Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BLP violations and edit warring by BigDwiki

• BigDwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jazz Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite an 8 year tenure on Wikipedia, BigDwiki seems unfamiliar with WP:BLP. This user keeps adding poorly sourced edits to Jazz Jennings to include her deadname, despite WP:BIRTHNAME and past discussion on the article's talk page. The user offers Youtube and voterrecords.com as a source. This is a clear violation of BLP in an area under discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was in the middle of adding a new section here when this one popped up, so I'll respond here. There appears to be an edit war going on at Jazz Jennings. Despite consensus on the talk page, and plenty of sourced contributions, several editors want to continue to revert edits and claim that they are "vandalism". Youtube is indeed a reliable source. The subject of the article plainly states on his/her own Youtube video that "my legal name is Jaren", and thus it was added as a source and added to the article. There seems to be a steady beat of editors adding the subject's real legal name to the article, and then having it reverted as "vandalism" by activist editors that are dead-set on keeping the subject's real name out of the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You can also stop templating me... but I'd love to see this supposed consensus on the article's talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please describe your logic when you have left me three such templates.BigDwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I left 2 warning templates. When I realized you'd been here 8 years, I took it to ANI instead of AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the issue at-hand here rather than go off about "who can template who". Warnings get left; people get templated. It's not a big deal... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If they've stated publicly that their legal name is Jaren, why is that a BLP violation? Natureium (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BIRTHNAME. This is not widely published info. I'm sure you're aware of the issues surrounding deadnames with the whole Chelsea Manning naming issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That's just it. It's not a violation. Both the video on the TLC episode page as well as the Youtube video state it. https://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/i-am-jazz/videos/jazz-and-jeanette-at-dmv BigDwiki (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not. Manning's current and former names are both widely known as they were a public figure before and after transitioning. What's the BLP issue? Natureium (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I don't know if we have a reliable source for the spelling of that name, but in my view the main content problem here is the surname, which has been discussed multiple times without anyone ever providing a good enough source for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC x3) The Wikipedia manual of style does state that someone's name should be listed as the name they are famous under, and a name no longer in use should not be stated in the lead unless the subject was famous under it. The person in question was not famous under their birth name. Thus, if included in the article, it should not be in the lead. After looking in the aricle, BigDwiki seems to want it to be in the lead, when, frankly, much like the Laverne Cox article, it does not belong there. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is in the lead or not is not a concern of mine. As long as it is included in the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You most certainly do not have consensus for such an edit. And I would object any proposals that include "sources" like that mocking book or non-RS like voterrecords. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You are free to object, but I find that you are obviously very biased in this transgener/LGBT topic withj your reverts. You've called criticizm "mocking book", yet consider pro-transgender articles as fact. Also, you're convieniently dodging the Youtube and TLC network sources where the subject clearly and undeniably states that his/her legal name is Jaren.BigDwiki (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge my biases and that this topic is personal to me. Were I an admin, I would still have filed here at ANI because of that "involvement" with the topic. But my reverts don't make me "very biased" and I do not "consider pro-transgender articles as fact". Rather I understand the science behind these topics decently well enough and I am familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules and practices in the topic of trans issues. We do not include Laverne Cox's deadname, even though I think you can sources similar to the TLC clip. Why? Because of BLPPRIVACY, BIRTHNAME, and WP:HARM. Too often editors wish to add deadnames to shame or humiliate trans people, but claim it's for "the record" or "readers' information". The person's birthname in these cases adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

BigDwiki, from looking at the page, you were edit warring to include their dead name right after the person's preferred moniker. This is generally inadvisable, and goes directly against our style guide. Whether or not it was a concern of yours, your inclusion of it there has become a concern. Further, wikipedia does not care about, as you put it "real names"; We care about the name a person became notable under. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've left formal DS alerts on both the BLP and GamerGate cases. If this behaviour continues, I believe it would be topic-ban time. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this "behavior". As far as I see it, adding a properly sourced contribution to an article leads you to the conclusion of "topic ban time"?BigDwiki (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Properly sourced to YouTube? Try indef per CIR. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's way too far. YouTube isn't the best source, but banning someone soley over citing what could be a reliable video is a CIR violation in it's self. —JJB^ers 18:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• On one level I can understand the issue: the MOS sections on birthnames are inconsistent in their intent, and the one being applied here would appear to violate WP:NOTCENSORED, especially considering who the source of the information is. On the other hand, the politics of the matter are clear, and BigDwiki needs to drop the stick and give up. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• As an aside, I just noticed that reference #12 is indeed a youtube video and it is used in the article and has remained there without objection. "In a Q&A video posted to her YouTube channel in July 2014, Jennings stated that she is pansexual, and that she loves people "for their personality", regardless of their sexual orientation or gender status." BigDwiki (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban

• After reviewing the article, it's talk page, and associated sources, and considering the DS at WP:ARBBLP and BigDwiki's apparent intractability on this issue, I'm proposing a Topic Ban from BLPs, with a duration to be determined. I have full protected the article for avery short time until this issue is resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support BigDwiki's use of such phrases as "his/her real name" shows a rather dire misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies on such matters, there was a claim of false consensus, and he seems rather hostile towards any who disagree with him. I'd suggest a ban until such time as he has shown significant improvement in these areas. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per Icarosaurvus above. 68.42.64.71 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)— 68.42.64.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose He edited a single article, was reverted, and took his concerned to AIV and the talk page which was proper. Banning him considering he has been here for eight years without any blocks or violations is a heavy handed move and smells like oppression because he seems to obviously have views That some people would like to suppress. It looks like the only mistake he made was editing the wrong article where people are extremely heated to begin with. 107.77.253.5 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is totally out of line. BigDwiki (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll join the IP-contributor bandwagon. This is an over-reaction right now, and if disruption continues it can be implemented as Discretionary Sanctions. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no BLP violation. Sources support the edit and there is no suggestion the subject objects to its presence here or elsewhere. This is an MOS dispute. We don't topic ban for MOS disputes. Close, and take this discussion to the article's talk page. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

    I think there seems to be some confusion here. The inclusion of the legal first name is a MOS/editorial discretion issue, but the inclusion of the legal surname is a BLP issue—unless better sources can be found, including the surname is a WP:BLPPRIVACY problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose (at this time until I read more arguments here), as no previous sanctions or administrative actions have been attempted or imposed against this user before. The issues are very problematic, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But banning someone should mean that we have tried other methods and actions to correct this behavior and they have not worked, and that a ban is the logical next step necessary to stop the behavior and prevent additional disruption to the project. I think that we should attempt to impose a less-severe action in this situation, and then consider proceeding if the issue continues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • OpposeWeak support for now. I agree with Oshwah. User was disruptive, but too soon for tban. Tban should be a near last resort imho. Edit: updating vote because of this edit. (14:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting how a provocative suggestion like mine can be a useful tactic to stimulate some comment. That said, EvergreenFir, it begs the question as to what you hoped to gain by bringing the issue to ANI in the first place. It's either a run-of-the-mill content dispute, or a serious BLP/DS issue - what is it to be? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: My hope was that an administrator would intervene and stop the disruption should it continue or that the request for such an intervention would stop the disruption, which was the case here. This board is for cases where there's not clear vandalism but there is clear disruption and that administrator intervention may be required. When I filed, it was not clear that the user would stop but it was clear that AIV was not the appropriate forum. My desired outcome was for the disruption to stop and possibly a block if it had continued or a warning if it had stopped. I do not think of topic ban is out of the question especially should the behavior had continued. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There is and was no "disruption". As multiple editors have pointed out here, there isn't even clarity on whether a BLP violation occurred. It is my position that no violation occurred. If a violation occurred, there would not be so many editors saying that there was no violation.BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand how you think there was no violation. Please read this quote from WP:BIRTHNAME.

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out.

Also, I would like to know why you are so interested in including Jenning’s birth name. You’ve not actually stated any reasons why you want to include the name, you’ve only stated that her birth name should be included. I feel like you’re just trying to shame her and don’t want to admit it. EMachine03 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no BLP violation here, just emotionally-charged editors arguing. Natureium (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfect summarization of the situation. BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's a discussion happening on the article talk page. Why don't we take this and put it there instead of here? GMG^talk 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support regrettably - BigDwiki is still showing WP:IDHT type behavior on the talk pages, despite multiple explanation as to why his sources will not work in the article, and worse, fail WP:BLP  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  12:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read further down the discussion that you lent to, you will see where another editor has analyzed the same question that I raised, and then analyze your response, and found that there was no violation. There seems to be the same number of people accusing this of being a violation as there are people saying that it is not a violation. BigDwiki (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not even close to being a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Have we learned nothing from the Manning case? The use of the phrase "his/her real name" appears to indicate an ideological agenda at work. Gamaliel (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

By this same logic, which I’m not saying is accurate, how is it not an idiological agenda to promote something along the lines of “her name”? BigDwiki (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The MOS, reflecting tons of discussion, follows in the footsteps of other mainstream outlets in instructing users to use pronouns and names conforming with that person's gender identity. Repeated refusal to do so is disruptive and tendentious. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It actually states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." in addition to the gender-identity section. "His/her" is certainly neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is talking about generic contexts (the next sentence is "For example, avoid the generic he."), not about referring to individual transgender people. For this issue, the relevant section of the MOS is MOS:GENDERID. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: are you seriously suggesting using "his/her" in reference to a trans girl is remotely appropriate? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that it is neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: so you think it's appropriate? Shall we use it on all articles then? Or perhaps singular they? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• support Whether or not one agrees with the MOS on this (I have my issues, as I stated above), the onus at this point would be to achieve a different consensus instead of doggedly defying what we have now. I also see similar issues with other BLP disputes (e.g. at Sandy Stimpson; see diff) where there are problems about inclusion of material. The arguments show a failure to appreciate the matters involved. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - "his/her real name" is unacceptable verbiage, and to claim that it is "neutral" shows a profound lack of understanding. To protect the encyclopedia, a topic ban seems to be a very sensible measure. --bonadea contributions talk 22:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - It's hard to take a BLP report seriously when the reporter turns around and opposes a BLP topic ban. Also I can sympathize with the users who don't buy the BLP argument. The content is sourced and not really contentious in terms of accuracy. However that doesn't change the fact that disregarding MOS rules so that you can use a article to "deadname" a trans subject is extremely tendentious and certainly demonstrates a highly warped view of "neutrality". A block is not debatable if this behavior continues, or perhaps a TBAN from LGBT BLPs. I would be inclined to discretionarily implement either of these immediately if issues persist. Swarm ♠ 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: please see my explanation above. I came here because of the incident, not for a topic ban. When considering the proposed topic ban, I know my personal views on this topic may cloud my judgement, so I was airing on the side of caution intentionally. However, to be honest, given the user's responses above I am warming up to the idea of a topic ban. They seem to have no inkling as to why their behavior is problematic. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, particularly given the "his/her name" thing above. That BigDwiki thinks that's "neutral" language shows that they either do not possess the understanding of policy needed to edit in this space, or their own opinions are making them unable to edit appropriately here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose a topic ban, but I would have no problem with the outcome being that BigDwiki is given a warning that describing a trans person's birth name as their "real name" is exceptionally offensive, and will incur a block if it happens again, as it would then be a deliberate act (at the moment I'll assume good faith and believe it was done through ignorance, not malice). Fish+Karate 09:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Striking out, see amended comment below Fish+Karate 12:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Gigantic club being wielded in an edit war. Topping banning from that one article would be fine with me as the editing is tendentious. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. There's something fundamentally preposterous about arguing the BLPPRIVACY prevents us from including a statement not only made by the article subject on national television but reposted to her personal youtube channel, which has more than 400,000 subscribers and whose videos may receive millions of pageviews. Both the subject herself, to some degree, and her parents, without equivocation, describe "Jazz Jennings" as a stage name, a pseudonym, not a legal name; as such many of the arguments here about the MOS are clearly inapplicable. Many of the sources used in the article are plainly no better, and sometimes clearly less reliable, than the sources objected to in this discussion. Too many of the arguments here ignore the particulars for this individual, preferring a generalized view that does not take into account important but inconvenient factors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  Again, as I said above, the BLPPRIVACY issue is not the reliably sourced legal given name, but rather the poorly sourced legal surname, which has not been publicly released by the article's subject, at least not in any source which I am aware of. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as OTT and premature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's opinion above matches mine. Jschnur (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reading this ANI and some of the sources too has led me to agree with Oshwah. —JJB^ers 18:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Given BigDwiki has made the BLP-violating edit again ([1]) despite this thread, and has rightly been blocked for 24 hours, it is now clear there is either a fundamental lack of understanding of, or a blissful disregard for, consensus, community editing, and WP:BLP, so I've changed my argument to support a topic ban, and probably a lengthier block should the behaviour continue. Fish+Karate 12:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Fish and karate, your accusation is false and should be struck or withdrawn entirely. Whether BigDwiki's conduct was appropriate or not (and I believe that one edit in two weeks, which definitively resolved the issue of whether the name in question could be reliably sourced, was appropriately bold editing), there is no reasonable argument that it violated WP:BLP. This dispute has already veered far away from legitimate policy concerns, and blithely making false accusations (by an admin, no less!) only exacerbates a bad situation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac accusations of bad faith, COI while editing DS firearms articles

