in order to avoid dragging Middayexpress's now dormant account or Soupforone's contributions through the gauntlet of a public trial, otherwise whatever you work out is going to be perceived as applying specifically to the editor(s) for this specific case as opposed to everyone broadly construed as editing the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone, the fact remains you have restored Sultan Shire's file complete with unsourced description [30] despite explicit indication of description having no source [31]. Cordless Larry clarified he was not able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are, but stated he agrees with the principle that the images should be broadly representative. As stated above, in my post I specifically stated my agreement with Koodbuur on inclusivity, and I asked Cordless Larry and Koodbuur their opinions on a number of issues including representation [32], at which point Cordless Larry made his comment "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [33]. It is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity, even if Cordless Larry did not state an opinion on the proposals yet. You stated above "...for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan", which is incorrect given the context explained above of Cordless Larry's reply to the specific point I have raised: "it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group", I think that much is clear.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the 26th Sultan title was already sourced at that time mark to the sultanate's official website [34]. Also, "inclusivity" is a nebulous term. If by that "clan/subclan" specifically was/is meant, this is not clear from foregoing since the word "clan" is not even used. What is certain is that I never indicated whether the page should or should not include as broad a population base as possible. I wrote instead that there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed, which is a different thing. Soupforone (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Middayexpress-related issue

I've been grinding through Category:Somalia geography stubs because I discovered that a lot of them are dumps from a Geonames-derived directory and that accuracy was poor. Most of these were created by User:Middayexpress, who I knew was no longer around. I was not, however, aware of their history.

I've been nominating these one at a time, but at this rate I may end up with fifty or more AfDs. Is there some way expedite this? I'm not keen on doing a group nom because (a) in practice it's more work anyway, and (b) someone is sure to come in and try to bollox it by insisting that they all have to be considered separately. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[non-administrator comment] - The only thing I have seen in the past, is to merge a few; then wait a while and AfD the merged articles, to reduce the number. In most cases I would not like this and oppose such actions, but if they truly are as bad as you say, it would be a blessing in this case. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The above post by Mangoe is a great example of the fanatic and almost religious deletionism that is prevalent on wikipedia. Editors such as him are also one of the reasons Africa-related articles are under-represented on Wikipedia. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, the point isn't article count, not that I haven't created plenty, every one of them typed in and checked against sources beyond dumping lists in from websites or who knows where else. But people sitting back in London have already created too many spurious places over the years by misreading texts and taking traveller's reports and maps for granted. My standards aren't that high, but Geonames is far from error-free, and when you start actually checking these things against aerial photography, it becomes apparent how bad the information an get. And yes, transliteration is an issue, which I've already tried to take into account. Look, find me a census, news reports, anything that is better than just lists out of Geonames, and we'll be on a much better footing. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel

In the past, user:Sander.v.Ginkel was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See here, here, here, here and here.

Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a user:MFriedman to protect/improve articles something that made people unhappy. See also here. Still, MFriedman went on with moving articles back to main space from draft space, effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.

Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Ilse Kamps. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up to vote for keeping the article due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman added these sources, after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back positive. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.

So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.

What to do next? The Banner talk 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser needed I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example here, here, here, here, here, here etc.. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Sander.v.Ginkel for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this weekmonth. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught last week on the Dutch Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for WP:G13 after being tagged as promising drafts 6 months ago which lead to this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pierre_Le_Roux Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to indef block this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant supervote. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Already requested a User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018 block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again Special:Contributions/MFriedman Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by Reyk above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [35] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef- obviously. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through this past thread and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [36] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) likely to be another sock? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  I though Beatley is a confirmed sock of Slowking4.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Permaban. Now. I checked the stats: Pages created 37,054 of which 22,482 since deleted, I don't think I have ever seen an editor with that many deleted creations before - and then add the blatantly deceptive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think the consensus is clear; given the deceptive sockpuppetry after they were very lucky to get away without an indef ban last time, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. This is required in order to prevent further damage to the project by an individual who clearly does not see the need to follow our rules, and who cannot be trusted to conform to the expectations of the wider editing community. I haven't had time to consider the question of this user's articles yet, but I think that is a discussion that needs to be had separate to this block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
• Indef block - I am not impressed in the least by the Wikilawyering/WP:BUROish arguments presented above. WP:IAR is clear: when a rule is preventing you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule. Well, the rules cited above which supposedly prevent the indeffing of SvG are standing in the way of the project being improving by removing from its midst a blatantly problematic editor, problematic both in their behavior and in their content output. Wikipedia will be improved by not having SvG around, so let's stop gnashing our teeth and worrying about technicalities and get rid of him. Let WP:COMMONSENSE reign. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Are we considering Lankiveil's block a community imposed sanction? That will affect the nature of any future appeals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles

I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they had remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.

Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suck's that a nuke had to happen and olympic medal winner's like Alec Potts end up deleted but i guess it had too happen, feel sorry for the poor soul who has to clean up the nuke's results. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: - I'm happy to (re)create a stub for any nuked Olympians. If you (or anyone else) wants any doing, drop me a note on my talkpage, or list them at WT:OLY. I'll do this one later at some point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at this article. The version SvG moved into article space had four sentences, one of which was an obvious BLP violation [37] (admins only). How can they have missed this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Between you and me, I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pageant fans have the same or bigger issues. High school students blessed with classicly attractive genes get articles - often with zero references - while we regularly reject pages on business people that spend years building up companies, employing thousands, creating new innovative products and driving the economy forward. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted a list of SvG drafts tagged as "Promising Drafts" on User_talk:Legacypac#SvG. They have the same issues that the others do, and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (now resolved). Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiedebs and North Korea

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

---

User:Wikiedebs is on a one-user mission to remove negative information about North Korea from Wikipedia. This mainly takes the form of blatant deletions, e.g. [38] [39] [40] [41]. They constantly lie in edit summaries and incorrectly mark them as minor, e.g. [42] [43]. Their strategy is to make an innocuous edit towards the top of a page to disguise content removals below [44]. More recently they have resorted to childishly bombarding articles with "citation needed" tags. [45] [46] And finally just plain and simple edit-warring [47] [48]. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That sure is a lot of blanking. And this response isn't really what I'd be looking for as an explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not all of the inclusions are what I'd characterise as "propaganda", but the seeming focus on replacing references to "North Korea" with "DPRK" is definitely in line with North Korean propaganda practice. The marking of major revisions as "minor" is quite problematic, and if nothing else a warning is justified for that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Wikiedebs has continued edit-warring after I opened this thread. [49] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

They haven't really, User:Ivar the Boneful. I do agree this is major disruption, and has been going on for far too long, so thank you for reporting it. At the same time, it's a little misleading to say they have continued edit-warring. After they saw and acknowledged your ANI alert (admittedly in a silly way, as the Ninja points out), they have on the contrary self-reverted some of their edit warring. They may not realize it would be a good idea to respond here as well, and I have now urged them to. (P.S., a minor point: their editing also seems careless, going by the sampling I've done; they change what was grammatically correct phrasing to introduce errors ("the south had declaring statehood", "he authorize war"). Bishonen | talk 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Yes, that is true, I have "self-reverted" some of my previous "edit warrings." Based on your advice elsewhere, I am responding here. Perhaps my editing is somewhat careless. I would agree that "not all of the inclusions are..."propaganda"." I did try to change some of the instances of North Korea to DPRK on certain pages, but with Ivar the Boneful's reversals of my edits on those pages, I gave up in that realm. The same goes for the edits to the Kim Il Sung page. As much as I may disagree with parts of it personally, as my edits show, the fact they can be reversed makes such edits a waste of time. I will try to make sure "major revisions" are not marked as "minor" anymore. I was planning to, maybe soon, work on trying to add more to these stubs of pages, or something else entirely. The warning has been served and that's it.Wikiedebs (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Darkness Shines: edit-warring, incivility and personal attacks at Cambodian genocide

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) has really gone overboard in the last day or so. I don't even remember what the content of my edits was that got caught in his back-to-2015 (!) mass-revert, so I consider myself basically neutral on the content. But edit summaries like "As before, and this section is bollocks", "fuck me, ever more shite", "Who the fuck cites Rummel", "Shite sources and off topuc bollocks" and "How about, your a prick, how about an article in a fucking genocide is, I dunno focused on that, how about fuck off." are clearly way out of line, and some of the others (like this) are completely incoherent. These edit summaries appear to be in violation of his 2015 unblock conditions here (particularly point 3).

He also broke 3RR by reverting four times in just over two hours.[50][51][52][53] (It may also run afoul of 1RR, since his block log mentions it but this was never apparently logged at WP:RESTRICT so I can't tell if it was appealed. I apologize if I am mistaken.)

Most disheartening, though, is the fact that according to the log this is coming one month after his last block, two months after he was blocked for "Edit warring, incivility, and badgering other editors", edit-warring a month before that, edit-warring two months before that, and four months before that given WP:ROPE following an indef block appeal.[54]

I honestly don't want this to go where it looks likely to go, since I actually agree that the article before his revert was pretty bad, but this really needs the community's attention.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW: I know the page was protected per my request at RFPP so the content dispute is "over" as far as that goes. But that was before I noticed his block log and unblock restrictions. If I thought this was a workable content dispute I wouldn't have come to ANI to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment My recommendation at RFPP was to step back, calm down, and recenter. Not surprised to see this post here. The edit summaries were appalling. There is discussion on the article talk, but it appears at an impasse. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. FWIW, if DS logs in and does a complete about-face and follows Dlohcierekim's advice, my above report can probably be considered withdrawn. I do think civility restrictions need strict enforcement the same as every other editing restriction, but I'm also not into wikilawyering over such things. More eyes on the dispute (whatever it is even about at this point; I've lost track) can't but be a good thing, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This attempt at collaboration [55] was met with this response[56]. "I don't care what others think" seems to sum up all the mass reverts and deletions on the page. Hijiri 88 did the right thing bringing this here, and I don't see how/why even an about-face would justify the withdrawing of this report. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We are going to continue to be here, every other week, it seems.--Jorm (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is clearly a one-sided dispute from a single editor who came out of the gates with all barrels firing. Not only has Darkness Shines approached the "discussion" without the slightest hint of good faith, they've made it explicit they don't feel they have to explain themselves. This is despite so many of the reverts being problematic—some disputed (Pol Pot's death described as suicide), some straight up gibberish ("perpetrator guanoator"???). Can anyone give a coherent rationale for action not being taken against this behaviour (which appears to be par for the course given DS's block log). There's seriously no chance this person will begin to engage in GF discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unpleasant Proposal Time

Yuck. Ugh. - This is an even longer block log than for the two principal subject editors currently before the ArbCom. What we have here is an editor whose objective is to improve the encyclopedia, but who is unable, no matter how many times around, to edit collaboratively. It doesn't matter whether we call it not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia or being incompetent at working as part of a team or what. Unfortunately, I can't be optimistic enough to support the usual indefinite block with the understanding that indefinite is not infinite, because history shows that the editor will ask one more time for a standard offer or get tangled up in 20 feet of rope. I think that we have to impose either a site ban or an indefinite block with the condition that only the community can lift the block. If the community doesn't want to do this, then the case will go to the ArbCom, which will probably decline it, and accept it on second filing in the northern summer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support an Indefinite Block, to be lifted only by the community, or a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site or community ban. I do not believe DS is here to operate in good faith, and have not believed so for quite some time.--Jorm (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support either an indef with community approval needed to lift, or an outright site ban. The block log and edit summaries indicate a hopeless case. The community needs to make it clear that this behavior will not be tolerated. Jusdafax (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block with condition - We are here for something DS has said or done every few weeks and it is getting stale repeating the same ol' story. As I said last time, the community did its best but some editors simply do not take a hint. Fair warning: DS discussed creating another account during his last go-around; I would be wary of a scheme to evade scrutiny.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait what? If that is the case I may have to strike my soft oppose below, you got diffs handy? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Gabriel syme, in this edit summary, DS made his intentions quite apparent. That was last time, and, considering he has once again placed himself in a similar predicament, I felt it was worth mentioning the possibility of using another account to evade a site ban. Can not say I agree with you calling him "prolific" below when the only thing he is "prolific" for is net-negative contributions and an inability to communicate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - This will be their third indefinite block, so I prefer to impose a community ban at this juncture. They received an indef block in November, 2014 for abusing multiple accounts. This block was lifted in March, 2015 – about five months later. Their second indefinite block came on 27 May, 2015 per an arbitration enforcement of a TBAN. This block was lifted mid-September 2017 – after 2 + 1/3 years, and only 5 months ago. This is a clear and recurring problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN might as well formalize it. The blocks haven't worked, and an "indef with community approval needed" might as well be a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Per above. I don't remember the last time I encountered DS, just that it was unpleasant, and over the years I've seen quite a lot of unpleasantness coming from that account.
  Per TonyBallioni, "indef with community approval needed" either means siteban or is meaningless (since there'd be community approval in a SO situation, or the Committee would just take jurisdiction entirely). As I've said in many discussions recently, we have a problem where AN/ANI try to come up with "gotcha" scenarios to prevent blocks issued today from being lifted in six months. While "with community approval needed" doesn't nearly approach the level of silliness I've seen recently (in one case, I believe an indef, along with an indef topic ban that only kicks in if the block is lifted), I believe we should avoid putting into place novel procedural hurdles geared towards giving indefinite sanctions more permanence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I don't see how a topic ban would work. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. How much evidence does we need to finally decide an editor is not acting in good faith? Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban (reluctantly) <sigh> I'm pretty sure I've had positive interactions with DS at some point in the past, and I personally really hate seeing a content creator get banned because they violated CIVIL, but them's the rules, and unfortunately DS has run afoul of them one too many times at this point, so I really don't see any hope for another final last chance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

See also repeated and unambiguous TBAN violations that I didn't notice until now.[57] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Soft oppose I hear all of the above but I've run into conflicts with DS before, and while I agree they can often be difficult to deal with, I would hate to lose such an editor who is prolific on such important topics as they generally edit. That being said perhaps sanctions are in order, I'm new at this. I definitely get the exhaustion of the community with 'one last chance'. Gabriel syme (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban; per rnndude and jusdafax. We shouldn't tolerate such behaviour, even if the editor does contribute. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban, obviously. This should have been done years ago. And let's not pretend this is some kind of valuable content contributor whose only issue is a foul temper. The core problem about DS has always been that his content contributions are uniformly bad, and that he lacks the competence to engage in any meaningful discussion about them. He's always been a net negative to the project. After how many (two? three?) indef blocks, dozens of blocks for edit-warring, at least three topic bans, and uncounted "civility restrictions" and "revert paroles" (all of which were broken), it's time to close the door for good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban per above. We should not tolerate this kind of behaviour. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. His block log is a mile long, the C.W.Gilmore feud was ridiculous, and when DS finally edits somewhere outside of American politics, his behavior is somehow worse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't oppose a "standard offer" compatable ban; aka an indef block with appeal to WP:AN after 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support I tried to do this in early January, but did it while he was blocked and mucked it up real time. But yes, block log longer than the A1, and as Jorm said above, we'll be here every week if DS gets involved in some sort of content dispute. He has self-stated his lack of patience for others. !dave 08:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support- this editor has clearly become unmanageable. Reyk _YO! 09:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per my earlier observation that "I don't care what others think" shows a mentality that is fundamentally opposed to collaboration. Add into that the constant feuding at ANI, the nature of the edits, the 1001 second chances, and it feels like yet another example of too much past patience. Grandpallama (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The genocide Talk page discussion was really something -- but not surprising. I've observed the same at another page, which lead to several ANI threads, one of which I started myself: NPA, unblock conditions. Coming from an indef block, this latest development, plus many others, demonstrate a surprising lack of a learning curve. The user's contributions, unfortunately, have not been a net positive to the project, and a site ban is an appropriate remedy in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is a problem, and there is a history of problems but there is also a history of worthwhile content in the past. I might consider an indef block, but a cban seems to be WP:POINTy. A ban does virtually nothing that an indef block doesn't do and there isn't any convincing argument presented that says an indef block is insufficient and only a ban will do. The behavior is inexcusable, I agree, which is wny an indef block is needed. We often rush to ban something thinking that is going to do more than a block will do. It won't. A community indef block can only be overturned by the community, not a single admin, so that is the right path. A ban is simply overkill as (again) no evidence is presented to show a ban will be more effective than a community indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm not actually that familiar with DS's history beyond a scan of his block log and a (brief) search for any relevant sanctions or unblock conditions he miht already be subject to, but wouldn't the two previous indef blocks that were repealed be evidence that enough ROPE has been given in this case? Were the previous appeals brought to the community with consensus to unblock or something? In the past I've been indeffed, and unblocked based on an off-wiki appeal to a debateably "involved" admin, and I don't think I should be site-banned because my previous indef block wasn't enough, so I'm definitely open to the idea. I don't think "community indef block" is a thing (I vaguely recall something like that being brought up at the village pump a few months ago), or how it would be different from a site-ban if it were.

On a related point, the original proposal was for either a site-ban or an indef block, so wouldn't your !vote technically be to oppose the former but rather support the latter?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course the community can impose an indef block, and no single admin may reverse it, only a community decision can. This is common. And I have faith whoever closes this can sort it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Are you sure? A bunch of the "support" !votes before the initial close amounted to "An indefinite block that must be appealed to the community is the same as a site ban", and in my experience this is pretty consistent with standard practice. I found the "village pump" discussion anyway, which was actually two related discussions here and here; the resulting change to the policy wording stated that unblocks should not be made unilaterally when the block was the implementation of "a community sanction", but did not clarify that "indefinite blocks" that are the result of community consensus (as opposed to explicitly worded "bans") are meant to be treated as implementation of a community sanction, as such. User:Jytdog also gave a helpful list of relevant examples of blocks that had been community-imposed but were not necessarily treated as community sanctions for unblock purposes; Jytdog did go on close that discussion, apparently satisfied that the relevant changes had been made, but several of the other "oppose" !votes further down this thread clearly see "a standard block, appealable in the normal way" as being different from what is being proposed, and several of the "support" !votes are saying that there is no difference between a "community block" and a site ban. I honestly don't mind that much, and if a community block is what you say it is (maybe I am just misinterpreting the fine print on the policy changes last May, and the other commenters are just unaware of the still-fairly-recent changes) then I really couldn't care less what wording we use. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure and familiar with the distinction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban. I'm one of the many people Darkness Shines has verbally abused. No, this behaviour is not okay. In a workplace, he would have been fired a long time ago, and a volunteer project should have higher standards for behaviour than a workplace because people don't get paid to stick around. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support a ban, for all the reasons above. Sadly, DS is simply not able to get along. But yes, let's let this run its course, in fairness to someone who has, after all, put in non-trivial work. Guy (Help!) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I won't have time to formulate anything properly but I do ask the closer to consider ignoring FPaS and (for a different reason) anyone associated with the gender bias stuff - Jorm, Gamaliel, Peter the Fourth etc. I've no idea what the problem is between FPaS and DS but it has gone on for a while. As for the rest, there is a significant history of pile-on enmity etc with those people and I've had enough of it and the walled garden they are protecting. They are among the most incivil people I have come across, despite probably never writing "one of those words". DS speaks his mind and, without doubt, has crossed the line at times but this war of attrition by pov-pushing cabals needs to stop and DS has been particularly effective at times in cutting through that. Cool story, bro, as Jorm would say. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Cool story, bro --Jorm (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Does any of your above comment apply to me (the editor who filed this ANI report), User:Robert McClenon (the editor who made the unpleasant proposal in question), or anyone involved in the most recent incident at the Cambodian genocide article? Asking a closer to ignore !votes from users A, B, C, D, "etc." is very unusual, as it looks like you are trying to make the closer jumo through as many hoops as possible before closing it the way virtually everyone says it should. I am pretty sure I have commented on "gender bias stuff" in the past, but I had no idea that could have anything to do with this question; I made some copy-edits to a random article I was reading, and some time later was pinged on the talk page, noticed a massive barrage of cursing in edit summaries, and once I noticed the editor's block log and WP:RESTRICT entry decided to bring it to ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no idea whether the weird exclusions apply to me. I will note that I did think that the discussion was closed very quickly (although I agreed with the result), and will note that I don't care whether it is called an indefinite block by the community or a ban by the community. I will note that I think that editors who want DS given one more chance are more optimistic than I am. I will note that I don't give a damn about the use of dirty words, or, more accurately, I may give only one or two damns about them, but don't think anyone should be blocked, let alone banned, for the mere use of particular words. I will also say that I don't think that there is anything "robust" or "tough" about the use of bad language, because anything that can be said with bad language can be said equally effectively with clean language, unless the objective is to make a point, as I just did above. However, anyone with a block log as long as DS can reasonably be concluded to be a net negative to the encyclopedia. The ArbCom is likely to ban two editors as net negatives who have shorter block logs than DS. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given this finding, I'm thinking that Sitush is among the LAST people who should be doling out advice on how to treat the opinions of his ideological opponents. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as personally I think it's overkill, I do however support a8 2 month block from this place with TP access revoked - DS quite honestly needs to take some time away to seriously think about his attitude here and the way he goes about things ..... DS is here for all the right reasons he just seems to go about things the wrong way (in some ways like myself), Oppose CBAN but Support 8 2 month block. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. But I will support a block of 1-3 months as a last chance wake up call that this behavior will not be tolerated by the community. Improving the encyclopedia comes first, but patience wears thin. Finally a suggestion that discussion for banning a long term contributor should run longer then 11 hours. . Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've since amended my comment as 8 months with TPA revoked is overkill too!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: @Mr Ernie: If DS hadn't (fairly recently) come off an indef block that was in place for two years, I would be inclined to agree with you, but hasn't he been given enough time to cool off already? How does stepping down to a lighter sanction than last time change things? As for improving the encyclopedia coming first: hell yes! But that is unfortunately never how Wikipedia has operated. My original longer response to NeilN below included a statement that I wish these weren't foregone conclusions on principle. I hate that WP:CIVIL is essentially the only policy that matters and how civil POV-pushers can deliberately bait content creators into losing their cool, but the content creators have to just have more cool than that. That's always how it has worked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

These are good points. Frankly I’m just not sure the best way forward here. I feel that DS has really made significant improvements to the project, but at some cost to civility. I’m not sure how to quantify which one is more important. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose DS uses one of the harsher sexually derived words more than I think is appropriate, but we generally don’t CBAN people just for swearing. In this diff, he called another editor a “prick” and used a vulgarity to ask them to leave. I don’t see anything harsher the recent edit summaries. Perhaps we should impose a ban on DS using vulgar terms in edit summaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: Yeah, but when enforcement of such a ban is requested (and he will violate it), are you just going to oppose the enforcement request and say a new weak sanction would be better? I opened this report to request enforcement of his existing sanctions (1RR and "You are required to remain civil. As a condition of your unblock, you must acknowledge that any edit which, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, contains personal attacks or gross incivility will be met with blocks of escalating length, ending with an indefinite block after the fourth offense."). Yes, he is already banned from using vulgarity in edit summaries, as that second one almost definitely covers it. At least in the context of aggressively telling another editor to "fuck off", calling people names, etc. -- is your proposal to ban him from making self-effacing edit summaries like this, this, this and this? There is nothing wrong with using profanity in edit summaries in contexts like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not opposed to a block for disruptive behavior. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am always civil and don't enjoy profanity, but oppose a siteban for an editor with good contributions and intentions, in this case free an article from unsourced content! Compare the civility arb case and let's not measure differently. Better work on said article, all of us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN, on both procedural grounds and per the specific allegations raised against DS in this thread. On procedure, I am too often taken aback with the unwarranted haste that has nearly become the norm with sanctions placed pursuant discussions on this noticeboard, and its parent as well. Such haste mocks the value of community input, accentuating an involved perspective while nearly quashing the unbiased voice that clearly would take a bit longer to informatively opine. Regarding specific allegations, while I can not condone DS's conduct, I do not see it as having risen above conduct ably handled with escalating blocks and with his most recent blocks having escalated to 2 weeks, I think Davey2010's suggestion of 8 months is an excessive escalation; 4 weeks would seem adequate in my opinion. In closing, having said my piece regarding DS, I can not, in good faith, chastise DS for his behavior without cautioning Curly Turkey for provocative commentary in edit summary, seemingly unprovoked, and far more egregious than the examples presented against DS[58]. If civility is a pillar the community has decided to enforce, I am certain that your own incivility could not be excused.--John Cline (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed an 8 month block with TPA revoked is rather excessive so I've since changed to 2 months, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• John Cline: "far more egregious"? One editor was disrupting article space, editwarring, and flat-out attacking literally everyone who tried to engage with him in any way whatsoever. But a guy who said "fuck" in an edit summary in reaction to all this was "far more egregious"? A WP:POINT-y oppose if I've ever seen one.
  DS is drawing fire not for their language, but for their egregious and ceaseless disruptive behaviour. You're saying turn a blind eye because someone said "fuck"? Well, then, you'd better start talking about DS's language---they got in an awful lot of naughty words before I got there, so you'll have to 'splain why you've singled me out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, I did not mean to suggest that you (the person) nor the manner of your conduct, was far more egregious. I meant only to compare the incivility in your edit summary with the incivility in the linked examples given against DS. To further clarify, my comparison did not depend on tallying "naughty words" or measuring their fit in a garden variety potty-mouth. My sole rule for discriminating the commentary was in measuring the attack value and personalized nature of the text itself. As such, I concluded that your telling DS to "keep [his] jizzy mitts off the motherfucking article" to be the intentional poking of an already agitated Wikipedian with a high likelihood of eliciting a negative response from DS which could only serve to increase the chances that he would ultimately be banned by the community, the outcome you prefer. If I had not wished to convey a few points in !voting on this ban proposal, I would not have !voted at all. Your insinuation, however, that I disrupted Wikipedia in doing so seems a bit baseless to me while the befuddlement you express in suggesting that I advocate turning a blind eye because of your commentary seems a bit feigned considering I neither said or implied any such thing. As far as my singling your edit summary out from the others, I frankly did not see another example where the pot appeared to be calling the kettle black.--John Cline (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  John Cline: "poking of an already agitated Wikipedian": If you've read the talk page, you know he came out the gates agitated with no provocation, and that numerous editors have been trying to reason with him. Have you examined the evidence before !voting?

