Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

Regarding continues disruptive edits by user:יניב הורון. Based on my recent observations, user repeatedly engages in WP:Edit warring on multiple pages in the past couple of months. Case in point: previously, the article Antisemitism in Ukraine got edit protection in end of March '18 (with me getting a warning from a neutral admin [diff]), however back then we didn't establish a clear WP:Consensus on the talk page regarding the issue at hand (renaming section titles, so they are not misleading/confusing). Now we do have such consensus (every editor that had enough interest, has participated in on the talk page, while user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all), which we have found through dialogue and discussion on the talk page diff. As mentioned above user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all and have begun unilaterally reverting the updates to article's section titles (which were agreed through consensus on the talk page). Given user יניב הורון history of initiating numerous edit:wars over the last two months, his latest edit diff seems like a case of malicious edit warring, where an editor reverts against general consensus and I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future, against general consensus. Piznajko (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you've been told this already, but that's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, I removed mentioning of vandalizing and changed it to continuous edit warring.--Piznajko (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see talk page consensus for Piznajko's suggestions - I do not see anyone else agreeing to the proposal. As for this report, it seems Minority Report (film)ish, being based on I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future. A prediction which seem to apply to Piznajko as well, as he is the one reverting/edit warring against Yaniv. While Piznajko's predictions on other users seem non-actionable, his self predictions should be. In short, unless Piznajko can present where on the talk page there is consensus for his suggestion, then a boomerang may be in order to prevent self predicted edit warring.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The following edit warring report on Mikhail Bulgakov might be illustrative of the self prediction's veracity. this talk page section (and a few above) might be illustrative regarding perception of consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not bad Icewhiz, I see you're applying the old-as-the-world-itself-playbook rule #1 of discredit the editor-of-interest by referencing an unrelated-discussion-that-did-not-involve-the-user-being-discussed-here, so that the discussion would be about disliked-editor rather than the actual the-subject-of-discussion-editor. Well, if you're playing it that way - that's fine too - it's obvious you're trying to steer the conversation away from user יניב הורון and do a switcheroo, where instead of יניב הורון it would be me would be me who'd neeed to defend his edits. Fine, I'll follow your bait: regarding, you referencing this talk page section the discussion on Mikhail Bulgakov as an illustration of "my perception of consensus" - I never claimed there was consensus on the talk page of that article; we had plently of discussion there, which led to no consensus and all additions proposed by me were removed. Regarding an an edit warring report against me on this same article on Mikhail Bulgakov - it was civilly settled since unlike the editor of interest (e.g., יניב הורון) I actually engage in discussion and try to explain my edits on a talk page to try and find consensus on edits/new content among editors. Lastly, garding your request to show proof of consensus found on the talk page - please read the discussion that I have referenced - it clearly shows consensus that the section titles should be renamed to avoid confusion - see last relevant-to-discussion-about-updating-titles comment by one of the editors engaged in the discusson on the TP - beyond that point discussion went into direction of content, which is beyong the scope of that disucssion (and yes, there was no consensus on the content of the article, but I never claimed there was any consensus on the content of the article, precisely because my proposed changes were specifically about updating section titles to avoid the confusion of the old section titles) ps. it's commendable that you're trying to help your countryman, but there's no need to resort to ill-hidden personal attacks on me in order to achieve that.--Piznajko (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in the page - I do not see support for your position. As for Bulgakov (a page I only got involved with due to the RfC) - I would not say the resolution was as amicable as you present - you were clearly acting against consensus (IIRC a 5 vs. 1 situation), repeatedly inserting content that other editors rejected. To your credit, you did drop the stick after the EW report. As for this report - you basically complaining based on your prediction of Yaniv's future editing (on a page where it seems there is no consensus either way.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're pretending unintentionally that you don't see that the consensus was reached on the talk page of Antisemitism in Ukraine on the specific issue of titles headers (which is unlikely given the sheer number of years you've been on Wikipedia and your experience) or you just doing it intentionally for obvious reason.--Piznajko (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User account only a few months old seems extremely familiar with how things work here.. No way newbies are familiar with obscure policies as seen in the wditsummaries.--Moxy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, to be fair, they made some pretty new mistakes with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as editing that and Jewish topics is one of their main areas of interest, it was likely quite the introduction to obscure Wikipedia behavioral policy. I had to block them for 500/30 violations, and NeilN's recent block of them is also for something in the AE area that lends more to inexperience than anything else. Having their TP on my watchlist because of the initial block, I've never really suspected socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

look at the early edit summaries not what we see from new people.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

With their first edit[1] they perfectly used a template. On their second day of editing they were aware of policies such as WP:ERA and WP:Sandwich. These while suspicious looking to some are not indications of socking unless they are similar to another user. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be suspicious, but do we have any solid evidence to assert with confidence that this user is a sock puppet as what's being implied in these responses here? We should either be filing an SPI if we have this evidence or we should remain focused on the issue at hand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, his edits at the very first days of his registration was odd to me, too. However, I'm not saying he's certainly a "sock puppet", since that needs "solid evidence" as Oshwah said. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like the underlying issue here is if יניב הורון is/was edit warring and if action should be taken against the user, or not. The last warning I've seen on the user's talk page for 3RR violations or edit warring was back on the 26th of March. I understand that the edits recently made were misinterpreted as vandalism and the incorrectly stated warnings left on the user's talk page have been modified since this was pointed out, but that's not fair on יניב הורון. To have such such warnings left incorrectly and then changed to state that these are now edit warring notices, and then given the expectation that this should suffice as a fair warning and action taken upon the user isn't the right way to properly address the problem. As far as I'm concerned, this user hasn't been given a proper and fair warning for edit warring or violation of 3RR recently (which should be provided first, and with a report or escalation to follow if the user continues the behavior despite being given the warning) and taking action upon יניב הורון is not justifiable at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the statement I made above was not meant to call Piznajko out, scold him in any way, or to make him feel bad over what happened at all. I want to state openly that mistakes are a normal part of learning, gaining experience, and becoming a better editor - they happen. Hell, I still make mistakes, and I've made more than my fair share of them over the years that I've been here. I don't hold the mistakes against him and I know that he'll walk away from this ANI with more experience and understanding because the mistakes happened. Just don't repeat them... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this editor, who is so blatantly edit-warring, gaming the system, and being down right disruptive being allowed to get away with this???? This is a case of WP:POINTY if I have ever saw one. This editor is clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant editwarring, with a battleground mindset. Examine these 'following' outrageous edits [2][3][4][5]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6. And before you try to pass of this as some wild coincidence (yeah right), look at these ADDITIONAL edits (again directed at this same editor he is clearly stalking) where he is threatening him withOUT evidence:[6]. In fact, between March 23rd and 24th of 2018, he makes 10+ such random disruptive edits and reverts aimed solely at this editor for no good reason. Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [7][8] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Sorry...but that is one too many coincidences. Maybe someone could do a checkuser on him (as it has been suggested) if the socking allegation enough makes sense. But it really isn't necessary because this is clearly WP:DUCK of an edit-warring troll and that's bad enough. I think what offends ME more is the behavior of admins lately looking the other way very selectively with certain editors like this who clearly came to wikipedia with an agenda. It almost gives credibility to this myth that wikipedia enables paid-political operatives. If admins are going to assign more of a priority to far less offensive behavior of new people when disruptive editors like this are being giving a pass, then why should we take any of these rules seriously?!? Do with this what you will, but this disruption will continue by this editor and has no sign of stopping because of a failure to take this ANI seriously by some. I'm on break at work, so sorry I have to rush this, but I think the allegations are plenty clear and action should be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:5083:E4E0:19DB:7AFF (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Please use or create your named permanent account (whatever it might be) and complain on appropriate noticeboards, such as WP:3RRNB or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC) WP:POINTY You are not an admin, and this type of tactic distracts from the merits. Sometimes people forget to login. Take such feedback to the user’s talk page if you must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:4C82:327:BEEB:E8F8 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The IP was blocked by checkuser--Shrike (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) It is not obvious why diffs above are "outrageous". One should know context. Besides, you accuse another contributor of sockpuppetry without evidence, but your own edit history can not be checked. Do not you think this is a little unfair? If there was a 3RR violation on their part, this should be reported to WP:3RRNB. If you think his editing in ARBPIA area was problematic, report it to WP:AE. But to do that you need a named account with editing history, so that anyone can check what you are doing in the project besides complaining about others. Does not is sound reasonable? My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest to topic ban Piznajko from subjects related to Jewish history.

1. Piznajko continued edit war on page Antisemitism in Ukraine even after receiving a warning about it from admin [9]. He was so upset that he even brought a complaint about another user from Israel (with whom he edit war) to this noticeboard. Why? This is hard to say, but one of the changes he edit war about was removal of anti-Jewish "pogroms" from two titles on the page ("Pogroms during the Russian Revolution of 1905" and "Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution") and from a legend to a picture ("Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire").
2. He now edit war on page Antisemitism in the Russian Empire: [10] [11], [12]. Why? Notice that he again edit war to remove information about pogroms from the lead of the page. Why? He could not explain [13].
3. He also contentiously argued with several contributors on talk page page of article Joseph Brodsky. Why? He makes this comment. So, according to him, "Based on [user G] talk page he is of both Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry, so given that we are talking about Brodsky who was of Russian and Jewish ancestry, I believe [user G] can be viewed as a neutral editor." What? Why it matters to Piznajko so much that the subject of the page was Jewish (Piznajko tried to include negative and undue information about him on the page [14]) and that the WP contributor was Jewish?

I do not think Piznajko should edit such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I don't see edit warring in either of those articles by Piznajko. I see WP:BRD and attempts to follow WP:RS.
2. Disagreement is not automatically "contentious." If I understand the comment, Piznajko's suggesting you solicit the opinion of an editor most likely to disagree with him. That's ideal behavior.

I can't tell whether your misinterpretation is unintentional or an attempt at WP:GAMING but either way it's concerning. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can be wrong. Maybe Piznajko is simply the case of WP:Not here. Here is their recent edit history. During a couple of months he follows a pretty bad pattern: coming to page X (there are five such pages already), edit warring and disputing against consensus with multiple contributors, and wasting time of other contributors without being able to actually improve these pages. But OK, let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

After seeing this [15], its clear that in fact it is User:Piznajko who is edit warring on that page, against multiple editors.Tritomex (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly does, but why? He simply stalks my edits because we had content disagreements on other pages. No one edited this page for a half of a year [16]. This page was in a poor condition. I looked at it and decided to improve [17]. In a matter of hours Piznajko reverted all my edits here. He never edited this page before. How do I know this is actually a wikistalking, rather than a good faith effort to improve the page? Because

1. Unlike all other contributors, he made absolutely no effort to improve anything on the page. He was only making blind reverts of edits by 4 contributors [18].
2. He was reverting to an obviously terrible version of the page (it had no lead and a section was based on a single source where each paragraph stared from "Yuri Tabak describes the history of antisemitism in Russia as having ...", "Tabak asserts, however...", "Tabak concedes that the ...", "However, Tabak also notes that ..." "Tabak asserts that...")
3. During discussion on article talk page he failed to explain why he wants to revert to such poor version. He only cried "BRD" or posted something that is not understandable.
4. He also followed my edits elsewhere to post a vote opposite to mine. He never edited this subject too. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Piznajko is admittedly a relatively inexperienced user. But his POV pushing and edit warring such as in Mikhail Bulgakov [19] are as unsettling as the revert warring to a clearly substandard version in Antisemitism in Russia. A short temporary ban from all Eastern European topics seems to be in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Eastern Europe (or Ukraine related? or at least Ukraine vs. other nationalities) is the problematic topic area. The disruption in Mikhail Bulgakov was on a non-Jewish topic (Bulgakov was (I think) not Jewish) - the issue there were the views of Bulgakov on Ukraine vs. Russia and how much weight to given to modern post-independence Ukrainian views on Bulgakov's views on the matter. As for experience - Piznajko has been edited enwiki since the beginning of 2016 (his 1464 edits are spread out over quite some time) - and he has over 30k edits on a different wiki project.Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you both that a short topic ban from EE subjects could be implemented (and Piznajko had received a notification about DS in this area), but this is something on discretion of admins, and I would rather not push it by making an AE report. Maybe just to close this whole thread about user יניב הורו? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Youssef1450

Youssef1450 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing[20][21][22][23][24] content from the Maghreb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article without so much as an edit summary, despite having been asked[25] to provide an explanation and finally warned[26] of the possible consequences. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the user edited once on April 19th and was last given a warning on April 14th. Is there a reason why this user wasn't warned for this edit made on the 19th of April? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It seemed futile since the user has ignored the other two warnings and is not communicating. I can certainly warn them again if that's what you meant, or let someone else (ideally an admin) do it. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: They have done the same thing again[27], less than 24 hours after their block[28] expired. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again. Indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Refusal to drop the stick

• BrightR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12 Monkeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BrightR (talk · contribs) has been arguing extensively on Talk:12 Monkeys about one specific issue – whether to include citations to a primary source in the article's plot section. It has gone on for a very long time now, and BrightR refuses to drop the stick. As far as I can tell, this drama began in July 2017 with Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". It restarted in Talk:12 Monkeys#Ambiguous ending in February 2018, and the arguing led to this RFC in March 2018. The RFC was closed in April 2018. As far as I can tell, the close was not challenged, and it endorsed the addition and removal of citations to primary sources in plot sections. Following that, BrightR has once again revived the argument. He has repeatedly accused people of "WP:OWNBEHAVIOR" if they disagree with him (diffs: April 2, April 3, April 5, April 10, etc). Tired of this never-ending argument and the accusations, I made an irritable request to BrightR that he drop it. He decided not to, and, in fact, chose to double-down on this with an accusation that Doniago is "willingly ignorant" of policy simply because Doniago disagrees with BrightR. The argument has continued well past the point at which anything new could be said, and I think sanctions are required to make BrightR drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're accusing me here of—calling DonIago "willingly ignorant"? He said I make requests (bordering on demands) that editors provide reasoning they are not required, which is willingly ignorant of WP:CONSENSUS—editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever; If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article (emphasis mine)—and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR—An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. Repeatedly claiming that the reason for the revert is because the edit is "not needed" is the problem here; and after the above has been brought to the attention of everybody in the discussion and DonIago in particular, he still [sees] no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriate. That's willing ignorance of WP:CONSENSUS. Bright☀ 07:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Aargh I actually agree with some of what BrightR has been saying on the substance, to a point: our plot summaries in general should include citations,[29] film plot summaries should not be based directly on the films themselves since deciding what to put in and what to leave out often amounts to OR, and local consensus on this or that film article doesn't overrule the NOR policy.

But adding a bunch of inline citations of the film itself doesn't actually address this problem, clutters things, and makes it look at first glance that the summary is cited to reliable secondary sources (and so is counterproductive). On top of this, I may not agree with WP:FILM (and WP:TV) on this, but I recognize that I'm in the minority, and have not tried to enforce my standards on articles despite facing opposition, which BrightR has unfortunately been doing.

This needs to stop.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to enforce anything; I'm requesting a reason for the revert in accordance to Wikipedia policy. If you think primary sources are inappropriate for plot sections, I encourage you to read through the discussion, or just the policy and guideline on the matter: WP:PRIMARY—A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. (emphasis mine)—and MOS:PLOT: using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. If editors revert an edit that makes such changes—which are supported by policy, guideline, and an explanation in the talk page—their revert cannot be supported with "not needed". Bright☀ 08:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can. See also the three reasons I gave above. Not to mention WP:BRD, a process with such broad acceptance in virtually all cases where the policy doesn't 100% support one version over another that it might as well be a policy in its own right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can [be supported with the reason "not needed"] No, policy says it can't. See also the three reasons I gave above Presumably you mean this: doesn't actually address this problem, clutters things, and makes it look at first glance that the summary is cited to reliable secondary sources: (1) the "problem" you raise (plot summaries based directly on the films themselves) is not a problem per Wikipedia policies and guidelines; (2) two references in two paragraphs are not "clutter", it is almost the minimal level of referencing; (3) references don't have "this is a primary source" or "this is a secondary/tertiary source" tags on them so unless you're proposing marking each reference as to what kind it is, this is far outside the scope of this issue. Not to mention WP:BRD BRD is being followed, and very unfortunately the majority are ignoring the most important part of BRD: WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the parts I quoted above (and that WP:BRD-NOT is quoting in bullet points 2 and 3), for your perusal. And since you're already hinting it with the comment about "100%", may I refer you to the original discussion. I never said plot summaries must contain references; I said that policy and guideline support putting primary references in plot summaries, so reverting this edit requires a reason other than "not needed" or "no consensus" per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:CONSENSUS. Bright☀ 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• So, is there any reason we cannot prune the plot down to what is verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources, as is the standard for all content on Wikipedia? Or is this one of those situations where we absolutely must reference the primary source because secondary sources don't consider the thing we want to say to be significant enough to mention? Guy (Help!) 10:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not the issue here. This was never the issue here. WP:UNDUE was never the issue. WP:RS was never the issue. The issue was having a helpful, good-faith edit reverted with the reason "not needed", and when I pointed out that reason is against policy (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) and that a valid reason needs to be provided, I was met repetitively with "not needed", "not necessary", "not a must", and so on. Now and again other issues were raised but they were immediately dropped, and the only reason that remained is "not needed". Bright☀ 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, much of editing is driven by commonsense opinion of editors; and in my opinion, "not needed" is quite a well-accepted commonsense reason, as well as "needed", especially when the article topic relates to plots and the likes. Having a policy/guideline base to include a statement does not mean the statement has to be included, and that someone cannot remove the statement boldly. Having said that, I feel that this issue (or broadly whatever I've understood here) is not something egregious for ANI. This seems to be a good-faith editorial banter that's gone a bit awry. I don't know how is ANI supposed to sort this out. L0URDES 11:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Having a policy/guideline base to include a statement does not mean the statement has to be included, and that someone cannot remove the statement boldly. Perfectly agree, and I never said it must be included. However if an edit has been disputed and a discussion has started, WP:CONSENSUS has to form using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense, not with reasons that are against policy and sources, even if the majority favors them. in my opinion, "not needed" is quite a well-accepted commonsense reason Then fix the policies that say it is not an acceptable reason. Or I can explain why "not needed" is a non-reason equivalent to "I don't like it". Bright☀ 11:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef TBAN from "film" OK, BrightR has officially worn me down after only two comments, and I agree with him. Hats off to those who don't but have somehow been able to put up with him for longer than that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Imagine having to "put up" with editors and administrators who imply you should be with banned or blocked because you're discussing a revert that's blatantly against Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 12:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Weird how often people have recently responded to comments I have made in a manner that explicitly claimed to be familiar with my editing history but also managed to get said history completely wrong. I was, in 2015, TBANned for my response to a couple of editors very explicitly violating several of our core content policies, despite virtually everyone who looked at the substance agreeing with me on said substance. You can be TBANned for uncivil, bludgeoning behaviour regardless of whether you are right on the content: WP:CIVIL is the most important policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment That should probably be TV & Film if they are disruptive across the entire subject area but from what I have seen a TBAN relating specifically to Plots may be more appropriate. This would be based on TE evidenced by refusing to drop the stick after months. Bludgeoning the RfC, including multiple attempts to close their own RfC. That same bludgeoning behavior is in evidence in this very thread.
  I would support either TBAN if someone can come up with either evidence of disruption/TE outside of plots or more narrow wording focusing on plots. Jbh ^Talk 13:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be cool with a "plots" TBAN instead. Honestly, it's not the content I have a problem with one way or the other (even if I disagreed with him 100%, which I don't, he would be only as bad as a dozen other long-term contributors against whom I've never proposed sanctions): it's the incivility in his responses to me and other users here. Any form of sanction, even just a short block, would hopefully force him to reconsider how he interacts with other editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Since this is AN/I you are obligated to provide diffs for instances I have been uncivil to you. Bright☀ 16:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you are just making up rules. And when everything you say is shouted at me in boldface it hardly seems necessary to provide "diffs" of your incivility, let alone the fact that you and I have never interacted anywhere beyond this ANI thread so it's here for everyone to see: I even said above that I was specifically referring to only [your first] two comments [directed at me] (your subsequent comments have been no better, of course, nor have your replies to other editors in this thread or in the linked talk page). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So I should be TBANed because I replied in bold? Should you be TBANed as well for replying to me in bold? Now you are just making up rules. WP:PERSONAL: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Any evidence would do, but diffs and links are standard. Bright☀ 16:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: including multiple attempts to close their own RfC You do realize you have to provide diffs for these multiple attempts? My closure was 100% in line with WP:RFCEND (5). DonIago then undid my closure citing article deletion closure procedure... Bright☀ 16:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: My apologies I have struck "multiple". I misremembered a close although I recall a discussion where you wanted to close it early and were told to let it run and not to close your own RfC. As I recall there were several editors involved. I thought it was at AN but I can not find the diffs. Do you recall that or am I mistakingly conflating some other incident with another editor?

