Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:DePiep and DYK

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

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

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

In all of these situations, DePiep has repeatedly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I chanced upon a sudden slew of discussions on the DYK talkpage, all raised by DePiep. Most were causing heated debates, with the majority of the heat relating to the fact that DePiep seemed technically unable to sufficiently describe what he was trying to achieve in most instances. I certainly had trouble understanding a number of his comments. Even from today we have "For the rest: that going into the BF area, I think you should base that. - DePiep (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)" for example. No idea. So when eventually DePiep accused me of a (mild) PA, and then claimed he was leaving the discussion with a "See you elsewhere, TRM. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)", I stated that I hoped not. He then petulantly left me a message on my talk page with his very next edit. Generally it the whole series of posts has felt like an enormous waste of time from a disruptive editor who doesn't really appear to have the competence to make these kinds of edits or suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• The user in question has an unfortunate history with the block log. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • DePiep also has significant history here at ANI. E.g., just last June he took a voluntary one-year topic ban (on anything related to earthquakes) in lieu of a six-month block.

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

• I previously interacted with this user over a major revision of the {{OEIS}} template series. I think his changes were, ultimately, constructive, but they involved a similar "my way or the highway" attitude from DePiep, a distressing level of unconcern for making sure that the hundreds or thousands of existing uses of the template rendered correctly before making such changes, and a hostile response to any form of constructive criticism. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• DePiep is very active at WP:WikiProject Pharmacology, where he tends to focus on stuff like templates more than on content. I also have seen, repeatedly, the obnoxious interaction style and the inflexibility, but he also does contribute in useful ways. I don't have any knowledge about the DYK problems, but I think that the situation does not go quite so far as WP:NOTHERE. It's somewhere between that and OK, not entirely one or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A skim through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 13 gives a pretty good view of what I'm referring to: mostly useful, occasionally unpleasant (the latter in one part of the "USAN etc in drugbox" thread). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• As a DYK regular, I have never come across this user before nor had any interaction with him yet it appears to me that he has come into DYK out of the blue and made a number of edits to the technical workings of the project. Personally I don't see the logical reasoning behind his actions. The fact that there is consensus that he appears to be unaware that his tinkering is being disruptive suggests that maybe he should be advised to back off doing that. I never like to see topic bans but maybe this could be on the table. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• More concerning is that he doesn't appear to understand basic concepts. Looking at this history and this one (on which he broke 3RR), plus the current discussion at WT:DYK, he doesn't seem to grasp the BRD cycle or the facat that consensus should be gained for contentious edits. That's actually a WP:CIR issue, when one is repeatedly told by multiple editors not to do something, and you carry on doing it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Skimmed through here. User has not edited in some hours. Concerned that a very constructive editor in some areas has become overwrought. I think with DYK, they'd bit off too much, and they should leave it alone a while. DePiep, very interested in seeing your response.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• How odd -- since this thread began DePiep has fallen silent. I've never seen that happen before. EEng 12:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Seems unnecessary for me to pile on the chorus of accusations. I've already said enough about DePiep at WT:DYK#DYKbox improvements and other threads. I just want to add that it baffles me why a seemingly experienced and productive user like DePiep would behave as if he'd never heard of WP:BRD and consistently ignore the advice and arguments presented by numerous other users. -Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• i am not able to read and respond, also for the next days. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Site ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor emptying masses of categories, then nominating them for speedy because they are empty. Also BRD issues.

Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been emptying masses of "Celtic" related categories, and blanking the category pages. I challenged him on this, and pointed him to the correct procedures for this. After I did this he then started tagging the categories he had emptied for Speedy Deletion on the groud that they were empty. Again I tried to get him to follow procedures, and I reverted his actions. His response has been to start reverting my reversions, as well as removing my notice on his talk page about BRD here. His edit rate in emptying categories is phenomenal. It's 01.30 here, and at some point I will have to sleep. Help! DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I obviously have a disagreement on a number of edits; however his arbitrary reversions are neither helpful nor constructive. I have explained the reasons for the clearing of said categories to him and yet he seems to have no interest in discussing it further. I shall make my position clear: the specific categories I have removed were done so because they have been created arbitrarily by another editor in recent weeks, with no discussion nor wish to seek a consensus on the topic. In my view the spurious classification of "Celtic" offers little encyclopedic value, is incredibly controversial (as demonstrated on a number of talk pages) and has no source-led evidence to justify its existence. The fact that a large number of categories have been created in quick succession is the reason for the edits of this nature to begin with. Brough87 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

At least two of the categories Brough87 emptied with no edit summary have been around for years, Category:Celtic nations and another I mentioned on his talk page. He has also not contacted the editor who created the other categories. There is a procedure for proposing the deletion of categories, and Brough87 has been advised of it by me on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already answered the point about how long they've been in existence: "classification of "Celtic" offers little encyclopedic value, is incredibly controversial (as demonstrated on a number of talk pages) and has no source-led evidence to justify its existence". If you think all of your reverts are old edits, I recommend you look a bit deeper into them. In relation to the accusations of 'bold' edits, I have never heard of the removal of unreferenced/unsourced assertions being described as 'bold' before. Brough87 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Can either of you point me to a talk page discussion where these edits were discussed? Where consensus was reached? --Tarage (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, no consensus was reached. I made the edits, he contacted me on my talk page, I gave my explanation then he went on a mass reverting spree without even bothering to pay attention to the edits he was reverting. As a result not only did he revert some of the edits he intended to, but also a number of edits that were not controversial to make. Brough87 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories for discussion explains what to do if you think a category should be deleted. It includes the sentence "Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made." I raised this on Brough87's talk page earlier. DuncanHill (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on "Celts", broadly construed I'm sorry, but an editor whose user page includes that many dog whistles and red (blue and white) flags clearly identifying them as a British nationalist (ironic, given the etymology of "British") attempting to empty and mass-speedy cats related to Celtic topics including Category:Celtic nations (a closed category that has otherwise been stable for years) strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. They are bordering on being an "ethnicity and race" SPA judging by their top-edited pages[11] and their most edited pages outside their own userspace are Syndicalism (where his main contribution was to promote the popular rightist meme that "fascism was a left-wing movement that came from socialism") and Talk:Black supremacy (where their main goal seems to be to emphasize "See! Blacks are racist too!"). I just can't see how allowing this editor to continue to behave as they have been is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

TBAN on "ethnicity and race, broadly construed" would also work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

My past history of edits demonstrate quite clearly that I'm just as willing to enter into discussions and seek editing consensus as any other person on Wikipedia. Your recommendation for a TBAN seem to be more focused on whether you believe my edits are a "rightist meme" as to whether my edits offer an objective encyclopedic value. I've given my reasons for my actions on the categories, that being: the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought or any obvious value derived from their existence. I have not shied away from discussions on this matter, it just would have been incredibly impracticable to start 10+ talk page discussions on each individual edit. If someone can create a mass set of categories in quick succession with no justification or obvious encyclopedic value, I'm confused as to why I should be punished for willingly discussing and explaining my position regarding them. Brough87 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brough87: the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought Really? Of the 120 categories you've edited in the last 24 hours, all but 12 date to 2016 at the latest. Those 12, for the record (I checked all 120), are:

Category:Argentine people of Celtic descent

Category:Brazilian people of Celtic descent

Category:Filipino people of Celtic descent

Category:Indonesian people of Celtic descent

Category:Israeli people of Celtic descent

Category:Japanese people of Celtic descent

Category:Mexican people of Celtic descent

Category:Pakistani people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Manx descent

Category:Israeli people of Scottish descent

Category:American people of Faroese descent

Of these, several date to 2017 and are not truly "recent", and if you have a problem with the seven or eight cats Hus12345 created in the last week or so, maybe take it up with them on their talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Please stick on topic, the point at hand is me blanking categories, not making minor edits (see title). The only thing I removed from Category:American people of Faroese descent was the link to the spurious category of "Celtic" Americans. The reason for this ANI is the page blanking and the recommendation for deletion; I haven't nominated 120 categories for deletion so I don't why you're bringing up those 120. Brough87 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the point at hand (what you were reported for) concerned emptying masses of "Celtic" related categories and your edit rate in emptying categories [being] is phenomenal (emphasis added). This clearly referred to your edits to 120 cats in the space of a day. Anyway, even if we limit the discussion to pages you specifically nominated for speedy deletion, your claim that the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought only applied to eight of the 20 you nominated -- 40% is hardly "the overwhelming majority". Lying (repeatedly) does not make you look better -- it makes you look worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