  "the outcome you prefer"---how the fuck would you know what outcome I prefere? I haven't !voted.

  "where the pot appeared to be calling the kettle black"---this is gibberish. DS has disrupted article space and refuses to engage in discussion about it. There's only one "kettle" here, unless you're suggesting someone else in the discussion has disrupted article space and refused to engage in discussion about it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Dennis, a siteban is overkill and completely unnecessary. Per Sitush, I won't support anything that sends any sort of signal to "civil" POV pushers that their tactics are acceptable or successful. Block DS temporarily, if we determine we must, as a standard block, appealable in the normal way, but this is way too far for an editor who has contributed so much. I'm disappointed with some of the editors of whom I thought better who have jumped on this bandwagon, and I'm sorry I felt the need to say that - but there it is. -- Begoon 06:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon: I won't support anything that sends any sort of signal to "civil" POV pushers that their tactics are acceptable or successful What "tactics"? Civil POV pushers? Are you talking about me and Robert McClenon? That's pretty funny, given my history. I asked Sitush this same question above, and they have yet to get back to me -- saying you agree with a statement that they have been challenged on and not defended is not the best idea, surely? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No Hijiri, I'm not talking about you or Robert. I also don't appreciate being badgered or your "advice" on what's "the best idea", so see my reply below and please don't ping me to this discussion again. Thanks. -- Begoon 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think I have fallen out during contributions with User:Darkness shines but imo a siteban is overkill and completely unnecessary, he has a degree of content improvement contributions and is not a valueless User, a ban from American politics and any related articles would be a better outcome. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Query - How, again, is it "overkill" to cban an editor who has been indefinitely blocked twice and has a block log longer than a grocery shopping list? Is a lesser block (or, ridiculously, nothing at all) going to magically make DS see the light when all else has failed? Or are we supposed to turn a blind eye to a recurring problem because to some editors DS is a buddy and is excused by occasionally good content?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to !vote, but comment that nobody should be blocked or banned for their language. DS's offenses are strictly disruptive behaviour—editwarring, refusing to engage with any and all comers to the talk page, refusal to explain the reverts, and repeatedly reverting to disputed and even gibberish content. Nothing anyone said on the talk page provoked "Feck off bud, if anything's worth saving, I'll save it" and "Sorry, I don't care what others think". Something needs to be done about this behaviour. Your job, ANI, is to work it the fuck out so that Wikipedia can function, not to hand out paddywhacks to pottymouths. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I can only offer a tentative view based on my occasional running across of DS and his edits, but my impression has always been that he contributes useful content in potentially contentious topic areas. Wikipedia has a massive and largely ignored problem of being unable to effectively combat agenda-driven editing, meaning that good faith editors who eventually lose patience end up being the ones sanctioned for incivility while the civil POV-pushers sail blithely on, often for years, without sanction. I did propose a while back that for editors who are widely viewed as useful contributors but who struggle at times to maintain civility, we should consider suspending the usual escalating block regime and simply impose shortish but substantial blocks, of say a week or so, for infractions, which may well be all that is required to get such editors to modify their behaviour. Having said that, I have the impression judging by some recent comments that DS is fed up and could perhaps use a more prolonged break to get his act together. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. I'd go so far as to say that this failure to address "civil" POV-pushing, while instead punishing good-faith users who are worn down by it, or standing by while such users become disillusioned and walk away, is the biggest problem wikipedia has when it comes to maintaining balanced content. -- Begoon 11:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Gatoclass, Begoon: why are you guys talking about his language? Nobody gives two shits about his language—this whole discussion would not have been opened if it were about his language. The issue is his editwarring, restoring broken content, refusal to discuss, WP:OWN, etc. etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Erm, I haven't mentioned his language, so I'm struggling to answer that question. Perhaps my agreeing with Gato who used the term 'civility' is what you mean? I see it as a wider issue. If you read my posts again you'll see that what I have said is that I disagree with a siteban as unnecessary and that I feel good-faith users are often worn down by "civil" POV pushing and then punished when their behaviour deteriorates as a consequence, while the "civil" POV pushers go unscathed. Obviously you and I disagree on the appropriate course of action here, and I understand your position, while not sharing it. Cheers. -- Begoon 12:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon: What does this failure to address "civil" POV-pushing, while instead punishing good-faith users who are worn down by it mean if not a cutting down of all the non-cursing disruption? There are no civil POV pushers in the recent Cambodian genocide case, and DS was not "worn down"; the article talk page hadn't been edited in four months and the article itself was fairly stable until DS instigated that whole mess. Making this into a "good content contributor who was worn down by civil POV pushers" issue dismisses the fact that DS has been explicitly violating sanctions that, if he thought they were unfair or were the result of civil POV pushers deliberately wearing him down and "sail[ing] blithely on, often for years, without sanction" (a description you called "absolutely correct"), he should have appealed them. Seriously, I mentioned in my first comment up above that I wasn't sure if DS had successfully appealed his 1RR restriction, and no one has told me "No, he did; see this diff/permalink." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

But Hijiri, you're cross-examining me as though I have said nothing should be done... I haven't said that, and I'll repeat two things I said to CT above: First, read what I have actually said - I have opposed a site-ban, and said that if we determine a block is necessary it should be a standard block. Second, obviously you and I disagree on the appropriate course of action here, and I understand your position, while not sharing it. Now I know you could continue this back and forth all day, I've seen it , but I can see the audience's eyes glazing over already, so I'll leave it there. Reasonable people do sometimes differ. -- Begoon 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I was responding to the initial post in this thread which was focused on incivility. But regardless, it doesn't change my point that good-faith users disheartened by problematic editing that the community seems powerless to address will sometimes lose patience and begin to respond inappropriately, whether that be through incivility or other breaches of policy. I fully endorse Begoon's view above that agenda-driven editing is the most serious problem facing Wikipedia, and until we find a way to address that effectively, we are going to continue to shed quality editors while the POV-pushers who drive them away continue to thrive. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Begoon, Gatoclass: So, the both of you are convinced this is a case of civil POV-pushing? Could you tell us what POV is supposedly being pushed? Have either of you actually read Talk:Cambodian genocide#Massive revert by Darkness Shines? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I take an issues with the statement that good faith editors who eventually lose patience end up being the ones sanctioned for incivility while the civil POV-pushers sail blithely on, often for years, without sanction, as it suggests that people who voted "support" are non-content contributing "POV pushers", whiners, and complainers. How can you be so sure? Also, eventually is pretty rich in this context, since disruption, frivolous 3RRN threads, and uncivility are the hallmarks of this particular editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, Curly Turkey, I am not for a moment trying to suggest that people who !voted support here are "POV-pushers" (though perhaps some of them might be) and indeed I agree that DS's conduct at the article in question, especially some of the comments he made on the talk page, are unacceptable. And I would think that the majority of people who have !voted support here have done so in good faith and with the best of intentions. Nor am I criticizing the users who interacted with DS at the Cambodia page. All I have tried to say here is that I've seen DS adding useful content in contentious topic areas where POV-pushing can be rife, and I think he has burnout and that perhaps an enforced break would be better than a CBAN. My apologies if my previous comments indicated otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: Then I would invite you to peruse these threads: Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 4#What the fucking fuck is wrong with this? & Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 3#For fucks sake, among others. As well as this ANI discussion: NPA, unblock conditions. I can assure you that the user's behaviour has been both highly disruptive at that article. He has been blocked several times since those discussions transpired, culminating with Cambodian genocide Talk page. Hundreds, if not thousands, of users edit Wikipedia every day without getting blocked; it's not that hard :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I am not seeing anything particularly egregious in any of those threads, with the possible exception of deliberately breaking 1RR (though even there he adds a "feel free to block me" to the edit summary). What I am seeing are some pretty standard content disputes, albeit with some colourful language and the occasional arguably fairly mild breach of WP:CIV from DS. Is this really the kind of fare we want to CBAN productive contributors over? These threads just pretty much reinforce my view that we would be better off simply blocking such contributors for a week for any breach of WP:CIV and leaving it at that. The escalating block model may be useful in some circumstances, but using it on otherwise constructive editors who struggle with CIV has always seemed like overkill to me. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I do not care about DS's use of profanities or personal attacks. What concerns me is the total lack of cooperative spirit. I tried cooperate, and was heartened when DS did what I asked and immediately sought to encourage him/her (although I felt DS was editing too rapidly). The history of bans makes clear this is not a one-off thing. I also encountered DS one time before this, and was angered that DS mercilessly stroke down a constructive contribution by an IP, and was awarded for his/her behaviour. I felt bad for the IP, who probably got a bad impression of Wikipedia. If we want Wikipedia to continue to improve, then we need new blood and cooperative behaviour. This is the "'cultural' shite" I was talking about. I unfortunately think DS's manbabyism is beyond hope. Uglemat (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. The trail of incoherent and ugly edit summaries presented deserve a response but a community ban is not the appropriate one. A block for a lengthy period of time, say three months, should bring DS to their senses, at least for a while. The reality is that DS is a good content editor who tends to go off the rails on occasion. If we can use a judicious combination of blocks to retain the constructive parts of their work, then we should do just that. Wikipedia's problems come less from the editors who can't quite control their language but do adhere to sources, balance, and npov, and more from the editors who politely push their agendas. If we keep throwing out the former, we're losing the battle. --regentspark (comment) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Believe me, no one on Wikipedia could possibly sympathize more with your final two sentences than I do. (If you don't believe me, Ctrl+F my name at WP:RESTRICT and read through the whole thing -- and User:Curly Turkey, Nishidani, Johnuniq and Kingsindian would likely tell you the same.) But how could a three-month block make any difference when two indefinite blocks, one staying in place for two full years and only lifted with a heavy string of unblock conditions (which he has violated on a regular basis since), did not work? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I'm a practical sort of guy. We have a very prolific contributor who edits in contentious areas but has the tendency to go off the rails. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater by removing this contributor from Wikipedia, I'd rather let them edit, and then issue blocks when they start going berserk. Not escalating blocks but fixed length blocks (3 months sounds about right to me) that will allow them to return, contribute to the pedia for a while, rinse, and repeat. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: He's not that prolific: several people (at least one apparently with some kind of personal grudge) are saying that CT's language is worse and should therefore be treated similarly, despite the fact that (a) CT is not currently under a civility sanction that he has been repeatedly violating, and (b) CT's edit count is three times higher (and his mainspace edit count six times higher) than that of DS. On top of this, the Cambodian genocide article is not a "tendentious area" at least as it relates to the recent disruption: he is not arguing with genocide deniers or anything like that, and is apparently just being disruptive for the hell of it. Your proposal is interesting, but it is not and never has been in accordance with standard Wikipedia operating procedure; you are also basically suggesting that his existing sanctions, several of which require motions voted upon by the Arbitration Committee to be lifted, be either removed or made unenforcible, as "escalating blocks" (and an indef block on the fourth offense) are explicitly demanded. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, DS should be allowed to edit again in the India Pakistan space (assuming that's the sanction you're talking about). But, clearly, we're having a hard time distinguishing between Wikipedia as an encyclopedia building project and Wikipedia as a social network so that's not likely to happen. Regardless, I think I've said my piece and am willing to let the chips fall where they will. I suggest, looking at the extensive comments you've been making here, that you do the same. --regentspark (comment) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support DS was already indef blocked for about 2 years and unblocked less than a year ago. In such cases, when a user is unblocked after a long time of being blocked, it is often said by participants in the unblock discussion that it will be easy to reinstate the block if the editor becomes disruptive again. Apparently that's not true if you have enough friends. Lepricavark (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Blocking an editor for disruptive behavior is easy enough to achieve and I doubt you'd have seen much opposition if a standard block of escalating magnitude had been sought instead. Seeking a site ban or an equivalent community imposed indefinite block is quite another matter, however. I am personally not here as a friend of DS at all but as an enemy of hasty bans where standard technical blocks are more than sufficient. If you read the opposition, I believe you will see that others are essentially saying the same thing.--John Cline (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  It is at this juncture far too late for any indef block of DS to be hasty. Lepricavark (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. As per RegentsPark. We can't lose sight of the enormous contribution that DS has made to the project and likely to make again. Siteban is an overkill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support; we've given this user more than enough chances to fix their behavior, but they clearly haven't. I'm convinced that a temporary block with escalating blocks afterwards will achieve nothing; just look at their block log. He clearly got the message, many times I may add, but still continues to do the things we tell him not to do. An indefinite block with community approval to unblock, which may as well be a siteban, should be the only way forward. SkyWarrior 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A number of editors on both sides of this discussion appear to be unaware of a relevant change to policy from last May. The "supports" are largely pro-SBAN/CBAN per the understanding that a "community indefinite block" is the same as a site ban, but if this were the case then the policy that a community unblock cannot be undone without community assent would be redundant with the concept of a site ban (which is what a number of the "supports" have said); the "opposes" seem to largely think a "site ban" is going too far and a "regular indefinite block" that is "appealable in the standard fashion" would be enough, but if an indefinite block is imposed by community consensus it already is not appealable in the standard fashion. Dennis Brown and I appear to be the only ones who have noticed the problem here (one of the "opposes" actually said "per Dennis" and then went on to say the opposite of what Dennis said in light of the "community block" concept), and even we don't agree since he still recognizes more than a cosmetic difference between a community block and a ban while I do not. I don't know how this problem could be addressed, but I don't envy the closer's job -- I considered pinging everyone who had !voted so far, drawing their attention to the 2017/05 discussion and asking if they were aware of the distinction (for the supports) or lack thereof (for the opposes) between a community block and a ban, but that feels a little BLUDGEON-y. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The policy change to WP:CBAN you're referring to says, in pertinent part, Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". If an indef is imposed after due consideration by the community, it's a CBAN. Again, Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I'm really not sure how you can distinguish the two when the outcome of a community-imposed indef. is defined as a CBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• In practice, there is no difference between a community-imposed indefinite block where no specific conditions have been set for unblocking, and a community-imposed ban, as both must be appealed to the community. It would be odd that an administrator-imposed indefinite block that was reviewed by the community is considered to be a defacto community ban, and yet the analogous scenario where the community imposed the block is not. Accordingly, in the interest of allowing the discussion in May to reach a compromise solution, the change to extend the description of an "editing restriction" to include a community indefinite block was not objected to. Nonetheless it does not effectively change existing practice. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a net negative. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Support site ban, now that I've seen his antics at Talk:Cambodian genocide. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban DS had to make an appeal to the now-defunct BASC, which resulted in an extensive list of unblock conditions that he went and violated just after they expired, resulting in 2 more blocks. One would also have to consider DS's history as DarknessShines2, based on their admission here, who was also community banned and you have one of the longest block logs of any user in WP. Blackmane (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban per regentspark. —MBL ^Talk 06:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - can't believe that given the history, people are actually raising procedural concerns between a community indef and a community ban, which are literally the same thing in practice, and, per GracefulSlick, claiming that a ban would be "overkill". What? Seriously?! This user was blocked over and over again, until they were indeffed. They were then unblocked, and then indeffed again. Then, they were unblocked again, after two years, and they've gotten themselves blocked five times since their return less than a year ago. WTF. Why are people still defending this user? Because of procedural questions? Really? Or because it's too harsh? Too harsh to permaban someone who was allowed to return from an indef block, for a second time, and has wracked up five blocks since then? Really? Too harsh? Where do we draw the line? The 8th chance? The 9th? Swarm ♠ 08:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Too many problems from this user, and their username is offensive.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  09:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - the good contributions Darkness Shines have made shouldn't be the sole focus; you could make a strong argument that the consistent incivility and rudeness he has displayed towards just about everyone he disagrees with has driven away many people that otherwise would still be contributing positively. We will never know. But at some point a line has to be drawn about this kind of gleefully uncivil "I can get away with it nyah nyah nyah" behaviour, and I think the line was passed months ago. Fish+Karate 11:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban I would prefer some sort of mandatory mentoring/oversight by an admin - clearly indef blocks dont work. The problem I have is that on the substance of a lot of Darkness Shines recent issues is they are often correct. Or at least following policy as it applies to content. And ENWP is very very bad at resolving that sort of conflict with editors who are uncivil. Or rather, it resolves it by disappearing the loudest voice. Which doesnt fix the underlying problem. I also endorse heavily John Cline's comments above. Its amazingly un-evenhanded to be banning someone while letting comments like 'jizzy mitts' go relatively unsanctioned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: Mentoring? For someone with 32,000 edits spread out over four years? Also, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) isn't subject to editing restrictions, let alone flaunting them shamelessly, and everyone here is in agreement that profanity is not the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijari, I havnt read a more uncivil sentence from one editor to another this week than 'keep your hands covered in masturbatory juices off'. Its not profanity thats the problem its just offensive on many levels. But thats an aside, as for mentoring, I was thinking more of someone willing to be a sounding board for DS. 'This is fucking stupid and the editor is an idiot' 'Sure, but you cant tell them that'. Ideally DS would have an off-wiki outlet for their frustration, but again thats not something ENWP handles particularly well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's Only in death demonstrating how disruptive and ineffective ANI is. Only one editor was disrupting the Cambodian genocide article. "Jizzy mitts" in no way prevented anyone from improving the article or from engaging in productive discussion. How are you helping to get the editors at that article back to productivity? Nobody actually involved in the dispute gives two shits about DS's language—why are you trying to refocus the discussion on language?—rather than the editwarring, the restoring of problematic content, the refusal to engage in good-faith discussion, and other disruptions? That's not a rhetorical question.

I called out John Cline for his "agitated user" comment, and he refuses to respond and show us who or what "agitated" DS. These are the comments you "endorse heavily"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Who gives a shit what agitated him? Its never appropriate to refer to another editor in that manner, and it would be hypocritcal in the extreme to endorse some form of ban for incivility while bullshit like that is being directed at the editor. Your reply effectively boils down to 'I can insult them because they were the problem'. Talk about self-justification. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Who gives a shit what agitated him?"—Again demonstrating the same issues ANI has dealing with disruption, Only in death, but this is key: Nobody agitated Darkness Shines, but this is the axiom you're working from. You're trawling for people to sanction rather than looking for concrete solutions to concrete problems. That's a problem far worse than "jizzy mitts". You don't think so? Demonstrate how my comments contributed to the whole deadlock at the article—then demonstrate how the situation would have been any better at all if DS had chosen "polite" words. That's right OiD—the language contributed nothing to the problem.

And yet, here you are talking about a "ban for incivility" when incivility is not what people are calling to sanction him for. Are you even bothering to read what you're responding to? If you're "opposing" sanctions for incivility, please state so explicitly so the closer can ignore your !vote. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your assertion that incivility has nothing to do with calls in this thread that DS be sanctioned requires respondents to ignore the very subheading which brought this discussion about where the misconduct is delineated as edit-warring, incivility and personal attacks. I can't help but wonder if you've bothered to read what you're responding to in light of such context.--John Cline (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

John Cline: So you admit that you've ignored the content of the discussion? Thank you for putting that on record. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I really do not care if your disgusting personal attack contributed to the 'problem' or not. If you talk to an editor like that again I will revert you immediately under NPA. Other editor's issues do not give you license to break the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear you're not here to solve any problems—all the better if you can contribute to inflating them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with a user not named "Darkness Shines", then go file that complaint elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Begoon and Gatoclass, who together have saved me typing any more than this single sentence. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban I saw this before it was closed the first time, was surprised about the level of support since I thought DS was one of those editors who'd it'll always be difficult to cban no matter the problems. Considered saying something but then later it was closed. I'm less surprised now. Anyway DS obviously does a lot of good work. Unfortunately they also have serious problems collaborating with others. This isn't just because of the language. The example which started this is a good example. The article clearly has serious problems that need to be dealt with. But DS's way of dealing them, even if we put the language aside appeared to create more problems then they solved. And despite the fact that DS often does good work, I'm not convinced that even if all other editors had left DS alone to work on the article for a few days it would have been as good as it's hopefully going to be with good collaboration even without DS involved. As always a site ban doesn't have to be permanent. Maybe the history here will make it difficult to come back, but then again there is surely some way DS can shown they've changed enough to come back. If they really can't that's rather unfortunate but wikipedia is never going to be suitable for everyone and sometimes no matter what good someone does, they end up being a net negative. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• There seems to be (almost) universal consensus that the User keeps doing the same things over and over that lead to considerations/enactments of lengthy blocks or bans -- so now, on offer is CBAN, Administrative ban, and lengthy block (again) -- on the basis of this discussion and record, support CBAN. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban — Per Regentparks.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban for two reasons: First, as has been pointed out numerous times, this is nothing new. Dat block list, tho. That is pretty clearly not the block log of an editor who descends into disruptive behavior when frustrated, but of an editor who regularly engages in disruptive behavior. Second, I just want to get this over with, and an extra support !vote helps with that. Bear in mind: this right here is part of the disruption we're trying to cut down on. It may feel like we're being helpful by editing this page, but everyone here is spending time reading and typing on a topic that will be archived and eventually forgotten about instead of improving articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I don't like the tendentious editing, myself. The block log and the edit summaries speak for themselves. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Enough is enough. To those arguing for a shorter-term sanction, what is the rationale for assuming this will do anything that his past 28 blocks have failed to accomplish? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indefinite community block. Despite some good content work, this person is unable to participate successfully in a collaborative project, as their long block record and self-admissions show very clearly. It is quite sad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Little fast there

