Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adrian816 (talk | contribs) at 21:59, 15 April 2018 (→‎Proposed deletion of an article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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:Maswimelleu

    Keeps making edits to a rival political party page Pirate Party UK. Some edits were reverted, only to be made again, and reverted. Eventually they gave up as their edits were proven wrong - but they have recently deleted massive amounts of content from the page again. They resurface intermittently, causing a lot of disruption. The page is a shell of what it once was - and is now wildly inconsistent. Drowz0r (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I've mentioned the issue on their talk page and they agreed to leave a tag for others to "fix" the page... but then made edits again themselves anyway.

    They also flew off the handle about being called "ignorant" and so on. Others have noticed the same issue and posted on their talk page but they continue to do it. Drowz0r (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll limit my reply here to a simple rebuttal since this is fairly open/shut:
    • I've cleaned up the page because it doesn't conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. I invited Drowz0r to make those changes in a manner of his choosing, but he declined to do so, so I did them. I moved the election results to a different page because they violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE in their original form. I also removed irrelevant content concerning minor officers in the party, as they were not notable.
    • I have already pushed a number of Pirate party related pages successfully through the articles for deletion process, and repeated mentions of these people in non notable contexts on the Pirate party page have also been deleted. I have thus stripped down the page to mentions that are notable, aren't a conflict of interest, and are backed up by a reliable third party source.
    • The page is overwhelmingly reliant on sources that either fleetingly mention the person mentioned, or come from the party itself. Thus there's little way to establish notability of the people or concepts mentioned.
    • I have not flown off the handle at any point. Drowz0r has been fairly disrespectful towards me and I have presented him with various options to resolve this issue, he has declined to compromise and disappears for long stretches of time so I continue with constructive edits. The fact that he leaves me insulting messages on my talk pages and then decides not to make any constructive edits to the Pirate Party UK page leaves me to clean it up myself.
    I'm not hugely bothered by the page as a whole, but I'm not going to be intimidated from making constructive edits to a page because it's someone's own political party and because they want to set it out in a way that doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards and is considerably longer and more exhaustive than any other page on a minor UK political party. For an example of what I've been doing elsewhere, look at Mebyon Kernow, which is another minor UK political party page that I cleaned up. I've also created pages on minor parties from scratch, such as Mansfield Independent Forum and Canvey Island Independent Party. These much better suit accepted standards of length and quality, and use third party references that refer directly to the matter at hand. I'm collating a list of all UK political parties which is why I sometimes resurface at Pirate Party UK to clean up the page. I have no particular interest in Pirate politics, Mr Elston, or any other figure involved in the group. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Obi2canibe and Wikipedia ethics

    An experienced user:Obi2canibe is continuing to bully and trouble wikipedians who edit articles related to Sri Lanka for some years now. He first tried to bully and chase away the editors who were interested in Sri Lankan civil war related articles. His behavior directly and indirectly resulted many Sri Lankan wikipedians to vanish from Wikipedia (Most of them fear to complain considering his very high article/edit count and the destruction he may caused to their work in Wikipedia). Now he has started to trouble even the nicest of Sri Lankan Wikipedians who are not interested to edit Sri Lankan war related articles. A recent comment from an neutral editor is given here (comment i). Could some administrator or a user with special rights look into this matter ? Thanks. RitzAgasti (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1) I have notified the user; 2) where is your attempt t discuss the issues with the user before coming to ANI?; 3) have you edited under another account before, seeing as your first edits are to ANI?; 4) please provide some links showing examples of the edits you have issues with. GiantSnowman 08:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many have tried to discuss this with him, but no use (most of them do not edit wikipedia anymore or have reduced the number of contributions). My responsibility is to report this hidden ongoing issue here at ANI and I have given a very recent example of a comment made by a wikipedia admin about it. A recent example for his bahviour is given here [1]. Old example for his behavior is given here (not my self) (many incidents have happened and went unnoticed in between). It is up to the admins to investigate using available tools and take a suitable action or to ignore it as have happened many times before and let him continue on his merry way (easier option is the second one). --RitzAgasti (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    RitzAgasti - Umm, no... you have a couple of things incorrect here:
    1. The examples you provided here are edits by Obi2canibe that were made in 2009 and 2011 - that's over seven years ago. Aside from that, I don't see any bullying or inappropriate behavior with those edits at all.
    2. Your example here, while I agree could perhaps have been worded a bit nicer and to a tone that reads that he's assuming good faith, this discussion seems fine and they seem to be working to correct some incoming link issues... no big deal.
    3. You are incorrect with your implications when you state that "it is up to the admins to investigate using available tools and take a suitable action" - it is up to you to provide direct and solid evidence with all of your accusations and statements; so far, you have only given a link to a discussion and three edits made many years back. Your other accusations such as this user causing others to vanish and ongoing bullying and other violations made by this user to other accounts - have come with absolutely no evidence at all. This is not acceptable; accusations are taken seriously here, and making such statements without evidence can be considered uncivil and disruptive, which are grounds for having action taken.
    4. You have not answered all of GiantSnowman's questions.
    I highly recommend that you resolve the concerns I've expressed or clarify any statements above, as I'm seeing absolutely no weight behind your accusations against Obi2canibe so far... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC);;[reply]
    And there you have it.User:Oshwah sees no "weight behind your accusations" and therefore no weight exists, your accusations are weightless and YOU need to go to your room and THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE! And just wait until User:GiantSnowman gets home and sees that YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS YET! Don't cry or User:Oshwah will give you something to cry about.

    Hello. While the above post itself is quite shallow and lacks evidence, I would like to weight in on RitzAgasti's claims. I am the founder of Wikimedia Sri Lanka, and an admin here. I have a number of local editors on my watchlist, and RitzAgasti is not wrong. This user has been stealthily taunting a number of editors - mostly those from Sri Lanka. While I do openly agree that Obi2canibe does good work here on Wikipedia, I have a number of diffs and permalinks that show extremely disturbing underlying behaviour of this particular user. Most of which did go unnoticed as most users just don't have the time, patience, or knowledge, to go through our escalation processes.

    I will not provide any links to the diffs I mentioned yet, as the issue is currently being discussed with other uninvolved admins. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, I will comment here again.

    In summary, commenting in my admin capacity: I would have warned and/or blocked this user if the above linked conversation continued. They very clearly have a problem with Sinhalese people, and very clearly is stealthily taunting such editors on wiki. As a person who is in fact doing everything I can to promote contributions from Sri Lanka, it is very clear to me that this user is doing serious harm to the community, and should not be ignored. Rehman 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rehman - That's what I said to myself as well - if the user was being belligerent and uncivil to that high of a level on your user talk page, you certainly would have taken some kind of action. Hence I took it as a conversation where the wording he used wasn't great, but also wasn't something I considered an actionable event. I understand your thoughts and feeling about Obi2canibe, but I need diffs and specific examples before I can agree or begin to make judgment here... Let me know how things go :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rehman - just wanted to check in here. Can we move to close this discussion for now, or are there further concerns and diffs that you wish to provide and add to it? Let me know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oshwah. After discussing the issue with another admin, I've decided to post the links here in public. I will do so within the next 24hrs (I'm currently at work). Kind regards, Rehman 06:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rehman - No rush; just ping me when you do. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Oshwah: Apologies for the delay in responding. Below are some diffs and/or permalinks mentioned earlier (dates are approximate).

    Again, I want to clearly emphasize that User:Obi2canibe is a dedicated contributor, and I personally admire his work. That being said, his actions against other Sri Lankan contributors is clearly damaging the community, and has a serious domino effect. One new user with a bad experience not only share that experience in RL, but others looking at the offensive talkpage would also multiply that result. If I come across unnecessarily offensive messages (like the Laxapana post on my talkpage) from this user to anyone, I would not hesitate to take the appropriate action.

    At the same time, since this discussion is on, I will leave it up to the OP and anyone else involved to decide on what action to take from here on. My best interest is to protect and empower the tiny editor base in Sri Lanka, even if that means blocking Obi2canibe. A topic ban on all Sri Lanka related articles may be something to consider. Rehman 17:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rehman: is clearly involved here and explicitly violating WP:ADMINACCT and WP:INVOLVED with whom he has had content disputes. His threat to ban or block Obi2canibe will be clear violation of this policy.
    Further there appears to be a clear case of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT here.
    • On 8th April 2018 Obi2canibe asks him fix Dab and Rehman threatens to ban him
    • On 10th April 2018 a sock -RitzAgasti comes out from nowhere solely posts in ANI and directly attacks Obi2canibe quoting Rehman in ANI and does not answer questions about previous account.Then Rehman posts in this discussion through he was not notified.Feel someone should open a sock invetigation against Rehman.Clearly fails WP:DUCK here.
    None of the differences show any violation of WP:NPA ,WP:3RR or any major policy.Note Obi2canibe has been around since 2008 just as Rehman.
    @Kaytsfan: Thanks, you saved me a lot of time in finding evidence to defend myself against some very weak accusations. How on earth did you find out about this discussion?
    @RitzAgasti: You are clearly a sockpuppet but whose? Rehman's? Himesh84's? Who are you? Be a man, reveal yourself.
    @Rehman: You've spent a lot of time trawling my contributions to find evidence that I'm causing "serious harm to the community" but much of the evidence you've gathered is just content dispute. Disputes are fact of Wikipedia. If you go through any user's contributions, particularly one who has been here for as long as me and edits a contentious subject, then you will find that they have been in disputes. Does that justify a blanket topic ban?
    I will for now only respond to one of the diffs you've provided, the very first one (2008-11-12). This is from ten years ago (there's no statute of limitation on Wikipedia!) and is something I regret. I came to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons (to balance my perceived imbalance in Sri Lankan articles) but stayed for the right reasons (to create well sourced articles on a topic that was under represented on Wikipedia). I removed the offending content from my user page but as it remained in its history I was advised by an experienced user to delete the page. I did this later. Now you have abused your admin privileges to dig up deleted content. Not cool.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaytsfan:, I was not aware of @RitzAgasti: contribution history (i.e. only at ANI). I am more than happy if a sock check is done for the user, if that ensures things go smoothly. That being said, yes I do agree that there is a high chance Ritz is a sock. No new editor drops straight into ANI. Update: Oddly, you too seems to have only recently come out of dormancy and dropped directly into ANI. I've also noticed this edit which is odd, because barnstars are usually posted on the user talkpage. Anyways, I am not interested in digging into this any further. Rehman 04:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Obi2canibe:, with all due respect, it is up to you if you decide to only respond to the easiest diffs. Yes I understand the older permalinks, despite being wrong, can no longer be considered relevant. I've been here as long as you, and I have done stupid things as well. Without beating around the bush, if you could clearly accept that you were unfair/wrong in cases like the Laxapana/Channukam/calling people "Sinhalised"/calling edits "Sri Lankan propaganda"/your personal attack on Meta, and can promise not to take that route again, I am willing to step out of this conversation and let you continue with Ritz, who initially started this conversation. Like I said, my best interest is the health of the community, and looking at most of your work, I'm sure it is yours too. Rehman 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As the user who has initiated this thread,i must admit that i am neither Himesh84 nor Rehman. Also i have not awarded any barnstars to my own account using socks and this account was created solely to secure my account from posssible negative consequences of reporting mighty obi2canibe who has possibly 5 to 10 accounts with several thousands of useful and useless edits. RitzAgasti (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    {reply to|RitzAgasti} "this account was created solely to secure my account from posssible[sic] negative consequences" Not sure that counts as a sock puppet, but it seems to. Per the policy: "Sock puppetry takes various forms: [...] Creating new accounts to avoid detection." There are legit reasons to have multiple accounts; the reason you gave doesn't seem to be one of them. So, think carefully before you go casting aspersions else you be hit with boomerang.Sudden Someone (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    @Rehman: Please note systematic Sinhalisation (article created by @Kanatonian:) is a fact in Sri Lanka and is considered to be the major cause for Sri Lankan Civil War. I don't see anything ulterior why Obi2canibie is objecting when the words are Sinhalised on Wiki articles in Tamil areas.Kaytsfan (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @RitzAgasti: Can you identify those socks of Obi2canibie? Kaytsfan (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rehman: You are backtracking. In your earlier comments you stated that I was clearly doing serious harm to the community and deserved a topic ban. If you truly believed this, you would pursue the matter rather than settling for an apology.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-sourced content and refusal to present a source

    User Slapnut1207 has been editing tens of articles on Roman emperors but failing to present any reliable source. He did this in the article of Zenobia, where he insisted that he is improving the page by deciding which title she held, even though his edits are contradicted by sources within the article (which is featured).

    Diff: 1, 2...etc

    I asked him not to insert inaccurate information on his talk page User talk:Slapnut1207#Palmyrene empire and I asked him to participate in a discussion on the article's talk page. He reverted and only after I told him that this will be reported did he reply in the talk page... then reverted me again telling me that he did the talke page!.. this time he added a source that does not support his edits as he wants to call Zenobia either Empress of Rome or Empress of Palmyra and his source did not contain an evidence for both!.

