Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Euryalus (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 29 May 2018 (→User:DePiep and DYK: Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:DePiep and DYK

    Per community cosnensus in this thread:
    1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
    4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    In all of these situations, DePiep has repeatedly:

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

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

    @Vanamonde93: Replies to this post are below in #Reply by DePiep. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz: See my reply below. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I chanced upon a sudden slew of discussions on the DYK talkpage, all raised by DePiep. Most were causing heated debates, with the majority of the heat relating to the fact that DePiep seemed technically unable to sufficiently describe what he was trying to achieve in most instances. I certainly had trouble understanding a number of his comments. Even from today we have "For the rest: that going into the BF area, I think you should base that. - DePiep (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)" for example. No idea. So when eventually DePiep accused me of a (mild) PA, and then claimed he was leaving the discussion with a "See you elsewhere, TRM. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)", I stated that I hoped not. He then petulantly left me a message on my talk page with his very next edit. Generally it the whole series of posts has felt like an enormous waste of time from a disruptive editor who doesn't really appear to have the competence to make these kinds of edits or suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: A slew of discussions, all raised by DePiep -- Did I start too many talks? Isn’t that contradicting the OP notion? Or do I misread your post? A (mild) PA -- When I wrote “some other place” that refers to the WP:advice not to escalate a PA in the same thread. There is nothing more to it. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Across a broad swath of topics he has shown a characteristic pattern: he jumps into something he thinks needs doing (often with wide-ranging effect), but sometimes not quite in tune with what others think should be done. And when challenged he generally does not respond well. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. Johnson: I think this is an incorrect description of that ANI. There was nothing “in lieu of” a voluntary ban. Instead, I can see this as an example of me deescalating & solving. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In precisely what way is "he took a voluntary one-year topic ban ... in lieu of a six-month block" incorrect? Do you dispute that there was not a topic ban? Or that you did not voluntarily accept it? Or that it was not for one year? Or do you deny that there was any possibility of an involuntary block?
    The closing admin (Dennis Brown) stated: "The evidence presented herein demonstrate there is a serious problem with DePiep's behavior." And: "Technically, I could block for 6 months here and no one would bat an eye." And concluded: "if you start causing serious problems with this topic, a (long) block will probably result." What you "deescalated" was your liklihood of getting blocked, which I believe was understood by all present to be in the offing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. Johnson:. You are misrepresenting that ANI. (again; I pointed this out before). Already in my very first reply there I proposed a voluntary topic ban [11]. Only one full week later the closing admin mentioned what you call a “choice” [12]. I also note there are notes regarding your behaviour. Please stop rewriting this history. Your own wishes, perceptions and interpretations are not the same as facts and closing statements. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What I quoted (and highlighted) is from the closing statement. What is questionable here is your interpretation – here – that a "voluntary topic ban" is not a topic ban. In fact, when the closer said (and this also is from the closing statement): "DePiep, I am going to accept your voluntary topic ban (italics added), he characterized your sanction exactly as I have stated: a voluntary TOPIC BAN. The misrepresentation here is entirely yours. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I previously interacted with this user over a major revision of the {{OEIS}} template series. I think his changes were, ultimately, constructive, but they involved a similar "my way or the highway" attitude from DePiep, a distressing level of unconcern for making sure that the hundreds or thousands of existing uses of the template rendered correctly before making such changes, and a hostile response to any form of constructive criticism. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: I think you refer to this (first section) discussion. I don’t think that discussion illustrates what this thread is about. In short, you protested that the /sandbox /testcases were broken (not the mainspace template), which I called irrelevant; also, I solved that afterwards and created a follow up thread for future improvements. i.e., constructive editing & discussing. If anything, this actually illustrates my start-a-talk approach we all consider good editing. Note the “I want” sentence. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: about the example you mention: there I started follow up sections #Restart and #Proposal (which went live eventually; also note I pinged editors). I can see this as an example of desired talkpage behaviour. I reject the suggestion of WP:NOTHERE, maybe you meant to say something else? - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. For the time being, I am going to comment only in regard to your response to me here. When I made my original comment, I was primarily pointing out that you make positive contributions to WikiProject Pharmacology. I agree with you that #Proposal, which was the outcome of the discussion, was a good outcome. As for #Restart, I'm pretty sure that another editor, Jytdog, started that part of the discussion, not you. What I saw as a problem was your interactions with Doc James, where you said: [13], [14], [15], [16]. It started out as a simple misunderstanding between the two of you, but you unilaterally escalated it to (from last two edit summaries), "thanks for stating that you (Doc James) cannot be trusted" and "three dicks and you're out?". I then tried to intervene, and your response to me: [17], was completely one of deflecting your own responsibility to the other editor. That was bad, and the reason I did not pursue it was that the discussion got back on the right track after the other editors started the "restart". You appeared not to understand it then, and you appear not to understand it now. About my reference to "NOTHERE", I said it "does not" go that far, but you seem to be missing my use of the word "not". Maybe that indicates some language or communications difficulty, but much of what I am seeing indicates a behavioral problem that goes significantly beyond just language comprehension. I'm disappointed, therefore, in your response to me. As I said, I'm commenting for now just on this, but having also read all of your responses, I think I'm seeing a lot of deflection there too. If other editors confirm that hunch, my earlier willingness to cut you some slack will vanish. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish:. You are right, that interaction with Doc James is abject. I wanted to note that I (we) pulled that topic out of the mud into a well-discussed live result. Wrt NOTHERE: indeed you said it did “not go quite so far as ... ”, but introducing the reference point has a meaning and an effect. I object even the mentioning of it, because NOTHERE clearly claims having a dishonest interest in the project. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore, I want to make it clear that I do not consider you to be "NOTHERE". Full stop. The reason I first used the term was because other editors were seriously considering a site-ban, and I wanted to communicate that it would be too severe. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a DYK regular, I have never come across this user before nor had any interaction with him yet it appears to me that he has come into DYK out of the blue and made a number of edits to the technical workings of the project. Personally I don't see the logical reasoning behind his actions. The fact that there is consensus that he appears to be unaware that his tinkering is being disruptive suggests that maybe he should be advised to back off doing that. I never like to see topic bans but maybe this could be on the table. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • More concerning is that he doesn't appear to understand basic concepts. Looking at this history and this one (on which he broke 3RR), plus the current discussion at WT:DYK, he doesn't seem to grasp the BRD cycle or the facat that consensus should be gained for contentious edits. That's actually a WP:CIR issue, when one is repeatedly told by multiple editors not to do something, and you carry on doing it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Skimmed through here. User has not edited in some hours. Concerned that a very constructive editor in some areas has become overwrought. I think with DYK, they'd bit off too much, and they should leave it alone a while. DePiep, very interested in seeing your response.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dlohcierekim for this careful post. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is out of the ordinary for this editor at all. The limited interactions I've had with De Piep have also led to me tumbling down a rabbit hole of odd accusations and some of the most obstinate WP:IDHT behaviour I've ever seen here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How odd -- since this thread began DePiep has fallen silent. I've never seen that happen before. EEng 12:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems unnecessary for me to pile on the chorus of accusations. I've already said enough about DePiep at WT:DYK#DYKbox improvements and other threads. I just want to add that it baffles me why a seemingly experienced and productive user like DePiep would behave as if he'd never heard of WP:BRD and consistently ignore the advice and arguments presented by numerous other users. -Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zanhe: Below I will reply to my BRD issues. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Blocked

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

    So ANI flu can be fatal after all. EEng 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; normally I'd have a little bit of a problem with an admin coming over the top and instituting a different sanction than that which was just agreed to by the community. But given that the conduct here was so egregious that any admin could arguably have indeffed them at any point without likely objection from the community, and given the "out" which Beeblebrox has supplied DePiep with, with regard to returning here to discuss the community's concerns, I can't say as I have much issue with this in the present case. Besides, after Swarm closed their proposal below, I began to second-guess the wisdom of allowing a user to have access to mainspace while otherwise effectively banned, considering how that situation could be gamed. Snow let's rap 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Redux

    Ok, it looks like this would be an appropriate time to restart this discussion since they are back and able to edit again. I believe this are the points that need to be addressed, but feel free to add on if I’ve missed anything:

    • A pattern of becoming extremely defensive and/or refusing to clearly explain themselves when their edits are questioned
    • Edit warring
    • Responding to good-faith attempts at discussion with personal attacks
    • specifcally the “Auschwitz” comments, which several users and admins have commented are reason enough for a block in and of themselves
    • The fact that this is a highly experienced user who, despite 10 previous blocks, still doesn’t seem to have managed to learn to behave within minimum expected standards.

    Again, feel free to add if I’ve missed anything important. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you've summed it up pretty well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it wasn't obvious, I have pulled DePiep's TE right given the current topic ban, and some other reasons I recall from his past.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too think Beeblebrox sums it up pretty well. I think the edit-warring and gross incivility are easily dealt with; if they recognize the problem, they're on a tight leash (a 1RR restriction may be appropriate), and can be blocked indef if they repeat that behavior; if they don't recognize the problem, we site-ban them here and now until they do. The first problem Beeblobrox describes is trickier to define, and trickier to address. I would there reiterate my proposal to remove them from maintenance areas, defined as any namespace outside articles, article talk pages, user pages, and user talk pages, with an exception for appealing and/or discussing sanctions about themselves. I proposed this below as a temporary remedy, but I believe it's the appropriate long-term step, too. This proposal is, of course, conditional on DePiep recognizing and promising to rectify the other problems with their behavior; otherwise, it is moot, and I would support a ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Vanamonde, the issues have been summed up very well by Beeblebrox. If DePiep cannot explain their edits in the maintenance areas, then they should not be editing in that area, so under any circumstances this proposal should probably sustain. Alex Shih (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preparing replies, basically to the top thread. - DePiep (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Been working continuously on this since (on/offline), but can't get it finished today. Need a rest. - DePiep (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, you may not believe this but I really would like to help you get back to assisting with the project. For that to happen, though, your response here needs to reflect an attempt to understand why everyone (everyone) is upset with you, not an extended defense explaining how you were right all along. EEng 22:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe you. I am wrestling with my replies offline for days now. It is tough confrontations, and I must be honest & full out I know. Best of all is the time allowed (fast & short answers won't solve). I hope to post tomorrow, a batch of replies. I too want to join the project. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought... It can be quite traumatic facing up to your own problems, and as DePiep is keeping away from editing until this is resolved, I see no rush. I'd much rather we (DePiep and others) take the time to achieve an amicable solution that gets DePiep back to productive editing, than rush and get a poorer outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, taking some time is good, for me at least, as I can read more carefully &tc. - DePiep (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After blocking DePiep in 2015, I received this email comment from an editor, who shall remain anonymous: In case you wonder how I got involved, I have been working on the immensely complex Module:[redacted] for nearly three years, and DePiep has been active on Template_talk:[redacted] with helpful advice for those asking questions, and by managing the documentation. I have also seen DePiep's useful work in other areas. I fully acknowledge DePiep's problems and I think your block for an extremely pointless edit war on a template was reasonable. DePiep does not speak English fluently and sometimes misunderstands colloquialisms, and finds it hard to follow long and complex sentences (like the ones I write!). DePiep's style is sometimes unhelpful.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by DePiep

    • First of all, I want to make my excuses for the edit regarding Icewhiz. That should not have happened in any case. Even worse I did not even self-correct at the time.
    • Also, my 3RR breach with [18] in Template:DYKbox was unacceptable, especially since it was about visible content. (For those interested, here is a better development route I started afterwards).
    • Also this visible content change should have been done via the talkpage.
    • Re me being absent [19]: that was genuine in RL, it was not triggered by this ANI as some admins assumed. In the end the temporary blocks turned out as I too intended: first solve this thread (so the issue is moot). Meanwhile, these days helped me in finding a more relaxed and careful approach to the issues.
    • In the top section, below the OP, I have replied to some individual complaints, that IMO are more isolated.
    • For completeness, I note the discussions I started: this, [20], this, this; and I contributed to this.
    • About my behaviour wrt BOLD, BRD, and talks. This is more subtle, so please bear with me. I write in reply to the three complaints that were made in the OP (now anchored):


    Re #OP-1 vague language like "cleanup" and "improvement": As with many other similar template improvements I applied a technical-only edit: [21], [22]. My experience with other templates and WikiProjects is, that these are *not* considered controversial. To me, the wording in an the es like “cleanup” or “move templatedata/category to documentation” is clear enough. Elsewhere I did link to this WP-document for explanation. Sometimes the edit should be self-clarifying I thought: e.g., removing texts like “Interwikis go to the documentation page” is heavily outdated.

    I add that in other WikiProjects, I have applied competence including doing bold edits, and building consensus in more difficult template issues (see talks & archives of elem, chem, drug, track). This is not to claim authority, but to point out that the DYK community is different in this. Please understand that this is my background experience, and so I am quite surprised to discover & learn that in WP:DYK the sense is more like “hey, don’t even edit bold here”. Before the DYK talks started, I already had made some 100–150 technical edits to templates & documentation without problems or breaking one, which added to the surprise effect.

    I think this difference explains most of my contributions to the talkpages. This is why I kept asking for: “what is broken?”. This also explains why I missed the underlying DYK-community requests to explain more, and to simply not edit at all.