Community ban decided in 11 hours? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It was unanimous, and though there weren't that many !votes, those that were made cover a wide swathe of editor demographics. There's no reasonable cause to think that letting it run longer would change the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: To be fair, it wasn't quite unanimous. One fairly new account who admitted to this in their !vote issued a "weak oppose". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, look at that. It kinda got buried in the avalanche I guess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If a consensus develops here that it wasn't open long enough, we can re-open it to see if the vote swings a different way. It's now been an additional 8-9 hours or so, and no one has yet shown up to say they intended to vote any differently than had been expressed above. Comments are always welcome... --Jayron32 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll just point out that I was sleeping entirely, with the exception of responding to a talk page ping, when the discussion was open.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is fast; but unless somebody wants to oppose it there's no need to re-open it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned because the people who were involved in quite a few cases have a very pre-determined opinion of DS, often going back years, usually due to their perception of civility which, it must be said, is often very different from the UK etc perception. I don't see a "wide swathe" of editor demographics but rather a narrow selection. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a British editor and I found his behaviour unacceptable. !dave 20:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I know you are and that you did. One swallow does not a summer make. There are people who cannot handle robust commentary everywhere but there is a tendency on Wikipedia to find them more based in the US than in the UK or Australia and so on. It's something to do with wanting to be the morality police and yet the bollocks they spout about how, for example, it doesn't happen in the workplace is just that, bollocks. No community ban should be enforced on such a short hearing. Alas, I am unlikely to be around this weekend if the discussion is re-opened so there isn't much point in me asking for that. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that (i) I opened the thread, (ii) I'm Irish, (iii) the Irish (particularly people hailing from Dublin north of the Liffey, which is where I am from) are well-known for their vulgarity relative to the British, supposedly going back to when we first adopted English and determined that this savage foreign language with a poetic tradition far inferior to our own was only useful for cursing, and (iv) I agreed with the site-ban proposal (even hinting at it in my opening comment -- "to go where it looks likely to go") based on the right-out-the-door incivility. That said, I agree with SarekOfVulcan that this was rather fast. The previous proposal was shot down because DS was already temporarily blocked and unable to defend himself, and closing the discussion in barely longer than the amount of time most people sleep in a single night seems to go against the spirit of fairness that prevented that from happening last time. I don't see it going anywhere different even if it remained open for a week, but that's how the procedure should go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These typically take 24 hours, and are closed shortly after. There has been a trend of late to close ones that are snowing early, and while I don't personally like it and don't think it should be done, I also don't see the point of reopening a discussion when no one seems to have objected to the actual ban (unless you do, Sitush, in which case, I think there is a case to be made for allowing it to be open for an additional 24 hours.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm having a bit of trouble swallowing the requisite assumption that the British (or even Irish) are more lax about civility than Americans. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was only really talking about the cursing, not incivility in general. Certainly most of the fouler words I quoted at the top of this thread are words that an American probably wouldn't use even if he would use even worse ones, as they're Anglo-Irish slang (arse, feck, etc.). And I'll go to my grave believing the British borrowed "feck" from us, since the Irish word for "to see" is "feic" (pronounced the same) and I'm pretty sure the early modern Irish just adopted their word for "to see" as a euphemism for English "fuck". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I was actually responding to Sitush. It was their comment that contained the "requisite assumption" I mentioned. On the frequency of the use of curse words, it's possible that America might be behind Ireland, but in terms of general incivility, welll... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that the use of robust language is common in the US but it is US-based contributors to this project who tend to bang the drum, at least in my experience. Some of them are in the discussion above and at least one of them should themselves have been sanctioned years ago even though to the best of my knowledge they have never resorted to such terms. Wikipedia isn't a workplace, where we are paid and told what to do, but rather a big city with 5 million houses, many derelict, and a small population. There are plenty of byways and houses etc that people can frequent if they do not care for something. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Hold on there; comments like at least one of them should themselves have been sanctioned years ago are pretty questionable, especially when made at ANI rather than, say, DS's user talk page, and if you are going to criticize someone like that you should at least name names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• In general I think having a discussion which bans a long term and prolific editor close in short time is bad form. Why not open it back up and let it run for another 24 hrs? I seriously doubt that the outcome will change but it will avoid the drama and bad feelings that are bound to come up when this is discussed in the future. -- Prolong it now to shorten the pain later. Jbh ^Talk 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley hit the nail on the head here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually have serious doubts as to whether prolonging the discussion will help. I've taken that exact position in the past, and each time I've seen that the extra time didn't actually assuage any hurt feelings or drama. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt it. This is just a procedural matter. Honestly, if I was DS I would probably want this matter to be over with as soon as possible one way or the other. But clearly (look at his talk page) he has a lot of friends who wanted to voice their opinions, and they are not getting banned, so not leaving them feeling shafted by a procedurally questionable prematurely closed SBAN discussion should be priority 1 as far as I am concerned. (And yes, I am aware that anyone reading this might see my third sentence as a passive-aggressive "Y'know, you wouldn't be doing him any favours...". But that's really not how I roll these days. If I don't express my honest opinion -- that another 24 hours won't change anything and that it'd only be more drama -- people might tell me I was "wrong" later, when in fact in my gut I was actually right.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There's enough concern about this outcome that I support re-opening the discussion. We may need stronger language around the "at least 24 hours" part in WP:CBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Let it run longer. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this sorta thing for AN not AN/I? Arkon (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Arkon: I've seen a lot of people say that, and the interwiki links on this page seem to support that assertion, but in reality I don't think the distinction (ANI for blocks, AN for bans) has ever been strictly enforced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Jayron32, would you mind undoing your close and transferring the text of the proposal/!votes to AN, as people have objected to it being here too. There seems to be an emerging consensus to let it run for another 24 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with CBAN discussions being quickly closed, even recent ones which I myself have supported... to the point where I would support a policy amendment to set something like a three day minimum for such a proposal to get community input. We certainly should not be closing a discussion in the time when half of the world is still asleep, and hasn't really had the chance to wake up yet. GMG^talk 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Since Jayron32 said he would not object to re-opening if there appears to be a consensus to re-open, I've gone ahead and did it for him.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's cool. I have no problem letting this run longer as needed. It's clear that people have more to say about. No harm there. --Jayron32 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support letting this run longer. I don't think it will require a full 30 days, but definitely at least until, say, midweek. Give the weekenders time to come in and see this, plus people who primarily edit during work hours a bit more time to come in during the week. I really think this, among other issues, is yet another thing that needs to be addressed when and if we (as a community) handle comprehensive banning policy reform as I've advocated in several cases recently. We need to stop doing patchwork fixes and leaving the fundamental problems with how we handle these discussions unaddressed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 30 days is not the standard for a ban discussion. 24 hours is. I'd be open to leaving it longer open if there was substantial opposition, but if not, it should probably be closed around the 24 hour mark. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Tony here. But should clarify that it's 24 hours after reopening -- 00:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC) -- as 24 hours total time being open is super-messy. Per my above comments (and I think probably the opinions of everyone here) I can't see the consensus changing much either way. Sitush's comment above that they would be busy this weekend is a little concerning, but one editor couldn't overrule that no matter how many days they had, even if that was what they intended to try. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on the clarification point. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Not busy, just won't have access. I have a DHCP server failure and am running out of data allowance on mobile. I have mentioned this elsewhere this week, eg: on my talk page. Waiting for a new device. My objection is primarily regarding the summary closure - I've not even really delved into the diffs etc because I am very close to my limit now having spent far too much time buggering about with a BLP that should have been fully protected when it went to AfD, imo. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

24 hours is considered the barest minimum for a ban discussion. It's not the standard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• This crops up time and time again. Can someone please explain why there's a rush to close banning discussions? If the editor is currently being disruptive that can be solved with a block. Otherwise it saves a lot of time and discussion when the editor or someone else complains that not all interested community members had a chance to comment. I'd really like a modification to WP:CBAN stating discussions must be left open for at least 24 hours (I'd like 48 but I'll take what I can get). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Per my above reply to MPants (and some stuff in DS's comments on his talk page since this thread was opened), the longer the discussion stays open, the better for the ban recipients' "friends" who are not directly affected, but in near-unanimous cases like this (which are probably the only ones that get shut after the minimum wait time), after a certain point (and I think we had already reached that point even before Jayron's initial close) it becomes just a matter of more and more people piling on to badmouth the editor who might as well already be blocked, which is overkill, and borders on GRAVEDANCE when the editor in question has made it fairly clear they are not going to defend themselves on ANI. I agree that the discussion should be left open as a procedural matter, but I don't think increasing the minimum wait time to 48 hours in cases like this would do much good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: And the shorter the discussion stays open, the better for opponents of the editor to steamroll through a sanction. All sides - opponents, supporters, uninvolved (who usually take longer to comment) - should get at least the chance to be heard. Again, this helps to prevent discussions like this from having to be held. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I would probably support you from a procedural standpoint if you made that proposal. I just think that in cases that seem like foregone conclusions, all leaving it open does is allow the "Yeah, ban 'em" comments to keep piling up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Everything NeilN has said. This is part of why I believe we need comprehensive banning policy reform. Perhaps, once a discussion has hit 24 hours we should make a preliminary assessment of the consensus, and perhaps preliminarily block, but there absolutely shouldn't be a final, binding closure until the discussion has been open long enough for folks with lives outside Wikipedia, tech problems, and other issues to get their statements under consideration. Otherwise, we're gonna be finding ourselves in progressively more frustrating situations where we either foreclose discussion as coming too late (despite WP:NOTBURO), or keep allowing the discussion to be reopened to accommodate more comments. There are so many other problems with banning discussions though. We really need to fix this problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN - Feel free to propose it with all the fanfare of a central RfC. I'd support, and it'd probably be more well received coming from you rather than me anyway. GMG^talk 02:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• +1 - Agree with Neil the discussion shouldn't of been closed so quickly and I too would support some sort of change to WP:CBAN so that discussions remain atleast 48 hours open (Not everyone checks ANI every day so 48 would be better imho). –Davey2010^Talk 02:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

To start off: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Proposal_for_mandatory_minimum_duration_length_for_CBAN_discussions. Further discussion should probably take place there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Participants in a collaborative community should be able to exercise self-restraint and avoid piling onto a discussion where consensus has already been clearly established, and to avoid antagonizing other members of the community with unfriendly behaviour. If they can't, the remedy should address the problematic editors, rather than seeking to cut short the ability of others to participate. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sometimes I think previous related discussions should be taken into consideration. But this was closed indeed too early, I am glad it's being re-opened. Alex Shih (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Lessons Learned, Comment, Continuing Consensus, and Take CBAN Reform to Village Pump

First, there is clearly a lesson learned that premature closure of a ban discussion actually extends the ban discussion. If waiting for 24 or 48 hours allows the subject to rally their friends to oppose the ban, maybe there isn't really a community consensus. If there is no consensus, only widespread opposition that is not consensus, maybe the case needs to go to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Second, I think that enough time has elapsed that further argument will not change things. Either there is a consensus after all to ban Darkness Shines, or there isn't. If yes, close this with a ban. If not, close with a stupid warning, knowing that either the community or the ArbCom will still have to do the dirty deed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Third, take any discussion of ban reform to Village pump (policy) or some other village pump. Any discussions here just generate heat in place of light. (What do you expect when the user is Darkness Shines?) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: "CBAN Reform" sounds a little formal, but I can see merit in a WP:BRD change to the current CBAN guidelines that advises against SNOW-closing CBAN !votes in favour of banning a user before the 24 hour mark. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 00:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @Alfie: Per some more-recent discussion further up involving me, Dennis Brown (who I think is tired of me pinging him), Isaacl (talk · contribs) (who made a good point in an on-wiki response to a related email I sent them, here) and Mendaliv (talk · contribs), I think if there is need for policy reform at this juncture, the more pressing, and the more long-term significant, issue is actually not timing of closes, but rather the distinction or lack thereof between a "community block" and a "ban".

In this case, I originally filed this report based on DS having violated various editing restrictions to which he was apparently subject (some Arbitration, others community, I figured ANI was the best place to file, since technically the relevant Arbitration sanctions were not really DS-specific restrictiins but a strong statement that "the policy applies to you and you will be blocked for violating it"), so if the community decides that a "block" (using that word) is the best way to deal with his violation of these restrictions, is the resulting block just an enforcement measure by a lone admin, or is it a "community block"? Is an admin at liberty to phrase his/her close in terms that bring the particular block down on one side or the other? Do !votes that include wording like Support The community has had enough of this user's disruption. count as comments in favour of a substantially different outcome from those that are worded like Support The community has had enough of this user's violations.? I honestly don't know, and there may not be an easy answer in this case.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I think discussion like that belongs at the WP:VP as Robert suggested - I'm simply concerned that the thread was closed far too early in favour of a CBAN, and we should try to avoid that happening again. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dummy ping Hijiri88 because I am good at typoing -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reclosing? Or Another Unpleasant Proposal?

It has now been 72 hours since I originally made my unpleasant proposal. It appears that the !vote is 25-11 in favor of either an Very Long Block or a Site Ban (to be enforced by a very long block), although my count may be off, and does not take into account some of the conditions noted. I would suggest either that an administrator reclose this, with either a ban or some other sort of very long block, or that someone else make some other unpleasant proposal. As I originally noted, if the community doesn't act, someone will ask the ArbCom to act, and eventually either the community or the ArbCom will have to do something. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: FWIW, I feel like "25-11" doesn't accurately reflect the discussion, as most of the "11" either (a) admitted that their own alternative proposals are far too weak (and therefore unlikely to work) in that they are steps down from the previous two indefinite blocks, (b) made seemingly irrelevant counter-proposals like "TBAN from American politics" (which wouldn't prevent disruption like that seen at the Cambodian genocide article) or yet another final warning about uncivil behaviour and/or edit-warring, or (c) consist largely of non-sequitur arguments about a cabal of "civil POV-pushers" which doesn't apparently include either me (the original OP) or you (the author of the unpleasant proposal) and which also had nothing to do with the recent disturbance at the Cambodian genocide article (where DS could not have been "worn down" by civil POV pushers, as he was the instigator).

I supported (quite actively) the reopening of the discussion, but rapidly thereafter came to regret that support, as all that seemingly came from it apart from more people piling on to agree to the proposal (as I had predicted) was one reasonable argument from Dennis Brown and a bunch of friends of DS showing up and ignoring all the specific disruption under discussion while talking about what a great guy he is (and what a terrible guy Curly Turkey is ... !?) and how he shouldn't have to abide by our conduct standards like the rest of us, or even by his own clearly defined editing restrictions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice he had a topic ban until now (AGF is a suicide pact...), but he has also been flouting his TBAN from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed".[59][60][61] Those are just the ones that happen to mention those countries (or the closely related country Bangladesh) by name in either the edit summary or article title; I have no idea how many times he has actually violated this ban.

I sympathize (by god do I sympathize!) with an editor who has been banned from a very broad topic area that covers all of their primary editing interests, but he needs to appeal this ban if he wants to edit those articles. It's simply not fair to other prolific and constructive contributors who have been treated to bans and work to appeal them the right way if DS is allowed ignore his bans.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

While there may not be a consensus for a site ban, it is clear that almost every editor feels that DS deserves a block of at least several weeks duration. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this, if he is so useful would it not be an idea to identification his areas of actual expertise and just ban him from all articles except a list of those he has real value (due to competence) in? Or maybe even a general requirement to make no edits without first getting agreement, a ban on editing articles in effect but not from asking for edits to be made, thus forcing him to cooperate.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Derogatory comments

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

---

Sport and politics made an edit on WrestleMania 34 here despite it being source and content supported by source. After it was undone by a user other than myself he undid it again here. After it was once again undone by a user other than myself he added it back for a third time here here. I now came in and this page was previously locked for similar types of edit warring, so I had opened a conversation on this matter to the talk page Talk:WrestleMania 34#Page locked over two weeks ago, to which no one including this user chose to reply to. Therefore since there was no clear consensus I reverted this again with the intention of going to the users page to alert him to the discussion. Before i was able to he opened his own conversation here Talk:WrestleMania 34#Match speculation.

After I explained to him why he was incorrect, he then went to my talk page to make the same arguments again here. Based on his comments I felt it was clear his intentions were to edit war rather than to engage in a conversation, so I simply responded with if he added it back again I would report him for edit warring, and I issued a warning on his page here.

Now for why I am coming here instead of WP:ANEW. Instead of again engaging in a conversation he chose to make comments like " talk second wanker who is typical of tiny endowed males". Personal attacks and derogatory comments. He then decided to issue me an edit warring message instead here, which I removed, as I am more than allowed to do. He felt that I am apparently not allowed to do that and added it back to my page here. I feel that this persons actions are clearly violating multiple policies which is why I am bringing it here. - Galatz^Talk 13:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

YAWN.

This is a waste of time.

The discussion on my talk page is closed. A simple look at the very top of my page would indicate my preference regarding the placing of warnings on my page without discussion. Ignoring that is not going to be very constructive. Warnings are a last resort and not a first resort.

No one can give offence one can only take offence, and I cannot be responsible for how touchy and snowflakey other users are, particularly when they are placing garbage on my talk page. The comments are also general in nature and refer to a style of dumping warnings on my talk page without attempting to engage in discussions, which this user is engaging in. The user would be in a far better position if they had an issue with my editing to set up a genuine discussion and not to jump in with threatening warnings. This discussion for example would not exist.

For the benefit of the user who has bought this discussion up here is what WP:civility states:

Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with,... Consider using a personal message instead....

This user should be aware that because they dislike what I have done it is not an excuse for them to perpetuate the behaviour they are complaining of. If they have an issue with reverting, they should not also be engaging in reverting. They should be having a civilised discussion.

I started the discussion on the article talk page, before they user placed such threatening warnings on my page, and they should have engaged in the discussion on the article talk page, as opposed to taking everything in such a high and mighty fashion. The user who has made this report is entirely at fault for the creation of the situation, wheen they should have been engaging on the article talk page.

It also helps if other users use correct pronouns for editors, I am not a he. I am a she. This is abundantly clear on my user page. Sport and politics (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe the above comments confirm that this user is interested in solely proving they are right rather than reading what other people right. I clearly stated that I opened the dialog over 2 weeks ago, yet this user ignored that and proceeded to edit their position disregarding the talk page of the page they were editing. Additionally they have ignored the fact that I explained above the rationale for placing the warning on their talk page. Also according to Merriam-Webster the word he can be defined as used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified as you can see here. - Galatz^Talk 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Galatz, please make use of an editors preferred pronoun identification usage. You're now aware of it, if you weren't before, so please use it and don't dig a hole. Apologise on that instead of defending your edit and move on. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments came off that way, it was not my intention. - Galatz^Talk 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Did I just hear someone say "No one can give offence one can only take offence"? That sounds like something kids learn in kindergarten, one of many lies they're taught. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I will admit there is a lot of strength to the S&P incivility issues. Plus I'm sure we've seen her on this board multiple times before for similar. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're saying that although someone is discussing, because of the things they've done and said, you refuse to accept that they're actually willing to discuss the issue and so are not going to engage in the ongoing discussion and instead have decided to take a WP:Content dispute to ANI or continue to WP:Edit war? As far as I see, S&P posted on the article talk page, you replied, they replied and so it's awaiting further replies from you or someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My point of coming here is for their comments and actions outside of the discussion on the talk page. - Galatz^Talk 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

But for what? Realistically minor incivility like that is never going to result in sanction. And while 3RR is not a right, it's not likely someone will be blocked for only 3 reversion, even if it is against multiple other people, unless the edit itself is a serious problem (BLP vio, copyright problem). Especially when they are initiate a discussion after. If either side continues to edit war, you may start to expected either blocks or more likely for the article to be protected. I suggest you all just stop edit warring instead. In other words, sure S&P's behaviour may not be great, but it's not the sort of thing for which there is any hope of action for ANI so I ask again, why are you bringing this content dispute to ANI? The only thing here which seems to be a real problem is the reversion of your removal of their warning on your talk page. (Something you only mentioned at the end of your opening comment.) Per WP:OWNTALK that's clearly wrong. Still it's not something that needs to be at ANI unless S&P continues to add it back. Instead just politely point out OWNTALK to them and ask them not to revert. Something I've now done. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Their comments which I pointed out above are a clear violation of WP:NPA. There was a conversation already on the talk page which the user ignored, only after being reverted 3 times did they open a second thread in talk (note edit warring and 3RR are not the same, they still violated edit warring even without a 4th revert). Per WP:BRD they should have gone to talk after the first revert, not 3rd. Although each one individually may not warrant actions, I believe the combination of everything together is worthy of bringing to ANI. I understand you might not agree, and that is fine. I however felt that this did. - Galatz^Talk 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear there is no action to result from this discussion, and I call for this discussion to be closed. Galatz needs to move on from flogging this dead horse. This is getting very boring. Sport and politics (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This comment has not aged well, has it? I find it interesting that S&P has closed every single thread on her own talk page. That is highly unusual and reflects her unwillingness and/or inability to collaborate well with others. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't read the replies above since I'm a bit bored of this dispute but I just remembered something I forgot to say. I question the utility of issuing an edit warring warning to someone who had just warned you. The primary point of the warning is to ensure that: 1) The editor is aware of our policy on edit warring (particularly since admins are less willing to block if it's a minor violation and the editor is likely unaware) 2) To remind the editor they should try engage in discussion rather than edit warring. While I admit I don't hang out at WP:AN/EW, I would be surprised if any admin didn't block due to the lack of a warning if the editor themselves just issue a warning related to that dispute so just show them issuing the warning if needed, i.e. we can cross of 1. And if an editor isn't self aware enough to remember that they too should be engaging in discussion if involved in the dispute, I don't think warning them back is going to help so let's cross of 2. But anyway whatever. it happened. But I still strongly suggest rather than engaging in this pointless aside you concentrate on the dispute at hand on the article talk page. (Which itself looks like it will be moot in under 2 months.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sports and politics, this is of course not cool. Don't do that again. Galatz, I looked but I failed to see the clear violations of NPA. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Sport and politics: Also, make a comment like this again and you're looking at a block. I doubt we'd tolerate a similar comment made about a female editor and we're not having a double standard here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Whoa. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• That was the comment I was referring to. - Galatz^Talk 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't see that, sorry--but I was looking for diffs and skimmed over the text. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Apologies, I read your reference to the comment above, but didn't read it properly and thought the extent of the incivility was a single instance of calling someone a wanker. I agree that with the second part of the comment it's a much more serious problem and worthy of bringing to ANI whether or not anything happens. Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is pretty much their last comment. Still attacking other editors. I must say I am leaning towards a block for S&P for incivility and inability to work with others and collaborate. Sick of seeing her name here. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail, I certainly agree that any next blow below the belt should be followed by a block. I'd like to hear from Sports and politics; I want to know if she gets the point. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suspect a male editor making similarly nasty gendered insults against a female editor would have already been permablocked. Reyk _YO! 15:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• I suspect they'd be blocked for a period of time, yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sport and politics, sorry to interrupt your nap, but for all your yawning and dismissiveness there's a couple of admins here who are not quite done with you and your sexist jokes yet. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• New rule: any editing dispute over wrestling article to lead to immediate topic bans of all involved and deletion of the article. I think this will rapidly improve the project. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As much as I want to make a drive-by-witticism agreement with this, I'm forced to admit that if we do this, we may as well hang out a sign saying "Meat and sock puppets wanted. Apply within." Because an articles owned by puppets is the only way to avoid disputes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll go you one better. EEng 06:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• What an odd coincidence that S&P has suddenly stopped editing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Well since we can't rely on them to come back to respond to us we need to make a decision. To block for the comments that most seem to agree are unacceptable or not. We do keep seeing her here on this board for her behaviour after all. Canterbury Tail talk 17:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• If anything, I think that a minimum action to take here is to put Sport and politics on a final warning and only warning basis regarding their civility and temperament towards other editors from here on out. If Sport and politics makes any more of these kinds of comments or responses towards another editor, I'll have absolutely no problem with applying a civility block on this user and without further discussion or warning brought to them first. This user's level of collaboration and communication is unacceptable and should not be tolerated any further. An editor with ~7,000 contributions and 5 years of tenure on Wikipedia should absolutely know better than this and should not have to be reminded to comply with Wikipedia's civility policies at all. All of Sport and politics comments and communications are to be in compliance with Wikipedia's civility policies and at all times - failure to do this will result in being blocked. Whether or not Sport and politics makes any kind of response here is irrelevant, and this warning should be applied here and moving forward regardless of their participation here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that’s acceptable and reasonable. Canterbury Tail talk 22:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also support that. One of the reasons for my initial above comments is from my experience, simply calling someone a wanker without no other major aggravating factors like a strong history of personal attacks at worst results in an admin or other experience editor warning the editor. I've never considered these a particularly useful use of ANI time since ultimately anyone can issue a warning, without it having to be mentioned at ANI first. But these cases of a final or only warning with some level of community backing are one exception to such concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well, and have notified Sport and politics of this warning on her talk page. Swarm ♠ 08:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Apparent behavioral problems at List of Death in Paradise episodes

Persistent disruptive editing - after they have been blocked twice - by user Kaos Edward Nick (talk · contribs). They probably contributed as IP user 24.65.54.59 (talk · contribs) during the time the registered username was blocked. --Richard-DIP (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The edits made yesterday by Kaos Edward Nick here just look to be simple table color changes and the creation of a column - these don't look disruptive to me at all. What's the user been doing that's been disruptive? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The edits for which they were blocked were unsourced speculation about shows and casts in 2020 - they haven't repeated that as far as I can see since the last block, although they're starting to push the boundary on some topics. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

They added unsourced speculative air dates for season 8 (diff), removed the "References" section header and reflist tag (diff), added a speculative synopsis (episode 8 of season 7 has not aired yet) (diff), added a speculative announcement (episode 8 of season 7 has not aired yet) (diff) --Richard-DIP (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard's username, Richard-DIP, and his contributions hint at WP:OWNership issues. There may be enough trout to share in this report. Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stewardship is not the same thing as ownership. If you have some specific diffs of WP:OWN violations, please present them, otherwise it is casting aspersions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on block

Please see the second AIV report here. Contribs can be seen here. Any objections to the block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty damn high-level rangeblock; you've essentially blocked an entire chunk of a cell-phone carrier's users from accessing Wikipedia for the sake of shutting down two trolls that happen to use that service. I'm not saying I oppose, and I'm not saying I support, I'm just saying... --Jayron32 14:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I looked at about 50 contribs from the past month and about 10% were decent (nothing particularly good). The other 90% were vandalism, disruption, or people playing around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, blocking wide ranges like this can naturally look scary, but the edits from this range are almost entirely disruptive and the risk for collateral damage is very low. Situations like these are what make the block of a range (even wide ones) necessary. Do I like doing it? Of course not. Do I try my best to avoid doing it if other solutions exist? Of course. But sometimes this is what's needed, too... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me - go for it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block IMO, though a tough call. Thanks for bringing it for discussion. It's a large range, yes, but that shouldn't stop us from preventing disruption. It's anon-only so anyone with an account on that range should still be able to edit (right?) but should you have blocked account creation? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to criticize, I was actually wondering if that was a thing that we should do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but I would really like to see it reduced to a week. I'm not seeing any major disruption, just run of the mill vandalism, and I don't feel comfortable with a month long range block that wide of a mobile carrier for what is likely high school kids messing around. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Go through the contribs for a couple months. If you feel a week long block will stem all that disruption then feel free to reduce. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• The range has been used by an LTA (filing cases against checkusers) and another sockmaster. There isn't much collateral damage for anon editing. Two regular users use the range and they would be collateral if this were a hardblock. Blocking account creation isn't necessarily a bad thing here. Longer block likely to be more effective than naught.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given the CU data above, I have no objections now. I was just looking at the high school type stuff that could be seen publicly, and didn't see any attempts for shorter blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Something worth watching is the /41 range because the CU logs show that as a range of concern. The Whois record shows a /44 but three different CUs have checked the /41.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the /44 block doesn't stop everything and a /41 would, it can be easily extended if the need presents itself. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