When the issue is clearly about emptying categories (which you've just accepted), I'm confused as to what relevance minor edits are exactly. There is no rule against many edits, just as there are *seemingly* no rules against creating massive amount of spurious categories with questionable encyclopedic value. Secondly, my position is easy to understand and is right at the beginning of this talk and on my personal talk page. Thirdly I would not go about making claims about 'looking worse' after the statements you've made in this ANI. Your first comment demonstrates very poor behaviour on your part. My nationality is irrelevant (bordering on the bigoted), the discussions I've had on other talk pages is irrelevant (the whole purpose of that is to come to consensus) and now you've accused me of being a liar. Perhaps you should consider treating others with a modicum of respect? Brough87 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss something with you if you are going to respond to Devil's advocate hypotheticals with "which you've just accepted". You are either too dense to edit this encyclopedia or you are deliberately pretending to be so because you are a troll. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And I question your reliability as an editor when you think nationality, the subject of talk page discussions and number of edits are legitimate justifications for punishment. Brough87 (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between wanting to sanction (not "punish") an editor for his nationality (an outrageous accusation for which you should apologize) and wanting to do so for said editor describing himself on his userpage as a "nationalist", specifically one who opposes dissolution of a particular country, and making edits that are derogatory towards the ethnicities of the various modern and historical separatist movements within that country. Similarly, I did never said or implied that the vast majority of editors with low edit counts should be sanctioned: I only brought up your edit count in response to your making a ridiculous insinuation that I am WP:NOTHERE. I honestly have no idea what "the subject of talk page discussions" refers to, but then your repeated references to something in the range 6.7%~40% as "the vast majority" has convinced me thaf you are just making stuff up as you go along. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed as per Hijiri 88 - clearly a problem area in the 'Celt' area. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban, although based on evidence of disruptive editing, not any disclosed nationality. Richard⁰⁶¹² 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support only temporary ban on "emptying" any categories That is, this would be sufficient to deal with the stated problem, rather than using the meat ceaver which "broadly construed" inevitably becomes. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be treating the symptom and not the disease? What's to say the editor wouldn't start removing references to ethnic/national groups he doesn't like from articles (and other stuff I don't wanna say per WP:BEANS), then go right back to what they've been doing once the temporary ban expires? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Alas - that argument is akin to saying "let's execute all thieves because they might murder someone if we don't" or the like - we deal with the "crime now proven" not "but they will do far worse in the future if we do not ban them now." Preventive banning has never worked, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not an admin, so you can't see User:Zaostao's user page, and I don't know if you remember it like I do, but we remove people from the community entirely if their user pages include dog whistle indicators that they support political movements that might bring the project into disrepute if associated with them. Opposing dissolution of the United Kingdom is not in itself equivalent to saying in code "I'm a Nazi", but doing so in combination with actively going around the project making content edits that belittle the non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups, and that is all you are doing, would be reason enough to remove him entirely from the project: giving him a sanction that would allow him to contribute to the project but not to articles and categories related to the ethnic groups he is belittling is a mercy. Opposing such a move just makes you look like you don't understand the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Right, now I feel I can legitimately accuse you of WP:NOTHERE. You don't get to string out a supposed political motivation for my edits simply because of my nationality, and if you had actually looked at my edit history you would know that what you say is ludicrous. Tell me, what is a "non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups" exactly? Do you have some sources to justify such terminology? Or is your primary motivation political (you know the thing you accused me of) which btw would make you WP:NOTHERE. Brough87 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone with 800 edits, most of them in the last week or so to articles and cats related to ethnic groups he apparently doesn't hold in very high regard, telling someone with close to 30,000 edits that they are "NOTHERE"? Just keep digging, I guess... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps someone should investigate the quality of your edits. Because your accusations are baseless; case in point "ethnic groups he apparently doesn't hold in very high regard". What's the evidence for that statement exactly? Brough87 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your allegation that Hijiri88 is NOTHERE is nonsense. I don't always agree with them, but they're definitely HERE. I think you might to well to read WP:Casting aspersions and stop making silly claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've made silly claims? The guy's literally accused me of "making edits that are derogatory towards the ethnicities..." (among other ludicrous accusations). The first part of the WP:Casting aspersions page says "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation..." or are you trying to suggest that the accusations of this nature are correct? Brough87 (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a reasonable observation based on the edits you chose to make and the content you chose to include in your userpage: you responded to this by engaging in completely baseless mud-slinging, first saying I was trying to punish you for your nationality and then saying I am NOTHERE. And don't pretend like I was misinterpreting you: within this ANI thread you literally denied that there are non-Anglo-Saxon minorities in the UK, demanding I provide sources for the claim that these groups exist; your repeated attempts to classify the Irish as "a Germanic people" is just more evidence of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I said: "Tell me, what is a "non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups" exactly? Do you have some sources to justify such terminology? Or is your primary motivation political..." that is not necessarily a denial, it's merely a question. But even if it was an overt denial, I'm confused how that could possibly be construed as in any way derogatory to any ethnicity. It is for that reason that I accused you of having a political bias informing your outrage/previous accusations against me. I believe that to define these different groups in arbitrary 'Celtic' and 'Germanic' categories is informed primarily by some editor's political beliefs rather than an objective basis/standard. To refer directly to your Irish example; Ireland ofc has a Celtic background, but it also has a Germanic background brought about through the Norse settlement, Norman settlement and the English and Scottish settlement and plantation over the years of English (and later British rule). It is for that reason that I also defined them in the Germanic category which doesn't seem to be particular leap of faith if we're also going to have a Celtic category. Brough87 (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are confused how [denying the existence of indigenous minorities and just saying they are all Anglo-Saxon] could possibly be construed as in any way derogatory to any ethnicity then you are incompetent to edit articles related to ethnic minorities in general, which is actually an argument for a TBAN that is broader still than the one I am proposing. Going around the encyclopedia removing the claim that Irish and their descendants are Celtic and adding the claim that they are Germanic is difficult to take as meaning anything else. I'm on record as holding the unpopular view that many "ethnic Irish" are partly or even mostly of Germanic ancestry, but this claim is taboo in Ireland, and is usually only stated with the intent to antagonize, similar to how it may be absolutely true that All Lives Matter but the people who say that are by-and-large doing so with malicious intent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying or are you blinded by obstinate ideology? I haven't denied the existence of any minority nor have I declared they are all Anglo-Saxon. Brough87 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You made dozens if not hundreds of edits "declassifying" people as Celtic, and several (I haven't attempted a count, but on top of the Category:Irish people diffs above all your recent edits to Germanic peoples starting with this one are the same) "reclassifying" them as Germanic. Are you saying that "ethnic" Irish, Manx, Welsh, Cornish and Scots are Germanic in that they have viking ancestry, as opposed to calling them specifically Anglo-Saxon? And it is impossible to read a statement in an ANI thread requesting a source for the claim that there are non-Anglo-Saxon ethnicities in Britain as simply a request for reading material -- you were challenging the factual accuracy of my claim, and now trying to wikilawyer over whether the words you used "directly" said what you clearly meant them to say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The declaration that I'm engaging in wikilawyer is total rubbish. You defined a selection of groups as "non Anglo-Saxon", I questioned that definition and in response you declared that I was being disparaging and declaring that they were all just "Anglo-Saxon". There is a fair difference between questioning the legitimacy of declaring them all non Anglo-Saxon, and me supposedly defining them as just Anglo-Saxon. I have never gone around declaring these groups (including English btw) as being just Anglo-Saxon. My position has always been that the groups in the archipelago are a fusion between the two and I have sourced and given an explanation when required/queried about it. Brough87 (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been edit-warring into the mainspace your claim that the Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh are "Germanic peoples", and when other editors point out that this seems kind of arbitrary as they are no more descended from Germanic peoples than the French, you mysteriously made it about a "Celtic vs. Germanic" dichotomy, even though the rest of us have been using these terms in their proper linguistic sense and the French are, by and large, neither "Germanic" nor "Celtic" in a linguistic sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an example of "other editors" (meaning apart from you) having a problem with the supposed "arbitrary" nature of my "descent" edits followed by a mass edit war on my part? Brough87 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: @Batternut: Do you wanna chime in here? I took your stated agreement with me on the article talk page (and to some extent on RSN back in Jan/Feb) going out of your way not to revert my edit to the article as indicating that you agreed with me. I honestly don't know why B87 is bringing this up here, as my above comment was not about the "arbitrariness" problem but rather this editor going around multiple articles and cats attempting to recategorize groups in Britain and Ireland as "Germanic, not Celtic"; the editor seems to be getting the two issues confused as this is also no doubt why they brought up this "Germanic vs. Celtic" dichotomy out of nowhere on the article talk page. The two are actually opposite -- I didn't realize that B87 was the one who had inserted that content when I called it arbitrary, but now that I've checked I realize it's not arbitrary at all -- it's a pointed political move. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You're very good at making ludicrous accusations, I wish you were better at demonstrating that those accusations were correct. Brough87 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Umm... what? You asked me to list the users who agreed with me, and I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to the ping, I do not think the discussions and edits on Germanic peoples can be seen in isolation as connected to one person or one position, and while I find some of the opinions naive and not well-read, that is not what I think you're asking. There has been an awkward discussion on that article for years, involving many different editors and viewpoints. Eventually that problem might need a bigger type of RfC, but I am not sure how to formulate it. I would summarize the problem as coming from the impulse people feel to talk about a modern version of the Germanic tribes in Roman times, without really having sources, and without considering whether this is already more properly handled by other articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I found much of the Germanic peoples discussion to be an impossible attempt ethnic descent with little reference to source - often the problem with ethnicity discussions. I sensed frustration by Brough87 at what he saw as a lot of poorly sourced categorization going on. However, looking back at his recent contributions, the pattern of killing off a bunch of Celtic categories is quite clear. In subsequent discussion at talk page he does admit a measure of fault here. In view of the level of disruption caused, I think some ban is due. As suggested by Collect above, I feel a temporary ban on "emptying" any categories should suffice, as the disruption relates predominantly to his categorizing. Vaunting his nationalism in itself is not an offence, though it clearly raises suspicion in combination with this apparent campaign against Celtic categories. I hope me may learn to be more careful in future. Batternut (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban. Per above users. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 00:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban -- I confess, I am a bit confused as to where this should go at this point, but here it is. At first, I would have supported a warning only. But Brough87's conduct and responses here -- evincing nary a punctilio of collaborative or even collegial behavior -- have convinced me this is a more appropriate consequence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban - The editor in question appears to have a POV which is fueling their editing, and they display in this very discussion serious BATTLEGROUND behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TBAN discussion