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

---

Legacypac has made a number of uncivil accusations towards me relating to edits primarily on the talk pages of firearms articles. While I'm sure we don't hold the same views on the subject I do not appreciate accusations that my edits, ore more often my talk page comments are "whitewashing". Repeated accusations of WP:POVPUSH, accusations of whitewashing, and not very sutle accusations of COI are not condusive to WP:CIVIL editing (examples below).

I have tried to reach out to Legacypac to address these issues on the editor's talk page. Initially here [[2]] and after additional instances incivility here [[3]]

Several associated with the article 2018 NRA boycott that related to a request to remove material that I felt was WP:SYN. Consensus on the article page and a NORN thread supported removal. Accusations were made on both locations and at myself and a second editor.

• March 13, "I'm tiring of your pro-NRA advocacy User:Springee. This is an area under discretionary sanctions." [[4]]
• March 13, Similar comment directed at another editor "A review of [User]'s recnet contributions show NRA whitewashing. I remind this user that this topic is under discretionary sanctions. " [[5]] Note edit summary
• March 14, "Anyone reviewing edit histories can see which editors are whitewashing and even the big name media is picking up on the effort of these editors. " [[6]]
• March 17, from the NORN discussion related to this material, "These two editors are the ones arguing to remove it. In fact Springee has a history of trying to downplay anything negative about the NRA. The RS are noticing. [links to external media]" [[7]]

Non-firearms article:

• March 18, "Stop trying to whitewash this page", [[8]]

Noticeboard comments:

• March 26, "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort? [Link to blog post by blocked editor Lightbreather]" [[9]], Archived discussion [[10]]

Smith and Wesson article:

• April 2, "You will not whitewash the page completely", [[11]], upon a talk page[[12]] request this one was removed. [[13]]
• April 2, "Wow you are narrowly focused on reasons to exclude a good source where the headline names S&W. Here is another [removed ref] but I'm sure there is something wrong with this source too" [[14]]

AfD discussion page:

• April 2, "Pretty POV of Springee - when will you stop advocating against any transparency around the NRA's activities?" [[15]] Per a talk page comment I requested this comment be removed. [[16]]

Talk page implication of COI:

• April 2, "Are you in anyway employed by a gun manufacturer or the NRA? Just wondering?" [[17]] A quick search of my edit history shows no firearms edits at all prior to Aug 2016 and until late last year only limited involvement.

Several times Legacypac has linked to a few external media articles that started with an article in The Verge about Ar-15 edits on Wikipedia. I discussed the very questionable articles here [[18]]. I think it is uncivil to use questionable articles as a way to impugn the actions of other editors.

I'm not requesting sanctions, only that the accusations etc stop. Springee (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see some specific edits that the two of you are arguing about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Springee states that he or she is asking "only that the accusations etc stop", so let's consider accusations that have been made. (1) Springee has a history of wanting the removal of negative information relating to gun supporters in the United States. Legacypac regards that as editing to support a point of view, and uses the word "whitewashing" to describe it. Legacypac has a perfect right to hold that view, and it is not reasonable to attempt to suppress his or her right to express the opinion. (2) Legacypac has asked whether Springee has a conflict of interest, and received an unequivocal answer "no". Having received that answer, Legacypac must now drop the matter, and not suggest that Springee has a conflict of interest again unless and until there is clear evidence that Springee in fact does have one. Persisting in repeatedly making such an accusation without substantiation is both a failure to assume good faith and a violation of Wikipedia's policy on harassment. (3) Springee needs to be careful about making accusations against Legacypac. For example, Springee has linked to this talk page section, referring to it as "additional instances incivility", but while Legacypac firmly expressed critical views of Springee's editing, he or she did do perfectly civilly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is is really a legit question? Springee has a 10 year edit history, editing more than firearms articles. It should be obviousl that there was not a "paid editor" issue. The COI "question" was not called for. And the term "whitewashing" is being used in a manner that suggests collusion or nefarious motives. The technical use of the word may not be wrong, but the implication is clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I had closed this section, but on representation from Springee I am reopening it, to allow Legacypac a chance to respond. There is also a question of whether "whitewashing" is, as I took it, simply a term describing repeated removal of content supporting a particular position by someone who clearly disagrees with that position, or something more reprehensible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you JamesBWatson. Your close was fine I asked the other editor once if they had a COI and they said no, which I take them at their word for. When I used the term whitewashing (just like other editors do [19]) I refer to removing any negative information about a subject from the page directly, and indirectly by attacking the critical Reliable Sources used, weight, relevance and so on on the talkpages/RS notice board etc of any material that the NRA would not want on the page. At issue are facts like:

1. some guns are commonly and in legislation called assault rifles [20] [21]
2. there is significant backlash against the NRA because of their response to recent mass shootings including the 2018 NRA boycott [22], and somewhere he deleted a link I placed to this article from I recall the NRA page.
3. that the NRA has been suggesting boycotts of opponents for years [23], which he sees as irrelevant to the current boycotts and NRA response and that
4. Smith & Wesson changed their name to American Outdoor Brands Corporation [24] [25] to blunt criticism.

Examples and supplied links are just some I was able to quickly gather from memory. None of them illustrate the talkpage POV pushing.

(By the way the American Outdoor Brands Corporation and Smith & Wesson pages cover the exact same company under two names. The page incorrectly identifies S&W as a subsidiary of itself. Further Smith & Wesson is basically G11 material - a glowing advertisement and product catalog with subpages for each gun they make.)

There are multiple editors whitewashing gun topics and mainstream media has noticed:

Anyway as I said, this editor has been editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI). I reviewed some recent contributions after they filed this report and there appears to be some recent moderation in their POV pushing. I'll not claim all the credit for pushing them in the direction of NPOV but I hope that trend continues. Hope that clears things up. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, there is a difference between saying the edit is a problem and saying I'm POV pushing. I think the same argument could be made about your edits but I haven't because I would like to keep things civil, hence reaching out to you twice. You accuse me of POV push but lets review the example where you lodged most of the accusations. "That edit is whitewashing" is about the edit. "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort?" is about the motives of the editor and not civil.

In reply to your numbered points.

1. You didn't note that there were a number of edits related to what to call the rifles and that a talk page discussion said that they shouldn't be called "assault rifles" (start of back and forth[[26]]). Additionally the source for the claim didn't use the term "assault rifle" so the change is completely appropriate per contentious wp:label [[27]]. I believe sticking to what the source says and avoiding contentious labels is good practice.

2. This was early on in the existence of the article and I wasn't the only one who was concerned that the article was more like a cry for action against companies rather than a neutral description of events (which were still unfolding). The edit was BOLD and reverted and I moved it to the talk page. You may not agree but that doesn't justify personal attacks.

3. This edit suggests you were tone deaf to policy. You felt the information was relevant but could find no RSs linking material from 2014 to the 2018 Boycott. Rather than discuss policy the first thing you did was attack @Miguel Escopeta: and myself. You continued the attacks on the NORN discussion. In the end you were the sole editor who felt the material was supported by policy. If you are the only one supporting inclusion maybe the issue isn't POV push but policy. I'm not saying you were wrong for opposing removal but that opposition didn't need to include attacking other editors.

4. OK, bring that up as a RfC or such. That doesn't justify attacking me for pointing out that the edits being added were using sources that didn't support the claims being made. The originating editor was previously blocked for sock editing and edit warring (and is currently topic blocked for these edits) so it's understandable that myself and others weren't quick to embrace the material. If you had opened up a talk page discussion asking how we can get the material in I think you would find I was supportive in general but not of the exact text and I wasn't interested in helping an editor who had accused me of being a S&W employee etc.

Your reposed a series of poor quality opinion articles based on one published by the Verge. The author of the Verge article contacted me 24 hr prior to publication, asked a vague question that made the tone of the article clear. I didn't reply. Earlier in this ANI I posted a link my take on the article and the gross errors the author made in his telling of events. Those articles don't justify uncivil comments towards other editors.