    I believe this is not a content dispute as he have no reliable sources to back his edits. Hope this can be stopped.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S, I just breached the 3 revert rule. Sorry about this, didnt notice how many reverts I did. I wont go into an edit war with this user but inserting inaccurate info should be stopped if Wikipedia will be considered reliable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to open a thread at WP:RSN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Attar-Aram syria: what exactly is the point of contention here? As an uninvolved reader, the article already contains the information that she was "Empress" (or "Queen") of the "Palmyrene Empire", so Slapnut's edit would appear to be a good faith, superficial change that strictly conveys sourced information already presented in the article, as opposed to the addition of unsourced content. What is the controversial claim being made in their edits, that requires a source? Swarm ♠ 23:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Swarm this link will explain. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Attar-Aram syria: Thanks. I'm not attempting to become involved in the content dispute, merely to have all the context. So, could you provide me with some additional clarification from what I gathered from that discussion? The subject was the monarch of the Palmyrene Empire. Is that incorrect? And she went by the title "Empress" (speaking anachronistically, of course). Is that incorrect? Swarm ♠ 01:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes she claimed the title of Augusta. The thing is, she might have been using it in a new meaning not related to Rome but to a new empire she was building. Thats what many scholars say and thats why it is wring to attach any geographic term with the title of Zenobia cause she might have meant that she was the empress of Rome or the empress of the East....etc.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So, while she was the monarch of Palmyra, and while she went by the title "Empress", it would still be inaccurate to claim that she was "Empress of Pamyra", because we simply do not know what specifically she claimed to empress of. That's perfectly fair and reasonable. But it's an unusual situation, and it's an easy conclusion to jump to, surely you yourself have to concede this. I think, if we're assuming good faith, Slapnut probably just jumped to the understandable, if inaccurate, conclusion that the queen of Palmyra and empress = Empress of Palmyra. The fact that there is academic uncertainty regarding the use of "Empress" is something that deserves a good faith explanation, as most editors aren't going to be aware of this particular of historiographical subtlety. Perhaps a footnote would be justified in the infobox, after the title? But if you want my opinion, I think this is resolvable in the content space and that Slapnut shouldn't be actioned for what was appears to be a mistake. Swarm ♠ 17:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are generally right, but the editor did not cooperate in the talk page until told about the report. It was kind of an edit war that led to the report. The problem seems to have been solved now; further discussions on the talk page of the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome proved one thing: this topic is very debated and no result can be reached and so, only Empress will remain but without any geographic reference to what was she an empress of. Cheers--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pattern of disruptive page moves

    There have been several requests at WP:RM today to revert new undiscussed page moves performed by User:Gryffindor. Because of this, I have looked further into Gryffindor’s recent edit history, and documented some of what I found at WP:RMTR. There is also evidence of a large number of objections that have been lodged at User talk:Gryffindor; the pattern of editing has continued unabated. Since the start of the year, User:Gryffindor has engaged in the following sorts of behavior related to page moves:

    • 1) Undiscussed moves when the title had been established by a previous Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion, such as seen at Talk:Sobieski family from 2014 followed by this.
    • 2) Edits specifically designed to prevent reversion of undiscussed moves, such as the repeated removal of the R-from-move template. An example is here. Here is another. Note that there are no edit summaries for the empty edits. This appears to be part of a long-term pattern of performing such empty edits after page moves.
    • 3) Note that the move itself shown in example 2 would not normally be out of process as a bold move, but the editor has previously taken part in significant discussions on "House of X" articles and knows that this sort of edit represents a controversial move that should be discussed through WP:RM, as shown in the instructions at WP:RMCM. In fact, administrator User:PBS specifically warned User:Gryffindor against both 2 and 3 in 2017, as can be seen here.
    • 4) Re-moving articles after the original bold moves have been reverted, such as here and here (the last of these is from December 2017). The second move sometimes happens much later and is not immediately caught by the editors who objected the first time, so it seems that some of these moves have been successful. For example, the article that was at House of Arenberg from its creation in 2007 to 2017 now remains at Arenberg family with no evidence of move discussions as of April 10:
    • 11:41, September 17, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family, restore encyclopedic naming format)
    • 09:21, August 24, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg: revert contriversial move)
    • 08:22, August 24, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family)
    • 03:27, March 11, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg over redirect: rv contriversial move not following the WP:RM)
    • 10:38, March 9, 2017‎ Domdeparis (Domdeparis moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family: In English "House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of)

    Each of these four actions is strongly deprecated and would normally garner some sort of a warning for the editor who engaged in them. Today, it seems that the moves continued after posts by User:Bermicourt objecting to them; see User talk:Gryffindor#Moving "House of Foo" to "Foo family" and User talk:Gryffindor#Please stop moving "House of" articles without a discussion and consensus!. Gryffindor also edited later in the day, but did not respond to these concerns.

    It would be inaccurate to state that this is the first time such problems have arisen surrounding moves by Gryffindor. Being as charitable as possible, there are previous ANI discussions of Gryffindor's unilateral moves from at least 2007, 2010, and 2012. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#Gryffindor out of control (apologies for the section name), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Unilateral page moving against consensus, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#A possible problem with undiscussed moves. There are others I’ve chosen not to include here. Given those discussions and the talk page, it’s clear that Gryffindor knows these moves are out of process and has a long-term tendency to proceed anyway.

    I have nothing against User:Gryffindor, do not have an opinion about the titling of the "House of X" articles, and have had few interactions with Gryffindor in the past. I also attempt to avoid drama. But this needs to be handled somehow, is creating more work and stress for many editors, and I am under the impression that previous complaints have resulted in no action because Gryffindor either temporarily avoided this sort of behavior or did not respond to questions about it. I therefore think it is appropriate that there be a discussion here to gauge community consensus on how to prevent the sort of disruption I have documented here from continuing to happen in the future, up to and including placing limits on the ability of Gryffindor to perform undiscussed moves. Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The WP:RMTR thread is reproduced below:
    Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the answer to this is fairly simple. All of the "House of..." moves should be reverted, and Gryffindor warned to only go through the RM process to move these, otherwise sanctions may be applied. Note: not all of Gryffindor's moves appear to be wrong; the "X (noble family)" -> "X family" ones appear to be logical. Also colour me seriously unimpressed that Gryffindor is an admin who has previously appeared at ANI for doing exactly the same thing over other's objections. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (EC) I do not mean to imply that all (or any) of the moves is wrong aside from being deliberately out of process. However, as mentioned above, Gryffindor has been warned in the past on this specific point, and has continued: see [2], [3] and elsewhere on the talk page, so I believe that at a minimum the conditions for and scope of any sanctions should be made explicit. Dekimasuよ! 09:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This certainly looks like a deja vu. I remmeber I had to warn Gryffindor off for exactly the same kind of misconduct (using admin tools for controversial moves against consensus, plus using the dirty trick of redirect-scorching) back in 2007; see here and here. I never crossed path with him since, but if he has continued the same pattern over all these years, that's pretty bad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gryffindor has replied to the WP:RMTR thread here, and I responded here. Another editor since asked that discussion not continue at WP:RMTR, so I have removed the thread. In the reply, Gryffindor wrote that "I think you are confusing edits from an editor that you disagree with, and activities as a sysop. See this editing guideline WP:BB for further information. Concerning the discussion you mentioned earlier on "House of X", feel free to comment in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of." This misinterprets my objections to the moves; I responded with "If this is directed at me, please rest assured that I do not particularly disagree with the edits themselves (I have no opinion on the titling of these articles) and I am not primarily concerned with whether or not these are admin activities. The moves would be problematic whether performed by an admin or not, because they are being performed without discussion despite being known to be disputed by other editors." To expand upon this, the reply shows that Gryffindor is aware of ongoing disagreement with respect to the titles of these pages, but is pursuing the moves as "being bold." This is already advised against by WP:RMCM; at the same time, Gryffindor been short-circuiting the WP:BRD process that is necessary for the proper application of WP:BB by preventing reversion and repeating the "bold" moves after reversion without engaging in WP:RM discussion. Gryffindor has also posted new replies to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of stating editorial reasons for the moves, but has not there touched upon any rationale for the process by which they have been carried out. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote of no confidence in Gryffindor as an admin

    Gryffindor has voluntarily submitted a desysop request. Alex Shih (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gryffindor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was promoted in 2006 and apart from a couple of block actions in 2006, has used his administrator rights primarily in the service of his campaign of undiscussed moves, usually deleting pages to make way for these moves. As evidenced above, many all of these moves have ended up being reverted over the years or have had concerns raised that have gone unanswered. WP:Communication is required, and this user has not answered direct messages on his talk page, has not responded here, and ignored discussions on other pages that he was surely notified of that were concerned about his moves. Its my opinion that his abilities as an admin will only lead to further conflicts with very little benefit to the project. I suspect that his ability to delete pages to perform moves gives him the impression that he can do so without following the consensus process. Removing that ability will surely force him to begin interacting with the project again. Failure to do this will likely result in him going silent for some time, and then returning again to the same pattern. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a bit early for this. Page moves against consensus are only kind of abuse of tools, and they are tools that we also give to non-admins. Also, this thread has been open less than 24 hours and Gryffindor should be given a reasonable chance to respond. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gryffindor has actually used admin tools to move some of the pages, as in some cases the targets were not simply redirects. I can't see an example where's he's edit-warred over one of those, though, and he hasn't used the tools since concerns were raised on his talkpage (although he has carried on moving pages and not replied to the concerns). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having said that, Gryffindor hasn't used admin tools at all apart from in page moves for a very long time. He hasn't blocked anyone since 2006 and has only made one protection that wasn't page-move related since 2007 as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's my point - he became an admin in 2006, has used his admin rights for almost NO tangible benefit to the project, and in fact only uses them in pursuit of his undiscussed page moves. We have to weigh the costs and benefits here - This user would probably not even be able to retain "page mover" rights based on his actions (WP:PMRR), so why are we letting him keep the keys to the kingdom? --Netoholic @ 02:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ArbCom is the only body that can desysop. I'd also be hesitant to see a case request here. I'm also probably more cautious on moves than most (since I work the RM desk semi-regularly), and I don't see this as needing the committee. I'd suggest just a community reminder to use the RM process. If they kept not using it, then we'd have an issue. While the community can issue sanctions against administrators short of a desysop, it would likely result in an inevitable ArbCom case (high-profile disputes amongst administrators being within ArbCom's explicit remit), and I don't see this at that level yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • After seeing this has come up in the past and the lack of response here, it appears a case may be necessary. @Gryffindor: if I may be so bold as to suggest that it might just make sense to take a trip over to WP:BN, link to this discussion, and say you resign and won't seek resysop without an RfA? That would save the community a fair amount of drama and time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) What Tony said. See also: WP:DESYSOP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Ivanvector; I'm not opposed to this procedurally as it would simply lead to an ARBCOM case. A TBAN on moving pages other than through the RM process might be a better idea if action is necessary. Regardless, more discussion (and an opportunity for Gryffindor to respond) is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    * Oppose desysop as I don't think we're at that level ... they're not exactly communicative which is an issue however they've not exactly abused their tools, However I would support a topic ban from all page moves - If they want an article moved they know where to go. –Davey2010Talk 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Arbcom - My apologies I thought this was a one off but apparently not[4][5] - All admins should know move-warring isn't on and they should obviously discuss instead of reverting/moving, Their response below is pretty bad .... I would support taking this to Arbcom or the appropriate venue. –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with Gryffindor's other contributions and cannot offer much of an opinion on whether his admin credentials should be revoked. I'm sure he's done fine work elsewhere, which makes the nitpicky and easily fixed nature of this complaint all the more frustrating. I do believe that Gryffindor should immediately stop making any moves, should not make moves on Wikimedia Commons, and if he refuses, should have his admin (and page-mover) credentials revoked for this reason. It's a silly and minor thing, but his persistent refusal to engage in the WP:RM process and flagrant "gaming the system" by poisoning the resulting redirect so his moves can't easily be reverted does not speak to a spirit of collaboration. He has an opinion on article titling, that's great, file a requested move like anyone else and don't use technical tricks to force the impetus on others to clean up his mess. Even when he has been reverted, it's unreliable anyway, because he's repeatedly moved the same article before, and simply waits a year to see if people have stopped paying attention. This is conduct unbecoming of any editor, admin or not. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upgrade to Support removal of admin privileges. Gryffindor's responses, both here and in the thread at the Royalty Wikiproject, show he is wholly oblivious to the concerns being raised here. If he can't be bothered to address legitimate concerns about communication and moving style, acting as if this is only a content dispute where he imperiously sets the article titling rules himself, then I have no confidence in him as an admin. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know ARBCOM is the only venue that can desysop, but I support it. We have far too much of a gap between standards of new admins and old admins, and I think both reducing new admin standard and increase current admin standard (which'll help with the former) is the way to go. His behaviour is far below of that you'd expect from any admin, and has extended over years. Consistent poor judgement (move-warring etc), and repeated failure to communicate and respond to concerns per WP:ADMINACCT is what I'd say as the rationale. If he was a page mover, he'd have been stripped of the right for even a very small fraction of the moves like the ones he does. I think probably the only reason there isn't a problem elsewhere is because he doesn't use his tools much outside of perhaps deleting pages in page moves (his deletion log of <1000 entries is 90% related to page moves) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a vote of no confidence. Communication is required, especially from admins. It's also baffling that they have not responded here, despite continuing to edit after they were alerted to this discussion. @Gryffindor: please let us have your views on the comments here. If Gryffindor continues to ignore the discussion on this board, we may want to consider moving it to WP:RFAR, the venue that can desysop. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • I also support this, since Gryffindor has clearly felt it beneath him to respond here, despite having edited since. That's seriously sub-par for an admin. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment has anyone actually checked to see if the sources in the pages that Gryffindor has moved support the article name house of? I'll give you one exemple House of Soterius von Sachsenheim I checked out the sources and not a single one of them uses "house of". The main opposition to the blanket moves of non ruling families from House of to family was because that went against WP:COMMONNAME. this does not need any kind of concensus if the sources support that the common name is not House of. Common name states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." There are several authorative source that points towards House of being commonly used for ruling dynasties notably a royal one an important family, especially a royal one House of is used for an individual royal house, that is, a ruling family of a monarchy these 2 sources suggest that at least for the Cambridge dictionry and the Library of Congress calling a noble family that wasn't a royal family could be considered ambiguous. If there are few or no sources that use this term I cannot see how these page moves are in any way contradictory to Common name. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure many of his moves are correct (and for example, House_of_Schwarzburg has sources calling it exactly that). But whether his moves are right or not is irrelevant here. The point is that if you're making mass BOLD moves and other people are disputing them, you need a consensus - via RM or talkpage - to make that move stick. For the examples where Gryffindor is correct, then a Requested Move should be no problem. Given that similar problems stretch back over ten years as pointed out above, there is clearly an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what are the arguments opposing the moves? No one has suggested that the moves go against policy because the policy that should be considered is WP:COMMONNAME and I don't believe that this has been brought up when addressing the different articles. If there are no sources attesting to this article title does one have to go through RM? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ECx2) To concur with Black Kite, I'll reiterate that this is a question of conduct rather than content, and the current discussion does not preclude the moves (which Domdeparis has previously stated his support of) from taking place. I also note that Wikipedia:Article titles makes frequent reference to the importance of consensus in determining titles, including in the sections labeled WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no need to be discussing individual sources here. The question you raised last–"what are the arguments opposing the moves?"–is what is to be discussed in a move request before moving the pages again. Dekimasuよ! 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment @Domdeparis: I'm afraid the situation has moved on from the pagemoves themselves; what's happening at the moment is very much in the realm of WP:ADMINACCT. Specifically, their lack (total) of communication. Incidentally, if anyone thinks this is a one-off, I draw your attention to this discusion on G's own talkpage—from August last year—about exactly the same issue, and in which—again—they did not take part, even with a colleague. They were still doing the same thing in November—and again ignored the request to slow down and discuss. Communication is probably the fundamental requirement of an admin—per WP:VOLUNTEER, they can do as much or as little anywher here they choose: but no-one gets a free pass on ignoring the concerns of the community. Regarding the content dispute itself, incidentally, as someone pointed out above, an editor disagreeing with a move is an indication that is likely to be contentious: per WP:RM/CM: if someone could reasonably disagree with the move, then the discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. Again, this is something that an admin of their tenure should be fully conversant of, especially in regard to the fact that it is such a significant portion of their editing. Which is another illustration of the same behaviour: that of ignoring concerns and refusing discussion. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I not the place to discuss content, unfortunately. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 16:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gryffindor: I'd like to know why it took you so long to respond here? Paul August ☎ 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support a vote of no confidence. To be honest, I have had little confidence in Gryffindor as an admin since October 2014 when this CCI was opened (how many other admins do we have with an open CCI?). The undiscussed moves appear to have been happening for many years (this one in 2010 was made after a (very mild) objection on his/her talk-page). Page moves can be made without discussion if, and only if, they are uncontroversial or could reasonably be believed to be so. Boldly moving a page is OK, but making moves without discussion after you've been made aware that others are opposed to them is a misuse of the function; if often repeated, it is at best WP:DISRUPTIVE. It is absolutely not acceptable behaviour for an admin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the OP's vote, and the resultant move to RFAR. I was, per my remark above, probably just going to comment; but Paul August's question made we wonder. The communication problem, it appears, is actually far worse than it appeared. Notwithstanding Wellington et al.'s advice, the figures are not good. For example, Gryffindor has made 102 edits to own talk page since 2005 (half of which are just archivings)—and has not replied to anyone since July last year. Likewise, off their own page, the list of their last fifty edits to others' talk pages also takes us back nine months. This is poor communication from anyone, but particularly from an editor in possession of advanced permissions who has been granted those permissions by the community on the expectation that they will be accountable to the community. So, I am forced to support this measure. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 17:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @User:Serial Number 54129 Just because an editor does not comment on their talk page does not mean that they are not communicating. Gryffindor replies in the same style that I do. On the talk page of the person who comments on my talk page page. see here). If you look at last August (2017) you will see the exchange between Gryffindor and myself which I edited into the start of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of showing it as a split conversation -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban from moves