After continuing to keep watch over the contributions from both the /44 and the /41 ranges, I think that blocking at the /44 should be sufficient. I don't see any disruption from IPs that are outside of the /44 but within the /41. I also see what appear to be good faith edits from within that /44 - /41 range pool as well, so we should avoid blocking at this range unless we have no other choice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've been through a few and they also seem to be wireless broadband in small geographical area. Blocks like this may unfortunately be necessary to stop LTA, as LTA users will probably be given a new IP address every time they log on: blocking single IPs or even /64 connections are liable to be next to useless. The only alternative is to these sort of blocks is semi-protecting all articles affected, but if a lot of different articles are affected then that falls down too. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sipos111 for WP:NOTHERE and WP:OUTING myself and Niteshift36

Sipos111 (talk · contribs) recently joined to push content related to the recent shooting in Florida. While I understand the wish to add recent content that doesn't excuse outing Wiki editors, myself and @Niteshift36: on an external website. [[62]] Here is where Sipos111 tells another editor that he is involved in the external posting. [[63]] Springee (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That article is from April 2017 (10 months ago), doesn't appear to engage in WP:OUTING, and doesn't appear to be by Sipos111. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No outing here, and the majority of Sipos111's contributions have been constructive. - TNT^❤ 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I missed the date. The new editor posted The link today and based on the accompanying statements I assumed it was recent. I would still be suspicious that a new editor would post such an article their first day here. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps - best if we just let them get on with contributing and see where that leads, at least for now? - TNT^❤ 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the outing, I didn't read the full article in the external link. However, based on Sipos111's behavior, I have to agree they are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopaedia. Rather, their only goal here seems to be pushing an anti-gun agenda. I've tried to advise them that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX, but there may also be a WP:CIR competency issue. They don't appear interested (by their own comments) in learning WP P&G or contributing effectively. If all they want to do push an agenda and disrupt articles of sporting good manufacturers in pursuit of that agenda, then that makes them an SPA and we really consider the value of keeping their account active against the stability of the project. (my 0.02¢) - ^theWOLFchild 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's not outing. However, it is a personal attack. I also wonder how the user found the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose you were not able to answer your own question, Bbb. FYI, one of the things that the Lightbreather case taught me is that there is a TON of off-wiki collusion (NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION HERE FOLKS NOTHING TO SEE), so I'm not surprised to see LB's musings pop up here. Also, well, a whole bunch of people got killed, and some are upset, including me. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed (mostly). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing the personal attack then - could someone point me to it? - TNT^❤ 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I call it more "uncivil" in my opinion. Their messages here, here, and here make unfounded accusations of one's "agenda" and are indeed absolutely unnecessary and un-collaborative in nature. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that - TNT^❤ 00:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sipos, make up your mind. If you want to get blocked and brag about it, just continue to do what you're doing. If you want to edit Wikipedia, get serious. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Regardless, I'm pretty much prepared to impose an indefinite topic ban on Sipos111 from anything related to firearm ownership on this project. This user's edits on this topic clearly show personal bias and POV-pushing, and it would benefit this topic area if this user were prohibited from participating there. This user has been alerted, and as far as I'm concerned - he's fair game to have editing restrictions imposed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that an indefinite block is warranted. It's clear that he was recruited by Lightbreather, to come to Wiki for the soul purpose of causing disruption and adding a political agenda. Please see https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor for more information.--RAF910 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I see Lighbreather retweeted Feinstein--good, Feinstein deserves a medal. I don't take the "recruiting" part very seriously, not until we have proof of collusion (I know how that sounds, haha). It's entirely possible that Sipos came here because of that, but that doesn't invalidate Sipos as an editor; we all came here one way or another. This is not leading to a block right now, but let's see how they continue. If they're fine, fine. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

These responses left by the user here and here might be a sign that this user is reading the concerns expressed (either here or expressed to them directly) and might be taking it to heart and wising up. While this is nice to see, I would very much like to see Sipos111 respond here as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi all - this has been an education. I honestly learned a lot about how this whole wikipedia thing works, which is fascinating. And ugly. I now understand a bit about why things areset up the way they are, and I can't say I could design better conventions, internal politics and power trips and ways to game the system included.

I'll freely admit I came here pissed off. I have two young kids, and when they start school they'll soon be going through active shooter drills. I can only hope that's the most my family ever feels as a result of this epidemic of mass shootings. And imagining what kids all over this country go through is a nightmare. This is going to happen again soon. Maybe today. Maybe next week. Nothing is happening to stop it. Gun manufacturers have an incredible amount of power in this situation. They could help. Instead, they give huge sums to the NRA, which is very effective at preventing any sensible gun legislation from getting through. And why would they help when gun sales jump after every mass shooting? I'd argue that if you're not pissed then something is wrong with you. It isn't right, and I don't think it has to be this way.

Personally, I think the standard set by the firearms group sets the bar for mention on the corporation's page way too high. If a corporation's product is used (to kill 17 human beings) in an event that is a national news story, then that seems worth mentioning on the corporation's page. If the event warrants its own wikipedia page, then connecting the corporation to the event seems appropriate. Mass shootings and other prominent usage (illegal or otherwise) of a coporation's products clearly have an impact on that corporation (e.g., negative publicity around illegal usage played a role in S&W rebranding itself), and understanding this can help wikipedia readers to understand the corporation and it's place in history. And mass shootings are an important fact of our modern history. As I've said, I don't have the time or the mental energy to be active on wikipedia. I'll leave it to you all to debate this, if anyone here cares to.

As most or all have figured out, I didn't write that lightbringer article, nor did anyone send me. I just googled the user who undid my changes, and I saw laid out in that article what appeared to be a clear pattern of biased edits in favor of gun manufacturers. I think there may very well be good faith intentions behind that activity (who knows? or maybe half of you are paid shills for corporations. Or maybe we're all just Russian trolls.) But I saw in this thread the suggestion that someone with a strong bias shouldn't be allowed to edit within a topic. Well, if the community actually cares about that, then I think the lightbringer article warrants more attention. Personally, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't have strong feelings about many of the articles they choose to edit, especially if the articles have any overlap with a political topic.

Thanks to all who offered me advice. And thank you all for your work on this project that is wikipedia.

Take care! Sipos111 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Based on Bbb's comments, the diffs above, and Sipos111's own comments, it's very clear that Sipos has a strong agenda. Clearly not NPOV and should be no where near these articles. Regardless of whether they are truly leaving, or disbanding this account for a sock, a ban should be established.--v/r - TP 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have mentioned just a reminder that if the external link really did contain outing, you should not have been publicly linking to it here without asking Niteshift36 first. (It's generally suggested you don't link pages which out you either since that effectively means discussing any info contained there here on wikipedia is no longer outing, but that's ultimately your choice.) Also as said the blog appears to belong to another editor, currently banned as result of an arbcom case. Note that you also need to take care not to out other editors, regardless of whether they may have outed you or others, by linking to their work elsewhere. It often doesn't matter even if they disclose who they are here on the other site or it's fairly obvious due to the same name, what matters is what they disclose here. However in this case it seems the blog is linked on meta Meta:User:Lightbreather (not sure about here), so that's probably not really a concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'll say little here except that I wouldn't exactly call this outing, although LB has a history of that with others. I've been aware of it since last year. While it may target me, it falls short of outing. As for the collusion, who recruited whom or how editors feel about the topic.... I'll leave that up to the rest of you. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

IP keeps adding personal info of [[ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]] on ANI

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

---

Hello, the IP 12.130.116.88 keeps adds personal info of [[ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]] on ANI. Despite being reverted many times, the user keeps readding info back. See [ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]. This might require revdel. Stylez995 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Issue has been handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Stylez995 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem; it's what I'm here for ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing and COI tags

I hate to do this, but Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Andy) has got another bee in his bonnet. He has decided that COI tags on articles are a BLP problem, and is removing them based on a legalistic interpretation of the tag documentation. Specifically, he removes the tag if there is no active talk page section discussing the COI - even if there is a rather obvious identification of the COI on Talk, or if the discussion was initiated but has archived out.

Example:

• Harvey Newquist II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [Article] 00:01, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (5,216 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (nothing on talk;) [64]
• [Talk] 03:53, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (378 bytes) (+170)‎ . . (paid-editor relationship disclosed here) [65]
• [Talk] 03:54, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (428 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (Hnewquist connected? possibly.) [66]
• 11:54, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,776 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (still nothing on talk page) [67]
• 16:06, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,396 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (→‎top: Still nothing on talk) [68]

So, this is an article that had a COI tag due to an admitted paid connection and a username that is very obviously a family member, but there was no identification of this on Talk. The first removal was, IMO, fair. However, the second and third removals occurred after templates had been added tot he Talk page identifying not only a paid editor but also an obvious family member and that is into WP:POINT territory.

This is not the first time. Examples:

• [69] was valid, and a tag was added to talk shortly afterwards
• [70] had a Talk template identifying an obviously conflicted editor for over two years before Andy removed the COI tag.
• [71] had a paid editor tag on Talk since January and a discussion on Talk but it was auto-archived out on Jan 9 [72].

So we have an absolutely standard Andy situation, where he is 100% sincere, completely committed, has the very best of intentions, is sometimes undoubtedly right, but, equally, sometimes unequivocally wrong, and prepared to edit-war over it. We have been here before, many times, over many years.

Backstory (Warning: may contain TL;DR)

This is not a case of giving a dog a bad name. Words like "fixated" have been a stable part of discourse about Andy since forever (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6 § Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors 2), and a search for his username on the archives will readily show that the examples are not cherry-picked. After a year-long ban (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing) for most of 2006, Andy was back to edit-warring over meta content within a few months (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive256 § Geni warring again), he was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and revert warring in 2007, sanctioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive6 § User:Pigsonthewing and eventually subject to another 12-month ban under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. That ban was from August 19 2007 to the same date 2008, and less than a month later he was blocked again. He is capable of sustaining a dispute for years (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688 § Jim Hawkins/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233 § Off-wiki solicitation of vandalism/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234 § Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing). In 2013 ArbCom indefintiely banned him from adding infoboxes, due to edit-warring (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes § Pigsonthewing and infoboxes). Edit-warring is a stable feature of Andy's contributions to Wikipedia. Once he has decided that he is right, it seems to be nigh on impossible to persuade him otherwise (e.g. Template:Article section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), edit-warring a CSD tag, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941 § Beetstra and Twitter/ Facebook). The objective significance of the issue doesn't seem to matter (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182 § Urgent editprotected request).

The current problem is IMO relatively easily solved: a topic ban on removing COI templates, either entirely or where there is a {{connected contributor}} or similar template on Talk, with full permission to alert on WP:COIN or WP:BLPN if he does identify an issue. I also think that Andy should be under a 1RR restriction, given his very extensive history of edit warring. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As you know, the requirement for {{COI}} is (formatting in original, the tempalte's /Doc page):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

To emphasise, that's what is non-neutral about the article.

As you also know, a recent ANI case on the removal of the tag was closed with this finding:

Removing tags is fine, re-adding them is also fine but, per template's instructions and long-standing practice, only if... there is genuine evidence to underpin the tag, in the form of a specific post on Talk describing the issue at hand

I find it odd that you fail to mention this, given that you closed that ANI case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also ongoing discussion, initiated by Guy, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The mess that is COI tagging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

See above: "legalistic". See also: discussion archived out. You did not check for that. But all you've done here is prove my point, sadly. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"discussion archived out" Talk:Harvey Newquist II was created on the eleventh of this month (six days ago); as I checked, before removing the tag; I'm curious as to how you think you would know otherwise. It has no archives. Or perhaps you refer to the Steve Vai article. Again, I checked (and again, how would you know otherwise?), saw the old discussion and noted that it discussed who had edited, but not what is non-neutral about the article. I also noted the vast amount of editing, by very many editors, in the article, between when the tag was placed, in January 2016, and when I viewed it, over two years later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Andy, you're doing it again. You behave as if your viewpoint has unambiguous consensus, even when it plainly doesn't, even when you have numerous times been sanctioned for doing exactly the same thing. Your legalistic interpretation of the tag instructions is that a talk page discussion must have been initiated. You didn't even check to see if it ever had been, and you removed a tag despite (a) clear evidence of COI and (b) a talk page discusison actually having been initiated. You were wrong. You were also wrong about Newquist because not only is there a family member editing, there's also a paid account. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

[Ec] ...and see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Please unclose close at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good grief. You've been thumping on Andy for two weeks straight. Give it a rest already. "hate to do this" my ass - one thread after another. SMH — Ched :  ?  — 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I have not I have been looking at a long-running fight sustained on one side largely by Andy, and his history, including two twelve-month sitebans indicates that his is hardly new. If I was thumping on Andy I'd have asked for rather more than a narrow restriction to control obvious WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• The required talk page discussion would have sorted this muddle. That's what talk pages are for. Note the time stamps. Andy's first edit is at 00:01. COI disclosure is almost 4 hours later at 3:53. All Guy had to do was post on the talk page and this would have been dealt with. Given the last two weeks and the ongoing discussions on COI, a simple comment could have dissipated this confusion. As well, much of the discord and discussion of the last weeks has been around the template which asks for discussion on the talk page; it is a known source of contention.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
  • The "required talk page discussion" that was initiated and archived out, you mean? Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Diff, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Note: No such diff has been provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You entered a discussion on the 17th; this began on the 16th? Is that right or am I missing something which is possible? Why not just deal with this confusion on the talk page. I'm not going to engage in snipes with you, Guy. I am suggesting that you might have been able too deal with this on a talk page rather than posting this long notice. There's lots of confusion here given the time stamps. I assume good faith and hope you did this with the best of intentions; I just don't think this is the best way to deal with this given the last two weeks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
      • While Wikipedia has long seemed to creep towards an "exhaustion of remedies"-like doctrine when it comes to filing complaints on noticeboards, that doctrine comes with an escape valve for actions that would be futile. That is, if we're going to start importing legal doctrines, we aren't gonna do it by halves. As Andy has proved (see the prior discussion links Guy provided above), there is no "discussion" with Andy unless you agree with him. So, yes, coming to ANI is proper. If anything, it's a conservative move: This nonsense should go straight to the Arbitration Committee given the community has proved to be completely impotent when it comes to dealing with Andy's disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Editors who edit for pay or offer commercial services related to Wikipedia have an inherent conflict regarding the COI policies, guidelines, tagging of articles etc. Its in their personal financial interest to weaken the enforcement in general of our rules regarding paid and COI editing, so they should not be removing any COI tags, not just ones related to their own editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant to the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Shame templates are indeed a WP:BLP concern, in that respect I agree with Andy, they state nothing about the quality of the published content. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban on removing COI templates and 1 RR. Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question. Andy is being pointy and has already been edit warring with respect to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Where your position falls down Doc James, re your comment, Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question is that in regards to COI templates the fact that there is an accusation, mostly added without any actual proof, usually a connected username that could be anyone, or someone connected to the subject having edited it or just been accused of editing it does not comfirm that there is any problem with the content and as such there is no clear content issue to correct. The primary problem here is not with Pigs but with the fact that users who dislike involved editing are adding the COI template as a mark of shame, I fully support its removal and any content concerns being identified and corrected, if no actual and specific content concerns have been identified then on a WP:BLP the template should be removed on sight, immediately. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • It is not a BLP violation to have a maintenence template on an article notifying that it has been the subject of COI editing. Nor is it a 'mark of shame'. Its a neccessary warning that the content of the article may not be neutral and impartially written. For reference, the relevant part of the policy is WP:BLPCAT which applies to templates. The COI template/s do not violate that in any fashion being neutrally written. If your argument is that merely having a COI template indicates that "a person has a poor reputation" then you are going to have a hard time arguing that one without running into a wall of 'Yes, we dont like COI editing, that is why we have to identify it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned that the issue here is that a precedent could be set that anyone who is a Wikipedian in Residence could somehow be called a "paid editor" and slapped with a COI accusation. Govindaharihari makes a good point too. The effect of a COI "scarlet letter" is chilling, particularly when it interferes with the GLAM work being done by the foundation and many editathon efforts to improve content of Wikipedia. I am unclear what other "COI" that Andy has here, and rather than going after one person, I think the bigger issue needs to be addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

COI accusations are frequently used for their chilling effect. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of McCarthyism. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. On a BLP then the template should be removed on sight, immediately. This applies to any drive-by template, which can be removed if there is no discussion on the talk page, but WP:BLP requires immediate removal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsAndy's is removing these templates from articles written by paid editors (who are NOT WiR). These issues are separate from his work as a WiR. IMO these templates should not typically be used on articles by WiR. He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If they are better removed, have been placed without good reason, especially on WP:BLP articles, that is a good thing. Adding a COI template on a living persons life story is an attack and should be removed on sight, correct the content if there is a concern, don't add a shame tag that is nothing to do with them.Govindaharihari (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns." The last time you made that false allegation, I asked you to provide a diff of me removing the tag, when there was already a discussion on the talk page that met the requirement to "explain what is non-neutral about the article". This you failed to do, offering only a single case where all that had happened was an editor had been alleged to have a COI. Even before that, I said to you "Feel free to point out any cases where I removed the tag, despite there being a post meeting that requirement on the talk page, and I'll accept that it was disruptive, and revert myself. Otherwise, your continued disregard of this point is what is disruptive" and you provided no such examples. Can you provide them now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye, WP:BLPCAT is the only part of the BLP policy that applies to maintenence templates. It does not require 'immediate' removal any more than any other article requires it for templates as the template is not overly negative. You would need to make a credible argument that a COI template reflects negatively on the living person. And that's a non-starter since (leaving aside WIR/GLAM etc) articles that have been paid for or have been identified as having been written by someone with a close connection are required to be identified. RE WIR/GLAM, anyone involved in any sort of editing with a COI have little weight in a discussion as to the appropriateness of COI tags in general, as they would of course prefer to not have their articles be marked as being written by someone with a potential conflict. You might as well allow paid editors to dictate what is classed as paid editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT does not apply to maintenance templates, it only applies to navigation templates. But BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts and Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. If there is no discussion on the talk page, then the COI template is unsourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That is frankly a ridiculous argument and essentially would prevent any COI/connected contributor template being applied to a living person's biography. As none of them have 'sources' as required by our policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And frankly, if anyone thinks Andy is doing this out of some concern for living people who have biographies, pull the other one. His history includes harrassing someone through their biography, he is and has been for quite a while, heavily involved in making sure Wikidata badly sourced BLP infringing material is shoehorned into wikipedia articles, while simultaneously on wikidata contributing to it not having any sort of policy regarding living people. So no, I find it highly suspicious he suddenly has a concern for living people. As opposed to just wanting to be able to edit articles with a COI under the radar. (To be fair, its not just BLP issues with wikidata that he wants wedged into wikipedia articles, its that entire database clusterfuck of unverified unsourced factoids) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Fabrication from ShaneFilaner

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

---

This user is known for (not always but quite often) making problematic sales changes to articles and as noted at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#More deception from ShaneFilaner and the thread before it WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner. See those for more detail. In short, he's a deceptive user who tries to inflate sales and/or insert thinly veiled fancruft in general. His latest form of disruption since his latest block is fabricating charts that don't actually exist (and "World Music Awards" is a questionable source anyway). The guy has no excuse, and I've told him before that it gets noticed when he tries to deceive others. He obviously doesn't care and I don't see how anything less than an indefinite block will teach him to cut it out at this point. If he isn't blocked indefinitely this time (see this for past blocks), then please at the very least block him for a month. It's really aggravating to see him continue his poor conduct. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging admins Acalamari and JzG who have previously blocked him for disruption. Someone really needs to put a stop to his antics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have indefinitely blocked ShaneFilaner. No change in behavior. Acalamari 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for that! He's basically been asking for it and this was long overdue. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

2001:470::/32 block is way too wide

I'm trying to edit Wikipedia from home through my Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel. The 2001:470::/32 is way too wide, and is getting in my way. These tunnels are not anonymous. This is not a colocationwebhost. Please consider blocking at the /48 or smaller level instead, and for 2001:470:5 blocks really should be no bigger than /64, as that is the allocation which we receive.

If this can't be done, is there a way to whitelist certain /48 or /64 allocations within 2001:470::/32?

16:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.244.173 (talk)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I concur that it's a bit heavy-handed to block the entire range - HE aren't a colo, and they offer transit/tunneling for a wide range of services including residential ISPs. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 17:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with anyone changing the block as need be. Rangeblocks have never been my strong suit. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie: A rangeblock does not affect any users of lower-tier ISP's that happen to use HE for transit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

68.207.244.173, which /48 or /64 ranges do you have in mind for whitelisting? This range has had quite a number of sockmasters as evidenced by the CU log. And yes, they are a colocation webhost provider.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone with administrative access to their computer can setup a tunnel and thus it's like a VPN/open proxy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot

He deleted my new page about Julius Freed. Julius Freed was one of the two guys who founded Orange Julius and I was upset when there was not a page about him yesterday so I made one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.138.24.174 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Julius Freed is a redirect to Orange Julius which has not been changed since 2010 and is protected. ClueBot doesn't delete pages. Perhaps you mean that ClueBot prevented you from editing this page, which is correct based on the protection. General Ization ^Talk 21:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: IP says "there was not a page, so I made one" [...] "Clubot deleted my new page". I wonder if he is trolling. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor not willing to follow policy

The bot policy, which covers all automated, semi-automated and script-assisted editing, is clear that if any errors are introduced into the page then it is the responsibility of the editor making the (semi-)automated or assisted edit to ensure that they are fixed.

Walter Görlitz's edit to Minneapolis City SC introduced errors, specifically filling out references with the details of a domain squatting page rather than of the actual source. I fixed this [73] and left a message on their talk page to remind them of the need to fix it themselves in future [74]. This note was reverted with the summary No. You can fix the titles or removed the dead links. Thanks.. I followed this up with an explicit link to the policy, but was again rudely reverted with a refusal to follow policy [75].

Further communication directly from me will clearly not be listened to, but following the bot policy when making any (semi-)automated or assisted edits is not optional - hence I've come here.

For reference there are currently roughly 150 instances of pages with link metadata from domain squatting pages that use the phrase "this website is for sale" in the title [76] and undoubtedly plenty more from other variations (see User:Thryduulf/Domain reselling pages for a list of others I've encountered at least once while fixing this one). Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Diff of my notifying Walter Görlitz of this thread, as it is likely to be reverted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Do we not have a bot that fixes those by means of the wayback machine? I've manually done some over the years but figured that is so common that someone had made a bot to do that by now. As for Walter, our policy is pretty clear that every user owns their edits and is responsible for the content, automated or not, plus we have additional policy that covers automated edits since there is the risk of doing the wrong thing, many times, really fast. I'm curious to hear Walter's viewpoint on this situation before jumping to conclusions here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The InternetArchiveBot is apparently unable to (reliably?) distinguish between the original source and domain squatted web pages so it can only fix dead links and some redirected links, and it will sometimes add links to archived domain squatting pages. They thus have to be fixed manually. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well partially true. IABot can be told if an entire domain no longer functions. Then it will go looking for archives closest to the access date as possible.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is this an ANI issue? I'm not sure what the notifying editor would like me to do here. I made the change late at night. He notified me of the problem and fixed it while I slept. I can't fix his fixes and I have acknowledged that I should check the edits so I am following policy. This edit is a bit aggressive on my part, but it reflects that he had already made the fixes. This revert makes it clear that I understand the policy and that I know the policy, Thryduulf fixed it, and now he's simply harassing me. So this is not an ANI issue that I can see, but would like to know what assurances @Thryduulf: would like from me. On the other hand, there misrepresentations here: "Further communication directly from me will clearly not be listened to" as I listened, and I responded. A revert without comment or archiving his comments would have show that I wasn't listening. As for a bot that fixes this, I haven't seen that it fixes parked sites, only ones that deal with deal links that are marked as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In neither of your reverts did you give me any indication that you had either acknowledged that this was an error or that you would look out for it in future - indeed pretty much the exact opposite. FWIW you introduced the same error at In Mourning (band) on 16 February [77]. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Look at the second revert, the one were I stated "I know the policy". What do those words mean to you?

And while we're at at, could you explain why you ignored Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Further, and slightly more to the point, you have not made the case that I have stated that I am "not willing to follow policy". You inferred or possibly assumed it. You did not seek clarification. You simply restored an edit that I had removed (which means I acknowleded it) and piled-on. In fact, I have stated in the edit summary when I removed your edit, and here, that I am willing to follow the policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summaries read to me as meaning 1. "It's not my job to do this, fix it yourself." and 2. "I know the policy but that doesn't mean I'm going to follow it. Go away." You're reverts indicated that you'd seen the messages I'd left, but did not indicate that you acknowledged there was a problem nor that you were going to fix it if it occurred in the future. That you reverted clearly indicated to me that you were not interested in discussing the matter and did not want me posting on your talk page. didn't seek clarification because I saw nothing ambiguous about your statements - indeed they're essentially indistinguishable from someone engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour. Compare how you responded with other responses to essentially identical posts: User talk:MarnetteD#Please check your automated and/or script-assisted edits, User talk:Chris0282#Please check your automated and/or script-assisted edits which clearly acknowledged there was an error and indicated that they would try to avoid making it in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So it's your interpretation of the edit summaries that need to be corrected. I believe that I've addressed the issue here in a clear and concise manor. Cheers.