    Re #OP-2 Treated all demands for explanation as allegations of bad faith. Maybe you refer to this edit, which indeed is needlessly unfriendly. In that talkpage section I first did answer what I was doing [23]. Then I got this bolded cursing, my reply asking to stay civil, canvassing/meatpuppeting, I asked to stop, ridiculing my English, then this. (BTW I am surprised that no editor here acted upon or even noted the abusive language in this last diff).

    All this had happened in that section when Vanamonde93 made a fresh & clear restart with a bullet: [24]. To that I did reply with content [25], and without [26]. Rereading the section I think I did show some willingness to reply, but re Vanamonde93 I missed the deeper question obviously, and that latest diff was not clarifying, and not friendly I admit. Please note that the Vanamonde93 post appeared after the unhelpful language in the first half (diffs given above). At that point, my mood was not open for the constructive approach Vanamonde93 started.

    It could be that Vanamonde93’s text “allegations of bad faith” actually meant to say “as personal attacks” (as Vanamonde93 did in their #Redux text). To this, my reply would be: in multiple occasions my knowledge of English was questioned [27], and even ridiculed [28]. I have never met this complaint before. While this appears to have a base in WP:CIR, it certainly appeared to me as a PA (amid other unhelpful posts aimed at me), hence my replies. I don't think I started out making BF/PA accusations.

    Re #OP-3 Refused to acknowledge that … he needs to obtain consensus for them: Correct in general, though above I have noted that sensitivity for (objection to) BOLD/BRD editing in DYK is higher than elsewhere, even with technical edits.


    Over all, I think I showed that, apart from problematic edits, also I started multiple threads myself, abided their result, and did reply with meaningfull answers (note the “also”). This is to push back against the atmosphere created that I did not engage in discussions at all. I now know & also admit many other answers were not civil/helpful/acceptable (or not to the point, not clarifying enough). In this situation, BRD should have lead me to stop making bold edits full stop. Then, a talkpage result would lead the way (could be no consensus, that is: nothing to be done).

    I see that my initial attitude was that my edits were obvious, correct and self-explaining cleanups; this blinded me for the deeper concerns that were posted (like this opening by EEng, and this one by Vanamonde93). This is not to wipe complaints out, I just want to illustrate that the trespassings were not posted as a first reply or opening post.

    How to prevent any future such problems? Clearly, I should take care not get carried away by fanatic editing, introducing blindness for talks and leading to frustrated uncivil replies. More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation. The bonus is that it will lead to a more healthy situation this side of my screen.

    WRT WP:DYK, with its complicated processes, bot-support, difficult talks to reach improvements, and this whole experience: I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited.

    IIRC, in your edit [29] I totally missed the "duplicate" cause, so I saw only the removal which astonished me. At that time I had noted that WP:Palestine editing is low at enwiki. - DePiep (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - I could understand how that could possibly lead to anger.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • DePiep Firstly, I want to thank you for that self-reflection - it can't be an easy thing to do. I don't want to get into too much detail, so I won't reply to specifics above, but I'll just offer a few general observations.

      On the issue of being WP:BOLD and following WP:BRD, what I think I'm mostly seeing in recent interactions is a lack of understanding and poor communication. You didn't really understand why others were rejecting your template changes. But, more importantly, they didn't understand what you were trying to achieve and why. I see some attempts at discussion, but they were rather curt and I have to say I couldn't understand the details. What it needed (and I say this rarely) was more words and less action. It needed a more expansive and detailed explanation of what you were doing, and discussion until everyone understood everything. And stop making any changes until it is clear that everyone understands and there is a consensus. If you continue with further efforts to remake the same changes with modifications for what you think is the problem (but without the necessary understanding and consensus), it only causes frustration. Don't approach it from a feeling of "They need to explain what I did wrong", but more from "How can I help them understand what I'm trying to do?"

      It's not really that BOLD is not allowed, it's that the D part of BRD is by far the most important of those three letters. In areas like frequently used templates and pages with high dependencies, it is even more important that everyone involved should fully understand the implications of any changes, and when those changes are contested you should completely stop and seek consensus. In fact, in areas where there are regular editors with more specific knowledge and experience, it can indeed be wiser to seek consensus first and not be BOLD at all, as you suggest.

      Looking back over some previous interactions that others have raised, I also see times when you appear to have taken reversions or questions of what you are doing too personally and have responded poorly, similarly to what has happened here. That does seem to be a long-term issue, though again I think it's probably due to misunderstandings and/or poor communication. But when any edits you make are challenged, you really do need to engage in discussion and fully explain what you are doing - and it needs to be an explanation that's sufficient for the other editors to understand, not just one that satisfies you. And always, stop, assume good faith, and look at the whole picture again before you respond - it seems it was a failure to do this that led to the IceWhizz thing.

      Anyway, this has turned out to be a lot longer than I'd anticipated, but I hope you will find it of some use. And if you're listening to what people are saying and are taking it in and trying to do something about it (which you appear to be doing), then I don't think there's any need for any sanctions. But please do reflect on this discussion whenever you feel thwarted or frustrated in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Yes, this nicely (and more eloquently) describes my situation. - DePiep (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to hear more from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm happy to see DePiep apologizing for the worst of the personal attacks, and a site-ban is no longer an option I would consider. But I'm less satisfied with DePiep's replies about BRD. Especially with respect to DYK, he seems to believe that there's some sort of resistance to change anything there, and that his following BRD would have led to no changes at all. This is simply not true. DePiep made certain changes to certain templates and was reverted. His responses (when he went to a talk page at all), as far as I could make out, tended to be "I didn't break anything" or "Why not?" He didn't realize that it was incumbent upon him to answer the question "why?" first. There were similar problems with his talk page proposals; basically, they didn't always explain the problem they were trying to solve, and when folks expressed confusion and/or opposition, DePiep took things personally.

      I'm not sure where to proceed from here: on the one hand I'm worried my proposal above is now too harsh; on the other hand, I'm worried that if we do nothing, we'll be back to where we began very soon. I'd like to hear more suggestions about how to move forward. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vanamonde93:. I’ll try to be more precise: I don’t want to state that “ there's some sort of resistance to change anything there” in the WikiProject DYK community. What I meant is that change discussions in the DYK backoffice are more extensive (diverse opinions) and more complicated (more issues are involved, e.g., bots) compared to other WikiProjects/templates I have worked with extensively. As a consequence, in these other WikiProjects I rarely run into a BRD cycle (I have made bold, minor edits to a 10k template, explain on the talkpage, and no R is made). This is what I call the “surprise” I met in WP:DYK.
    My future behaviour then should be: be more sensitive for such requests (like BRD). If I were allowed to edit again, I expect to achieve this for example by not being bold in more unfamiliar projects. Essential to this is, me not dig in myself (instead take distance, start talk first, don’t get triggered by perceived opposition). Also I foresee that this editing process might lead to fewer of my proposals being accepted, which should not be a cause for frustration. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with all of the above. DePuep is here in GF and seems to have plenty to offer, but we need to find some way to help him put the brakes on when need be. EEng 16:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On rereading some of the above I feel it must be said that something that's missing, and which I think is essential for DePiep's future here, is a recognition by him that his English really does have moderate deficiencies, so that he needs to exercise extra caution in interpreting PGs and what others say to him. EEng 21:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation." This is good self-advice from DePiep. I think they tend to get heated and then not assume good faith. The onus is on them to control this. The reality is that they will have little leeway in the future, and they could conceivably improve yet still be villified for one transgression. It's their responsibility to repair their reputation. I don't know if there is any suitable sanction at this point. They should also get their template editing rights restored.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Vanamonde's assessment of the situation is spot-on. I would like to find a solution that makes it possible for DePiep to stay around, including the ability to continue to work with templates, but I also see a troubling lack of self-awareness with regard to discussion with other editors, resulting in personal attacks, and I am convinced that it would be a mistake to assume that it will not happen again. So I would like to suggest an approach based on WP:ROPE. I don't see a good way to legislate a definable criterion for adequately understanding comments directed at him by other editors. But I think that we might be able to draw something of a bright line with respect to personal attacks (although I acknowledge that the community has not been able to agree on the boundaries of civility). I think that we might be able to draw up an editing restriction that specifies that any future personal attack made by DePiep during discussions of edits that he has made will result either in an escalating series of blocks, or in a site-ban. If we can flesh out that idea, perhaps we can make a formal proposal to that effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And in the case if there are no restrictions, the close here should be clear that there is little to no tolerance for future incivility, allowing for swift action in the future, if needed, without spending too much time rehashing their history and re-collecting diffs.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I also think that this discussion should not be closed until some restrictions have been settled upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bagumba:, @Tryptofish:. [written before I read the lastest proposal, I'll post this anyway:] I understand the setups you describe here. I myself am wondering too about any type of useful restriction etc I could even ask for. Today I only can make promises. Of course, whatever the result now, we know that this ANI by itself is an ultimate warning. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with both Bagumba and Tryptofish. For all the concern of how DePiep might be salvaged for the greater glory of the project, he has been an IMMENSE sink of time. Unless someone is inclined to engage in a close, long-term mentoring effort with him he should be put on notice that any bickering or disputation (including here at ANI) will be grounds for a block. Which means that, in any dispute, if his arguments and explanations of why he is right are not accepted he must not persist, and any escalation to ANI is prima facie grounds for a block. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. Johnson:. any bickering or disputation (including here at ANI) will be grounds for a block -- are you serious? So any editor can report me here to ignite a autoblock, no reading required? Not even allowed to dispute or disagree? (how should that work for applying BRD BTW?). Editors can step on the admin's chair just like that? -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am serious. See comment at bottom of this section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not a language problem, it's an attitudinal problem. There is a pertinent comment today way at the bottom of all this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • DePiep wrote, I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited. I think this is a good idea, and I would like this to be a formal part of the resolution here; the "invitation" should be a consensus of the DYK community on its talk page, not just a random editor. This has been an immense time sink, as noted above, and there was damage done, as edits to several templates that are designed to be transcluded caused unexpected characters to appear where they shouldn't. It's clear that DePiep wasn't sufficiently aware of the many DYK processes to safely edit DYK templates, and I've reverted their template edits there, though I've left the edits to the template documentation pages alone since they're unlikely to have done any harm. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "civility restriction" is also an option. Per WP:RESTRICTION: The user may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Perhaps a 1-yr editing restriction?—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK then, I think that a near-consensus is starting to emerge. How about a proposal formulated like this:
    1. A topic ban from DYK, that can be subject to review in the event that other editors at DYK would like to have it lifted.
    2. A 1-year editing restriction, in which DePiep is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
    I think restoration of TE privs should be contingent on a year's success with the above. It's a right that assumes particularly restrained judgment. EEng 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly, that means specifically the Template Editor advanced permissions, but not simply the ability to do edits related to templates. If that's the case, that's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think DePiep should re-apply at PERM if they want TE rights again. Tryptofish's summary of consensus in my opinion is fair (topic ban from DYK/one year civility restriction). Personally I would prefer "indefinite" but "appealable in six months" for the civility restriction so that we don't come back to square one again after one year (somewhat reflecting on the sentiment expressed by Vanamonde and Beeblebrox). I would probably also add a reminder along the lines of "...to stop and discuss before making potentially contentious maintenance edits" or any other statement that summarise what Boing! and others have mentioned here. Alex Shih (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking over it, I think perhaps that both the DYK topic ban and the civility restriction should be "indefinite but appealable in not less than six months". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about: any complaint made here, that an admin judges to be well-founded, for incivility, personal attacks, edit-warring, or tendentious editing, is grounds for an immediate one-month block, and this sanction to continue until the user has edited for twelve consecutive months without any complaint. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly that sounds a touch confusing, and I'd prefer the relatively straightforward modification suggested by Alex above; both restrictions indefinite, and appealable in six months. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Vanamonde. There will be less likelihood of something going wrong if we stay closer to the typical format for sanctions, and for the application of administrator judgment. I think we are getting to the point where I will make a formal proposal soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all the agreeing with the agreement. Can someone recapitulate exactly what's being proposed now? And then (it seems to me for some reason in this particular case) I think it would be useful to hear from DePiep himself that he understands what the proposal, if approved by the community, would be asking him to do, and that he thinks he can abide by it. EEng 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just noted above re J. Johnson, this is a weird prococedural route for multiple reasons. (I copy): So any editor can report me here to ignite a autoblock, no reading required? Not even allowed to dispute or disagree? (how should that work for applying BRD BTW?). -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am serious. The persistent problem you present is, in large part, continous disputation, and recurring failure to WP:HEAR. (E.g., in part of this multi-part comment of yours you continue to dispute whether your last "voluntary topic ban" was, in effect, a topic ban. You revise history, and then accuse me of misrepresentation.) Do note that, strictly speaking, this is not an autoblock. While any editor could report you here, it would be up to an admin to decide whether there is grounds to block. The point is that we don't have to drag everyone through yet another round of DePiep showing how the rest of us are all wrong.
    The key point for you is that if you can resolve disputes you have on various Talk pages, very well. But: if you can't (or won't), and persist in it enough to annoy other editors, you will be sanctioned. And no, you don't get to dispute about disputes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Oh, wait, someone already did that, a few subthreads down. Let's regroup there. EEng 03:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Moot stuff