Your block log and previous ANI cases shows you have a history of bullying[[28]] and I think that is what is going on here. I'm not asking you to change your mind or agree with my edit suggestions. I also don't think this rises to any sanctions. I'm only asking that you assume good faith and discuss the edits, not the editor. This shouldn't be too much to ask. Springee (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You consider Newsweek and Haaretz to be "poor quality" publications? Your deliberate lack of response to the writer from The Verge was a strategic error - if you wanted your point of view to be presented, you have to actually tell the writer what it is. Now, you have no-one to blame but yourself if the article didn't mention where you're coming from, so you're in no position to bitch about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken - Could you possibly mischaracterize this issue any more than you just did? I have to wonder if you actually read this ANI report before posting that comment. This isn't about Springee's POV not being represented correctly, or at all, by The Verge. This is about Springee asking LegacyPac to knock off the persistent accusations of COI and POV-pushing, which have crossed the line into blatant personal attacks. So not only do you have this 100% wrong, but your characterization of Springee's request as "bitching" is appallingly rude and a violation of NPA. You need to strike your comment and post an apology to Springee immediately. You owe him that. People should be able to seek re-dress for issues here without being unjustifiably attacked. - ^theWOLFchild 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was also contacted, but the way the writer was framing his questions, it was obvious he had a POV that he was going to advance. He didn't want to hear my side, he wanted to refute my side in the article, where I'd have no control over how he presented what I said. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• You do know that it's extremely rare for writers to give the people they interview control over what they write, don't you? And, as I said to Springee, if you are correct that the writer had a preset bias, the only way you had available to you to hope that your point of view was presented in the article was to engage him or her with as convincing an argument as you could make. If you didn't do that, you can hardly complain if the article wasn't balanced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what in my response made you think I expected control over what was written? Maybe I wasn't clear: I KNOW I don't have control over what was written. Since the questions made it evident that the writer had a clear agenda, I had no confidence that what I did say would be presented in an impartial manner. He wasn't looking for my side of it. He was looking to cherry-pick a sentence or two and then spend as much prose as he wanted to refute it. I had zero confidence that there would be balance, so rather than participate and allow myself to be used to further his POV, I chose not to participate. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• It was your statement: "He didn't want to hear my side, he wanted to refute my side in the article, where I'd have no control over how he presented what I said." That seems clear enough to me: you didn;t talk to them because you'd have no control over how they used the material you provided for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• And then I clarified that further for you. Since it was an article where I'd have no control, I chose not to. I didn't expect control. I KNEW that I would not have control. If he appeared to be neutral and trying to simply report on the issue, I'd have been fine with the fact that I had no control. When it became evident that he was not neutral, I decided not to be a vehicle for his agenda. You can continue trying to act like I had some unrealistic expectation, but at this point, I've made it very clear that I didn't have one. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you seem not to be getting, or to be deliberately ignoring, my point, which is that by not responding to the writer's inquiry, there was little or no chance that your point of view was going to be presented adequately, thus making your and Springee's feeling that the writer was going to put together a (from your POV) biased article a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given that, you are in no position to complain about the article's quality, since you did absolutely nothing to influence it when given the chance. So, stop bitching about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• And unfortunately you seem to be either not getting or are deliberately ignoring my point. Given that I have made it crystal clear that I had no expectation of editorial control and explained why I didn't agree to participate, I'm not sure why you feel like you need to 'win' something. In any case, I can "bitch" as long as I please and you can stop acting like you are some sort of arbitor about what I can or can't talk about. Last I checked, you're just another editor like I am. When you get knighted the Prince of Wikipedia, let me know. Until then....well, I'll choose to be more civil than you were. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, sure, you can continue to bitch that the article you refused to give information to was biased, you simply won't be in any way justified in doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The articles in question were simply reporting what The Verge article said and for failing to investigate further the articles were poor (I don't recall claiming the publications as a whole were poor). The author of the Verge article presumably sent the same email to quite a number of editors. The question was vague and didn't suggest any interest in a real discussion. I was told the article was going out in 24 hours. Mind you at that point I had almost no idea what the article was going to say. I honestly didn't have much of a POV on the subject other than to say the author got a lot of things very wrong because they didn't do their homework. If you are interested in it, please see this talk page thread [[29]].

In somewhat condensed form, the author claimed people were trying to remove mass shooting information from the AR-15 article. But the author didn't bother to do their homework and didn't understand that there had been some churning of article names and thus confusion as to what went where. This happened just after the FL shooting so many new authors descended on what they thought was the right article and started adding material... but there was a problem. What started as the generic AR-15 article was changed to the Colt AR-15 (last spring if I recall) article because "AR-15" is a trademarked name. The conclusion at the time, as I recall as a largely uninvolved party, was change "AR-15" to "Colt AR-15" and then make a generic AR-15 page (and there was a debate about the correct page name... this is Wikipedia of course). Because "Colt AR-15" is a brand specific page, general AR-15 mass shooting information wasn't on topic, that would go in the generic AR-15 page. But this is Wikipedia. No one bothered to update the redirect links so "AR-15" searches (and thus web searches) found the Colt page rather than the generic AR-15 page. Editors on the Colt page would rightly remove general AR-15 material from the specific page but editors who were new were understandably confused. To make things worse, someone decided "Modern Sporting Rifles" was the correct name for the generic AR-15 page (a mistake that was being corrected before the Verge article came out). Wikipedia being what it is, it the editors who made the changes didn't finish the job and setup the links etc and we have odd names for articles. The Verge author sees only the surface and assumes this is some sort of mass conspiracy to censor articles and we have the story in question. A bit of digging would have shown this was simply the convergence of a major news story at the same time the articles were taking their time to evolve.

The article also mentions some NRA edits and notes certain material that was removed. However, it doesn't ask if the material's removal was valid. I think any long time Wikipedia editor will understand that sometimes material is removed because it isn't properly sourced (source doesn't support the claim, not reliable etc, added by a blocked sock editor). Since I wasn't directly involved with most of the material discussed in the article I think my non-reply to a vague question was the right choice. It was interesting to note that some comments in reply to the article basically supported what was happening at the Wikipedia articles. So what should we make of Legcaypac's reply below? Well there is a failure to understand the subject yet a willingness to assign motives without knowing the whole story. An attempt to mock and disparage which I suspect is not in line with WP:CIVIL behavior. I suspect that is part of the problem with the 2018 NRA Boycott incivility I noted above. Rather than look at the content as unsupportable by policy, Legacypac decided the only reason for removal would have to be bias/POVPUSH. At the end of the day that seems to have blinded Legacypac to problems that other editors had no issue finding. As Legacy said, I'm sure he he is a true believer in whatever he believes. All I was asking was that he follow the rules for civility when he disagrees. Springee (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

News org Verge found Springee's POV pushing so blatant they call Springee up for an interview and write an article about it. Newsweek and two other places pick up the story.

Springee files an ANi against me because I independently came to the same assessment about Springee's specific agenda editing as Verge and Newsweek!

First, That's awesome! No wonder Springee is so sensitive to any mention of the news coverage detailing how they personally brought Wikipedia into disrepute by whitewashing gun related pages. Second, congratulation are in order - we should put a DYK about Springee's editing making Newsweek. That's a rare honor indeed.

I think we can close this discussion again unless someone wants to use DS to topic ban Springee for editing so POV that four media outlets wrote it up. Legacypac (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The above is a clearly uncivil comment and illustrates exactly the sort of behavior that I've been concerned about. The edit justification assocaited with that addition is also a civility problem. [[30]] Based on the above comment I would like to request a formal warning for incivility. Springee (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• News org Verge found Springee's POV pushing so blatant they call Springee up for an interview - Legacypac, can you post a link that proves The Verge found "Springee's POV pushing" to be "so blatant" and that it is the reason they contacted him? Can you also provide links supporting your comment about "four media outlets writing about Springee's POV"..? (specifically) Otherwise, you should strike your comments and apologize. - ^theWOLFchild 05:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suggesting the DYK is exactly the sort of behavior that makes it difficult to work with you. Some writer with an agenda writes a one-sided opinion piece and you act like it was carried down from the mountain by Moses. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The box I posted was created by some other editor(s), I just borrowed it from the AR-15 talkpage.

• @Legacypac: I have told you that you must stop the accusations of conflict of interest. I know that "editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI)" stops short of actually saying that Springee has a conflict of interest, but in the context it clearly makes a not very deeply veiled implication to that effect. If I see you do anything like that again I shall block you from editing. I may also say that other aspects of your editing on this page is much more in line with a battleground approach to other editors than like an attempt to resolve disagreements. Your comments here have certainly led me to move somewhat away from the position that I expressed when I originally closed this discussion, and I hope I don't find it necessary to move further in the same direction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson I've never once said he had a COI (as you correctly note) and I only once asked nicely if there was one so we could get that out of the way as he keep coming to my talk to complain. There is no accusations of "bad faith" - I'm sure he is a true believer in whatever he believes. That dispenses with the false headline. I was not even going to comment here until I was pretty much forced to by the discussion on your talkpage - hardly battleground behavior on my part. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• " I've never once said he had a COI (as you correctly note)". Are you familiar with the term paralipsis? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I read Legacypac's bringing up the subject not as a rhetorical way to circumvent JBW's instructions, but simply as part of their explanation for their actions. Now that they have done so, bringing it up again would be a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Springee: you write: the [Verge] author claimed people were trying to remove mass shooting information from the AR-15 article [31], but the thing is that editors are still removing mass shooting information, even though it is *specifically* about the model in question: "remove Part Arthur Massacre per overwhelming consensus on talk page", 3 April 2018. The "overwhelming consensus" is the past discussions where editors were attempting to enforce WP:Local consensus of the now-deprecated "criminal use" essay; see for example: Talk:Colt_AR-15#Proposal_2.

It would help greatly if you step in every now and then to help enforce Wikipedia's policies, even if it means going against WP:GUNS local consensus sometimes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Port Arthur material is currently the subject of a talk page discussion. You say "enforce Wikipedia's policies" but which ones? These all can be distilled down to WP:weight (other than the cases where RS's don't support article claims). The issue I've raised is reciprocity of weight. You and I discussed it here [[32]]. It's improper to assume that those who are against including many of these facts aren't doing it against policy. Rather we don't agree on what constitutes weight in the context of the article. When are mentions in context of the crime (the car used, the gun used) due weight in context of the car or gun. I noted the contrast between how we treat the car and the gun used in the same crime. A well subscribed RfC said the Chevy Caprice article shouldn't mention the blue Caprice used as a shooting platform in the D.C. sniper attacks. The crime is mentioned on the page of the type of gun used in the crime. We disagree on the relative weight here but that disagreement is only over how to interpret weight in context. This isn't like the boycott case above where no policy was cited for inclusion. BTW, I'm for inclusion of the Port Arther material in large part because I think the weight is sufficient and because of the firearms project suggestions for when to include a crime on a gun page [[33]]. When the RfC comes I will support some type of inclusion. I was also for adding the mass shooting information to the AR-15 page. [[34]] This is rather off topic. You and I have disagreed but your disagreements are civil and stick to the subject, not the editor. I started this ANI to get Legacypac to do the same. Springee (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson, I'm disapointed that rather than see the problem with a post and edit summary such as this one [[35]]. Legacypac's reply to your warning suggest they feel there was nothing wrong with the comment. I think the editor either needs to acknowledge civility policy [[36]], in particular "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment," and "Be careful with edit summaries". Springee (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Were you, in fact, contacted by mainstream media such as Newsweek? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek? No. The Verge, yes, along with other editors, presumably on all sides of the edit debate. Contrary to Legacypac's bad faith accusations above, the email says I was contacted simply because I was one of the editor's involved on the talk pages. Email text below.