Okay, opening a new subthread and copying !votes down so it's clearer and so this proposal can be discussed properly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Partially copying comments into a new section is misleading. These comments should be read in the discussion above where they've been responded to. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support TBAN on "Celts", broadly construed I'm sorry, but an editor whose user page includes that many dog whistles and red (blue and white) flags clearly identifying them as a British nationalist (ironic, given the etymology of "British") attempting to empty and mass-speedy cats related to Celtic topics including Category:Celtic nations (a closed category that has otherwise been stable for years) strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. They are bordering on being an "ethnicity and race" SPA judging by their top-edited pages[12] and their most edited pages outside their own userspace are Syndicalism (where his main contribution was to promote the popular rightist meme that "fascism was a left-wing movement that came from socialism") and Talk:Black supremacy (where their main goal seems to be to emphasize "See! Blacks are racist too!"). I just can't see how allowing this editor to continue to behave as they have been is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC) TBAN on "ethnicity and race, broadly construed" would also work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Support topic ban, broadly construed as per Hijiri 88 - clearly a problem area in the 'Celt' area. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support broadly construed topic ban, although based on evidence of disruptive editing, not any disclosed nationality. Richard0612 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support only temporary ban on "emptying" any categories That is, this would be sufficient to deal with the stated problem, rather than using the meat ceaver which "broadly construed" inevitably becomes. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support broadly construed topic ban. Per above users. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 00:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Do you want this thread to get archived without result or something? I wasn't trying to "mislead" and none of the comments I copied were "partial", and you probably shouldn't imply that they were; I just wanted a subthread with a clear proposal so more outside commenters won't be scared off by the massive strings of discussion (much of which makes very little sense) -- how would you prefer this be addressed? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, by saying the comments "were responded to", you are effectively endorsing the frankly nonsensical style of many of those responses, which have been looking increasingly like a deliberate attempt to filibuster this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop treating this as if you've somehow approached this issue with an upstanding and civil attitude, because you haven't. Brough87 (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've accused me, entirely without basis, of (a) statements "bordering on the bigoted", (b) wanting to "punish" you because of your "nationality", (c) being "NOTHERE" and (d) having a "primary motivation [that is] political". You have not apologized for these allegations nor made any attempt to justify them. This is on top of your outrageous content edits which include attempting to recategorize various groups as "Germanic, not Celtic", edit-warring over the same, IDHT dodging of questions, engaging in misrepresentation and misdirection to avoid addressing others' concerns with your edits ... I'm frankly astonished you haven't been blocked for any of this yet, but maybe if you are issued with a strong TBAN you can still get away without a block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've explained this to you already: a and b.) My nationality being irrelevant to any discussion c and d.) Spouting political conspiracies about why I make edits without providing any justification beyond the fact that you disagree with the edit. Despite your deepest wishes, any sanction I face should be based entirely on my edits not on your prejudices or political conspiracies. Furthermore, you've repeatedly accused me of making disparaging remarks against ethnicities without justification or a single piece of evidence to support that claim. Would you at least do me the courtesy of demonstrating that what you say is true, or are you expecting me to just ignore it? People are free to disagree with me and my edits (and in some cases they are certainly right to), but no one here is going to the extent that you are to insult and generally behave appallingly to me. Brough87 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out that your user page makes a clear political statement that is ideologically consistent with the worst possible reading of your edits is neither bigoted nor conspiratorial. You chose to write on your user page that you are a British nationalist who opposes Scottish independence and Irish unification, and you chose to make edits that declassify Irish and Scots as Celtic and reclassify them as Germanic. And honestly I'll bet you couldn't guess my views on the issues of Irish unification and Scottish independence if you had a gun pointed to your head, because I have never stated those views on-wiki -- you are just assuming I hold political views that are opposed to your own, because that is how you have been reading everything about this dispute. I am in fact only interested in the disruption your edit-warring, counter-consensus, uncivil behaviour is causing to our encyclopedia and the community that maintains it and don't give a damn about the "politics" behind it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I couldn't give a damn what your ideology is or what your views are on anything; I just don't care. I have no assumptions about your politics beyond the fact that you've been very unpleasant and a consummate conspiracy theorist. I have had plenty of collaborative efforts with people who have politics who are fundamentally different to mine, just as I have had immense disagreements with people who I might traditionally agree with (some in the last few days); it's just irrelevant when it comes to edits. I haven't accused you of an ideological bias because of what your attitude is on Scottish independence, because as you've said, you haven't ever stated those views on wikipedia. I've accused you of an ideological bias because of your actions and statements in this thread and elsewhere: case in point, the idea that questioning the supposedly wholly "Celtic" nature of Scotland, Ireland and Man is in some way a disparaging remark against those people. Furthermore, you've made assertions that somehow your opinions of a "rightist meme" (which incidentally suggest your political views) is somehow relevant to a discussion of this nature. On a final note, you've accused me of two more things: "edit-warring...uncivil behaviour" please justify that and while you're at it, explain how you're actions and approach represent the height of civility. Brough87 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The diffs are all there, and you know what you've been doing -- anyone can Ctrl+F your contribs for "no justification" and see you edit-warring, and your gross attempts to paint this whole thing as me being some kind of politically motivated xenophobe are also here in this thread for all to see. And you did say fascism came from socialism, and edit-war with MShabazz over it, right? And you did repeatedly engage Malik in an IDHT loop on the talk page, did you not? Anyway, you should apologize for calling me a bigot and a conspiracy theorist: you cannot expect other editors to treat you with respect when you behave this way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Will you two stop arguing with each other? Hijiri 88 you originally tried open this discussion to focus on the tban rather than whatever you were arguing about above, and then you are once again one of the 2 key participants in another lengthy debate here? "Do you want this thread to get archived without result or something?" Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically, that original purpose ceased being a factor before any of the above, and it's not exactly reasonable to expect someone to put up with being called a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. It's worse than being accused of sockpuppetry and I've seen folks get autoblocked for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason why you get accused of being a bigot and a conspiracy theorist is because in a thread regarding "categories, then nominating them for speedy because they are empty", you start mentioning my nationality and going on about a political issue as if either are relevant to the issue(s) raised by DuncanHill. When you realised that your actions were abusive you started accusing me of making disparaging remarks which you have consistently failed to justify. Here's my advice, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot and a conspiracy theorist don't behave like one. You don't have to agree with the discussions I've had in talk pages and you don't have to like British people; just don't make it a subject of an ANI. I am far from perfect, and I make mistakes (hence the ANI in the first place); but talk page discussions which you disagree with and nationalities of people you disagree with are irrelevant. Brough87 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen IDHT of this type: admitting to accus[ing me] of being a bigot and a conspiracy theorist while in the same comment insisting that you have not been making disparaging remarks -- is this a joke? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite your repeated insistence (with no evidence I might add) I made no disparaging remarks about any ethnic groups. Brough87 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You added Category:Irish people to Category:Germanic peoples. This is incredibly offensive for historical reasons of which I am sure you are aware; if you are not, then you are incompetent to edit articles and categories related to "Celts" and should be TBANned for that reason alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not aware of it being "incredibly offensive for historical reasons". There is no part of Irish history that would possibly make that an offensive comment, unless of course you're letting your political views influence an objective analysis of the situation. Brough87 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, it may be argued that the categories affected here, indeed all Category:People by ethnic or national descent subcategories, amount to tagging contrary to guideline "do not add categories to pages as if they are tags" of WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages. I doubt that having some ancestor of nationality or ethnicity X is a "defining characteristic" of the subject, as required by WP:CATDEFINING. If a subject claims to be Celtic, English or whatever, even half or quarter so, they can can categorized as being Celtic, English etc. Considering the descent categories of Barack Obama, I'd say only the "African-American" stuff is defining. WP:CFD will be the place to deal with this properly, where I might indeed take it. Batternut (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: And I might well agree with you there (feel free to ping me when you do). But a POV-pushing, grossly uncivil SPA, mass-emptying and speedy-nominating the cats, while at the same time placing articles/cats in alternate, clearly controversial, cats, in order to push a political agenda, is definitely inappropriate, and really has nothing to do with the concerns you are expressing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Before having the nerve to accuse me of a lack of civility, look at your first entry on the ANI. Brough87 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Your outburst at me above focusses entirely on Brough87's categorizing; reinforcing the argument for a ban on monkeying with categories. The case for a TBAN on Celtic matters, or wider, would benefit from examples of disruptive editing other than categorizing. Briefly, if you might. Ta, Batternut (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: If you think banning B87 from retooling categories (temporarily? that's what Collect was pushing for...) will solve the incivility, personal attacks, etc. then I'll support that as a second choice, but I really still think that would not solve this problem. The question now is whether to open a new pair of subthreads proposing a broad and a narrow TBAN and asking people to state whether they oppose one or the other or would give one as a second choice, and maybe hopefully encourage more participation from the community, or just do what was done with the Gilmore thread further up this page and open a "Move to close..." subthread and ask an uninvolved admin to assess whatever consensus there already is from the discussion above. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: you still seem to be behaving as if I was the one who behaved with any modicum of incivility first; were you half asleep when you typed your first response? Brough87 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BarceloniUK

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

This user keeps modifying the article Societat Civil Catalana by adding text which does not correspond with what the references say. Moreover, he wrote two drafts for the same article but were rejected due to being written like an advertisement, as can be seen in his talk page history. Two diffs with the conflicting edits: Diff1, Diff2. This user has only contributed modifications to that article, so he might be a single purpose account (WP:SPA). I left him a message in his talk page on 12th April 2018 and he has answered on 7th may 2018 to the reverts I made on 6th may 2018. He has continued doing the same after talking to him. As I see it, he negates the citations and puts a phrase not corresponding to them in order to hide information he does not like. Filiprino (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If an ANI regular could look this over? It's been kinda hanging here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Filiprino: Hi, we're going to need more specific information. As we're dealing with non-English sources, we can't check for verification to confirm your report. Can you detail which text is specifically failing verification? Swarm ♠ 22:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Swarm: Hi. Well, it is not only a matter of his edits not matching what the sources say but that the user keeps doing disrupting editing. Removes content added by other uses and replaces it with other content. His edit summaries are just personal attacks. This diff shows his latest modifications to the article. As for the previous edits, the text which fails verification is "Catalan civic society organization opposing catalanism" and "Separatist and far-left activist, photographer". On top of that he replaced " it has been proven to have close relations with far-right associations" with "representatives of far-right associations opposing independence of Catalonia have attended some of their events as so, have others from left, centre and right parties" which is also true but the articles cited as references do not talk about that. For example, this article explains the links with the far-right, with founders and current members of Catalan Civil Society being founders of far-right associations like Somatemps (Somatemps Wiki article happens to be also criticised by BarceloniUK, as his latest edit summaries of CCS show), mainly Josep Ramon Bosch and Ferran Brunet. Note that the Wikipedia article never says that the association is far-right, but that members of it are linked with the far-right or have relations with it. Moreover, an old member of CCS which also belongs to far-right Somatemps, Javier Barraycoa, posted that he was in the meetings of CCS for planning their agenda providing a photograph as proof [13]. It seems to me that seeing the word far-right is something this user does not like, but he is incapable of explaining his edits on the talk page and he does not answer any attempt at discussion. On top of that, that user account is editing only that article. He does not do anything more, which I think is WP:SPA. If you need more information please ask. Filiprino (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoever settles this, please check history of article and its discussion page. User BarceloniUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has explained in edit summaries reason for removing insinuations that this is a far-right organization and another user has also explained in discussion page reason for reverting. Maragm (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon said to remove part of the controversies section. It has been removed as there was information which can be simply referenced or put into other articles instead of adding bloat to the CCS article. He has not said anything about far-right insinuations. What you refer to as insinuation is a statement on the participation of current members of the board of directors of CCS within associations of far-right and their events, and the participation of those associations within CCS. That is well documented and true information which Crystallizedcarbon has not rejected nor commented anything about. So, I do not understand your aversion for putting that line of text which just states that CCS declares itself as something which is not far-right and does not do far-right things, but members of its board of directors have links with the far-right. It's very relevant that members from Somatemps are in CCS or have been there. Filiprino (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Hi, I first edited this page long before Filiprino started to revert mine and other users´ contributions. The page remained relatively unchanged and included references to the "far-right" controversies until he/she started adding an overwhelming amount of these so the page simply became a monographic list of items whose only aim just seemed to be to undermine the reputation of the association and its members. I feel the obligation to correct those and to make the entry more balanced, but Filiprino just insists on calling my edits "vandalism". Note that a user using the same nickname Filiprino (so I guess its the same one) was been permanently expelled from the Spanish Wikipedia on February 25th. Just after that date Filiprino started editing the English entry for SCC.--BarceloniUK (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@BarceloniUK: I am answering due to allusions. I have preserved all the material of the original version of the page. Preserved information includes: european prize, call demonstrations, board of directors members, creation date. Status of the page before I started contributing. Then I have added concrete information about the call demonstrations, finances and far-right relations. The contents of the page have been greatly improved. All the edit warring is around a single line in the article's lead. It seems that things interpreted as negative can't go in the article's lead, something I find as being dishonest to any reader of Wikipedia. I don't want to be dishonest. Filiprino (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