Now, why did you ignore the guideline related to restoring removed comments? Should I also ask why you ignored the templating regulars, or is that just piling-on? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoring comments is a guideline, and it is entirely appropriate behaviour when someone is engaged in IDHT - which is what your edit summaries said to me, whether I was right or wrong that was the clear and unambiguous message you sent me. If you don't want someone to think you're not hearing them then don't revert their comments while telling them to go away. As for templating the regulars, the only template I left was the ANI notification which is not optional - the big orange box above says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" (emphasis in the original). The two other messages I left you were individual messages alerting you to errors you introduced into an article and to the policy you seemed to be proclaiming you were not going to follow. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, restoring comments on his talk page is annoying and shouldn't be done. If he removes them, we can safely assume he has read them and he is responsible for knowing the content. Looking at it, I'm kind of shocked you did that and I would recommend you discontinue doing that on any user's talk page. As for Walter, if there is a pattern of him not following up with broken links, we need to establish that. I will say to Walter that it doesn't matter whether you made the edit late at night or not, you need to check your work after doing so. If this is a one off incident, live and learn. Again, the question is whether or not this is a pattern, which would make it actionable. Your edit summaries, such as "No. You can fix the titles or removed the dead links. Thanks. " do seem to indicate your want to avoid the responsibility of using automated tools. It is hard to read that any other way, in fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed restoring something someone has removed from their talk page should never be done unless you're certain it was an accident or mistake, or it's one of the limited cases where WP:OWNTALK disallows removal or maybe in other special cases (e.g. some people ask that you leave an edit summary, if you did not do so and the person removing says they didn't read your comment as they didn't think it was important due to the lack of an edit summary). If you feel that the person still doesn't understand despite the removal, at worst you should post a followup comment without restoring the older comment. There is no point restoring the older comment given that the removal should be taken as a sign it's read and the person has indicated they don't want it on their talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne and Dennis Brown: OK, it seems I got it rather wrong regarding the talk page comment restoration, I'll take that as learning point. As for Walter Görlitz, I haven't investigated whether there is a pattern - it's happened on at least two articles, but both were before I informed them so it's possible they were not aware (two other editors I left similar messages for were not). The reason I started this thread was their apparent refusal to follow the policy going forwards rather than evidence they have deliberately not been following it to date. However, given that their talk page management regime seems to be to remove postings that are potentially negative it might be worth looking to see if this is or isn't the first time someone has commented about this or similar to them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the thought, there's no need to refer to me in the third person. I am not royalty. I am a person. A male, to be specific. If you want to discuss things with me, as you would with any other human, go ahead and discuss. Yes, I remove attacks from my talk page (and other inappropriately placed comments). I don't like editors ignoring the talk page edit notice, and I respond by reverting those comments too. Your comment was fine, but I read what you wrote and there wasn't anything for me to do on the article so I removed it.

Further, I plan not use that tool because it's not worth the problems it might cause you and others like you. Going forward, I plan to tag articles that have bare URLs instead unless I know they were recently added and should resolve.

I'm not sure if you've bothered to talk to the maintainers of that tool, as they could probably fix this problem. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to close without action as there wasn't a showing of a larger pattern with ignoring errors introduced with the automated tools. Looks like things have cooled down, some lessons learned, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that's fair as Walter has indicated that he doesn't intend to ignore policy going forwards, unlike the impression given from the edit summaries. This can always be revisited should problems occur in future (although I have no basis to assume they will). Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, if we're "summing up", I think it's only fair to add the following: "it seems I got it rather wrong regarding the talk page comment restoration, I'll take that as learning point." - That's good, I hope you do. I'm actually astonished that a sysop, oversighter and ex-arbcom member was unfamiliar with such a basic aspect of talk page interaction - but you've learnt now, so that's encouraging. "I haven't investigated whether there is a pattern" - you're supposed to do that before you drag someone to ANI. Another learning point? "it might be worth looking to see if this is or isn't the first time" Yes, that would have also been a good idea. I mention these things purely because you don't seem to understand that you really aren't in a good position to be attempting to shrug all that off with a dismissive "This can always be revisited should problems occur in future (although I have no basis to assume they will)". If you have no reason to believe it, don't attempt to deflect by saying it. You haven't covered yourself in glory here, in my opinion. -- Begoon 16:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Begoon: Your latter points are all apparently assuming I brought this here because of past actions. I explicitly did not - I brought this here because his responses to my posts on his talk page indicated that he was not going to follow a core part of the policy regarding automation in the future ("No. You can fix [these issues]."). If someone says "I'm not going to follow this policy" and appears to reject any possibility of discussion ("go away") then I'm not sure what other course of action is appropriate than bringing this to the attention of uninvolved administrators at this board. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, honestly, I think that's open to interpretation. The second summary doesn't say he won't follow policy, it says you already fixed it, and I understand the policy, so stop nagging me, as I read it. Frankly, your "warning" does come across as very officious and rather unfriendly, and your approach might have pissed me off too. I do take your point that you interpreted the response differently. Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I still maintain that you are not blameless here and it does leave something of a bad taste in my mouth when you end with the statement you did, in the way that you did. Anyway, I'm not helping to de-escalate this, and I've said my piece, so I'll not add any more. My apologies if you think I was too hard on you. -- Begoon 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:GizzyCatBella, general problems, possible POV

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

---

Afformentioned longtime Wikipedia user has been frequenting the pages pertaining to Poland's relationship with the Holocaust, especially the following article. I made valid edits to, also adding sources to, Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II, of which most of the edits have been removed or changed. User then posted to my talk page a post accusing me of POV-pushing. I deleted the post and warned the user to assume good faith in other editors, and I don't think it worked. I tried to stay away from most of the articles this user is editing, and when I gave my civil thoughts on the talk page for Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II as to why a study from a Polish Historian should be mentioned, and trying to rebut the user's beleif that the material shouldn't be included at all, User responded with a very uncivil message, which was a personal attack on my intelligence:[78]

If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry

I believe per that comment that the user is engaged in using original research coupled with their strong personal expierience and view to edit these articles with an agenda; pushing a POV that does not jive with the mission of Wikipedia. I feel that the user should be sternly warned, or possibly sanctioned from editing the subject completely, or perhaps the user should be given a short block of 1 day up to a few days.

A few other issues I have noticed is general unwillingness to work with others per WP:CONSENSUS. Here, the user refuses to work with another on image sizes: [79]

Other issues include a general lack of knowledge about how to edit wikipedia, which is hardly a crime, but I feel should be at least noted.:[80],[81]

Addendum: The user also seems to not be aware of how to place comments properly[82] and has had this brought up before: [83]

R9tgokunks ✡ 01:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Two people who are pleasant enough on their own but just can't get along together because they push each other's buttons. R9tgokunks quotes daily papers like a credible source in heated debates. This is not good. Real historians have real names, real education, and real reputation to defend. Haretz doesn't because it is a company, not a scientist, similar to CBC. — Quoting dailies is like saying: "it's on the Internet, so it must be true." If you are willing to negotiate, than compromise. And please try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Speculations are not "rigorous studies".[84] Poeticbent talk 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent (talk · contribs), you're not understanding the issue of this incident report. I haven't often had disagreements with the user, and to seemingly insinuate that I have, is misleading. I have only had 1 other major disagreement with them until they personally insulted my intelligence.(the first being the message left on my talk page accusing me of POV-pushing, blatantly breaking WP:AGF) I haven't really participated in editing anymore after they started changing everything that I added, but that is besides the point here. My major issue aside from the other problems is the rude and uncivil tone and the personal attack, which was totally unwarranted. It seems like you're trying to defend that. R9tgokunks ✡ 05:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent, you write that "Quoting dailies is like saying: 'it's on the Internet, so it must be true'." Quite interesting. Has there been a recent project-wide consensus that concluded that all daily newspapers are no longer considered reliable? If so, please point me to that discussion. Otherwise, please evaluate the reliability of sources with a much finer sense of discrimination. It is a well-known historical fact that some (but not all) Christian Poles collaborated in and participated in the mass murder of the Polish Jews in the early 1940s, and it is fruitless to try to deny that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good day, all. Since this grievance has been filed against me I believe that I need to present my view on the issue. Before I do that, however, I would like to apologize to User:R9tgokunks if he felt offended by my comment. Insulting him was never my intention, but if he weighs my remarks being rude, then again, I'm sorry. Now, my opinion about the reason this complaint has been filed. User:R9tgokunks has been involved in the content dispute with me and other editors. Discussion resulted in disputed article alterations that are not to User:R9tgokunks liking. I view this complaint as nothing else than an attempted to restrict my editing capacity. I believe this is the case because his complaint is actuality based only on one possibly uncivil comment. Everything else is not valid. His accusations of my alleged unwillingness to work with others are not true. He chose to display only the beginning of my conversation with User:Beyond My Ken, the whole discussion is here.(Scroll to the very bottom - section Image Sizes) As you can see I was more than willing to work with User:Beyond My Ken. Now, requesting sanctions because my alleged lack of editing experience?(!?!) I’m not aware of any inexperienced editor being sanctioned for being inexperienced. Please notice user User:R9tgokunks has the history of filing misleading complaints He recently receiving a warning from User:Robert McClenon for doing that. He was also recently warned for false vandalism accusation by the very same User:Beyond My Ken he dishonestly claimed I declined to work with. I have no time at the moment to dig any further but there may be more considering User:R9tgokunks 12-year long Wikipedia life. If the evaluating administrator grants me permission, I’ll file a counter-complaint against User:R9tgokunks based on the fact that once again, he filed a complaint based on misleading facts (other than the rude comment of mine of course) in order to get an upper hand in a content dispute. Thank you for your time and attention. Cheers GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent (talk · contribs) That's a misleading comment. They brought that reference and others (including notable research institutions) in the talk page, in order to establish the notability of a "real historian". That's more than acceptable. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Jedwabne pogrom, please note that not even once was (is) a daily paper used in our Wikipedia entry about that (and for a good reason). Jedwabne happened in 1941, not in 1940, in the presence of the Nazi German gendarmerie during Operation Barbarossa. The facts established through research is exactly why we do not use dailies in our coverage of major World War II historical events. We use peer-reviewed, academically supported content. Poeticbent talk 14:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Since my name came up in the discussion, I'll say that my interaction with GCB began somewhat acrimoniously (on my part), but ended amicably, and GCB seemed amenable to suggestions and corrections. I also interacted with the OP, R9tgokunks, who inappropriately accused me of vandalism (something their contribution history shows they do often, and almost never appropriately). I have not interacted with either since (with the exception that GCB left a notice on my talk page to inform me that she had mentioned my name here) and in looking through both their edits I have no comment on the quality of their contributions, but I think a very firm warning would be in order to R9tgokunks to not accuse other editors of vandalism simply because they disagree with their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to say that GizzyCatBella has been trying to stem the tide of recent edits on the page, which where very disruptive to Poland section. Example, François Robere has been all over the page in recent days adding 'Dubious' tags to sourced statements and removing text under the pretext that he's just trying to merge statements. Challenging these questionable edits is not POV pushing, especially that no proper discussion on the talk page took place. Everyone should just take a step back for a moment that's all. --E-960 (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by François Robere

• The article in question deals with the sensitive subject of Polish complicity in the Holocaust (not in any particular site, but in the overall chain of events), something which is widely denied in Poland, and widely accepted everywhere else. Before I made my original changes the article was very much reflective of this stance, giving the simplistic impression that Poles never collaborated; those who did collaborate did so under duress; many of the Poles were heroes, including those who collaborated; and some Jews collaborated, inflicting grievous harm to their chances of survival. This was the state of affairs in the beginning.
• User:GizzyCatBella was polite enough towards me, but their position is decisively pro-Polish and reflective of current thinking there. They also seem to emphasize the nationality of both sources and editors, ie who's Polish, American, Israeli or Jewish, as if it bears any relevance to their accuracy of reporting. I have tried to accommodate their opinion by rephrasing certain statements repeatedly, but it seems they object not only to the mention of complicity, but to mentioning that complicity is denied. ie they're denying that any complicity is actually denied. Add to that - the sources that they've provided thus far were sub-par (eg. two poorly-received, narrowly-scoped 2003 books that were given as refutation to a well-known 2013 one; these are the books I tagged and asked for clarifications about), and on occasion they refused to engage on core matters. You may see their positions from this section onwards, and later from this section onwards.
• User:E-960 made several claims against me, but refused to engage on any of the matters in the talk page (following two sections here).
• User:Poeticbent Blanked the whole section twice for no good reason ([85][86]), and (presumably) stopped after I warned them on their talk page against vandalizing the page.

François Robere (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, please see my comments on the talk page, I clearly addressed you edits several times, you are just not accepting that fact. If your edits get reverted then discuss and build consensus. Instead I see that a pretext was made to try and get the Admins involved, bceause 3 editors object to what you were doing. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between making a claim and proving it. You did the former.

I did not suggest involving the admins, nor did I claimed there was any reason to.

As for editor counts - by my count at least three editors also support my changes. Do you really want to go this route? François Robere (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please... anyone can go to the talk page as check for themselves what I said and you said. --E-960 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@E-960:, i mean just look at this comment. It's not impartial at all. It's practically an admittance that the user is editing from a certain POV, which is not tolerated here.

If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry

R9tgokunks ✡ 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Poeticbent

• François Robere (talk · contribs) has a chip on his shoulder, and he's not afraid of lying through his teeth about the intentions of others if it suits his purpose.[87] Interested mostly in astrology (top edits:43/166),[88] and certainly not in the German-occupied Poland, he rediscovered the "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" article on 2018-01-28 as the perfect dumping ground for the Israeli outrage over the Polish Holocaust bill. The mud-slinging from daily papers soon followed. – How many Poles have been involved in saving Jews? According to world wide web: that's 6,700 times two (or 6,700 x 2 = 13, 400). Everything else is "a blunt lie" opines the 92-year-old Bauer (Haaretz.com - עם של חסידי אומות עולם).[89] We are made to believe that even the minuscule number of 60,000 rescuers mentioned by him is "a blunt lie." – Where's the book reference for that 60,000 I ask? No reference is quoted in Haaretz.com for anything including the 60,000. Please compare this preposterous claim with the one million helpers estimated by Hans G. Furth ("One million Polish rescuers of hunted Jews?" Journal of Genocide Research, June 1999, Vol. 1 Issue 2, pp. 227–232; AN 6025705) or, the three million estimated by Lukas (Out of the Inferno. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-1692-1, The forgotten Holocaust. Hippocrene Books. ISBN 978-0-7818-0901-6). — We do have highly respected books to go by, and we (as Wikipedians) also have policy guidelines to deal with WP:REDFLAGS. We also have long-standing Wikipedia policies against partisan editing based on hostile and hurtful WP:CHERRYPICKING. So, what gives? Poeticbent talk 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent Are you alright? François Robere (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The idea that R9tgokunks has the nerve to accuse others of POV-pushing is laughable. In recent weeks he has relentlessly pushed the Israeli government's POV, over-emphasizing its viewpoint, quoting it excessively in the text, lead sections, and footnotes of Wikipedia articles. I understand that Netanyahu has to distract the public from the scandals surrounding him and his family, and it was very nice of the moronic Polish governing party to give him fodder, but Wikipedia still pretends to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Many non-admin AfD closures by User:Jdcomix

Hello, folks. I'm not looking to see any sanctions imposed against User:Jdcomix, but I think it might be helpful if an administrator had a brief discussion with them.

A short while ago, I noticed that Jdcomix did about 40 non-admin AfD relists or closures in the space of about ten minutes. I objected to one of the re-listings, and opened a discussion with them on their Talk page (User talk:Jdcomix#relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen). Shortly thereafter, two other users posted similar concerns about other non-admin actions at AfD. But just a few minutes ago, I saw that Jdcomix returned to these fast-paced actions, doing about another 40 AfD re-lists or closures, again in the space of about ten minutes. This strikes me as just too fast a pace to be properly assessing the discussions.

As I said at the outset, I'm not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix. But if any administrator agrees that they are doing too many of these in too short a time, I ask that they discuss it with Jdcomix.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want me to slow down, I can absolutely do that, so I appreciate the feedback. As I say on my user page, I'm willing to be smacked with a trout if need be. :) Jdcomix (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Are the closures themelves disputed, or just the non-admin nature of them? I'd agree that Jdcomix needs to take good care when closing AfDs, but if their closures are consistently undisputed I don't see the issue with taking them off the admins' plates. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 02:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie: Thanks for commenting. Because I'm not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix, I didn't analyze the approximately 80 discussions that were closed in the combined space of about twenty minutes. But at an average of fifteen seconds per discussion, I don't see how it is humanly possible to give them anything approaching a proper analysis. And this raises the question of how many of their "keep" decisions are really justified. But aside from the sheer speed of these decisions, there is the equally-concerning question of whether Jdcomix is conforming their decisions to policy. In my discussion on their Talk page, I was told that policy calls for relisting a discussion whenever consensus has not been demonstrated. But this simply isn't true, at least not in general. For discussions that receive virtually no participation, administrators are empowered to close as "soft delete". But Jdcomix's fast-paced relisting of such discussions effectively removes (or delays) that option. Another broad exception (and the one that raised my concerns on Jdcomix's Talk page) is for discussions that have seen substantive policy-based arguments on both sides of the issue. My reading of WP:RELIST suggests that these discussions should not be relisted, but instead should be closed (by an administrator, if the issue is controversial).

And so, to answer your question, yes -- some of the closures are being disputed. But on top of that, there are serious questions as to whether Jdcomix can possibly be doing quality work at such a fast pace. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: In that case, I suggest Jdcomix is simply advised to take more care. As another user mentioned, dealing with problematic NACs is like whac-a-mole; This user seems earnest and is definitely capable of good closures, so good closures should be encouraged. If the closures are disruptive then we should look into it more, but for now? I honestly don't see a good reason to. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have arrived here via their talk page, where I was going to question why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grebe Lake (Alaska) needed a second relist, and saw the notification of this thread. There’s no way you could correctly determine the correct course of action in 40 AFDs in ten minutes, as indicated by all the objections surfacing on the users’ talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I also questioned a closure of an AfD on their talk page. Jdcomix stood by his/her closure, so I took it too DRV. Only after taking to DRV did Jdcomix choose to relist the discussion admitting they confused it with another article. Obviously these closures/relistings are being done too quickly and with little thought. I also am not looking for sanctions, but would like to see Jdcomix voluntarily agree to not make non-admin closures/relistings again in the future.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. It's like Whac-A-Mole; stop one person from doing NACs and/or relistings (or promote them, in some cases, if they're doing it right) and you'll just get others rushing to fill in the void. Yes, Jdcomix is doing these way too fast and should stop, but he's not the first, and certainly won't be the last. Is there anything we can do so that we're not here again with someone else in another few months? (for anyone keeping count the last AN/I discussion about someone doing this was in December, and there have been many talk page discussions with serial relisters in the past few months; I have several names in mind but I won't single anyone out). ansh666 09:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Bezanson (2 Deletes, 1 Redirect, 1 Keep by a co-founder of the company, and 1 Keep by article creator) should've been closed (as no consensus) by a non-admin (after what appears to be less than a 1 minute review based on prior edits). No consensus might've been the right call - but it should've been decided by an admin.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• I relisted non-controversial discussions without a clear consensus (the last one I relisted had a bunch of keep votes, but almost all of them came from sockpuppet accounts of the same person). Jdcomix (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Proposal for six-month ban. I know that I've repeatedly stated that I was not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix. But about half an hour ago, Jdcomix logged back in to Wikipedia and the very first thing they did was to re-list eleven more AfD discussions in the space of about four minutes. I take this as evidence that Jdcomix has no intention of ever ceasing these rapid-fire administrative actions. And so, I propose that Jdcomix be banned from performing any further closures or re-lists at Articles for Discussion, with such ban lasting for six months.

  On a somewhat related note -- @Jdcomix: would you care to respond here to the message I left on your Talk page last night? As I noted in that message, merely removing the re-list notice from the discussion does not actually undo the re-listing. (To undo the re-listing, you also have to undo the changes that were made to the daily logs.) If your intention really was to undo the re-listing, do you intend to actually do it? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

None of the relists were disruptive though? That's why I didn't close anything. I merely relisted non-controversial discussions that the admins didn't have to work with. They're already busy, I just wanted to help out a bit. Jdcomix (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, did the thing you mentioned on my talk page, too. Jdcomix (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. For the record, this posting is being made after Hijiri's posting. As we wait for others to comment on my proposal, I think it will be helpful to point out three specific concerns.

First, I thank you for completing the task of actually undoing the re-listing. But to echo a concern raised above by Rusf10, you didn't complete that task in response to my earlier message on your Talk page -- you did so in response to my complaint about it here on this noticeboard. Non-admins who decide to perform admin-like actions are expected to hold themselves to the same standards of accountability as are administrators. And yet, you seem to be displaying a pattern of not admitting or correcting errors until someone complains at a higher level.

Second, I made my proposal for sanctions only after seeing that you had performed a third session of rapid-fire re-lists. What happened to yesterday's statement that you were willing to slow down? Perhaps it was not your intention, but I think you've done some serious damage to your credibility.

And finally, it might be helpful to the others to add some background information. Yesterday and today, you've taken administrative action in about 90 AfD's, doing so in a period of time that collectively adds up to only about 25 minutes. In contrast, in the three years that you've been here at Wikipedia, you have participated in only about 60 AfD's. And that's a striking contrast -- in less than half an hour, you've taken administrative actions in more AfD cases than you've actually participated in over the past three years! And what of the five articles that you've nominated for deletion at AfD? One was withdrawn by you the same day you nominated it, after immediate "speedy keep" opposition arose. And for the other four, two were closed as "keep" and two were closed as "merge". The fact is, you have never once succeeded in getting the community to delete one of your nominated articles. This is troubling, because it makes it difficult for us to believe that you can accurately assess the quality of arguments made in an AfD discussion, and it makes it almost impossible to believe that you can do this at the rate of fifteen seconds per discussion.

I don't dispute Alfie's contention that you are a well-meaning editor who is trying to help. But I think this is one area for which you are not well-suited. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban, preferably as long as possible I don't know why non-admins are allowed close AFDs. There are already fora that exist exclusively to canvass keep !votes; having the majority of closers technically unable to close as "delete" just makes the problem worse; this shouldn't even be allowed for anyone, except in clear, unambiguous SNOW cases. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am extremely concerned that Jdcomix's AfS stats] show that the have only !voted in eleven AfD's of which their !vote matched the outcome 66% of the time. Worse, AfD stats shows they have edited 273 AfD pages so they look to have closed/relisted 262. I recognize that they are doing these closes in good faith but they simply do not, in my opinion, have the experience needed to know what is non-controversial and what is not.