    Proposal: Temporary topic ban

    DePiep is temporarily topic banned from proposing or making edits outside of mainspace and user space; further resolution is still pending (which will take place in the section above, in a separate proposal or until DePiep participates in this AN/I discussion). This editing restriction will be logged shortly. Alex Shih (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Pinging @EEng, David Eppstein, Zanhe, The Rambling Man, Icewhiz, Ponyo, Dlohcierekim, The C of E, Tryptofish, The C of E, Izno, Bellezzasolo, and Black Kite: With due apologies. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Pinging Dweller too, who posted above as I typed this. I agree, that slur is not okay, but I believe it part of a wider pattern that needs to be addressed in its entirety. Vanamonde (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative support As I have been pinged twice(!), I feel I should comment. Giving the benefit of the doubt to DePiep for saying he cannot comment, it doesn't quite seem fair to impose a full sanction on him when he is not able to defend himself, whatever the reason may be. That being said, I feel that for the continuous altering of the syntax when being asked not to and for that Auschwitz comment which I wasn't aware of before, I think that it is justified to put a temporary restriction on until such time as he is able to fully explain why he did what he did. Then we can make a fully informed decision on what to do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support good idea. Protects the user who I'm sure has a legitimate reason to be unable to edit (we're all volunteers, after all) and also protects the community against the possibility of scrutiny evasion. I'd amend to "all 'Wikipedia:' and 'Wikipedia talk:' pages" to the terms of the topic ban though. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Is your suggested change a shrinking or enlargement of the proposed (temporary) topic ban to you? DePiep's behavior extends into the template space as well. --Izno (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, when I said "maintenance areas" above, I mean everything that isn't articlespace and userspace. That way, even if DePiep returns and ignores this thread, we don't have to rehash everything until he chooses to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah. So specify forwards maybe, using that form of words? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban which prevents editing anything outside this thread. The proposal is (in spirit) fine but not tightly defined. We've had this situation before where a user develops ANI-flu, and the best way of dealing with it when there's significant concern over the disruption caused by such editors is to mandate they respond here and nowhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support anything up to and including an indef until he shows he understands what he's been doing wrong. EEng 09:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A firm, but gentle, way of forcing the issue to be addressed. However, I agree with TRM, answering this thread should be the first thing they do when they get back to Wikipeida. If they don't edit this thread, it's a voluntary CBAN. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Caveat: I'd suggest applying the usual exemptions for 3RR here. So they can revert vandalism, as that's very much a quick operation. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure there's a dire need for a topic banned editor to revert vandalism in project space. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I was referring to a caveat in the context of TRM's proposal, i.e. a topic ban from everything except this thread, including mainspace. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Long term contributor - who yes - has been overly aggressive of late. His block log has been clean for nearly two years. Certainly some of his comments have been disconcerting - but has anyone discussed this with him? I believe he should be warned regarding civility and cooperation prior to tbanning areas he edits. A temporary t-ban shifts the burden of evidence to him in the future. The AN/I should serve as a wake up call of how this is viewed, and he should be warned prior to more aggressive action.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the Auschwitz comment. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support "startling amounts of off-topic bellicosity" is definitely how I'd describe my (quite limited and otherwise benign) interactions with DePiep, and the cited examples are more of the same. Common-sense exceptions (a dangerous pastime, I know) for participating in ANI threads and the like about themself (or at least this one) can apply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support GiantSnowman 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the Auschwitz comment is unacceptable, especially when considered in light of DePiep's bogus claims that other editors personally attacked him. This hypocrisy, in my view, warrants more than a topic ban from DYK, but at least this is a start. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as revised. As long as this is temporary until this ANI discussion gets resolved, it is not punitive, and allows in good faith for the possibility of something other than "ANI flu". And I personally would be quite happy if the eventual outcome were to be an indication by DiPiep that he now understands the concerns here and will try to do better, with the understanding that it will be a WP:ROPE situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Frankly, DePiep is getting off lightly here - if I'd seen the "Icewitz" comment, I'd have blocked for a serious amount of time, if not indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as specified, but would rather support full ban until this is resolved, considering the Icewhiz/Auschwitz comments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as far as it goes, but prefer a full ban. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
    • Highly conditional support The proposed solution is a reasonable one under the circumstances, but I want to be clear about what I am endorsing. If the purpose of this ban is to make sure that Depiep returns here to to discuss the matter as soon as they have time to return to the project, this is a desirable way to effectuate that result. However, I believe that as soon a Depiep does return and opens a thread for the transparent purpose of picking up discussion where it left off, this ban should be dissolved immediately by that action and without need for a community resolution. In other words, as this is a procedural matter rather than a final determination by the community regarding the Depiep's conduct, there should be no presumption that there exists a more long-term ban in place on Depiep--at least, not until such time as the community explicitly declares one. Snow let's rap 01:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, incidentally, if we were discussing the long-term solution now, I would have supported a block for DePiep at a bare minimum, based on a couple of those highly uncivil comments. Snow let's rap 01:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a bare minimum. That Auschwitz slur (which was repeated several times) was disgusting behaviour, and I would have indef blocked for it had I seen it at the time. However good someone's contributions, if they stoop to such appalling personal attacks during disputes they should be shown the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Having said that, I would prefer a complete community ban until DePiep has time to come here and address his disgraceful conduct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: Site ban

    Not necessary at this time, got it. Swarm ♠

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

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

    • Weak procedural oppose. - Swarm, as someone whose main bugbear on this project for the last few years has been the very lax standard of enforcement of WP:CIVILITY that the community presently utilizes, you can bet I'm right there with you in finding that some of those comments were thoroughly unacceptable and warrant some degree of sanction. That said, I don't think there is a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of your resolution passing, given the broad endorsement of the proposal to wait to resolve this matter. Nor is that decision ill-advised in my opinion; indeed it's pretty consistent with how community responses (and even proceedings as serious as ArbCom cases) have always been dealt with in these circumstances. Whether we credit any one particular editor's claims of inability to participate to be genuine or an attempt to avoid scrutiny, the fact of the matter is that sometimes life does intervene and because of our inability to know the real life circumstances of most of our editors, it is considered best practice to give them the benefit of the doubt, regardless of doubts which may have been caused by their other conduct. Unfortunately, I think this is a necessary precaution to make sure that our editors maintain the ability to present their side of things. (And I can't imagine DePiep saying anything that makes those comments acceptable, but that's neither here nor there).
    Given the general community standard on this sort of thing, and the near-unanimous endorsement of the approach in this particular case, I think we should stay the course. DePiep is effectively banned anyway until they return to discuss the matter and the community will still be here when they do. All the same evidence can be presented and all the same users pinged (and indeed some of them, assuming that DePiep's claims here are a dodge, will only be more likely to be hardened in their view that he should face a sanction) and another additional batch of editors will also be introduced to the matter. I'm fairly certain the ban will be extended to a non-provisional one at that time and that this is a delay of community response, not an abrogation. Snow let's rap 00:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeWe already have a remedy above. We don't need to keep taking bites at the apple.00:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
    • I was under the impression that that's specifically a temporary remedy, pending an actual one, and the reason that was done was because DePiep claimed they couldn't participate at the moment, which is, to me, obviously not true. Multiple people are advocating for a full ban above, so it seems silly and unusual to allow him to continue to edit the mainspace freely until he's ready to answer for tendentious editing. Swarm ♠ 00:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Bit convenient that the day they're taken to ANI the editing drops for a day and then 2 days later they make a "I can't respond" comment before vanishing again, That all being said unless I've read it wrong they're topic banned from the entire project apart from the thread above so I don't see much point in site banning/blocking at this time however if they return and make a edit anywhere else then I'd happily support indef, In some ways I feel the editor should be blocked per CIR and the other side remain here - Dunno but anyway oppose any sort of blocking for now. –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I think that the temp ban -- which effectively becomes a permanent one if DePiep doesn't want to return to editing -- is sufficient at this time. If a unreasonable period of time passes and DePiep doesn't return to editing here, or he edits other language Wikipedias, then we can talk about additional sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: Editing restrictions

    Following the discussion at #Reply by DePiep, above, it looks like there may be an emerging consensus to handle the situation in the following way, so I am presenting a formal proposal:

    1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
    4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

    --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I think that would be a mistake. The root of DePiep's problems at DYK was that he was trying to get under the hood when he'd never driven a car (so to speak). I see no problem with him making nominations, and reviewing, and discussing (discussing content issues, that is) at Talk:DYK; but he must stay away from the technical machinery for the duration proposed. BlueMoonset can probably express the distinction crisply for us, in terms of namespaces or classes of pages or something. EEng 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with EEng. I suggest that a namespace-based restriction here would be tricky, but we can add an exception to nominate articles, review nominations, and participate in discussions necessary to resolving his nominations or reviews. Vanamonde (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problems with the wider cast "No, no noms". I asked for clarification, not for relaxation. I suggest stopping this side discussion. - DePiep (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as written. If DePiep is fine with a topic ban from DYK, I see no need to carve out a path for nominating DYKs, something I don't believe they've ever done in all the years they've been editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what I was thinking. In the previous edit, DePiep was asking about "DYK proposals" (they have since clarified), which I naturally thought was referring to the DYK proposals they made in WT:DYK when they were unaware of anything about the DYK process. With that being resolved, I still agree with BlueMoonset; I don't really see the necessity to write an exception for something that they appears to have never done in the past. If DePiep is interested in submitting DYK nominations anytime soon, I suppose it is fine to add the exception suggested by Vanamonde. Alex Shih (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on DePiep's comment just above, I think it's best to leave it as is. The less complicated, the better. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking for a partial relaxation of the restriction, for the purpose of nominations, in six months. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's just me, but I still think we should sonehow address DePiep's English comprehension difficulties -- maybe something about asking for assistance in understanding others' posts and edit summaries where necessary. EEng 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sort-of tried to cover that in item number 4. Beyond that, it gets difficult to incorporate advice into something like this, where we are trying to write something that is precise enough to be enforceable. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd just like to hear from DeP that he recognizes this is part of the problem. EEng 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have similar concerns, though I'm not sure its the language competency itself that is the problem, per se. In the past, I've made numerous ventures on to other Wikipedias for languages for which I have functional but incomplete command of the grammar. Usually this is for the purpose of tracking down sources, finding content to transwiki, or just educating myself on a topic for which the English Wikipedia has more limited coverage. Once in a blue moon, I have made some trivial edits (maybe even some bold ones), but whenever reverted, I never insisted on my preferred approach, nor got antagonistic with the local editors, because I recognized the potential for mis-comunication and that each Wikipedia has its own editorial policies and community consensus (which are also subject to being misconstrued, no matter how much effort one makes to familiarize themselves, if facility in the language is incomplete).
    I don't think that editors from non-English communities should be discouraged from participating (they can often bring knowledge which is less well known in the anglophone sphere), but anybody participating in a Wikipedia project (or in any collaborative scheme, for that matter) for a language which they are not fluent in should be using a liberal application of the precautionary principle. Instead DePiep often seems to come in guns blazing when challenged. So the issue is not so much one of underlying incomplete facility with English, but more one of arrogance and lack of self restraint and perspective in general. They don't seem to pause to consider whether they may have misunderstood the consensus on the matter and whether they are effectively communicating. Needless to say, those are potentially huge problems on a project such as this. That said, those are also the underlying principles to which DePiep has mostly owned up to above, so I would hope that their commitment to slow their approach in general will address these problems. Snow let's rap 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: it's not a language problem, it's this persistent "guns blazing" disputation (and some arrogance) that's the problem. But I doubt how much he has "owned up" to being a problem, as it keeps happening, again and again. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that behavior, not language comprehension, seems to be the biggest factor here. As to owning up to it, these sanctions should be an effective test of how committed they really are. If they can’t stay within them, blocks will be forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that I think it's the comprehension gap that often triggers the latent behavioral tendencies, but I give up. EEng 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect you are right about a comprehension gap triggering some of the behavior, but it's at a deeper level than mere language. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re EEng: I don’t think my level of understanding English is very significant in this. I have participated in huge discussions, sometimes taking over 400 days, and building a positive result that affected dozens of FAs/GAs (recently [30] and longer ago; also here and here). It would be more relevant tot look at my domain knowledge, as in: understanding the topic and the workings of a WikiProject, including editors’ approaches & attitudes. This gives a much better explanation on why I derailed in the WP:DYK. - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are expressly stating that your problematical behavior is not due to any difficulties of language. Noted.
    But please explain: why is it that in claiming an instance of a "positive result" you provide a diff to an edit by another editor? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support: I would have tightened the wording on the civility provision myself; admins are already empowered to impose blocks and other sanctions for incivility, personal attacks, and refusal to AGF, so clearly what we are talking about is implementing a lower threshold for when DePiep is subject to sanction with regard to bad-faith conduct of this sort, and I'm not sure the wording makes that particularly clear (and using the default standard in this manner debases our baseline community expectations, I fear).
    That little caveat aside though, I think these sanctions create sufficient restraint to address the issues raised here to an extent that will allow us to permit DePiep to continue contributing long enough to test their commitment to taking the community's concerns on board. Some of the comments that spurned this thread were truly antagonistic, but it makes a big difference that DePiep is trying and has made efforts at apology. I note also that the party most directly insulted by those comments has themselves chosen not to assume that these comments are representative of DePiep in the whole and has not urged for sanctions; of course the community can still reach their own conclusions about those comments, but that situation does make a difference to my personal analysis. All said, I think we can afford to give DePiep this chance. Snow let's rap 20:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on the grounds that an editor who has been problematic for this long is best dealt with by the more deliberative process of ArbCom. (I am probably in the minority here, but this is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if ArbCom would be better at this point, but the restrictions proposed here do not preclude that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, Cut some slack for a long-standing editor. Was DePiep wrong? Yes. Did he admit to it? Yes. If Wikipedia were only open to perfect editors, we would have no one here. This is an editor with 13 years tenure, 120k+ edits, and many-many productive contributions. His lack block prior to this incident - was almost two years ago - in August 2016. If we keep on treating block logs as a "criminal record" - all we're encouraging is people starting over with clean (or not so clean) starts. DePiep should have communicated better at DYK and elsewhere - and he should have realized the problem earlier - but slapping him with a very punitive punishment (and to a certain extent - this is true regarding the proposal in the section below as well) - is not the way to encourage contribution. Had this been coming to here after a previous recent block/ANI/warning - the DePiep should have acknowledged and acted upon - then it would be a separate matter. Having had a clean record for past 2 years and approx. 40k edits - DePiep should be cut quite a bit of slack. People aren't always at their best - and self-recognition and attempts to correct are much more important tbans/blocks/etc.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made 178k edits on enwiki, 40k of them after August 2016 (and so 138k before). I thank Icewhiz fort he notion of the "criminal record" approach (worse even when the record is read incorrectly -- nigh impossible to correct). - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That all sounds very reasonable and I can see how you may have come to such a conclusion. I would, however, offer an incident from January of this year as a more recent example. DePiep decided to “claim” a module at {{Module:Z}}. Not create a template, but rather claim it as their own for future creation. As I imagine you are aware, that is complete nonsense. As I recall there was also a talk thread somewhere where they announced their “claiming” of it. I came very close to blocking them then, but at the last second they backed off and let it go. I let it go as well for basically the reasons you have outlined here. It is now clear to me that this is a pattern from this user, and the sanctions are intended to interrupt that pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, see [31] for the discussion (and the third reopening of the closed discussion thread). isaacl (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So Beeblebrox told me that this is not the right way to go and deleted the page: WP:SPEEDY. But how or why does this belong in an ANI post? - DePiep (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Beeblebrox illustrates the tricky part in the proposal: he wanted to block me for … creating a page. So in the future the rules proposed here might be invoked by any admin that confuses a discussion with wrong language. That could only be cleaned up in an unblock request, but that is not a good place to discuss of course plus there is the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily. - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatantly off topic, but I've been wanting to unburden myself: the single-letter template names are a rare and precious resource not to be squandered. The idea of wasting Z on something about chemical elements is appalling, and whoever appropriated {{M}} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil. EEng 13:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope not!! I would point out that {{M}}'s previous incarnation was for producing a single character (as several templates still do), which would be more to your point. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but it's a matter of principle. Please report to the nearest boiling station for processing. The heat sources are very reliable now and there's usually comparatively little suffering.
    The single-character templates should be reserved, ideally, for uses in which reducing clutter in the source text is especially important; a great example is {{r}}. Anyway, we'll miss you, JJ. EEng 04:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)    [reply]
    Hmm, I can't seem to fit that into my schedule. I may be booked for a warmer clime; perhaps see you there? :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng: Language? While we are at it, could you reflect on how these edits [32] [33] were helpful or useful? - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your two links are the same diff, and its use lay in its potential to drive home to you that you have real difficulties in English comprehension and expression. If you're going to now start denying that you have such difficulties, as you seem to be doing (in [34] you said I don’t think my level of understanding English is very significant in this) then I'm going to have to rethink my support for the very generous WP:ROPE you've been offered, and I suspect others will as well. What do you mean by Language? in your post just above? What in the world do you mean by there is the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily in the diff I've just linked? EEng 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Beeblebrox, and add this incident from last year. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t believe that all they took away from that incident is “Beeblebrox wanted to block me for creating a page” when it was in fact about “claiming ownership” of a page and making a ridiculous spectacle out of making sure everyin knew of their”claim” even through that’s not a real thing. That they can’t see that does not give me much hope for their future. And the remark about admin wheelbarrows doesn’t help either. I do own a wheelbarrow, a nice two-wheeled heavy-duty one, but I can’t recall ever using it on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support restrictions as proposed - I'm encouraged that DePiep has acknowledged that his behavior has been a problem and hope that he will continue to contribute to the project, but I do think that these restrictions are a reasonable step at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrap it up