Regardless, you closed your own RfC with a simple No consensus your close and were reverted [30]. The close by a neutral editor did find consensus, just not the consensus you wanted. Jbh ^Talk 17:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

not the consensus you wanted I don't see how you can make that assertion. I did not contest the close and I support the close summary. I suggest you be more careful with your accusations and any intentions you ascribe to others. Seems people keep attributing to me intentions I do not have and actions I have not performed. I agree 100% with the close, the only problem was DonIago undoing my close citing irrelevant reasons. Bright☀ 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Were you or were you not told closing your own RfC is improper? You have cited RFCEND, above, as defense of your involved close yet it reads "a formal closing summary of the discussion can be posted by any uninvolved editor."^{(emp mine)} The general guideline for NAC closes says "Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at Involved admins" which says "editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved". So, regardless of the particulars of your motivations — which, admittedly, I can only speculate on based upon your actions — you have let your passion for your particular viewpoint not only blind you to the disruption you are causing for other editors but you have shown willingness to ignore a basic tenet of dispute resolution and consensus building. It is past time to let this go. Since you can not seem to do so on your own this thread was opened by NinjaRobotPirate to make you drop it. I proposed the narrowest restrictions I could think to to accomplish this. If you would prefer I justify them more generally per BLUDGEON/IDHT/DROPTHESTICK as illustrated by behavior at Talk:12 Monkeys#Ambiguous ending, Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs" and this RfC. Including an INVOLVED closing their own RfC [31] compounded by an inability to recognize such a close is improper. (See this thread and comments here.) You may consider the reasoning for the below proposed sanctions to be so amended. Jbh ^Talk 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You are citing RFCEND (4) and you're leaving out the first part: The rfc tag can be removed and a formal closing summary of the discussion can be posted by any uninvolved editor. I did not remove the RfC tag and (4) does not apply. I cited RFCEND (5). A bot removed the RfC tag and there was no discussion for two weeks. At this point anyone can close the RfC. As you cite RFCEND partially in a misleading way, you also cite WP:NACINV as if it were a guideline; please see the top of the page where it says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The correct policy is WP:INVOLVED (that's the actual policy; not an essay about the policy). Any editor could have closed the discussion as such after the bot has removed the RfC tag and discussion has stopped. The close summary was not disputed; the reason given for undoing the closure was for deletion discussions, not RfCs. the disruption you are causing for other editors but you have shown willingness to ignore a basic tenet of dispute resolution and consensus building I do like the basic tenets of dispute resolution and consensus building! In particular, this one: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. I have opened a section, I have asked for reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. You know what reason I got? "Not needed", a reason explicitly stated to be invalid in Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 18:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning that somehow it is OK to make an INVOLVED close of your own RfC simply because the bot removed the RfC tag and not you is, at best, motivated reasoning. I do not believe that anyone involved in the discussion re your close thought your interpretation was correct.

I have stated my position and proposed what I believe to be a narrow and equitable solution to the problem. I will now step back from this back and forth with you to avoid clogging up the thread and allow other editors to comment. They will agree, disagree or propose some other solution(s) — They may even think you are correct in your reading of RFCEND and that the 'persistent' strategy you have used to press your view is just fine. I, obviously, do not think that will happen, but I recognize it might. — In any event I firmly believe it is time we let others express their views. Jbh ^Talk 19:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that anyone involved in the discussion re your close thought your interpretation was correct. My "interpretation" is "no consensus" which is largely in line with the close that followed. As for closing an RfC, you cite an essay and call it a guideline, I say "policy" and cite an actual policy. WP:INVOLVED is the only relevant policy, and there is nothing wrong with non-admin closure or an involved editor's closure as long as the closure is not controversial. The reason given for undoing the closure was about deletion discussions, so it's entirely irrelevant. If you actually have a reason why this closure was "bludgeoning" I'd like to hear it, because according to WP:RFC, after discussion has naturally ended, the RfC can be closed by anyone. Bright☀ 20:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: stop the current disruption you mean my editing of the article 12 Monkeys that was last done one month ago? Or the discussion about Wikipedia's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy and the bad revert, which has not strayed from the edit itself and the lack of adherence to policy? If you don't want to be part of the discussion you can simply not be part of it. On the other hand, I think that pointing out that two admins and many editors are attempting revert and consensus by WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is important enough to continue, even months after the initial dispute has been settled. There is no time limit on discussions. Wikipedia is suffering dearly from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which is driving away positive contributions (literally reverting them) and driving away contributors. When admins advocate no-reason reverts and no-reason consensus, there's a problem, and it's worth discussing, for the improvement of one article individually and for the prevention of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on Wikipedia in general. Trying to stop the discussion vicariously, by cutting off the user complaining about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from the discussion page, might be a form of WP:GAMING. Bright☀ 02:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I was involved with the 12 Monkeys issue, and I think others have done well to explain the problem here with BrightR. But I think this extends further, they want to wikilawyer and red tape everything. Just today, they got involved in a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility, using similar wikilawyer logic to demand a change of spelling between US/British spelling. This is not helpful at all, and while some of their other mainspace edits may be okay, this is becoming far too disruptive for the project. --Masem (t) 05:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is much broader than either or both of the proposed topic bans, it's a general behavior problem, which is both harder and easier to address. Harder, because if BrightR is a net positive, crafting a sanction that will allow them to continue to edit is difficult considering their behavioral issues, but easier because a simple site ban would accomplish it if they're a net negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

this is becoming far too disruptive for the project No articles are being disrupted, no user talk pages are being disrupted, nobody is making personal attacks. It is unclear, other than "BrightR is using talk pages to talk about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR reverts", how anything is being disrupted, other than editors disrupting themselves by participating in discussions by choice. Bright☀ 05:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruption is not limited to mainspace pages, disruptive talk page behavior, by engaging in WP:IDHT behavior over and over again, can be a reason to block/ban too. And the comment that led this section about calling an editor "willfully ignorant" is borderline personal attack. WP is collaborative, you're not acting in a collaborative manner. --Masem (t) 13:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

by engaging in WP:IDHT behavior WP:IDHT is phrased in such a way that more closely follows what you're doing: Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. For example TheOldJacobite sticking to his ersatz references claim after being shown that citations to primary sources are not ersatz. The fact that I repeat myself is not because I'm not hearing you; it's because editors join the discussion and raise the same arguments that have already been discussed. For example in the RfC barely anyone bothered to even read the question; the uninvolved closing summary acknowledged this. I try to steer the discussion to policy and the actual content not because I don't hear you, but because people veer off into all directions. I believe every single argument you've presented to me was answered: "the average viewer", secondary sources, synthetis, and (over and over) "not needed". I do hear you and I discuss with you. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Bright☀ 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, do not confuse "hearing" with understanding. You may literally have read the words on the page, but you also have -- extremely obviously -- not understood almost any of the things you're being told. Your reaction to criticism of your behavior is not "Hmmm, could I possibly be doing something wrong?" but, instead, "Let's see, how do I read the policies to show that I am right?". Then you repeat it ad nauseum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reasons I am explaining below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on discussions of proper citation for TV and Film plots.

• Support as proposer BrightR's disruption looks to be limited to this specific topic. I do not see, on brief inspection, any reason to ban them from TV and film in general. Since this seems to stem from discussion at a single article, 12 Monkeys, I am proposing a topic ban from that article as well.
  Indefinite term. Minimum 6 months. Jbh ^Talk 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 15:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support either this or the one below or both, whichever one everyone else backs. Per my own comment above, I think any sanction would likely make him reconsider his behaviour. WP:AGF, WP:ROPE, and all that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The wikilawyering on display here leads me to believe BrightR is just going to find something else to tendentiously argue about, but maybe this will stop the current argument. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Your feeling about this is quite correct, since every discussion I've ever gotten involved in with this editor has been an orgy of tendentious behavior, wikilawyering, IDHT and not dropping the stick. He basically drove me away from editing Swastika, after I had put considerable effort into cleaning up an impossibly visually messy article (before: [32], after[33], and that wasn't our first encounter -- there have been a number of them, including one on Wikipedia talk:Consensus ("Levels of consensus" and the attached RfC), which illustrates well his modus operandi. It's demoralizing to know that pertty much any time you run into this guy, you have the choice of diving headfirst into a massive timesink, or making your point and then running away to avoid being sucked in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[putting] considerable effort into cleaning up an impossibly visually messy article doesn't exempt you from policies, guidelines, and consensus. After the discussion, you reverted many helpful edits, including replacing properly-formatted URLs with bare URLs, removing a protection template while page protection was still in effect, undoing small grammar and spelling fixes, and placing images above their related section instead of inside their related section. Thank you for cleaning up the article, but that does not make you the sole arbiter of which edits to keep and which policies and guidelines to follow or ignore. Bright☀ 04:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you, apparently, are the sole arbiter, as you have taken up WP:OWNership of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk)

You mean by restoring other editors' references' proper formatting after you changed them to bare URLs (WP:CITEVAR), restoring a protection template on a protected page (WP:PROTECT), restoring images to their placement below their appropriate heading and not above it (MOS:IM), and explaining these reasons in the talk page? That's not "sole arbiter", that's using Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, discussion consensus, and the dispute resolution process. Bright☀ 05:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's an outright... I mean, that's not accurate, but I am not going to be sucked into your vortex this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for how any of that is inaccurate. I have provided diffs, if you wish to make an accusation you need to provide evidence. Merely implying there's evidence doesn't cut it. Bright☀ 05:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[Whistles "Put On a Happy Face"] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have made an accusation and refused to back it up with diffs. Bright☀ 06:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[Hums "On the Street Where You Live"] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support with additional condition that any repeat of this behaviour elsewhere on the English Wikipedia will result in the editor being indeffed. This is simply not acceptable behaviour. The editor's posts in this thread alone are sufficient to demonstrate that the editor is unable or unwilling to participate in a collaborative environment. Other editors have better things to do than waste endless amounts of time in trying to engage with this sort of nonsense. Enough already. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

the editor is unable or unwilling to participate in a collaborative environment Should I provide instances of successfully collaborating to improve articles? You are making a vast, vast accusation. The failure to collaborate here is by editors who, for example, argue that "not needed" is a valid reason to revert an edit, and when shown a policy that indicates it's not a valid reason, propose a TBAN. Bright☀ 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I would almost certainly support a broader TBAN/indef block as well. To my knowledge I have never interacted with the editor, but reading this discussion as well as the ones linked makes it very clear that many editors have spent a lot of time dealing with the tendentious editing, Wikilawyering, and refusal/inability to grasp the concept of collaborative editing as well as the fact that guidelines can sometimes be interpreted differently (which is when dropping the stick is an excellent skill to have.) That doesn't bode that well for future work in other areas, but hopefully I will be proven wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

guidelines can sometimes be interpreted differently Please interpret If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article and An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. That's all this is about. Editors reverting edits with reasons such as "not needed", "agnostic", and whatnot. Instead of providing a valid reason for their revert, they use a reason specifically mentioned in policy to be a bad reason. Bright☀ 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. To the best of my knowledge I've never interacted with anyone involved in this and have no particular opinion regarding the underlying dispute, but having wasted a chunk of my life I'm never going to get back reading through this it's very clear that this is someone who refuses to accept that the nature of Wikipedia means that one doesn't always get one's own way regardless of how much one feels that everybody else is wrong, and who's engaging in classic time-wasting tactics to try to bully and wear down anyone who's not in agreement. I strongly suspect that this will just displace the tendentious editing elsewhere and we'll be back here in a few weeks to discuss the terms of the siteban, but there's always a possibility that the shock of "hey, the admins were serious when they said they'd enforce Wikipedia policy!" will make BrightR reconsider their approach to editing. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

one doesn't always get one's own way I haven't edited 12 Monkeys in a month and, to the best of my memory and browsing my edit history, have not edited any other movie plot section in far longer. Claiming that I try to "always get one's own way" is unsubstantiated, and issuing a TBAN or broader sanctions over one prolonged and repetitive discussion is counterproductive. What I do want is for editors to address the Wikipedia policies I discuss, and not use WP:OWNBEHAVIOR reverts, per policy. Bright☀ 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm. You are literally doing nothing in this thread and the linked discussions but try to bully and bluster into getting your own way. Do you see that unanimous list of supports for sanctions against you from every single person to comment? Since you appear so fond of the {{tq}} template, let's give you a quotation: There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!". ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see people supporting a TBAN (of 12 Monkeys or all TV and film plots) for disrupting 12 Monkeys. I have not edited 12 Monkeys in a month, which suggests these people are being punitive. If they don't want to discuss things with me on the talk page—they can simply not discuss them. Bright☀ 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

So, do you want to be blocked from editing, period? Your behaviour in this thread is disruptive, and the TBAN proposals are meant to make you reflect on how your behaviour has been disruptive, while giving enough room to continue editing, which is the opposite of being punitive. If we wanted to be punitive, we could propose that you be removed from the project altogether, and with how you have been behaving such a proposal would almost certainly pass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't believe that specific topic bans have a icicle's chance in Hell of causing BrightR to be self-reflective -- at least, I've never seen any indication that he's capable of doing so. There's certainly nothing in this discussion that even hints at that capability, or any interest in trying to develop it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your behaviour in this thread is disruptive This is an AN/I about my conduct and by requiring accusations to be backed up with evidence (per policy) I am "being disruptive"... Bright☀ 08:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - This editor has been problematic for quite some time and as such it'll only be time before they're indeffed!, Anyway enough's enough if this editor cannot edit on a collaborative manner on a certain subject then they can be topic banned from it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support This editor needs to understand that their tendentious and pedantic behavior is disruptive and must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - First choice is indef block. This could be effective for this specific issue, but the general behavior pattern will just displace elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Indef block is not appropriate and will be equivalent to a lynch mob decision as of right now – however, I accept that if the editor in question doesn't change his style of consensus seeking soon enough, there's no reason that the current topic ban will get extended into a wider topic ban. I wasn't supportive of a topic ban when this thread started as this had the appearance of only being a strong editorial dispute. Unfortunately, the more Bright has opposed any and every suggestion given here, the more it seems that this is going to be a lost cause and waste of discussion time. If Bright had, for example, written words like, "I'm sorry my discussion style caused this; I'm ready to mend this per suggestions", or something similar, I don't think there would have been that strong a support for a topic ban. Unfortunately, I've been through this style of discussions myself (I being the perpetrator) and know very well the agony and irritation such a style can cause. Thankfully, I wasn't topic banned as I realized the issue after being flogged at my first RfA. I hope Bright realizes this and backs off from this style of editing asap. L0URDES 04:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: You do realize that calling the supporters of an indef block a "lynch mob" is deeply, deeply offensive, don't you? You are equating stopping someone from editing a site on the Internet to illegally taking a human being's life by brutal means. I know we all get carried away with our rhetoric at times, but the comparison you have made is really beyond the pale. I would appreciate it if you would strike that from your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BMK here, Lourdes. You picked a very bad analogy. The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is now being dedicated, which commemorates the 4300 victims of lynching in the United States. The common pattern was that a black man was siezed by a mob, and then beaten, shot, castrated, hung and burned. Crowds often including young children gathered for a picnic lunch and to cheer the mob violence, and commemorative postcards were often issued. Do you really think that something like that is going on here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies.​ Struck.​ L0URDES 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Lourdes' opinion but Jesus Christ, lynch mob is a perfectly acceptable phrase. Plenty of people were cruelly murdered in witch hunts but there's nothing wrong with using that phrase either. EEng 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

EEng: It's been centuries since the witch hunts; the most recent classic lynching took place within the last 80 years, and the last racially-motivated group killing of a black man in 1998. Using this metaphor is socially debilitating, and degrades our discourse. It also takes away some of the horror of actual lynchings by using it in a petty way, something like calling every ultra-liberal a "Commie", or every hard-line conservative a "Fascist" -- when a real Fascist shows up, the description has no sting left in it. Godwin's Law is one result of such misuse of language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s, and after endless lectures from guys in dashikis my exquisitely honed racial sensitivities make any of you look like Simon Legree, I assure you. This is ridiculous. You may as well object to someone being called a slave to fashion or saying that the boss cracked the whip or was niggardly with the bonuses. EEng 20:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from, and I don't want to prolong this sidebar discussion, but slavery has a long, long history predating the enslavement of Africans for transport to the New World, so it's really not the same thing - lynching is so much more recent than that. It's more as if a commenter had said "You guys are perpetrating a Nazi Holocaust on BrightR." Can we agree to disagree on this particular point at this particular moment, and perhaps revisit this discussion at some future time where it's more a propos? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll just offer that the proper parallel example to lynching would be simply holocaust not Nazi Holocaust. EEng 02:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: If Bright had, for example, written words like, "I'm sorry my discussion style caused this; I'm ready to mend this per suggestions", or something similar, I don't think there would have been that strong a support for a topic ban. That's very good advice! Bright☀ 17:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support (involved editor) I fear this is too narrow in scope (see my concerns noted under the Topic Ban just for 12 Monkeys proposal), but this would at least be a somewhatcomprehensive measure. I do fear that BrightR's tendentious editing behavior would simply manifest elsewhere on WP. DonIago (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reasons I am explaining below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on 12 Monkeys

• Support as proposer The genesis of this issue seems to be discussions related to the GA review of 12 Monkeys where he have been pressing this issue for more than nine months. See Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs" and following sections. From a brief read through I firmly believe, absent BrightR's refusal to drop the stick, the other editors could have reached some sort of consensus.
  Indefinite term. Minimum 6 months. Jbh ^Talk 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support either this or the one above or both, whichever one everyone else backs. Per my own comment above, I think any sanction would likely make him reconsider his behaviour. WP:AGF, WP:ROPE, and all that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Again, this will probably just push the tendentious wikilawyering to another article, but at least it will stop the current disruption. I think we need to state that further disruption of the same kind elsewhere will result in blocks, not more topic bans. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This editor has been problematic for quite some time and as such it'll only be time before they're indeffed!, Anyway enough's enough if this editor cannot edit on a collaborative manner on a certain subject then they can be topic banned from it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of the other proposal. As far as I can see, BrightR's disruption at 12 Monkeys revolves around his obsession with citations, so that proposal with de facto imply this one as well, with the added bonus that it prevents him just heading over to another article, goofing with the citations there, and claiming that he's now set a precedent. (Yes, AGF and all that, but given the level of wikilawyering going on here I'm willing to bet that's exactly what would happen.) ‑ Iridescent 18:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

his obsession with citations What? Bright☀ 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support This editor needs to understand that their tendentious and pedantic behavior is disruptive and must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Have any NPOV issues been raised? Or did you not mean tendentious editing, and just wanted something to go with "pedantic"? Bright☀ 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll guess he means behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions, which is in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. If you're going to quote things, read them first. While you're at it, you might want to cast your eyes over Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who repeats the same argument without convincing people and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who never accepts independent input. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I accept your independent input. I have read the essay, and the vast majority is about NPOV. Taken in isolation the part you quote makes "tendentious editing" seem synonymous with "disruptive editing", so a rose by any other name... Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "obsession with citations" above, or where I claimed to have set a precedent? These seem to be baseless accusations. Bright☀ 19:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah! A perfect response, showing precisely the tendentious editing of BrightR. Couldn't have written it better myself! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Making accusations without backing them up ("obsession with citations", "claimed to have set a precedent"). Bright☀ 07:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - First choice is indef block. This could be effective for this specific issue, but the general behavior pattern will just displace elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We will be back at the ANI sooner than a month if this were chosen. L0URDES 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support without taking away from my support of other options. More than one sanction is fine Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (involved editor) as too narrow in scope, given the obvious tendentious editing patterns BrightR has evidenced even on this page. Banning them solely from 12 Monkeys won't do anything to address the larger problem. DonIago (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reasons I am explaining below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Data point

[34]. EEng 05:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Bright☀ 06:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No reply yet. Well, okay. Let's look at the diffs:

• BrightR makes a minor spelling edit for consistency of spelling between policies
• EEng reverts with reason "project space is agnostic WRT Engvar"
• Talk page discussion is started. BrightR points that reverting a neutral change because it's neutral is not a valid reason. Johnuniq immediately replies about "battling over which spelling to use". EEng replies that "the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change". BrightR points out that the current spelling is not "the choices of a page's early editors" nor was it "left in place absent some good reason to change" and that either way that revert reason is not valid.
• From the beginning of the discussion up to that point, BrightR made three comments and in total there were five comments. At this point, EEng brings up "wikilawyering" and "drop the stick". Other editors start discussing blocks, long-term prospects on Wikipedia, passive-aggressive behavior, autism. After five replies they completely abandoned the content and policy discussion.