(Redacted)

Springee (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in emailing anyone here. So, were others on the talk page contacted also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The email I received was not personalized and the reporter said they were contacted multiple editors. Springee (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was contacted and after further inquiry, it was evident to me that the writer had a POV to advance, so I declioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Both Legacypac and Springee display strong emotional involvement with this subject, and it is not bringing out the best in either of them. This can't be viewed outside the the current political context, especially #NeverAgain and the objectively horrible response of the NRA and some of its surrogates. Springee's focus is mainly political and he edits a lot of firearms articles, mainly from a sympathetic perspective, but his edits also encompass many other topic areas. Legacypac has a much broader editing focus. Neither is the kind of SPA POV warrior for whom sanctions were originally enacted. I suggest that rather than formal sanctions on long-standing editors, we invite them both instead to take a 3 month break from this topic area. Otherwise it's going to end up with topic bans, and actually I don't think that will help Wikipedia in this case as both of them leave articles better than they started, even when they are butting heads. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I edit from a pro-verifiable facts perspective. I'll admit a bias against killing people. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And Springee would doubtless say the same. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "I'll admit a bias against killing people". And the fact that you see this as a crusade against "killing people" speaks volumes. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In general I have nothing against Legacypac's edits. I feel some aren't improvements or don't follow policy but in all cases I think they are legitimate, good faith efforts on which we disagree. Editorial disagreements aren't why I started this ANI. I simply want Legacypac to adhere to the WP:FOC policy. Comments about my supposed motivations are not focusing on the content in question. The insulting comment above is anything but FOC. If Legacypac agrees that going forward they will FOC when discussing editorial disagreements I'm fine. I will try to do the same and my talk page is open to Legacypac if they think I'm doing otherwise. Springee (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've only recently started paying attention to firearms-related articles, but it's immediately obvious that people are often incredibly unpleasant towards each other on this subject. Springee isn't. Getting into a disagreement with him is a far more positive experience than agreeing with many other editors in this area. From what I can tell, this report isn't about some kind of content disagreement, but about unpleasant behavior. Also, no one is even asking for a topic ban (although I guess Legacypac brought it up for some reason I don't understand). Asking Springee to stop editing because of someone else's unpleasant behavior would be a disservice to the encyclopedia. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac has a long history of unpleasant behavior and civility issues. That's why Springee came here. There are long-time editors who, I'm certain, are aware of LP's "way" of treating editors he disagrees with or simply doesn't like, but seem to be glossing over that common knowledge. I've never understood why LP has been allowed to continue on with this behavior over the years. When is enough going to be enough? Springee has a long history here with a clean block log and a good reputation. LP has and a long history and has been blocked more than once for harassment and incivility. Two months ago, LP was blocked for two weeks as a result of harassing another editor and edit warring. One day later, he was unblocked. And here we are again. Will a three week block now result in just two days of time-out this time around or will someone really do what should have been done in February? Why Springee is being doubted as to who's the issue here is beyond my understanding. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice you could share your thoughts based on your extensive experience. Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. And yes, I do have "experience" (as seen here). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Worst block ever based on my extending sn olive branch to you. I was not even involved in whatever got you blocked that time and I should have taken that Admin to ArbComm for abuse of tools. Anyway, you are not worth my time so stop trolling to settle old scores. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I don't know about your history with Winkelvi but changing the title of the thread [[37]] seems like more of the battleground behavior @JamesBWatson: was talking about. Springee (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikielvi has been trolling me (and others) for years. Your section header is a baseless personal attack and I'm well within my rights to neutralize it. You need to stop making my editing your concern. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, it is inappropriate to place a warning on my talk page [[38]] for reverting your attempt to change the section title of my complaint against you. I don't think edit warring the section title was what @JzG: had in mind. Springee (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, please note the accusations and disparaging remarks made on my talk page [[39]] and again after requesting that the topic not continue on my talk page[[40]]. Springee (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Evidently no point in trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think we are done here. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Legacypac would very much like for this to be "done" the way it's going. This ANI is about his behaviour towards others, and in his last 3 posts he called Winkelvi a "troll" twice and characterized Springee as "unreasonable", which he's not, and himself as "reasonable" when he's a anything but. Springee has tried to give him an out here, all he has to do is stop the personal attacks, but he don't, or can't, even do that.

@JzG, I see no reason why Springee should have to avoid editing any firearm articles for 3 months. Legacypac on the othe other hand could probably use a break from that topic, and that topic from him. Perhaps another proposal should be put forward to resolve this? - ^theWOLFchild 05:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive228#Thewolfchild for context. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See: WP:BATTLE. - ^theWOLFchild 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've been trying to decide whether or not to keep a lid on it. I have concluded that an unlidding is in order. Legacypac has been somewhat emotional (understandably to a degree), but also hostile on Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting where I have been active. They pointlessly threatened Mandruss (curtesy ping) with a TBAN, which has less than zero chance of being enacted, for quote unquote "way overboard on WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion". The discussion was extremely long and Mandruss made quite a number of comments, but to be fair they were repeatedly and unceasingly questioned throughout. I couldn't make a comment without an hours long thread spinning off from it. A more minor example from much earlier on the same page: Why are you wasting my time with this foolishness and worse by reverting my sourced edit? That is pretty much vandalism. This was a response to Mandruss for my removal of an edit of Legacy's conducted in the middle of a discussion over whether or not to include some material. You don't just override a discussion five minutes after its begun, and especially not after you've already commented on it (and are therefore aware of it). Diff of quote. There's general hostility on this page as well, I mean for pete's sake their very first comment in this section is: I edit from a pro-verifiable facts perspective. I'll admit a bias against killing people. Who, fucking who, is advocating for killing people here? As I see it, one of two things needs to happen. Legacy needs to temper their emotions; the alternative is clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: We all know that tensions run high and people were / are still on edge and upset, in part over The Verge article. But I'm a bit surprised at some of the comments here. Especially considering that Thewolfchild's AR-15 quote, for example, was included in The Verge, too: "If we start adding info about just one shooting incident to one tenuously-connected article, we’ll be opening a literal Pandora’s box (figuratively speaking)" source.

If any apologies and sanctions are warranted, such requests should probably come from those editors not cited in the press in re: recent gun-related Wiki controversies. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't just override a discussion five minutes after its begun. - No, but you can make a page move while the title is being currently discussed though, right? (twice!) And how can you possibly try to make this ANI about me? (seriously?) So what if the Verge quoted me? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment and I stand by it 100%. It's not as if I'm personally attacking anyone in it, which what this ANI is about (...and we're back on topic) - ^theWOLFchild 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The focus on The Verge article is a red herring and has nothing to do with the complaint other than the general incivility of using it to bludgeon the discussion. That any editor was quoted by name or otherwise in that article doesn't mean the wp:CIVIL policies no longer apply nor that their voices no longer should matter. That's right there with guilty until proven innocent. Springee (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Me thinks WP:ARBCOM might be where this ends up. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the proposal makes good sense, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus for it emerging here. If the proposal is'nt going to be the resolution, I think prolonging this discussion is simply keeping wounds open for the pouring of additional salt. So I hope some brave, uninvolved admin will close this up, with admonishments to everybody on this string that they're bound by FOC and CIVIL. David in DC (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Seraphimblade, I think it's very much worth noting that, as a result of my comments above, Legacypac decided to hound me over at an AfD, and after doing so, issued a threat and expressed his intent to be intentionally disruptive there should I respond to his comments. [41] This is the kind of crap that Legacypac is notorious for, and - it would seem from the result of this filing - that he gets away with over and over again. Editors are tired of it, to be frank. When is enough, enough? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:HenSti

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

I have contacted this editor four times over a number of weeks; they continue to edit but won't reply. Full messages at User talk:HenSti#Sources. HenSti knows how to reply to messages, has been editing for years and knows how to add references, but will not communicate on this issue and hasn't added the references. I have directed them to links showing it is policy to engage in discussion, but to no avail. I am hoping they will engage now. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn - Does the source provided at HMS Enterprise (1705) have what you're looking for? I'm sure you've already looked at it, but I just thought I'd ask just in case :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That is presumably their source; I guess my main concern is the refusal to communicate and the creation of several unreferenced articles - do they understand the need to work with other editors and to verify information? I've no idea if they won't talk. Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is potentially problematic and that collaboration and communication is a key part of contributing to the project and working as a team with others. I'm going to allow others to comment on this discussion so we can figure out the best course of action moving forward that will help this user and benefit the project overall... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the articles in Category:Lists of ship launches don't seem to be well referenced, with lots of them completely unreferenced, (as with many other list-type articles on Wikipedia), so its not as if the community is setting a terrifically good example with regard to sourcing of this type of article. This does not excuse the failure to respond to concerns of course.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

List articles are often poor, which is why I linked to WP:SourceList on their talk page, because many editors aren't aware lists should be referenced, and I don't blame them. I was hoping the editor would respond and we could work together, but when it's been pointed out to them and they've ignored it, then it is disruptive. I'll look through the category and see if I can find any sources for the unref ones - so hopefully there will be some better examples out there, although a drop in the ocean. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

HenSti, you've continued to edit, you need to join in the discussion here. This discussion is just trying to find a solution to this problem, but you are risking a block by refusing to comment. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Normally I name my souces. DNV GL od ABS, ... In the furure i try to be more consequent with this. HenSti (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@HenSti: What does that stand for?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying HenSti. If you can agree to respond to messages in future and add sources to your articles, then I see no need to continue the conversation. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

DNV = Det Norske Veritas, GL = Germanischer Lloyd, ABS = American Bureau of Shipping. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar, does not appear to be relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just me, but does that shorthand of his remind anyone of a user that was banned a while back, who also used shorthand, and claimed to be using it due to a hand injury (Repetive stress something or other ... ) ?  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  12:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I remember that. Who was that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Answering my own question: User:Sven70 in 2010. [42]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) And to note, there are no article editing overlaps between HenSti and Sven70 [43]. Nor do/did they edit in the same subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources: ABS, DNV GL (classification society) HenSti (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:JCGDIMAIWAT

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

---

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

JCGDIMAIWAT has been editing since 2010 and in October received a 31-hour block for persistent addition of unverified material. Unfortunately, that's the same topic I've been sending this editor messages on, creating unref articles. They continue to edit but won't reply to the several messages I have sent over a period of weeks (see User talk:JCGDIMAIWAT). I have pointed out that it is policy to communicate etc. but have not got anywhere. They appear to have never edited their talk page in more than 8 years of editing. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at JCGDIMAIWAT's contributions made over the last seven days, I see that (s)he has added content mostly to film-related articles and BLPs. I also see edits without references to BLP articles where they should be provided (1, 2, 3, 4). I'm going to wait on action and let other editors weigh in on this discussion first, as well as give JCGDIMAIWAT a fair opportunity to respond here (I know this user has never communicated on talk pages or with other editors before, but it's the right thing to do regardless). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

JCGDIMAIWAT, you've continued to edit, you need to join in the discussion here. This discussion is just trying to find a solution to this problem, but you are risking a block by refusing to comment. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked JCGDIMAIWAT for one week for continuing to add unreferenced content and for failing to communicate during important discussions involving the problematic editing behavior. Since this user was last notified and repeatedly talked to, they've continued to ignore the warnings and I found this edit among this user's most recent changes and since this ANI has been open for a few days. I don't like being the person to have to do this, but I feel that enough chances were given, the user has repeatedly engaged in problematic editing, and it will only continue unless further action is taken. Sigh... unfortunately, a block is the logical next step in this situation, as all other methods of trying to reach the user have been exhausted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mansukhsurin

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

Mansukhsurin has been repeatedly warned about adding unverified material to Wikipedia, including creating wholly unreferenced articles, but won't respond. At User talk:Mansukhsurin you can see my numerous messages to them, plus other messages and warnings on the same topic. Mansukhsurin has been editing for a couple of years but has never responded to a talk page message or even (from what I can see) left an edit summary. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boleyn: You forgot to notify them; I've just done so. Not that I expect them to come running here to explain themselves.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mansukhsurin, you've continued to edit, can you please respond? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be that a block is the only way to gain their attention.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Also he has created a user page by attempting to copy User:Titodutta's page, thereby giving the false impression (probably unintentionally) that he is an administrator.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring project talk page posts at Wikiproject Medicine

I posted a neutrally worded notice of an RfC on Wikiproject Medicine, as recommended by the guideline WP:RFC. [44]. RexxS has been trying to remove it, exhibited WP:OWN behavior, and insulting edit summaries [45], [46]. Gun control is directly relevant to public health, and I can provide AMA statements to that effect if asked, they're already posted in the relevant discussion thread. Here's the obligatory "fuck off" [47]. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder though, why does RexxS go to such lengths to prevent word about an RfC from getting out? What purpose does edit warring it off a page serve, other than make it harder to gauge community consensus in a content dispute? If it's "disruptive" to post it there, what point does all the arguing about it serve? Nobody is making RexxS participate in the RfC. Obviously RexxS has some underlying political issues and needs a topic ban from gun control, to prevent him from continuing to edit other peoples' posts. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Response

Geogene posted a notice to WT:WikiProject Medicine: "An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre." [48]

Ozzie10aaaa, a member of WPMED, removed it withe edit summary "wrong wikiproject" [49]

Geogene restored the notice with edit summary "Disagree. Shootings and gun control policy are a public health issue" [50]

He then posted further on the WPMED talk page, attempting to justify his edit-warring the notice back in.