    My personal rule is that when one single thread constitutes a full half of the current ANI byte-bulk, then it's time for someone to take stock and close the matter. Anyone willing? EEng 04:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @EEng: I've already posted a request at AN, but it hasn't been actioned yet. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering if you have revised your viewpoint, as you mentioned may occur based on the latest responses? isaacl (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You talking to me? Well I don't like the fact that he's gone silent again. But I think we should just go with what we've got. He'll either straighten up and fly right, or he'll be on the express train to indef. Not worth the trouble to try to adjust course now. EEng 00:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, wrap it up. Discussion has run its course, and aside from possibly explaining the wheelbarrow thing I think we have heard all we need from DePiep; there are not any hanging questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, looks like we’re done here. As I mentioned above my confidence that this will work is pretty low, but agre with the above comments that it’s time to move on and see how it works out. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Close This Thread and Request that ArbCom Deal with a Problematic Editor

    Not happening
    Clearly no consensus for this. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    In my opinion, editors who have been repeatedly blocked over a long period of time and keep coming back to the drama boards are editors who divide and polarize the community, and the community does not do well in dealing with them. (If the community were united, we would either already have banned this editor or given this editor a warning.) My opinion is that long-time problematic editors are better dealt with by an evidentiary quasi-judicial process. (I am aware that some editors and some Arbitrators disagree.) The community cannot remit a case to ArbCom, but the community can close this case and allow a case to be filed by the ArbCom. (If the ArbCom declines the case, it might come back in four months.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • The purpose of these proposals is to not waste the community's time and effort on troublesome editors. Even if ARBCOM is able to synthesize a better solution, the process of getting there makes it not worthwhile unless and until we are unable to reach a workable (workable, not perfect) solution here. Vanamonde (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There is no perfect solution. The perfect solution would be not to have problematic editors. (That's a utopia, and a utopia is a no-place.) I think we only disagree as to how long the community should try to reach a workable solution before we punt. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom’s purpose is to solve problems that the community can’t seem to handle on its own. We seem to have a decent consensus here that these editing restrictions are this users last chance to conform to minimum expected standards of behavior. If they fail to do so they will be blocked. That being the case this falls short of requiring a weeks-long process with a 15 member committee and I’m quite certaint hat’s exactly what Arbcom would tell you were a case to be filed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As Beeblebrox says, ArbCom's role is one of last resort when the community can not deal with an issue, and we are nowhere near that stage. I'm quite certain that ArbCom would, rightly, decline it. @Robert McClenon: I urge you to withdraw this to save wasting any more of anyone else's time, as you have no chance of success with it at this stage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per boing and beeblebrox. let's give the user an opportunity to mend their ways, as presented above. very much too premature for arbcom.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I agree with all of the opposes above: this is nowhere near to ripe for ArbCom, and the restrictions above should be sufficient for at least the next six months. I find it interesting that there are two opposes to the editing restrictions: one, leading to the section here, on the basis that the restrictions are not strict enough, and the other on the basis that they are too strict. Taken with all the other comments expressing support, it sure looks like consensus to me. I do agree that it's time to close this thread – but with enactment of the editing restrictions endorsed by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Boundarylayer and abortion

    Boundarylayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from articles related to abortion. I have just issued a one-time warning. Numerous recent edits violate the topic ban: [35], [36], [37], [38] are unambiguously related to abortion. This restriction should be understood as being broadly construed, but in this case even a narrow construction shows this to be in the scope of your topic ban.

    Any further edits in this area should result in an immediate block. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to pertinent discussion-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish to now have this ban overturned, as usual, it was orchestrated by a member of this encyclopedia apparently well known to the community for following a particular copy-and-paste, "get other editors banned" strategy, in the exact farcical manner that I experienced. Indeed with respect to Jytdog, who I had initially considered was a neutral party. Instead I by chance stumbled across a revealing comment left by User:Andy Dingley on the Sustainable energy talk page. "| Then feel free to simply go away(Jytdog). It is not all about you. Yet again you are taking another invented content dispute with an editor and turning it into another round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show. You are not Batman. It is not all about you. Before long you will (inevitably so - we've all seen your behaviour before) move this to ANI with a variety of wild accusations, then probably create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberttherambler, because harassment by fatuous SPI is another of your favourites."
    If this ban instigated by jytdog, is not seen for what it is and overturned, I do not see a future with the project. As to remind you, there was never a case of 3R. Or edit warring. We always took it to the talk page, indeed that was the charge in essence, a distaste for - my writing replies on talk pages and then waiting for other editors to get back to me-. That however is not a bannable justification. Moreover some independent editors who looked at my edits both then in the initial ANI and now, also disagree with this unjustified ban. Despite, I might add, not being at home that weekend to have the opportunity to reply on the initial ANI. Which as you can imagine, was less than a "rewarding" surprise on returning home.
    Indeed, with respect to why I got banned. I believe Guy you even thanked me for talking to Mark Z. Jacobson at my usual length, on his talk page, when he was engaging in a lawsuit and a BLP. So even on matters such as these, I do not change when I searched to try to find a WP:NEUTRAL wording acceptable to both a BLP and to readers. However I hope this is not a case of it serving your/the projects interests in that case yet in other cases "BAN"? I've picked up the unfortunately clear impression, that I am thanked for hashing things out on talk pages, but when not serving particular admin politics, I get banned from the topic. It is from this and other observations. That I have developed a deep sentiment of hypocrisy here. Indeed no one ever notified me as to the apparently well known MO of User:Jytdog in how they have, for years, gone around and created an apparent television series of a "variety of wild accusations", that they then "move this to ANI". So why exactly is this prolonged "round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show" continuing?
    Boundarylayer (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The support for your topic ban was near-unanimous, and those who supported it are hardly just the usual suspects. If you want your ban overturned, the way to do so is to appeal it (probably at WP:AN) on the basis that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, not by simply violating it repeatedly. Your having violated it repeatedly essentially reduces your chances of having the ban overturned now to zero, I would guess. GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry you see yourself as a victim and also that you see me as some kind of kind of crazy person. I empathize with you being very passionate on this issue; I have some things I can get very fierce about, too. But you need to be aware that this is part of your character and self-manage it. You failed to do that on the abortion stuff and became disruptive, so the community took action to protect itself -- and you. I hope you gain some self-insight and are able to be resilient and find a way to stay. You do make many good edits in fields where you are not overly passionate. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to add, that since we are now in the very intense run-up to the Ireland abortion referendum your internal pressure gauge has probably exploded. That must be very difficult. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: I cannot find where the original topic ban was recorded. Was it logged? --NeilN talk to me 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boundarylayer: Please stop violating the topic ban. If you can edit non disruptively for 6 months, starting now, you might be able to appeal the ban then. One does not violate a topic ban and then seek to have it overturned when one is caught violating said topic ban.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's time to propose an indefinite block of Boundarylayer. The link between their edits on the 36th Amendment referendum and the problematic edits on Death of Savita Halappanavar and related topics are so crystal-clear that they cannot be any good-faith misunderstanding. Boundarylayer's statement here makes it equally clear that they have no intention to abide by their restrictions or to respect other editors in any process. They clearly cannot edit collaboratively or constructively. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been warned, they haven't edited on the topic since the warning. An indef at this point would be premature. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that an indef block is more than we need. Boundarylayer will kindly stop violating their TBAN before a block becomes needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Violated it Repeatedly"? Can you clarify where? Unless you're talking about something else. I made one stream of edits on the "8th amendment" article and I left it at that. Edits that I didn't consider to be really even under the remit of "Broadly construed?" Considering this farcical "ban" was over the articles PPROM and Savita Halappanavar, not anything political on Irish voting or a referendum but on medical evidence. No one got into a discussion once I made these recent amendment edits, I was busy writing, editing and getting the article Terufumi Sasaki through the creation process, in the last few days, if you actually care to look at what I was primarily doing instead of creating more of your quaint little fantasies about "pressure gauges"...Jytdog? In fact my last edit there, I left a talk page comment. Any polls conducted on just female voters? to build the article to reflect actual factual information.
    Indeed in my last month of editing. If you really want to go "broadly construed". I've penned the entirety of the -Atomic bombings#Birth defect investigations a section, as broadly construed as "abortion" should be, is this medical information also a "violating" of my ban and should it be removed too? Moreover, I also added a small study in Chernobyl abortion requests recently. Though I take it, you all like that information. However the way you have all responded, it is clear that it is only when I add any factual information into what the political editor-User:Bastun, what they prefer to class as "broadly construed"? Only when I take it is anything got to do with jeopardizing their George Soros hero? That's the only difference in theme, they pretty well admit as much here this change all of a sudden, to enforce a ban down to doing "edits on the main article on the imminent Irish election". The main article? that's not abortion the actual "main article"? For someone with a topic ban on "abortion" then? The "main article is the election" that is how they view my ban. As a political tool. So only now then I find myself here at an Admin noticeboard over this farcical ban. Why now exactly? I think it pretty obvious what my "ban" genuinely is truly about and specificallly who and what it was always intended for. Which is anything Bastun doesn't like. A pretty cozy affair they have.
    So exactly where do you want "broadly construed" to end? So I can know not to "violate" this farcical ban again? Can I have clarity? Indeed This User:Bastun seems to have a bit of a history of also hounding others editor, as like jytdog, claiming others are socks. It seems all preceived "opponents" are targeted and the truth a casualty. Two editors, 2 independent editors now, don't think this other user is a sock. Yet, look here they're indefinitely blocked, all thanks to user:Bastun. leftwinguy92.
    Since my "ban" began. You will find that I have not edited the PROM article, after adding the 2017 Cochrane medical review(which is still there by the way, this is the farcical part that shows through. My last edit on the very article that would then follow with an onslaught of wild accusations and "ban", my last edit which suddenly I was banned without any opportunity to say a word before it was enshrined in wikilaw. The last edit I made for allegedly being "distruptive", not a single editor has removed nor challenged my last edit on the "direct broadly construed" topic, that I was allegedly distrupting? That is why this ban is a transparent farce.
    Is anyone else being to see how transparent this is? Or is it really just me?
    Boundarylayer (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be pretty much you. I haven't seen so much blaming of others in quite a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't also make a weird post on my talk page recently that completely misrepresented Savita's husband, Praveen? And you didn't make a series of edits regarding funding of Amnesty Ireland (who are campaigning for a Yes vote)? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also - yes, leftwinguy93 was found to be a sock by a checkuser... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That user is not a sock. You falsely accused them of being a sock of one account. The checkuser didn't find any evidence of that but presumedly found the same IP of some entirely different user. They're now blocked as per your direction however.
    On Oct 20 you wrote "You might let me know when and where this RfC is taking place, so I and all the other people operating accounts for Mr Soros can turn up."
    I never even knew who "Soros" was in Oct 2017, you were accusing me of being American and a whole load of wild things, I even asked in Oct 20, as you can read "who is Soros, and how are they relevant"? I think I know why now. The story broke in Dec 2017 that some fellow named George Soros was actually attempting to influence and pay for campaigns. After that news broke, you've both been censoring , who you actually admited, is your paymasters name, out of the Amnesty International Ireland page. In just the 1st page of edit history, three other editors have added his name and you 2 have consistently removed it. You've both been at the downplay game, the political spin-doctor game. The paid editing game. Your actions, "jokes" and even this ban...I know who you are and what this is about now.
    Boundarylayer (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to note that a minute before BoundaryLayer wrote their second long attack on this page (diff) above at 20:04, they wrote this at Guy's talk page. BoundaryLayer is showing no intention of respecting their TBAN. I think something like a month-long block might be useful here, to prevent further disruption and try to help them understanding that the TBAN is not optional? Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban

    Per the above and [39], I propose a one-way IBAN betwefen Boundarylayer and Bastun: Boundarylayer to be prohibited from interacting with or commenting on Bastun other than in the context of formal dispute resolution processes, including arbitration but not including noticeboatd threads. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've blocked Boundarylayer for 48 hours for filing the SPI, which I've also deleted. @JzG: For the sake of procedural niceties, please clarify that you are proposing that a one-way I-ban be imposed against Boundarylayer for interactions with Bastun. I've also changed this to the usual non-numbered style rather than RfA style. Otherwise, it's difficult to leave standalone comments like this one. Hope you don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I agree on all counts. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan56

    Sorry this is a few days late, but Dan56 has been engaged in disruptive editing for quite a while now. First he opens a petty RfC over something we'd been arguing about and does so without even notifying me. Then we get into a needlessly lengthy discussion that went pretty much nowhere about a minor edit I made ([40]; I mistakenly thought it would go somewhere), and he does things like this:

    • Accuses me of "misrepresenting publications/sources" ([41])
    • Says things like this ([42]) when I say we should wait for more input because it isn't going anywhere
    • Accuses me of not giving guidelines ([43]) when I clearly did ([44])
    • Accuses me of having an agenda ([45])
    • Claims not to understand what I'm saying when I've made my position perfectly clear and additionally implies that the whole thing makes no sense ([46], [47]; my position: [48], [49]; note the "0_0" at the end of his first comment)
    • Opens a petty RfC about it and words it in an entirely non-neutral way
    • Refuses to give up on it four months later and then claims there have been no attempts made to address his concerns ([50])
    • Makes questionable assertions at best ([51])
    • Says things that simply aren't true ([52]; see [53], [54], and [55])
    • Plays dumb ([56], [57])
    • Accuses me of saying things that aren't entirely relevant ([58])

    Especially in light of his past behavior (see this and this), if this isn't an attempt to exhaust my patience and discourage other editors from engaging in discussion with him, I don't know what is. Someone please do something about it. Esszet (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just on the first point, while the RFC was exceedingly small, he may have thought it was necessary to gain consensus as you had been repeatedly edit warring to keep an instance of bad grammar in the article. Fish+Karate 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize we were edit warring (to an extent), but what? Bad grammar? I don't know what you're talking about, and you don't need RfC's for bad grammar anyway. Esszet (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that? See here and here for examples of the sentence without the verb (as well as lots of others). Esszet (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the fact that the |all_writing= parameter in {{album ratings}} yields "All tracks written by…" Esszet (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    …Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was being impatient, I'm used to getting very quick responses here. Esszet (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fish and Karate: Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like a fairly innocuous content dispute that is being dragged out not by Dan's bludgeoning, but in the failure of the RfC to garner a consensus after a full run and a relist period, as determined by an uninvolved editor. Dan wants the publication's title, you want the actual column within the publication's title, but as of May 2018, the impasse has continued. After being relisted a second time, a third opinion was proposed, with the reasonable solution that both titles be used, which Dan said he was open to a compromise. You're stonewalling the proposed compromise, because using both "seems a little excessive" and it's not precedented, as far as we know. But does that really matter? It's so minor. Would anyone care if we did so? This incredibly minor dispute has been going on for four months, and you're still unwilling to accept an obvious compromise solution? Also, given that Dan was slapped with a boomerang 1RR restriction the last time he complained about you, shouldn't you be happy that he's using RfCs rather than edit warring, however "petty"? Compromise is an essential part of dispute resolution, especially when formal consensus-building methods aren't helping. You claim the RfC should be abandoned and closed in favor of a 1-3 consensus, but it has already been determined that there is not a sufficient consensus, and that has not changed since the second relist. What has changed, is that Dan has proposed a compromise, an obvious middle ground. I think maybe you just need to let it go and settle on a compromise. FWIW, I've reviewed your diffs, and I don't think there's anything actionable there. Swarm ♠ 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You really think Dan's bludgeoning isn't dragging this out? You really don't? You think it's just fine not to give up on a petty RfC four months later? And you're saying I should be happy because he's opening RfC's like this and used to be even worse? Since it is so minor, please tell me why it's acceptable for him to bludgeon the hell out of it and for him not to let it go. What you're saying is that stomping your feet for months on end should not only be accepted in this case, but approved of because it used to be even worse. Really? I really think you have something against me for some reason. I'm not here to try to resolve the dispute itself; if it closes in favor of "Village Voice", so be it. But if you think his behavior isn't part of an obscene attempt to drive away productive editors, I don't know what to tell you. I really don't. Esszet (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Dan's comments are too concise for me to view them as attempted "bludgeoning", and in spite of the length of the dispute, the sheer number and volume of comments has not crossed into the territory of being disruptive. Bludgeoning is what we see here; endless debate, replies and discussion that makes effective dispute resolution impossible. I understand that it must be incredibly frustrating to be involved in a minor content dispute that drags on for that obscenely long, but I don't agree that Dan is intentionally disrupting the dispute resolution process. Dan did not choose for the 1-3 RfC to not be closed in your favor; it was an experienced uninvolved editor who made that call. Swarm ♠ 00:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Three things: 1) the RfC hasn't even closed yet (although someone did call for it to be) 2) it should be pretty obvious that he is just trying to drag this out for as long as he possibly can and make it as frustrating as possible 3) even if it is in…good faith (and I highly doubt it), as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is disruptive behavior, even if he somehow doesn't realize it. Something needs to be done about it. Esszet (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The RfC hasn't closed because an uninvolved editor has relisted. Dan had nothing to do with it. 2) Dan didn't extend the RfC, but he did open the door for a compromise, which you closed. 3) Your individual diffs do not represent a pattern of disruption, IMO. Of course, other admins are here to disagree, so I'll bow out and you can wait and see if you have any luck with someone else. Swarm ♠ 19:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He sure as hell could have given up on it, even if he didn’t extend it per se (pointing that out seems a little bit like Wikilawyering). That’s all I’m gonna say about that. Esszet (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastian James (talk)

    Sebastian James is warned that personal attacks are prohibited and editors are required to treat each other with civility and respect. Continued violations may result in a block. Both the reporting and the reported users are advised that users can remove anything from their talk page, with the exception of declined unblock requests regarding active blocks. Swarm ♠ 20:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Diff 1

    Diff 2

    Diff 3

    Ever since "diff 1" the editor has shown zero WP:GOODFAITH by repeatedly calling me a "troll" (despite my history with the article) and, after being warned of disruptive editing based on WP:CITEVAR upon everything else and deleting it out of spite, the editor is one edit away from breaking the three-revert rule. Cognissonance (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add, the editor removing a low-score review for a high-score review stands out as WP:POV. Cognissonance (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sebastian James's talk is a history of warnings over edit warring and inappropriate edit summaries. Plus a few about personal attacks. There doesn't ever seem to have been any response to them other than deletion with dismissive and sarcastic edit summaries. It also looks like the user's predilection for removing comments he doesn't like includes other editors' posts on article talkpages. [59] Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The user deleted the sourced info for reception, also changed the references, such as Metacritic like this.
    Also, Grandpallama, I don't change it because I dislike it, I change it because I think it's wrong. They never explain the problem in comments. I have seen two editors swearing at each other with their edit summaries, nothing happened to them... Sebastian James (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting someone's article talkpage comments because you think they're "wrong" is completely, unambiguously not acceptable. Actually, pinging IUpdateRottenTomatoes since that's the user whose comments you arbitrarily deleted. As far as what you've seen "other editors" do, it's you whose conduct is being considered here. Grandpallama (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Grandpallama, I use Puffin Browser most of the time when I contribute. Its performance is pretty bad so I try to keep my edits and edit summaries short. But, you still don't understand my comments. I didn't mean article takpage comments when I wrote "I change it because I think it's wrong". That's completely different from this topic. Also, I wrote about "other editors" because they did verbally attack each other and violated policies more than one. Still, I am the one who is charged because of "harassment" I made and an editor who clearly deleted sourced info and changed a reference badly, while accusing me with WP:CITEVAR. Sebastian James (talk)
    Not a single thing you've written even acknowledges unacceptable behavior, and it certainly doesn't excuse it. You've been brought to the noticeboard over your behavior on WP, and you'd better start explaining your actions, including the ones I'm raising, or I see a block headed your way. Grandpallama (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I started to explain them already, but you are the one who doesn't have nonsubjective point of view, and doesn't have full knowledge of this issue. Will you please stop beating about the bush and give place to someone experienced who can solve this problem? Don't be sad if I won't get blocked, be happy with your friend Cognissonance. Bye. Sebastian James (talk)

    Diff 4 Cognissonance (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible WP:SOCK Cognissonance (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More possible sockpuppetry. Cognissonance (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Third count of possible sockpuppetry. Cognissonance (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You are funny, Cognissonance. You haven't found a reasonable accusation, now you're accusing me with other IP users' edits. An administrator can check my IP. I haven't tried to detele VG review since you explained. If I really wanted to delete it, I would definitely do it with this account. Sebastian James (talk)
    Edit: I forgot to add that my account has IP block exemption because Wikipedia didn't let me edit before. So, it is impossible that those IPs are mine. Sebastian James (talk)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Off-wiki personal attacks in articles

    Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Wikipedia. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him to be less flattering than Gongwool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left it (Gongwool turned out to be a sockpuppet, imagine that). He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.

    He's also pushing criticisms by the Discovery Institute and Conservapedia. There is a clear lack of consensus on Talk for including this stuff, but he seems to think it should go back in "per WP:NPOV" ([60]). I disagree.