    Proposing an indefinite topic ban on moving pages

    • Support I don't see how a "community reminder" will help where numerous complaints from experienced editors haven't - he still hasn't acknowledged any issue. Per his response here, he still doesn't seem to understand that his moves are disruptive, and WP:BOLD isn't applicable to potentially controversial page moves nor is it a justification to repeatedly move-war etc etc. Nor is it a justification for editing the redirect to make reverting back impossible except for admins and page movers.
    Indefinite, because this has been an issue for 10 years per threads linked by Future Perfect at Sunrise (see this and this links provided, and the ANI from 2007 linked above), and I think he needs to come and appeal with an explanation of his understanding of when to use the RM process and how he'll do better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are responding with in talking about categories. What I and people want to minimally know is: do you understand WP:RMCM, specifically that any any controversial or potentially controversial move should be taken to WP:RM? In this specific case you'd nominate the pages en masse, and if the consensus is there, the moves will be done in a week or two. As far as I can see, your desistment doesn't seem to last, considering the recurrence of these ANI threads, and of move-warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Striking that first bit, see you are talking about WP:CONSISTENCY within a category - which is an argument to make in a WP:RM, but not a reason to unilaterally mass move pages Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, not one person's "system" so that "there is order." You're not the boss, your comment on the Royalty talk page was just that - a comment, not an actual statement of Wikipedia policy. Which means cleaning up your own mess and reverting your undiscussed moves yourself rather than making others do it for you. You can achieve all of what you are currently doing if you simply file Requested Moves at a reasonable (not breakneck) pace. Where you have a point, people will support your move and it'll be moved; where you can't find consensus, it won't be. The end. Everyone will be happy. SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Power~enwiki: / @Bbb23:: Nah, I meant Commons - wrong link above, sorry, I edited in the correct one. And I realize that we may have to jump through some more hoops to get it done on Commons, but I believe it should be done (although a voluntary handing over the bit would work too). SnowFire (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Inexperienced WC user
    Support the former, I don't see how the latter would work, if that indeed happens we can discuss something along the line of a topic ban from moves Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits were done in WP:GOODFAITH. I am trying to help the project, not hurt it. My goal was and is to bring order to naming formats of articles where I thought it makes sense. Since this is mentioned, in the discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of, in the category of German families I saw that four to five different naming formats existed. Yet no steps were taken as far as I could see to address that situation and therefore I thought it would be best if I take the initiative. But I understand that this can be seen as controversial. I have also been thanked on a number of occasions for taking the initiative and moving articles. So I apologize if this has come across as an abuse of the tools or has the appearance of improper use. I understand that a number of users are upset, and I am handing in my resignation. I wish you continued success in your edits to make this project better. Gryffindor (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose topic ban; sufficient unto the day, etc. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. Gryffindor has voluntarily resigned adminship, and permanently it seems; I think a topic ban is no longer needed at this point. Their approach to page moving were inappropriate back in 2007, and far more inappropriate today; but they were done in reasonable good faith, and their grave errors in failure to understand the proper page moving process have been sufficiently pointed out in this discussion, and I must say a recurrance is quite unlikely. Alex Shih (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @user:Alex Shih I fail to see how you justify opposing this ban as it has nothing to do with whether Gryffindor is or is not an administrator as administrator tools have nothing to do with this issue, and I would like you to explain your opposition in more detail so that we can try to reach a consensus. To make good faith bold moves and then have it reverted is acceptable behaviour. However making bold moves and having them reverted and making them again breaches WP:RMUM and is clearly an act of bad faith. First move by Gryffindor "13:22, 24 August 2017 Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family" After the conversation on 24 August 2017 (see collapse box below) Gryffindor made a bad faith move "16:41, 17 September 2017 Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family" specifically against WP:RMUM which says "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves."
    Split talk page conversations August 2017
    User talk:Gryffindor Talk:PBS
    Do not move articles that start "House of" without using an WP:RM as such move are often controversial see a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of -- PBS (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also do not edit the resultant redirect, like for some of the recent moves that you made because to do so stops an editor easily reverting you moves and so such edits are disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    the term "House of" in English as a general rule only applies to ruling and sovereign dynasties, not some noble family. Otherwise any family could call themselves "House of" and where would we end with that? Thank you for your understanding. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not "House of" is correct or incorrect is not something to be decided by a rule. It is something to be decided by consensus on the talk page, and if a move is to be made then use WP:RM. It is much more complicated for continental European families as everyone and his dog held sovereign rights over their territory at one time or another before the founding of the modern national states. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree, see WP:BOLD. Within the Holy Roman Empire by law no one was sovereign except the emperor himself. The same applies to Kings of England, France, etc. and their dynasties. Therefore we have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley"? Giving everyone (including their dog as you said) a "House of" format is out of bounds and needs to be corrected. Gryffindor (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not proposing anything. I am not claiming right of wrong. I am suggesting that instead of moving hundreds of articles because you "know" that that are incorrectly named that you get consensus for the moves. How do yo know that the rule you are enforcing is correct in all cases? -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets look at an example. Here is a link a source of one of the pages you moved House of Arenberg. Why did you move it? -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He ors she, claims that he wants to change everything like the English model of nobility, in my vieuw, not correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please keep the conversation on your talk page, Gryffindor? thank you--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if these are families that were not ruling, hereditary dynasties of a sovereign and independent country, they are not a "House of", as opposed to the Windsors, Romanovs, Medici, Bourbons, etc. I already gave the example with the Wellesley family. On what basis are you arguing in favour of using it? Gryffindor (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw your first comment so there was no need to reiterate with "Again, if these are families that were not ruling...", what is the source that you draw this conclusion and let's look at the practical example I have given with House of Arenberg and the use of the term by the Arenberg Foundation. What is you source that says this usage is incorrect? -- PBS (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBS (talk • contribs) 10:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    E to the Pi times i and policies and guidelines

    E to the Pi times i (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from policy and guideline pages and their talk pages as well as simply discussing changes to them, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. While the original proposal was only to prevent editing the pages directly, there's a significant amount of support for an indefinite block too, and even those opposed to that expect that the it may come to it soon. Given that, I think I can safely interpret the consensus as to read that the entire topic is covered and not just the specific pages as the proposal started off as. Likewise, while the appeal window started off as three months, a later suggestion was to change that to six, and given the other comments in this thread, I'm closing this as can be appealed at WP:AN after six months. —SpacemanSpiff 11:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I came very close to blocking this user myself for disruptive editing, as I consider reversion of a major change to the notability policy that took place without discussion to be administrative in nature, but I thought I'd take it here to get more admins to look at it. Just looking through their last contributions, they have been through at least four major policy and guideline pages messing with the wording (if you look through their contributions WP:N, WP:ADMIN, WP:DEL, and Wikipedia:Bot policy all show copyedits that were reverted in the last 3 days). I reverted them on WP:N and warned them that further "copyedits" to major policy documents could lead to a block.
    Following that, they reverted me claiming it wasn't disruptive and that I wasn't assuming good faith, and then started a section on the talk page claiming that they weren't going to edit war, after the had already been reverted and warned by another user not to make the edit (which on a significant document such as WP:N, certainly goes against the intent of the edit warring policy).
    As I said, I think I'd be justified in a block and view my initial revert as administrative in nature, so thus not INVOLVED, but since it did involve content changes to a policy, I would prefer to get feedback here or let another administrator review. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not looked deeply into this, but edit warring over a policy page is absolutely not acceptable, and I have issued a short block for that. Anyone else is welcome to adjust my action as they see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have offered to lift the block if User:E to the Pi times i agrees to not edit anywhere other than this ANI report until it is resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The thing that gets me is that most of the policy edits seem to be off just so: the ones I reverted at WP:ADMIN and WP:CSD, but also others, such as PERM/TE and Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained. Not sure what to make of it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that they are trying to copyedit/simplify, but they seem to be missing the point that for all of these documents, the core wording is usually the way it is for a reason, and that in simplifying the wording, they are, in fact, changing the meaning. In the notability example, they removed Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. While you could argue that the edits they made kept the meaning, that line is one of the most significant lines in the notability guideline. I wasn't thinking anything like an indef block (I was actually thinking 31 hours like Boing!'s edit warring block), but the issue is that by making these simplification edits with minimal experience, they are actually impacting the policies and guidelines and wasting other editor's time reverting and getting into the discussions for things that really aren't a priority. Now that they're blocked and have been unblocked to only edit ANI, the immediate disruption has stopped, but I'm not sure how to deal with it longterm other than "don't do this", which I already tried with a warning. ​TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So why is it that e to the pi times i is always a negative one?... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been waiting for weeks for the opportunity to use that, I turn my back for 10 seconds and you steal it. EEng 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a common pitfall for new-ish editors delving into project space for the first time to encounter our bewildering word salads of policies and guidelines, and in the spirit of WP:BOLD that's encouraged everywhere else they try to simplify based on their own understanding. Most are cooperative enough to back off when they start getting in trouble, though. I propose a topic ban from directly editing any page tagged as a policy or guideline, but simultaneously encourage the user to participate in discussions on these topics. When they gain some understanding of the complex discussions that back up changes to these pages (we somewhat recently spent 22,000 words on exactly how to define a legal threat), they could apply to have the tban lifted some time in the future, and in the meantime they will still be able to contribute to a part of the project that interests them via discussion with other editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that routine housekeeping corrections like that really aren't BOLD at all, so there shouldn't be a problem with making the change and commenting in the edit summary that it's not an attempt to change the policy. If someone thinks it is inappropriate, they can revert and discuss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course they are not intentionally doing so, but the problem statement to which you responded was good-faith editors inadvertently changing intent or emphasis. Even with experienced editors it's easy for a change to be seen in different lights by different people. A change, revert, discuss cycle may still be the best approach in this scenario. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with bold edits to policy pages when someone is trying to update documentation as to what current practice is (as I'm sure isaacl is aware, I do this myself more than most, but I'm also typically fine being reverted). I think the issue here (that has thankfully been resolved for the time being) was that we have a relatively inexperienced editor who was going about making what they viewed as clarity changes across some of our most visible and significant policy pages. As Ivanvector points out, this is relatively normal for newish users, but they normally take the hint after the first one or two reverts that it might be better to tread lightly. Now that Boing!'s initial block and unblock seems to have calmed the immediate situation here, I'd be fine with E to the Pi times i voluntarily agreeing not to directly edit policy and guideline pages until they have more experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: Not to be antagonistic, but I just want to clarify: I am not at this moment agreeing to the clamp of "more experience"; I am simply ensuring (for both myself and the community) that I will avoid further contention by not editing until this discussion is completely resolved. I have a great interest in discussing this further, before falling into the restrictions of "I need to learn more about Wikipedia's community norms and come back later". E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if editors engage in productive discussion, then all is good. So I'm not certain if Beyond My Ken's suggestion is the way to go, at least for now. I appreciate it's kind of annoying when a whole slew of well-meaning but less-than-proficient writers try to copy edit a policy, triggering a lot of discussion. But with English Wikipedia's current decision-making tradition, it's tricky to try to limit this. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: I appreciate the irony. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Boing! said Zebedee: and @Everyone else: I would like to put this issue on hold for the moment. As part of that, I will only make talk page edits until this discussion is resolved. While thinking through some of the edits and rereading comments, I realized my interpretation was (and will presently continue to be) impaired by sleep deprivation. This realization is what compels me to voluntarily avoid editing the forward-facing space for the time being. I only request that I can edit the talk space because I'd like up to tie some loose threads that I left hanging.