Perhaps people are levying accusations against me in order to avoid discussing the content and policy that's supposed to be under discussion? As soon as EEng was shown to be factually mistaken, he started talking about AN/I and blocks... As soon as Beyond My Ken was confronted with diffs, he started replying nonsensically. When Hijiri88 was told that policy states that "not needed" is not a valid revert reason two comments into the discussion, he proposed a TBAN... If you don't want to discuss, don't discuss, but don't try to silence the other side through imposing administrative sanctions. Bright☀ 09:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, you are the only sensible person here. Unfortunately, collaboration is required. That means you have to get on with us, even though we are dumb. Is it really worth battling over a "u"? Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I never called you dumb and I never battled over a "u", I started a discussion. You don't want to participate in the discussion—okay. But don't drag it down to "battling", "long term career on Wikipedia", and (not you, but others) insinuations of blocks, mental issues, and what have you. Don't want to discuss? Don't discuss. Bright☀ 11:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The IDHT is goddam strong with this one. What I said (in the discussion linked at the top of this subthread) is that the Engvar choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change, citing WP:MOS#Retaining_the_existing_variety (while pointing out that MOS does not, in general, otherwise apply outside article space). BrightR is making the common newbie mistake of reading individual policies and guidelines in isolation, not realizing that Wikipedia, like the grownup world in general, is a complicated place in which newcomers do well to listen to those who can help them understand how things work.

He's been singing this you-have-to-prove-my-edit-is-wrong song for some time now [35], and there's no little irony in one of his favorite hangouts being Talk:List of films featuring time loops. EEng 12:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion, the one at MOS, and the one at WP:CIVIL, in particular the inability to leave any comment un-replied to and the continuous "I'm just discussing" is making me reconsider the effectiveness of narrowly tailored sanctions. WP:IDHT + WP:DROPTHESTICK == WP:CIR. I believe it is very likely that a supportable case could be made for stronger, more general, sanctions.
  I now fear the narrow topic bans I proposed will just shift the problems elsewhere. Perhaps they would provide a badly needed clue. I don't know if BrightR's behavior rises to the level of indef/site ban, but if evidence is presented in a sanction proposal that it has been going on over time and in other areas I could be convinced.
  In my experience BrightR bludgeons, dominates and tries to force discussions to only address what he wants them to address (See the RfC). The whole discussion at WP:CIVIL is simply WP:LAME and, in my mind, is indicative of an inability to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbh ^Talk 13:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

He's been singing this you-have-to-prove-my-edit-is-wrong song for some time now No, that's not what I said, I said that no-reason reverts are against policy, specifically WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

citing MOS (while pointing out that MOS does not, in general, otherwise apply outside article space Then why cite MOS instead of actually addressing the issue discussed? You gave a no-reason reason for your revert.

The whole discussion at WP:CIVIL is simply WP:LAME and, in my mind, is indicative of an inability to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbhunley immediately raised the issue of "battling", and EEng, after one reply that tried to address the issue, veered off into insinuations of wikilawyering and blocks. The lack of desire to work collaboratively is on the other side. Bright☀ 17:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Q E D. EEng 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm hearing you. You keep linking to WP:IDHT but I am hearing you and I am discussing things with you. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Bright☀ 18:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse not agreeing with hopelessly clueless. Have you not noticed that everyone is telling you to smarten up? EEng 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep implying I'm not aware of the situation ("hopelessly clueless", "smarten up", "you didn't understand", "I hate to pull this on you", "trying to teach you") but I'm aware, and you're just being needlessly hostile and presumptuous. I'm aware, and I disagree. Everyone telling me to "smarten up" are being punitive: they do not want to discuss the topic, but they want to shut me up instead of simply walking away. I do want to discuss the topic, but nobody is forcing them to discuss it. Instead of going off-topic and being punitive, they can simply move on. Bright☀ 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger. Does anyone think we should save time and trouble and go straight to the block? EEng 20:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL. Bright☀ 07:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what ANI is for. Here we comment not on content, but on contributors. EEng 21:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor's contributions should be commented on, not editors themselves (e.g. User:X's actions are foolhardy, not User:X is a fool; the former may be a reasonable criticism, while the latter is a personal attack). Sometimes it is a slight distinction, but it is important. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose indef block BrightR

BrightR is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. He may appeal this sanction after three months.

• Support as proposer I initially thought this was a limited issue which could be handled with limited sanctions. Several other editors whose judgment I respect have said they think the disruption will simply move to other places, just as has occurred at WP:CIVIL. There is no indication in this thread that BrightR understands the disruption they are causing and therefore no hope that he will change his behavior. His statements in the section above [36] (" I do want to discuss the topic, but nobody is forcing them to discuss it. Instead of going off-topic and being punitive, they can simply move on."^{(emp mine)}) and ("If they don't want to discuss things with me on the talk page—they can simply not discuss them.")[37] In conjunction with the behavior demonstrated here and elsewhere (as noted in this thread) says this editor will keep 'discussing' until every one simply gives up. Whether this is a conscious strategy or a simple inability to understand when to let things go does not really matter. The end result is wasting the time of the editors who must continuously engage with him. Jbh ^Talk 20:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

disruption will simply move to other places, just as has occurred at WP:CIVIL I made one on-topic comment before Johnuniq immediately jumped to "battling". Then two more comments before the other editors implied sanctions and WP:PERSONAL. Take a look at WT:CIVIL. Who exactly moved the conversation off-topic and deteriorated attempts to form consensus? Who was being disruptive? Bright☀ 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Gods forgive me for this, but oppose blocking. Heaven knows that to be the most obnoxiously tendentious and self-important editor at ANI when we have an active thread about KoshVorlon is an impressive achievement, but I'm not really happy going straight to a block of any kind let alone an indef. I'd far rather set explicit and ungameable conditions and see if BrightR is actually capable of following consensus regardless of how stupid he feels the people responsible for the consensus are. Either he sticks to whatever topic ban is agreed (I'd urge whoever writes the final wording to throw a "broadly construed" in there, to discourage "technically it doesn't explicitly forbid that" boundary-testing) in which case Wikipedia and BrightR can all live happily ever after; or he doesn't in which case he'll be unceremoniously ejected but in the knowledge that it was a undisputed consequence of his own actions, so we won't be creating a martyr. ‑ Iridescent 22:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Iridescent: I promise I won't do an "I told you so" when it turns out that we're back here again after BrightR simply turns his attention to some other subject, beyond whatever topic ban is laid on him. Unless someone's interested in crafting a talk-page sanction, perhaps one that bans him from Wikipedia-space talk pages, and allows him to start discussions on article or user talk pages, but then limits him to a small number of responses, I don't think any specific topic ban, even broadly construed, has the remotest chance of getting at the crux of the problem, which is BrightR's approach to discussion in general, not his behavior on any particular topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Don't worry, BMK, I'll deliver Arid Desiccant the "I told you so". EEng 23:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - It's rather traditional to say with these things "with reluctance", but I have no reluctance in supporting an indef block for BrightR. He has proven, over and over again, in discussions I have been involved with, and those I have not, that he really has absolutely no idea of how to behave on a collegial and collaborative project. The evidence for this is clearly laid out above by various editors, including myself, but anyone wanting more can simply go to BrightR's contributions page, and look at any talk page -- article, user or Wikipedia-space -- in which he has made multiple edits to see him in action. He's the Wikilawyer par excellance, the poster boy for IDHT, the master of interpreting policy so as to please his own purposes or, if that's not possible, of simply making up policies that don't exist. He has never, at least in my experience, conceded a point, admitted to a mistake, or apologized for a misunderstanding. He is the epitome of the grit that gets between the gears and stops the machine from working, without a doubt a net negative to the project, and it's well past the time that this was acknowledged and the editor given the heave-ho. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

BMK, and the choir of per BMK down below by extension, are making accusations without evidence. simply making up policies that don't exist - provide diff. He has never, at least in my experience, conceded a point, admitted to a mistake, or apologized for a misunderstanding - You were part of several discussions where I conceded a point and compromised; conveniently you left this out of your experience, despite experiencing these discussions you participated in. BMK likes to accuse me of wikilawyering because I hold him up to Wikipedia standards like consensus, verifiablity, not making edits to make a point, and not removing other editors' on-topic talk-page comments. Such wikilawyering. Bright☀ 08:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

provide diff [of me simply making up policies that don't exist] [38] You were part of several discussions where I conceded a point and compromised Ironically, the burden here is on you to provide evidence. In the talk page discussion that led to this ANI thread, you have refused to drop the stick for more than a month, and here you have been aggressively, and uncivilly, arguing with everyone and everything over the tiniest, peripherally related issues (see your responses to me above for a good example). BMK likes to accuse me of wikilawyering because I hold him up to Wikipedia standards "You need to provide diffs because we are now on ANI, even though the comment you are addressing is the one immediately above your own"? How is that not wikilawyering? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, the burden here is on you to provide evidence I did, did you not click the diffs? simply making up policies that don't exist providing evidence when making personal accusations is a policy, I did not make it up. I said "diffs" and later corrected myself to "evidence", and quoted the exact section of the policy. over the tiniest, peripherally related issues making accusations without evidence is not a tiny issue, you are literally asking to block me. How is that not wikilawyering? Because providing diffs (or, more generally, evidence) to back up accusations is extremely important and a Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 09:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I did, did you not click the diffs? Where? I haven't read all of your many, many comments in this thread, and I don't intend to. If you are going to defend yourself with vague references to other unrelated disputes (which I strongly suspect were not disputes to begin with -- getting on with some people who already agree with you says nothing about how you conduct yourself when interacting with those who don't) ... well, you can't do that. Show specifics. providing evidence when making personal accusations is a policy, I did not make it up. Insinuating that I made a personal attack against you by directly addressing the comments you made in this thread and not providing redundant links to the diffs of said comments is ... unfortunate. And you did not link to NPA: you specifically said that diffs are required because this is ANI. Yes, I have seen other editors cite this non-existent "rule", and it's possible you picked it up from them, but it is generally considered acceptable to describing the citation of made-up rules as "making up rules". Because providing diffs (or, more generally, evidence) to back up accusations is extremely important and a Wikipedia policy. Again, that's not a policy. Evidence in the form of diffs is preferable in some circumstances, but when literally every comment you have made in this thread is uncivil wikilawyering, saying "look at any edit he has made in this discussion" is just as good; gathering diffs of every comment you made in a particular thread is a waste of time, and demanding that other editors do something, with the intent of wasting their time, is wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Where? In the comment you replied to, immediately before you asked for diffs... getting on with some people who already agree with you says nothing about how you conduct read the diffs, please Insinuating that I made a personal attack against you I did not say personal attacks, you were making personal accusations and they require evidence, usually in the form of diffs. you specifically said that diffs are required because this is ANI and immediately corrected myself that diffs are required whenever a personal accusation is made. gathering diffs of every comment you made in a particular thread is a waste of time Again, I immediately corrected myself and required evidence in general, and said diffs were standard. Bright☀ 09:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support been thinking about this. BMK nicely summarized why we would be better off without this user. Full discloser - he's been a pest to me on the past. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support BMK said it all very well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Maybe when he's older he'll be able to contribute usefully. EEng 23:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per BMK who's said it better than anyone ever could! - In short this editor is a timesink to this place and I think it's fair to say they've had enough time to adjust their ways. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support If we were just talking about the external points at 12 Monkeys, this would be overkill, but the replies on this page, as BMK points out, are much more troubling, trying to deflect any blame on themselves onto others and using a lawyering approach to say why others are wrong. An indef w/ 3mo appeal seems perfectly reasonable for this. --Masem (t) 00:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

trying to deflect any blame on themselves onto others On WT:CIVILITY, the discussion immediately deteriorated to "battling" and insinuations of WP:PERSONAL and sanctions by the other participants. On 12 Monkeys the discussion, despite dragging on for months, did not deteriorate to those levels at all. Bright☀ 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yeah, if I knew above how deep it went I would have proposed this myself. I said "topic ban from film" after having only looked briefly at the 12 Monkeys talk page and his frankly ridiculous responses to my first two comments here, but having seen what's gone down here I can't imagine a limited TBAN actually having any effect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the reasonings provided by Jbhunley and BMK. This user has had enough time to reform. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Like I mentioned above, our intentions are to effect corrections, not to lynch mob. A widely worded topic ban right now will give us the so-called longitudinal data point to administer an index-block later if required. L0URDES 04:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  After three months, if he can articulate an understanding of why his behavior has been problematic and he's unblocked, then we can get a longitudinal data point. For every editor like this, in whom we might invest 10,000 units of editor time trying to reform him before he's able to be a net positive, we have 10 others who take up maybe 100 units of others' time each, and are already a net positive. It's a bad investment. EEng 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

He drives good casual editors away in frustration and consumes the time of hard core editors who could be doing other more productive things. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

He drives good casual editors away in frustration actually I have protected casual editors from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, see BMK diffs above. When "hard core editors" act against Wikipedia policy and revert a casual editor's edit because they asked for sources or asked to correct a factual mistake, that drives away good casual editors. Bright☀ 08:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind naming the "hard core editors" you are making that accusation against, and providing diffs? I don't believe you, but it's impossible to disprove a claim as vague as that one. Which articles were the casual editors driven off of despite your trying to protect them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are in the BMK diffs above as I have stated. You are replying on that very thread, saying you don't know where the diffs are, but they are in the very comment you replied to. You ask for diffs but then you don't read the diffs I provide... Bright☀ 10:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. In addition to what others have stated, arguing with this editor can be a huge time stink because he often misinterprets and/or misrepresents what one states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - 11 years editing with a clean block log. Any history of sanctions?, I am on mobile so my capacity to check is limited. If no, then change my oppose to a fuck off try something else as a first step. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Not really 11 years; more like two.[39] Accounts with very low edit counts (like BrightR until 2016) can easily escape notice, so the lack of a prior block log doesn't really work as a defense. Even with respected veterans, if they jump off the reservation and behave ... well, like this, blocking until they come to their senses is reasonable. Anyway, if you think a limited sanction would solve the problem, those have also been proposed: the block was presented because a lot of editors think a TBAN wouldn't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

blocking until they come to their senses What do you mean by this? I could "come to my senses" immediately if you said what that entails. Bright☀ 09:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about a hypothetical 10+ year well-established veteran who suddenly started behaving in an outrageous manner. I don't think that is you; I think you always behaved in this manner but edited so infrequently that no one had bothered to block or sanction you until this point. My point was that it doesn't really matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

escape notice; no one had bothered to block or sanction you until this point I've been on AN/I before (Beyond My Ken dragged me here under similar circumstances and everybody told him he should have let that editor tag uncited material with "citation needed") so it's wrong to say I "escaped notice". Perhaps instead of basing your block request on what I didn't do, you should specify what you think I need to do to meet your "come to their senses" stipulation. Bright☀ 09:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88: Thanks for the note and link, but the principle issue here is not the length of tenure, rather it's the clean block log -> indef block proposition. I am always reserved about drastic measures, and particularly those that seem disproportionate to the crime committed. It is, as Lourdes identified it, a lynch mob decision – without the execution. AN/I is Wikipedia's mob justice purveyor (or democracy as some of the founding fathers of the U.S. would describe it). Hijiri, your comments under BMK's !vote are both mistaken and unhelpful. (1) You must provide diffs for accusations (WP:ASPERSIONS part of WP:NPA). That is policy. Mind you, once those diffs are provided not everyone needs to repeatedly provide them again. (2) The burden of proof is never on the person making a negative claim. For the obvious reason that I can't provide evidence of me not having done something. E.g. you accuse of murder and then demand I prove that I haven't done it. How?

BrightR, you have worn down the patience of everyone here. I am not defending you because I agree with you. I don't. I've only just got home and can write a better fuller explanation without the nagging concern of a 3 hour discussion close that shafts someone. Let's get a few things straight: you are wikilawyering. This is best demonstrated by your argumentation with JBH above about RFCEND. RFCEND 5 simply states that an RfC has ended when nobody gives a damn about it anymore. That is not an invitation to conduct an involved close. BMK does hit on a relevant point when commenting about your reading of policies and suiting them towards yourself. Hijiri also makes the salient point of if everyone else says it's you, then it probably is (the drunk driver comment). EEng's data point is also damning. I wouldn't oppose some block, even a month long. I am only opposing a first step indef. That is the totality of my oppose here. I'll close with this, if you don't quit lawyering and defending indefensible actions there is zero chance you'll still be editing in three months time. That ENGVAR "discussion" on Wikipedia_Talk:Civility is ... uh... in the colloquial sense: autistic. You actually demanded a policy reason for undoing your pointless WP:ENGVAR change. The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other between the lines: so just leave whichever form is already present. Yet you weren't satisfied with three editors opposing your change. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not an invitation to conduct an involved close. I never said it was, I said anyone could close the RfC at that point. You actually demanded a policy reason for undoing your pointless WP:ENGVAR change. Again, no. I said that an "agnostic" revert is against policy. To elaborate, you say that "between the lines" so just leave whichever form is already present. That's fine, but what if I make a good-faith edit to improve the consistency of the spelling? In that case, the good faith edit should not be reverted for the same reason: "just leave whichever form is already present". To revert without a reason is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. As I had a good-faith reason for the change (improve consistency), a reason is needed for the revert. That is what I said, not "please cite the policy for undoing the edit" but, as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR say, provide a reason for the revert. defending indefensible actions Both the examples of "indefensible actions" you've given were not what I was doing. I am defending myself because it's easy to twist one thing into something it's not, like a non-controversial involved close into a violation of policy, or requesting a reason that doesn't fall under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR for a revert. The reason later given, by the way, was wrong, and despite acknowledging this ("Fine, and maybe that change should not have been made (perhaps there was some discussion about it) but given that it was made -- five years ago -- it should have been let lie") the editor went on to insinuate sanctions and later other editors, and now you, went on to use slurs like in the colloquial sense: autistic. Bright☀ 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

With regard to slurs, I honestly could not come up with a different term to close that sentence. If I had one, I would have used it. If you can give me one I will change it. The rest I'll potentially address tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't reply sooner, not because I couldn't, but because I balked at the first three quarters of your comment. In short: That is not an invitation to conduct an involved close <- I am accusing you of making an involved close. I am not saying that you personally thought that you were allowed to make an involved close. You are absolutely wrong to believe that RFCEND5 allows you to close a discussion you started. It does not. It means that a discussion has ended when no participant cares about it anymore. That does not mean you can formally close it. Per WP:CLOSE (Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.) You, being involved, do not fit that description.