still anyhow relisting afd

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

hi. user is still anyhow relishing afd. 7 days should pass before any afd relisting. can someone stress to him or not. The warning seems not working. [14][15] user involved:Kirbanzo Quek157 (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Is relisting discussions that don't need to be a habit of his? See also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine. Natureium (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Another question: is relisting really necessary if discussion is still ongoing? Are AfDs required to be closed at 7 days if not relisted or can discussion continue anyway? This one seems to be closable as delete, but people are kindly discussing with the creator why they disagree with him. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I and a few experienced users and admin discuss this right at this moment at ani and Tony warned him just yesterday Quek157 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

user notified Quek157 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @78.26 and TonyBallioni: I think a temporary topic ban of 7 days for afd is needed

[16] and is this close correct. want to let it slip after discussion with 78.26 but since he is recalcitrant we need to examine this Quek157 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

[17] not a SNOW keep. It lacked participation so you have 1 delete and 1 keep. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

at first I agreed with 78.26 to let the nominator and relist admin do drv. this need a block at least topic. this time I wasted with him can easily clear 2 afc submission Quek157 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

to add can I propose the script to close be given only to nominate for speedy keep as well as admin or anyone with added userrights Quek157 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC) I know this need rfc

see [18] Quek157 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC) and this for reference of warnings[19]Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I only asked for topic ban for relisting / closing only as I believe he will be useful in contributing, nominating as well as other areas of the project. That IMO is already very leinient as Afd is the last line of defence, we cannot ask NPP to put time into reviewing and then Afd then their Afd get closed in such a way which NPP cannot monitor themselves usually due to high work load (i.e. don't let him use Xfd closer for now). Sometimes the keep and relist he did is good and can save admin attention, this I am greatly for. Quek157 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo: I will suggest you really don't relist anything, or at least for 7 days (if its 8 May let it run till 15) as I am really afraid you don't see consensus right. However, can someone really keep an eye on things here or else this will be no end. --Quek157 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I re-opened most of the early-closed discussions (not going to do the relisted ones) and left another (basically final) warning. If they continue after this, then I'd say a topic ban is definitely warranted. ansh666 21:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, he is good sometimes. Sometimes I really want to end a discussion prematurely as it is so clear but I can't as I am not a sysop (and don't want to take flame}. His is brave, decisive, and have the entrepreneurial spirit; but please use it wisely. This is a double edged sword. With this I will close this discussion. However, I will not endorse him for Rfa, taking back my previous statement given this (as he wants to be an admin in the end) is clearly not what an admin should behave (if he becomes) --Quek157 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Reopened per [20]. Good also for others to respond. --Quek157 (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, congratulations! Nine years on Wikipedia and this is the first time my name has appeared here as part of the discussion! Kirbanzo, please do not relist or close AfD discussions. You're inexperience is showing. Goodness knows some of these are difficult enough for those with deep knowledge and long experience. Please limit yourself to !voting at this point. Much more impressive than a close would be a pattern of !voting that goes beyond the usual "Delete, doesn't meet GNG" and "Keep, there are tons of sources!". Even better would be to do the work to rescue an article from deletion, if possible. But as of now, you haven't shown the competency to close or relist these discussions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just an example how articles are rescued from deletion is [21]. And to be clear, !Vote = to vote (with proper rationale rather than just WP:GNG, I had to make it clear) --Quek157 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, Natureium, Legacypac, Ansh666, and 78.26: Just checking per [22] anyone have anything else to add to this. The entire discussion shouldn't have started at all. My account was started in 2007, and this is 2018, per 78.26, really this is in my 11 years I had taken anyone here also and asking for a ban and not warning. Congratulations also. It is a very bewildering case where a new editor with mere 3 months of experience do such things - and at Afd. Since the entire discussion is on non admin relisting / closing of Afd, we started this on the 8 May. I will end this discussion on 14 May if there is nothing else anyone to add as an non admin closure of this ANI. Please add if there is any. I have one point to add though Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine, this relisting is fair. There is simply no consensus yet and this CAM / Medicine based topic needs further discussion IMO. I will not say delete yet but it is really leaning somewhat there, I have just glanced through the topic and way too much terms and here and there. We should end this WP:DEADHORSE soon, and I really hope another thread should not need to start. So far today Afds seems okay. --Quek157 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't been responding because I find it very confusing to try to read what you've written. Natureium (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jeez, people. There's no need to rush through closing threads (if they even really need to be closed). What I really want is to hear from Kirbanzo; they haven't edited in over a day, so there's no indication at all whether or not they got the message. ansh666 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo:please respond can? Please --Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

(This is to Kirbanzo only not for Admins / other contributors / not WP:CANVASS meant)[23] do see my explanation of what is not meeting WP:GNG. As this will help greatly in your argument. I am not prejudicing the result of the Afd though but I don't wish to make this any longer by copy and pasting the long winded prose there. --Quek157 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek. Mate. It's fine. Just let it rest. There's no need to respond to or repeat every comment, nor to lay out every detail or every possibility. We can see and judge for ourselves. ansh666 19:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see his potential and wanted to coach him a little. I will end here --Quek157 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Still nothing from Kirbanzo, who appears to be on a break of sorts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I read them the riot act over some really terrible HOAX CSD taggings. No I feel like I was to rough on them. Or was I? They made a lot of good CSD taggings, but seeing this thread, I wonder. <<Dlohcierekim at work and cannot login cause I made my password to strong to remember>>[REDACTED - Oshwah] 07:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If their claim to be a high school student is true, it's AP test time in North America, so that may be why. Hopefully they return and are a bit more careful. ansh666 07:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, but I seriously worry if they is taking AP then why is they spending so much time on Wikipedia, I can't when I need to take my GCE. I hope their grades to be good though. --Quek157 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just ironically, they nominated an Afd which ended up in a SNOW closure, Afd SNOW which is what they should not do in the first place for this entire ANI --Quek157 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger Troutman promotion IPs

Some person from Denver, Colorado, has been promoting Roger Troutman, the deceased leader of Zapp (band), in articles related to Zapp or Troutman. The activity includes pushing up the importance of Roger Troutman at the expense of his brothers, especially Larry and Terry. None of the changes are based on published references. Apparently, this person is Troutman's grandchild, who is a self-published musician, and is promoting himself as "Roger's Legacy".[24][25][26]

This person's disruption caused WP:Pending changes protection to be placed on the Roger Troutman biography, after which he asked a question at the Help Desk, "Why won't my edits stay". I answered him here with a list of his disruptive changes. The person has not responded.

I'm not entirely sure, but an Arizona IP could be the same person, because they accused Larry and Terry Troutman of stealing from Roger. This is a BLP violation.

If possible, can we get a rangeblock on the IP6 addresses from Denver? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2600:100E:B00E:5213:693E:4355:E9BF:7C54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B008:AFC:28F5:A3B2:7432:A3D1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B026:CE54:EDA8:C9CF:AD42:77A1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B000:1136:253F:D7F3:33C5:83CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B007:4EF0:2594:6A23:F865:5983 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B03C:D23E:6492:8313:E0B3:824E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• That would be a /46 rangeblock, and the addresses belong to Verizon wireless so would be equivalent to a block of every IP on verizon over some geographic area, I think. I don't have much experience with rangeblocks, but I think this would be over-broad. GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The collateral damage would be fairly hefty, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the probability of collateral damage with applying a range-block here is high - especially knowing that the range is allocated to a mobile network, where IP addresses will frequently "switch hands". When in doubt over whether or not to apply range-blocking (like in this situation), protecting the articles involved is an alternative to consider instead ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Axxxion

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

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

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

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

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

It appears we got through to him[27], for now at least... I don't think he was acting in bad faith, he just assumed that we weren't. Heptor (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ammy.sohal

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

---

User:Ammy.sohal had been warned already for uploading copyright violations of images from Google in December 2017. Despite this warning, this user is still persistently uploading copyright violations and is not responding to any messages on their talk page. See User talk:Ammy.sohal. I am now going to perform a thorough check and nominate copyvios for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems the user hasn't been active for over a month. However, I am still checking for the copyvios. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for the persistent copyvios. They should have taken the hint in December, if not earlier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

With the naming convention and type of pages targeted, I have reason to believe they are the banned editor Lurulu. Therefore, I have opened a checkuser request at the associated SPI page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Chronic uploader of copyrighted images Lorrensharlina

In the past two weeks, Lorrensharlina has been warned ten times by seven users on Wikimedia Commons and twice on their talk page here against uploading and using copyrighted images. They haven't responded to any warnings, and continue to upload and use copyrighted pictures. Perhaps it isn't malicious, but merely a language competence problem, but the behaviour needs to be stopped. Additions of copyrighted photos: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I just blocked them on commons for two weeks, and deleted all the commons images as copyvios. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this user doesn't know about the talk page. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 03:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Lescandinave changing referenced information and leaving the old ref on