I told him quite firmly that the issue is not in scope for WPMED but did not remove the notice at that point. not in scope here [51]

Since then he's harangued me on my talk page and on WT:WPMED #RfC notice insisting on his right to decide what notifications are posted at WT:WPMED, despite being told by Natureium that Geogene was "trying to shoehorn in an issue that has nothing to do with WP:MED". [52]

Eventually I removed the RfC notice and warned him that "The purpose of this talk page is discuss improvements to WP:WikiProject Medicine. The question of "whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre" is so far removed from that purpose that your persistence in trying to force your unwelcome notice down the members' throats is very clearly tendentious editing."

Geogene subsequently restored the notice for a third time.

Geogene is not a member of WPMED, and he has been told very clearly by three editors, all of whom are members of WPMED, that his issue is not in scope for WPMED, nor is it wanted on the talk page. Yet he has tendentiously insisted that members of a WikiProject have no right to manage their project's talkpage, and edit-warred against members of the WikiProject to force his view.

I'd like to seen action (1) to ban him from posting further at WT:WikiProject Medicine; (2) to confirm to him that the members of a WikiProject can to manage their talk page in line with WP:TPG; and (3) to confirm that WP:TALKCENT: "Notices may be placed on related pages as needed; for example, a relevant WikiProject page" does not give him the right to override the wishes of a WikiProject's membership in deciding what topics are relevant to their project. --RexxS (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is "being shoved down anyone's throat", and that's a weird way to respond to a neutral RfC that tells me RexxS probably has some issues here. RexxS is free not to participate in the RfC if he chooses, but he does not have the right to decide that for the Project as a whole. There is no consensus that the RfC is off-topic, at least not the point of justifying removal. Two other editors posted there appearing to disagree with RexxS. Even if it were, the aggression shown by RexxS is far beyond reasonable for the context. They have a serious off-wiki problem with gun control, and it is causing them to act out disruptively.

Further, RexxS does not own Project Medicine. He cannot dictate who can post there, or what is or is not on topic. There is no agreement as to whether the RfC is on topic or not. This ownership behavior is further evidence of disruption.

And finally, Projects are not private clubs. It is irrelevant whether I am a "member" there or not. The statements above where he says I don't have membership card are further evidence of how RexxS doesn't understand the scope and purpose of Projects. He is not competent to delete posts that he doesn't like. Geogene (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Project aren't private clubs, on the other hand participants of the projects are ultimately the ones who deal with stuff relating to the wikiproject and therefore the best ones to decide what is and isn't in the scope of the wikiproject. If all participants of a wikiproject are saying something isn't in scope and someone else who doesn't is saying it is; it's only logical that we will side with those who will actually deal (or not deal) with whatever it is as part of the wikiproject, rather than the person who isn't going to deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

All it takes to "join" a Wikiproject is to post four tildes on the page. You don't have the right to exclude relevant notices because somebody hasn't. As to whether it's topical, I trust the AMA on that more than I trust you. Geogene (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• The problem here is actually one of WP:CANVASSING, I think.
  Whenever I open an RfC, I am careful to post neutrally-worded pointers to the discussion on the talk page of every WikiProject listed on the article's talk page, whether or not, in my personal opinion, that WikiProject has any relevance to the subject in question -- but only to those WikiProjects. (I also note that I have done so in the RfC.) I do that to avoid any claim of impropriety or canvassing.
  However, in this case, the RfC was on Talk:Colt AR-15, and the only WikiProjects which have claimed that article as within their purview are MILHIST and Firearms. By posting on a WikiProject which does not claim the article as part of their project, Geogene was canvassing for votes from the members of a WikiProject they thought might be sympathetic to their side of the debate. If we allowed this to happen regularly, there would be nothing to stop every RfC from being publicized on every WikiProject the RfC initiator feels would be helpful to their cause: in this case, perhaps WikiProject Liberalism, WikiProject Terrorism, or WikiProject Civil Rights Movement.
  No, the best and fairest course is to post only on the WikiProjects listed, or else to forbid pointers altogether if they're going to be abused in this way. (And just as an aside: I'm an extremely strong advocate for very strict gun control and strongly favor outlawing the AR-15 and other assault-type rifles. This has nothing to do with that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I do expect that WikiProject Medicine would be more favorable to my view, just as I expect that WikiProject Firearms, where I posted an identical notice, would be more hostile to my view. That's not canvass, as I understand it, but I may not understand it correctly. The point of an RfC is to pull editors from outside the usual orbit of firearms enthusiasts. A cohort that represents the community at large. Geogene (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand it correctly. Not only must the pointer be neutral, but who is notified must also not be biased. For instance, if an article is AfD'd for a second time, it's reasonable to notify the editors who participated in the previous AfD, but only if all the editors are notified, not simply the ones who !voted to "delete". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The removal of the post was improper (especially repeated removals); it should have been left alone. The RfC clearly related to a medical/public health topic; the Port Arthur shooting and the gun laws that followed have been recently discussed in articles in, for example, the Journal of the American Medical Association and a position statement from the Australian Medical Association. More eyes on the topic from those interested in medicine or public health can only be a good thing. Neutrality^talk 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Needless to say, Colt AR-15 does not have a WikiProject Medicine (which many rather surprizing articles do). This is normally the prima facie evidence for what is in the project's scope and what is not. It is relevant that there is currently another gun control issue on MEDRS talk, where Rexxx seems ready to accept this is in scope (rather more than me, for example). I can't see the removal was improper. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ Johnbod and (obviously) RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I can only agree that considering Colt AR-15 as part of WP:WikiProject Medicine is stretching credibility/canvassing beyond the bounds of reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not, for the same reason that Wikiproject Medicine is listed on Talk:Traffic_collision: the medical profession considers guns and gun violence, like traffic accidents, to be public health matters. EEng 14:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine is not the medical profession. We are a group of editors trying to improve medical content on Wikipedia, and whether or not the Port Arthur shooting is mentioned on the Colt article is a matter of no bearing whatsoever to that aim.

To make it clear: I have no axe to grind on gun politics; I did not even object to the original RfC notice being posted; but I did object strongly to the re-posting of the notice after it had been removed by a very active and respected member of the WikiProject. For Geogene to replace it for a third time is worthy of sanction, if only to prevent future time-sinks like this. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to define what is or is not medical, and this time sink is being created by you, who insists on arguing and edit warring over it. If you hadn't kept removing the notice, we wouldn't be having this debate. This is your fault. Geogene (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hyperbole. My single removal can't be described as "kept removing the notice" by any reasonable person. Unlike your posting of the notice three times. You need to understand what edit warring is. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If you think someone's using inappropriate judgment in advertising an RfC, go tell them that on their talkpage and maybe mention it in the RfC itself. But editwarring to un-notify is silly. You can't unring the bell and it's petty to try to do so. EEng 16:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The inappropriate judgement was not in the original posting; that was a simple mistake. The real problem was the subsequent edit-warring after another editor had removed the notice. Edit-warring to notify is even sillier, and you shouldn't be encouraging it. It just rewards bad behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If there was no inappropriate judgment in posting it, then it was certainly inappropriate to remove it. That aside, there are very few times that it's OK to remove another's talk posts (WP:TPO), even if misguided or ill-considered, and this sure ain't one. You should have let it lie and maybe taken it up with the poster, or if the problem is chronic, got some third-party help in guiding the poster for the future. Again, it's silly to try to unring the bell. EEng 19:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, as a possible outcome of this discussion, Colt AR-15 should be added to the list of pages of interest to Project Medicine. As has been noted, there is already similar content there. Geogene (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it. Since Jimbo Wales did not die and leave Geogene RexxS in charge, he doesn't own the page. If he doesn't like the notice, he could avert his eyes. --Calton | Talk 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

While this statement is technically true, I believe you have the party usernames backwards. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was going to post the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Crap. I'm sorry about that. I have no idea how I did that. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That's it. You're off the execution team. EEng 04:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And, RexxS has now edit warred it out again. This has to be very near a bright line violation. [53]. I'm telling you, there's something there they have a problem with, and it goes beyond any good faith interest in procedure. Geogene (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

When I've removed it as many times as you've added it (that's THREE times in your case), you'll be in a position to talk about the "bright line" that you were already at yesterday. What is it going to take to convince you that edit-warring isn't the way to solve disputes? The notice has been removed by three different members of WPMED. When will you get the message? we don't reward edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I found the behaviour by RexxS on the Wikiproject Talk page to be downright insulting. Sample edit summaries include:

• Persistant little bugger isn't he
• hooray - you've worked out the bit about "on topic"
• Utter nonsense etc.

Comments directed at Georgene elsewhere were of similar caliber, such as here: "Now stop trolling here, and get back under your bridge." permalink. Granted, this was on RexxS's own Talk page, but still. I would not expect such a tone directed at an established, apparently good-faith contributor.

Apart from incivility, I noticed similar WP:OWN behaviour from RexxS at Talk:Gun violence in the United States#Contested projects a few weeks ago, when another user attempted to tag the page as falling under the scope of WP:Medicine project (permalink). The comments from RexxS included: "WikiProjects decide their own scope"; "It is not sufficient for a topic to be related to medicine for it to fall in the scope of WikiProject Medicine". The discussion ultimately resulted in the page being tagged.