You actually demanded a policy reason for undoing your pointless WP:ENGVAR change. vs Again, no. I said that an "agnostic" revert is against policy. You are making a distinction without a difference. By nullifying the reason given, you are demanding an alternate one. Moreover, MOS:ENGVAR can be paraphrased to mean "agnostic". I added the "in between the lines" comment for your own benefit. You should not have made the edit in the first place, and "consistency" is an argument that doesn't hold a drop of water. There is no consistency in ENGVAR across project space and pointing to one example doesn't form a pattern: WP:EW is written in American English, so your edit made it less consistent with that. Sinking of the Titanic right there.

To revert without a reason is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR - No it isn't. That's not even close to what ownership behaviour is. Ownership is taking absolute authority of a page and preventing others from making changes to the page. Your change was not helpful. It wasn't destructive, but it wasn't helpful. Reverting it does not amount to ownership.

Both the examples of "indefensible actions" you've given were not what I was doing - Except one was what you were doing (making an involved close and citing an irrelevant policy), and the other was what you were doing by proxy (nullifying the provided reason, thereby demanding a different one to be procured). Anything else I need to rebuke. Honestly I hope not, it takes far more words than I'm willing to expend. The only reason I'm still on oppose is because it's a principled position I took: Do not throw out editors without having at least tried other measures. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CLOSE I addressed policy regarding closing discussions in a previous comment so I would appreciate if you look over it again; I would appreciate it if you would make sure WP:CLOSE is in fact a policy, and check yourself for the policy about involved closes, and whether WP:CLOSE is consistent with it. WP:EW is written in American English, so your edit made it less consistent with that but isn't "behavior" American English too? Reverting [a neutral edit] does not amount to ownership It's indicative of such, and when such reverts over time bar other editors from contributing then it eventually amounts to ownership, I hope you'll agree. The only reason I'm still on oppose I hope you remain opposed when you read this reply, since it complies with my revised discussion style: it avoids repeating points raised in the previous replies, it very gently encourages you to re-check policy without citing it to you verbatim, and it appeals to you personally. I hope you find this less disruptive and more cooperative. Bright☀ 17:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct BrightR, I had thought you'd made the change from American to British. Was looking at the wrong diff. In which case WP:TE uses "behaviour" so your spelling is inconsistent with that. Now the Titanic is sinking. Mea Culpa. CLOSE is an information page based on the INVOLVED policy. Though if I had cited that, I suspect that, you would have told me it only applies to admins because it is targeted at admins. For that matter WP:RFCEND isn't a policy either, it's a process. There is no policy tag on WP:RFC. You might want to check that. On the the second point, it can be an indication of ownership, but that depends on everything surrounding it. In this case, your accusation of ownership is off base. On the upside, this took fewer words than I imagined was going to be possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to raise this again but WP:TE is not a policy either, I tried making WP:CIVIL consistent with other policies; at any rate your point is understood. WP:INVOLVED is indeed the policy that addresses involved closes and it says it applies to non-admins too so I hope we're all on the same page now. I am glad you find this discussion style non-disruptive and, hopefully, cooperative. Bright☀ 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

BrightR: your example of WP:DE isn't a policy either, either, it's a guideline and guess what, TE is a supplement to DE. That's why I chose it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

your example of WP:DE Oh, sorry. I use "policy" as an umbrella term for community-vetted policies and guidelines, as in WP:POLICY. Of course policies and guidelines are very different and using "policy" to mean a guideline is wrong, but I thought that from the context it was clear that I was posing policy against essay, not policy against guideline. Sorry for using the term "policy" inaccurately. Bright☀ 18:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I ... am just going to give up on this line of argumentation because whatever value it had disappeared about three comments ago. The point I was trying to make is that Wikipedia is already inconsistent in terms of ENGVAR. That's why it's not normally changed without good reason to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude: I understand your desire to not toss editors out without trying to change their behavior for the better. I am not too keen on it either. However, do you really want to subject some unknown number of good faith editors who share neither your strong principles nor your vast patience to the pedantic cluelessness being exhibited here? I feel strongly that we should give editors a chance to grow and reform their bad practices, all or at least most of us have screwed up spectacularly have the understanding of our fellow editors to thank for helping make things better. I also feel strongly that, when considering a sanction that we must think of our colleagues as well as the editor we are trying to 'save'. I firmly believe that the behavior exhibited by BrightR here demonstrates that, by allowing him to continue to edit here, we would be putting an unreasonable, even cruel, burden on the editors who will be forced to deal with his "discussion" in the future.
  Loosing a single editor is not something to do lightly but we also must consider all of the other editors who will be negatively effected by this editor's grinding, clueless and beyond all unceasing style of "discussion". I can understand if you disagree with my view on this but I feel I must ask you to please consider the costs to your colleagues of your principles if, as you say, they, rather than a genuine belief BrightR can behave better, are the only thing backing your Oppose. Jbh ^Talk 21:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd comment on this style of discussion; it looks like you find it non-disruptive and possibly cooperative. I already acknowledged your line of reasoning and I'm not trying to refute it. Bright☀ 18:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I find this wikilawyering arguing with User:Mr rnddude - who is Opposing sanctions - unprecedented. I hope he changes his mind after reading that reply Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the revised discussion style still disruptive? I would appreciate any input. Bright☀ 17:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac: you'd be surprised how much I can tolerate, despite coming off as obviously annoyed. I've been thinking about an appropriate, functional sanction, per JBH's request. Your suggestion was appealing, but, alas, unworkable. I have to take my leave again tonight, will try to get more time for tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Just replying to the numbered points, as the rest seems fine: (1) Please read my comments in context: the "accusation" in question was that BrightR's comments addressed at me at the top of this thread were uncivil and totally missed the point. Providing evidence specifically in the form of diffs of something that is clearly visible immediately above at the time of writing is not a requirement of policy, and citing WIAPA out-of-context to make it look like it is (what BrightR did repeatedly) is wikilawyering. (2) I asked for diffs of BrightR's positive claim to have edited collaboratively with editors he was supposedly in a dispute with. I can see how this wasn't clear to you, though, so I apologize for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88: With regard to (2) Yes I can see that now. Point conceded. With regard to (1) I don't agree with you. Sorry. You gave a diff of them simply making up policies that don't exist] with that diff leading to the comment Since this is AN/I you are obligated to provide diffs for instances I have been uncivil to you. This is almost correct, evidence is usually presented in the form of diffs but not always. They corrected themselves in their next comment to you. I don't really see incivility from them, per se. Maybe misrepresentation, but that implies an intent that I'm not yet willing to concede. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

They corrected themselves in their next comment to you Maybe they did, maybe they didn't -- I don't know. Honestly it's kind of hard to notice things like that when almost everything is being shouted at you like this. (Sorry for again illustrating with immitation. I think someone called me out on that in the past, and I know BrightR somewhat pottedly did above here.[40] I considered just bolding "like this" but that doesn't have the same effect.) I admit its entirely possible that this is all just a failure on BrightR's part to know how to properly communicate via text and not come across as shouting, but honestly your "eleven years" point works against him if that is the case, and WP:CIR is in the process of being promoted to guideline level: if he can't learn even after dozens of people telling him, then he simply can't use "I'm still learning" as an excuse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Question to BrightR: Looking over the comments that have been made so far in this overall thread, could you give a brief description any mistakes have you made in your recent editing, and how you plan to change your editing to avoid repeating them? — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, should I make a new section? Bright☀ 11:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted to, you could. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, based on the response to the question – thanks for writing such a detailed response. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as, however egregious their behaviour is currently seen as (correctly), I think it is worth at least attempting non-punitive sanctions before wielding the banhammer. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, jumping straight to an indefinite block is excessive. We can address the issues (and provide plenty of rope) through a targeted topic ban and a warning to stop it with the incessant wikilawyering. I really would like BrightR to respond to CBM's question, too. Fish+Karate 11:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Fish and karate, Serial Number 54129, Lourdes, and Mr rnddude: I agree with you all that an indefinite block is a heavy sanction as a first sanction. I first encountered BrightR when I was commented on their MoS RfC. I thought their bludgeoning and IDHT there was problematic but figured it would blow over. When I saw this thread I still thought the issue was narrowly focused and I proposed very narrow sanctions. Bluntly, I was wrong. This thread and the additional evidence presented by others shows that the problems I thought were limited to a single issue (BLUDGEON, DE, TE, IDHT, STICK, pretty much all of the problematic ALLCAPS except VANDAL) were, in fact, fundamental to this editor's style of argument.
  For fundamental behavior problems I do not see the point of definite blocks. The editor can either articulate the behaviors which got them blocked and endeavor not to repeat them and return to editing or not. When I was writing this I shortened the usual 6 months to 3 so if they had a sudden flash of 'clue' they could get back to editing quicker — I'd be willing to remove even that and say they can appeal immediately. I am not sure if it is proper but I, personally, do not even see the need for the appeal to be to AN/ANI. A simple unblock request wherein BrightR acknowledges their problematic behavior and says they will stop would be good enough.
  In short my intention is that "indefinite" be "just long enough to effect positive behavioral change" not "kicked off the project forever". If any of you can suggest another strategy to effect that change and is, for obvious reasons, resistant to wiki-lawyering please suggest it. I do not really care what solution this thread comes up with but, for the sake of the editors who must regularly deal with BrightR's behavior, some sort of broad solution needs to be decided on.
  I understand the principle in play here and I hope you all can come up with some solution short of indef, however, if you are no I ask you to reconsider your !votes in light of what I have said and considering removing the 3 month minimum appeal time. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 12:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Missed @Iridescent: Jbh ^Talk 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC))

• Oppose - Come back and revisit the issue if a TBAN is ineffective. If there's a case laid out here for a problem that is not likely to be mostly be taken care of by a TBAN, then I'm not seeing it. As if this thread wasn't good enough, maybe tack on an explicit warning that the patience of the community is not inexhaustible, and just because you think you're right, doesn't mean that doing literally anything else instead isn't a more productive use of our collective time than endlessly arguing over any one thing. If we have to come back here, it's not going to end well for you BrightR. I hope you are well aware of that. GMG^talk 12:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The plot summary given at Twelve Monkeys is totally obscure to anyone who hasn't see the movie, and largely annoying to anyone else. "The dangerous one was the 13th monkey" would be largely shorter... and largely better. 'Killing' out some Wikipedian by drowning into the letter soup will not avenge the inability of both the 'pro' and the 'con' to provide an useful summary. A reference may be ? So simple: 1:58:58. Pldx1 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Umm ... what? What does your opinion about how the 12 Monkeys summary is written have to do with anything? Even if you agree with BrightR on the substance of their content edits, that can't be used as an excuse for all the disruption that's come to light as a result. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:. What I am seeing here is a quarrel that started about how to write the plot summary of the Twelve Monkeys. And some bowls of letter soup later, we have people that are entrenched and fighting as if the real world was under a real-life threat of extermination. This is not the case, you know, at least not from this "how to summarize the Twelve Monkeys" problem. Hold your horses, all of you, instead of re-enacting the WWI episode that occurred at 00:43:43 of the movie. Working harder to produce a really better summary would be more efficient to settle this dramah inside the dramah than any ad hominem disciplinary measures. Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have been debating whether or not to add my opposition here for some time; I decided to do so because I think a general trend of overzealous site bans may be emerging here, and my observing that while remaining silent makes me almost feel implicitly culpable. After personally looking into the matter, there might be an overarching case for such an action, but it is certainly not clearly visible. However, such a case has certainly not been compiled here, and the onus is on the proposer and supporters to distinctly demonstrate it. I empathize with Jbhunley and Beyond My Ken because I know what it is like to personally clearly perceive a pattern of ill-behavior that others cannot easily grasp (if anyone can provide diffs that show explicit breaks with policy, such as plain personal attacks, I will withdraw my opposition). Citing policies and guidelines in discussion is a great practice, as long as the policies are not being misconstrued, which again, I have not been convinced of. Every reasonable individual (generally) should believe that. In regard to BrightR's plan for reform, ignoring the top half and partial silliness, I would recommend against "appeal[ing] personally to the editors in the discussion" (as I interpret it). Policies and guidelines should be used to make arguments, however, there is no need to repeat oneself except to state what is minimally necessary for clarification. I would also advise BrightR to limit comments to contributions, not contributors. For example, it is okay to call someone's idea foolish but not the person themself (though neither is advisable, as better words can be chosen). Others may not adhere to such practices, but one can lead by example. Finally, let's give the topic ban a chance to work. The block-hammer should not be dropped neither quickly nor easily in inexplicit cases; that being said, I would not oppose a final warning that reform is needed or the community will very likely not be so kind if such an issue arises again. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - BrightR's comment indeed says all the right things, and I certainly understand why editors who have not had the unfortunate experience of being involved in disputes with him would look at what he has written and !vote "oppose", but I have to say that I really don't believe a word of it. I think you're being sold a bill of goods. I think BrightR looked at the state of the !voting on this proposal and realized that he was on the precipice of being kicked off of Wikipedia, so he came up with the jailhouse confession that he hoped would turn the tide -- and it looks like it has worked.
  The only thing is, BrightR, that now that you've come this close, you are stuck with what you wrote. If you don't live up to your promises, and simply continue to edit as you have been, or "reform" for a while and then slip back into your old ways, I think you can be sure that the next proposal for sanctions is going to skip topic bans and head right to asking for an indef -- and it will probably pass, too. That's not a threat -- how can it be, since I cannot block you or, by myself, cause you to be blocked -- but it is a reminder that the words you write are now and forever the words you must live by.
  Wikipedians are, in general, forgiving, perhaps even to a fault, but they also have long memories, and a system in which everything you've said and done in the past, or will say and do in the future, is preserved forever. I hope you will think about that, and live up to your promises. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out that by using the phrase jailhouse confession you're trivializing the injustice done to victims of overzealous police interrogations, and your use of bill of goods is offensive to persons subjected to various forms of consumer fraud or commercial misrepresentation, while at the same time it casts dispersions on the many vendors who render honest invoices. Also, stuck with is highly insensitive to the families of people who died by sinking into tar pits, quicksand, or other adhesive or enveloping hazards such as lava. Finally, as a California native I would appreciate your using to a fault only in the context of earthquakes. EEng 09:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Now don't get my Irish up [41], or it'll be shillelaghs at dawn. <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• So here's what I was talking about. Below are BrightR's edits to this discussion after he posted the section below, which included his promises to change the way he edits. Take a look at them and see if you can see any sign of change in BrightR's approach to argumentation:

• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]

So read these, and decide for yourself if BrightR's promises below are really sincere, or, if they are, if he is capable of upholding them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Which of these diffs is not upholding the promises below? Mr rnddude's relaxed demeanor appears to indicate they find the discussion non-disruptive, although they went to sleep before giving a direct answer. I would appreciate if you tell me which diffs conflict with #A brief description any mistakes BrightR made and how they plan to change their editing to avoid repeating them, or, alternatively, how they're disruptive and how to avoid further disruption. Bright☀ 06:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - sorry, I just don't think the post in the section below translates to an attempt to understand what the issues are. To me it reads like "I do the right thing and then other people insinuate stuff and get upset for no reason, but I continue to do the right thing and that makes them even angrier". The bullet points look like a recipe for more wikilawyering. I am still of the opinion that many editors have wasted a lot of time and energy on this editor, and every single post in this discussion show that anything other than an indef block is not likely to fix that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support the post in the below section simply does not read as authentic to me. I'm afraid that the editor is merely saying what they think we want to hear in order to get them off the hook. I just don't buy it. The first part of that post demonstrates that the editor simply does not understand the disruption they have been causing. "I was right and all those other editors were wrong" sounds a lot like the school-yard "he made me do it" and has about as much credibility as far as I am concerned. I do not for a second believe that there is the slightest contrition in the editor's part and that sooner or later, probably sooner, this will all blow up again if no appropriate sanctions are applied now, wasting yet more hours of valuable volunteers' time. Cauterise the wound and apply an indef now and save us all a lot of trouble. Then in six months or so if the editor can demonstrate a true understanding of why they are in that predicament and if they can convince an administrator that they have really learned their lesson then the block can be revoked, but I would hope under strict conditions. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As Nick Thorne points out, leading off with an accusation of other editors becoming angry because they don't wish to follow policy does not indicate a likelihood of productive editing going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Most of the editors supporting this extreme sanction don't seem to have participated at the talk page for 12 Monkeys and, in any case, that's quite a petty matter. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: You may have !voted in the wrong place. This is the place to !vote on an indef ban for BrightR, which is not based on the 12 Monkeys dispute, but on general behavior patterns. The place to !vote on a topic ban covering 12 Monkeys is above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: No, I think he meant to post here, since neither of the other two live proposals could be called "extreme" by any rational individual (they are perhaps extremely weak, but it doesn't look like that is what is meant). That said, I think it is a little weird that he has posted on ANI only four times since February 7, the first two obviously hounding another user he didn't like[54][55] and the two most recent showing up and !voting the opposite way to me.[56][57] Of his eight other comments on ANI threads in the last year, seven have related closely to his pet topics of AFD and RFA, while this is unrelated to both. These facts, in addition to his rationale here (a) not making any sense in this context, and (b) echoing my comment calling him out for canvassing here (Neither one of you has touched the article itself), make me suspect that his !vote will be one of the ones that get discounted by the closer for reasons. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

​No real need to assume bad faith here. Andrew Davidson certainly has my talkpage watchlisted as he occasionally pops up there to comment, and there's currently a rather cryptic thread on my talk which links back to this thread, and any third party reading that thread would probably click the link to try to figure out the context as otherwise it appears to be complete gibberish. It may be because I'm more familiar with Andrew D's—er—"suboptimal approach to communication", but I don't have any particular difficulty understanding what he's saying here; to translate: "More weight should be given to the opinions of those who were involved in the dispute that led to this thread, as it's unseemly for people who haven't previously been involved with an editor to support a de facto community ban on a long term regular despite them never having previously expressed any concerns about that editor". It isn't a position with which I agree—to me the whole point of a noticeboard is to request neutral judgement from uninvolved third parties, and besides it seems fairly clear that those who were involved in the original 12 Monkeys thread are fairly unanimous in considering BrightR incorrigible—but it's a valid point of view and he's certainly not the only one to hold it. ‑ Iridescent 2 07:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• ANI is on my watchlist and this matter has been showing up there repeatedly as there has been a lot of traffic. I took a look when the proposal was a topic ban but decided that the issue was too parochial to get involved. Now that the proposition is an indefinite ban, it is time to stand up and be counted and so this is indeed the section that I wanted to post in. The point of my comment is that the sanction doesn't seem to be proportionate or related to the particular topic in question and so is not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Accounts can be indef-blocked for a single act of easily-reverted vandalism, depending on whether they've also got a history of constructive edits ("vandal-only account" vs. "Don't do that again -- you've been warned"). Saying that an indef block for this much disruption is excessive doesn't make sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Would this be a good time to remind everyone that an indefinite block is not the same thing as an infinite block? That is to say, were BrightR to be blocked, then based on this proposal, they could ask to be unblocked after three months. Put another way, all this proposal would explicitly put in place is a three-month block and a requirement that BrightR appeal after three months if they wish to return to the project. This is, of course, assuming that BrightR did not try to have the block overturned prior to that point. DonIago (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

DonIago hit the nail on the head here. Virtually all of the "oppose" !votes I have read are apparently working under the assumption that we are looking for the harshest punishment we can for someone we don't like, when in reality all that is needed is for some way to prevent disruption until BrightR can successfully convince the community that he recognizes the disruption he has caused, apologizes, and promises to do better in the future. A fixed-term sanction (block or ban) doesn't do this because he can just wait it out, and an indefinite TBAN would just lead him to go cause disruption elsewhere. It should also perhaps be noted how few of the oppose !votes are speaking from a position of authority on what it is "like" to be "punished" with an indefinite block: I have been indefinitely blocked, and I got it removed by making a convincing promise not to cause any more disruption; if anyone should have "sympathy" with someone who is being "punished" in this manner it would be me, but honestly nothing BrightR has done throughout this discussion has done anything but make me think an indefinite block is the way to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support (involved editor). It's hard to believe that eleven days ago I was willing to agree that BrightR shouldn't be brought here because of concerns that no sanctions would result from doing so, and now we're discussing an Indef Block, but after seeing how discussion has evolved here I have grave concerns that nothing else is going to ultimately prove effective. Even as a reasonably experienced editor I find the prospect of being brought to ANI fairly terrifying, but I know enough to know that if I am brought here I should choose my words carefully and try to make it clear that I not only understand why my behavior was considered problematic, but also that I will endeavor to change said behavior. I watched with dismay as for much of this discussion BrightR continued to engage in precisely the behaviors that had led to them being brought here in the first place, and all I can conclude is that they are unable or unwilling to drop the stick, and that nothing anybody can say will lead them to do so (I should know, having tried to do so more than once myself). While the "action plan" they provided here might address the symptoms of the disease, so to speak, it shows no evidence of contrition for their actions, nor any understanding of why what they've been doing is problematic. Even then, I might have said "Maybe an indef is more than what's needed" (or simply kept my mouth shut here at least) if they hadn't then continued to make posts here perpetuating the same patterns of behavior that their own action plan indicated they would discontinue. My ability to assume good faith with this editor has, regrettably, been exhausted, and I feel anything short of a site ban will simply result in this problem showing up again, because BrightR doesn't seem to understand why their editing patterns are unacceptable. DonIago (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is literally the first time in my (admittedly short) tenure on Wikipedia that I have felt moved to comment on a block discussion, but Jbhunley's response to Mr rnddude a ways up summarized my thoughts so eloquently I wanted to second them. I volunteer here because it is fulfilling and enjoyable to do so. When another editor on an article has the mindset, for whatever reason (psychological, cultural, who cares what), that any challenge must be defended against with a rhetorical scorched-earth litigation campaign, my volunteer time gets turned into my day job and ceases to be fulfilling or enjoyable. I take that article off my watchlist and never go back. I am sure I am one of many who have this response. That phenomenon isn't a good thing for the encyclopedia. The nice thing about Wikipedia, compared to most real-world volunteer opportunities, is that there is an ability to say to a volunteer, "You are driving away more people than the merits of your contributions warrant. Unless you can gain some insight about your maladaptive behavior and come back next time with a much-diminished level of plangent abrasive defensiveness, we don't need your 'help'." And so I am here, saying that. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am getting a strong whiff of lynch mentality. Which has nothing to do with anyone's skin color, but with an indecent eagerness to burn the witch. For sure, there is a big crowd of editors complaining about BrightR's obdurate stance. And the problem would be fixed (right?) if only BrightR would just go away. But it seems most of you have overlooked what I think is a key question: could he be right?