Lescandinave (talk · contribs)

• See examples: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] (Update: One diff struck through and two more recent added).
• Also claiming he checked a 1994 newspaper source to disprove the attribution: [43] The same thing is however also available from another source which is even quoted in the references section: Richard_Gott#cite_note-8

That's a fairly huge lack of editing ethics to consistently change referenced information and try to pass it on with the old source. Also most of his edits are simple ideology description changes done with a POV intent. WP:NOTHERE, I believe. --Pudeo (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

About the political parties in Latin America, I look at es.wikipedia and correct en.wikipedia. I can make mistakes, but your allegations are false in several cases. A source was added for the PRI [44] ("it has drifted toward the center-right since the 1980s.[45]") For the PSUN the source [46] said "derecha" (Right-wing) [47]. For the Japanese party, I removed an edit that was vandalism [48]. For the Peruvian Nationalist Party, indeed, I didn't have change the source, but the information was good (see the new source added today). I find curious the practice to search on several months the thread of contribution of a user.--Lescandinave (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi your explanation is somewhat unclear. You cannot 'correct en.wikipedia' just by looking at es.wikipedia. Es.wikipedia could be wrong instead or maybe both en and es are wrong. You need to correct en.wikipedia by finding WP:reliable sources that support the claim. These could be RS that you find in es.wikipedia or they could be RS that are already in en.wikipedia or they could be RS you find elsewhere. One thing that you should not do is change details in articles when the details you are changing are already sourced and the sources support what the article says rather than the changes you make. It doesn't matter if there are sources which support your changes, you are creating a situation where people are mislead into thinking what our article says is sourced when it isn't. Even removing the sources and {{fact}} tagging the new info is better than that. Note that if different sources say different things and it's not obvious that one is unnecessary (e.g. outdated and no longer relevant, new sources note that previous sources were wrong, both claims don't really contradict but one is simply more precise) it may be necessary to present both claims in an article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I cant understand why you are changing these wordings either; in the examples I looked at in es.wikipedia, they werent even referenced there. In diff 87 Peruvians for Change, you changed Centre-right to Far right, in the lead and infobox. One source says definitively, in English, centre right (cant see the other ref because the site is down for maintenance) You left an edit summary "Kuczynski is a conservative for societal issues : http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2016/04/11/lo-que-han-dicho-fujimori-y-kuczynski-sobre-5-temas-polemicos-en-peru/" But even the relevant bit of that source google translates as "embodies the neoliberal right" Is that translation wrong? because neoliberal right doesnt sound the same as far right. And why didn't you just put that source into the article if you had it? instead of contradicting what the sources supplied in the article say. You received a talk page warning in October last year, specifically saying that secondary and tertiary sources to back up changes to political party ideology labels are required, not just the subjective opinions of an editor. (after changing "right" to right and far right" in an infobox for another article). But January this year- Socialist party of Latvia (92) You did something similar; changed "far left" to "left wing"- the source uses the exact wording of "extreme left". No updated source, no edit summary/explanation either. The next editor (not the OP) pointed out that it appeared to be a personal opinion that contradicted the sources, and reverted it back. You made the original Peruvian party edit in January, and only found a reference for it today, because Pudeo reverted you. And the original information wasnt that "good"- because you changed it again. First change was from "left" to "centre left" now you have changed it to "centerism", based on a rather vague editorial which seems to imply the leader/founder of the party campaigned left, but looks to be planning to govern more to the right, but doesnt really make a definate pronouncement, which makes it look like you could be being subjective. Curdle (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Peruvian Nationalist Party was socialist but it has drifted more to the centre during the Ollanta Humala Administration. Hence the confusion between the sources. Es.wikipedia indicates today "center-left". I changed centre-right to Right-wing for Peruvians for Change (not Far right). CNN indicates "derecha neoliberal" [49] [50] but indeed I should have added the source into the article rather than in Edit summary. And for the Socialist Party of Latvia, lv.wikipedia (in Latvian) indicates "Kreisa" ("left-wing" according to google translate).--Lescandinave (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content disputes so whether the changes made were ultimately right or wrong is of little interest to us here on ANI. The important thing you Lescandinave need to understand is that you should general provide a RS when adding and especially changing some detail. And it's vitally important that you do so if the detail you are changing is already supported by a reliable source which supports the current version and not your version.

If you are absolutely sure that what you are changing to is correct but cannot find a ref, it may be acceptable to change the detail, remove the other source and tag the change as "citation needed". If the source is needed because it supports something else you should adjust and tag as necessary to make it clear which part is sourced and which part isn't. You should probably next head to the talk page and explain why you are so sure the change you are making is correct even if you can't find a source and we had a source that says something else. It is very rare though that this is going to be acceptable. And is is never going to be acceptable to change details while keeping the referencing as is implying your version is supported by the ref when it isn't.

If the detail you are changing is already unreffed then technically it's no worse for you to change it without a ref provided you are sure it is correct. But this is generally problematic especially since it's common behaviour for vandals. It will probably be better if you spend more time finding refs than in making edits without refs. And an important point here is that 'I read it machine translated on some other wikipedia' is most definitely not a good reason to think what changing to is correct. Even relying machine translation of an actual reliable source is not likely to be acceptable although if you are really going to do that you should tag it as {{verification needed}}. But better, find someway else to get the article updated by someone who actually understands the reliable source.

If you have doubts over whether something is correct because it isn't sourced and you've read something else somewhere else (e.g. on another language wikipedia) but have found no good sources so have no real way of knowing which one is correct the best solution would be likely to either keep it as is but tag it as citation needed or simply remove the detail in doubt.

Also for clarity while not ideal in some articles, it may be okay if you change something but only fix the referencing in a later edit. Provided the later edit comes in a resonable time frame (generally a few minutes and probably a few hours at most) and you make absolutely sure this happens.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification.--Lescandinave (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

92.233.57.59

92.233.57.59 (talk · contribs)

Although an IP address, the contributions made have followed a consistent pattern so appear to be related: unreferenced addition of family members to biographies of individuals (mostly actors but also some fictional characters and politicians). Examples: [51], [52], [53] - although pick pretty much anything at random; there aren't many exceptions. I've just undone that last example WP:V and WP:BLPNAME but haven't left a templated warning on their talk page because a bunch have already been left and don't seem to have had any effect. Could an admin see if they can get through to them? Thanks. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

NFL Undrafted Players section

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

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

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

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

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

IP Jumping

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

---

I've noticed a lot of so-called IP-Jumpers who have made unsourced edits to two specific Wikipedia articles - Fancy Nancy and List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior, since May 8 per the edit logs for each. I have reverted those edits and gave out warnings to each of them. The users in mind are:

• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:1DA5:1B57:1141:729A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:AD58:D17F:1934:CE24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:D9E1:109:13AF:A97A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:C9E9:EF20:508B:4015 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

All four of these IPs originate out of Toronto, ON, if you check the WHOIS for each of them. This could lead us to a possible sock puppetry case too. Also, what is Wikipedia's stance on these so called "IP-Jumpers"? Thanks so much. --IanDBeacon (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's stance broadly is that we don't generally hound editors who may have dynamic IPs and who don't wish to create an account. There's no case of sock-puppetry here, in my opinion. This is just a case of some fan(s) who may have read up on the premier date of 21 June 2018 on some social network and may have proceeded to place the same in the article in good faith. We need to handle such cases with kid gloves and guidance. And of course, please always inform IPs about ANI discussions where they're being accused. Muboshgu has already protected Fancy Nancy; you can request them to protect the other one too to reduce the disruption the IPs may be causing. Lourdes, 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a single user. With IPv6, users typically get assigned an IP address where the first four numbers are the same, and the rest may change rapidly over time. Give the editor an escalating series of warnings, and if they continue past a level four warning, I'll do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IPHOPPER -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As NinjaRobotPirate pointed out above, this is a single user and the IP change you're seeing is normal for many IPv6 addresses due to the way that the network allocates addresses to end-users. Many ISPs or networks will allocate the /64 CIDR block to the end-user and reserve the other half for the parent network, which is why you're seeing the IP change like this - it's not indicative of malicious behavior just because this IP change is being observed. It looks like there was edit warring going on at Fancy Nancy, but the article has since been protected. I'll check out the other contribs by this range and make sure no other disruption is ongoing... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: As I was looking through the /64 CIDR's contributions, the user made another revert to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior and added back the same content that's been repeatedly removed. I've blocked the /64 range for repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, and for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Springee and WP:Votestacking

Springee may have engaged in WP:Votestacking with this edit, following her/his comment here. The second comment indicates that Springee knew or believed that the group of editors s/he notified had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion" (c.f. WP:Votestacking). Springee failed to notify dlthewave, a participant in that same discussion who (based on previous comments) would likely have come down on the opposite side of the issue. So of nine editors involved in discussing "Proposal" here [54] that had not yet commented, user:Springee notified all eight on her/his side, and left out the one that would likely have been opposed.

Furthermore Springee failed to notify the editors on the involved in the closely related discussion of Proposal 2 here [55], including User:London Hall, User:Fluous, User:JustinFranks, and User:Icewhiz, at least several of whom would likely have been opposed to Springee's position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply: OK, has some computer time. High level, no this isn't canvassing as per WP:APPNOTE it is acceptable to notify editors involved in previous same or similar discussion. The origin of this complaint is based on an edit Waleswatcher made this morning. WW boldly added this content to the Colt AR-15 article [[56]].

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

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

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

Per WP:APPNOTE, I notified all editors who had participated in the previous discussion (Proposal 1) but were not active in the current discussion. I missed Dlthewave who didn't actually vote but replied to another editor. This was an honest oversight and WW didn't even know I had missed it when posting a canvasing warning to my talk page earlier today[[57]]. I have to assume WW didn't understand the allowances in APPNOTE.

I did not notify editors involved in the unrelated Port Arther inclusion discussion (Proposal 2). Dlthewave notified those editors [[58]] which was, unintentionally, canvassing. Most of the editors who opposed Proposal 1 also opposed Proposal 2. Thus the editors from Proposal 2 who weren't notified could be assumed to be largely sympathetic to the edit in question and thus reverse vote stacking (again, unintentionally). This was noted by Red Rock Canyon (talk · contribs)[[59]].