I found it odd that RexxS would object to tagging a clearly-related page, so their opposision to the RfC notice, to the point of insults and edit warring seems to be part of a pattern. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Geogene: and others. There is a fundamental error in your position here. If you understand that, you'll realize that everything else here is tilting at windmills. The Colt AR-15 and a massacre are not biomedical topics and should not be dealt with at the Wiki project medical page. The shoes I wear influence my health so does the car I drive. In fact pretty much anything a human being does impacts health. However, the MEDRS page and project are devoted to content that is, and I know I'm repeating myself, strictly biomedical in nature. Your RfC was closed as being at the wrong NB. Just take it somewhere else. Do you see that if editors do not delineate clearly what is biomedical and what isn't the MEDRS NB could be inundated with any and every topic because like I said, everything we as human beings do can be seen as and stretched to relate to our health/lives. Nor is ignoring that an RfC is posted on a wrong notice board how Wikipedia works. What works is for editors with interests and experience in certain areas to help regulate what happens in those areas. This is a volunteer project. If we didn't all get involved the place would fall apart right after it became clogged up and then bogged down with the inappropriate. Rexx is a long time, highly-respected, MEDRS editor who is known for fairness and neutrality. I don't always have to agree with him to know that any other agenda here than to help make this part of WP run as efficiently as possible is a grave error in judgement, and tells me you don't know the history of the editor you are dealing with. Please rethink your position and take your concerns to the right NB. Wiki project medicine isn't it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

I understand that your experiences may have been different, but nothing on that page or on this noticeboard shows Rexx as worthy of being "highly respected" or even capable of fairness or neutrality. What I see here is a partisan POV warrior who has a serious problem with gun control. Geogene (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are making assumptions based on the fact that someone disagrees with you. I've read through most if not all of the posts on this issue. You are refusing to see how the Wikipedia community deals with MEDRS. While you may have a personal and perhaps legitimate position, that position is not shared by the people who have worked in this area, and probably with the community as a whole. And you are ignoring what I wrote above. This reminds me of people who insist on picking wild flowers in protected areas. "I can pick them; its just a few," while ignoring that fact that if everyone picked a few there would be nothing left. If everyone brought what they personally "thought" is medical related the medical project notice board, the MEDRS notice board could not function. This is a collaborative project not one owned by everyone with an opinion. I've had arguments with Rexx; what I know is that he's honest and tries to be fair and kind whether I agree or not. If he's not in this case you might look to yourself. It can be hard to back down from a position but there is dignity in that too.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

You're here to defend your friend, not give an opinion based on the evidence. Geogene (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing evidence with opinion and you are not understanding how collaboration works. As long as that is the case there's not much more, I at least, can say. You are pushing on a very big rock when you try to redefine what the MEDRS NB is and what it handles. Its frustrating for those who work here all the time. You are refusing to take your case some where else where it could legitimately be dealt with. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: To continue the analogy of "picking wild flowers", if you are caught doing this, a Park Service ranger <redacted> may fine or even arrest you, but they will now shower you with insults. We should expect better from a "long time, highly-respected" editor, rather than bullying and insults for daring to post to their project while, gasp, not being a member. Please explain how you consider edit summaries such as "Persistant little bugger isn't he" to be acceptable on the MEDRS page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you strike comments <redacted> - such inflammatory comments do nothing to resolve the situation and only make coming to a mutually agreeable consensus less likely. Behaviour like this can only drive editors away, possibly permanently, to the disadvantage of the encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Redacted upon request. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that my posts had to do with trying to explain the "bottom line" in this issue. I am also suggesting that my long time experience with an editor points to an underlying history of behaviour. If you want to start discussing who said what in this specific case, well then we have to place everyone in context and deal with all editors. I don't care about doing that; people get frustrated that's all I have say about both here. As for wildflowers; where I came from you can be fined and maybe even arrested for picking endangered plants. My analogy though stops at one is too many when there are lots of people saying its ok for me. Shooting someone in the head leans towards hyperbole, non? The RfC was closed; most of us would toddle off and find another notice board where we could get feedback. We can't force an RfC; this is a collaborative community whether we like it or not.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

• I think this is a pretty obvious example of canvassing. Especially since Geogene said he expected WP:MED to be sympathetic to his point of view. Even if gun violence in the contect of medicine is relevant to WP:MED, an individual weapon obviously is not. Natureium (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• "I think this is a pretty obvious example of canvassing" What are you referring to? Add: I cannot speak for anyone else here but I have not discussed this with anyone nor has anyone asked for my input on this. I started watching this yesterday and did not intend to comment for fear of adding fuel to the proverbial fire, but as someone who has connections to the MEDRS page and comments here every now and then I finally decided to add a comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

• fwiw I considered the removal of the RfC notice kind of.. i don't know....rude, and in my view it cast WPMED in a poor light. If people want to editors active at WP:MED to made aware of something, that is the place to do it. People are free to ignore it if they wish. There is an obvious public health connection with gun violence (our article about the agreement that is the subject of the RfC (National Firearms Agreement) cites for example PMID 17170183 from the Journal of Injury Prevention , as well as others, which analyze the effects of the agreement and subsequent laws on deaths from guns.) It isn't CANVASS because the notice itself was neutral, and Geogene also posted at FIREARMS and the article on the port arthur incident itself, per their contribs from that time.

This happened when I wasn't looking and I wish that Ozzie10aaaa, RexxS, and Natureium hadn't done this, and I ask you all to reverse yourselves so this can go away. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think you're wrong about it not being canvassing. When an editor admits that he posted somewhere specifically because he thought that the editors there would be more likely to agree with their position, that is canvassing, by definition. The purpose of neutral pointers is to get more participants involved in a discussion, not to get more participants of a particular kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything left to "reverse". The RFC note is still at WT:MED, neatly boxed up by the ever-practical soupvector to stop people talking about whether it belonged there.

For those that don't follow WT:MED every day,[1] we just had a big discussion about this a couple of weeks ago. The group doesn't care about individual brands or models of firearms. The group does care about big-picture public health subjects, such as Gun violence (now re-re-tagged for WPMED over the objections of a non-participant who thought that we shouldn't care). The RFC in question is about whether to place a link about an event in the article about a particular brand and model of firearm. In other words, the RFC is about exactly what we said a few weeks ago that we didn't care about. Short of every editor reading All The Pages every day, there's no way that anyone would have known about this, but the end result is the same: It's out of scope for this group, even though it's connected, at one or two removes, to things that we would support. It therefore doesn't surprise or distress me that an editor who didn't know about that discussion might leave a note, or that an editor who did know about that decision removed it. This kind of thing happens, and it shouldn't have turned into this mess, but I think everyone's done now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] If you don't, then you're missing out.

As much as I'd like to take credit for neatly boxing that particular puddle of poo, it was the wise Natureium who deserves that credit. — soupvector (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• As a participant of the Council.....it's very disappointing to see the harsh response an editor new to the project got. Does not look inviting for new people interested in the project. --Moxy (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What council? And he isn't a new editor. Natureium (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Constantinehuk

Almost all contributions of this user in 2017 and 2018 are, well, trolling. How should we proceed from this point further?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please give me some examples of that "trolling". If you do not like the idea that Kiev, naming of which in English was changed to Kyiv 25 years ago, the change adopted by major international organizations and modern online maps, thus fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES (and no another example of such an unfair treatment to a city in the whole world showed), you are entitled to your opinion. Anything else? Constantinehuk (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that Kyiv has been widely adopted in English language media and sources, and thus meets WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES, is patently false, as has been proven countless times in the ongoing discussion on Talk:Kiev/naming, so you are now not only being highly disruptive in that discussion, by flatly refusing to accept that there's no support for moving the article, but are also repeating your false claims here, at WP:ANI... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Your claim that Kyiv has been widely adopted in English language media and sources"

Give me a citation of that my claim, will you? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Claiming that the change meets the demands set in WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES is a false claim that a majority of English language media/sources have switched to using Kyiv instead of Kiev, since that is what is required to meet WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why one criterion (use by media sources) is more important for you than two others (use by major international organizations and modern online maps - especially when we talk about geographical names)? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES is a Wikipedia policy, i.e. not just a personal opinion held by me or other editors but a firmly set rule... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You have dismissed 2 of 3 criteria in that policy. Not good... Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This article from the NY Times says "KIEV".[54] But what do they know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Media sources still predominantly use "Kiev" - but not major international organizations, nor modern online maps. Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And in Google, "Kiev" outnumbers "Kyiv" by about 4 to 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And in Google, "Bombay" outnumbers "Mumbay (including results for Mumbai)" by about 150:1. Kyiv is in much better position, is not it? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times calls it "Mumbai".[55] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And when I Google "Mumbai" and "Bombay", "Mumbai" outnumbers "Bombay" at least 3 to 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Google ngrams. EEng 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The comparison doesn't really show "the truth", since there are a still a few often Googled entities that use Bombay instead of Mumbai in their official names, such as Bombay Stock Exchange and Bombay High Court. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd go with the NY Times over the opinion of some random editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not with Google Maps or World Trade Organisation? Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Less relevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if I agree with labelling Constantinehuk's editing as trolling, IMO it's more a case of not being here to build an encyclopaedia, only to push nationalistic Ukrainian views, as part of the latest wave of new Ukrainian editors doing that (with another one being Special:Contributions/Віталій Добрівський, an editor who has repeatedly added the blue/yellow trident state symbol of the modern day country of Ukraine as state symbol of Kievan Rus', with a false claim of it also having been used by them a thousand years ago...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Are major international organizations and modern online maps are too "pushing nationalistic Ukrainian views" (thus fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES)?

P.S. And I said nothing about "blue/yellow trident state symbol". Constantinehuk (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And no one claimed you did either, so maybe much of the problem lies in you simply not understanding English well enough to be able to contribute constructively to this version of Wikipedia? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Thomas.W is correct that Constantinhuk doesn't understand English well enough to follow the discussion. He and User:Roman Spinner are engaged in a massive WP:IDLI campaign without actually initiating a WP:RFM, which they both know that they would lose by WP:SNOW. --Taivo (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

When arguments are absent, blame the opponent and threaten with WP:SNOW? Very invigorating. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You really, really need a new dictionary. EEng 18:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to debate or resolve content disputes. However, this discussion illuminates the behavioral problem. Constantinehuk, this is a formal warning: Wikipedia operates on the consensus model of decision-making. Editing against consensus is tendentious and disruptive. If you continue pushing this point against consensus, you will be blocked. My personal suggestion is to devote your energy on this matter to persuading major English language newspapers, press agencies and news magazines to change their usage. Wikipedia follows such sources and does not lead them. Please take this warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen:, I obviously agree with your conclusions, just a remark: they were not editing (articles) against consensus, they were disrupting discussions, a skill they brilliantly demonstrated in this very topic (which was not supposed to be the discussion of the English name of the Ukrainian capital, but of the user's behavior).--Ymblanter (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. I appreciate the clarification but I did not mention "articles". I consider their talk page behavior to be editing against consensus as well. I will not comment on the substance of the content dispute and will stay uninvolved, but will be watching. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Is not Talk page for expressing one's position (in a kindest and polite way) - for example, asking questions (as I did initially)? No, now it is called " the behavioral problem of pushing the point against consensus in tendentious and disruptive discussions" (even without reading those discussions, apparently). Very interesting changes are happening in Wikipedia (or only in your part of it?) right now... I will keep this in mind. Constantinehuk (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Since User:TaivoLinguist pinged me above, in this edit, it should be noted that the "massive WP:IDLI campaign", in which I am allegedly "engaged" alongside Constantinhuk, has taken place entirely at a single venue, Talk:Kiev/naming, which states at the top, "This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing.". I did not intiate the discussion, Question: Mumbai/Bombey and Beijing/Peking? and my contributions consisted entirely of a series of replies, to Taivo and other contributors, aimed primarily at correcting false and/or misleading statements and analogies.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Trolling continues [56]. Given that the user is net negative to Wikipedia, may be we should follow up.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  And let me be explicit: It is not up to me to decide, but I believe an indefinite block would be in order. We have enough Eastern European trolls, and this one is not there as well to let them continue wasting our time.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, I would suggest you stop posting to their talk page as it looks a bit like you are baiting a new user into responding intemperately so you can get them blocked. Fish+Karate 10:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  They have actually been registered longer than I have been, and on their talk page they were replying to me. But, indeed, may be to stop replying to them is a good idea, aka DNFT.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth and speedies

RHaworth (talk · contribs) is a long-standing admin who has done a lot of work to clear the persistent backlog at CAT:CSD. However, I have witnessed him making mistakes and talking to newbies in a far too intemperate a manner. I know admins don't have to be perfect, and I'm not always the most civil and polite admin on the block, granted, but I think he's going a bit too far. Some recent examples:

• UK railway station openings / reopenings by year (now at Draft:UK railway station openings / reopenings by year) - deleted A10 as a copy of History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date though the list intended to cover the greater scope of all UK stations. See comment from Andy Dingley.