    I also commented on an AE case he raised against SPECIFICO, noting that the case, combined with an earlier one, might amount to vexatious abuse of process - as a result of that thread he was restricted from abuse of noticeboards. So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify a point from JzG, Gongwool had nothing to do with Martin. That account and their socks added multiple BLP violations to an already negative article, and did not make it "less flattering", but more of a BLP nightmare. - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair, I was misremembering. I had also forgotten how determinedly you downplayed the antivax bullshit in that article. Which pissed me off quite a bit, but I think that in the end it was mainly better. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I made the mistake of trying to make it compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable people may differ on how specific content may be shaded in an article. I hope we are both reasonable people. I don't doubt your commitment to BLP, but am still disquieted by the extent to which you have defended antivaxers and charlatans. However, we can discuss that article by article, as we always have - in the end if we both edit an article it is generally better than if only one of is did, or neither, in my view. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote up about this study and several other scholarly studies when creating the new article "Ideological bias on Wikipedia". Here is the source of the study written by Brian Martin (paywalled, but reproduced here) and User:JzG is specifically identified and criticized by the author. This represents a very clear WP:Conflict of interest and JzG should distance himself from this topic. I believe his complaints about other content are potentially valid, but I think his COI is interfering with his overall objectivity with regards to other content of the article (like Conservapedia, a section which I did not wrote, but incorporated from other articles on Wikipedia). I tried to address this with JzG personally, but they've now recently gone around and removed this study from several pages it was mentioned on. They've also has opened Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ideological bias on Wikipedia and now this. I bear no ill-will to JzG. This has nothing to do with any prior interactions I've had with JzG. My edit of this study (22 May) predates his comment on the AE thread (23 May) and so has nothing to do with that. In fact I respect his fair take on that AE and would never take any opportunity to attack him, and that respect led me to go to him personally, but I was told obliquely to "fuck off". -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a "scholarly study". Some of the ones you included are - they examine numerous articles and analyse trends, using objective measures over time. This is an article subject saying "look how much more flattering this other article on my rival is" and taking a pop at a named editor (yes, me) for reflecting the mainstream view of his promotion of the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and other antivax conspiracist claptrap. And even where the work you cite is scholarly, you have cherry-picked from primary sources. In fact, your article on ideological bias in Wikipedia is starting to look an awful lot like your personal essay based on your recent repeated failure to gain traction in a number of articles where you assert that Wikipedia has an ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What a troublesome situation it would be if all one had to do to disqualify a Wikipedian from a topic was to criticize their edits on that topic in an off-wiki paper. If JzG were to begin approaching these subjects in a different way (e.g. if he had been writing about Martin positively, but then took a negative view after publication of that article, or if he had not previously edited Martin's biography and received criticism from Martin on a different subject, then began criticizing Martin directly -- neither of which is the case, as far as I can tell), there would be a problem. Continuing to take the stance that got him mentioned by Martin to begin with is just being consistent and in no way constitutes a COI problem. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue that should be raised here, separately from anything about the Martin issue (with which I am not familiar), is that it is emerging at Talk:Political views of American academics#Paul Hollander and Talk:Political views of American academics#Representative presentation of sources that Netoholic appears to have been misrepresenting sources (cherrypicking) in order to push a conservative POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Netoholic is under an AE TBAN, logged here at 04:08, 24 May 2018, against using admin boards to further a content dispute. Their above at 21:10, 25 May 2018 in which they chose to carry on the the content dispute with Guy, expressed not even a nod toward that TBAN, and was unnecessary and unwise at best.
    Guy said of Netoholic: "So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea". I agree with that. As Netoholic actually had the cohones to try to use COI as a bludgeon, to warn Guy off from removing this lunatic fringe paper (as Netoholic described differently in their comment above). Completely unaware of their own' COI, both with respect to WP itself and with respect to their conflict with Guy. Abusing one's editing privileges to use WP to attack an admin with which one was in a dispute, is, in my view, beyond "not ...an especially good idea" but rather clueless and .. well, just plain bad, and they also express no awareness of the badness and is somewhere between BLPCOI and HA.
    With respect to Trypto's note about cherry-picking, I just analyzed their sourcing and use of sources at Ideological bias on Wikipedia in this diff, and the same thing is going on there.
    I don't think this person intends to honor their TBAN nor are they here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JzG should be topic-banned from any mention of Brian Martin

    Looks like a clear no. SQLQuery me! 02:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya think so? EEng

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

    User:JzG is named in Brian Martin's paper "Persistent bias on Wikipedia: methods and responses," published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review (2017). Martin wrote that "admin JzG (aka Guy) rewrote most of my Wikipedia entry, turning it into an attack on my reputation. In the following months, this negative framing was maintained, primarily by JzG and editor Gongwool." Martin wrote that User:JzG deleted positive material, removing text about his achievements and deleting the list of his works, and added negative material. Notwithstanding his obvious COI, User:JzG on 25 May 2018 began scrubbing mention of Martin's analysis of the edits made to his BLP—and thus mention of User:JzG. The first such removal came at 15:16. Despite a good faith effort by User:Netoholic to reason with User:JzG, the latter continued scrubbing such entries, resuming at 18:06, again at 19:54, another at 21:11, and yet again at 21:29. Since User:JzG has demonstrated his disdain for Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, he should be topic-banned from any edits relating to Brian Martin. KalHolmann (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • No. Off-wiki criticism of on-wiki actions does not make a conflict of interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No No evidence for a conflict of interest. Plenty of evidence for a butt-hurt academic. Kleuske (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason to believe this is a COI problem. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Topic banning an editor because an article's subject names them off-site sets a bad precedent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:BLPCOI: "An editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." I don't think a topic ban is needed, but in accordance with the BLP precautionary spirit it would be best if someone else handled the situation. I mean, it's not exactly the best look for integrity when JzG is creating a thread about an article he is mentioned in, on the fringe theory noticeboard [61]. Also it seems like JzG is unnecessarily personalizing the dispute there, speculating that Netoholic's main motivation appears to be his repeated failure to change articles due to Wikipedia's "ideological bias". I agree that it's problematic that this only came to be after the academic mentioned him in the article; but it also means it's already a multi-step "rivalry". --Pudeo (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - I see no COI here, and as has been mentioned, TBANning an editor because a subject mentions them off-wiki sets a perverse precedent that could allow subjects to game the system. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No to topic banning re "any mention of Brian Martin", but it would probably be a good idea for Guy to let someone else handle anything relating to this paper by Martin critical of him. EEng 23:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - It is absurd to suggest that someone outside Wikipedia could determine who should not edit an article about them. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This appears to be in retaliation for WP:AN#KalHolmann. Not saying it is for sure, just that it appears to be. Swarm ♠ 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Also, a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a trout to the filer for rewriting history. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, obviously, per what I wrote just above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing following AfD appeal decision

    About 3 weeks ago User:Alexbrn proposed Criticisms of medicine for deletion. After 2 weeks of discussion, an administrator ruled for deletion. Believing that there was no consensus for deletion and that strong policy-based arguments had not been presented for deletion, I appealed that decision. Yesterday an administrator overturned the deletion decision and restored the article. Within minutes User:Alexbrn made 18 deletion edits to Criticisms of medicine, reducing it to an incoherent stub (from about 19KB to about 1300 bytes) and immediately again proposed it for deletion in the vandalized form. The new AfD discussion has many new delete opinions, is confused and pointless. I'm a new editor, but even I can see that this refusal to accept the consensus of the deletion appeal process is contrary to Wikipedia policy. NightHeron (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The one thing that is clearly absent here is consensus. The overturn was to no consensus, basically. There is nothing wrong with another discussion of this article, given the problems identified elsewhere. Maybe this time there will actually be a consensus. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that was messed up. I can't see that as anything other than an attempt to alter the AfD outcome. But that aside, it's been restored, it doesn't look like any of the current opposers are doing so based on the fact that it was mostly blanked like that. Do you disagree? (Just as a procedural note, the DRV consensus was to change the closing admin's reading of the discussion to "no consensus". It was not a consensus to "keep" in itself.) Swarm ♠ 15:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a real concern if the article is again discussed at length in AfD. Editors have already spent 3 weeks discussing deletion (2 in AfD + 1 in appeal). There was obvious consensus (with a few dissenters, including User:Alexbrn) that the topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course it needs improvement, as would any new article written by a newcomer. I've found two new sources to add for that purpose as soon as we pass to a constructive phase of improvement rather than quarreling about deletion.

    In addition, I'd much appreciate it if experienced editors could think about a procedural issue that I, as a newcomer, don't have any idea how to deal with. A fairly large group of like-minded editors, most (not all) of whom are members of WikiProject Medicine, apparently have the article and related discussions watchlisted, so that they can immediately jump in to any discussion. That's perfectly compliant with policy. However, I cannot try to alert people who have views closer to mine about an article, because that would violate WP:CANVASSING. So any such discussion is likely to be lopsided. This came up in discussions about Alternative medicine (those discussions resulted in my being advised to write a separate article about Criticisms of medicine). For this reason I've been warned by an experienced editor that it'll be a waste of my time to try to edit the polemical tone and slanted content of the alt med article. That particular article has also been the subject of an off-Wiki complaint (see the discussion of the article on the NPOV noticeboard), where it was used to illustrate a general criticism of Wikipedia. Using the alt med article as the basis for a general criticism of Wikipedia is unfair, because the article is an outlier. Even though I'm a new editor, I've been reading Wikipedia for many years, and I'm unaware of any other article that is so polemical and slanted (except for ones that are quickly deleted or else edited to remove the POV).NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was raising this same issue yesterday and was badly chastened by many other users saying "I am seeking suicide by cops" and "sinned", but after calmly considering all points, I think I had new ideas which I am glad that ANI was closed rightly yesterday.--Quek157 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was off-wiki for the previous AfD and DRV and I'm participating in the current AfD. For what it's worth, my comments over there are based on a reading of this version, which I suppose is the version NightHeron wants us to consider — or at least not the stub-ified version. From reading some of the other comments, I don't think I'm alone in that. A Traintalk 17:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • The OP disclosed on 21 May that it is an alt account and that they edit about abortion. Looking at their contribs they edit a lot about alt med too. So.. alt account for two topics with DS.
    User:NightHeron, is your other account under any sanctions related to medicine, abortion, or CAM? Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: Absolutely not. As I say on the NightHeron userpage, there is no overlap whatsoever between the topics edited under my true name and those edited under NightHeron. I made it clear at the beginning that I am an "outsider" to the health sciences -- that's not my field. My true name account does not edit there at all and never will. I also have no involvement in the CAM world, either professionally or otherwise, and will never edit anything related to CAM under my true name. I was led to the alt med page from the abortion subtopic of herbal abortifacients. Thanks for asking rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions. NightHeron (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only consensus here is that the first discussion did not generate a consensus to delete, as the closing admin felt it did. The second discussion is yielding a much stronger consensus, so I think it would be wrong to close that discussion based on a procedural rationale, even if one existed. I'm not convinced that such a procedural reason to close the discussion even exists, as no policy-based reasoning has been cited. Unless there's any clear policy guidance I'm not aware of, this thread be closed as declined. Swarm ♠ 22:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm is quite correct -- I'm not sure what purpose this ANI report is serving. The discussion isn't going to be procedurally closed. I'd wrap this myself but I'm involved over at the AfD. A Traintalk 23:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: You're wrong to minimize the process issue, which is the refusal by the nominator Alexbrn to accept the clear consensus of the appeal discussion and the decision of the closing admin for the appeal. That decision was that there had been no consensus to delete after the 2-week-long AfD discussion. By now, well into the 4th week, many are just tired of the whole thing. I've read comments of editors who feel that it's a waste of time to continue debating people who refuse to accept consensus. I fully sympathize with their feelings. It's reasonable to feel that 3 weeks are enough on this. It is mainly pro-deletion people who seem happy with the illegitimate new AfD, so of course there will be a strong consensus among them. It's like a sham election in an undemocratic country: if opposition voters believe that the process lacks legitimacy, they'll stay home and those in power will win the "election." It's very strange that the pro-deletion people seem unable to point to a single place in Criticisms of medicine that violates policy, e.g., by editorializing or citing a pseudoscience source. If one such place were found, it could be deleted or corrected through the usual editorial process. But as far as I can see, they don't have any specific place in mind. Rather, they seem to think that the whole idea of having an article on criticisms of medicine violates WP policy, although they seem unclear on which policy it violates and have run through an alphabet soup of possibilities. Meanwhile, I point to specific egregious violations of core Wikipedia principles (such as accepting consensus and no disruptive editing), and am told that I have "no policy-based rationale".NightHeron (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the relevant bit of policy is WP:DP#Deletion review, which explicitly states that "Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate." Swarm ♠ 01:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and why not first butcher-edit the article (I was told by the nominator not to use the word "vandalize") so as to confuse people and make the whole discussion as complicated and ugly as possible (notice all the cross-outs and confusion about process). Only the diehards will remain, and then you'll get your consensus to delete. A brilliant strategy to censor an article that offends the group's POV.
    Since I'm an inexperienced editor, I really don't even know whether or not Wikipedia has a process to appeal a successful campaign to censor a topic. It's really more a topic than an article that's being censored, since the case for delete is not based on anything specific in the article, but rather on the very idea of having such an article. What I do know is that if the censorship is picked up off-wiki, then nobody there will be interested in your lawyerly defense of it by misusing a sentence in WP:DP#Deletion review.NightHeron (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are deleted, not subjects. Actually, if you left the article in stub form, and it was deleted, you could recreate it since the full length article would not have been decided upon at AfD. Yeah, our rules here are pretty quirky like that. What do you mean by “if the censorship is picked up off wiki?” Are you threatening that deletion of an anti-science article will effect the reputation of a pro-science project? Seems a little grandiose of you. Swarm ♠ 17:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for appearing grandiose to you; my intention was to say something simple and ungrandiose. The alt med article is a fairly important one that attracts a lot of attention and has already been the subject of off-wiki comment. It is also, as I said before, an outlier and an attractive target for anyone who wants to criticize Wikipedia for NPOV failure or to criticize the medical project for confirming a common stereotype of the medical profession. Since the suppression of the crit of med article is closely related to the rejection of attempts to fix the NPOV problem in the alt med article, that might also attract off-wiki comment at some point. Another thing to realize is that academics who work in areas like sociology of science and sociology of medicine can use such things to support a thesis they might have about the supposedly biased nature of the scientific and medical professions. And, as pointed out elsewhere by another editor, aggressive promoters of CAM can also benefit because their success depends in part on being able to portray mainstream medicine as closeminded, polemical, and biased. So I'm not trying to be grandiose when I speculate that the medicine project might in the future come under more off-wiki criticism than it already has.
    Two corrections: I was not "threatening" anything, just speculating about what might happen; and my article is not "anti-science" -- please look at the sources before you say that.
    Interesting point about rejection of a stub not implying rejection of the full article. And there's been some unclarity, especially at the beginning of AfD#2, about what version of the article was being discussed. FYI, I wasn't the one who replaced the stub by an earlier version. Someone else did that at some point.NightHeron (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fundamentally, the subject isn't being censored. Hundreds of people get their articles deleted every day. There's never any guarantee that a good faith article will stick. It's part of the process of building the encyclopedia. You can respond as members of the community are expected to, request to have the article userfied, salvage what you can and try to make a new article that addresses the complaints of the deletion discussion, go through AfC, solicit the help of a relevant Wikiproject, and try to make something better. Or, you can be that guy who singles himself out, cries "censorship!", discredits himself as a member of the community, never gets taken seriously on-wiki again, and is left with nothing but his righteous indignation off-wiki about how unfair and tyrannical Wikipedia is. I know neither of those things sound as good as just having your article kept in the first place, but it's looking like there's a consensus to delete, and your procedural appeal isn't going to hold up due to that annoying bit of hard policy I "lawyerly" "misused" earlier. Swarm ♠ 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the excellent suggestion, which I hadn't thought of before. Finding a Wikiproject to join is the obvious way to circumvent the no-canvassing policy. I was struck by the effective use of this tactic for the purpose of deleting my article, but I hadn't thought of doing the same thing myself. Can you tell me where on Wikipedia I can find a list of all projects? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this may have what you are looking for. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icarosaurvus: Thank you, that's useful -- perhaps not for editing related to the present discussion (since I would not be welcome in the medicine project), but WP:WikiProject Women's Health would clearly be an appropriate project for editing abortion-related articles.NightHeron (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing is the general act of attempting to bring biased participants into a discussion. There is no way of circumventing the "no canvassing" policy. Using a Wikiproject to canvass is still a severe offense. Wikiprojects are a way of finding other editors who are interested in editing the same topics—that's it. Your jump to "circumventing policy" is quite alarming. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a rangeblock for POV edits from Miami -- disruption since 2014