    Amory's response partly opened my eyes to this when they said "most of the policy edits seem to be off just so". When I just now reviewed my recent edits and their reverts, it seems obvious to me that this sleep deprivation has affected my recent edits. This is not to excuse my sub-par editing: I take full responsibility for my edits to the encyclopedia, but I think the sample of the last few days is not representative of my overall competence in project-space editing. I request this community allow me the courtesy of coming back later with an open mind and an honest evaluation of my previous edits. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban discussion

    Per Ivanvector above, and the latest response, I'll just put the discussion here: E to the Pi times i (talk · contribs · count) is indefinitely topic banned from directly editing policy and guideline pages. They may appeal this topic ban at WP:AN after 3 months.

    • Support per my thoughts above: I think this is a good faith user, but I don't think they grasp how their edits are disruptive, and looking through their past contributions after Bbb23's comment, I'm not buying the sleep deprivation excuse. They were doing this same thing almost two weeks ago at the WP:SOCK page with their alt, and after Bbb23 reverted them, they restored their own edit which was also a minor tweak that had a policy impact. This was eventually undone again by another experienced user. While I get they are good faith, this is clearly either a competence or arrogance thing where they can't seem to understand that when they are being reverted by functionaries and admins on policy pages, they need to slow down. A topic ban that is appealable after 3 months does the trick and forces them to slow down, while allowing them to have discussions as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: I'm also support indef, largely per Bbb23, but also because of this response which is them basically saying they decided to violate their unblock conditions because they didn't think the original block was fair to begin with. That displays an attitude where they think they know better than everyone else on the encyclopedia, and as Bbb23 pointed out above, means that we're only delaying the inevitable at this point. They'd find a new area to be disruptive in, and likely would fight tooth and nail for every opinion they had even if the entire community was telling them it was wrong. No need to delay it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't do this now. I want to discuss this further, without you pulling your basket of edits which I do not currently have the capacity to individually address currently. I understood and acknowledged the disruption of my edits, and I will continue to acknowledge that. Regarding the other two bot edits, those reverts were a different matter entirely, and the reverts were made solely on the basis of the account that made them. The quality of those edits was strongly outweighed by the account that made them. Those edits are both currently standing, and one of them was supported by multiple community members. If that's your example of incompetence in policy editing, I find it a poorly chosen one. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before we whack 'im with the topic-ban sledgehammer let's try this: eiπ, you need to cool it for a few months (at least) with the WP:PG editing, and do more bread-and-butter article editing. That's where you learn how the project "really works" and why our PGs are the way they are. Can you just do that, please, and in the meantime if you see something you think really needs fixing on a PG, raise it on the talk page? EEng 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that would actually be my preferred option as well (and what I tried to propose above), but which to me seemed like they rejected. That was why I took Ivanvector's proposal and made it formal. The ideal here is that we don't have sanctions and we have what you are suggesting. If they don't agree to that, however, a TBAN does the same thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not outright reject that option; I simply indicated that it wasn't my current inclination.
    If however, there is an urgency or desire to mop this issue away and be done with it, I will obviously agree to the softer voluntary recommendation (with the intent to abide by it or otherwise face consequences). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why you think the community should postpone dealing with an issue when it's been brought to their attention, it reads to me like an attempt to improve your chances of not being sanctioned by putting some distance between the complaint and the action to correct the behavior. Anyway, I agree with EEng and TonyBallioni that a voluntary standdown from editing policy pages is a good idea, but if you change your mind and choose not to accept that, then I support the proposal for a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support voluntary withdrawal from editing the WP:PG area, but if that is not accepted then I support a community topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Update to Support topic ban but Oppose indef block at this point. We should be taking the minimum action needed to prevent the disruption of policy and guideline pages, and a topic ban should be sufficient for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - we've already had the "please slow down" discussion, the time for the user to voluntarily withdraw was when numerous very experienced editors suggested that they should. We're only here because they did not. I think we're all talking about the same thing anyway: when e proposes, "I will obviously agree to the softer voluntary recommendation (with the intent to abide by it or otherwise face consequences)", they are describing how a topic ban works anyway. I've no opinion on an appeal window, I find them distasteful and dysfunctional. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: oppose extended block. Violating unblock terms within hours of being unblocked is unwise, but the new, slightly longer block is the right way to address that. Escalating that to indef is very premature. But also, I'm opposed to accepting any voluntary restriction, as the user has shown unwillingness to comply with even simple restrictions (or else CIR-level incompetence). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @E to the Pi times i: Assuming those who support imposing a ban are willing, you could state you will accept a logged three month voluntary restriction on editing PaGs. The restriction will be formally recorded at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary by an administrator. If you violate the restriction it will be treated just as if you had violated a community imposed restriction. The upside for you though is that you avoid having the community force an editing ban on you and generate a bit of goodwill by recognizing that you are not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia to edit its policies and guidelines. It will avoid a drawn out thread here and prevent missteps which can sometimes lead to harsher sanctions.
      If you accept make a statement below to that effect. My suggestion is that once you do so you not comment further unless asked a direct question. My past observations here are that in this kind of situation the more an editor says beyond 'I see how I messed up. This is how I will assure the community I will not repeat the mistake', the more likely it is matters will snowball into a bad outcome.       Jbh Talk 12:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Strike. The snowball started with the re-block and this is not a convincing response which borders on IDHT 02:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      User:E to the Pi times i is currently blocked for 48 hours for breaching the terms of their unblock and so can not currently post here. I suggest keeping an eye on their talk page for any responses there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. I have watch listed their talk page. Being unable to keep one's word for even a few hours does not bode well. Jbh Talk 14:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban. Move appeal window out to six months. Violating unblock conditions shows an extreme lack of either care or attention. Tiderolls 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum. I would not oppose indefinite block. I was hoping that an explanation would be offered to assuage concerns. Explanations can be made in an unblock request as well. Tiderolls 18:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban - This editor was unblocked on the basis of they edit ANI only however they continued to edit everything else (hence their reblock)..... If they can screw up something so simple as Unblock terms then they'll screw this 6month tban up easy!, They don't need to edit policy and guideline pages when we have over 5 million articles here. –Davey2010Talk 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef block as per their response here (which is them replying to a post on their talkpage unrelated to their block and this discussion) - The fact they haven't addressed anything speaks volumes for me - You can't go around edit warring, breaking your unblock conditions and then not make any sort of comment on it ....... I don't expect an apology but I expect more than just silence, In short I feel this editor will end up being more of a timesink than of help - Everyone has a poor start here (myself very much included) but you adapt and change .... You don't just brush it under the carpet and say nothing. –Davey2010Talk 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block, and TBAN on return - This editor, according to their own admission, needs a break from the project, and can't be trusted to do anything at this time (I note their current 48-hour block). Indefinite is not infinite; even in a week or two an admin should be able to unblock. Some version of the TBAN should be imposed after an unblock, I'm not sure which. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sanctions. First choice: indefinite block. I don't trust the user, and I don't think they are an asset to the project. They have an oh-so-civil, slippery, passive-aggressive attitude - a sense of entitlement that is not conducive to collaborative, constructive editing. Second choice: indefinite topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block, or failing that, this topic ban. There is so much WP:IDHT going on here it boggles the mind, and I'm really unimpressed with the inability to follow unblock conditions for even a few hours. Courcelles (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block - Considering their behavior after the comment I posted above, I no longer trust this editor to keep a voluntary topic ban, and, in fact, no longer feel that a topic ban is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban at least, and I think indef block isn't a bad idea. Their latest comments indicate to me that they still either don't understand or don't care about the rules and customs of editing that got them into trouble in the first place. ansh666 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef tban on PaGs block w/ 6 month review. I think we have been experiencing 'sanction inflation' here at ANI. Particularly with respect to handing out indef blocks. I think it more likely than not that this editor will end up indefed since they can't stick to a simple unblock condition. At this point though I do not think an indef block is appropriate. They have only been editing heavily for two months, they seem to have a good faith desire to contribute, and from what has been reported here they have not done anything irredeemable. They should be given a chance to demonstrate they can learn from these errors. Jbh Talk 02:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: strike. see below 02:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      After this comment I do not think this editor is a fit for a collaborative project. Jbh Talk 02:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef ban and Support indef topic ban. Above, Ivanvector wrote It's a common pitfall for new-ish editors delving into project space for the first time to encounter our bewildering word salads of policies and guidelines, and in the spirit of WP:BOLD that's encouraged everywhere else they try to simplify based on their own understanding. But based on this and this, my impression is of someone who has parachuted in, decided that he knows how things work better than the editors here with years of experience, and is going to rework things in his own image. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indefinite topic ban. Works for me, Tony outlined it nicely. Edits seem at least made in good faith, but comments here have not done them any favors. To clarify a bit, I kind of expect this will end up as an indef block per Bbb23, but if they can actually stick to the program we'll be better off for it. Slippery is the right way to put it, disingenuous would be another; as I vaguely suggested above, something is just off. Still, blocking is easy if it comes to it, and there are plenty of eyes on P&G pages. Have we seen evidence of problems elsewhere? Extracting them from the problem pages would work if they stick to it. ~ Amory (u • t • c)
      @Amorymeltzer: it is unclear what you are supporting. The headlined proposal is a three month topic ban but the discussion has moved on to indef topic bans and/or an indef block. Since you cite Tony I assume you mean indef block but it is best not to assume such things. Would you please clarify the intent of your Support? Thank you. Jbh Talk 18:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      So done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban. I'm less sure about an indefinite block, although edit warring on a policy/guideline page and blatantly violating unblock conditions are very good grounds for a block of some kind (48 hours is a bit generous for the latter). I don't see any particular evidence here of disruptive behaviour outside policy and guideline pages and disputes arising from them. These aren't great places for many kinds of editor, especially new ones. This user has made about 1500 edits, almost all this year, and if they can be kept away from the area which is causing the trouble then we may well get a constructive contributor. I would definitely urge E to the Pi times i to stay away from policies and guidelines entirely (including the talk pages) and advise that any further disruptive behaviour is likely to result in a ban. Hut 8.5 19:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing on pages under DS:Eastern Europe

    The concerned pages being Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Jan Grabowski (historian)

    Repeatedly removing the protected template ([8][9]), despite warnings by multiple users on talk page ([10]), and despite the fact there is no valid reason one could want to remove it.
    Refusal to participate in talk page discussion (despite multiple reverts on the article in the last two days, last interventions on the talk page date to the 8th and 7th April and are either mostly unrelated to the edit warring, ([11]), or simple WP:PAs which do not seek to build consensus ([12])).
    Reinstating ([13]) material which has been superseeded by talk page consensus.
    Generally unfriendly/non-collaborative behaviour on talk page/in edit summaries, ex. (Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_3#Another_false_edit_summary, Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_2#You_can't_be_serious)
    Reinstating disputed material and going against talk page consensus, ([14])
    WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeating the same (inaccurate) statement multiple times (also, at multiple places), once, twice, thrice, even four times.
    Long-term edit warring on the first of the above mentioned pages, and the ensuing discussions on the talk page seem to be of a rather toxic kind.