Most of you here seem to view the issue presented as a behaviour problem: you all have agreed How Things Should Be, but BrightR won't leave it alone. On the other hand: isn't consensus supposed to be based on reasons, policies, and fundamental principles? Trying to "incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"? Has that been done?

Before any of you start taking potshots at me, please note: I am not saying there was not a proper consensus. But I don't see that such a case has been shown here. (And it doesn't help that when BrightR cites a policy some of you retort with "wikilayering".) It seems that most of you have arrived here "knowing" (and therefore not needing further demonstration?) that there is a valid consensus, which BrightR rejects. Which is quite possibly the case, but when I see four different proposals to ban or block him, and no attempt to try less punitive means of resolution, it does seem like a scatter-shot attempt to catch him on something. It smacks of the kind of over-zealousness and impatience typical of a mob. Which I oppose. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you read the section below this you'll note that BrightR more or less admits to much of the behavioral complaints that have been levied here: i.e. Wikilayering, IDHT, failure to drop the stick, interpreting policy incorrectly, being disruptive, and tendentious editing. Do you think that behavior is acceptable? If not, what sanction would you find appropriate to deal with it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

More or less or less admits? Not at all. That is your interpretation. What I see (below) is BrightR talking about behavior that leads to accusations of wikilawyering. (A POV that you keep pushing, but more on the basis of Everybody Knows It than actual evidence.) One kind of behavior I find unacceptable is people not taking care in their reading (or thinking), and then misinterpreting what was said. That is also why some of these discussions get so long and tendentious: we keep chasing after butterflies of nebulosity. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that you weren't following the discussion very closely, since a number of people have presented evidence and also referred to the evidence I presented. Even BrightR refers to it.

But you haven't answered my question: what sanction would you suggest for an editor who had behaved in the manner described? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't gotten involved in this until now, but I'm inclined to agree with the above statement and I agree with other comments above that it is irregular and extreme given the editors clean block log. I also see editors that I generally respect on both sides of the issue and it seems pretty clear at this point that there is no consensus for an indef, and we are not likely to reach one — perhaps there are a few more support votes, but I find the reasons given by editors who are opposed more compelling. I think a topic ban is probably fair — I don't think adding quotes to the plot summary was harmful or detrimental but I agree that the style of discussion particularly closing his own RfC and continuing to edit against the consensus outcome of the RfC merit a sanction, at this point. But my understanding is that the strong preference is to escalate sanctions only if it is necessary. I find the arguments that have been presented in this thread to just skip a topic ban are very thin. A lot of people get worked up during discussion like this at ANI, it's nowhere near what is needed to justify something this drastic. How do we know a topic ban won't be enough? Have we tried it? This editor has a clean block log. I think maybe we should try something less drastic before jumping off the deep end.SeraphWiki (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

continuing to edit against the consensus outcome of the RfC Diffs? I have not edited 12 Monkeys in over a month, the RfC was closed a few days ago (and I agree 100% with the close summary). Bright☀ 22:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right! The complaint is about your continuing the discussion after the formal close, not editing against it, and also closing your own RfC which I have never even see anyone try to do before. You then argued this was allowed by policy, which seems to have royally pissed everyone off. While consensus can change, it was not a good idea to resume the discussion so soon after the RfC was properly closed — give everyone a break before reopening something like this, I would support a topic ban but I strongly oppose anything more severe at this point. Even better, voluntarily walk away from the article for a while.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: "a topic ban" that covers both swastika and Twelve Monkeys? Do you mean several topic bans? This is a user conduct issue with a user who has no one particular area of interest and so has behaved disruptively on a wide variety of articles: you cannot just say that the original report was spun out of a particularly egregious incident on the talk page of a single article and dismiss all the evidence that came forth later and has nothing to do with that article, when the proposal you are opposing is based on a holistic reading of all the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, just for plot summaries. I'm not thrilled about what I am seeing either, but I haven't seen evidence of behavior that is substantially different from the behavior of hundreds of editors that we are not discussing indeff'ing. I don't see personal attacks, and even when there is a pattern of personal attacks and uncivil behavior that impede collaborative editing as a matter of behavior/conduct (not just the editors got frustrated and went to do something else) — we try limited topic bans first. We usually require a lot more than what has been presented here for an indeff SeraphWiki (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A brief description any mistakes BrightR made and how they plan to change their editing to avoid repeating them

​​​The mistakes should be obvious from the accusations, summarized by Beyond My Ken: He's the Wikilawyer par excellance, the poster boy for IDHT, the master of interpreting policy so as to please his own purposes.

In discussions, I rely on Wikipedia policy to make my point. When I perceive someone acting against policy (see BMK diffs above) I cite policy to them in the hopes that they follow the policy. This antagonizes editors so deeply that, sometimes, they immediately make insinuations of administrative sanctions and what appears to be personal attacks, such that took place on WT:CIVIL, discussed above. I continue my discussion by defending myself and staying on topic despite this, citing Wikipedia policy, which leads to the accusations of wikilawyering, IDHT, and pretty much all of the problematic ALLCAPS except VANDAL as Jbhunley put it. I then request evidence for these accusations, per policy, which lengthens the discussion. I respond to everybody in the discussion who addresses me or my actions, which is perceived as disruptive.

The sum total of this is that discussions veer off to accusations, do not stay on-topic, and take very long.

In order to rectify this:

• I will not carry on months-long discussions.
• I will not initiate RfCs and respond individually to every participant.
• I will not cite WP:CONSENSUS to claim that the majority does not have consensus because they did not provide a reason.
• I will not cite WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and request that editors give a non-owner reason for their reverts.
• In general, I will not immediately cite policy in discussions but appeal personally to the editors in the discussion, not repeat my claims to them, not respond to every single editor individually, only discuss policy if others in the discussion bring it up, and not quote the policy to them but ask them to reconsider it themselves.

This should take care of any and all wikilawyering and IDHT accusations, and prevent any perceived disruption from occurring. Additional suggestions are welcome. Bright☀ 12:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good response. You know, WP:DRN is always available. I personally find it a bit bureaucratic to go through formal dispute resolution, but it does work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ya good response BUT behavior in this vsry thread just above speaks louder than this section. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN for BrightR

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

---

"TBAN's from all AN/ANi discussions not directly about them and TBAN from referencing or linking any Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay or similar ALL CAPS anywhere, for 3 months." Since several editors seem to prefer a TBAN over a block. This TBAN will cut out the wikilawyering while allowing BrightR to focus on content.

• Support as proposor. Legacypac (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion partly out of concern that I would be seen as a biased party (I get name-checked in the first message), and partly because I've had no issue with how this has been proceeding without my involvement. That said, as one of my concerns with BrightR's conduct was their slow-motion edit-warring, would you be amenable to adding a 1RR restriction, broadly construed to avoid slow-motion edit-warring? In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing that applied to any of the TBAN possibilities. I will say in the interest of assuming good faith, and based on Bright's post up above, that I don't feel we need to stipulate that they post at the pertinent talk page before engaging in such a revert (i.e. I'm okay with them fixing obvious problems). DonIago (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is silly. GMG^talk 16:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Legacypac, you could perhaps hat this section altogether. L0URDES 16:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Umm ... the wikilawyering took place on an article talk page: how would this proposal address that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"TBAN from referencing or linking any Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay or similar ALL CAPS anywhere, for 3 months." => would really limit the wikilawyering. He'd be pretty restricted in talkpage arguing. I prefer a block but failing that this is a more targeted TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Quick driveby oppose to this specific proposal. Sure, BrightR is overdoing it with the "but policy says so!" routine, but a ban from even mentioning policies and guidelines would be unworkable. It would put BrightR in an impossible position where if someone asked why he'd made any particular edit—no matter how uncontroversial—he'd breach the topic ban by explaining. ‑ Iridescent 2 09:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mansukhsurin

I have contacted this editor fourteen times since January trying to discuss their creation of unreferenced articles. Unfortunately they wouldn't reply and continued to create unreferenced articles (see User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources, User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources and communication and the several messages below User talk:Mansukhsurin#ANI.

The discussion at ANI was auto-archived, although they did receive a 'final warning' on 13th April that 'Any further disruption in any form will result in you losing your editing privileges completely' User_talk:Mansukhsurin#Final warning, ([58]. Barudih is an example of one of their creations, where they have been asked to add their sources or discuss the issue, but won't. They don't even use edit summaries, so there's no indicatino of why they make their edits at all, although they have been editing (though not that much) for 4 years.

The original ANI was for refusing to communicate (and they did not comment at the ANI) and for continually creating articles with serious issues, including no sources. They then left me messages at my talk page User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution and User talk:Boleyn#Rules don't necessarily make any one a perfect person. which I found rude and not showing the attitude we want from a Wikipedia editor. I then saw they had left further similar messages at User talk:PamD because of PamD's comments at my talk page. Since then, they have created another unreferenced page, National Coalition of People Living with HIV In India, which another editor swiftly tagged for speedy deletion. I don't know how to communicate to this editor that we collaborate, don't leave messages like this for other editors, and that we do add our sources. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• The user obviously believes they are editing in good faith but the level of English, the lack of communication and edit summaries, and the large number of deleted contributions give me pause. I'm leaning to a short block, but will wait until the community has made some comments here, or if indeed Mansukhsurin responds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

• Everybody is new at some point but being willing/able to learn is essential. I support a block to get their attention and see if this will change their approach. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• @SpacemanSpiff: Pinging admin who left this editor a final warning on 13 April. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, I haven't followed this editor's work after my warning, but this, that, and the other talk page responses to warnings or suggestions don't give me any confidence that a short term block will be of any help here. Let him contribute to hi.wiki and then apply for an unblock here after six months. While we can be empathetic to such editors, it should not be at the cost of our productive editors. —SpacemanSpiff 02:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Came here from the note Mansukhsurin left on Kudpung's talk page. After glancing over Mansukhsurin's talk, I'm surprised they were not blocked before over WP:CIR and I don't know why the prior post here did not result in some remedy. If they cannot or will not cite sources, and this seems likely, then a block here is in order. Do they cite sources at hi.wiki? I'll have a look. Perhaps it is best the take their own suggestion (e.g. User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution) and concentrate their efforts there.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

They've copy pasted the same non response to my talk page. Feel a long term block is in order.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked now and asked to apply for an unblock after six months of editing at hi.wiki (which would be the native language Wikipedia for him), he's just continued to spam talk pages after this started, but nothing meaningful. I see no need to bend over backwards for this anymore. —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats

I just reverted/deleted legal threats here and here, and I've blocked the account. It came shortly after this and this, both apparent attempts to remove the same person's name. The username suggests it is this UK law firm, and the IP geolocates to Edinburgh (though UK IP geolocation is often unreliable). I'm bringing this here just to ask for a few other eyes on these pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I invited them to address any concerns/take down requests to the WMF, where they have people who get paid to wade through legal mumbo-jumbo.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor making massive ammount of non-consensus edits

Windhunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making a controversial edit in an enormous ammount of articles. His edit has to do with the grammatiically wrong change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in the lede of many bios. Another thing is his unsourced addition of ethnic categories. He was warned at his talk-page by another editor (see User talk:Windhunter). He has been reverted by varios editors but has been edit-warring and ignoring others. FkpCascais (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First User:FkpCascais lying about facts, Bosnia and Herzegovina is full name of the country.

Bosnian-Herzegovinian is properly term in Croatian, Serbian and Bosniak language.

Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region.

Bosnian-Herzegovinian is grammaticaly correct.

Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Windhunter, the name in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian here is totally irrelevant, this is an English-language Wikipedia and we write English here. Second thing, before making a massive ammount of changes as you are doing, since you noteced many editors had reverted you, you should stop reverting and edit-warring and start building consensus. If you believe each person from Bosnia and Herzegovina should have in the lede chaged its labeling as "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" you should be aware that it is a widely-scoped edit which if accepted would be changed all around, but if not, it want, so there is no point in changing a hundred articles without consensus for it. PS: "Bosnian" is certainly not insulting in any way to anyone from Bosnia and Herzegovina (maybe only for a hand-full of extreme nationalists which refuse to accept being part of Bosnia and still hope to revive Herzeg-Bosnia?), that just sounds as a bad excuse for your edit. @Iridescent:, I am an over-decade long editor at en.wiki preciselly at this area. I brought the issue here so it could be noteced by the community preciselly so I wouldnt do any unilateral decitions myself. You templating me with warning of discretionary sanctions looks bad and actually disencourages ediors from next time bringing an issue to the attentioon of the community. It was not me who opposed this editor, but other users before me, I just brought it here because it implies numerous articles. I am fully aware obviously of the template you gave me, but I dont think your procedure was correct as I just brought the issue to your attention here and thsi way seems I am participating in some wrongdoing. FkpCascais (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, Windhunter, before this goes any further I'm putting a {{alert}} template on each of your talk pages. This does not imply any wrongdoing by either of you, but is a formal notification to ensure you're aware that this is a topic on which Wikipedia policy varies from the norm; please make sure you both read it before continuing any further with this discussion. The linked page looks complicated, but the part you have to be aware of is Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the full name of the country on English Wikipedia. Some people in colloquial talk often shorten Bosnia and Herzegovina only to Bosnia while others say only Herzegovina. I don't think we should use colloquial talk in the articles or prefer one over another. If there are a lot of articles that need that change, Windhunter I suggest you to open a RfC. I have some experience in opening RfCs so I can help if you are not familiar with the procedure. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Still not making an account? You have "some experience" do you? But you were indef-banned (case Asdinsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). However, your advice is acceptable (you know WP procedures too well to be an IP), Windhuter should really aim for consensus for such wide-range edit as he has been doing, and certainly not appliying it by force and edit-warring. I personally have no sides here, but the adjective "Bosnian" is clearly the one correct in Engligh language rather then "Bosnian-Herzegovinian". FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fkp, as always, you would just like to ban people. You could have asked this editor to seek a consensus over talk page, without a report. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As an observer, I'd like to comment that whilst we should apply wp:commonname when writing about foreign language topics, the question of whether "Bosnian" vs "Bosno-herzegovinian" is the common name is murky as both seem to be used commonly. Perhaps a compromise such as the one currently in place for anglo vs american spelling can be applied here. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All I asked is just for the editor as a newby not to make such an ammount of edits without consensus first, and since I noteced him having been reverted by several editors, not to agressivelly edit-war to reinsert his edit. And, as a personal remark, specially to drop the "I know it all, you guys who have been editing here for over a decade you know shit"...-behavior. That is an absolute no-no in an already sensitive area. FkpCascais (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This editor is nationalistically motivated, as he said at top "Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region." The background of this lies actually in the inability to drop the expansionistic aspirations of some extremists ammong the Croatian community in Bosnia and Herzegovina (concentrated in Western regions of Herzegovina) and their denial of Bosnia and Herzegovina and revival of Herzeg-Bosnia. The fact is that his statement is untruth. None of the editors reverting him are Bosniak, nore "Bosnian" is imposed by Bosniaks, but rather inn English there is a wide use of the adjective "Bosnian" to refer to people, things or events from Bosnia and Herzegovina. A clear exemple is the Bosnian War (and not "Bosnian-Herzegovinian War" despite having taken place in Herzegovina as much as in Bosnia (region)). We all know sports teams of Bosnia and Herrzegovina are largelly named in English-language press as "Bosnian team"s. The user must leave aside his political motivations and just demonstrate that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" has more use in English than "Bosnian" when refering to something or someone from Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The main point here is that the term "Bosnian" has been widely used without problems for almost two decades here on en.wikipedia. This relatively new editor arrives and starts making this change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in hundreds of articles. He was reverted by numerous editors. Per Wikipedia:BRD he should not continue edit-warring, but rather discuss and reach consensus for his edit. But he opted for agressively edit-warring. That is why I am here, his attitude is unecceptable whereas he is wright or wrong. He should demonstrate English-language literature and sources use more "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" than "Bosnian" which by now doesnt seem to be the case, and till then his edit-warring should be sanctioned. FkpCascais (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais First you lied that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is grammaticaly incorrect. "Bosnian" is sometimes shorten version of Bosnian-Herzegovinian maybe because its a very long demonym when we speak about nationality, but only "Bosnian" has other connotations such as regional because Bosnia is one of the smaller regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe you are nationalistically motivated? You called a whole constitutive community as a extremists only because I think the whole demonym is more correct. And for your information, Herzegovinians of other nations term Bosnians consider as a offence. Football site transfermarkt for all players put Bosnia-Herzegovina as nationality mark, not only Bosnia or Bosnian. There is more examples like: the Bosnian-Herzegovinian American Academy of Arts and sciences, Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film festival, Bosnian-Herzegovinian American community center in Chicago, Chicago festival of Bosnian-Herzegovinian film, Bosnian-Herzegovinian islamic center of New York, etc. I think nobody is offended with a whole denomination.

Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is incorrect because the subject here is Bosnia and Herzegovina and not "Bosnia-Herzegovina". FkpCascais (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Transfermarkt.com argument is invalid because they simply use the name of the country, just as we do here always use "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as birthplace, and never Bosnia. The issue is not that one. Also, could you please provide links to all those institutions you claim are called that way? FkpCascais (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, Transfermarkt argument is not invalid, [59]they referred teams who won the title as Bosnian-Herzegovinian champions and Bosnian-Herzegovinian cup winners, and all players have in their achievmement lists [60] full denomination. And all this institutions [61], [62], [63],[64], [65] proved that your grammer argument is funny. Demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovian" is grammaticaly correct and I don't see a problem. My "edit war" mostly was with banned user HankMoodyTZ and his IP. Your Bosnian war argument is not very strong, we also have a Bosnian-Herzegovinian Infantry. Windhunter (talk)

Thank you for providing the links.