    Someone using Miami IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CAF0:6D30:0:0:0:0/64 has been making non-neutral and unreferenced changes to film, actor and actress articles. The disruption has been occurring in this IP range since November 2017, but they previously used the range Special:Contributions/2602:301:77C2:D2E0:0:0:0:0/64, from May 2014 to October 2017. Disruption from this person resulted in the Gary Oldman biography being protected on December 23, 2017, after which this person submitted edit requests on the talk page, so in that regard they are following procedure. But a great many of their edits are non-neutral, for instance these edits which removed positive reviews from the Jessica Chastain biography, and these unreferenced negative assertions about Andy Cohen. Other actions include the addition of unreferenced future work of various actors.[62][63][64]

    Since there is little to admire about the editing of this person, and much to revert, I think we should place a rangeblock on the active IPs. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to the above pattern of unsourced editing, and the addition of unsourced negative information to a BLP article regarding cocaine use I'm blocking Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CAF0:6D30:0:0:0:0/64 for two weeks. Any other admin can modify the block or its duration if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Highly inappropriate anti-IP agenda at Jeff Hardy

    Reported user has thoroughly apologized and provided assurances that they will not continue to revert without explanation or communication, and we can take them at their word per WP:AGF. IP user, for their part, has been warned to attempt to establish communication before filing complaints. Will follow up on user's talk page just to make sure it's all good. Swarm ♠ 04:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I carried out two constructive edits to the lede, which included softening an opinionated assertion ("Hardy is best known for his work during his first run in the World Wrestling Federation"), putting dates to key events (for some bizarre reason, no year is quoted for anything during the first decade of his career), and the indisputably correct altering of hyphens (used as parentheses) to dashes.[65][66] User:TheKinkdomMan repeatedly reverted my edits with no justification whatsoever, before claiming I did not reference them, even though they were already fully supported by the existing refs. TheKinkdomMan then tried to have Jeff Hardy protected due to my so-called "disruptive editing", which was promptly denied. At this point he saw fit to threaten me with getting my "IP address permanently blocked", which he says would rule out any future editing for myself. This whole charade is wildly inappropriate, especially when I am editing constructively. I very much hope that someone will restore my edits, and sternly warn TheKinkdomMan. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified TheKinkdomMan of this discussion.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    94.192.38.255 Neither of you have discussed your content dispute on the article talk page. That would be better than escalating as you have done.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm escalating in response to a blatant attack. One user thanked me on my talk for the work I did at Jeff Hardy, yet TheKinkdomMan sees it as grounds for my permanent blocking from Wikipedia. WP:OWN, much? 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of you have discussed your content dispute on the article talk page. We don't permanently block IPs. Both of you are edit-warring. Go and discuss. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The second diff I gave is absolutely beyond discussion and opinion. It's positively, undeniably, indisputably correct, yet TheKinkdomMan reverted it anyway. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI isn't a venue for content disputes. Go and discuss your content dispute at the talkpage, where you can present your supporting evidence. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I think Kinkdom's done for the day.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably so. @94, you're accusing TheKinkDomMan of trolling in edit summaries. Please don't do that, he's not. Leave a polite note on the relevant talkpage describing how the existing references might support your edits, and wait for a response. Nobody's been blocked, and the article's not protected. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said possible trolling. On the other hand, Kinkdom openly accused me of "disruptive editing", and told me he'd have me permanently banned on a finger click. But I'm the bad guy. I'm an IP. I get it.
    I'll say no more about it. Kinkdom gets his WP:WIN on this one. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @94.192.38.255: Wow, not letting that stand. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and there is no "winning". We've told you what you need to do. What you both need to do. You can see how well his antics have worked out. He cannot get anyone blocked with a finger click and neither can you. You were both being disruptive. No one said you were the bad guy. And you can drop the anti IP bias tact as well. You both need to drop the drama and discuss your dispute on the article talk page, and without personal attacks, threats, or other content not directed at the merits of the edits you wish to make. Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 04:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I came back only to apologise for the previous comment. I shouldn't have said that. I'm fully checking out of the Jeff Hardy situation now. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is criticizing you for being an IP editor. You are being criticized for failing to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Period. End of story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the behavior of TheKinkdomMan needs to be looked at. An extremely significant proportion of his contributions are nothing but unexplained reverts, and I think at the minimum he's in blockable territory for edit warring behavior. In fact, I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my decade of editing here. Communication is required, and failing to communicate is considered to be disruptive editing. Repeatedly reverting good faith edits and then warning the person you're reverting for edit warring is insane. If this isn't tendentious ownership of articles, I'd like to hear an explanation and hard assurances that he's willing to rectify this behavior, or I'm inclined to indef block here. Swarm ♠ 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I left the thing by itself I have no reason to argue with anyone that’s why I left the editing alone I was wait for the IP editor to leave a message on my talk page if I’m in violation for reverting then that’s fine I’ll deal with the punishment but the IP wasn’t explaining the edit when I’m not the only one who has reverted the same thing through out time TheKinkdomMan talk 00:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Further more I’m not a sock puppet check my IP I’ve never broken any rules or violations on Wikipedia and I wont allow a threatening message on my talk page just cause I don’t answer right away, I left the Jeff Hardy edit alone since the other day if I made a mistake by reverting the IP then I’m sorry they can change it back and I won’t touch it. How ever I won’t tolerate a threatening message and I apologize for reverting so many times I won’t do it again TheKinkdomMan talk 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And lastly first offenders are not subject to block but a warning not to be disruptive again and I will not, I apologize for my mistake and being threatened to be blocked for first offense is wrong so I don’t see why no one gave me a warning instead they option to threaten to block me indefinitely on my talk page TheKinkdomMan talk 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    I retract my frustration I’d like to talk to the IP and discuss this on my talk page so neither of us have to be blocked, I understand everyone here has there opinions and a job to do if your a Administrator but let’s skip that and say I made a mistake which I did but I was waiting for the IP to leave a message on my talk page since I use a phone to edit most of the time, I failed to reach out to the IP which makes me look bad which I apologize for and for being disruptive I would like to ax this out wish not to be blocked permanently thank you TheKinkdomMan talk 01:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am apologizing again just so I don’t get blocked and I won’t edit the way I use to, since Swarm pointed it out and seems to be very bias towards me, if you other administrators take a look at my talk page swarm said I would be blocked if I didn’t respond where is that in the rules and I call abuse of power and I don’t think that was right when I’m trying my best to edit, I revert a lot to fight vandalism I don’t think that’s a crime nor against the rules Yes I may have over done it which I deeply apologize for and I will change the way I edit but I don’t think I should be blocked when I realized my mistake and I’m trying to make it right TheKinkdomMan talk 01:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First off calm down. You seem like you’re freaking out a little here and you’re kind of all over the place. Take a breath.
    • Ok, now look again at what Swarm was saying. You don’t seem to want to discuss this and they were trying to impart to you that it was important and if you ignored this thread you might just be blocked.
    • Hope that helps, now let’s get on to the actual issue: that you appear to revert IP users as a matter of course, that you tried to have apage protected because of two IP edits you reverted without a supportable reason, and that you threatened to have an IP blocked for no reason. You say you will change the way you edit but you have offered no specifics. Now would be a good time for you to explain how you would change your behavior.
    • There’s no need to fall all over yourself apologizing, what was asked for was that you engage int his discussion, and now you are, so we can try to move forward and resolve this.
    • There has been no abuse of power. I wouldn’t go beating that drum right now as it is not helping your case one bit.
    Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I advised on my talkpage, you really have to stop with the unexplained revert/undos - use edit summaries to explain why you're reverting, and use talkpages to discuss your edits and, if necessary, your reverts. Please remember that IPs are people too. Swarm's being a little grumpy, and I see no consensus to block at this time, but you do be more communicative, and to spend more of your time adding to the encyclopedia and not reverting. There's a lot less vandal-fighting to do than there used to be, and you might want to redirect your efforts for a while so everybody doesn't end up looking like a vandal to you. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) TheKinkdomMan, it is hardly the "first time" if you have been reverting in the same disruptive fashion and warned accordingly since at least August 2017, where you have acknowledged ([67]) edit warring under any circumstance is wrong. I'll be more straight forward: Do not make another blind revert, and communicate in fuller and more coherent sentences please. Alex Shih (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It won’t happen again as I tried to explain it, by I got a error I will not make that mistake again as I apologize and will change the way I edit, so I ask that I don’t get blocked so I can learn from this mistake I apologize for my wrong doing TheKinkdomMan talk 02:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you everyone who has pointed out to me I’ve been wrong, I’m going to read up more before I make more mistakes I appreciate all of your help, I apologized to much because I thought I was gonna be blocked permanently, I know now that I can’t act like I own every article and I won’t edit disruptily anymore I will learn from my mistakes as I’ve been pointed out I hope I won’t be blocked now or in the in the future as I’d like to continue to edit here, I think I will take some time off from Wikipedia to read more and learn I can only hope that you administrators can forgive me and let me continue to edit. TheKinkdomMan (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Koppadasao

    I'm reporting a user Koppadasao who has been notified of conduct issues several times within a short period
    this edit (and accompanying edit summary) are starting to get uncivil.

    Just to note that I have blocked this account indefinitely for using Wikipedia as a mean to engage in soapbox and revoked talk page access after continued battleground approach on their user talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not saying this wasn't a good block but you revoked talk page access because he undid edits? That seems wrong. --Tarage (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) The block may be good but I'm confused by the removal of talk page access. Am I missing something? AFAICT, the only thing they did there are being blocked was removed a bunch of content via reversion (and standard reversion summaries) [68]. This included the block notice. It did not include any declined unblock requests. Therefore this seems to comply with WP:BLANKING and the removals should have been left to stand and talk page access could also have been kept. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarage Nil Einne Another uninvolved administrator is free to restore the talk page access if a simple consensus emerges here, I will have no objections. To comment on WP:BLANKING; I have absolutely no issues with blocked editors removing comments on their talk page appropriately using the edit button; however I disagree that aggressive use of undo button ([69]) against several recent edits with no edit summary makes an appropriate case for blanking; in my opinion, this is more of a reflection on the battleground approach which is consistent with their recent contributions. I am happy to self-revert if consensus is against my understanding. Alex Shih (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the nothereness of the meta user page, might need more global cleanup.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever I need to undo something from an article I am wont to spam undo if there have been a ton of edits. I don't think that's justification for removing the talk page access. It's their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked an obvious sock, User:KoppaFreeTommy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there anyway to block and delete the user page globally?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dlohcierekim, Xaosflux has kindly deleted the meta user pages and blocked both accounts on meta. So it is fine now. Alex Shih (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive article blanking, COI and disruptive comments

    The offending page, which had been previously deleted at AfD partly due to the subject's objections and partly due to insufficient coverage, was recently recreated. The subject became distraught and sought redeletion. It has again been deleted at AfD per WP:CSD#G4, with a mounting consensus for deletion, and SALTed. The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the subject. No further action is needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Most recently [70], [71] and [72] after being temporarily blocked. The user wants their bio removed, and other than that has no interest in collaboration with the project. Requesting a longer block and possible disabling of ability to edit own talk page. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would rather we not. The user is justifiably frustrated. I am going to walk away from the computer for a bit, but they should get a chance for the OTRS and AFD cycles to kick in (and not be poked by escalating sanctions). Sadads (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That rationale is appreciated, but I don't think the user has the least interest in appreciating policies here. I walked away for a bit, and returned to find her frustration manifested in snide personal attacks. Unless there's indication that she doesn't own the bio and is willing to collaborate, I think it's becoming more appropriate to take further action. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article about her is at AfD. I told her to contact OTRS, which handles real life frustration by subjects of articles.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37: We don't treat someone with real life concerns about an article as a vandal. We refer them to OTRS and the relevant WP:BLP sections. Concur with Sadads on not making a bad situation even worse.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you, Dlohcierekim and Sadads. For my part, I neither cut much slack for someone who demands their bio be removed without a compelling rationale (malice, libel, etc), nor who intentionally ignores policy for over five years with the sole purpose of determining what is written about them, and whether it's written at all. Was there a credible claim re: real life concerns? I wasn't aware that any specific content was at issue; if it had been, we could remove it. Then there's the disparagement of other editors. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They are a bit difficult. A number of people have tried to help. Will see how it goes from here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Parenthetically, I'm the subject of a Wiki bio, much of which was written perhaps five or more years ago. If I quite suddenly and persistently blanked it, claiming it was out of date, and then attacked editors who tried to explain policy to me, I'd expect to be blocked indefinitely. And I'd have earned the sanction. I do appreciate the assistance of multiple editors on this. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we are often quite brutal to the subjects of articles. This is not how we are to approach them according to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadads I was just wondering of pinging an WMF admin to expedite this sort of resolution was something we ever did or should do.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    general note-- I'll be off line when the block expires, if things re-escalate.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nathaniel Bright Emerson

    Ongoing removal of sourced material contrary to consensus, ongoing violation of 3rr, unwillingness to discuss topic on talk page, and skewed edit summaries.