    I am unsure if all three are aware of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, but this is clearly a case where there is an extended dispute and users do not seem inclined to participate in a calmer talk page discussion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors given ANI notice on talk page (as far as possible). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing the protected template was an accident which I meant to remedy but then got busy. I've put it back. As for the rest of this complaint, it's of the ye ol' "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" . The claims by the IP are false or spurious (false claims of consensus, false description of edits, etc.). And anyway, how does a brand new IP know about DS in this topic area or have all this knowledge about Wikipedia policies. WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, despite the above claim, the IP did not notify me and I just noticed this myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It also appears that this posting is mostly motivated by the IP being annoyed by the fact they can't jump in to edit war because the page has been semi'd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't have notified you because your talk page is protected. Stop the WP:PA. If you think I'm a sock, WP:SPI is the place to go (and then you'd need a stronger agreement than just "he agrees with somebody else") 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the IP contributor does have a significant edit history under that address. If they are a long-term editor, they should know that no editor is subject to more frivolous ANI/ANEW reports than Volunteer Marek. As Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is semi-protected and the editors cited in this report don't agree with each other, I think that allowing normal editing to proceed and/or referring this to WP:DRN is all that is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    17:04 - 5 hours = 12:04, which is noon, midnight would be 00:04. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: — 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - first edit, directly here, appears to be linked to other IPs which edited target pages. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:
      • The IP editor has identified as User:GizzyCatBella [18], and should be added to the list of warring users.
      • I support now, as I have before, placing some sort of restriction on the entire page. Personal sanctions may also be due in some cases.
      • I did not reinstate disputed material despite talk page consensus, and I've only restored material after exhaustive discussion [19][20][21][22][23]. I never deleted objectionable material that was well sourced [24][25], nor did I push my POV against the consensus [26][27]. I've assumed good faith and tried to stay civil for as long as possible despite frequent hostile behaviors by others [28][29][30][31]. Two users in particular - Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella have developed a penchant for reverting my edits; sometimes en masse, usually without discussion, and often regardless of what the sources actually say [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] (and they've done the same with others [43][44][45]). Their continuous disregard for sources and discussion meant that at some point I started adding quotes to every single source I thought they'll challenge (this section, for example, is extremely well sourced, but was quickly reverted along with several other changes [46]); and instead of asking them for clarifications on the talk page - which they'll ignore - I started asking directly in the article using tags [47][48][49][50] (which they then removed [51][52][53]). Finally, seeing as many of their changes were going unnoticed by the other editors - lost in the general "flux" of edits (~30/day) - I started reviewing their changes on the talk page, highlighting where they were pushing a POV or not following RS [54][55][56][57].
    I've done my best to discuss, persuade, source, consult other users and involve the general Wiki community, but seeing as there's no way to force a "warring" editor to concede or even discuss an issue, it's just as well this was referred here. Good luck to all of us! François Robere (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has self identified GizzyCatBella ‎(after someone bothered to ask on one of the IP's talk pages).Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit difficult to ask when it changes so often (as might be seen in the SPI) - François I believe did ask however (not via the changing IP TP - edit summaries or on article talk). Filing ANI [62] or AN/EW[63] shouldn't be done without identifying one's self. Nor should one reply at ANI - [64] " Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why." in response to a query on one's identity, without disclosing said identity.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to ask them (and get a response), now in all the tooing and throwing I might have missed where any other users asked them if they were GizzyCatBella. Perhaps you could provide the diff?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    François asked them to identify and got to talk - here. In any event - filing at AN/EW and AN/I, and then replying this way to a SPA tag - is not cool as a logged out IP (without at least saying who you are). Nor is making massive reversions to an article you were previously editing, or commenting on the talk page (without identifying one's self) on topic areas you previously discussed logged in.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? Also I am having trouble finding where not logging in forbids you from participating in certain activities.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is not on other editors to ask about sockpuppets - and connecting the dots on this edit warring IP was not so simple. As for policy posting to ANI and ANEW as a sock is a clear WP:BADSOCK "Editing project space" violation (and note that they were asked here - and did not disclose, rather responding how this is a dynamic IP). Editing the talk page of a page you have been engaged in would be a "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" violation as would be the 2 major revert a day (on 6 days of editing) on the mainspace page (previously edited via the account) in terms of "Circumventing policies" (all the more so given the edit warring report against Francois by the IP on the same page!), And of course WP:SCRUTINY. Note that the SPI report was not a secret - I place it here after the IP reported me as an IP to ANI. Francois placed it at the edit warring report by the IP - AN/EW diff with sockpuppet report - the IP chose to respond only after you told them it was in their best interests to do so and after stronger behavioral evidence was produced at the SPI.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? It isn't, but as IP editors don't have talk pages it had to suffice. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @François Robere: Unrelated to the whole dispute thing, but actually, what IPs don't have is user pages, they do have talk pages (otherwise, tell me what this page is). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's magic, and I'll deny ever being there. It wasn't me.
    (but also, if you've a dynamic IP that changes 1-2 times a day, then that's useless too) François Robere (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How to answer this without being sarcastic?Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, feel free. François Robere (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is an article that has provoked strong reactions and edit warring form a number of editors. I am not sure that sanctions against all the involved edds (and it should be all or none, as I am not sure any of them are any ore innocent of POV edit warring). Rather some form of editing restriction on the page (such as no edits to article space, unless agreement is reached on talk pages) applied to all editors.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fully protected Collaboration in German-occupied Poland for a week, and removed the disputed section. (I personally have no opinion regarding whether that section should remain in the article.) Use this time to come to a consensus on the scope of the article, and whether or not the disputed content should be included in it. In the future, when there is a dispute about newly-added content, discuss it and come to a consensus rather than edit warring. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to the evaluating administrator from Poeticbent. The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland as it stands, with one-week page protection, is an absolute horror of intentionally misrepresented facts, deleted references found inconvenient by the POV pushers, and preposterous accusations in a campaign of Holocaust-related hate mongering, lies, and slander. — François Robere (who made 139 edits to this page) and Icewhiz are a WP:TAG TEAM coordinating their actions in several pages in the area of WP:ARBEE case final binding. Their edits are made usually minutes apart from each other especially in relation to World War II collaboration recently. The problem with WP:ARBEE is that it has not been updated for years, and nobody gives a flying finger for what it says. Considering the sheer volume of edit warring, POV pushing, and bad faith, it would probably take several days to prepare a new case, with a new list of participants, going well beyond the limited scope of this one report. Nothing is going to get resolved otherwise. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Poetic, your comments aren't exactly savoury either [65]. Second, your suggestion of "tag teaming" is idiotic. Third, GizzyCatBella made 160 edits and Nihil novi 152, and you don't seem to hold a grudge them. Fourth, if you want to argue "NPOV" you'd better have the sources to show it. Fifth, if you want to argue about "Jan Grabowski's accolades", I'd start not with some Polish ambassador or another, but with this list of "who's who" in WWII, Holocaust and Jewish studies. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Poeticbent Of course it's the WP:WRONGVERSION. I personally also think there is content which should be removed too. The only way to get to it is to get on the talk page and let cool heads (and reliable sources) prevail. However, so far this has been frustrated because of a revert cycle on the article and because of everybody being rather uncompromising (if not outright hostile) on the talk page.
    Strongly support proposal by Slatersteven, I would also (either alternatively or additionally) propose 1RR 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest setting the article back to its Creation, and forbid any editing there without consensus. Only when (and if) consensus is achieved can an edit be made.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, protecting the article is one thing, but then making edits through protection User:Scottywong? Even if you're correct in your edit summary (and I don't think you are), that's a straight up abuse of administrative tools.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    wp:brd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate. Poeticbent talk 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with an administrator putting a page under full protection then reverting to their own preferred version (and this isn't a "vandalism" issue, but rather a content dispute)? User:Scottywong please explain your actions here. Or self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Process Edit, Get Reverted, Discus. What happened Edit, Get Reverted, Revert back Get Reverted, Discus, Revert back. What the admin did was to set the page back to where it would have been if proper procedure had been followed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a question of BRD. This is a question of an administrator - @Scottywong:, I'm pinging you for the THIRD TIME, please respond - abusing his administrative tools by fully protecting the page then making edits to restore his preferred version through protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (and no, he didn't "set page back to where it would have been". In case, that wasn't his call to make, once he protected the page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly, I suggest you go and read the protection policy, in particular the part starting at WP:PREFER. Admins have discretion to protect a version other than the current one, because the current version contains policy-violating content or because protecting the most recent version "rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision." GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you go lecturing others about policy and instructing them to read it, you might want to actually read it yourself. Here's what it says:
    "administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people." - this wasn't vandalism, defamation, or poor quality coverage of BLP. It was a straight up content dispute.
    Then it says "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". User:Scottwong, who still hasn't bothered to reply, made edits which were controversial AFTER he used his admin tools to protect the page. That's a pretty clear cut abuse of admin tools. Admins have no right to get WP:INVOLVED in content disputes AND to simultaneously use their admin tools to enforce their own preferred version. This has been standard practice on Wikipedia for years, if not decades. Seeing as how you've consistently displayed a staggeringly profound ignorance of Wikipedia policy in the past (as evidenced by the fact that every time you make a comment at WP:AE, no other admins agree with you), your position here is unsurprising.
    Finally, the way you phrase your comment - "Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly" - is obnoxious and disingenuous. I'm not screaming anything and it's shitty of you to try to portray my comment in that way. I am simply pointing out, as is my right, and correctly, that the admin in question abused his tools. Which he did. So unless you think that ANY criticism of admins is always "screaming" then you need to quiet down and keep your mouth closed. Last thing we need is one incompetent admin protecting another incompetent admin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to tone down the personal attacks? I quoted the piece of the policy between those two quotes that you conveniently skipped over - how about interacting with it instead of just ignoring the policy that doesn't suit you? GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How about you don't describe my comments as "screaming"? And you're the one who actually "skipped over" the relevant parts of the policy and cherry picked the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify an admin making controversial content edits through full page protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment. But you know, cheery pick the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify... what exactly? Are comments on content personal attacks now? Not last I checked. GoldenRing (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment." - oh yes, that makes all the difference and makes your incivility ok. Riiggght.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the pot calls the kettle black. If you want to be able to cry incivility, you need to tone down your response to disagreement. At any rate, since it's now been explained to you repeatedly that policy allows what Scotty did, perhaps you might withdraw some of the above personal attacks? Both on him and me. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Already mentioned above, WP:WRONGVERSION is clearly what has happened here... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    No, "wrong version" would've been if Scottywong had protected a... well, wrong version. This is different. He protected the page then went back and made controversial edits himself. It would've been one thing if he had protected a particular version which I don't happen to agree with. But here he is taking sides in a content dispute which means he's not WP:UNINVOLVED and as such has no business using his admin tools (which includes protecting the page).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am beginning to think that topic bans may be the only solution to some of the battleground mentality here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break no. 1

    In regards to whether this diff by Scottwong to remove a contentious section is valid, consider that the section has, for sourcing: 1) a CN tag , 2) a Tripod.com user-generated content site as a reference, and 3) a site that is tagged as having failed verification this month. Add that it is clearly is controversial, and its removal by Scottwong as the protecting admin, as outlined in WP:PREFER, seems fully appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact is, whether the protecting admin acted correctly or not in regards to policy, arguing over it doesn't really solve the underlying issue about the dispute on those pages (which are a problem of WP:BATTLEGROUND and won't go away even if all currently involved editors were blocked and never came back - they'd simply be replaced by new people arguing over it). I doubt the issue can be decisively resolved, but if people stop arguing about each other that would help. That of course is a lot to ask of some people so we should go ahead with the WP:1RR (which would help enforce the usual "if somebody disagrees and reverts your removal/addition, discuss immediately") and stricter consensus requirements. The solution could be the same as on other "heavily politicized" topics, for example the American Politics AE:
    Extended content
    What do you think of this proposal? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1RR would do the article good. The "consensus required" bit, would take it no where - just allow stonewalling.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And now in real time (from this). François Robere (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Identical twins? Or a bad joke at everyone's expense?