• Green tomato cars - deleted G11, after challenged by the creator, the response was "learn to provide a link when you talk about a page". After I restored the article, RHaworth sent it to AfD and moved it to Green Tomato Cars without a redirect (causing a problem where I inadvertently created the article again while I was copyediting it, requiring a history merge to fix). The AfD does not have an unanimous "delete" consensus, which is a good general arbiter of whether or not a speedy is appropriate.

• Draft:Divya Agarwal - deleted G4, though no previous deletion discussion had taken place. See comment from Chrissymad where she appears to be complaining about RHaworth calling Oshwah a "pedant".

• Draft:Comedian Nazareth - deleted per G13, hence can be restored on request. RHaworth's reply was "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who a) knows how to create Wikipedia articles and b) has no CoI, thinks your client is notable and writes about him here.", also altering an earlier talk page comment of mine in the process (a minor violation of WP:TPO).

These are all in the last week or so, but if you go onto RHaworth's talk page archives, you can see other examples of him being unhelpful. I appreciate that speedy deletion is necessary for the project - heck, I speedy delete plenty of stuff myself, and admins sometimes differ over what is speedyable. However, I sincerely believe if you delete a page created in good faith, you should be in a position to work with that editor, and not make them increasingly frustrated. I don't seem to be the only one with this opinion; as you might imagine, SoWhy has previously said "With all due respect to RHaworth, I would never agree that a speedy deletion was justified just because he thought so." and this notorious boingboing piece which says "I do not have the capability to write an additional 2 million more articles in my lifetime to save the remaining 2 million stubs from deletionists like RHaworth, the hemovanadin killer whose itchy deletion finger was noted by a commenter in my previous article as directly responsible for that editor's abandoning the project." (the context here is an incorrect G12 deletion on Hemovanadin). Okay, strong opinions there that not everyone will agree with, but this isn't just a personal grudge, more an indication that there is a problem.

To be honest, I'd feel more comfortable if RHaworth had given me a thorough dressing down about how I was being overly aggressive and how his admin actions were correct (I wouldn't agree with it but I would understand why he would say it), but I've had next to no feedback. Things have deteriorated to the point where I don't trust any deletion activity he does as being correct and just revert anything that I feel is wrong. This is a bad situation to be in, as it's one stop short of wheel-warring, but as Andy Dingley put it here, "Go and do some training for WMF / WMUK somewhere. Hear the "I wrote something and then it was deleted immediately with no discussion" stories - it's so often the same admin names that come up, over and over again." So I think the community needs to do something.

Any ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Awaiting a response by RHaworth; it's unlikely discussion will be productive before then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Ritchie for opening this, although I'm not optimistic about much happening as a result (an admin admit they're wrong?). This is a long-standing issue - although even RHaworth's "unorthodox" user_talk: page archiving strategy makes it impossible to search its history.

Just a month or two back though, we had this one on Category:Bandini vehicles: WikiProject Automobiles §Bandini deletions, Criteria for speedy deletion §G6 on "empty" categories? – another one where an invalid CSD nomination, on a clearly contentious issue, was then implemented as deletion without the slightest check or question. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Further on the "bad press" aspect, we get articles like this: "Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance". Boing Boing. 14 February 2017. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There's another recent complaint at User talk:Feminist#'Murica! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• It has been obvious for very many years to anyone who bothers to look that RHaworth is incompetent to judge speedy deletion. He was one of the two or three admins primarily responsible for my giving up editing with a userid a few years ago. One example among many was his speedy deletion of Cheveley Park Stud and the title's salting in response to my questioning of the deletion. It's about time we did something about long-standing admins who get away with such disruption simply because of their length of tenure. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• He does a LOT of CSD so there is bound to be some who find fault occasionally. Every page subjected to CSD has at least the creator believingbit should remain live. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Try actually looking at his record rather than making such general statements. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not an Admin so I can only see so much - but the IP should actually look at my 11 page long record covering only since June 2017 before assuming I don't have a very good idea about every Admin's competence in processing Speedies. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, I do lots of speedies myself; however I think the key issue is effective communication and managing people's expectations. It's why I created essays such as User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios simply because trying to explain WP:G12 (which requires an instant deletion, if valid) to a newbie without them getting the hump is actually quite a difficult task. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If we're going to let publications such as BoingBoing dictate our policies and (worse) ANI-cases against admins, we're definitely on the wrong track. The two articles cited are prime examples of hit-pieces instead of serious press. If BoingBoing doesn't like Wikipedia, I tend to view that as a compliment. As to the matter at hand, I side with Legacypac: you can't make an omelet w/o breaking some eggs, you can't be an admin without stepping on various toes. Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Have you read the Boing Boing piece? Have you read the technical backstory to the hemovanadin CSD? This was a technical failure in sloppy adminship: a clear and unquestioned copyvio change to an article (previously not a copyvio) was reacted to by deletion, rather than reversion. There's just no excuse for that. The Bandini category was deleted for an invalid CSD reason which just isn't applicable to content categories (it's there for housekeeping of maintenance categories only).

AfD is always a battle between inclusionism vs. deletionism. But this isn't AfD, it's CSD - that should be simpler, there's no judgemental wiggle room for inclusion or not. CSD is there (and only there) for the technical reasons and the unambiguous invalid articles. If someone, even the article creator, can make a policy-valid case that an article might be suitable for inclusion, then the CSD fails and it goes to AfD as a minimum. CSD is just not there for arguing inclusionist / deletionist cases. But these deletions are so often technically broken - outside the policies of valid CSD rules. CSD is not about "speedy" deletion, it's about clear, unarguable and uncontestable deletion. If they're arguable, there are other mechanisms. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: I have read both pieces and both, but especially the first, lack any journalistic decency. Both depend more on insinuations than facts. I have gone through the history of hemovanadin and what I see is Wikipedia working as it should. Someone screwed up and it got corrected quickly. I despise all isms and actively dislike people who reduce issues to various isms, since that's a very divisive way dealing with things. If you expect admins to be flawless, you'l be disappointed. No-one (but no-one) on Wikipedia is. Kleuske (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• See my comment in the recent SoWhy thread: RHaworth is on the opposite end of the speedy-deletion spectrum as SoWhy. He will delete a lot of things I wouldn't, but at the same time, most of the things he deletes really should be deleted, and having someone to push the envelope in that direction in terms of quality-control isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've brought an article to DYK after he deleted it (Tallinn Central Library (deletion log under a different title.), and I'll admit that his response to me was a bit gruff, but this was also how it stood when he deleted it. I can't rally blame him for that, even if my approach was different.
  I've noticed a few G12s in the past that I think he should be more careful on (I can't find them now, so this is more of just general feedback than an accusation or diff-able type thing), and I do think that he could be better in his responses to users on his talk page, but at the end of the day, I think he does a lot of good work that is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"I do think that he could be better in his responses to users on his talk page" And Donald Trump could be a bit more conciliatory and tactful over what he says in public. Anyway, that's not the real issue here, which is - if I happen to see a deletion from RHaworth that I disagree with (which seems to be about four a week at the moment), is the community okay with me just restoring it and telling him to go jump? I don't think that's a healthy situation to be in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "most of the things he deletes really should be deleted"

Most isn't good enough. We have policies for a reason, and they're binding on RHaworth too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure that the vast majority of RHaworth's CSDs are correct, but on the other hand if you're going to do a lot of CSD, you really do need to get the basics right, and you do need to communicate reasonably with often unhappy users. The first three examples quoted by Ritchie (the A10 of the railway stations, the G11 of the taxi company, and the G4) were all simply wrong. Whilst calling Oshwah a pedant was unnecessary, the G4 doesn't really matter that much because the article was deletable as G11 (although I note the person is probably notable if someone wrote a proper article), but the other two were not. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "you really do need to get the basics right, and you do need to communicate reasonably with often unhappy users. " Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I can agree with your analysis. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Admins that do a lot of CSD will have the appearance of making more mistakes (believe me, I would know). Relative to other admins, RHaworth has been our most active non-bot admin by an enormous margin since the beginning of 2018. I'm skeptical that RHaworth's ratio of errors to deletes is higher than any other admin. Yes, his communication style could be better, but I'm not seeing any immediate need for sanctions. -FASTILY 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've got a good theory behind that. If you just accept every CSD tag is correct and just hit "delete" indiscriminately regardless of whether it's justified, you can get through a backlog far quicker than if you look at the article and sources, and confirm whether deletion is the correct action. To give you an example, I've just declined two A7s for Nancy Smith (designer) and Monica Rawlins; fixing up the article so it is properly formatted and clearly shows sources (principally to stop somebody else coming along and tagging it them A7 again) took about ten minutes. Hitting the "delete" button on the pair would have taken ten seconds. In that respect, it's no different than the problems I saw at AfC some years back where a few editors "helpfully" cleared the backlog of reviews by declining just about everything. I apologise if it wasn't obvious from the opening statement, but I wasn't particularly looking for sanctions (what form would said sanctions take, for a start?); rather I just wanted an explanation. I certainly haven't got one from his talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Contrary to what many may think, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. Hence the timing of this reply. Yes, Ritchie I think you are being overly aggressive. Apparently I am not allowed to make any mistakes at all. But to look at the examples you quote:

• Green tomato cars. I don't even call this a mistake, simply an example of bold / revert / discuss operating as it should. I found it with a speedy tag, agreed with that tag and made bold to delete it. Ritchie disagreed and reverted my deletion. I initiated an AfD discussion. What's the problem?

• UK railway station openings / reopenings by year. Similar to the above but in this case I have not even bothered to initiate a discussion.

• Draft:Divya Agarwal. A favourite line of mine from Murder in the Cathedral: "the last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason". Certainly giving an inaccurate deletion reason seems to be a treasonable offence on Wikipedia.

• Draft:Comedian Nazareth. The message on my talk page did not explicitly request a restore. Was I expected to restore the work of an obvious CoI merchant voluntrarily? or even advise him of his rights to make such a request?

In short: I defend all my deletions - am I required to be perfect? - if a small fraction of them were "wrong" others have restored them. But Ritchie, feel free to comment if you think I am communicating unreasonably with any unhappy user. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by this response at all, and a candidate at RFA would be pilloried for it. For non-admins, a CSD is not the start of a BRD-style discussion, but the end of one. The CSD guidelines also state Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases, which is the opposite of BOLD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@ RHaworth: I'm not sure you've understood the concern Ritchie333 has raised. It's fine if you make mistakes, we all do. But when other editors ask you for deletion explanations and/or help, could you please make an honest effort to be of assistance? I don't think that's an unreasonable request. -FASTILY 23:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Given the divergence of views on what should be deleted, there will always be disagreements. I tag or delete a lot of CSDs, and not every one of them has been correct. My usual guess is that any experienced person should have a <5% error rate, the best practical human error rate is 1%, and I manage about 2%. Most of my errors are borderline, a few are just stupid. RHaworth and I and most experienced admins almost always agree for speedies--but not quite always. (& I point out that even "most obvious cases" will always have a fuzzy boundary of whether something really is quite that obvious.)