    Editor is removing sourced text, now text with 5+ sources making false claims such as: Using an inaccurate birth year for Emerson, thus claiming he was 2 years old at the time of alleged signing "Dr. Emerson was not a part of the conspiracy to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom."- the removed text does not say he was "He was a historian & a doctor, not a sharpshooter "? Maybe a Dr. McCoy joke? Emerson's name is not on the document, so he could not have been involved, again the text removed doesn't make the claim that his name is on the document. "Dr. Nathaniel Bright Emerson was not a author of the Bayonet Constitution!" the text in question doesn't say that he was "The Hawaiian league was NOT founded by Emerson! " the text removed does not say that he was

    With at least two violations of WP:Civil [[73]] and his response when I tried to explain WP:CON- [[74]]

    This person claims to be a relative of the subject of this article, and I honor that to discover these strong allegations about an ancestor must be challenging.... and this is becoming a waste of a number of editors time, energy and attention. This has been going on for 2 weeks and one block did not change users behavior. I do not believe this person is here to build an encyclopedia based on consensus, but is here to protect their family name or perhaps is trolling. TantraYum (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've EC protected the page. Huaka'i Emerson (talk · contribs), you need to discuss on the article's talk page and seek consensus there for your changes. It is not likely that content reliably sourced will be removed unless the change can be reliably sourced. As a relative, you may have a conflict of interest that clouds your editorial judgement.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), though I think it is a short term solution... hopefully I am wrong. TantraYum (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. In their frustration, user has resorted to petty vandalism HERE and HERE. But not in discussion here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This conflict is still a thing? Jesus. I thought we had that nicely solved. Now the editor wrote "STOP SLANDERING OUR FAMILY WITH MISINFORMATION" (emphasis mine) on Dlohcierekim's talk page, which might at least explain the stamina expressed here. Extended confirmed protection appears to be a reasonable decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been patient with the expectation that the editor would discuss the disputed content calmly. If they cannot and will not do so, they will need to be blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles mentioning someone with the same name

    See

    When editing as a IP, this user had a final warning for removing sourced content where a name is mentioned that happens to be the same as another person's: "The reason for this removal is that a young person that currently bears the name is receiving threats and their wellbeing is put to question as a result. This poses a safety concern for the individual" As I don't think that this is a valid reason to remove the content, and after a final warning at IP's talk page, the username DRGN13 was created that again removed all the names from 4 articles, mentioning a part of the policy that I.m.o. is not applicable. Can someone look into this and advise please? TIA. User and IP notified. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, the IP was reported at wp:AIV for having removed again after their final warning. No action was taken yet. - DVdm (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO - clearly DRGN13's complaint is without merit. Virtually no name is unique; the logical conclusion would be there would be nothing written about anyone. Whilst I have sympathy for this individual if it is causing them a problem, their problem is not of Wikipedia's making and removing the name from Wikipedia isn't going to resolve it. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunate if someone is being harassed because their name is the same as a notorious person from the past, but it's really not our concern. Both the IP and DRGN13 need to stop removing that name from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially as the person in the article is deceased, and it clearly states that. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot purge history due to the insipid nature of humanity. Though I sympathize with the victims of humanity's insipid nature. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I semi protected Foča ethnic cleansing and Rape during the Bosnian War to prevent further disruption. The content, including the name, is supported by the cited reference.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat demanding removal of sourced content or "expect a call from the Borough Attorney"

    User blocked by NeilN. Statement can be retracted in an unblock request. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    There has been an ongoing, slow-motion edit war at the article for Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, in which sourced material has been removed and reinserted about a DuPont facility in the borough that has been the frequent topic of detailed coverage in The Record, including the preview that was included in the article.
    See this edit, which removes sourced content about a history of industrial pollution in the borough, including an edit summary warning that "Hamtechperson - expect a call from the Borough Attorney". I'm not sure that this is the textbook definition of a legal threat, but it would be darn close. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 22:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Borough Attorney? I do hope Trenton, New Jersey is involved. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, Trenton is nowhere close to Pompton Lakes. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "I will sue you in a court of law in Pompton Lakes!" Does have a nice ring to it... -- printf( (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What will that poor attorney do when they discover that Wikipedia does not have a phone number? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Far be it from me to jump into something that I'm getting to this late, but I do want to point out that y'all went from a report to a template warning on the user's talk notifying them of this discussion to a block being applied - without the user being given the opportunity to come here to explain themselves or remedy their transgression - in a span of about thirty minutes. That would seem to be a bit quick on the trigger, wouldn't you think? StrikerforceTalk 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the first thing they did was reach for the legal bullying club, I'd say that 30 minutes wasn't fast enough. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Strikerforce: Not particularly. If it's a clear-cut violation of NLT, the user can explain themselves and retract the threat in their unblock request. There's no need to keep an ANI thread open - it's fairly easy to get unblocked. --NeilN talk to me 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Trevonlester

    Done. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Has attempted to publish many promotional articles about himself (see notices on his talk page), and has also injected self-promotional spam into articles and documentations in the Module namespace. Has no other significant contributions, and the COI is obvious. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. Evidence:[75][76][77][78][79] -- Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Problematic behavior from an Administrator (redux)

    WP:TLDR warning for what lies ahead - but the history is complicated and because this involves an administrator, I believe it's necessary to look at all evidence in depth.

    I filed this [80] a few days ago in regard to what I saw as questionable behavior by Andrevan, an administrator. It all began at the talk page of Factchecker atyourservice with this [81] where it appeared he was harassing Factchecker over his username. It then morphed into this [82] at AN with Andrevan accusing editors of being Russian agents attempting to infiltrate Wikipedia with propaganda. NeilN closed the filing with the following warning: "If you have a case for blocks/topic bans, make it at WP:AE or request Arbcom look at the situation. Further accusations of editors being "Russian agents" without providing proof will be treated as aspersions and may result in blocks or topic bans." Editors started a subsection at the report, calling for a boomerang for Andrevan.[83]

    While all of this was going on, several admins went to Andrevan's talk page asking him to stop [84] (Swarm, JzG, Awilley, and NeilN). Following that, Andrevan then went to MONGO's talk page [85]) demanding he declare a WP:COI that no one, other than Andrevan, felt existed. He next dropped by my talk page here [86] to accuse me of violating a policy I was nowhere near violating. I saw it as harassment and so did another editor. Considering what's happening within the last hour or so, I now see Andrevan's visit to my talk page to not just be harassment but retaliation for the ANI report I filed on him.

    When I filed the above noted report on his actions at MONGO's talk page, it was deemed that Andrevan was not threatening to out MONGO and the report was closed with the following comments by the Drmies, the closer: "Andrevan has stated they will back down from this, so I am not sure action is necessary"--Mr. Ernie said it well. Can I admin for a second? Andrevan, any more unfounded accusations are likely to lead to a block, and will most certainly (this is a prediction based on experience) end up on AE. Threats of OUTing are deemed, below, to not be correct. Plus, Winkelvi and others, we (your honored admins) will not stand for OUTing of any kind."

    Now we're back here again just a couple of days later: At the Donald Trump article talk page within the last several hours, Andrevan has started to once again cast aspersions, "Can I also add that trying to protect Trump's biography from discussion of his braggadocio is a fool's errand." [87] After both MelanieN and I reminded him to focus on edits rather than editors, he went to an administrator's talk page to further cast aspersions that editors are conspiring and making a concerted effort to whitewash the Donald Trump article.[88] His comments: "Pro-Trump POV pushing editor crew - I noticed that you chastised some users for pushing POV that anything critical of Trump should be challenged or removed. There's currently an ongoing operation on the part of several users, including one who was blocked for sockpuppetry, to sanitize Trump's Wikipedia articles of content about his racial views, his misleading claims about his academic background, any negative polling about him, etc. Since you made comments on this as an uninvolved admin in the past, I wonder if you wouldn't review some of the comments and behavior, including my own if you feel so inclined and for balance. I've already been warned for making blanket allegations that Russian/GOP/NRA propagandists are trying to whitewash the article. More to the point, though, a number of users are on a crusade against consensus, reliable sources, and the discretionary sanctions that limit major changes to stable article text, or using the latter for cover to remove perfectly valid sourced material." I see this visit to MastCell's talk page as retaliation for both MelanieN and I asking him to knock it off and me telling him that if he continued down this road, he would likely end up at a noticeboard soon.

    For the record, Andrevan has a history (before the last several days) of the exact same behavior - an AN/I was filed here [89] in 2014.

    An administrator poisoning the well, making false allegations, casting aspersions, launching personal attacks, focusing on editors rather than content, and doing it all after being told to stop following not one but two noticeboard reports made within hours of each other - very unbecoming and totally unsatisfactory behavior. I'm asking something be done to make it stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a lot more completely un-admin-like behavior than the above. Me thinks it should probably go to AE, but I'm thinking an arbitration case is nearing regarding Andrevan's harassment and lack of AGF.--MONGO 02:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) My advice; suck it up until you can document a pattern of egregious behavior and then take it to ArbCom. As long as he is not continuing to call out editors as Russian spies or similar over the top stuff I would consider the situation improving. If you do not want to wait it out take it to AE and open an AmPol2 sanctions case. Bringing stuff here is pretty pointless; if three admins telling him to pull his head in on his talk page did not work then another couple saying the same thing here will not work either. Jbh Talk 02:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair on the post to MastCell's page it was propagandists instead of spies, not sure it is an improvement though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that the 2014 AN/I thread was brought by a user who was later indef-blocked for POV pushing, Ignocrates, and I stand by what happened at that time. I will suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG for Winkelvi is in order for similar issues. There's nothing improper about my request to an uninvolved admin to review contributions including my own; it is not retaliatory, and I stand by the comments there. I have noted that I have heeded the advice of many admins who had a problem with my earlier AN thread which was clearly ill-considered, I will note that they also told you your subsequent AN/I thread was ill-considered. My behavior is in no way harassment. Andrevan@ 02:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Great quote on that 2014 ANI of myself quoting policy is relevant here: "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Andrevan@ 02:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "I will suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG for Winkelvi is in order for similar issues." A boomerang for what, pray tell? I'm not casting aspersions or calling editors propagandists, Russian agents, and members of an "ongoing operation" (looks like a dog-whistle for "Russian agent" to me) after being told to stop. By numerous administrators. And just for the record, I refuse to go back and forth with you here, Andrevan. Unless you have a question to ask me or you say something for which I need to defend myself, I will not be responding to you further in this thread. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a boomerang is appropriate here. Just because it's up for debate whether the allegations are actionable doesn't mean Winkelvi is a problem. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvi recently stated several thoughts he had about the shortcoming consensus on Wikipedia[90]. He was warned for encouraging harassment. This is his second ANI thread about me in several days, and he was warned that the first thread has falsely accused me of threatening to WP:OUT an editor. He believes academic papers are opinion pieces [91] This is POV-pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Andrevan@ 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pro-Trump POV pushing editor crew"? What on earth? That is almost as bad as the crazy nonsense about about Russian paid editors.--MONGO 03:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare this ("you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds.") with this ("trying to restore balance to some of the most lopsided coatrack articles that exist on the website") these folks are on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Andrevan@ 03:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I asked an admin for help with the "Anti-Trump POV pushing editor crew", that would be okay now right? I mean you are at the article to harass anyone that disagrees with you and to promote nothing but negativisims in that BLP from what I can see. You need a reality check, yet again.--MONGO 04:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said, "All I know is the issue at that page is a nonissue and its just one more silly "dig" attempt to make Trump look bad. Most of the time when I read anything form those articles they appear like they were written by extreme partisans" [92] I am not harassing anyone. You and User:Winkelvi seem to believe that any sourced factual statements about Trump that aren't positive are anti-Trump "digs." We all just want to follow NPOV. Many RS have critical information about Trump that merit inclusion. Andrevan@ 04:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=843438574"