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

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

Here you are earlier today accusing me of acting in bad faith [[60]]. So now I should assume you just wanted to do the right thing? It's ironic that you started to complain before you even understood the relevant policies. Springee (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've notified all participants of the other 3 recent Port Arthur massacre discussions here [61]. See here for info on the list [62]. As I remarked in the talk page, it seems to me 2 other recent discussions are equally relevant and so I would suggest participants in them should be notified, but I will leave that up to others. My last comment on this issue would be as general advice, while it's not technically wrong to leave neutral notification of all previous participants of a highly related discussion, if you have strong known feelings on an issue it generally makes sense to raise the issue before leave the notification so people can offer feedback. I actually considered doing that here, but as the previous pings had already been sent felt it was too late now as there was no real justification for notifying people who only participated in proposal 2, but then not notify participants of the other 3 recent discussions on the Port Arthur massacre, especially the RFC. But it is part of the reason I did not notify participants of the discussions on other issues. P.S. Frankly I think we're getting close to notifying anyone who has commented on the talk page in the past 3 months or so. I wonder if it might be better to just notify all talk page editors in 3 or even 6 months. That would hopefully end this IMO pointless debate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Issue with editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waleswatcher and 3RR

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

---

Waleswatcher has been in a edit war [63] ,[64],[65] that exceed 3RR. When he was informed of this [66] his response could be construed as a attempt to game the system [67]. Any admins want to take a look at the situation? -72bikers (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong venue: pls see WP:3RRN. In any case, there's no 3RR violation here; see WP:CIR. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• No violation of 3RR has occurred. Currently at 2 reverts, and has already desisted. The addition of new material does not count as a revert. Besides, 3RR should be dealt with at WP:AN/EW and requires not 3 but 4 reverts. There was general edit-warring happening at the article (AR-15 style rifle), between a number of parties, and the same material was subject to a smaller edit war at Colt AR-15 between Springee and Waleswatcher. A warning to all parties to knock it off may be reasonable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: While (Personal attack removed) may be a bit harsh, this is certainly the case here as the msg left by the reporting editor refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: [68].

Also of note is the fact that 72bikers is currently subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction [69] in the gun control topic area, so perhaps some sort of boomerang would be appropriate to prevent further disruption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher didn't violate 3RR but was edit warring and failing to follow BRD. I don't think this is sanctionable but let's not assume 72bikers frustration is without merit. Springee (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This edit was an attempt to address the concerns raised by some previous language (the word "many" in "many mass shootings") which was removed from the article by User:Springee and User:72bikers (despite reverts and the lack of any consensus for its removal). User:Springee made the most detailed arguments for why "many" should be removed, essentially that "many" is vague and context-dependent. So, after thinking about it and doing some research to find a reliable source, I added language that is concise, precise, and informative, that I thought (and still think) addresses all those objections. Springee immediately reverted my edit without making any actual objection, as seems to be her/his habit. In fact to date no one has made any substantive objection to it. It seems that the strategy here is to revert any change that adds any details about mass shootings, and then canvas to obtain a large enough group of opposed editors so that consensus is never achieved (even though no valid arguments to oppose are advanced), and in this way prohibit all such changes. I'm not sure how best to deal with that, actually. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am simple at awe of the accusation being flung here. The above comments are highly uncivil in what appears to be a attempt to belittle and dismiss all others views.-72bikers (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was in a rush when I posted this. What I should have posted here was the harassment, along with obvious uncivil personal attack comments as exampled here.

I had already asked Whale and others very politely to not leave these opinioned warnings on my talk page [70] before the most recent harassment. Here is a most recent example, editor whale [71] leaving unsubstantiated warnings on my talk page. Here is the edit whale states as the reason to leave unfounded warning[72]. It was a very simple edit supported by the reference. I left a edit summery, I saw no reason to explain the word "many" removed. I simply thought it read better without it to give a more neutral tone, of which I believe I have a right to do. This issue was brought up on the article talk page [73]. I addressed this on the talk page there as well. He also started a edit war over the word many[74] as noted. He also immediately deleted information I left to help a new editor out [75] and others attempts do be civil [76] immediately removed. Editor Dlthewave then encouraged him to keep doing this harassment of unfounded false accusations [77]. After both of them had been ask more than once to not do this [78], [79].

There comments above under my name showed they either showed no basic understanding of policy or simply showed a disregard of there violations of WP:NOBAN and WP:HUSH. -72bikers (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers has been offered a gun topic ban if they continue their disruption [80] Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What disruption are you thinking of? Has something come up since your ANI against 72bikers was closed?[[81]] Springee (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That ANi was prematurely closed before 72bikers could substantiate the allegations he made against me. I'm still waiting for those diffs, and the ones to substantiate the allegations he makes on his talkpage about me.

Filing a frivolous 3RR and ANi is disruption. Making all these claims of harrassment by other editors with no evidence is disruption. Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Disruptive editing: note that User:72bikers altered someone else's (K.e.coffman's) comment in this thread here. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  Calling someone incompetent is close to a personal attack; indeed WP:CIR itself states that "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors." If he's mistaken about how these noticeboards works (that's no surprise, wikibureaucracy is sometimes insane), then maybe point out how he's wrong instead of linking that guideline? On removing personal attacks, see: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Removal_of_personal_attacks --Pudeo (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

He has been (there is even an ANI above about it). His reaction to being told he is breaching policy or is not acting according to guidelessness is to tell you to not talk to him on his talk page (that is why we are now linking to the guidelines, he does not listen).Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As others have pointed out it is clear that 72bikers has a serious issues with misunderstanding (and then enforcing those misunderstandings ) of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Indeed as a perfect example of total lack of comprehension of how things are done is this [[82]], where he informs the user of this thread, by pointing to the edit warring thread (where he has not made a complaint). I would say this was just incompetence, except to get that notification he must have gone to the right forum in the first place (or at least be aware of it). Yet he in fact launched it here. That looks deliberate, and given his other tendencies tells me he is a rules lawyer and system gamer who is going to be (I think) a net drain. I think a boomerang is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• 72bikers has been involved in a number of firearms articles. Most of those who are speaking against him are ones with opposing opinions in discussions. This would be an effective way to shift balance in article discussions to drive content changes. WW very much was edit warring and 72bikers complaints about editors on his talk page was legitimate. It seems that offering some instruction as to how the sometimes convoluted Wikipedia system works would be more helpful. Springee (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not cast aspersions about others users (that is a PA). I am not going to comment on the edit warring (as he was not alone). I am going to comment on the claim that 72 was right to complain about other users on his talk page. In at least one instance he was just told that his understanding of the proper place to raise complaints was not the case, that his version of that policy was against policy. His response was to say "Please keep all comment to article talk pages. Leaving comment about your perceived opinion are not welcomed on my talk page. Thank you.". In other words to continue to misplay talk page guidelines (which in fact are the exact opposite of this). How is that a legitimate complaint about being told it is incorrect?Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers has made numerous false allegations against various editors, this thread being just the latest. Springee continues to participate in this negative activity. For weeks 72bikers talk has been maintained as a attack shrine against me, complete with Springee's comments, and I'm banned from responding there. I'm half a mind to take his talk to MfD.

What would a boomerang look like, to discourage the continued flinging of false allegations? A short block or some kind of Tban? Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

At this time I think just a very stern warning (as it may just be an inexperience issue), and mentoring.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

They have been here three years and have had blocks and warnings before (including DS block in a related topic), I think a temporary block may be in order, as it is clear in this area they have far to much of a battleground mentality to think straight. Thus I think this is going to continue to fester.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets look at this edit war complaint. I warn the user [83], there is then a debate in which I explain that whilst he is not defiantly in breach, he is close to it, but has not yet breached it. Another users say it is not a 3RR breach [84] 72 then launched his edit war ani [85], without I may add having issued any warnings about edit warring. When 72 launched this ANI he was already aware no breach had occurred, as multiple users had said so. It is thus impossible (leaving out its timing) to see this as anything other then malicious and frivolous.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed part of a pattern of inappropriate allegations. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well yes as WW did not breach 3RR, and this was said mutiple times on his talk page, which you were active on. So yes it is a false allegation, one you had every reason to know was false.15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Are these false or inappropriate allegation?

Legacypac clearly violated WP:HUSH and failed to understand it with this [86], just one example of the harassment I have received. And by the complaint above under my name they still fail to understand.

With all that said I don't see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat. I point out this was made after he was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation as well WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [87] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [88]by editor Legacypac. I do not think he understands Wiki policy that allows any editor to remove anything they wish on there own talk page. This was also highly disruptive as he was doing this on my page as I was trying to have a conversation with a admin, and a further violation WP:DE.72bikers (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The hostile and false accusations being flung here speak volumes.72bikers (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

please do not hijack my comments and clearly what was stated was about you.72bikers (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also (unless I am missing a vital diff) you are yet again wikilaywering over a policy that does not mean what you think it means. The diff you provided does not show the user (who is not the subject of this ANI) reinserting a post you had deleted, nor was it a warning but asking you to explain why you called an edit disruptive, so unless you did not do that ("You will be blocked again for your disruptive editing ", a warning issued in an edit summery) it does not (as far as I can see) violate wp:hush. I also did not hijack your post you did however move a comment of mine [89], and this is a policy violation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it I think it you may have incorrectly formatted your posts so that one comment did not seem to be part of another, was this the case?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

His behavior was addressed as being inappropriate (as well as others) on the edit warning. I have already addressed that I was in a rush when posted this. I have also never started a noticeboard complaint. I was going to when you beat me to the bunch (when you were not even involved) before I had time to prepare myself.72bikers (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about him, this is about another user. And I will ask again why you moved my post?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not touch your comments Slatersteven please cease your false accusations. Clearly there was no name to your post and I assumed I was still talking to Legacypac72bikers (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yep forgot to sign it, So why did did you move another users comment?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

please stop the false accusation as I have already mentioned. I moved nobody's comments.

I also see you have elected to distract instead of addressing editor violations such as this,You insist on removing my posts that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? This is a blatant threat made by editor Legacypac.