    • Icewhiz, I'm trying to wrap my head around the grammar of "in a shocking feat BLP/NPOV/OR uses fringey coverage (a right wing internet portal) of a Polish diplomat's Faebook post to assert a historian math was "wrong"" and its incorporation into that sentence. Nor am I sure about what you seem to describe as fringey coverage by a portal of a Facebook post there--is it this? What you can fault is the lack of proper ascription: "The problem with Grabowski's arithmetic is that Polonsky was misquoted to begin with..." should be properly ascribed and contextualized, of course: we can't have this stuff in Wikipedia's voice. But this thing, it seems to me, is symptomatic of the discussion--not enough specifics, plenty of accusations. Surely this matter can be discussed on the talk page, and the status of wpolityce.pl assessed at WP:RSN, instead of becoming ammo here at ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Sorry for the bad grammar. I want to note I did not bring this to ANI (and I was actually reported here for objecting to this content - by the IP in the thread above). I did take this to the talk page and RSN (in both ONUS was not met for inclusion of this), though in retrospect it should have gone to NPOVn or BLPn. I should have said that using an internet portal's coverage of a facebook post by a diplomat is not appropriate per RS/BLP policy to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that a historian's math is wrong. It is also probably UNDUE even if it were attributed, and there are OR issues as well in some bits not sourced to the diplomat's Facebook post. I find it shocking this content would be used for a WWII history article (in which sources of better quality are not lacking).Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So, wait, do I have this straight? One side is saying that Icewhiz and François Robere are a tag team/meatpuppets/sockpuppets, and the other side is saying the Volunteer Marek, MyMoloboaccount, Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella are a tag team/meatpuppets/sockpuppets? Is it not possible that there are simply two main opposing stances, and that all of these editors simply share those stances with the others in their supposed team? If these editors cannot come to some agreements, and aoluntarily stop their BATTLEGROUND behavior, perhaps they should all be topic banned from the problematic articles, for, say, six months, allowing other editors, with perhaps less vested positions, to work on them? And perhaps impose 1RR as well, so that the new editors don't fall into the same patterns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    Usually in these situations it actually comes down to one editor who's going around causing most of the trouble and pulling others in with them. Such a person has the unfortunate effect of radicalizing those who normally would be amenable to compromise and reasoned discourse. On both sides. Such an editor usually takes a radical, uncompromising stance and does so in the way which really antagonizes the opposite side, in what is essentially a form of ethnic trolling ("let me come into an article about your country and shit all over it, oh, you don't like it, why, you are obviously A NATTIONALISSSSTTTT!!!!"). And they're also usually good at making those on their site less reasonable - particularly those who are quite impressionable.
    In this case that editor is Icewhiz. And this isn't the only topic area where they've been up to this kind of stuff (the other area is Israeli-Palestinian topic, where it's my understanding they've been a similar pain in the ass, and where they have also managed to poison the atmosphere and reopen past arguments, just as the topic area was quieting down). The editor who could be reasonable but got pulled in and radicalized by Icewhiz is Francois Robere. They've made some comments which indicate that they may be capable of compromise but their actual edits to the article itself are simply provocative and tendentious and it appears that this is because they've started following Icewhiz's lead (I'm not saying they're in touch off-wiki, this kind of thing could happen organically). And the editor on the other side who's stance became hardened in response to the action of these two is GrizzlyBella or whatever her name is. You remove Icewhiz from this topic area, I promise it will quiet down and rest of the editors will find a way to work together.
    One example of how Icewhiz has managed to spread bad faith all around, is his repeated calls to out right ban sources on the basis of their ethnicity (no Polish sources allowed on articles that have to do with Polish history!!!!!) Or they're broad comments about Poland and Poles which employ stereotypes or sweeping generalizations. This is a guy who should've been topic banned form this topic months ago - and I said it back then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    VM has been reverting well sourced information, avoiding TP discussion (and edit warring against consensus), and introduced/supported some really poorly sourced information both about BLPs and contentious subjects - for instance calling out an admin User:Scottywong above (after edit warring about this in the article) who removed information on responsibility for a mass massacre after protecting the article that was sourcedto a Tripod blog post (edit warred in by VM a few times, including the latest - here). Insisting in high quality academic sources without bias issues (e.g. opposing Facebook posts, blog posts, sources with documented censorship issues, supporting balanced use of multiple viewpoints (not attempting to exclude Polish sources - but to balance them with non-Polish sources when other viewpoints are present in them on a contentious subject), or objection to the use of sources that were called out by the SPLC/HopeNotHate/others (and covered in RS) for their various activities and that have been involved in far right politics) is not trolling. VM's stmt above of "let me come into an article about your country and shit all over it" demonstrates a clear ownership (is Poland "his"?) and bias problem (how is reflecting mainline Holocaust scholarship, sourced to high quality sources, in relevant articles - "shit"?) - that in this case has manifested itself in edit warring (much more than any I might be said to be involved in), OR, NPOV, and BLP issues e.g. here (against TP and RSN discussions - which were participated more widely than he states). VM's stance in general has been to object to material well accepted by mainstream Holocaust historians, relying on rather fringe sources while severely attacking well respected BLP historiansIcewhiz (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice fantasy land you live in there Icewhiz. Seriously, can you point to one topic area where you've been active that you have not immediately caused a ton of trouble? How many articles have had to be fully protected because of edit wars you started? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Very few actually - I do not edit-war as frequently (or at all) as some WP:KETTLE editor making this assertion (who seem to engage in blanket reverts across multiple topic areas - flipping the article back to their preferred state 1-2 times a day - even on BLP questionable edits - or on sanctioned 1RR topics - e.g. White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) - [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] (some of which are justified - and probably are OK on 1RR with the IP exemption - but still rather edgy)) - I typically will open a RfC (or bow out) when in dispute. Frankly - in ARBPIA things are much more collaborative - revert cycles are limited to a day or two (and that under 1RR) - prior to things getting hammered out on the talk page or via constructive (e.g. editing the addition or adding coutner-balancing information). 1RR would do this particular topic area good.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. In this case, both sides seem to be rather uncompromising, and trying to shift the blame on others is simply an attention to shift it away from oneself. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Icewhiz and François Robere are not sockpuppets of each other. Regarding meatpuppetry, I'll note that Icewhiz and François actually only intersect on this one very narrow topic area, and both have otherwise long and non-intersecting histories on the site, so that also seems unlikely. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Even on that very narrow topic area - our intersection is narrow. Francois hasn't been involved in other articles (he's been doing quite a bit of in-depth editing to the collaboration article (starting with the Poland section in Collaboration with the Axis Powers and then the created Collaboration in German-occupied Poland) - but hasn't edited all that much outside of that article (he did comment on the talk on Blue Police). I conversely - haven't edited the collaboration article all that much (IIRC I got into it in a RfC on the Axis article (on the British section) - and then participated a bit on the talk, as well as adding specific tidbits that I had knowledge of from other articles - but my editing on the article itself has actually been limited to approx. 2 paragraphs)). Francois wasn't involved at all in Jan Grabowski (historian) (which I edited/expanded very heavily) or in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) (a rather ugly article and ugly AfD - which was close in terms of headcount, though far from close in terms of policy (notability, as well as serious RS/NPOV issues)) - calling two editors who intersect on essentially one article (parent and off-shoot) and even there a not so large intersection.... a tag team / meatpuppets ?! This seems to be solely based on WP:IDONTLIKE of well-sourced content.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually if we look at how all this came about, then we just need to follow your edits temporally - you start at one article, cause trouble, edit war, it ends up being fully protected. You then move on to another article on a related topic and do exactly the same thing, until that article gets fully protected. You then move on to a third article and do the same. By the time that one gets fully protected, the full protection on the first one has expired, so you go back and restart your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the first one. Rinse, repeat, etc. etc. etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    VM if Icewhiz truly does show a pattern of tendentious editing, diffs are required to verify that. I don't see much of a point for both sides to fling accusations at each other without at least backing them up with evidence. Icewhiz has kinda done so, but I do not believe his three diffs paint the whole picture just yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Grace, you're right, and the diffs can certainly be provided, but assembling the diffs requires some time since it means digging through several different article's histories and finding the right ones. This is especially time consuming when someone reverts and comments as much as Icewhiz. So give me a bit of time and I'll be happy to provide them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The "whole picture" would show that Icewhiz is an editor with the patience, fortitude and knowledge to wade into contentious topics. He regularly clashes with TheGracefulSlick on terrorism- crime- and Palestine- related subjects, notably at AfD. Slick and he see the world differently (full disclosure: I generally agree with Icewhiz on the notability these topics, and in our attitude towards revisionist history.) This particular clash has to do with a a strong wave of publication of ultra-nationalist and Holocaust minimizing literature in Poland, featuring POV journalism, Historical revisionism and pseudo-scholarship making assertions that Western historian overstate the Holocaust. And attempting to replace a complex period in the 1930s and 1940s (including bloody post-war strife) during which Poles were at once victimized by Nazis and Soviets and were themselves were mass murderers and oppressors of Jews, with a monochrome picture of heroic, honourable, but badly oppressed and murdered Poles. History is messy, but Icewhiz's work in this area (I have dipped my toe in once or twice, but lack Icewhiz's courage and tenacity, and tend to shy away from these revisionist Poland articles,) has been a visible effort to keep articles accurate and balanced. It does not appear to be an area in which Slick (who primarily edits on pop music) has has much interest or expertise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory if you took the time to read my comment, you would realize I was defending Icewhiz; he shouldn't be accused of things without diffs. If you took the time to read this thread overall, you would realize I am not involved in this "clash". If you took even a little more time, you would also realize I have contributed to other things besides music, especially in the past year. Perhaps you should think things through before trying to get in a cheap shot? You just look foolish when you fail to evaluate your surroundings.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if Francois and Icewhiz is the same individual, but I have to admit that this thought came to my mind a few times in the past. Both are operating in a very similar manner. Both tend to leave lengthy, often misleading commentaries followed by a list of references, green color quotation text, etc. Among other things, there are similarities in the methods of arguing, clear anti-Polish bias and always uncompromised position.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Qui s'excuse s'accuse" - would you oppose sockpuppetry investigation Icewhiz?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI IP, I am an SPI clerk. If you open that investigation I will close it immediately, absent some amazing evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say I will open the case Someguy1221; I just asked if they would oppose it. If I was mistrusted, I would ask for investigation myself to prove everyone wrong instead of writing lengthy essays. Simple as that. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That reads dangerously like "I am not sure, so can we have one just to prove they are not", and that is fishing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by fishing? That I'm suggesting it? No, I'm just telling what I would have done in such situation.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is this looks like you are saying that "if you are innocent you would ask for an investigation to clear your name, nudge nudge, wink wink". Thus it really does read like you do not have enough evidence to start an SPI, but want to imply it is needed in the hope someone else turns up evidence. No one has to (or should have to) prove their innocence, either you straight up accuse someone or accept there is no case and drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately it doesn't really matter what the IP would have done. Per Wikipedia:CheckUser, checkusers are not allowed to perform 'innocence checks' on the English wikipedia. So such a request would be denied. (This also incidentally means that whatever the IP would have done, an experience user would not make such a request since regardless of their personal experience and beliefs, they should know they are asking for something which is not allowed.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the point about VM's (et all) socking is to show just how ridiculous the Accusation is against Icewhiz and Frank is. The issue of tendentious editing is different, and I seem to recall having been here before over Icewhiz, but I am pretty sure VM has been brought up before the beak as well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what this comment is trying to say. If you're claiming that I'm sock puppeting, well, that's silly. If you're claiming that I accused anyone of socking that is also false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look!! Protection on article removed and Icewhiz goes for it right away ---> boom! [78] This is what VM was talking about in his comment (quote VM under). And this is happening as we speak! 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5B2:3206:743D:B94A (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually if we look at how all this came about, then we just need to follow your edits temporally - you start at one article, cause trouble, edit war, it ends up being fully protected. You then move on to another article on a related topic and do exactly the same thing, until that article gets fully protected. You then move on to a third article and do the same. By the time that one gets fully protected, the full protection on the first one has expired, so you go back and restart your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the first one. Rinse, repeat, etc. etc. etc
    Protection was actually removed on 9 April (the protection template lingered). The edits were done per consensus, pre-edit, at a 12 day discussion - Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)#Dariusz Stola's review - restoring content that was removed by mistake in this diff by @198.84.253.202: - TP - "But yes, sorry for the removal and of course it should go back in". The TP discussion was open for 12 days - and showed overall support for restoration of the content (all 4 reviews were removed by mistake by 198.84.253.202, and all of them by noted historians and/or in a respected journal) - if this demonstrates anything - it is VM coming in and blanket-reverting (with a mildly incivil edit summary) an edit done congruent with talk-page consensus - without bothering with participating in the talk page discussion during the protection (and commenting today on the TP only after he blanket reverted an edit done in accordance with the discussion).Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think that the editor interaction utility is of limited usefulness (e.g. comparison of me and Icewhiz [79]). 3+ editors is harder to shake off, but the fact is that in a BATTLEGROUND situation, when two editors are online simultaneously, you often get rapid back/forth debate. Throw in another few editors and suddenly you've got two (or more!) different camps that look like they're tag teaming, but actually haven't even met and live in different countries. Given the number of users, it's inevitable that some will interact in this manner across multiple pages - especially within the topics of interest to those editors. I'd ask that any accusations of sock/meating cease, or an SPI is opened in the case of convinving evidence. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Caution, I got into a SPI twice based on this level of evidence: 17 March, 28 Jan. ;-).Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moylesy98

    It is with a heavy heart that I have to bring the actions of an editor to ANI. Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor that works on British railway related articles. The problem is, he often adds material that is unreferenced. Often in an effort to add up-to-date information to articles. After several complaints/warnings, I blocked Moylesy98 for three days earlier this month. The block was appealed and upheld as valid. I had hoped that having served the block, he would at last get that information added to Wikipedia articles needs to be backed up with a source. However, Moylesy98 has just carried on as before. The latest example being this unreferenced addition to a Featured Article, which I reverted.

    I really don't want to lose an otherwise productive editor from the project, but something needs to be done. Therefore I propose a formal restriction on Moylsey98, similar to a TBAN:-

    "Moylsey98 is prohibited from adding any new material to any Wikipedia article/list that is not backed up by a reliable source".