I went to Wiktionary to see and all I found is Bosnian. The article confirms that it refers to Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais As I said before, I proved that demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovian" is grammaticaly correct, and that your opinion is incorrect about grammer. Yes "Bosnian" is often used because it is shorter but has other meanings such as regional, etc. Demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is more precie than "Bosnian". I think I don't break any rules. I reverted your edits because I thought you were banned user hankmoodyTz or his new account. So is there a problem with "Bosnian-Herzegovian" for players from Bosnia and Herzegovina if I continue editing?Windhunter (talk)

Indef request for Comefrombeyond

We are truly beset by cryptocurrency advocacy. We are always beset by organized online groups but the cryptofolks have taken this to a new level, and there is very clear financial COI driving this trend as well.

I now present:

• Comefrombeyond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count

This user has made all of 54 edits, only 15 of which are visible as the rest are to the now-deleted IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) page.

100% SPA, 100% promotional, does not care a whit about the content or behavioral policies and guidelines. They had edit warred last summer (EWN, were warned to stop, and just vanished instead.

They showed up on the 16th and made this diff adding a huge bolus of unsourced or primary-sources-sourced promotional content and removed COI and advert templates.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 14:57, 18 April 2018, restoring it
2. diff 16:55, 18 April 2018, restoring it
3. diff 10:13, 21 April 2018, restoring it
4. diff 08:49, 22 April 2018, reverting tagging
5. again reverting to their version, what they called "vandalism" 21:36, 22 April 2018
6. again 21:40, 22 April 2018
7. diff 21:45, 22 April 2018

etc.

They have finally started using the talk page ( see this section) but their comments there are awful. It is clear that they want to make the WP page into an FAQ or "how to" page per this comment and this and this (the latter citing Iota's userguide). Their second-to-last one was this personal attack.

This person doesn't care about WP or the policies and guidelines. They are purely here as an advocate. I filed at EWN here but have withdrawn that, and am seeking an indef. This person is NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I note for the benefit of Comefrombeyond that the Bitcoin wiki may be a more appropriate outlet for this type of contribution. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"100% promotional"? Sorry, but it's YOUR version which looks as 100% marketing, MINE contains a lot of technical information. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand Wikipedia nor care about it. Providing users with a how-to guideline like you are trying to do, is aimed at getting people to adopt Iota. WP does not exist to facilitate uptake of anything. And we don't just write what we know, or try to replicate userguides. You are treating WP like it is some shitty blog. You are ignoring what everyone else is telling you. You are not here to build an encyclopedia working in a community, which is what we are here to do. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This thread drew the attention of two other people, who have reverted Comefrombeyond, and Comefrombeyond has reverted them both -- diff, diff. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is starting to look like a good case for an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Indef Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a block for edit warring? I don't care how long, and we can talk about indef later. Right now he's vandalizing Wikipedia and I'd appreciate if that was stopped. --Tarage (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for edit warring. I warned and they persisted. Discussion of an indefinite block can continue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to get used to you dropping the blockhammer, Cullen--for so many years you did everything you did without that sometimes blunt tool. Don't get me wrong--I'm happy you joined the club, but still, it's odd. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I have had the mop for nine months now, and am not yet fully comfortable with the job, Drmies. But the community gave me those tools for a reason and I am trying my best to use them wisely for the benefit of the encyclopedia. If I screw up, please let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, you're looking good from what I can see, Cullen. Jimbo Wales should put you on payroll, and get you a designated parking spot for that hot rod you're doubtlessly getting. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am still driving my ten year old Honda Fit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see I am not the only one who drives it till it dies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Or till it becomes un-Fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk socking, because I have a strong suspicion that the TWO new accounts that popped up directly after Comefrombeyond was banned, and immediately went to work making edit requests on the article talk page... Lokesh1699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ZimtX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know how much more blatant you can get. --Tarage (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and while we're at it, User:Lokesh1699 requesting the adition of text DIRECTLY LIFTED from what Comefrombeyond was revert warring about... Look, this is either sock puppetry or meat puppetry and I don't care which. --Tarage (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaand while we're at it, I need to bring attention to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/800ft2/help_build_iota_wikipedia_page/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7x0ny4/call_for_wikipedia_editors_and_the_wider_community/ Now correct me if I'm wrong but translating Wikipedia articles from one wiki to another requires attribution does it not? Might have a bigger issue on our hands. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, attribution is required. See WP:TFOLWP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I claim no expertise in detecting sockpuppets but those two instant accounts are "suspicious", I think that it is safe to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)&diff=837808652&oldid=837779383 Can we get a lock on the talk page? This is nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are cryptocurrencies under DS, and if not, should they be? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Another sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Simonmalaga --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't IOTA (cryptocurrency) be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology)? Dorsetonian (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've blocked several obvious socks and have imposed a short semi-protection on the talk page. I won't delete the article as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology) as I don't have time to investigate properly to see if it's still essentially the same article - but someone could always nominate it as WP:G4. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged it as suggested (incidentally, it has also been moved to IOTA (technology)) Dorsetonian (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted IOTA (technology) as G8, since when I got to it it was a redirect to IOTA (cryptocurrency) which DGG has deleted and salted. If anyone feels G8 is a little too IAR here, feel free to revert. GoldenRing (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there is another copy of the article in draft space, which I have nominated for deletion. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• So I IARed and blanked the draft page (accidentally removing the MfD notice in the process, which has been restored. My apologies for that.)

I think we should keep the draft page, as a place for the Iota people to try to work constructively in. I left a note at the talk page and one person from that community has responded in the way we want. I would like to see if we can channel their energy - teach any of the Iota folks who are willing to learn what they should do - and perhaps we can resolve this without too much further drama.

I am hearing the problem with attribution from the copy/paste. Perhaps we can handle that via revdel... Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: They are not. Many cryptocurrency related articles are indefinitely semi-protected due to spamming, but it's still not enough. I agree community sanctions should be considered. MER-C 20:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Possibly related? GMG^talk 12:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Comefrombeyond GMG^talk 13:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• another day, another version of this shit dumped into WP, now at Talk:IOTA (cryptocurrency). Please delete and salt that page too.

Please indefinitely block User:Pyrekkk Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Black Kite! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Zemora95

The following is copied from WP:AN/3RR as the more appropriate location it as it is more about tendentious editing than edit warring

Page: Multiple pages
User being reported: Zemora95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not an edit war. Zemora95 is a new editor, almost all of whose edits are highly politically charged and usually completely unacceptable. But that's not the reason I'm reporting it. The reason is that almost all these edits have dishonest edit summaries like "Fixed typo" or "Fixed grammar". The last type of editor we need around here is a liar. In my opinion, an immediate permanent block is appropriate. Zero^talk 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I left a small message and a link to WP:EDITSUMCITE on their talk page. AGF, hopefully, this will generate some kind of comment from the new editor. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason why bad editors use false edit summaries like "Fixed typo" is to reduce the chance of their edit being reviewed by others. It's not a matter of poor judgement or inexperience but a deliberate act of deception. Zero^talk 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Zero on this one(and we don't agree much on anything).I think we don't need editors that start their editing with lies --Shrike (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Israeli settlements => Israel
• Palestinian towns => Arab populated
• It is the fourth largest Jewish settlement in the West Bank => It is the fourth largest diverse city in Judea and Samaria

Personally, looking at this edit[66], I would consider the edit summary Fixed grammar trolling.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We are supposed to WP:AGF, particularly with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I did however place a DS alert on his page for ARBPIA with a comment he is not supposed to edit the topic area until extended confirmed. The appropriate venue, should he continue to edit ARBPIA, would be AE.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• AGF is fine to a point, but changing Palestinian to Arab is not. Imagine if a new editor went to Chuck Schumer's article and changed the lede sentence from "American politician" to "Jewish politician". Just imagine ...if we let this slide, I really hope it does not happen again.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Is this someone we actually want editing a contentious topic area at all, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, but we'll find out in a month or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think between us they've had sufficient warning to stay away from Palestine-Israel topics; if they make any further edits in that topic, they should be blocked as an AE action to enforce the general prohibition. GoldenRing (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy

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

After expiration of a ban on editing his own talk page, I wonder if any of these are in violation of WP:BLANKING: [67] [68] [69] ? I will attempt to notify the user of this discussion but given the churn at his talk page I'm not sure how effective I'll be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I see now that Jojhnjoy has made an appeal at WP:AN#Topic ban appeal of User:Jojhnjoy. It would make sense to centralize this discussion either here or there. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• To answer your questions, Kendall-K1, no, they are not. Editors have considerable latitude over what they have / do not have on their talk page, per WP:OWNTALK, and none of their removals were among the exceptions, and the page had been fully-protected for the previous six months. In any case, are you seriously suggesting that six-month old warnings should be kept? I suggest you withdraw this before someone notices that your criticisms of their userspace have been a constant, and thus considers your report to be meanspirited at best, and tendentious at worst. They have, after all, just come off a six-month bloxk; did you really feel it a productive use of your—and others'—time bringing this here? With attempt at discussing it? Impossible. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with blanking their talk page, but there is a problem redirecting it to their user page and insisting that anyone who wishes to contact them must use their de.wiki talk page - especially when they're in the process of a topic ban appeal here. It's a requirement that en.wiki editors have a means of on-wiki contact at en.wiki. I don't see any need for any admin action at this point, but I'll watchlist the talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties editing article for a BLP/politician

Hello,

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lindquist#Wikipedia_article_controversy

The involved person was banned from Wikipedia! Please police this BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.160.177 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protect a BLP

Hello, not sure of the best way to ask this, so I figured I would just jump in. There is a WP:BLP which is frequently edited to include private information that the subject of the page has requested not be posted. The cases of this happening that I have seen weren't from signed in accounts, so I was thinking that semi-protected status might do the trick. The page in question is CGP_Grey. Not sure what other information I should include, please let me know. Zchrykng (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a secret. There are references going back at least six years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

CBS News reported this person's full name back in 2011. Several other media outlets have also done so. What is the policy based argument for excluding the full name from the biography? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, marginally. I'm of the opinion (an unpopular one, I'm aware) that generally these types of things should not be included if the subject requests it; just because it's reported in the media doesn't mean we have to include it. Compare it to an editor's name - if the media reported linking an account to an individual and someone posted this information on-wiki, that person would be sanctioned for WP:OUTING pretty dang fast. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our public-facing article subjects? ansh666 03:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not someone who is completely anonymous, as is your example Wikipedia editor, Ansh666. This person uses their real initials and their real surname, and their complete name has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources for seven years. The Wikipedia biography is not their personal social media page where they control the content. I fail to see any reason to keep their full name out of the article. We routinely report the full names of public figures who are best known by shortened versions of their real names. So, why should we make an exception in this case? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Where has the subject requested not to have his name used? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I am the person in question and I am requesting here that my name not be listed. I have never in any of the work that I have ever produced intentionally revealed my full name. The places that post my name do so against my wishes. Obviously, I cannot control what Wikipedia does, but if you want to know what I request it is to not mention my name. CGPGrey (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See various comments by User:CGPGrey. I do not know whether the identity has been verified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, though, does reporting the subject's complete name add anything of value to the article? It seems to read perfectly fine as-is, so why not err on the side of caution and leave it out, right? As I said, I am aware that my extremely privacy-oriented take on BLP isn't particularly popular. ansh666 04:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does reporting President John Kennedy's full name add anything of value to his article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ansh666, I an reminded that I recently ran across mention of C. L. R. James, a writer whose work I had first encountered nearly 50 years ago. Curious about his full name, I visited the Wikipedia article about him, and discovered his full name, and lots of other useful information about him. That is how encyclopedias ought to work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. That's not the type of thing that I'd personally ever be curious about. ansh666 05:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Compared to C.L.R James, CGP grey hides his identity online and is a BLP who has requested not to show his name Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We have had a perfectly good arrangement these past few years of keeping those details off wiki, as the subject had been a Wikipedia editor. Fans, of course, insist on writing the narrative and cannot leave well enough alone. I find the details unnecessary and the disclosure to be pure fan service. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel compelled to remind people that assertions are not sufficient to move the needle at Wikipedia. Evidence is. Per WP:BURDEN, it is imperative that the person wishing to include the real name provide scrupulously reliable sources. Removing such information, where it lacks a direct cite, is perfectly allowed. In summation: what do the sources show: if the name is just kinda "out there" in sources of poor reliability, that's one thing. If the name is well-reported in reliable sources which show that the subject has revealed it, that's another. However, if it is clear that the subject has intentionally kept their name from public sources, then we should err on the side of "doing no harm" and respecting the subject's wishes. Plenty of Wikipedia articles are known under pseudonymous titles, like Satoshi Nakamoto, and I see no reason to do differently here. --Jayron32 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It would need a solid citation to be included. And if it has that, any claim that the subject wants it excluded would likewise need a solid verification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Right here and that's not the first time. I think it's reasonable that we suppress some private details when dealing with Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the second part is too easy. User:CGPGrey just needs to verify their identity to OTRS by emailing info-enwikimedia.org. And anyway, pretty sure WP:REALNAME applies even to pseudonyms in the case where they are the primary means of identification of a real person, so they probably should do so anyway out of an abundance of propriety. If done, ping me and I'll snatch it out of the queue real quick. A message from the cgpgrey.com domain should work just fine for our purposes. GMG^talk 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be the point. Someone claiming to be someone is not "solid" evidence. I could claim to actually be Mel Blanc, and the only evidence to disprove it is that he's reportedly deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Verified. GMG^talk 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, then it's just a matter of whether his full name can be verified, and I'm not so sure about that. The sources I've seen for it look a little shaky. Then there's always the issue of a subject's notability, but it looks like this one passes that test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And I do think the page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Not enough disruption to outpace normal reversion and normal consensus building. In fact, this can probably be closed. GMG^talk 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Ansh666: could I just ask that you please read WP:Oversight#Policy, paying special attention to the first bolded point and how it might apply to this discussion? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

AlexEng, let me start by saying that I am not supporting including this person's full name in the biography at this time, since we now have OTRS verification of the editor's identity, and I think that we should honor his request, based on his wishes and talk page consensus. I am not an oversighter and claim no expertise in the fine points of oversight policy. Feel free to discuss the matter with actual oversighters. But the relevant phrase is "Removal of non-public personal information". (Emphasis added). As I already pointed out, the person's full name was reported by CBS News in 2011. He formerly maintained a website that included the names he now wishes to hide as part of the domain name itself. He uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons in 2006, crediting that old website as the source of the image, and later uploaded a better version of the same image, crediting his current website. He had a Flikr account that included photos tagged with his full name. I understand that an element of his current online persona is to not mention his full name or include photos of his face, since he now prefers stick figure representation. I get that. But I do not think that there is justification for oversighting since he was once happy to reveal his various names online, and specifically on Wikimedia projects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to CGPGrey. Are there any inaccuracies in what I wrote above? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

From an oversight perspective, I agree with Cullen328 on this one; the content has been in and out of the page's history, and while Grey would prefer for his identity to remain completely anonymous that cat is unfortunately out of the bag. The best we can really do is try to ensure people don't re-add the full name. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Onel5969, mistakes in automated edits, and problematic attitude

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onel5969 has been using tools to make mass edits to disambiguate pages. Ok, all well and good, except that one day's worth of activity can result in dozens of serious mistakes.

Here's just the ones I've had to revert relating to just one link, over about an hour: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98].

Now, would you rather go to a general disambiguation page that includes the right option among others, or would you rather be sent directly to the wrong result? Because among the edits I linked to, he identifies a number of people who died well before Helena Blavatsky was even born as followers of Blavatsky's theosophy, including Jakob Böhme, the founder of the tradition Blavatsky got the word "Theosophy" from. I'll admit that my edit summary when he did that did nothing to hide my frustration at this incredibly stupid error. Before anyone says "content dispute," this is like having the etymology of York go to the New York City article. If a brand new account made nothing but edits like this, they would be blocked as a vandalism only account and claims by them to the contrary would be dismissed as trolling.

But I assumed good faith and all, and figured that asking him to be more careful would not be unreasonable. When this issue was raised with him, he referred to this constructive criticism as "non-constructive", acted like it was my fault for not cleaning up his mess before he made it, and sought to ban me from his talk page.

Later, when Shenme asked Onel5969 to be more careful because he had once again linked to the wrong article, Onel5969 replied by reverting with the summary "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful". That's right, the wrong link is somehow better than a general disambig page. Shenme tried once again, quite patiently and politely, to address the problem. Onel5969 once again replied by reverting with a summary banning Shenme and calling anything he said "unhelpful". Granted, he did restore the post to provide a more "thoughtful" reply, accusing Shenme of being WP:NOTHERE and arguing that a general disambig page is somehow far worse than linking to the wrong page.

I admit that I replied despite Onel5969 previously telling me not to post again, to warn him that his behavior has been completely inappropriate and that this thread would be started if he did not change his attitude. His response was that it was "uncivil POV commentary"... Uh, what? Now, if he had just reverted, sure, that's one thing, but where exactly was I uncivil and how does POV apply to this? I understand that users are allowed to ban others from their talk page, but how is this site going to function if a user responds to all legitimate criticism (no matter how constructive or polite) with illogical hostility and blame-shifting?

Unless anyone can get it across to Onel5969 that he needs to try to:

• be way more careful when making mass automated changes
• accept that general disambig pages are actually more useful than the wrong page
• reply to editors who point out mistakes with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind

...The easiest solution would be restricting Onel5969 from using tools (such as but not limited to DisamAssist) to perform mass disambiguations. I would hope that manual disambiguation shouldn't be an issue. If someone can just get across two out of three of those bullet points, that'd be a drastic improvement.

But I'm fine with this resolving without restrictions, apologies, or whatever -- my concern is that we have an editor who causing serious messes and responding to those who clean up after those messes with illogical hostility, blame-shifting, and refusal to communicate. The less work it takes to resolve that, the better, but that's really in Onel5969's field. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. First, I admit I screwed up on the Theosophy dab, due to my conflating the two meanings. In fact, I was about to place a message on Ian's page, except when I read his totally uncivil edit summaries on some of the reverts. And I could have slowed down a bit, but when you're slogging through 1200 dabs, work created by a different editor, not sure that some 30 odd errors is that bad, actually (0.25%). Second, I do reply to editors who are civil and constructive. Ian's comments in edit summaries were, at times, uncivil, and I never respond to uncivil editors, instead attempting to avoid conflict. Third, POV, Ian came on to my talk page, after being asked not to (which is in itself an uncivil action), and lectured my on AGF. However, he never once looked at the other editor's post and asked them to assume AGF. I responded to the editor, pointing out that their comment was directly contrary to their actions. That if they truly believed in the comment they left, they would have targeted the dab to the correct article (clubfoot), instead of sending it back to the dab page. In fact, they did not simply revert my edit, but instead manually changed it back to the dab, instead of taking the time to make the accurate correction. Bottom line is that I have no time for incivility. And no time for lecturing. If you have a disagreement with an edit I make, be civil and lets discuss it. Otherwise I will continue to delete such posts from my talk page. I'm human, I make mistakes. Sometimes they are mis-clicks, such as was pointed out by Ynhockey here, while other times it's a case of my making a dab change, and then the dab being reverted, as was the case with MilborneOne's correction here (this is one area where current WP policies can create extra unneeded work for editors, as the thread on my talk page will show). And other times, it is a glitch that I was unaware about, as was the case when Certes pointed this out to me. Other times it's a simple disagreement, as I had with Smtchahal here, Regardless, will abide by the decision reached here. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Onel5969: can you address why you responded equally uncivilly to User:Shenme despite the constructive comment on your talk page? I can understand responding in kind to User:Ian.thomson after reading his edit summaries, but surely you don't have any bones to pick with Shenme after s/he suggested that you take care in what your tools are doing? I believe the comment was meant to address the fact that the change in question made the article worse, and it seems like your response is the equivalent Tu Quoque. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly AlexEng - I take any failure of AGF as an uncivil action. And that other editor certainly did not assume AGF, as is indicated in the tone of his post. If they had asked, "why did you do that?", "what was you're thinking here?" (as evidenced in other threads on my talk page), I would have engaged in a discussion. That's in response to his first edit. My edit summary when I removed their comment, "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful", is not fallacious, simply my viewpoint on their actions. Folks can disagree and still have civil discussions. I felt the article was better off not pointing to the dab page, they didn't. His second edit, imho, was clearly hypocritical, since they had a clear choice to improve the article (assuming AGF on their part, and that they knew it should point to clubfoot), and made the conscious decision NOT to improve the article, instead redirecting back to the dab page. While at the same time lecturing me on how edits should improve the article. In order for Tu Quoque argument to be valid, they would have had to actually pointed the target to the correct article. Then my argument would have been fallacious. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

William John Little has severe hamster feet?