His attempt to throw stone against others all the while he himself is being very hostile and uncivil, speaks volumes. Others incivility and personal attacks speak volumes also. Food for thought. 72bikers (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did NOT violate talkpage policy on 72bikers talk. I, and User:NeilN arrived there to discuss 72bikers bad behaviour in various places and seeking clarification of certain things 72bikers said. The result of that discussion was a short block of 72bikers and them being placed under DS 1RR on gun related topics. The accussations leveled here are simply not true, just like the accusations at the previous ANi and those leveled on 72bikers talk where he has banned me yet feels free to maintain a shrine of false accusations. Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please indent properly.

Yes you did, you posted "Are these false or inappropriate allegation?"., a user (it does not matter who) responded with "Well yes as WW did not breach 3RR, and this was said mutiple times on his talk page, which you were active on. So yes it is a false allegation, one you had every reason to know was false.", you then moved A comment to put the latter comment above the former, in effect moving the later comment. Which altered what someone (it does not matter who) had replied to. I have asked you to explain why you did this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

1. WP:3RR was not breached.
2. Springee has three obvious reverts and was more likely to get blocked if the edit war continued.
3. Article is fully protected for four days by Oshwah. Back away from each other and drop the sticks.
4. Use show preview and proofread before posting. This is not rocket science.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter what Springee did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Of course it does. You know (or should know) that the behavior of all participants of both sides of an edit war will be looked at. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The point was that this is not the edit war noticeboard, and thus this is an inappropriate (as well as false) complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, NeilN is correct, I may not have crossed the 3RR line but it was an edit war. While 3RRN is the best location for such a discussion, ANI can, based on my understanding, cover it as well. I've heard NeilN's warning loud and clear. I would ask that Waleswatcher do their part to avoid edit wars in the future by following WP:BRD as well. Springee (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience edit warring/multiple reverts is usually pointless. Occasionally, though, it can kick off a larger discussion that can be productive. In the case of these firearm articles, there seems to be a cabal of editors that are resolutely opposed to the inclusion of any information about shooting incidents. That's a problem, because I think a large fraction of users that come to those articles are looking for exactly that information (and of course it goes without saying that such material is notable, reliably sourced, etc). These editors don't have any substantive objections other than their feeling that such material is misplaced, but they can still form a majority opposed to such inclusion. I would really welcome suggestions or discussions on this and how to handle it. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from Yudhacahyo

Today, this user had disruptive edits:

1. [90]: He moved page against RM consensus;
2. [91]: Unexplained removal references in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

User:Raiyan HA

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

Hello. This user continues to make unsourced changes to BLP articles, usually changing the height of the subject. A quick glance at their talkpage can see a plethora amount of warnings asking them not to do this, with the most recent (from myself) asking them to stop and acknowledge this. As far as I can see, this editor has made zero attempt to communicate with anyone about this. There most recent edit was to a GA changing not only the subject's height, but introducing an incorrect year of birth. This user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE IMO. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: There are progressive templated warnings for that issue, and I've blocked for unsourced edits. <<dlohcierekim at work and can't log in>>[REDACTED - Oshwah] 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The user's last edit was made almost 24 hours ago, but I also see numerous warnings left for this very problem. Assuming the above user is, in fact, Dlohcierekim, I don't see where a block was applied (neither currently, nor in the user's block log) so I'm not sure what he meant when he said, "I've blocked for unsourced edits". Assuming that I'm not getting in the way of Dlohcierekim here, I'm considering a block (or at least a final warning here)... thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. The editor crops up every few weeks, does the same type of editing, then leaves. I'd be happy for a block, and no problem for it to be lifted if the user acknowledges the issue and promises not to continue. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I monitor some error tracking categories and frequently see IPs and editors like the person in question here who focus on making what appear to be arbitrary changes to numbers. Some like to change heights or weights while others specialize in changing dates, and some all rounders change any number they see. I'm a simple person and would recommend having an admin ask them to explain where they got the numbers for their last three edits. If no satisfactory explanation arrives before their next edit, they should be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy for an admin to drop a note on their talkpage, but I'd be amazed if they pay any attention, and we'll just be back here in x amount of days with their next edit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To make it more formal, Raiyan HA (talk · contribs) should explain the reason for the changes in their last three edits: where did the numbers come from? If no satisfactory explanation is available before their next edit, they should be indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Massive edits of wikilinks by Bear-rings

User Bear-rings has started a massive campaign for "fixing" wkilinks: 113 edits since the beginning of May, most of them concerning wikilinks. Many of them consist of removing from the "See also" section, the items that are linked to in the body. This is generally fine, although it may be useful to repeat a link in the See also section when it is difficult to find in the body of the article. Many of their edits amounts to unlinking repeated links. This is also generally fine, except when this consists in changing "see Zariski's lemma" into "see Zariski's lemma", which has a completely different meaning [92].

Many of these edits consists in replacing redirects by pipes. This is explicitly discouraged by WP:NOTBROKEN, and has been notified to him several times in edit summaries and in atleast eight sections of their talk page (two other sections are about disruptive edits without indication of the nature of these edits). Worst, several of these redirect "fixing" change the meaning of the sentence, such as in [93] (as "function of a real variable" is the title of the article, the emphasize on "real-valued" was intentional), [94] (here also, emphasizing on domain was intentional]] [95] (link to a different concept).

When Bear-rings's edits are reverted, they start immediately in an edit war without discussing in edit summaries nor in talk pages. See [96] and [97] (I apologize for having breaking WP:3RR here, but I thought that I could convince them by clearer explanations in edit summaries).

Even after a clear notification on their talk page, they try starting new edit wars: [98], [99] (in this case, they did three different edits, and only two needed to be reverted).

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

New edit wars by the same editor:[100], [101]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Incidentally, [102] is a good edit (the old link was incorrect). I just can’t tell whether a good edit like this is by accident or by intention... —- Taku (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sirlanz

User:Sirlanz is going through my edit history, and for whatever reason (spitefulness? disruptiveness?) is reverting all of my edits. I just re-reverted his reversions, and now he is re-re-reverting them. Can someone please intervene and stop this edit warring across Wikipedia.

Here is the type of thing he is reverting as he goes through my edit history, reverting everything:

Me adding the names of the parents of scientist Christopher_Longuet-Higgins: [103]

Pulling out information on Facebook (Oculus) employee Michael Abrash's education: [104]

And this sort of thing.

I also noticed he is going through other user's edit histories and reverting their entire edit histories wholesale - User:Kingston, CA for one. I will check to see how many more people he is doing this to aside from myself and Kingston.

Minimax Regret (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just following a motherlode of unsourced (and mostly POV) editing. sirlanz 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I should also add that Snowded put a notice on Sirlanz's talk page today to stop edit warring in some other part of Wikipedia. Minimax Regret (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not "some other part"; an article on the same trail of unsourced, unexplained POV edits by Minimax Regret. sirlanz 23:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I should note that when Sirlanz was going through my edit history reverting everything for being in his mind "unsourced and/or POV", other editors jumped in and reverted his reverts because they thought they I had made good contributions to articles like Constitutional Convention (United States) (where I noted that Shay's rebellion affected the convention) and Bernardino of Siena (where I removed non-scientific claims that Bernardino had magical powers). Minimax Regret (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The dozens of edits made by Minimax Regret are without edit summaries and unsourced. The work of the editor is a long line of baseless disruption, disrespectful of WP's primary tenets. My action is out of concern for the integrity of the encyclopaedia and in the hope that Minimax Regret may consider being more helpful to other editors by explaining his/her edits and sourcing them. sirlanz 23:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I started taking a look through Sirlanz's edit history. As I said, he went through my edit history and reverted all my edits (many of which were reverted back by other editors, who thought my contributions were useful). He went through User:Kingston, CA's edits and reverted all of them. Now, going back to April, I see he also decided to go through User:Karim Manouar's edit history, and revert all his edits, such as this one[105] that noted John Rabe's former house is now a museum.

What Sirlanz's motivation is to go through our edit history and try to wipe out whatever hours of work we have put in over the years here, I do not know, but it is disruptive behavior. Minimax Regret (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The four examples now cited in defence by Minimax Regret:

• Christopher_Longuet-Higgins - purported names of parents added, no source
• Michael Abrash - tag calling for source unattended for several years; BLP
• Constitutional Convention (United States) - unsourced paragraph added to key article; intervening editor restored and provided source.
• Bernardino of Siena - Minimax Regret deleted material and stated citation needed. My edit was to restore suspect material, adding word "purported" and inserting the tag, i.e. I had taken the view that the material was of value (a feature of the fame of the subject, not an established fact) as long as everyone was aware it had not been sourced. Another editor thought better to leave it out entirely and I left it there. This was Minimax Regret's high point. sirlanz 00:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I could continue to cite pages - I added to Martin Sheen's biography that he had worked at the Living Theatre - this information was removed. [106]. I am still going through sirlanz's disruptive reversion of my edit history Minimax Regret (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Minimax Regret, I have a couple of very direct questions for you. Are you fully familiar with our core content policy Verifiability? That policy states: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." It seems to me that you have fallen into the very bad habit of adding unsourced information to the encyclopedia. When any editor (which includes sirlanz) challenges any addition you make, you are obligated to provide an inline citation to a reliable source. Are you prepared to follow policy and best practices, and routinely provide inline citations that allow your additions to the encyclopedia to be verified by any reader? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• This editor has been making many POV wording changes in articles. These are a sample of once I reverted [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] however the bulk of their contributions have been reverted by others and those edits are problematic as well. I guess these can be considered as good faith, if misguided, attempts to 'soften' wording but such edits are disruptive and should not continue.
  @Minimax Regret: please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies such as Neutral point of view, the policy on biographies of living persons and the requirement for information to be verifiable in reliable sources. Please pay particular attention to how changes in wording can lead to misrepresentation or distortion due to varying connotations of the words used. Jbh ^Talk 02:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

With regards to the aforementioned mention of citation for the Professor Christopher Longuet-Higgins article, I have cited his parent's names.[112].

Also, I did edit the East Germany[113] article, which you said was an example of my "POV wording changes". You changed my "Explaining the internal impact of the GDR government..." to "Explaining the internal impact of the DDR regime..." and my "The changes made by the communists..." to "The changes wrought by the Communists ...", and so on. I have to admit to some continuing confusion, as I don't fully understand how my wording was POV, and the new wording is NPOV. Any how, I don't have plans to revisit that article.