    Editing against the restriction to result in escalating blocks. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Moylsey 98 has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a formal restriction of this sort is a complete waste of time. It would be nice if @Moylesy98: can comment here as to their editing patterns; if they don't, this may call for an indef block. I have little patience for contributors on train-related articles who are unwilling to list their sources even after multiple direct exhortations to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Power~enwiki Everyone is already prohibited from adding any new material to any Wikipedia article/list that is not backed up by a reliable source; if what is meant is that the subject should be explicitly required to provide inline citations with all their edits ... well, that might be good, but the restriction would need to say that. Otherwise, it could easily just mean providing an author's name and year in an edit summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hijiri88:, that is what is meant, an explicit requirement to provide a reference to a reliable source with every edit that add to an article or list. I have a few reasons in mind as to why Moylsey98 is not doing so, but I want to keep them to myself for the moment. Let's see what the editor in question has to say for himself. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if that's the case then I'm neutral on the proposal, but I do think it would need to be reworded to make that clear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a reference has been provided in a recent edit by Moylesy: [80]. I'm not at all qualified to comment on the obvious follow-up question of whether these references are to reliable data sources, or unverified user-generated content. Regarding the communication issue: Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) appears to have never edited a page in the Wikipedia: or Talk: namespaces, though they've occasionally interacted on User talk: pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - at face value, we're already in escalating block territory, so the unusual additional step of imposing a non-negotiable editing restriction seems pretty lenient, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the view that it may be a waste of time. That being said, the fact that you come here "with a heavy heart" to propose something that I view as being lenient tells me that you feel this editor is a net positive to the project and deserves to have the additional rope extended. I'm willing to trust your judgment in that regard. Swarm ♠ 02:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The long-standing principle of WP:V is that content needs to be verifiable but that inline citations are only required for direct quotes and material which is controversial and so may be challenged. So, because citations are only required in specific cases, we have lots of content which is not cited in detail and it's easy to find this at FA level too. For example, see the current FA which contains lots of detail which is not cited inline and this even includes a direct quote – "were many pathetic scenes". The edit in question seems quite verifiable as the history of these locomotives is extremely well-documented. As the facts in this case are just minutiae which are only of interest to railway fanatics, there doesn't seem to be any significant controversy. Perfectionism is explicitly contrary to policy and so there is no policy-based reason to sanction Moylsey98. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent vandalism by user Orczar

    Hi, the above user (a former Pole) tries permanently to falsify Polish history according the new Polish law to protect and defend the good name of Poland. This is the affected page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland Can someone stop this vandalism? The members of the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) were despite of their name NOT soldiers but simple partisans. In most of their actions they did violate the Geneve conventions eg. did murder not only unarmed and peaceful German settlers what caused in revange often dead Poles, but also Poles in German duties or German soldiers on streets. In all those cases they did not wear Polish uniform but did were camouflaged as civilists. And of course they didn´t wear a official sign visible already at distance so that one can recognise that they were enemies. And neither did they carry their weapons openly. They also didn´t wear rank insignia, even not their commanders as proofen in many photos. Instead they did wear GERMAN uniforms and weapons! All those violations are making them unlawful combatants, in simple words partisans. Please stop this user and his vandalism! Thanks in advance. Sorry when this is the wrong place for my request but I´m only a newbie here. Austrianbird (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tough verty often unlawful combatants as they didn´t wore uniforms is borderline incoherent. I've reverted your addition, and advise you to not edit-war. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be noted that Austrianbird seems to make a habit of adding original research to Wikipedia articles: see [81][82][83][84][85] and so on. 86.150.123.30 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and the edits they're currently edit warring over are the definition of Original Research. Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    and on top of that Austrianbird is wrong, the Home Army soldiers were eventually recognized as military combatants by the Germans.[86] 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ROFL Polish partisans from the AK were not recognies as soldiers by the German Army or any other German force/ institution. That´s why they ended in concentration camps usually! BTW, "2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." [1] Poles are working hard on the falsification of their history, one should read the books of Jan Gross and Barbara Engelking!Austrianbird (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Austrianbird: Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia which is set out in WP:VANDAL. Calling edits which do not meet that definition, as you have been doing repeatedly, is a personal attack. Please stop. Continuing to call edits vandalism when they are not will likely result in you being blocked.
      Please read or re-read Wikipedia's content guidelines including WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. It is best to express your disagreements in terms of compliance with, or lack thereof with these. Remember, edits may not be called vandalism simply because they do not, or you feel they do not, meet these guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh Talk 13:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jbhunley
    Thanks for your explanation. Distorting history is a crime in my country, not only a violation of a wikipedia rule. So please stop this former Pole to falsify history for the benefit of Poland´s "good" name. You know, there´s only one country in whole Europe were Jews got murdered in pogroms by their countrymen long before, during, and even after WWII? The country´s name is POLAND! Austrianbird (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand your frustration, however Wikipedia does not base its content or editing policies on the laws of your country — they are quite irrelevant here. If you think something is incorrect discuss it on the article talk page. Bring the opinions and observations of reliable sources not your own because the only thing that matters is what those sources have to say on the matter.
    Please pay particular attention to the requirement to write in articles from a neutral point of view and the policy against original research. For instance your entire argument above about the violations of the Geneva Conventions are, in the context of Wikipedia, meaningless unless addressed in reliable sources. Even if some sources discuss the matter it may not figure prominently in the article, if at all. The prominence of given opinion is an article is directly related to the prominence of that opinion in reliable sources. Understand that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If you are not able to restrain your feelings you should reconsider editing it this area.
    (I have fixed the indentation. Please take a look at this brief tutorial on editing talk pages which describes how to properly indent and thread a talk page conversation.) Jbh Talk 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

    User:Ashbourne1

    User Ashbourne1 has consistently been vandalizing articles on Wikipedia or introducing false narratives in topics related to Turkish or Turkic peoples (such Azerbaijanis). User is introducing ethnic bias and prejudice in his edits, quite a few clearly being vandalizing trollish behavior as well which disrupts the overall environment at Wikipedia.

    He's vandalized and reverted the names of the city of Istanbul to Constantinople on a couple articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Muhtar_Pasha&diff=836051630&oldid=822783307 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Bogoridi&diff=833160867&oldid=802446359 when Constantinople was changed to Istanbul in 1453...

    He removed a forward link involving Turkic rulers for this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuman_bay_II&diff=836055080&oldid=813045789

    Removed Robert Hossein's Azerbaijani heritage from this article (calling it a ploy from Azerbaijani nationalists, which is clearly false) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Hossein&diff=831519237&oldid=831248849

    Removed the ethnic heritage of the Iranian Schindler, who was an ethnic Azerbaijani - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdol_Hossein_Sardari&diff=836220590&oldid=832381432

    Removed Category:Israeli emigrants to the United States for this Azerbaijani-Jewish author (from Israel) here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zecharia_Sitchin&diff=828915449&oldid=827085356

    Vandalized the name of Israel, and changed it to Palestine here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margot_Frank&diff=830969470&oldid=830770524

    Added Westboro Baptist Church in this article before quickly reverted for false positive - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faithful_Word_Baptist_Church&diff=835098672&oldid=833017156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNutt (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I question how malicious this user really is, because it's clear you're assuming bad faith and have your own agenda. You also did not notify the user that they have been reported here, which is required. Elassint Hi 02:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Elassint is certainly correct that you are required to report him. As to Elassint's argument that you have your own agenda .. that seems odd, because Elassint just criticized you as assuming bad faith for assuming the other editor had their own agenda?? All that said, a number of the edits you point to seem quite inappropriate, and well beyond facially good faith revisions - this does seem to deserve closer attention by some admins. 2604:2000:E016:A700:7943:2675:5B48:2161 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks user, and i'm hoping the community can keep a closer eye on this user. There is somewhat of a status quo maintained at wikipedia and I noticed this user has been editing articles by erasing mentions of individuals ancestries (for example): Erasing Robert Hossein's ancestral heritage and claiming that it is a ploy by "Azerbaijani nationalists," which is just utter nonsense, or the fact that he deleted the ancestry of the Iranian Schindler, who was also an ethnic Azerbaijani. He erased important information without conveying it on the talk page. While we seem to be seeing eye to eye, I think it is somewhat insulting when User:Elassint claims that i'm the one who may have "an agenda," when I'm questioning the motives of the other individual deleting significant information to mask certain portrayals of people that he doesn't like. There seems to be targeting toward topics relates to Israel and Turkic peoples (Azerbaijani people, history of Ottomans). Additionally, I wasn't aware that I'm to notify user. I'm not requesting disciplinary action, and I've repeated before elsewhere that I find this entire ordeal too court-like. I just want to make sure that individuals don't push political agendas on Wikipedia, considering some of the recent and existing drama there has been on the Russian wikipedia platform about political bias which extends to ethnic bias. I'll let user know that he was mentioned, thanks User talk:2604:2000:E016:A700:7943:2675:5B48:2161 . WikiNutt (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you mark major edits[89][90][91][92] as minor? D4iNa4 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd please remain on topic it'd be appreciated, User talk:D4iNa4|talk, much of what you reference back to are reverts I made from the user who unjustifiably deleted relevant information, see bottom bulletin on page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit#When_to_mark_as_minor_changes). Again asking you to remain on topic and to refocus on the edits stemming from user in question instead of trying to make this about me... WikiNutt (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Read when not to mark as minor changes on same page and you are marking your major edits as minor. Since you have made a report, your conduct will be judged as well. I am not really seeking any sanction on you, but only telling you that you need to improve your editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the use of "Constantinople" is correct until 1928. From the Istanbul article " the use of the name Constantinople remained common in English into the 20th century, Istanbul became common only after Turkey adopted the Latin alphabet in 1928 and urged other countries to use the city's Turkish name." Therefore any change of Istanbul to Constantinople when dealing with a date before 1928 is not vandalism, but good editing. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The city fell in 1453. While it was still called Konstantiniyye in certain contexts, it was also called Istanbul (which is also a Greek word for "in the city.") There is significant information available showing that the context of Istanbul and Konstantiniyye were synonymous, and that the Ottomans would use them interchangeably. There are plenty of other Wikipedia pages relating to Turkish history which continue to use "Istanbul," rather than "Constantinople." If this is the decision of Wikipedia, there should be changes in all of them. Though I found the changes to be correlated to possible bias which I why I made mention of them. WikiNutt (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the city should be referred to as Istanbul or Constantinople (in contexts of Turkish/Ottoman history between 1453 and 1930) is certainly a legitimate content disagreement, to be discussed on article talk pages or possibly in a central WikiProject or Naming Conventions venue. Both versions are clearly legitimate in principle, and as far as I can remember we never had a clearly spelled-out project-wide consensus guideline for or against either. (The crucial content argument here is not what the city was called at a given time, but what English-speaking scholars call it today, when speaking of that time, and as far as I know, nobody ever went to the trouble of demonstrating whether either of the two names clearly dominates in the contexts in question.) But anyway, that's not a discussion for ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term abuse from a customer from Rogers Communications Canada

    The ip user was banned for English variant vandal, removal of the Chinese word 有限 (limited) from Chinese limited company (mostly airline) and other behaviour as 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 (talk · contribs · 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 WHOIS). End up the range block is ineffective, as the ip was able to escape the block by using some ip that outside the block but still under the same ISP (2607:fea8::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ), such as this vandal 2607:FEA8:235F:FA28:F05A:9C30:9EE1:4CD5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in December and some other ip in October (2607:FEA8:235F:FE82:E1F7:8329:234C:374E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) Nevertheless the old ip were stale and the range block was expired.

    The now relevant vandal was those edit at least from the range 2607:fea8:235f:f5fe::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), which i am not a native English language user, so i can't list out all vandal, but here is the sample:

    Since 2607:fea8:235f:f5fe::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) cover the most recent month vandal, it seem it is the range that had the least collateral damage. Matthew_hk tc 07:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2607:fea8:235f:f5fe::/64 shouldn't have any collateral damage at all, so I've blocked it again, for three months this time. No prejudice to any other admin blocking the larger range, but I'm not bold enough for that. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Note: I meant to say I've blocked it, not that I've blocked it again; the previously blocked range was 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 (see the difference?). Perhaps that should be blocked as well — I'm not sure. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Based on a behavioral analysis, Special:Contributions/2607:fea8:235f:f000::/52 would probably be safe to block. Most of the edits are disruptive changes to dates/spelling. Maybe the narrower range block will resolve this, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Be BOLD, User:Bishonen. If you can block one "range", you can block them ALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One "range", is it? What's with the scare quotes? All right, I'm feeling bold. I've blocked all ranges, IPv4 as well as IPv6, for ever. For you, 68.234.100.169, you need to stop trolling noticeboards and user talkpages and vandalising articles. See warning on your page. Bishonen | talk 09:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Nakulanand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding an inappropriate link to List of Indian sweets and desserts, here, which I removed, but they readded it here. The link takes you to a business website designed and developed by one Nakul Anand. This user has also promoted their freelance website business at Talk:Web design here. They have also added an inappropriate link to a tutoring website offering exam preparation services for the Indian Administrative Service, here. Blackmane (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You've already warned them. If they persist, they should be blocked. You haven't notified them of this thread as you're required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I was editing late at night and that slipped my mind after I made this post. Will drop it now. Blackmane (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Congdungngonhanh

    What do I do about Congdungngonhanh making personal attacks on me [93] (Jannaalo (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    You could start by answering the questions raised by the user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're supposed to notify the other editor when you start a thread about them. I've done it for you this time. I'm not seeing any personal attack there. Suggest you discuss the issues raised, asking for outside opinion if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just answered the identical question from the user at the Teahouse (see here). Only on completing my reply did I spot they'd also raised it at ANI, too. I advised I could see no personal attack against them, just an element of mounting frustration from other editors for repeatedly not acting on requests not to make certain renaming edits and page moves, which I believe resulted in an article being given move protection. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Costastri

    This user does not follow the rules of the Encyclopedia. His edits are destructive. He removes a photograph from Gorge Zorbas's grave, claiming it is a fake, but without any evidence supporting his claim. I have provided sources confirmint the photo is authentic, but he refuses to discuss the issue on the article George Zorbas talk page. Although he was warned on his personal page to stop with these destructive edits, he attacked me on my personal talk page. Such behavior is unacceptable. Jingiby (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a newbie, so I'm gonna cut them some slack. I've left a gentle warning on their talk page, if this continues, feel free to re-report or let me know, and I'll issue a short block. Swarm ♠ 17:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It does raise the question, how do we know this is their grave? Have we any sources that support this? Canterbury Tail talk 20:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd guess that these [94][95] should probably be good enough for the moment; anything more should probably be discussed at the article talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jannaalo : vandalism report