Oh dear, I think I'm going to need some disambiguation of the above. I'm at a loss to understand Onel5969's distaste at editor interactions, given their length of service and prolificity here.

An edit was done, using a tool which did not understand the weirdness at talipes, where someone earlier had put elaboration on foot deformities. It is quite obvious that the tool simplemindedly took the first 'real' link at that location and substituted that for the dab. That was the point of my first talk page post, that the tool got it wrong, that it was the wrong result for the reader, and the tool betrayed Onel5969 when not reviewing the results.

That Onel5969 felt I was attacking them is concerning. I would have thought it obvious I was criticizing these simpleminded tools, as they are not automatic, and *require* reviewing each result at length, lest they betray all and sundry.

After the bewildering defense of a bad result (he has a foot), I then went and investigated further, finding the original attempt at elaborating on clubfoot by extending the dab entry at PES#Pes_(anatomy) back in 2016. And wondering whether the user name really seemed familiar, checked whether Onel5969 was perhaps 'new', to see how to respond to the apparent confusion. At 254000 edits in 4+ years, 500+ edits a day, not new at all.

So responding to the lack of discussion I reiterated the wrongness of the results, and suggested a course of action if Onel5969 really hated non-specific dabs that much - make it a specific dab. (In a sense, achieving what user Quercus solaris could have done better back in 2016 - a dab specifically for talipes)

I'm afraid I just don't know how to reply constructively to

Instead you deliberately chose not to improve the article. So don't post on my page again. Your actions make it clear that you are not here to help the encyclopedia.

Is that really saying "if my results are bad, your job is to fix them" ? And further, that discussion of edits is a bad thing? Please tell me what I've gotten wrong here, that has earned such dismay from Onel5969. Shenme (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Onel5969's dabfixes have been something of an issue for some time. Among those of their edits that have washed up on my watchlist, I have felt that an unusually high proportion have been incorrect: these haven't been cases of vague borderline links that different editors could have fixed differently, but "fixes" that have been obviously incorrect given the immediate context of the link: like repointing to an article about the wrong type of entity or about a place in the wrong part of the world. I Of course, there are dablinks that can be fixed almost without looking, like links to New York or English (his work in this area is appreciated), but in many cases a bit more diligence is required. I remember having tried a couple of times to suggest to him this need for occasionally greater care, but I'm not sure this has had much of an effect (though let me add that civility has never been an issue). – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I don't usually like to be the first one to propose sanctions in venues such as this, however I feel there is an ongoing problem here, and Onel5969 doesn't appear to get the issues - and a quick review of the editing history seems to indicate there is a far issue of changing links without due regard for the new topic. I think a topic ban from (semi)automated edits for 3 months may well be the best way forward here for the minute. Mdann52 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'll admit the civility issue is debatable (and it's not like there's anything we can do to adjust his attitude at any rate), but accuracy is a definite problem and also a source of issues where civility may be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Can you please clarify if you're including the use of tools such as WP:Twinkle, or just User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment2 What is the purpose of the 3 month ban? Do you anticipate that the user will change his/her behavior after this time period? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Some clarification is needed here. I've only seen problems with DisamAssist (but haven't gone looking for trouble). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Lukewarm support The faith in tools as a means to quickly earn zillions of edits is misplaced. The belief that review of tool edits is not needed is mistaken. The idea that a (self-defined) acceptably low error rate over 100's edits per day is a "good thing" is frightening. My part in all this was pointing out a ridiculously bad result using tools and being rebuffed with... I'm still not sure. "The tools are perfect"? "My edits are perfect"? "My edits using tools are unassailably perfect"? My support is based on this - the editor needs to get back to editing. If they don't like editing, they shouldn't. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aside: in my discipline there is an ideal called egoless programming. In my work bug reports are treasures leading to improved results. Is there an essay here about egoless editing? It is sorely needed. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support As someone to whom the assumption of good faith is important, I feel the user in question has badly misunderstood the intent; a polite criticism is not a breach of good faith, nor is it something to get up in arms about, even if it is an erroneous one, and if one knows one's tool can lead to errors, one must be open to corrections of those errors. Icarosaurvus (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

I recently made an edit on Insurgency in Balochistan which was reverted because of an alleged "copyright violation" (without demonstrating how its a copyright violation). A few editors were involved in edit warring there which resulted in the article being protected. When I looked at their contributions I found this happened across other pages as well recently. These editors seem to gang up and censor anything they dont like by reverting contributions made by others. There definitely is a pattern that seems fishy.

On Insurgency in Balochistan

Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023

Previous reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 between 7 April 2018‎ to 18 April 2018‎

MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, Capitals00, Raymond3023

Also inserting the same point of view at Siachen conflict between 21 April 2018‎ to 22 April 2018

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00

Regards, --Uncle Sargam (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Given you are an obvious sock who is quacking loud per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital, I am kinda surprised that you are still not bored of your deceptive games. Capitals00 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

::Your evidence on that SPI is ripped open by me, it’s guts splattered all over the place and dead body stinking and being decomposed. It is just waiting for the clerk to take it to the graveyard and bury it (close and archive). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And after blocking the filer indefinitely. You forgot to mention that. @Bbb23: can you check this above comment by SherrifsIsInTown? I deem it to be clear cut example of WP:BATTLEGROUND and that he is importing same offense here for which he was warned in SPI several times. Capitals00 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What are you asking Bbb23 to check here? I did not say anything about you, this is all about the evidence. Why do you complain so much? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

MBlazeLightning listed (one of) the sources it was copied from. I've rev/deleted the edits. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I endorse the pattern mentioned by Uncle Sargam, I noticed such pattern as well but in a different area which I mentioned here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• And the "pattern" was removed by Bbb23 as a personal attack.[99] Since you are repeating same false allegations here, by endorsing a paid editing sock, you are doing nothing but turning this thread into a request where we must seek sanction for your disruption. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 02:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This was just to mention what he noticed, I noticed as well. What is your proof of that user being a "paid editing sock"? You cannot call him that until you prove so and for that your evidence is not going to hold the ground so stop calling him that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just another of MBL's (and Capitals00s) frustration with users they do not agree with. MBL has been busy filing SPIs, including the one against me a few months ago. He has been trailing me on and off, most recently removing a reliably sourced edit on "Hinduism", but this time aided by his team tag member Capitals00. And as usual they are both desperate to try and frame (mostly by SPIs and baseless AN reports) anyone with an opposing sentiment blocked. I would recommend a restriction against their repeated filings. Perhaps a topic restriction on filing reports to once a week. I would prefer to let the Arbcom decide that. But something should be done. Otherwise anyone who falls in their path will have to face this kind of repeated tormenting.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You probably favor copyright violations given you were recently indefinitely banned from uploading images[100] for your copyright violations and there are no chances if that sanction will ever be removed, but don't expect us to tolerate copyright violation. This complaint was not filed by me or Mblaze, it was filed by an obvious sock belonging to a disruptive sock farm. Talking about your "edit" on Hinduism, it was a POV edit and you have engaged in same POV pushing on Talk:Hindu earlier where your all edits were rejected. You had to use a nonsensical edit summary to back up your edit[101], that alone leaves no doubt. Given your continued WP:CIR issues and you are already under restriction from uploading images, it would be better to have you site banned once again. Capitals00 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What is your special interest in my topic ban from uploading images? Most images I added were accepted not to mention the countless free use files from commons and my removal of copyright content on various occasions. The very same administrator blocked you as well and on the same topic area that you are currently team tag edit warring on. That's exactly what I meant. Labelling anyone with an opposing POV a sockpuppet or always proposing site bans instead of pointing out where they're wrong appears more CIR. I can only wish someone neutral with better judgement decide on how to handle this. One thing is also apparent that not only does your team tag refuse any edits on India or "Hindu" word-related topics, but who also team tag on topics on Pakistan and continue to attack anyone who resists your questionable edits.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It shows that you lack understanding of copyrights and it is very concerning that when you have been blocked many times, site banned, topic banned for copyrights before and obviously you should be more aware about them than any of us, but clearly you are not and you are supporting an obvious sock who is lamenting that he didn't got to violate copyrights, and your reason is nothing behind it except that you didn't got to push your POV in the articles that have been long edited by me and MBlaze. There was consensus among admins to impose topic ban on you from uploading images, there was not one single admin who imposed it. I am not proposing site ban but only suggesting you a solution of the problems that you are raising, where no one but only you are the offender. You can prove otherwise how there are no CIR issues with you which is contradicted by your block log and also prove that this editor is not a sock on SPI, despite it is a WP:DUCK. In fact you still haven't admitted that you had a misunderstanding that this complaint was filed by me or MBlaze. Use talk page for continuing your petty content dispute, not this board and prove how "questionable" those reverts are over there after noting your history on Talk:Hindu and those discussions didn't even involved me. Capitals00 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this how you respond to complaints and remove reliably sourced edits without explanations and instead calling it "POV" when I clearly provided the ref? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadirAli (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What about your way of responding to a sensible revert, after changing longstanding content without an edit summary[102]? But you sure use edit summary when you believe you can organize a WP:BATTLE[103]? D4iNa4 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In the middle of a content dispute, page nominated for deletion

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

---

In the middle of a content dispute on Zen Chong, in violation of WP:ATD, this page was nominated for deletion. WP:ATD states that "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Requesting an uninvolved editor to do so. Thanks Sethie (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No snow clause can be evoked and the nomination looks to have enough merits to evade a speedy close.Please debate it out at the AfD.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I protected the thing because of the disruption. There are two keeps at the AfD, though not sure I agree with the keeps without looking closer. I'd say let it ride and we will see.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Both the nomination, and the votes, all appear to be in good faith. Given that, I don't see where any admin action is required. There's some bad feelings all around, as happens during conflicts, but I see no reason to presume that the AFD would produce the wrong result if allowed to continue. --Jayron32 16:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and accusations by User:Certified Gangsta

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

I was originally just going to request full page protection at WP:RPP. However, after reviewing Certified Gangsta's extensive block log and their current accusations on talk pages and edit summaries, I thought this would be a better venue.

Since March 31, Certified Gangsta has been move warring from the longstanding page name of Devin Hester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to their preferred version of Devin Hester Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Open the following diffs (or open Devin Hester's page log) to see their repeated moves from "Devin Hester" to "Devin Hester Sr.":

• March 31
• April 1
• April 23
• April 24

I had started a discussion at Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, explaining why I thought the established name was WP:COMMONNAME and asking that an WP:RM request be made if anyone wanted to change consensus. EricEnfermero also agreed with my position. In the thread, Certified Gangsta charged: ... you unilaterally changed it without opening a request at WP:RM. Follow your own advise. You're not entitled to your own rules just because you're a sysop.

They also made accusations there of

• Eric Enfermero is hardly a neutral voice and has pretty clearly been Wikipedia:Wikistalking me since this exchange on my talk page
• When someone finally stands up to you, you have unsurprisingly resorted to employing low-quality tactics out of personal vendetta (i.e. a low-rent wikistalking harassment campaign) and deliberately trying to sabotage longstanding consensus/compromise.

The edit summary of their most recent revert from April 24 reads: "quit wikistalking and your harassment campaign due to disagreement on another page. consensus reached last november across multiple pages with no incident. Read Wikipedia:WIKISTALK for your own benefit"

WP:NPA advises against accusations that lack evidence: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

At List of nicknames used in basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Certified Gangsta keeps changing the content to the contested, non-verifiable nickname of "DAR":

• 05:40, 23 April
• 23:56, 23 April
• 07:15, 24 April

Their most recent edit summary from April 24 is again combative: "your version is also unsourced. either remove every single unsourced ones on this list or stop using it as a cheap excuse to keep your preferred version." Per WP:UNSOURCED: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... I have no opinion on the original text, which I did not add, but Certified Gangsta deflects the onus of their own unverifiable additions. Their response is also WP:POINTY, implying that all unsourced content, even if it is not contested, needs to be automatically removed if their own edit is. (Note: For the record, the existing nickname of DLo, though uncited, is verifiable at https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html)

Finally, Certified Gangsta's current behavior appears to be similar to logs from their block history, which includes "Disruptive editing", "Violation of Arbitration case restrictions", 3RR, and "accusing established editors of vandalism".

I am requesting that Certified Gangsta cease the move warring, stop re-adding contested text without a citation, and end their combative behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're requesting too little Bagumba. Save a really convincing apologetic reply from Certified Gangsta, this is going to be an indef block by the time this thread closes. L0URDES 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the move and move protected the article. I'd like to know what Certified Gangsta is referring to with "current fairly longstanding version" in this. If it's the version they renamed on March 31st then we have a case of WP:TE here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Longstanding? Not really. CG has moved an article to his desired name, and was reverted by 3 different users 4 times, since March 2018, based on the logs. I'm holding off judgement until Certified Gangsta comments here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• When the naming issue was discussed at WT:NFL in November, CG claimed that discussing the naming at the WP instead of at each individual article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Since potential WP:TE was mentioned above and some are also getting into the substance of Certified Gangsta's arguments, their revert edit summaries refer multiple times to an alleged November consensus that supports adding suffixes to bios' article titles, but does anyone see that kind of consensus in the full archive of that Nov discussion?—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

    I see a consensus favoring names commonly used by sources. That doesn't seem to support CG's assertion a consensus exists.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:OWN accusations This might be another common charge from Certified Gangsta. At Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, he wrote: "As for Bagumba, I highly suggest you read WP:OWN in light of your conduct at List of nicknames used in basketball." I came across this same style back in November 2017 at Jamie Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where they were similarly move warring to change the title to Jamie Collins Sr.. With this move, he accuses the other editor that "you're in violation to WP:OWN, discuss in talkpage before moving again" So the pattern seems to be that someone else must be WP:OWNer if there is conflict (and not them), someone else is responsible to start the discussion and get consensus (not them), and someone else has to source the rest of the article if Certified's one unsourced edit isn't allowed.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• See also, Golden Tate III. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm waiting to hear Certified Gangsta's side of the story, but I realize they don't edit on an everyday basis. L0URDES 00:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Randomnickname567

Resolved

 – CheckUser blocked as a sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Randomnickname567: said that "Saudis need to be bombed." He continued after being warned.

After that, he denied that WP is neutral and insulted me " Although if you seriously believe Wikipedia isn't POV you should check with a doctor."

Also, he didn't Assume good faith : "I also see now from your talk/contributions page that you feel very strongly for Saudi Arabia, which makes me suspect you are not really neutral on the topic either." and He's probably trying to swarm the page with templates so that it would appear bloated so that he can finally remove the template".

Also, he said " the news get tracking something their propaganda media don't show", so WP is not a media.

--Panam2014 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

He's only been here a week, and at this rate, he won't be here much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That first comment alone warranted a block in my opinion. This is someone clearly WP:NOTHERE. And it looks like this was a sock, per their block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback request

Please could someone with rollback review recent edits by User:Cote d'Azur per User talk:Cote d'Azur#caps, and preceding 'Timeline of...' edits per MOS:BOLDTITLE. Thanks. 82.132.226.208 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

IP, these particular cases look somewhat ambiguous, and hence this isn't a suitable venue for rollback. You may, of course, undo their contributions, although Cote d'Azur is an experienced editor. Looking at the most recent no reason was provided reverting you, which isn't courteous, but is hardly an AN/I issue. Looking at [104] the first bit is wrong, since there is a the, however the rest of the edit is correct. MOS:JOBTITLES is fairly subtle, so it's not hard to misinterpret (indeed, I might be myself!). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not useful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Next up: Born2cycle will demand that the user is renamed to user:Ivory Coast. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) User:République de Côte d'Ivoire would be more accurate. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Even more accurately, should be renamed to User:French Riviera. See: Cote D'Azur. AlexEng(TALK) 22:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by Jakob9999 – need a rangeblock

Jakob9999 was blocked October 2017. Since late September 2017, he has been using IPs from Arkansas, in the range Special:Contributions/2600:8804:8440:30B:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock?

As proof of the connection, here is Jakob9999 citing a discussion thread at radiodiscussions.com where a user named Jakob9999 has posted a reply. Here is an Arkansas IP citing another discussion at radiodiscussions.com where Jakob9999 has started a new thread. Same thing here. I think we have to assume block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks pretty obvious to me.  Range blocked one month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

But wait, NinjaRobotPirate, there's one more. See this edit at a page which has very recently been of interest to four different rangeblocked IPs. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's a statically or dynamically allocated IP address, so I blocked it 31 hours. It looks static, but I'd rather be more sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with a new editor

I need some help with a new editor Felix Montana. I think he is a good faith editor, but unfortunately he has been non-responsive to multiple attempts to communicate and there are a couple of issues that require attention. I am concerned this may have BLP implications and that a copyrighted image appears to have been reuploaded after this note informating the editor of WP:UPIMAGE. This message on talk from MifterBot and others have been ignored.