  I do not want to see a ban imposed but I would like to them stop closing/relisting for a while and !vote. Every one of the AfDs that they closed that I looked at would have benefited more from a well considered !vote than from a relist. Jbh ^Talk 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban from closing/relisting AfDs. I originally said no sanctions, but given the continued behavior, this needs to stop. I'm not saying the closures were in bad faith, but it is disruptive. I actually think non-admin closures should not be an option in almost all cases for AfD (the exception being when someone withdraws their own nomination).--Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to change policy, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Non-admin closure of AfD--Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is currently going down in flames, and is extremely unlikely to succeed. Best not to try to make policy based on a couple of bad eggs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So it seems, but I thought it was worth discussing. Maybe ansh666's alternate proposal (at the same thread) will gain more traction.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• A different proposal perhaps Jdcomix could agree not to re-list/close any AfDs until they make 50 AfD !votes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose ban I'm uncomfortable with the immediate jump to "ban the user from closing AfDs for as long as possible!!", and to be honest I'm uncomfortable with the implication that established users should not be able to close AfDs. That said, Jdcomix, firing up XFDCloser whilst this discussion was ongoing was not a particularly smart idea and does put your position here in jeopardy, and you really ought to stop until this discussion is closed (lest a more formal temporary restriction has to be imposed). I don't like bringing up AfD stats (I think "going against the grain" when needed is a good quality in an editor), but 11 AfD !votes versus 262 closes? My good faith starts to wane at that point. I champion new, enthusiastic editors, but... You need to do better, or you might find yourself here again, and I for one will not be as willing to give you another chance. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie: Not going to try to expand on my rationale more than I have beyond saying that editors with a vested interest in closing one way (or rather, a technical limitation on closing the other) should not be closing except in clear-cut cases (and fifteen seconds is not enough time to determine if a case is clear-cut). But when you quote someone (especially using quotation marks), please refrain from adding exclamation marks and removing words and phrases that soften and provide nuance like "perhaps", "I believe", "probably", or in this case "preferably". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

EC'd with Power~enwiki so I didn't see their proposal until after I hit "publish". I support their proposal: Whilst I'm not usually a fan of solving "people" problems with restrictions, it seems like this is a good compromise for all parties involved. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 03:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Power's proposal as target of potential ban/sanctions - Not sure if this is supposed to be valid or not, but I would be willing to abide by the suggestion Power suggested. Jdcomix (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any sancctio s or effort to restrict qualified users from closing discussions. That said this user should participate in far more AfDs before closing or relisting any more. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Observation from OP. There's something troubling about Jdcomix's support of Power-enwiki's proposal. Jbhunley's estimate of 11 votes and 262 relists/closures is based on a quirk in the AfD stat counter -- if you don't specify a specific number of AfD's to look at, the counter assumes you want to look at 200 at a time. So, the report that Jbhunley saw was saying only that there were 11 votes out of the last 200 AfD's in which Jdcomix was involved. But this covers the period during which Jdcomix was engaged in their rapid-fire relists/closings. If you take a look at the entirety of the AfD history (as seen here), you can see that there have been 56 votes in 275 AfD's. And that's what I find troubling. Jdcomix must already know that they've voted in far more than 11 AfD's. And I suspect they already knew that the number was greater than 50. So what are we to make of the fact that Jdcomix is "willing to abide by" a restriction that, in fact, is no restriction at all? And this agreement is coming from a person who already offered to slow down on the relists, only to renege on that offer within a single day. I continue to think that some time-based topic ban is warranted. If my proposal of six months seems too long to some of the commenters (although it doesn't seem long to me), perhaps a three-month ban will be more acceptable. But Jdcomix's actions suggest that there does need to be a substantive amount of time during which Jdcomix takes a break from re-listing AfD discussions, hopefully using that time to become familiar with the guidelines under WP:RELIST. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm perfectly fine with a 3 month ban or 6 month ban, it'll give me time to participate in discussions, nominate articles, and become familiar with policies. Thanks for being so helpful :) Jdcomix (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Yes, that does look like an attempt to gotcha power-enwiki's proposal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, this needs to stop. Looking over Jdcomix's contribution history, between 20:15 and 20:22 on February 17th, he performed 110 edits. That's a about one edit every 4 seconds for 7 straight minutes. There's no way he was doing anything other than clicking as fast as the U/I could keep up. If it's not outright vandalism, it's certainly not constructive. I've imposed a 24 hour block just to get things under control and prevent further damage until ANI can figure out what a better long-term solution is. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

PS, I'd support an indef topic ban on relisting or closing any XfD's. We bend over backwards to implement, anyone can edit almost every page, but the goal there is to allow the free exchange of information. If the cost of that is putting up with some low-quality edits, that's a cost we're happy to pay. But, that needn't extend to administrative actions. We're not so hard up for people willing to administer XfD that we need to risk further disruption. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, each time you relist something using XFDcloser, you end up with three entries in your contribution history (the AfD page itself, the previous daylog, and the new daylog). But, still, it's hard to believe that even at 1/3rd the originally computed close rate, any significant thought could be brought to bear on any one. And, the number of them that have been brought to WP:DRV bears that out. So, it's still a problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Indefinite topic ban. NACs are useful if done right and following policy. They are disruptive when they are done in a way that leaves no time to actually assess the discussions and I agree with power above that apparently this user does not actually have any experience participating in AFDs. In those few discussions he participated in, his comments are mainly limited to WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:PERX !votes. So I think he should be kept from closing AFDs as long as he has not demonstrated that he understands such discussions and one way to do so is to participate in AFDs in a substantial way. That's why such a ban should be indefinite. Once he has demonstrated clue and more importantly stopped mass actions, he can be un-topicbanned. As an alternative, if topic banning finds no consensus, how about limiting him to making only one NAC/relist every 5 minutes? That might be helpful too, alas not as helpful as a topic ban. Regards SOWHY 15:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban Their contribution history shows inappropriatly fast closing after they were asked to stop repeatedly. I would also support a two week block for disruptive editing if they do another spurt of fast NACs/relists before this closes. Jbh ^Talk 15:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from all NACs/relists. Persisting in whirlwind closures/relists during this discussion, to the point where RoySmith had to stop them with a 24-hour block, is very unpromising behavior. Also, nobody should make any kinds of edits as fast as Jdcomix's contributions history indicates, so perhaps a topic ban from lightning editing of any kind should be considered — best, a voluntary, self-imposed such ban, now that they're blocked and have some time to reflect. Whether or not they're running an unauthorized bot, there's no way such superspeedy editing can be done with any care. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC).
• Support XfD closing/relisting ban. This person clearly lacks the competence or will to do these correctly. Sandstein 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for closing and relisting XfDs. Continued disruption while that disruption is under discussion is never okay. ansh666 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support XfD closing/relisting ban—hell, I spend 20 minutes !voting in an AfD. A topic ban now may salvage this editor before misapprehension of how Wikipedia works (or doesn't) on their part requires much more limiting sanctions. — Neonorange (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support XfD closing/relisting ban Not sure about the period though. The user continued his behaviour while the same was being discussed here. That makes me lean towards indef. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Can an admin close this discussion and indef topic ban me from closing/relisting AfDs? The consensus is pretty clear that I screwed up and I'm fine with the ban, so I think the thread has probably run its course. Jdcomix (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Xinjao#unblock_request

I've never done this before, so I hope I am doing it right. Xinjao was blocked yesterday as the result of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CIR,_editor_frequently_calling_constructive_edits_a_"vandalism". I thought it best to post it here.

NOTE: adding PERMALINK TO DISCUSSION AS IT HAS BEEN ARCHIVED. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Dear Administrators.

I do not feel this indef block is reasonable or necessary. In my 11 years on Wikipedia, I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone. I have never been subject to any warnings, blocks or bans in this time either (except this one of course). As someone who has taken a keen interest in Pakistani topics over the last two decades I have edited articles to improve accuracy to the best of my knowledge. Inevitably disputes arise between users and I have almost always raised my concerns on talk pages or walked away altogether.

Keeping this in mind, I do own up to my mistake of using poor choice of words and a strong tone when I have addressed opposing edits, which I realise is disruptive and leads to unproductive and toxic exchange between users. As such, my use of the term "vandalism" was subjective and not in sync with Wiki policy. This won't happen again. I did earlier apologise to User Edward for the very same thing [6], which he appears to have accepted [7]. I will make a note of toning down my messages and be more objective when delivering my points to others.

I will also admit that I was feeling frustrated as my last exchange resulted in a false accusasion of sockpuppeting [8]. This is not meant as an excuse by any means but a little insight into why I was briefly feeling disillusioned and may have assumed bad faith. Once again, This is my issue and I own up to it.

However regarding my language competency, I believe my English is perfectly fine for the purpose of contributing to English Wikipedia. Prior to this ANI, nobody else has ever criticised my proficiency in English.

I do feel that a warning would have sufficed as I am a reasonable person and always open to constructive criticism. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks --Xinjao (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure of the procedure here, but I looked a bit at the ANI complaint/debate above, and the infef block seems way excessive. The user was blocked based on lack of competence, with one of the allegations being that the user does not master English, which is obviously not correct. Another complaint was calling other editors edit for "vandalism" without good reason, which has more merit, but as user has acknowledged this wording is unfortunate, and doesn't seem to have been warned for it before, it should hardly merit an indef block. There were few participants in the discussion, and I suggest it is reopened with more people looking into it. Iselilja (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What about continued false allegations of misconduct, misrepresentation of policies and sources, telling other editors not to copy his comments to ANI without permission, taking up fight with an editor even until his last comment here? Block has been further justified with the fact that Xinjao is not capable to understand that he should not be appealing block before 6 months and better think about the concerns raised about his ethnic POV pushing. Lorstaking (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy decline. It has been less than 24 hours since the block was placed, and the closing statement stated a minimum of 6 months before appeal. If you think the closer evaluated the consensus in that discussion incorrectly, you can appeal that at WP:AN, but it's premature to consider an unblock request. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of thread closers doing this crap. These "no appeals" conditions are not binding. They never have been binding. Consensus can change. It can change within minutes of a close. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and thread closures do not have the finality that judicial judgments do. Even then, appeals in fact should come very quickly after a final decision, rather than waiting for the status quo to change. And by "appeal", I'm using the term in its legal sense, rather than the improper sense it tends to be used around here (i.e., to describe a WP:SO request). This is not a request for sanctions to be lifted, it is a challenge to the propriety of the sanction and the discussion that led to the sanction. Thus, no, this should not be speedily closed. These sorts of threads, in fact, should never be speedily closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So... you're "sick and tired" of Wikipedia being considered to be a court of law, but you want us to consider "appeals" just as they are "in its legal sense". Seems a bit contradictory to me.

In any case, admins have the authority to impose conditions on blocks, just as they have the authority to impose conditions on unblocks. That's not in question here, so your comments are pretty irrelevant. What's relevant is that an admin has brought their block here to be examined and to get community feedback on it. Other issues just confuse matters: let's focus on what's actually in front of us - was it a good block (conditions and all) or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're getting at. I think you've misread my comment. I suggest you re-read it and try to understand the difference between an appeal and what admins are trying to do when they say "no appeals for six months". They do not have the authority to foreclose challenges to their decisions, which is what Tazerdadog and yourself appear to believe it means. I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a court of law, and consensus can change. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentally there are two things that could be "appealed" here. The first is that the closer's interpretation of consensus in the above thread that resulted in an unappealable block was inaccurate. I have no comment on the merits of such a discussion beyond observing that the proper venue for it is WP:AN. The second thing that could theoretically be appealed is the block itself, arguing that it was no longer necessary and that they could contribute positively. I assumed that we were having that discussion because it was formatted as an unblock request, instead of a closure challenge, and it was occurring at ANI instead of AN. Until the 6 months has elapsed or the closure is successfully challenged, this type of appeal was foreclosed by the closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And with all due respect, I am also arguing that it is improper and outside the discretion of any administrator, let alone any purported consensus at ANI, to automatically foreclose any discussion before there has been disruption. Xinjao may absolutely argue at any time that the restrictions are no longer necessary due to changed circumstances. It is the height of byzantine bureaucracy to automatically foreclose discussion simply because it'll have the same outcome. Administrators' interpretations of a discussion's consensus do not have the force of law, and are not final judgments. They are merely interpretations of consensus, and in this case it was enforced by a block.

Once again, no administrator has the authority to command the community not to hold a discussion as to whether a set of sanctions are still necessary. And no consensus at ANI can purport to override a consensus that would come later in time on these same noticeboards. If, however, Xinjao were somehow not permitted personally to request the sanctions be lifted, I am now requesting that same relief be given to Xinjao on the grounds that the sanctions imposed are unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive, punitive, and ineffective. This is independent of any request Xinjao may have made that might be disallowed by the closing admin's directive, though I continue to argue that such directives constitute abuses of discretion and should be disregarded by default. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating two things. Yes, an admin cannot prevent the community from discussing whatever it wants to discuss, but an admin can prevent a blocked editor from appealing their block until after a certain time. In this case, the reviewing admin allowed the appeal by bringing here it to the community, so I don't know what the hell you're beefing about. The reviewing admin could have, if they had wanted to, answered the appeal by saying "You have no right of appeal until after X time" and left it at that -- and you would never have heard of this case. That they brought it here is to their credit. That you chose to use this discussion it as a platform for your policy preferences is unfortunate, because they have absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. and, in fact, are a distraction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn: The discussion above was a clusterfuck. It might just as well have been designed to prevent input from editors unfamiliar with Xinjao or otherwise uninvolved in the dispute, which I'll note is squarely an WP:ARBIPA dispute. One thing I notice in just an initial glance is how unfamiliar all the names are. While I usually feel it's a good thing to get new blood on these boards, when virtually none of the ANI regulars comment on a block proposal that's been open for nearly a week, there's something wrong. And when most of the discussion participants—by byte count, virtually the entire discussion—are people who mostly edit in a topic area covered by a discretionary sanctions regime, you have to analyze the consensus very carefully. This is honestly a case that should've just been kicked to AE and handled by them. Instead we've got what very well may be a content dispute that's been couched in behavioral terms with an ANI mob trying to drive Xinjao away.
  That said, the thread itself is so impenetrable that I cannot form an opinion on the propriety of any sanction, or whether Xinjao is blameless for that matter. Thus, I recommend that this entire dispute be kicked to WP:AE so that the need for sanctions may be evaluated in a structured manner, less prone to being rendered impenetrable by walls of text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• How does AE have jurisdiction here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• As I said, it's an ARBIPA dispute primarily between people who edit in the IPA topic area and should be handled within the scope of the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)\

• This was a WP:CIR block, not a Discretionary Sanctions block. AE has absolutely no jurisdiction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural decline. Xinjao was told not to appeal before 6 months. 300 bad edits in 11 years is why he is blocked for being this incompetent. He was still using Wikipedia for his battles and probably socking per this SPI. This was a community decision and WP:AE can't do anything. Lorstaking (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No admin can foreclose challenges to the legitimacy of his or her blocks or the assessment of consensus, or to the underlying community discussion (whether or not there was an apparent consensus in the discussion to prevent such challenges). There are no grounds for a "procedural" decline here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's done on WP:AN after having discussion with the admin in question. This was a very easy decision and seems impossible to overturn. Per this unblock request, the incompetent WP:NOTHERE editor believes he did nothing wrong and he was framed, still he can resort with a warning just to make you feel happy but otherwise he is perfect. Dlohcierekim should have revoked talk page and urged the editor to appeal to UTRS for gaining talk page access after 6 months. There was no need to post a deceptive unblock request here. Lorstaking (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn: I'm willing to assume good faith here. The user knows that their edits will be closely watched, and I'm willing to give them another chance of proving that they can be a net-positive to the project. However, any disruption caused by them should result with indef block. Also, I see no relevance of Procedural decline - yes, the used did make an unblock request (much) sooner than defined - however, if the community acknowledges the sanctions as too harsh, it would be in the project's best interest to overturn them. byteflush _Talk 07:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Byteflush: AGF is not a suicide pact. We don't have to waste time on this WP:NOTHERE editor who was probably socking during the indef block proposal. A deceptive unblock request is not convincing at all since he rejects any mistakes and thinks he is just framed. Lorstaking (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: I intentionally didn't link to the AGF page since I didn't want my message interpreted as a policy/essay view on the unblock request, or perhaps as an attack on those who favor the block. Keeping this in mind, I do own up to my mistake of using poor choice of words and a strong tone when I have addressed opposing edits, which I realise is disruptive and leads to unproductive and toxic exchange between users. As such, my use of the term "vandalism" was subjective and not in sync with Wiki policy. This won't happen again. -- I think the user realized what they did wrong and are willing to change their ways. Of course, the community should keep a close eye on their contribs, but right now I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Though, the SPI check may shed more light on this, so maybe we should wait for the CU. Or perhaps ask the user to acknowledge any socking done in the past on their talk page. byteflush _Talk 07:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Byteflush: you need to have a closer look.

"I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone" he has been doing this for long, deliberately calling others edits a vandalism and it took an admin to make him realize that this is a personal attack.

"has taken a keen interest in Pakistani topics over the last two decades I have edited articles to improve accuracy to the best of my knowledge" by engaging in ethnic and nationalist POV pushing.

"I was feeling frustrated as my last exchange resulted in a false accusasion of sockpuppeting" still not dropping stick regarding months old SPI[90] and using it as excuse for disruption.

"my language competency, I believe my English is perfectly fine for the purpose of contributing to English Wikipedia." This is a joke because he is misrepresenting sources, policies, others edits all the time due to his inability to understand English. And others can't understand what he is saying per his own comment.[91]

"I do feel that a warning would have sufficed": some more of his deception. Capitals00 had proposed "a final warning" but Xinjao called it a "lot of baseless accusations" and resorted to false allegations, misrepresentation of sources to justify his disruption.

No where he addressed his ethnic POV pushing, misrepresentation of sources, battleground mentality and other reasons why he is indeffed. Instead you need to think if siteban is warranted at this stage. I think revoking talk page access will work and an appeal to UTRS after 6 months or 1 year would allow him to access talk page. Lorstaking (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: Thank you for you view on those. I'm not saying they're not a problematic editor - they are, but I just think an indef with a minimum of 6 months seems too harsh in this case. I have to agree - overall, it's been a net-negative, and the user should've abided by warnings left on their talk page. However, sometimes only a 48 hour block is enough to stir things up in the users mind and they realize that actions have consequences -- which is precisely what I think might happen to this editor. Most of your points stand, however it is clear that we have someone who hasn't managed to make a distinction between vandalism, disruptive editing and (N)POV. I think this might have gave them an idea what is expected of them, and what is forbidden. How about we decline the current unblock request and ask the user to explain, in their own words, what led to the current block, what they are going to change about their activity here and how they plan to edit Wikipedia in the future? Without waiting for the mandatory six months.

Edit: of course, only after the CU. If they are socking, that's a different story. byteflush _Talk 08:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well the problem is that it seems clear they still have very little idea of what's expected of them when they're very unblock request being discussed here says they have never "I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone" when they were blocked at least in part because they repeatedly accused people of vandalism when it's clear, by their own admission, vandalism as we define it, was not involved. I would add I did notice the thread when it had only a few posts and thought it was another example of clearly incorrect accusation of vandalism. I didn't bother to say anything since it was so long and frankly I'm always bored of people saying something is vandalism when it clearly isn't, and also that was before the ban proposal. I haven't look into the details enough to say whether I would have supported an indef with a 6 month minimum appeal but I have to say I'm hard pressed to support an unblock request when it seems clear that the person request still lacks the most basic undestand of standards of behaviour expected here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm not willing to waste any more time on this. The block review took even more time than watching the user's future contribs would have. However, I want to make this clear - I do not support the unblock until CU results (I really don't know how I missed that SPI was in progress). If CU is clean, we could discuss alternatives. Meanwhile, the user could use some WP:ROPE - how about an admin asking them of their "secondary" accounts?

Edit: Well, nevermind, I asked them to disclose those: [92] byteflush _Talk 08:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Increase appeal time to 1 year for failing WP:NOTTHEM and making a misleading request. Deliberately bringing up my false block to evade major concerns about his incompetence and disruption[93] even after getting indeffed. [94] Raymond3023 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline current request, mostly per Raymond3023 (talk · contribs), Lorstaking (talk · contribs), failure to address all issues pertaining to current block, and awaiting CU. However, I'm still against mandatory 6 months Wikibreak. byteflush _Talk 10:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - The WP:CIR problem is real and valid. The user shows no understanding of the vandalism issue, despite all that happened. They can wait for the standard offer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn, primarily because the user had a clean log which shows no previous sanctions. The appeal and underlying issues should be looked at their own merit, without prejudice, and a warning or lesser sanction would've have sufficed for this time at least. As the user has indicated, they are open to feedback on their editing, so there should be some WP:AGF afforded. An indefinite block with no prior history is punitive and unprecedented for this topic area, AFAIK. Also, as someone has pointed out and as I relayed previously, much of that ANI discussion was an absolute farce and had little neutral involvement. Mar4d (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocker's comments: Interpreting the discussion on the top, I saw a consensus to indefinitely block this user for failing WP:CIR. This user has been blocked accordingly and per WP:SO, place a 6 month wait on the appeal time since it was a community placed block, as any appeal made before then is unlikely to be granted. As Mendaliv points out, this however doesn't mean my close can't be challenged. If it turns out my close was improper, I will be more than happy to reverse my actions.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with "community placed block(s)" is that often the "community" is a group of friends of the complainant, or a group of enemies of the editor being blocked. It is the fundamental flaw of this system. Sanctions should not be imposed based on votes by a non-neutral pool of editors, but on a review of the evidence submitted by them. Your closure did not indicate that you did that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • When an editor is being discussed, evidence is presented yes, and an admin acts on the evidence, when the discussion turns into a sanctions proposal, community consensus must be considered. I see no evidence that all parties that participated are non-neutral. With that being said I stand by my close until I see that the community does not.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Like I said, that is the fundamental flaw of the process. Saying that sanctions proposals should depend upon community consensus is, frankly, horrifying. What that leads to is popular editors never receiving sanctions no matter how egregious their behavior, and editors that are not well-liked receiving harsh sanctions for often lesser infractions. Decisions to impose sanctions should be based on a documented review of the evidence presented, not a vote count. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Don't get me wrong, I'm not singling you out for following the process, I'm just saying the process is off the rails. There should be two-tiered decisions here: 1) that sanctions are warranted based on evidence presented and 2) The sanctions imposed are based on consideration of a combination of past transgressions and the seriousness of the present transgression. Making decisions based on "community consensus" is basically bowing to mob mentality. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • And then you will criticize the closure for having participation from the editors who didn't know the incompetent ethnic POV pusher enough. Such a thought is itself flawed. You can use village pump if you want to change the fundamentals and probably request making of a new userright called "ANI reviewer" but still that wouldn't have changed result of this report it would be same or harsher. FWIW, closure was still highly valid. Enough editors participated who never interacted him. Lorstaking (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Herein lies another flaw in the system. The editor was not blocked for "ethnic POV pushing". He/she was blocked for lack of competency. You seem to be angry at him/her for POV pushing, but went after him/her on competency issues. If he/she was blocked for the wrong reason, it should be undone, and a new ANI opened that provides evidence of POV pushing. My quick perusal of the original ANI looks like it just went off the rails quickly. If he/she is POV pushing, there should be a concise statement of what you feel his/her POV is, and provide evidence of what the editor is doing to promote that POV to the detriment of the neutrality of the article. He/she should have the opportunity to refute what may be an incorrect assumption on your part of his/her POV. If he/she is trying to characterize good faith edits as "vandalism" not because he doesn't understand what vandalism actually is but to justify pushing his POV, that's the issue that should be be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnWysong (talk • contribs)
            • 90% of the POV-pushing editors get blocked for something much more basic and tangible. There is nothing unusual about that. I don't see the point of this line of reasoning. The user has been calling ordinary edits "vandalism" for a long time, and he never desisted from doing so. When the issue was raised, he didn't say, "yup, I am wrong. I will back off". Instead he came back with more assaults on his opponents. This kind of visible battleground behaviour is how people often get caught. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
              • Well, how can you expect to have an effective appeal decision when the reason for the block is inaccurate? There is nothing in the appeal that talks about POV. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
                • CIR is how we describe all those issues as. That's how block reason is accurate. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
                • The reason for the block was indeed stated accurately in the close of the earlier thread as well as in block notice. You are probably reacting to Lorstaking's outburst above (which I am choosing to ignore, by the way). Reason for overturning the block would be that the charge of WP:CIR was indeed false and the commenters in the earlier thread assessed it wrongly, or that the user demonstrates that he has acquired the needed competence (which would be miraculous if it happened in the 7 hours he took to file an appeal). I don't believe either if that is the case here. Some people feel that an indef block is too harsh for the charge, and I would probably agree. But what is done is done. The road forward is for Xinjao to acquire the needed competence and then file an appeal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So we have now circled back to Mendaliev's original objection, which is the treatment of a closure by an admin must be considered irrevocable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: In order to be deemed neutral, being un-involved is a good start. And therein lies the problem. Mar4d (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  Nonsense. You are telling like there was mass support from uninvolved editors for Xinjao's disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Mar4d and Lynn (SLW): So let's take a look at who is (un)involved here:

  • Lorstaking - OP - Involved - Proposed block
  • Robert McClenon - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Xinjao - target - Involved - Opposed block
  • EdwardElric2016 - Involved - Supported block
  • MBlaze Lightning - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Power~enwiki - Uninvolved - Supports a TBAN
  • Nick Thorne - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Capitals00 - Involved - Supported block
  • Mar4d - Uninvolved - Opposed block
  • D4iNa4 - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • NadirAli - Involved - Opposed block
  • Raymond3023 - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Störm - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Emir of aleppo - Uninvolved - Opposed block

  After having done this digging, it seems plenty of uninvolved users commented.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • • It was Mendaliv, not me that expressed concern with whether or not the voting editors were uninvolved. My concern was with process. But, here is another grave concern: Why was OP allowed to propose the sanction? That should clearly be the role of an uninvolved individual. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can propose sanctions as long as they are in good standing, i.e. not topic or interaction banned. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

More proof of a completely dysfunctional process. Sanctions should only be proposed by an uninvolved user, after the transgressions have been clearly defined and proven by evidence. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Decline: Unblock request is just an extension of gross CIR issues with Xinjao. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline the unblock. I had multiple reasons for supporting the block. First, the editor showed a long history of contentious editing, which warranted at least a warning. Second, the editor's comments at WP:ANI were a long angry rant, too long, difficult to read, that showed that they weren't engaging in reason and weren't worth trying to reason with. Third, the editor had started the matter by yelling "Vandalism" to win a content dispute. The vandalism policy has always said that the allegation of vandalism when there is no vandalism is a personal attack. I think that empty allegations of vandalism should be sanctioned more often. If they had waited a month and then requested unblock, I would be inclined to think that the six-month block was too severe, and at least to consider the request. As it is, they clearly don't get it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn this ban Complainant Lorstaking failed to mediate disputes as per policyWikipedia:Disruptive editing, jumped the gun on ANI and is generally a very vindictive person who is treating ANI page as his person battleground. 20 minutes after I had opposed the initial ban, Lorstaking started a sock investigation (now closed without action) against myself and User:Xinjao. Here: [95], with a colourful conspiracy thats worth reading. I agree with User:Iselilja, User:Mendaliv, User: byteflush, User:Mar4d, User:LynnWysong in the excessive and improper nature of the earlier proceedings. (Mob mentality) --Emir of aleppo (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

To editor Cyberpower678: since I was mentioned in the ANI, I just want to clarify that the list of users you brought forward did not necessarily consist of users "uninvolved" in the issue with user:D4iNa4, MBlazeLightening being examples. Many of the users are involved in this same topic area and share an opposing viewpoint to the blockee, using the ANI as an opportunity to silence his opposition. On the mention of users such as D4iNa4 and others, I was upset by the off-topic mudslinging hurled at me and Mar4d that went unchecked, with one or two of them calling for mine and Mar4d's future edits to be watched carefully. I interpret this as open calls for WP:HOUNDING by trailing after editors with which they share opposing viewpoints. As an administrator you should be aware that trailing after one editor by another editor or group of editors; especially with the intent of trying to confront them and attack their contributions is not permitted under policy. Such action is only permissible to administrators and other bureaucrats under certain conditions and cirucmstances; especially when parole sanctions have been implemented against a user by orders of the arbitration committee.