I do plan to revisit articles such as Michael Abrash (who went to school at UPenn), Martin Sheen (who worked at the Living Theatre) and so forth however. When I have citations at hand and when I have time. Minimax Regret (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments by Cullen and Jbh and I hope MinmaxRegret heeds them. I haven't examined MR's allegations regarding his being followed by Sirlanz, but I have checked MR's reverts of Sirlanz's edits and most look to me to be unjustified. I had also filed a report at ANI which I subsequently withdrew, after I realised that, somehow, I had misread MR's message on my talk after I clicked on the notifications diff. Checking again, his message to me was civil, and it seems that he genuinely thinks that Sirlanz reverts him unjustifiably. I think he believes that in good faith, but given that many of his recent edits are controversial, MR should stop the mass reverts and should start using the talkpage. Seing his response just above, I think he has made a good start. Dr. K. 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted undiscussed changes by both editors and warned Sirlanz about the 1RR restriction on Troubles articles -----Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Minimax Regret notified me of this discussion, presumably because of Sirlanz's edits to Daoism-Taoism romanization issue. This may not be the proper venue for help, but I would greatly appreciate any comments, opinions, or suggestions. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

O1lI0

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

---

Parthian shot

I have been warned by O1lI0 of his suspicion of my being in cahoots with sockpuppet 4488. The allegation struck me as so outlandish and so lacking in evidence that I chose to remove it from my talk page (as any and every user is entitled to do), with the request “Please do not restore your personal comment to my tak page”. Forthwith I got a new message from O1lI0 renewing his accusations of my colluding with 4488. Besides lacking the necessary competence to communicate in English with other users, O1lI0 is known for being wont to issue warnings and threats to users editing China-related pages. Should not something be done to help him change his attitude?--Elnon (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll start by speaking to O1lI0 directly: I'd like you to provide the direct evidence you had that made you confident enough to accuse Elnon of being the same user as 67.188.179.66, as well as User-4488... clear explanations and comparisons and with diffs to support your claims. Also, why did you accuse Elnon of being User-4488 and without providing proof, and why did you add another message and with another accusation that Elnon was 67.188.179.66 (again, without proof) after Elnon removed your previous edit and requested that you do not add messages like these to his/her user talk page again? I'd like to see the analysis you performed and evidence you have to support both your claims, please. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, I see no overlap.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aiming to lash out at O1lI0 or shoot him down or anything, but this user needs to know that accusations like this are serious and should not be made lightly (which I assume happened in this situation here)... if he's going to make accusations like this, he should have enough evidence and information to confidently support his statements when he's asked to provide them. Hence, I await this user's response here to my request :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Appears to have loosed his bolts and departed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I need some time to sort out the reasons. Three Keywords, A ri gi bod,Active time,Same editing.If I have time I will continue to add explanation.--O1lI0 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• This appears to be revenge harassment dating back to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Historical_Status_of_China's_Tibet when O1lI0 gave Elnon the first of his warnings - this one for spam and advertising. He started giving Elnon unspecified sock puppet warnings in Oct 2017, and mentions User -4488 in May this year. It is clear that Elnon is not a sock of User-4488/Born A as Elnon has been active on Wikipedia since 2008, and there have been five investigations on Born A in that time, during which Elnon wasn't identified: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Born A/Archive. As O1lI0 has been previously warned against issuing baseless threats to editors, and the user has been previously blocked, I am blocking the account for one month for harassment. SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Banned user instructing others

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

---

Soupforone, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of now-banned user Middayexpress, has been instructing other editors to initiate sockpuppet investigations against other users. Is such behaviour allowed by someone trying to prove their innocence, or should talk page access be revoked? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - The user seems to me to be legitimately attempting to prove their innocence - I don't see blatant disruption or trolling in the user's messages on their talk page. That being said, I agree that this request (asking another user to file an SPI) can be borderline disruptive as it's getting unnecessary users involved with this user's grievances that don't need to be. If you feel that this request is necessary and inappropriate to ask given the user's block and their violations of policy that led to it, I would just ask the user not to involve other editors and keep the conversation between those who are actively participating in the discussion. If this doesn't work, you can take the next steps from there to keep the discussion under control. But I wouldn't revoke talk page access from this user, as they are not abusing its use. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. I think I agree that this is legitimate behaviour - I just wanted to check that it wasn't an obvious violation of the ban. I will leave Soupforone to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem; always happy to help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Wingwraith

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

---

Wingrwaith is threatening other users, such as @DOR (HK):, on Talk:Communist Party of China "Incorrect, you would have known that I have support for my position(s) if you (cared to) read the above. Unless you want to end up incurring a block just like your fellow editor, I would suggest that you get more specific about your comment or just move the hell on already. Nobody needs these wiseacre one-liners that do nothing but add to the clusterfuck that is this talkpage." ... He is also breaching WP:No original research per "No I read it and what you wrote was just crap the article isn't supposed to read like an advert where the only information that is allowed is the information that it produces. There's already been extensive discussion/debate (see above) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise like I said you just need to move the hell on already.".... And again, his normal posts are like this "Stop using the grammatical person "we" when you don't even know what the rules are. There's ALREADY been extensive discussion/debate (see above RFC and all) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise you are just wasting everybody's fucking time."

Lots of quotes, no diffs: much easier on the eye this way. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 12:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also did this. Note that the sources used to reference Authoritarian socialist don't actually use the term "Authoritarian socialism" in any of the articles (check for yourself): Ruan, Lotus Yang. "The Chinese Communist Party and Legitimacy". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2015-09-30. Gitter, David. "China Sells Socialism to the Developing World". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2017-10-28. Corr, Anders. "Remove Maduro, And China, Send $80 Billion In Emergency Aid To Venezuela". Forbes. Naughton, Barry (February 2017). "Is China Socialist?". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 31 (1): 3–24. doi:10.1257/jep.31.1.3. Also note the following changes to the infobox: I removed International Communist Seminar - it hasn't been active for years.... there is not a tradition in WP to add every historical group a party was affiliated with (and non do).. the majority of social democratic parties in Western Europe don't say they were members of the Comintern either for example. Removed State Council from seats - I know of no other party articles which list the number of cabinet members.. especially not in uniform, non-coalition governments Removed the CMC. Its a party organ - why is it surprising that the party has all the members? National Supervisory Commission is the same institution as the Central COmmission for Discipline INspection.. Its part of the party's policy of having one institution, two signs. Judicial seats... again, I know you have this in some US articles, because they are directly elected. I know of no other party articles which have these. Its a reason for that. And again, its the CPC, its China. CPPCC National Committee - maybe its noteworthy, maybe I replaced People's Liberation Army (formerly Red Army, 8th Route Army, New 4th Army, etc.) with People's Liberation Army .... its about the current CPC, not a history lession. Thats why we both have a history section and a history article on the CPC and the PLA. Slogans.. As far I know, the CPC does not have an official slogan. All-China Federation of Trade Unions is not a CPC organ. Its officially a non-government assocation... which in China means its formally separate... The communist party does not formally exist in China, and none of it organs formally exist... So if something formally exists its usually either a party-state organ or a non-party institution. United Front.... Its not a popular front, its a name of a Central Committee Department... All-China Women's Federation... Again, not a CPC body.. Its former name was "All-China Women's Federation of the People's Republic of China".. It is also, formally, an NGO. All-China Youth Federation is not part of the CPC, and is also an NGO... The Young Pioneers of China is part of the Communist Youth League, and is administered by the COmmunist Youth League. All-China Students' Federation is an NGO. Central Policy Research Office is not a think tank. Its an organ of the Central Committee.... It doesn't even fit the definition on WIkipedia. The Internationale is not the de facto anthem of the CPC. It plays the national anthem way more than it does "The Internationale". WHere is the source for this? Per Wikipedia:Verifiability WIkipedia does not do Wikipedia:No original research.. ... those policies have been reached by Wikipedia:Consensus... So a user cannot add them without actually sourcing that information per the aformentioned policies.

Note, I know him, and I know he'll start an edit war, and blame it on me... And he'll also revert those changes. But per all my points, he actually has to prove that they are party organs per WP:Verifiability and they are in breach of WP:No original research.--TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of this thread, I'll be brief: Wingwraith hasn't edited the page, nor interacted on the talk page for over two days now-- the kind Edaham stepped in as a mediator, so it looks like this has already been addressed. Now, on to you... You not only failed to properly notify Wingwraith about this discussion, but you are hot off the heals of being blocked for edit-warring and abusing your editing privileges. You've now started several frivolous threads, targeting those who you seem to believe have slighted you in the past, beginning with the administrators who blocked you. Dlohcierekim already warned you within the last couple hours about disruptive editing, so I would be prepared for a boomerang, even if you withdrew this discussion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I endorse DarthBotto's coprehensive demolishment of your case. @Trust Is All You Need: I earnestly suggest you withdraw this filing or See Wood Spin—trust me. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The details in this discussion are mostly all about content-related things that should be discussed on the article's talk page and isn't anything I'm going to read here. All that put aside, ...what threats? I see that you've quoted these users (and didn't provide diffs.....) and from what you quoted, I'd say that their interactions could be worded nicer, sure... but what's the underlying issue here? Where are these "threats" you speak of? ..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Oshwah, I agree that the "case"—such as it is—as presented here is almost 100% a content dispute; it is, however, swiftly turning into a dicussion about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour...from the OP, who appears to be carrying on some kind of vendetta. I hope that interpretation is incorrect, but. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't get this at all... I feel I'm making 100% constructive, and now I'll be blocked? Why should I be blocked because I follow my believes...

And what you mean with "diffs"? --TIAYN (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN, you've been here enough times to know what is meant when someone asks for diffs. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN - I'm hoping that these responses will help you to understand that this discussion about Wingwraith isn't going to result in action against the user and that most of the information here is content-related and belongs in a content discussion on the article's talk page. If anything, I may talk to Wingwaith about civility - but that's about it. I'm going to do you a big favor and I'm going to close this discussion before an administrator decides to block you... As stated above, a block would be justified by an administrator and I'd much rather you walk away from this and reflect on the feedback left here and apply them on your own. I'll probably be given some heat for letting you off the hook so easily, but I think this is the right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible votestacking by TIAYN

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

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