I'm not sure what I can do if the editor is not willing to communicate. I am hoping that by posting here it will encourage him to communicate with us. I don't want to make anymore unilateral changes to the article because I am already at 3 reverts, but maybe he will be more responsive to another editor. I stubifyed this article and passed it at AfC because I thought the topic was notable, and I tried to improve it in the hopes that the editor would be willing to discuss changes on the talk page, but it has been unsuccessful. I don't think I have any choice but to involve others, and I very much hope sanctions can be avoided.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy tag won't transclude

I tagged TimedText:Maniac (Michael Sembello song - sample).ogg.en.srt (whatever this page is) for speedy deletion as an obvious copyvio of song lyrics, but the speedy tag won't transclude onto the page properly. Can someone please delete this page? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it a copyvio though? The sample has been on Maniac (Michael Sembello song) for over a decade; making the thing useful to deaf readers shouldn't suddenly make it a copyvio. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert by any means, but this seems to fall under fair use per WP:LYRICS and WP:NFCCP; the fair-use tag that is on File:Maniac (Michael Sembello song - sample).ogg should apply. As for the technical issue: similar to .js pages, while adding the tag text as you did seems to do nothing, it still adds the page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations, which is all that's needed. ansh666 07:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Film Fan and poster uploads

Film Fan always uploads posters without updating sources, and ignores advices to update sources. The current poster for Venom is not found anywhere on the net, and he replaced User:Brojam's legitimately sourced version (http://collider.com/new-venom-trailer/ ) as well as mine (http://www.impawards.com/2018/venom_ver2.html) without saying anything. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a proper source is needed, I easily found that poster image on the net from numerous sources via Google Image Search. --Masem (t) 05:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: The specific poster caption is what is difficult to find, I believe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the caption (in the film infobox) is an issue. There's generally a clear distinction between a teaser poster which usually lacks a textblock identifying key stars, director, etc., and the theatrical release that does have that, and that can be made by examining the poster image itself. ( eg this edit is perfectly fine). It's the lack of a legitimate source in the File: space that is a problem. Eg taking the same edit, the new image uploaded File:Hotel Artemis poster.png has a nonsense source "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor." that fails NFC requirements. --Masem (t) 05:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I see from below what the "caption" issue is, that being the film date under the title. I do see a large amount of variety in that in Google Image Search, looks like many regional versions, but yes, there's no immediate source for one that has "October 4". I see "10.4.18", "4 October", and "Coming Soon" among variations, but not the one uploaded. That is definitely a problem. --Masem (t) 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that initial issue was raised for edit warring. Film Fan was given a 1RR for this in the past, which is still in place. Along with the continued edit-warring, the lack of adding any rationles for new poster uploads suggest a much serious issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh, Lugnuts. Lugnuts, Lugnuts, Lugnuts. You never miss a chance, do you. There hasn't been any edit-warring. But grasp at any straws you can, mate. — Film Fan 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The version uploaded by Film Fan reads the date as "OCTOBER 5" whereas my version (from IMPAwards) and Brojam's version (from Collider) read "10.5.18". I cannot find the "OCTOBER 5" version anywhere on the net, and using this version in Google's Search-by-image feature, this is all I found. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If I get emails from distributors, "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor" is perfectly acceptable. — Film Fan 09:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: Can you please explain why you replaced well-sourced versions with yours? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it. — Film Fan 13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. The source needs to meet WP:V, and that means that a published version needs to be identified. --Masem (t) 13:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it"... But the source you've given is GoldPoster; isn't that just a Chinese knock-off site? Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I think Film Fan is receiving emails containing film posters, directly sent by the distributors. So does this violate WP:COI? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, or at least, not anything actionable. It is a violation of WP:V, private emails are not usable sources. We need something previously published, and ideally from a reasonable reliable source (to know they likely didn't edit the poster, etc.). For purposes of NFC, we should be treating this as a citation, so core parts of WP:V should be followed. --Masem (t) 14:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of FF's posters don't seem to have any rationale, all failing WP:V. This could be 2018's SvG problem. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's not an issue. In that list, where there is no text in the third column, those are all updated images where the original uploaded supplied a rationale. When FF uploads a new image, they add a rationale. They are following NFC in all cases except a valid source field. --Masem (t) 14:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying that when I add a poster from a PR email, I have to find some website that is also hosting the file? News to me. — Film Fan 14:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: It's analogous to a well-known scientist emailing an unpublished paper to an editor. We're not going to use that in an article either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about category addition

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

---

I would like to have your opinion regarding the addition of the category Arab inventions for the Arabic numerals article. It is indisputable fact that these numbers in their current form were developed by Arabs of North Africa and Muslim Spain. The question is whether these numbers are worthy enough to be considered an invention or not. Some users have raised their doubts over the claim citing the fact that no other numeral glyphs have been labelled as an inventions in Wikipedia. My stance is that the Arabic numerals are a special case since they are the most used glyphs in the world. So in your opinion, should the Category:Arab inventions be added to the article or not ? Viaros17 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator attention. Please pose your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Fish+Karate 07:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive reverts and Page Ownership on Jahannam article

I want to protest about the attitude of User:VenusFeuerFalle who dominantly reverted my edits (and the others' edit) on Jahannam article with some hard reasons to accept because several of the reversions did not follow the rules of Wikipedia. Based on my observation on her edits on Jahannam Revision History, I may blame her for doing "Page Owning" since the majority of edits are checked and reverted by herself. I also have several objections to her nonconstructive demeanor in content article improvement:

• First, she wanted that my sources in Jahannam should be from well-known Muslim scholars, then I provided the sources from Harun Yahya, and other scholars. Yet she insisted on removing my contributions.

• Second, she however said that I had only to provide primary sources from Quran instead of published secondary sources (or third-party sources) that are more reliable as encyclopedic content which is included in the Wikipedia principle.
  "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
  Eventually, I reminded her that I would bring this dispute to Wikipedia:ANI if she keep reverting my edits. But she continued to do that. Moreover, She mocked a verse of Muslim Holy Book as "a useless reference" and deny the importance of secondary source for lead content of the Jahannam article.

• Third, She insist on refuse any importance for the Islam Quranic references in the lead of Jahannam article, although the Jahannam itself is the concept of Hell in Islam, and Quran is the most honored source in the religion.

Therefore, I expect the help from the Administrators to mediate me and that user whose dispute has not came into consensus or even give warning to her since she insisted on the rejection and reverts without considering that my reverted edits did not violate any Wikipedia rule.

I also expect that there is a blocking rule concerning disruptive edit from user (who repeatedly try to revert the useful contributions) that result in temporary edit-blocking because the unnecessary reverts are strongly discouraging the newbies or good-faith editors to make further contributions to Wikipedia, which means the quality of article content is not going better due to harsh reactions from other users. — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl

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

---

User:BrownHairedGirl and I had a dust-up several weeks ago, and it appears that the fallout from that collision is leading her to preference the thwarting of my editing efforts over the general improvement of the encyclopedia. This collision started in mid-February when I made a speedy group category renaming nomination for Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs and its subcategories. You can see that nomination and its discussion here.

In that discussion, I made an accusation that BrownHairedGirl was being "intellectually dishonest". The reason I made that accusation is that in her opposition to the speedy nomination, she stated "WP:C2D is inapplicable because there is no head article: Amherst Lord Jeffs and Amherst Mammoths both redirect to Amherst College#Athletics, which mentions neither 'Mammoths' nor 'Lord Jeffs'". I responded that "'Mammoths' is mentioned in the infobox and the 'Mascot' section of Amherst College," to which she replied "please read WP:C2D. It's not long and not complex. And it doesn't mention infoboxes." I considered this an intellectually dishonest move because her first comment there suggested that the presence of "Mammoths" at Amherst College would justify a C2D speedy move, but when I showed her that "Mammoths" did indeed appear there, she made a non-sequitur about "infoboxes" not being mentioned. In fact, C2D makes no reference whatsoever to any parts of articles other than their title.

BrownHairedGirl, requested that I retract this assertion of intellectual dishonesty on my talk page on February 12, just after User:SMcCandlish posted an admonishment about it there as well. Rather than explain my accusation, as I have now done here, I decided to simply move on with more productive editing.

I opened a full renaming nomination for the Amherst Lord Jeffs / Mammoths categories on February 22; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 22#Amherst Mammoths. It quickly drew unanimous support, with User:Cbl62, User:Rikster2, User:Ejgreen77, SMcCandlish, and User:UCO2009bluejay weighing in during the first two days or so. User:Paulmcdonald later added support as well. When more than a week had elapsed without closure of the nomination, despite unanimous support, I pinged BrownHairedGirl to close it, given that she appears to be most active admin at CFD, and in an effort to put the earlier episode behind us. To that she replied "@Jweiss11: after the vicious personal abuse which you heaped on me when you tried misusing WP:CFDS to do this renaming, the answer is "no way". Some other admin will close this discussion in due course.". That nomination was finally closed by User:DexDor on March 24. A similar nomination that I made for Category:Cal State East Bay Pioneers football similarly languished for nearly a month despite unanimous support. See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 4#Cal State Hayward Pioneers football.

On April 3, I nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. User:Bagumba was the only other editor to weigh in on this discussion, offering a neutral opinion. This time, User:BrownHairedGirl seemed have no lack in motivation closing the discussion, perhaps too quickly, closing it as "no consensus" on April 11.

Given the lack of resolution on this item, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, asking other editors there if they would a support a second nomination to delete the category and pinged User:UCO2009bluejay, User:Corkythehornetfan, and User:Billcasey905 since they are active editors of college sports-related categories and navboxes. All three said they would support the nomination, so I renominated the category on April 24, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. The next day BrownHairedGirl closed the discussion as "speedy keep per WP:CSK. The same proposal was made by the same nominator at CfD 2018 April 3, and closed on 11 April as no consensus. Bringing the same proposal back again less than 2 weeks later is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. Leave it for at least a few months."

I believe this to a misapplication of WP:CSK. It's clear that BrownHairedGirl is putting her personal feelings and desires for retribution before the best interests of the encyclopedia. The remedies I seek here are 1) the re-opening of the April 24 nomination for Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes and 2) an injunction against BrownHairedGirl from closing any further CFD nominations I may make. The community may also want to further investigate her behavior, assess whether she has abused her administrative powers, and determine if it is appropriate that she retain them.

I'm regretful that it's come to this. All our time would be better spent improving the content of the encyclopedia, but we have an obstructive situation here that requires resolution. Thanks everyone for your time and interest in this matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your complaint. You personally attacked an editor by calling her intellectually dishonest. You decided not to explain to her why you called her that. You then ask for her to close a discussion about the category where you feel she was intellectually dishonest and she refuses. She later closes a discussion not in the favor of what you proposed and closes it a second time. You disagree with the close and now want her to not close any CFD you open and you even think she should possibly lose her admin privileges. Did I get the summary right? ~ GB fan 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

GB, no, I would say you are missing all the spitefulness and obstruction by BrownHairedGirl in that summary. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In what summary? Are you saying I missed you being spiteful about not telling her why you felt she was intellectually dishonest? ~ GB fan 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, at the time I figured the explanation would fall on deaf ears. I did not simply move on to spite her, but, rather, in the interest of focusing instead on other things to improve the encyclopedia. I've made the full explanation now for everyone to see. Perhaps you can address the spitefulness of BrownHairedGirl, which is driving administrative decisions two months later that thwart the improvement of the encyclopedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

She probably doesn't think she is being spiteful either. One No Consensus close along with a speedy close is not enough to drag someone to ANI. Refusing to close a CFD is not a reason either. You should drop this now. ~ GB fan 17:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How much more would you need to see before you thought an ANI was warranted? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't give a definitive answer to that question. More than what you have given here and not come here as part of the problem. You also need to try to solve this directly with the editor prior to coming here. You started this by attacking an editor, walking away without having the decency to explain yourself. From What I see you have never tried to calmly discuss your concerns. Your latest discussion on her page just inflames the situation. There and here you talk about use of admin powers, what admin powers has she used, you never give one admin power she has used. ~ GB fan 18:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that the admin power I'm talking about is closing CFDs. This thread right here qualifies as an attempt to calmly discuss my concerns. My attack of this editor was a clear adjudiction of her behavior and argument style in a discussion. My sense was that she knew exactly why I was called her intellectually dishonest. The problem is that when people are intellectually dishonest, they'll typically never admin to it no matter what justification is later given. My hope is that third parties here can make their own rational judgement. BrownHairedGirl has also made attacks on me, far more disjointed from the simple logic of our arguments than my assertion of here intellectually dishonest, e.g. her accusing me of throwing a "trantrum" in that original speedy CFD discussion, then offering a psychological diagnosis of projection on her talk page today. I can get over the personal attacks. What really concerns me is that she's using her administrative powers to obstruct the improvement of the encyclopedia for what I can only imagine is spite against me. It's in everyone's interest to nip that in the bud now. That's why is have opened this ANI discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing a CFD is not an admin power. Non admins close discussions all the time. Bringing anything to ANI is not a calm discussion with the editor in question to try to resolve the issue. ANI is for things that can't be worked out by the editors involved, you haven't even tried to work through this with her. ~ GB fan 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing a CFDs of the complexity of the Ahmester Mammoths one is effectively an admin power when you have User:Marcocapelle testify that "This is too big for a non-admin to close", as he did at here. It's clear that BrownHairedGirl is acting in a state of hostility and obstruction with respect to me, two months after the fact. Third party invention is required here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#Amherst_Mammoths. She didn't even close it and when it was closed it was by a non-admin. How did she misuse any admin power? ~ GB fan 20:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

She refused to close that one when asked. She later improperly closed the the Big Sky navbox category CFDs. This is clearly because she had a beef with me and appears to delight in misdirecting my efforts to improve the database into a bureaucratic run-around where she can. The latter constitutes clear abuse of admin powers. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You REALLY need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline --Tarage (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I am indeed familiar with that essay. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? Because it runs contrary to the statement "appears to delight in misdirecting my efforts to improve the database into a bureaucratic run-around where she can". Refusing to close something on YOUR timetable is not "bureaucratic run-around". --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes does seem very premature does it not? One neutral comment and no relists is hardly enough discussion for no consensus Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It probably is premature but I don't think that is a reason to drag someone to ANI. ~ GB fan 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• You can't call someone "intellectually dishonest" and then decide "I want to move on" without so much as explaining that comment, It's no wonder BHG is rather pissed off with you, I would suggest this gets closed with the OP warned not to make silly remarks like that again. BOOMERANG applies. –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, I've clearly explained my accusation of intellectual dishonesty here. Can you address the logic of it before dismissing it as "silly"? The larger and more important issue here is whether BHG being rather pissed off with me warrants her obstructing CFD nominations that I opened two months later. Do you really thing that's warranted? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes you explained here but you didn't explain to her at the time, The CFD was closed prematurely but I'm not seeing anything that warrants a case such as this, Only one person's gonna get blocked and it's not BHG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Jweiss11, it's one thing to be abrasive to someone. It's another to then ping them specifically and demand they do something for you. She did not attack you, she told you she wouldn't close it, and then you pushed the issue. You got exactly what you asked for and then decided that the smart move was to come here and whine about it. Quite frankly, I don't see her being intellectually dishonest, I see you failing to be intellectual. --Tarage (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I did not claim that she attacked me when she told me she wouldn't close that CFD. The attacks, if any, by her were made earlier ("tantrum") and then later ("projection"). The personal attacks by her are not my main concern. My main concern is her retributive obstruction. So, what I asked for is to have her obstruct my CFD nominations in perpetuity? That sort of long-term retribution, which is at odds with that actual improvement of the encyclopedia, is the problem here. That doesn't concern you? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What part of "it was not obstruction" do you not understand? Obstruction would be to prevent you from getting things done. Refusing to close something for you is not obstruction. Admins don't HAVE to close whatever you tell them to. Quite frankly, the fact that several people have told you that you are wrong and that you still refuse to get that point is far more troubling. Again, I highly suggest you accept that you were wrong in filing this report and move on. We're telling you that you are digging yourself into a hole; your response should not be to keep digging. You won't like where you end up. --Tarage (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a case here. Categories deletion is pretty low priority non-urgent stuff. Lots of Admins are a lot worse to editors than what you describe. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like we have a wider problem with admin behavior then. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Eyes still needed on Jweiss11

I drafted a long reply to this I wrote a long reply but the discussion was closed[105] by @Bbb23 so I posted[106] it on my talk rather than discard it.

However as I was wrapping up I spotted that @Jweiss11 has posted[107] at WT:CFB: My ANI was dismissed. I suggest someone else nominate this category unless you want to live with for I don't know how long.

It seems that the personal attacks, forum-shopping and WP:IDHT is now being followed by recruitment of meatpuppets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The hypocrisy here is utterly stunning, and your characterization of me collaborating with other college football editors to improve college football-related content is absurd. It's clear I can't a get fair assessment here. Shall we all move on? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Everyone told you to stop, and your response was to drop a borderline legal threat. What is wrong with you? --Tarage (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Jweiss11: if you want to move on, then simply accept the the ANI closure and withdraw your call for meatpuppets to make an end-run around procedure.

If you want to challenge a CfD closure, WP:DRV is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. If editors who frequently edit in areas related to the category in question are likely to reach a consensus that the category should be deleted, I see no compelling reason to prevent them from doing so. Lepricavark (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

PS here's the borderline legal threat[108]. Jweiss11, see WP:NLT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've retracted my use of the word "libel" and restated it in way should not imply a legal threat. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you attack BHG (putting aside the politically correct bullshit way of saying lying "intellectually dishonest", my ass), then when called out for it, don't even have the good grace to either justify that attack or apologise for it. The next month, you pinged BHG to close another discussion with what I see as a contemptuous display of arrogance (Can we close this slam dunk? @BrownHairedGirl: how about you do the honors?), then double down with a smug @BrownHairedGirl: nice to see that were are moving forward and putting the improvement of the encyclopedia first. Other admins, can we get some closure on this long overdue and unnecessarily laborious slam dunk move?. I see no problem in BHG's close of this discussion. It had been open for 8 days with only a couple of comments. A CFD is not a RFC so your suggestion that she closed it perhaps too quickly can be dismissed. Her second close was probably not that wise given the established history between you two. Yeah, no, you don't have a case here Blackmane (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. BHG's second close was inadvisable, especially given that a consensus, established by editors familiar with the subject, was likely forthcoming. That being said, the reaction is quite over the top. Jweiss11, I like you and the invaluable work you do, but please let this go. Like Blackmane said, you really don't have a case. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• For those who are interested, I have initiated a deletion review here. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User: 108.180.193.239 - Constantly vandalising page to say BC/AD instead of accepted BCE/CE

As can be seen from the revision history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tetragrammaton&action=history (which I've reversed four times now), whoever's posting from IP 108.180.193.239 needs to be either warned by an admin or banned. It's not like they're contributing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Walch (talk • contribs)

The user deserves a warning maybe for not giving a rationale for their changes against consensus, but they're not at the point where a block is reasonable. You didn't notify them on their user talk page of this discussion, which you are required to do. Elassint ^Hi 22:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Radovan Savić – long-term vandalism

Someone from Serbia has been adding the name Radovan Savić or Radovan Savic to articles for two years or so. The main article affected is BSC Young Boys (see e.g. Special:Diff/718505076, Special:Diff/796385947, Special:Diff/838236245 and many more), but there were others, too. Would it be an option to create an edit filter that avoids the continuation of this kind of vandalism? I would prefer to not to apply a long-term protection. --Leyo 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism and "todd howard"

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this but—has anyone else noticed a spike in vandalism involving "todd howard" or something sounding similar? Accounts use that name (1 2), vandalism uses this (1 2 3 these are just a few examples). Why is this happening? The IP edits look like they're coming from different places, so it doesn't seem like just one person is doing it. The Todd Howard that the vandalism is about is probably Todd Howard (video game designer). Anyone know what can be done? SemiHypercube (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: An influx of idiots. We are blocking the trolls and protecting articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ah. A vandalism raid against Wikipedia. SemiHypercube (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube:,@NeilN:. Just to give some more context: This was discussed quite a bit at WP:RPP, you can see it here. This vandalism is based off a popular Tumblr post which leaked over to Twitter that specifically mentioned today being the day protection of his page expired. Many editors sought to protect the page before this all happened, but per Wikipedia bureaucracy it was declined. Sorry to vent here, but I think this is a textbook example of how WP:PP needs to re-evaluate its policy against "pre-emptive protection" when there is a demonstrated, organized interest in vandalism. I am cleaning up Todd Howard from totally unrelated pages. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The target page was protected, what, 24 hours ago? This is a good example of why we don't preemptively protect: it means nothing. The actual page was quickly protected and then the overflow went elsewhere. It's not like sysops were about to protect every page with "todd" or "howard" in the name. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That's because an editor chose to be proactive, even then it required increased protection and editors time to fight that vandalism that could be spent combating other vandalism that is slipping through. I'm not saying everything should be preemptively protected, but pages that we can see a demonstrated outside campaign to vandalize. Again sorry, I am venting a little how much time is wasted fighting vandalism that can be easily prevented. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

scratches his head Not sure what you are expecting though. The main page was kept semi-protected when it was clear it would be vandalized, as it was already occurring on the talk page. Which, and how many, and at what volume, other pages might be targeted from that point on is not something we could easily guess before hand. I'd like to believe blocks and semi-protections have been quite responsive through this. -- ferret (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we make a temporary edit filter that tags and maybe warns editors if they try to add "Todd Coward" to any article? Some of the places that they're being added are VERY random and unexpected. I recently just reverted vandalism related to this in Weasel (disambiguation) and Chris Coward. This might be more effective than locking a bunch of pages. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Weasel related article vandalism is targeting me. :) I don't know edit filters myself, but I'd suggest a temporary filter for "Todd Coward" and "Todd Howard" (In general) for a while. Perhaps "Godd Howard" as well, though I haven't seen that one much. -- ferret (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear above, ferret. I didn't mean guessing the outside/random pages that would be subject to the vandalism; I meant the pages that are expressly being targeted by the online campaigns, i.e. Todd Howard (video game designer). This has happened before and the response is always something like "wait until the vandalism actually happens." Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)