I was also accused of being a supporter of the blockee on the previous ANI and reviewed the very recent CU against Xanjao. In that CU, he was quoted as making a comment that there is no bridge between Hindi and Urdu. Anyone familiar with my editing history knows that I do not share the same viewpoint. The fact is that both Hindi and Urdu are passed off as "languages" when they are simply two distinct registers of the same Hindustani language. That is the factual scientific verdict on the Hindi-Urdu controversy and had this editor encountered me while making edits to the contrary as expressed in his comments, there would have likely have been an edit war between us. But of course his opponents on the previous ANI tried to portray me differently and celebrated my previous ban (a ban that was met by differing opinions), when a few of them such as D4iNa4 were themselves site banned. I just wish for you and other administrators to make a note of all this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Still deceiving others for a NOTHERE editor? You were sitebanned, not D4iNa4 or any "few of them". Just like Xinjao, you have much CIR issues and you should do something about them than thinking about others who are far more competent than you. Capitals00 (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Decline for now. Of the various block/unblock discussions I've and/or been party to, this is quite a difficult one. On one hand, we have an editor who has been around a long time, albeit with a low edit count, who hasn't been previously blocked. There is also the oddity in terms of English competence. They obviously have the ability to construct grammatically correct English sentences, to the point that I would say it hovers at between professional and native level. And yet, there seems to be a problem in parsing the subtleties of communication. On the other hand, as Robert McClenon says above, there is the contentiousness and accusations of vandalism. WP is a collaborative effort and repeated baseless accusations, plus refusing to see others' perspective, especially when consensus does not support your argument, do little to help that effort. Blackmane (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, largely due to the language problem. I think the close called this correctly, but it's clearly tricky and I could probably be persuaded if a suitable mentor came forward. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, while there were more involved editors than in Cyberpower's math, there was (just) enough consensus to support this, and I don't see the key issues being addressed in the appeal. The claim that Lorstaking or other editors are also at fault isn't a defense here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline because of his continued deception and dishonesty. —MBL ^Talk 06:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note, Dlohcierekim, please always provide permanent links to ANI discussions, as this is a very dynamic page. Your link at the top of this section to the original discussion is already dead, which makes it harder to assess the appeal. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC).

Vandal from Philippines, repeatedly vandalising articles such as on groupings of countries and national flags

49.145.172.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the latest incarnation of a long-term vandal, typically vandalising articles on groups of countries such as Asia–Europe Meeting, African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, Non-Aligned Movement, and also various national flags. I reported him (and added extra evidence when requested to do so) a couple of days ago at AIV, but no action was taken and his vandalism continues. Some of the previous incarnations have been blocked, such as 112.210.11.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 49.145.169.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 49.147.45.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The range of articles targetted seems too wide for RFPP to be a very practicable solution. The response at AIV suggested the possibility of rangeblocks, so perhaps an admin can see how many constructive edits there are from the ISP concerned, but at the very least this latest incarnation needs to be blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

David Biddulph - Two of the IPs you reported here are within the same ISP range, which is 49.145.128.0/17. Of that range, there appears to be legitimate edits by uninvolved users, as well as edits in the similar kind of pattern to articles by a couple of IPs not listed here. Given the very high rate of edits made from this range and the potential for collateral damage (especially until we determine if these similar-patterned edits from other IPs are also disruptive) - we should stick to blocking individual IPs from that range instead of blocking the range itself. The edits from the other IPs' ranges don't come back with edits from other IPs that look disruptive (definitely not enough to consider blocking the range). I would definitely go through that /17 range contributions and identify and confirm other edits to articles that are from this person and are of the same disruption... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

Our page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Cavalli ) is under attack by this bot and a user called swisstruth please protect our page from this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki:Did you attempt to create a redirect to linkedin? What do you mean our? Clubot remove sudden content removals. It might be helpful to use edit summaries and it might be helpful to discuss changes on the talk page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki: Your editing on the article is disruptive. What are you trying to do? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And yes, SWISSTRUTH edits are very troubling, also. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

<<ec>> They did revert some negative unsourced edits by SWISSTRUTH. I warned them about the negative unsourced content. They ma need blocking, but were not warned. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki got fed up with the edits of SWISSTRUTH and tried to redirect the article to a linkedin page. Rmcwilliams2004, please don't do that. Use WP:BLPN to report instead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I further reverted some negative material that was questionably sourced. SWISSTRUTH, you might find information at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help useful. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment SWISSTRUTH has protested the further revert on my talk page. I invited them here. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting on the old adage about usernames with the word "truth" in them being proven true yet again. Blackmane (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The original version was blatant spam. And now it's a battleground, as PR biographies with no reliable sources often become. What's the CSD criterion for "way more trouble than it's worth"? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:A12. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There's always the nuclear option. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:TNT? If so, this user came into the help livechat earlier: Based on that conversation and the page history, I can entirely support TNTing the page and starting anew. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was being facetious... Blackmane (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (B2C) clearly feels very passionately that the title of the article Sarah Jane Brown is incorrect, but I think he needs to be removed from the RM debate.

• [96] edit summary "Why is this so hard to understand?" is one of several asserting with varying degrees of stridency that Sarah Jane Brown is "NOT HER NAME" (it literally is)
• [97] edit summary "There is zero basis for using Sarah Jane Brown' as the title of this article" hypothesises "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown. By ALL accounts, without exception, her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply Sarah Brown." This is a bizarre attempt to assert that, without any reliable source noting it, she dropped her middle name on marriage, which is not I believe permitted by Scottish law (or as B2C puts it, "British law", which of course does not exist as such).
• [98] edit summary "And the opinion expressed by reliable sources is the only one that matters here, not yours or mine." asserts that because most sources discussing Ms. Brown do nto feel the need to use her full name, thus it is misleading (explicitly and repeatedly stated as a theory by B2C throughout the debate) for us to do so, on the admittedly novel premise that it somehow falsely implies that this is how she is usually known. As if anybody is usually known by the disambiguated title we give them on Wikipedia. A newspaper can use a name that is unambiguous in context, even if globally ambiguous, we clearly can't, which is literally the entire point of the entire never-ending farrago.

Anyway, I think B2C is by now on a path to burnout and undoubtedly shedding way more heat than light on this.Others on the page are equally passionate without the same recourse to hyperbole, and the same need to reply to huge numbers of people. His point is made by now I'd say (including at least one point which is objectively false despite repetition and failure to strike) and does not require further reinforcement. This is very close to WP:CIR territory. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Normally, an article is titled by the best known name of an individual. That's why we have an article on Jack Benny rather than on Benny Kubelsky. Still, it seems a strange thing for an editor to get so worked up about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Sarah Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is taken. So this is about disambiguation, and has been going on for years. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I see his sig "В²C" 79 times on that talk page (not counting hats). I see yours 47 times, although yours is in a lot of different places, for different reasons. Lots of talking "at" going on. If memory serves me right, renaming this article is a perennial topic. He does seem to be WP:Bludgeoning the discussion a bit, and catching some grief for it from all sides. I don't see enough that a single admin can block him and the article isn't under WP:DS so anything that went down would have to be a community decision. My preferred solution is for В²C to agree to avoid the RFC altogether until someone closes it. Seriously, by now, I think everyone already knows how he feels so continuing to beat the same horse seems pointless and begs for the community to topic ban him for a few months. One thing we WON'T do is discuss which name is best here at ANI... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of my comments on that talk page are !votes in the RfC. No fewer than 22 titles have been listed, most of which have been soundly rejected in multiple prior RMs. That's half of all my comments there. About half the others are responses to direct or indirect questions (e.g. clarifying that, yes, Companies House is a reliable source, and the fact that there are two potential legal frameworks, which have subtly different methods for changing a name. And only one of us is asserting falsely that someone's legal name is not their name, or engaging in bizarre speculation about possible changes of name, with absolutely no actual evidence. That's the issue. There are plenty of argumentative types on that page, as expected given years of failed RMs, but one of them, B2C, is inserting bizarre conterfactuals. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose that, after this showed up at WP:CENT and User talk:Jimbo Wales, it was inevitable it would show up here as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hearing the whirring of boomerangs. It seems to me that both of them could back away and let someone else fight this battle rather than bringing it here. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's strange: are you used to cheap knock-off boomerangs, the kind that fly in a straight line? Because, really, that's the only way your analogy really makes much sense. --Calton | Talk 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Holy shit, this again? I swear, the Sarah Jane Brown RM debate is like the zombie apocalypse of all RM debates. You cannot kill it; it just keeps coming back. 14 move discussions in 11 years; it's getting silly. --Jayron32 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting silly? I'd say we're well past getting. EEng 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's just change her name to Zarajanovic Braunislav and be done with it. Seriously, though, has anyone thought to contact the subject and ask what her preference is? Her response (if any) would need to be certified by OTRS, but maybe it would break the logjam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So do your duty! Grit your teeth, go to the current requested move and sprinkle brief support/oppose comments to taste. Uninvolved people are needed. (BMK: See "I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response" at the link.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not current on this person - is she still a principal in a PR firm? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Frankly, B2C's comments there are approaching WP:CIR status. Are you ready for this? "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown". Yes, that's seriously what he wrote. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ha - I see that's been quoted above, but frankly it bears repeating as so utterly fucking ludicrous that a topic ban is the least of what we should be considering. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what's ludicrous about it. Many women when they marry, keep their maiden names (as both of my wives did). Many women, when they marry, drop their middle name, but keep their maiden name as their middle name. Many women take their husband's name but also keep their maiden name becaause they are known by it professionally. My mother, when she married, dropped her first name (which she hated), and started using her middle name as her first name, and her Roman Catholic confirmation name as her middle name. There are many options available, at least here in the US, so unless there is something in English law that requires that a woman keep her middle name and drop her maiden name when she marries, I don't see where B2C's statement is incorrect. Would someone care to educate me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: It's actually Scottish law (not English) that is relevant, and while I'm not very familiar with the latter I'm not aware of any prohibition on changing names in any of the ways you describe. However, culturally in the whole of Great Britain it is very unusual for anyone to change anything other than their surname at marriage so the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming that she did something other than that. This is also far, far from the first time that Born to Cycle has exhibited obsessive behaviour about page titles - see the history of Yogurt for just one example. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can see Scottish Law only allows for a change of surname on marriage. To change given names requires a separate process. Regardless, B2C's theory was pretty bizarre. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: from beta.companieshouse.gov.uk: Sarah Jane Brown. That is her name. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Then why do the three charities the article says she's intimately connected with all use "Sarah Brown"? [99]. (Honest question.) You'd think they would know what she wants to be called. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Because that's her name. Her full name is Sarah Jane Brown. B2C is trying, ridiculously, to claim that when she married Brown her middle name mysteriously vanished. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not seen it mentioned above (apologies if I've missed it) but B2C was a party to the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case, where he was the subject of a finding of fact "Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD." and a remedy "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." If there really has been no significant improvement in the intervening 6 years then I think it's time for a topic ban from the request moves process (indeed I have a feeling this has been proposed on more than one previous occasion but I can't immediately find where). Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of B2C's background, and, believe me, I'm not taking a position on this based on B2C - if anything, I'd be inclined to disagree with anything he says. As I said on the talk page, I don't know Sarah Brown from Adam's Off Ox, and I have no dog in this race, but I'm getting at least a whiff of an impression that some people are fighting "Sarah Brown" not because of any particular evidence, but because B2C supports it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I really don't want to get any deeper into a dispute that has lasted over a decade, which I really don't care about, and in which there are obviously extremely entrenched positions, so I'm bowing out. Have fun! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's all explained. Preferring Sarah Jane Brown (the subject's full name) for the article title instead of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is "political correctness overriding usage in reliable sources"—see WT:Article titles#WP:COMMONNAME vs Political correctness. The conflict is due to the fact that several notable people are named Sarah Brown so that title is a DAB page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq and Beyond My Ken: I really don't care what the article is called, and this is not the venue to discuss it. What matters is whether B2C's behaviour is such that sanctions are required. The more I look at the behaviour and previous instances of the less justification I'm seeing for not topic banning him from all discussions about page titles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've long felt that B2C's way of approaching article naming issues (doggedly insistent, dogmatic about his interpretation of guidelines, bordering on fanatic) often does more harm than good, and I'm sure I've said I'd support a topic ban on earlier occasions. And I'm saying this as somebody who has probably agreed with B2C as often as I've disagreed with him on on any particular issue we've crossed paths on, and as somebody who generally respects B2C's knowledge and command of policy in these questions. Unfortunately, a topic ban from naming discussions would pretty much mean a complete ban for this editor, since that seems to be the only thing he's interested in. Have we tried a quantitative restriction before? Like for instance: being restricted to one or two comments (of a given maximum length) per naming issue; banned from re-initiating new move requests on articles that have had RMs before...? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. B2C has put a lot of effort into a complex issue, and deserves credit for it. It's a tough question (disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary; the obvious one used by reliable sources seems sexist, while the other ones are rarely used) so some discussion is needed. While B2C may be getting a little heated, they haven't reached the level of needing to be sanctioned for it; they have made no personal attacks on the page, or even close to it, and neither are they monopolizing discussion, all voices are being heard. Note the original poster is the only to bold Vehemently in their opinions on the page, 8 times, and yet is complaining about B2Cs passionate feelings. I personally still think the best option is to write to the article subject and ask her politely to change her first name to Seraphina, to settle the issue ... once and for all! --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I don't really know the background of this particular naming issue, although I'm aware of having seen it on this page before. I squared off with B2C a couple years back at Kim Davis (see all the RMs and MRs noted on that talk page) in which I described his approach as "drag[ging] it through as many venues as possible until enough people get tired of it that it looks like support for [his] position." At the time he maintained a list in his userspace of past move discussions where the right (in his opinion) thing was done only after discussions were re-hashed over and over again, essentially frustrating all of the opposition into conceding just so he would go away. While I do respect B2C's familiarity with the naming guidelines and have sought his opinion on unrelated matters even since the Kim Davis discussions (which I still describe as a clusterfuck) his approach to controversial discussions is quite poor. I also wouldn't want to see him banned from those discussions entirely, so if I were going to suggest a restriction it would be on posting move requests which have already been discussed say in the past two years, i.e. if there has been a move discussion on Sarah Jane Brown in the past two years, B2C may not start a new discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening

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

---

Moved to WP:AN

 – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Swarm ♠ 10:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Martini Lewis X/hoaxing and multiple NFCC/FAIRUSE violations

Martini Lewis X (talk · contribs) has pretty much exhausted my patience, and some of those in WP:WPRS, dealing with radio stations. The user has consistently launched articles about Part 15 'radio stations' which are not licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and are either only heard within small neighborhoods in the LA suburbs or the user playing pretend and passing hoaxes by us (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVSJ (AM), which included several pagemoves to frustrate the nomination, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99.3 The Game). The user has also uploaded multiple image galleries of older radio station logos which are discouraged per WP:FAIRUSE and WP:NFCC, continues to upload in .jpg despite multiple queries asking for them to upload instead in the better-scaling .png format, and uploads logos raw without any reduction or transparency to meet FAIRUSE/NFCC. The user has been warned more than multiple times as you can see by their talk page, but has not made one solitary talk page edit in article or user space to discuss their contributions. This user at this point is completely not hearing why they need to contribute better or just not here to co-edit, thus a block of some kind needs to be considered. I will inform the user to say something, anything here, but I don't expect them to respond, sadly. Nate • (chatter) 01:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block with talk page access. The block can be lifted if the user is willing to discuss and will stop its disruptive editing. Using the XTools edit counter, we can conclude that the user only edited on the Main (3207 edits), File (237 edits) and Template (95 edits) namespaces: the user never edited any talk page, in its over 2 years of editing history (3539 edits). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 08:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support a block to at least to get them to come to the table. After 3000+ edits with very few sources, dozens of notices on their talk page with utterly no responses, NO edits to any other talk pages (!), and very very few edit summaries (the edit counter reports about 1/6 of their edits have summaries but a quick glance at the last 500 suggests that automatic summaries like "Uploading a non-free logo using..." account for practically all of them)... it's time. This is not someone who seems to be interested in editing collaboratively. Personal note: For me, this is another "more in sorrow than in anger" report. This editor is clearly very motivated to edit radio station articles - imagine what the results would be if they were interested in editing collaboratively and in accordance with P&G, MOS, etc. Jeh (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef, as these are serious issues that we cannot deal with when a user is not even communicating. Swarm ♠ 11:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; I have no prejudice at all to unblock if they discuss their edits. I've tried to ask them to discuss, including on their AfD's, to no avail. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

IP socking

47.144.100.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has seemed to take a sudden interest in MLX's former haunts; they restored changes I removed on KHTI, along with past edits to KBPL, which MLX has contributed heavily to the past. The IP locates to Pomona, CA; MLX's edits are mostly LA-radio based, with some also in Denver. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

KarimKoueider and his unconstructive edit

• KarimKoueider (talk · contribs)
• matthew_hk (talk · contribs)
• MatthewS. (talk · contribs) (not related to matthew_hk)
• David J Johnson (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• UBI Banca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crédit Agricole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Midea Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Orange Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vodafone Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Telecom Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Egyptian Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Visa Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125#KarimKoueider

The user keep on ignoring the use of infobox parameter, changing Public / private/ listed to legal form, Arabic word (on Orange Egypt), self-revert with wrong foreign grammar foreign word (French S.A.E. in Orange Egypt). I believed that he failed to properly communicate and understand MoS and infobox/doc and make constructive edit, and the edit war on Orange Egypt must be stopped. Matthew_hk tc 03:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No edit war on Orange Egypt, MatthewS. (talk · contribs) and I reached a conclusion on my talk page about correct type formatting. This user is abusing power to try and put himself above others when it comes to knowledge KarimKoueider (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no edit war, just a misunderstanding and difference of opinions about capitalization but it was resolved. French "Société anonyme égyptienne" isn't capitalized in French but should be treated as a business term in the English language and thus be capitalized in the English context. MatthewS. (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no way the edit on infobox on Crédit Agricole (Crédit Agricole Group) to Crédit Agricole S.A. (which the whole foundation of Crédit Agricole Group, and its reverse corporate structure that regional bank of Crédit Agricole Group owns Crédit Agricole S.A. was clearly written on the article) or removing UBI Banca (legal name Unione di Banche Italiane) from trading name parameter in the infobox is constructive, and the consequential "communication" on my talk page. Matthew_hk tc 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading, legality and nativity ? KarimKoueider (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you that you started with the unproductive communication on your talk page even though I started my question in a very civil manner KarimKoueider (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Give an answer to my response you coward" doesn't seem very civil to me. Jdcomix (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If you read my statement I stated that "I started my question in a very civil manner" on his talk page concerning Credit Agricole but was met with a very defensive response. I am sorry that I replied in a cruel manner KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

it is not the case for UBI Banca for your alleged " Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading", the logo only contain "UBI Banca" not the legal name Unione di Banche Italiane . Trading name does not mean the name appear in the stock market, but the name that the company do business as. (See this article). your limited understanding in English and personal attack in your talk page, please explain to admin that they are constructive to wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 03:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My "limited understanding in English" got me a spot at one of America's finest educational institutions (I got an 8 on the IELTS with a perfect reading and speaking score), the correct trading name for the bank is UBI Banca Group KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This all looks like a rather LAME edit war with article talk pages not being used and unconstructive user talk page discussions happening instead. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

add Midea Group, told to him in these messages which was blanked, but still remove the maintenance template from the article without dealing the problem that was specified in the tag nor leaving any word in edit summary again; he was warned again and again by other person on similar issues(User talk:KarimKoueider#Removing maintenance tags on 17 January, User talk:KarimKoueider#January 2018 regarding infobox) Matthew_hk tc 05:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I dont usually check my messages, please post on my talk page so we can discuss it KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

fix the list of user in this multi-article, 1 to multi-user "conflicts". Matthew_hk tc 20:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Whilst not involved in the current dispute, I have had problems with KarinKoueider especially on the Visa Inc page with unexplained deletion of pic and logo size, also on other various articles concerning unnecessary changes to logo sizes. It does seem that this user is making a mass of minor, not required, changes to numerous company pages. It really is time for juvenile "edits" to stop. David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As per your request, I did state reasons for changes and you shut it down by saying something along the lines of "it doesnt look good". That's just your opinion KarimKoueider (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And why did you remove my warning comments from your Talk page? A further glance at this page does confirm that many editors are concerned by your actions. Your various logo changes have been not constructive and do not contribute to page design. Nor did I say "it doesn't look good", that is your invention. It does seem that you are on a mission to change many company/business pages to your own version, which is frequently incorrect. David J Johnson (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you even checked my talk page?, all our discussions and your warnings are still there, you are not being truthful. You said and I quote "There is no standard for logos on wikipedia, whatever fits the layout" What if my definition of fitting the "Layout" is different than yours ? KarimKoueider (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that per WP:OWNTALK, even if it did happen there's generally no point asking someone why they removed messages from their own talk page. Since they are allowed to do so, just take it as a sign the message was received and move on. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, for the case of KarimKoueider's own talk page, the problem is, he removed the message and did the same thing again that was specified in the message, and was warned again by another person for the same issue in another article, which keep on loop back to the cycle, especially on unnecessary change in infobox (image size parameter, wikilink (overlink) and sometimes even boldly wrong). I have no comment on other people on not replying the conversation and let the archive bot achieve the thread . Matthew_hk tc 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to say that this discussion has led to the "discovery" of minor mistakes and not a single light was shun on any of the constructive edits I have done. e.g. EFG-Hermes (I was not involved in the copyright copying), Commercial International Bank, Finansbank, Telecom Egypt and so much more. Have I made mistakes in the past ? Yes and when David J Johnson instructed me on the incorrect edits I was doing, I stopped. User:Matthew_hk could have started the conversation with a sense of peace and understanding like user User:MatthewS. where we reached a conclusion with a logical discussion. KarimKoueider (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Goodone121

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

---

Here's the timeline:

1. Started with me reverting a misleading edit to Alternative for Germany here that removed a whole chunk of sourced information but did not indicate they were doing so.

2. I readded the content, and then out of nowhere User:Goodone121, a user I have had no previous interaction with, reverts my attempt to re-add the content and claims I am trying to take WP:Ownership of the article. The edit by the other user was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek.

3. The user goes so far as to post an unwarranted WP:OWN warning on my talk page: [100]

3. Not knowing what to do, I posted a warning on their talk per WP:AGF , and upon seeing they've been warned about it before, I escalated it automatically to the second level, which I assumed was reasonable, as they have been on Wikipedia for 10 years and have a history of disruptive behavior, leading up to being indefinitely blocked for a time.

4. User posts on my talk page this misused warning which says that I didn't assume good faith for posting the wrong level of warning template on his page.

I feel at this point I'm being harassed, and I didn't want this to continue so I came here. Based on the history this user has I'd say this needs more than a warning. The user is confronational for no reason. The user has been warned at least 20 times about inapproprate or disruptive behavior:here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; and has been blocked numerous times: first time by Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs), second time by John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) for indefinite, unblocked by Trusilver (talk · contribs), blocked by B (talk · contribs) for 31 hours, and blocked again by Protonk (talk · contribs) for a month.

As mentioned before, the user was blocked indefinitely at one point in 2010, and the user was also unwilling for a while to commit to editing and behaving properly, as shown the links above. The block was eventually lifted, only for the user to be blocked again 2 more times for similar behavior. Based on this block history of this user and the blatant harassment I am facing, I feel that they should be again blocked.