    This user Jannaalo kept moving the page's title about 20 times everyday.Changed the page's name and claiming it is a wrong because he/she knows the artist birth name, but without any evidence supporting his claim. He/she wanted something negatively in purpose. Jannaalo is also deleted lots of the page's value information that other users added in (such as works, year, husband's name). Jannaalo changed artist's husband name to a wrong person, from Johnny to Roy Finch (described in the talk page of article Linh Nga). This user also very annoying, argued with others on the talk page, being disrespectful, then came here to report negatively about them. I think Jannaalo needed to be blocked from editing. [96] (brandonrolland88 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    It's been moved three times, not 20, but should still probably be move protected. I don't see any issue with the diff you gave. People are supposed to argue on talk pages. That's what they are for. All that being said, with all the citekill and references that don't lead to anything, coupled with the tone of the article and the WP:OWN attitude we are seeing in this and the other thread about Linh Nga above sure makes this look like UPE. Could an admin please move protect the article? John from Idegon (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brandonrolland88: You are required to notify Jannaalo when you start a thread about them at ANI. I've done so for you. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brandonrolland88: Can you provide specific diffs that you think justify a block? I don't see any serious policy violations in Jannaalo's edit history. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming wikipedia with deletion requests

    User:Sportsfan 1234 spams wikipedia with deletion requests, sometimes multiple articles per day, without taking a detailed look at the articles. Whereas some of the deletion requests actually have validity, lots of them do not. Many articles that the user nominates pass WP:GNG per multiple independent in-depth sources cited. User:Stephreef repeatedly contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 concerning the issue but never received any response. User:Sportsfan 1234 never engages into any discussions but continues his/her agenda.Stephreef (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Every article I have nominated that you have created fails WP:NBASKETBALL. It has also been pointed out to you that these articles fail GNG, contrary to what you are saying. You calling this spamming is a borderline attack on my editing here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a topic ban warranted? We don't need prolific creation of non-notable topics. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you are referring to @Legacypac. Topic ban for me? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion requests are "prolific creation of non-notable topics", User:Legacypac? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it "articles for deletion" considered a "topic"? And could an editor be "topic-banned" for "prolific creation of non-notable topics" IF listing and article for deletion creates a new "topic" every time that editor seeks "deletion of hundreds of pages" some days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to interject, but I wonder if Legacypac might not be referring to the 934 non-redirect pages created by Stephreef, many of them having to do with basketball? [97] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    :*Support topic ban from creating sport-related articles for Stephreef. I've reviewed a number of the articles they have created, and the majority fail various section of WP:NSPORTS (for example, many are on non-notable youth tournaments or non-notable players. As the user doesn't seem to grasp the issue, this may unfortunately be the best way forward. Mdann52 (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • On second thoughts, stuck the above vote - I'm happy there isn't a long term issue here - think I just got a bad batch the first time around.
    I don't think there is really an issue here with either party - I think closing as no action required may well be the kindest thing to do here - sportsfan is at times a prolific contributor at AfD, but by itself that isn't an issue IMO. I think the recent nominations are generally ok, so I don't see what good can come from this report if it is left open. Mdann52 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdann52 Contrary to what @Stephreef is saying, a majority, if not all of their articles lack either notability standards for the relevant project (WP:Basketball), (WP:GNG) or in most cases both. If this is not addressed (ie through a topic ban or a temporary ban from creating articles) the problem will only continue to get worse. Just out of random I opened another five articles created by Stephreef and all would fail both (WP:Basketball) and (WP:GNG). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Betty262728's continuous bad behavior

    This editor has been warned many times for removing material in a couple of articles for no reason. And now restored to blanking my profile page and replacing my talk page with cursing. Hotwiki (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealt with. Surprised it took this long. Canterbury Tail talk 11:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    New article mistake

    I just moved the new article Žito from my userspace. I accidentally moved it into userspace. I simply moved it into article space, thinking that it wouldn't be a problem, but apparently there is a user by that name (Žito (talk · contribs)) and their talk page is now at Talk:Žito. I need help to sort this out.--Auric talk 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. Dekimasuよ! 11:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but where did the original talkpage for the article go?--Auric talk 11:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NM, I found it.--Auric talk 11:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It had never left your userspace, because it was blocked by the other user's talk. I've reunited it with the article now. Dekimasuよ! 11:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing this.--Auric talk 11:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexey Topol

    I request a brief block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm leaving a stern message, not blocking yet. Not gonna cry if another admin does block, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I probably overreacted. I think a warning from someone other than me might do the trick. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, seeing this, this, this, and this I'm now very inclined to block under WP:NOTHERE, except that 95.5% of his edits are not NOTHERE. However, these are the only serious issues I can find in all of his edits (4/795=0.5%). An extremely heartless, vile, and inhuman 0.5%, but still 0.5% that he generally doesn't press hard on.
    Unfortunately, I'm not seeing prior notification regarding discretionary sanctions in Palestine-Israel articles and post-1932 American politics, which are what I'd consider the minimal solution. I've left the alert template on his page. I suspect, though, that more general topic ban from all articles relating to politics after 1932 (not just American politics) may be a better idea.
    Maybe his reaction to all this may warrant a block that solves this problem, though. It would be far from the first time that's happened. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhoffryn and record sales figures

    I'm afraid we've got another case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU with Dhoffryn (talk · contribs). They go around adding sales certifications to various albums and singles, sometimes using sources ([103] - although the claim is not in the source given), but often not [104], [105] As far as I can tell, they have never used an edit summary, nor have they ever made any edits to any talk namespace. Their own talk page has several warnings telling them not to use unreliable sources and to check formatting.

    At this point, some of you might say, "hey, stop being a big meanie and assume good faith!" - yes, I could fix all their edits to give the correct reference and cite an accurate source, explaining why, but such work simply does not scale to the quantity of edits there are making. So I'd like to see what other options are on the table for us. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had some experience with Dhoffryn. They frequently use bare URLs, and have ignored any requests not to use them. They have also infrequently cited random, unofficial Twitter accounts dedicated to detailing which new releases have been certified before the certifying body's database has updated (or for countries that do not have an online database, so there is no way of independently verifying it's true). About the only thing I've asked them to do that they've taken on board is to use the salesref parameter in Template:Certification Table Entry, and even then, I believe they later went back to using the reference directly next to the sales figure again. They don't appear to care to differentiate between what is a reliable source for certifications and what is not, and as Ritchie has pointed out, the sheer amount of these edits is a big leap to assume good faith over/fix for Dhoffryn individually every time when they should be getting it right themselves (as they appear to have exclusively dedicated themselves to updating acts' certifications).
    Having said that, however, I don't see any problems with the above edits—the edits to "Close to Me" and Are You Gonna Go My Way appear to be fine, as they are certification templates that generate a link that contains the data Dhoffryn is claiming is at them, and the bare URL they added to "Won't Get Fooled Again" is with the tricky BPI database where one has to search the act's name or release title to find the certification, as there is no way of citing it directly because the URL doesn't change (searching "Won't Get Fooled Again" at https://www.bpi.co.uk/brit-certified/ turns up a result for Silver from last month). Ss112 14:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the root of the problem - because I couldn't tell where the citation was, and had no confidence Dhoffryn was going to tell me based on experience others have had, I had no idea what to do with it. In ideal circumstances, the reference would include something like "select 'blah' in search box to retrieve relevant information" (which I have seen before) and I'd get it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I was solicited here... The first example cites a BPI page from where you can navigate with the search engine to find the album/single--since the website does not allow for concrete links to a specific search--and also to find the section at the "Award levels" link (for units sold information, which would verify what the certification signifies). The other two examples ("often not") add a templated column for the certification table, which renders a citation automatically from the parameters that are filled in. I have warned this editor a few months ago for using an unreliable source, and from a glance at their most recent edits, it appears they have made an effort to use a reliable source. I have not verified every single addition, but the above examples you mentioned appear constructive. I am not very familiar with formatting for the certification table entries, if they are making a mistake or not. But I don't believe this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU; there are only a few attempts at opening a dialogue with this user, those few are months old, and since then the editor has appeared to improve from the disruptive edits. Dan56 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2018 World Snooker Championship

    Massive edit warring is going on there. Some admin needs to decide how many IPs and users deserve block for violating 5RR or above. Rzvas (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Having had a look through the talk page, while some editors have tried to calm things down and get a consensus, mrloop, Thomas Kirk Larsen and the 46.211.0.0/16 IP hopper have all crossed the line into personal attacks. I'm keeping an eye on the talk page, and checking that the discussion doesn't degrade any further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng's user page again? There goes my afternoon... Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Thomas Kirk Larsen is signing his posts as "mrloop". User:mrloop isn't actually an account that seems involved (or that even has existed recently). DMacks (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BilCat

    Nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I noticed some content on BilCat's userpage which I perceived to be homophobic. A series of userboxes state that he is conservative, anti-abortion, and pro-death penalty, which to me is acceptable, given the right to freedom of expression, but I think he crossed the line with a box with an anti-gay marriage message. Sorry if I cause any hassle with this report, as I am new to Wikipedia and have left-wing political views. Levdizd (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd[reply]

    I've looked at User:BilCat's userboxes, and while there are some/many/all/few/none with which I might or might not agree, I see nothing there which violates Wikipedia policies or which requires administrator action. If you object to any specific userbox, you might want to consider nominating it for deletion at WP:MFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levdizd: this has been discussed several times - there, there, and there. There's no consensus to delete this, and please don't flare up the great userbox wars again! The userbox in question, as I see it, may not even be homophobic (whether a user can express a homophobic view in a userbox is questionable). A user using that userbox may view marriage as a religious institution, hence between one man and one woman. They may support equal rights for civil partnerships, and oppose civil marriages in all forms, not just homosexual forms (i.e. non-religious heterosexual couples should have civil partnerships, not marriage). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Levdizd: A user is allowed great latitude in what they may place on their user page. The user box you object to is on over 100 user pages [107] which tends to indicate that it is not considered improper by the editing community to express such an opinion. There are many editors from all over the world who have wide and varied opinions, some of which one is sure to object to.
    This is not really a matter for ANI. Also, please note the instructions in the big red notice at the top of the page. You must notify an editor you open a complaint about by placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on their talk page, which you still need to do. Thank you. Jbh Talk 19:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They did, I checked, it was removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ooppss … missed that. Jbh Talk 19:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong opinions are opinions -someone (2018) --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted the ANI notice on BilCat. Please note for next time, Levdizd. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    He did, but I removed it as read. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks Boing. The userbox is located at User:UBX/onemanonewoman, and is used by many Wikipedians. If it's deleted, that's up to the community. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the userbox is problematic. However I do object to insulting someone by calling them a "snowflake" (edit summary) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked closely at a snowflake? They're beautiful (he says, trying to defuse an unnecessary situation with a little levity). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the same spirit, I was thinking of giving BilCat yet another ANI notice...then he gets to keep the match ball ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 19:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, Galobtter, I should not have said that in a pique of anger, and immediately regretted having posted it. I'll try do think more carefully about my responses in the future. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Levdizd (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd[reply]

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

    User:TropeWatcher adding antisemitic triple parentheses to articles

    I am particularly concerned by this BLP edit adding triple parentheses to multiple names, and this edit to an FA, which has not yet been reverted. I notice he has edited the triple parenthesis article and is clearly aware of their meaning. Looks like a troll to me. TwoTwoHello (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been adding a lot of original research across a variety of US Civil War-related articles, which is also problematic, though not necessarily a subject for ANI. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been indef blocked by User:Bbb23. Elassint Hi 19:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Question. I concur what they're doing is disruptive and agree with the block, but for my own edification how is adding triple parentheses anti-semetic? Canterbury Tail talk 20:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail, simply read Triple parentheses and you will understand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Learn something new every day. Amazing the garbage some people will come up with in an attempt to undeservedly make themselves feel better, I don't get it. Thanks for the explanation. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mike dichen

    All the uploads from User:Mike dichen seems to be copyright violations. Please review user's contributions. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Some examples from today:
    and the list goes on. Nearly all of user's uploads appear to be copyvios. The files can be dealth with through CSD/FFD, but this is becoming disruptive. If the uploader can comment here (or at their talk page) and agree to stop with this, perhaps we can all go back to doing whatever we were doing before.Ajpolino (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What's going on?

    Apparently a sock puppet investigation is ongoing for my account. After I reported BilCat for his homophobic userbox, he contacted Home Lander to start an investigation. I read the article on sockpuppetry, and it has something to do with using multiple accounts. This is the only account I've ever had, so what's happening? Is BilCat just upset that I reported him? If it makes a difference, I just moved into a rented house about 2 weeks ago, and my landlord supplies the WiFi, so that might affect my IP. Can someone please help me? Levdizd (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    All of my edits are being reverted by Home Lander, with no explanation as to why. Levdizd (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd[reply]
    You know full well what's going on. And also, you failed to notify me of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Home Lander, I was in the process of notifying you when you posted this. Please explain why you are reverting my edits. They were all good faith and fully sourced. I thought you weren't supposed to "bite the newcomers"? Levdizd (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd[reply]

    For those watching, this user is clearly a sock of WikiVandal, and reversions of their edits are justified under Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. Home Lander (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the alleged 9th grader has been caught Calgary-Flames-red-handed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've applied the CU boomerang. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion of an article

    Please review whether the administrator of wikipedia who posted this "article for deletion" proposal acted within guidelines, when wikipedia's own policies suggest merging articles is preferential instead. I feel that this proposal for deletion of one of the articles on Wikipedia that does not criticise the Salvation Army does not raise my confidence in the ability of wikipedia admins to always act in a neutral way. Here's the proposed deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soldier%27s_Covenant?action=edit#Soldier%27s_Covenant The encounters I've had with wikipedia admins has certainly discouraged me from considering your organisation in a good light. Adrian816 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=836621696"