R9tgokunks ✡ 05:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I feel like I should defend myself...I was not the only one reverting R9tgokunks (talk · contribs)' edits, on Alternative for Germany, as seen [here]. He has been warned repeatedly to "take it to the talk page" (his challenged edits)...although, once Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) reverted, I took it as the end of discussion. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry...ArglebargleIV (talk · contribs) incorrectly used the "minor edit" checkbox for an edit one can see from its pagesize change alone is nonminor...as I have my watchlist set to ignore declared minor edits, it seemed like they were reverting R9tgokunks (talk · contribs)' edit, when they were reverting their own. Again, sorry. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Above statement is misleading in two ways.

1.Other reversions to my edits were done mainly by only 3 users, 2 of which had removed content or added controversial edits(User:Helper201 and User:Underneaththesun). In the instance of the 3rd, User:Melencron, the user and I both had a miscommunication about editing, with him removing some good edits I made by mistake, and those edits were taken to the talk page when gotten too far out of hand. I used WP:COMMONSENSE in those instances, and I also have worked with WP:CONSENSUS.

2.User:Goodone121 claims to have "taken it as end of discussion," yet he continued to harass me. R9tgokunks ✡ 07:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this an apology? R9tgokunks ✡ 07:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is an apology...I misread your posting history. I didn't mean to harass, but I now see how I can be overzealous in enforcing the rules. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks

The OP, R9tgokunks, has now filed two AN/I reports (this current one and this one, an AN report [101], and opened a Dispute Resolution case [102], all within the last week. He has a propensity for claiming that the edits of those who disagree with him are "vandalism", for which he was chastised by Robert McClenon [103]. A number of editors have rebuked him for failing to AGF.

All of this leads me to believe that R9tgokunks has a problem with having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and is using noticeboards and other Wikipedia dispute resolution paths as a weapon in his content disputes with other editors. I think that this editor's behavior needs to be looked at very closely, and, if warranted, they should be sternly warned by an admin that if they don't stop what they are doing, they are heading towards being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Because this is a sub-section of a report he started, I don't believe I'm technically required to notify R9tgokunks of this (because the behavior of all parties is almost always examined in AN/I reports), but in an abundance of caution, I have done so anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, I have changed the title of the main section as it was an attempt to poison the well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Above comments are a bit misleading. I ended the dispute resolution post almost as soon as I started it, and I left the editing to other people. Also, reporting that I have done is hardly WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially when I am being harassed, as in this instance; and personally attacked, as in the instance of GizzyCatBella, who blatantly insulted my intelligence(after I had already told them about WP:AGF for claiming I was POV-pushing) by saying this:

If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry

Also, though you renamed the title of this report, you left "The actual issue: The behavior of User:R9tgokunks" up. Hardly helpful per your reasoning. I've renamed that as well.R9tgokunks ✡ 07:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well if you think "The actual issue: The behavior of User:R9tgokunks" is as problematic as "Harassment from User:Goodone121, a user with history of incivility / edit-warring; blocks", you're welcome to think that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It is in no way misleading. You opened all those reports, all within a week, and it looks verymuch like you're using them as a hammer to inhibit the editors who you are in dispute with. And one remark from one editor can't possible justify behavior from you that started and largely took place before the remark was made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that your continued following of my edits feels like harassment. You definetly aren't adhering to WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've only had one disagreement with you, to which I halted editing. In addition, per your extensive and recent block history, I don't feel your comments are just or correct. R9tgokunks ✡ 07:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to throw words around without actually knowing what they mean. Please read WP:VANDALISM to understand what that word means on Wikipedia, and read WP:HARASSMENT to learn the Wikipedia definition of that. "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And my block log, and my most recent block over a year ago, are relevant to this discussion ... why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It definetely is misleading. My reports are just, based on personal attacks, and/ or harassment that I felt I could not deal with myself. What is the Administrators Noticeboard here for, if not to report those things? Also, like I said, I closed the Dispute Resolution report very soon after.

Also, the above behavior was definetely harassment. I had done nothing to the user and he singled me out by reverting my valid edit and then misusing warning templates on my talk page. Thats textbook.

Also, It seems other admins or users take a persons block history into account when dealing with them. I thought it was obvious. R9tgokunks ✡ 08:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You think many things about Wikipedia, but – despite your 12 years and almost 14,000 edits – they turn out not to be the case, such as your misunderstanding of what "vandalism" and "harassment" mean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Beyond My Kens evaluation.User:R9tgokunks has a tale of troublesome behavior therefore I agree that his apparent misuse of this board among other things should be closely examined.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Category: Requests for unblock

I don't know if ANI is the right place for this, but, there seems to be some kind of a backlog at Category: Requests for unblock, with some unblock requests pending for as long as 10(!) days. Some admin may wanna look into this.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, backlogs are usually reported at WP:AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RFU is pretty consistently backlogged. The oldest today is only 13 days. Seeing 20+ days is not out of the ordinary on the tail end. Also just as an FYI. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and TonyBallioni: oh, ok. Thanks for informing, would keep that in mind the next time I report a backlog.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 21:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring by BrownHairedGirl

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

---

@BrownHairedGirl: made over 30 reverts of non-controversial category cleanup edits such as [104] removing parent i.e. Category:Cheeses by country when target Category:English cheeses is already in a subcategory ie. Category:British cheeses.

I am far from alone in making such edits see [105] , [106], [107] all by different editors

As a long standing admin, BrownHairedGirl who is a regular at CFD should follow the categorisation guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization. BrownHairedGirl should consider self reverting these edits. Failing to do so they should refraining from closing CFD nominations and if this is repeated should have admin flag removed. Tim! (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tim!: When you went to BHG's user talk page, and attempted to start a civil discussion with her to see what she had to say, what were the results of that discussion? --Jayron32 17:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we can see from the tone of the edit here [108] that would be unlikely to be fruitful. Tim! (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing there that indicates that the discussion wouldn't be fruitful; it looks that you've come to ANI prematurely; this is not the first place you come during a content dispute, this is the last place you come, after you have exhausted all other avenues. --Jayron32 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ANI isn't your private army; if you're not even willing to discuss the issue with BHG but just insist that we do things your way because you're So Damn Important, there's only one person here acting in a manner unbecoming an admin and it's not her. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with BHG regarding the categorization, but I don't see how that's edit warring. She took one issue and made the same change on several pages. These resulted in a single change over multiple pages, but there had been no discussion resulting in consensus that she was over-riding, nor do I see that she has she undone a revert of her edit, not even once. This shouldn't be at ANI. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a WP:BRD issue. Tim made a series of WP:BOLD edits which I reverted. Next step is to discuss.

Tim knows well that this his edits were controversial, per the discussion at User talk:Mais_oui!#Supercats. I commented[109] there, pinging Tim, but he made no reply to my comment or those of @Mais oui! other than to announce[110] h31 hours later that he was going to ANI.

Tim's ANI notification[111] on my talk was posted not at the bottom of the page, but in a discussion section where I had suggested[112] an RFC. Tim could hardly have missed that suggestion.

So I am bemused by all this. Tim

1. ignores a ping
2. refuses discussion in 2 places
3. ignores a suggestion of RFC

... and then accuses me of being an unfit admin. Bizarre.

I don't recall having an difficulties with Tim before, so I dunno what provoked such hostility in him that he chose to go a bit WP:SPIDERMAN.

If @Tim! has some philosophical objection to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, then he should be reconsidering his own adminship. But I'd much prefer that he worked with me to set up the RFC. Please will you do that, Tim ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:SAm32445

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

---

Can I get an indef block of this account, who altered one of my comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler to make it appear that I thought Hitler was a "good guy". [113]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Page moves by MonarchyLover

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

This new user has made multiple possibly-contentious moves in the past few days, including King Simeon II of Bulgaria (multiple previous RMs), Princess Margareta of Romania (reverted), and Francis, Duke of Cádiz. Based on their username, I doubt they can be neutral regarding these moves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at their contrib log is indeed showing a lot of unilateral page moves. I have two thoughts on this. First is that many of these moves may be contentious. I haven't had a chance to look into their rationals but monarchists are notorious for arguing over titles and styles. So some of these may run afoul of NPOV. Secondly I am wondering at a brand new editor with only slightly over 130 edits doing a bunch of page moves. I don't remember when I figured out how to move pages but I am pretty sure it was not less than 6 weeks and 150 edits into my tenure here. File that under things that make me say "Hmmm..." -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I also note that they have not responded to any of the numerous notes and warnings left on their talk page. That is not encouraging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My 12+ years of Wiki experience, tells me that we're dealing with a likely evading sock. -- GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock?

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

---

Kalabanda a few minutes ago posted here saying "Some one filed a complaint at talk page of Wikipedia. Some admin advised me that wikipeida talk page is not right place to file complaint , transfer the complain to ANI.. how can i transfer ?"[114] however they've only edited their TP, UP and then here which would indicate no one's advised them on anything?,
Not sure if they're a sock, troll or simply a very lost editor, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GAB!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Historical vindictiveness against SvG

@JzG: used G5 to delete at least 4 articles:

• Aisha Praught-Leer · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alejandra Ortega · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alex Rose (athlete) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Cisiane Lopes · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

These were created by User:Sander.v.Ginkel. I don't know how many others have suffered the same fate. Over a year ago, User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines thousands of articles were slated for destruction. We were given only a few months to check and restore articles. I was one of several users involved in the checking process. In my specialty area, Athletics, our checklist was 100% checked or so we thought. That was a year ago. Obviously I am an involved editor, but there have been additional revelations to which I have not been a party of. With no notice, articles were deleted. From the story, truthful or not, a couple of the editors checking the articles were socks. But rather than turning the problem over to legitimate involved editors like @SFB: and myself, the content just disappeared. I've been trying to get it back for a week. JzG has evaded and hidden and done just about everything possible to avoid solving the problem he caused. No other administrator has been willing to step in to fix the problem. This is the oligarchy run amok. You will notice, two of these articles have been restored, by me. Those articles had been archived by the Wayback machine. You will notice that with the core starting information, those are now better than they started. In the process of restoring Cisiane Lopes, I discovered that in addition to the destruction of her article, almost all of her internal wikilinks had been manually deleted by JzG.[115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] This goes beyond deleting the article, this is deliberate sabotage to expunge this subject. It took a lot of work on JzG's part to do this sabotage. It made it considerably more difficult to relink this subject back into the wiki mainstream. In the process, it had to be apparent to any wiki editor with the intelligence of a rock that this subject would pass WP:NSPORTS whether it was created by SvG or another editor in the future. What was the goal here? Nothing JzG did was positive or helpful. Instead, it was deliberately harmful.

The two articles that have not been restored do not have an archive available. The only source for a jumping off point for those subjects exists in the content that JzG and all other administrators who work the Undeletion board are overtly refusing to take action on. I've been away for two days, nobody has lifted a finger in that time. Userfy. I will take it from there.

So I know I am fighting a losing battle by opposing one of the untouchable leadership, but I am doing what is right here. G5 should not have been used. JzG should not have done the sabotage. JzG should have responded to the requests to usurfy this content long ago. Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles. But the decision to ban him has taken on a life of its own. JzG and other users should be prevented from using G5 or any other speedy functions to delete the content. Any content they deleted should be restored, at least to draft. If there is a problem with the content, we have a process to fix it, AfD. And even though you disagree with an idea, stop doing things in secrecy. You can see who are legitimate involved editors on a subject. Try notifying us. It takes a lot less work to find users like us than it does to find a coherent list of what has actually been deleted. I don't know how many other editors are involved in this content removal. Speaking for myself, if I know about a problem in my area of expertise, I will fix it. I don't really appreciate being used like a trained monkey to fix things, but my goal is to have good content. This secrecy, backroom conversations and speedy deletions are used strategically to evade people like me. The goal is to vindictively remove SvG content and the public be damned. Those users need to take a time out. Take a chill pill or whatever is a good retort. You have to remember what wikipedia is about. All this backroom crap is not it. We have a public face. Look there. Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As the result of a community discussion, SvG was indeffed, so you're claiming that the community is vindicative concerning SvG? I'd rather say that its patience had been depleted. And what's with "cabal", "sabotage", "untouchable leadership", the demand for userfication, and so on? When you use language like that, I'm almost automatically inclined to reject your complaint as being extremely biased. I'm not sure if you haven't crossed the boundary of WP:NPA concerning JzG. Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the G5's but your statement "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles" makes me question your thoroughness. I looked at one SvG article (another editor brought up the deletion) and found an obvious BLP violation in the four sentence version SvG put into article space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done in secret but in a discussion further up the page [122] Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed a bunch of SvG pages left in Draft and found them sourced extremely poorly and containing exactly the types of errors that lead to draftifying en mass. Better to start over - or for those obscure country handball players from 30 years ago no one knows anything meaningful about - don't recreate even if they were in some Olympic event. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Whatever minor offense SvG committed" Uh oh, check #Sander.v.Ginkel above and the block log. Is the OP suggesting that the indefinite block was for some minor offense, and now JzG is being vindictive? That is absurd so please reword to account for reality. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The "minor offense" is in fact getting caught for sockpuppetry at two different Wikipedias. The Banner talk 11:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever heard of WP:ANI as being a backroom before. Blackmane (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just think how much smoke would be generated by 7,328 people puffing on cigars as they make their deals! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite the speakeasy! Blackmane (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, Delete is the LAST answer to a problem, not the first. All of SvG's athletics articles were checked by other editors, including SFB and myself. Some of those other editors turned out to be socks. Turn the articles back to draft and let legitimate editors have another shot at fixing a problem. I'm not hard to find. Delete, G5 without allowing usurfy, is effectively salting THE SUBJECT. SvG's work was sloppy, but it was the starting legwork to give other editors a place to hang additional information. I know Aisha Praught-Leer has been updated since SvG went away, so erasing that subject because SvG made the first edit is justified how? I believe I added to Alex Rose as well. So why is SvG's originating the article relevant now? Why punish us? Why punish the subject? Why punish the public by censoring legitimate content? The only explanation is your cumulative vindictiveness against what should be a historical wiki account who hasn't made a legitimate edit in well over a year. Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) −

• We've had the mass deletions before, whether for sockpuppettry, suspected copyvio, or inaccurate translations. In each case a large number of articles were deleted which should not have been, despite efforts to save them. Certainly in such cases if an editor without involvement in the original situation and with a good record here has been willing to speak for or work on the articles, we have at least tried not to delete them, or at the very least have undeleted them on request. To insist on keeping them deleted by using speedy deletion over the objections of a respected editor is in my opinion not correct. (I have lists of a few dozen myself from such sweeps to restore that I have never been able to get to). Using G5 in a disputed situation is incorrect just as using any speedy in a disputed situation is incorrect.

The view that some of these articles are trivial and should therefore not be restored is an opinion--indeed, I personally would not work on restoring Olympic athletes with no other information. Preventing someone who does want to do the work from doing it , when the articles pass the currently accepted notability standard for athlete is an overuse of authority. (I personally think there's a good argument for changing our guideline here, but any admin action must follow the accepted guideline in place, whether or not we individually like it). In fact, looking at the examples of Aisha Praught-Leer and Rose listed above, they are not in the least in this category, and would I think pass any reasonable notability standard.

Nobody can think I am in favor of tolerating editing such as that by SVG, but there is still in dealing with them a certain necessary level of respect for each other, and no one admin should be permitted to act unilaterally in this situation. This is not a matter for joking about. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DGG: what we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. The articles were moved to Draft, by consensus. Most of these were deleted under CSD#G13 (SvG has something like 22,000 deleted article starts in his log). Some - not a few, either - were moved back into mainspace by one of two sockpuppets. The more egregious was MFriedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of SvG himself, which used edit summaries like "no SvG issues" or "checked", playing the role of an independent editor reviewing articles that had been deemed not to meed standards. The less egregious (and simpler) was Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a ban-evading sock of Slowking4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So after discussion I deleted those articles meeting the following criteria:

• Created by SvG and passed through the process of rejection and move to Draft
• Moved out of Draft by one of the two socks
• No substantive edits, so that if they had remained in draft they would have been eligible for G13 - by no substantive edits I mean nothing other than removing deprecated infobox parameters and adding cats, the kind of semi-automated or automated edit that is only done by virtue of being in mainspace.

I don't think Trackinfo was happy with the original removal of these articles to Draft, and he's sure as hell not happy with this cleanup, but I feel I shuold point out that at no point did he actually fix the issues of poor sourcing and WP:NOTDIR that led to the original move to Draft. There may be a few errors, for which I would of course apologise and correct, but I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks.

Trackinfo has now taken this to multiple venues including Facebook. He does not seem to like the answer he gets, each time. I'm not surprised: he's a victim of SvG's deceit, probably more than the rest of us. But this is abusive editing and a cleanup activity discussed in the relevant venues. Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. I don't think there's much resistance to providing the deleted text for a clean-start for any article Trackinfo identifies, unfortunately his reaction tot hat has been to demand wholesale restoration of the entire bunch because cabal, which doesn't really help anyone who wants to help him. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Watch the accusations, JzG. I do not have a Facebook account. I'm an obstinate old man, I do not do social media. My entire discussion of this issue has been here, escalating as your administrator buddies continue to back your egregious deletions through their lack of action. During the period of checking SvG articles I did not roll back a single one and found no cause to. Rather than assuming and accusing, show me one where I was wrong. In my contact, SvG created stub articles about lesser known Olympic athletes. When I found they matched the source, usually sports-reference, for the presentation of the basic facts, there was no reason to delete or send them back. I added to most of them as I checked them, a slow, laborious process. On Project Athletics, we have a pretty good layout of blue links in all of our recent Olympic and World Championship results. Those SvG stubs are a big part of that, positive contributions, but there are a bunch of good people following up on those start up stubs, adding little links or entire subjects that help lead others to follow up information. Each deletion wipes out all that cumulative information from a lot of minds. Knowledge. Idiot deletionists do not seem to understand, when you destroy content, you are erasing knowledge. It might be able to be found again, but the communal information is lost, possibly never to return, because a roaming contributor thinks their addition is already saved on the article. Praught was such a stub article at first, except she was involved in a heroic act with a fallen athlete and made the final in the Olympics with a lot of coverage. Since then she was also in the final of the World Championships, has the Jamaican and probably Caribbean records and got married to a notable athlete causing her hyphenated name. And I almost forgot, she found her dad. Her article went from SvG's stub to at least three paragraphs. I'm doing this off the top of my head, so she's not exactly off the radar as was a lot of SvG's work. Rose I believe qualified for the World Championships legitimately, rather than being his domestic token, also multiple paragraphs now. Your blind destruction is inappropriate to the current state of those articles, or what they were before this week. With YOUR record of blind destruction, YOUR obvious irresponsibility, how can we mere mortal editors check the damage YOU have done to other articles, without the ability to see them? If you think you are doing such a good job, try a little daylight and prove it. I'll bet I'll find other articles that could and should be saved. I don't think you'll find any, but certainly a whole lot more than any bad piece of SvG information I let onto mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Again and again. I see this tactic again and again. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I apologise for misidentifying you as the person complaining in the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. Anyone here who looks at that group may understand the reason for the mistake, but I accept your assurance. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be controversial if these articles were restored on an individual basis. Lada Kozlíková was created in 2013 for example, and has plenty of edits from other users; it shouldn't ever be retroactively deleted as G5. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, most of those are bot and semi-automated edits. I moved it back to Draft:Lada Kozlíková. yes, it was created in 2013, but it was created by SvG, and apart from maintenance edits it is unchanged since he left it. Neither source is a WP:RS, both are directories and both look user-edited. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not criticising the decision to delete them, I just don't think it would be controversial if I decide to fish an article out of SvG's deleted contributions. Provided I check it myself for unsourced statements. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Especially if they go back to Draft for cleanup or if you fix them yourself. If I deleted them, please feel free, or if you're uncomfortable due to WP:WHEEL concerns, leave a list on my Talk and I'll do it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken

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

---

Apart from being generally rude and abrasive, the user shows a consistent pattern of being insulting, committing ad hominems, and showcasing a clear lack of neutrality on a variety of controversial topics that require tact more than any. If someone is unable to show tact, stay cool and level-headed, and hold a neutral position on any topic - but particularly contentious ones, that is concerning. In my humble opinion, the user has shown flagrant bias and a rather inappropriate attitude. [123] [124] [125] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontonianOnlines (talk • contribs) 06:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oy vey. I don't see any of the mentioned behavior. This is severe reaching. R9tgokunks ✡ 06:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TorontonianOnlines. BMK wrote: "Bullshit. Antisemitic garbage and Fascist and neo-Nazi propaganda has no place on Wikipedia, and will be deleted wherever it's found." BMK was entirely correct that such propaganda (as opposed to neutral, well-referenced descriptions of it) should be deleted. If you disagree with BMK on this matter, perhaps you should rethink your position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nicely put. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view doesn't mean we give equal weight to Nazis and non-Nazis. It's not being insulting, committing ad hominems, and showcasing a clear lack of neutrality for Beyond My Ken to point this out. ‑ Iridescent 07:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of the stuff the OP is pushing reminds me of the ref desk Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?'’} carrots→ 07:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

TorontonianOnlines, do you realize how many otherwise productive editing hours had been wasted because of the misuse of this board? I took a glimpse at your complaint and I think you are really oversensitive. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• An account with 12 edits this year, mainly concerning Stormfront and a racist author, with previous edits to Identity Evropa. I wonder why this user would be unduly sensitive about criticism of Nazi apologia? Guy (Help!) 09:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• What I see is an editor standing up to ensure that a virulently-racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi trash fire of a website is properly portrayed as what it is. Barnstars are merited here, not ANI threads. Close this now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for edit history deletion

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

---

Hi, an IP has added a request for money to be sent to an account, obviously an abuse of Wikipedia, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cork_(material)&diff=826646187&oldid=826230178. I've deleted it but I think it should be deleted also from the edit history. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Patricia CV has four years of warnings for adding unsourced material, sockpuppetry and is still doing this

The user Patricia CV (formerly known as Ross Lynch Lovers) has a long pattern of adding unsourced genres and material; they have been warned as far back as 2014 (including countless final warnings) by users including SNUGGUMS and most recently, Interlude65 (for just a selection, see [126], [127], [128], [129], [130] all the way back to 2014). They've recently been up to this again. They change genres or edit against established consensus on what something is, then they get annoyed and throw accusations out (which Sergecross73 has blocked them twice for—calling me a "donkey", randomly claiming I'm "xenophobic", claiming without any basis that I treat all women on Wikipedia as "dumb"). Now the accusations haven't happened in this case again (yet, at least), but they're continuing to genre war when they're quite well aware the sources on the articles state something different:

• Removing sourced genres for their own idea of what something is
• changing a genre when the source states something different right next to it
• changing a genre stated in the second sentence of the lead as dance-pop.

They have also used multiple IP addresses:

• I reverted them for contradicting what sources state on L.A. State of Mind and I did a few follow-ups to clear the article of unsourced genre claims here, then they used 2804:90:11:5C47:D40B:8DFA:3D02:EF00 to restore their opinion here. The other articles that the IP edited are all articles Patricia CV has edited extensively.
• Loriendrew warned them about using IPs again in November 2017 while they were blocked here. They used 2601:84:4501:8003:E407:FBF9:8104:2DF2.

More recently they have changed releases sourced as albums to mixtapes on Meghan Trainor discography and downgrading singles sourced as having full commercial releases to "promotional" here and here (and then editing the related articles to match: [131], [132], [133]). They previously did this on Olivia Newton-John singles discography when they split it off from her albums to a separate page, counting every song that didn't chart as a "promotional single" and sourcing it to Discogs when Discogs doesn't state what is "promotional" anyway (and is not reliable per WP:ALBUMAVOID regardless). Yes, the definition of these things can be confusing and is changing, but Patricia CV's opinion appears to be that if a single doesn't chart (which is entirely possible) it is "promotional". (I warned them about this here.) At this point I don't think they will stop with any of this behaviour. I think it's gone on for far too long, and I and other users (namely SNUGGUMS) have thought about coming here about this user before. I initially wrote a version of this to Sergecross, who suggested I could bring this here, so I have, as this is a pattern going back four years and I'm honestly confused as to how after so many warnings this user is still doing this or even still freely editing. Ss112 15:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

To summarize my thoughts:

• I've blocked her twice for personal attacks/bad faith accusations she has refused to explain, defend, or generally respond to.
• Ss112 initially reported this to me today, with is not related to personal attacks, but by making controversial edits. My stance was that her behavior was disruptive, but it was over a wide variety of things, some of them being hotly debated things in the music world. (What's the correct genre for a music release? Is a song a "single" or a "promotional single"? Is it an "album or a "mixtape" etc) that it was hard to block her outright for what she's done lately. My stance was to give her a final warning about making controversial edits without sources, and block her if she broke that. This was not good enough for Ss112, so he came here. I'm just giving my two cents in the matter, someone need not get my approval if you feel a block is warranted now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Okay, block me. I have no interest in fights or accusations. I am an exemplary publisher in other languages, with medals of honor. In my two countries we do not support persecution and hatred. I won't edit any other article in the English wikipedia. Are you happy? So I'm happy for you. With luv (and never again). Patricia CV ^msg 15:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)