But the real problem here is that it is utter unacceptable to respond "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who a) knows how to create Wikipedia articles and b) has no CoI, thinks your client is notable and writes about him here." , even to people writing blatantly promotional paid biographies. And even worse for autobiographies, it come out as "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone ... thinks you are is notable and writes about you here." (My own wording for that rather common situation is "When you become notable enough that other people write about you in third-party independent reliable sources, then someone will be interested enough to write your biography". The message will be understood equally well.) I cannot imagine ever saying "Kindly have the decency .." on wikipedia even at the peak of frustration, let alone routinely. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he just played too much Bioshock? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--I concur with much of what Ritchie has said.And, my sole experience with him has been pathetic, when post an interesting OTRS conversation, I asked him to refund a non-speediable article, so that it could be AFD'd but he went into a radio-silent-mode and didn't refund it.And, I would appreciate RHaworth, giving us assurances of more-friendly communication.All that being said, I somehat concur with Tony that having sysops at both end of the spectrum is beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 06:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I am a relatively new administrator and am only 126 on the list of those taking admin actions in 2018 (including bots), I am reluctant to criticize the far more experienced #1 human administrator. But I have to agree with Ritchie333 and DGG, among others. Any good faith editor who comes to your talk page deserves a good faith, informative response, rather than something dismissive. Certainly, there may be disagreement about who is truly acting in good faith, but when there is any doubt, please try to err on the side of kindness and helpfulness, RHaworth. That is the Wikipedia way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

actually, I extend it even to those who may not be in good faith.I'lll give a full explanation the first time round, assuming good faith. If it becomes evidence other, the way to proceed is to still be polite, but firm. We cannot ask someone directly for their identity, but i do say, that I cannot help further unless I know who you represent. If they do not want to acknowledge the coi, that tends to give a conclusion. In particular, I always ask that of anyone who appeals to me privately off wiki. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as how RHaworth's user page states "I have a well-justified reputation for blunt speaking on talk pages. But such pages are not a vicar's tea party. I take my standards from parliamentary language - if a Speaker would allow it then I use it" he is unlikely to start communicating in a friendly manner, whether the users are good-faith or not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As I write, I can see five unanswered posts on RHaworth's talk page from editors wondering why their article was deleted - I would say this is a good opportunity for him to show he can take the above advice on board and put this discussion to bed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Got to love the second discussion on his talkpage where he states "I hate it when I leave messages and people completely ignore them". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ouch. Looks like RHaworth is at about the point where I usually take a Wikibreak :-( Guy (Help!) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Abstractly, there is a pattern on Wikipedia where high output contributors come under the microscope, and plenty of evidence is found on which to crucify them. Here in RHaworth, we have the 2nd most prolific admin in terms of deletions in the history of Wikipedia. In the 4620 days he has been an administrator, he has deleted things 393340 times, or ~85 a day. Even if he is right 99.9% of the time (highly unlikely) he still has a mistake every other week. We can find plenty of evidence to suggest he's making lots of mistakes in speedy deletions. Contrast; if we had an admin that did 1000 deletions and made only 1 mistake (RHaworth's presumed ratio), we'd congratulate them on a job well done. It should be noted that RHaworth is the 6th most active undeleter, with 7272 undeletions, or about two a day. All this said, I consider it highly important than an administrator be responsive to queries about their actions and to do so in a civil manner. This is ensconced in policy at WP:ADMINACCT. I would much rather see an admin engage in less deletions and rapid, civil responses to queries than to see high volume deletions and slow/uncivil responses. The reason we need administrators with such high volume output is due to declining participation in such things. The answer to that is not more deletions with less proper responses, but more proper responses and less deletions so as not to dissuade future highly active editors, and later administrators. We need to foster the community. We can't do that by deleting everything on sight and then not responding as to why. I'm not suggesting RHaworth is doing this, but rather what we need to avoid. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• "I don't even call this a mistake, simply an example of bold / revert / discuss operating as it should." I don't. I call it "Reverting another admin's actions without discussion". Normally, when I see a G11 I disagree with (which isn't often), I'd say something like "hey, I think I can clean this up, do you mind if I restore it?". But with you I see pages of rude or intemperate replies (as other people have mentioned), so I think I'll just get the same if I requested it (as Godric has mentioned), which leads me to not think it's worth the hassle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have found a lot of errors in RHaworth's speedy deletions, and in some cases they clearly delete outside the bounds of what is permitted by the various criteria, see their comment about halfway through this diff. That being said, their error rate is probably about the same as anyone else's, it is just more noticeable given the sheer amount of work they get through. I do wish they'd stick a little closer to the rules though, and that's coming from an unashamed deletionist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
• I think we all need to be careful conflating outright 'errors' with 'my opinion would be different there'. If RHaworth occasionally deletes something that - in a presumably less-reductive view - should not have been deleted because it could have become a 'real' article, then you can ask him to restore it, you can ask another admin to restore it, you can go to WP:RFU, or you can just make the new, better article from scratch, given that the deleted stuff is almost always not of any real encyclopedic value anyway (the topic may be, its treatment at that point was not). It's not like a speedy deletion is a brick wall, and when your article is deleted, even as a new editor, you are clearly pointed towards Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted?. Pillorying is not the solution. Fish+Karate 10:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

But having a an admin with a very terse attitude IS a problem. I guess WP:BITE doesn't apply to Haworth. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Terse!=Bite. Kleuske (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

But, in this case, Bite=Bite. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's your claim. Now back it up. Why this this shitshow still open, BTW? Kleuske (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

From a quick spin through WP:IPHUMAN, "Count yourself lucky I am condescending to talk to an IP address", "I don't talk to IP addresses.", "Consider yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address. .... I wonder if you will ever learn about wikilinks.", "Count yourself very luck that I am replying: no explanation of why you are having to violate my IP address policy; horrible page widening and no link to the deleted article. I am not surprised that your article triggered what has happened: no lede, no link back to the parent and totally unreferenced.".

As for complaints, "have seen your tone in response to many other contributors, and it is obvious that you think highly of your own assessments, even as other administrators disagree. Many of your responses are rather condescending, to the point of being quite rude and unprofessional.", "lso somebody who is a admin should be more nurturing and less condescending.", "I'm not too thrilled that you choose to start this conversation by hurling insults. That's so clearly against WP principles that I'm astonished that you have any kind of administrative capacity." That's from a quick ten minute search on a few terms. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack on page

The user User:GSS-1987 & User:Winged Blades of Godric are personally attacking the page called Prakash Neupane by removing the references link like Huffpost , Khasokhas Weekly & other Nepali National Newspaper sources by saying unreliable source. They cannot remove references like this Huffpost is not unreliable source. The article was accept from Draft by seeking review of Wikipedia PROJECT Nepal . I request administrator to take a look on these things. 27.34.20.152 (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, for the blue-link(s).I got one more article to dispatch to AFD.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

All sorts of cross-spamming.For interested editors, this is the piece I removed, which was supposedly contributed by Khasokhas.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• THere's a large sock farm, mostly IP socks that operate on this and other similar articles. One can see a similar IP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've sent the non-notable journalist/publisher of Khasokhas Weekly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishor Panthi (2nd nomination) and note the page was previously deleted. There is a long zerm persistent effort to promote non-notable connected subjects here. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Harassment and edit warring

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

---

Can someone please have a word with User:134.154.56.223 (who also appears to be User:128.218.43.125)? After reporting him or her at WP:ANEW for edit warring at Emory University, he or she began harassing me on my own Talk page. Please convince him or her to stop. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've protected your talk page while this gets dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ElKevbo - It looks like NeilN asked the user yesterday here to stop their behavior on your user talk page. MelanieN has temporarily semi-protected your talk page, and the article in dispute has been semi-protected as well. Let's see how things go from here; if the user (or any other user) begins or continues to harass you on your user talk page, file another report here or let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! This editor is continuing to edit aggressively across several articles using multiple IP addresses but the harassment has stopped and he or she has begun to use Talk pages so that's progress. ElKevbo (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ElKevbo - If the harassment or incivility returns, report it here or message me on my talk page and let me know - I'll be happy to make sure it's taken care of and that it stops. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

BusriderSF2015

BusriderSF2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a problem editor since 2015 and is due for a WP:CIR block. Busrider mostly posts serial messages to talk pages, neither using previews nor edit summaries. Both TBMNY and I reported them to AIV for vandalism after fourth warning because they continually post information with inadequate or no sourcing. Since Busrider's edits aren't considered blatant vandalism, I'm bringing the issue here. After multiple warnings, Busrider hasn't changed their editing and discussion is leading nowhere.

• Max Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BusriderSF2015 repeatedly added copyrighted images (File:Max Halloway.jpg and File:Max Holloway UFC.png), for which I reverted and warned. This complaint by Busrider to RHaworth followed. A discussion on Wikiproject MMA illustrates my attempts to explain and his/her inability to get it. A discussion on TBMNY's talk page about commons:File:Raf.png and commons:File:Max Holloway E.png is also illustrative on the issue. Busrider made a complaint to Ad Orientem which evinces a level of confusion not befitting a Wikipedia editor.
• Mike Jackson (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Busrider also created this article about this non-notable fighter and despite my efforts on my talk page to engage him/her and explain the issues with the article in question, Busrider continues to argue that the subject is notable and what the subject said on a Reddit thread is a permissible source. Busrider also made this incompetent request for page protection on an article's talk page. I don't think Busrider understands the guidance given them and I don't think this disruption is worth our toleration. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition, he has been caught lying about photo uploads to administrators, claiming that clearly copyrighted images are his own work, when they are of course not (not that this specifically applies to Wikipedia, but it shows that he's willing to break the site rules). TBMNY (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This gang-bang report is baseless - Contributors can behave differently (and follow the rules).🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This what? Please address the issues raised above, they aren't baseless. I have significant concerns about your ability to edit Wikipedia productively, having reverted your RFPP removal. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment It baseless, i seen nothing on my talk page from the users reported me about concerns, as always go talk page regarding their concern. This case should be dismissed. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 02:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing English isn't your first language? Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing this editor's contributions, it is obvious that they are not competent to edit Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting choice of adjective. Natureium (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked about the user's English to make sure that they were not being deliberately offensive - I don't think they really understand what they're saying, which confirms my assessment that they lack the necessary proficiency in English to edit here, in addition to the copyright violations and a policy of ignoring other editors. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion via VPN

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

---

Superfx1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evaded a 24 hour block[57] via VPN (Free MS-SSTP VPN vpn885338432.opengw.net:995[58]) with an IP address 125.199.131.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Superfx1234 created a blatant sock Katarnoneo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and reverted to IP's edit[59].―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, please start an investigation at WP:SPI. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand VPN? It is not solved by WP:SPI. It is already clear Superfx1234 evaded the block.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please post technical evidence at WP:WPOP. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you have already posted at WP:WPOP. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Obi2canibe and Wikipedia ethics

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

1) I have notified the user; 2) where is your attempt t discuss the issues with the user before coming to ANI?; 3) have you edited under another account before, seeing as your first edits are to ANI?; 4) please provide some links showing examples of the edits you have issues with. GiantSnowman 08:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Many have tried to discuss this with him, but no use (most of them do not edit wikipedia anymore or have reduced the number of contributions). My responsibility is to report this hidden ongoing issue here at ANI and I have given a very recent example of a comment made by a wikipedia admin about it. A recent example for his bahviour is given here [60]. Old example for his behavior is given here (not my self) (many incidents have happened and went unnoticed in between). It is up to the admins to investigate using available tools and take a suitable action or to ignore it as have happened many times before and let him continue on his merry way (easier option is the second one). --RitzAgasti (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RitzAgasti - Umm, no... you have a couple of things incorrect here:

1. The examples you provided here are edits by Obi2canibe that were made in 2009 and 2011 - that's over seven years ago. Aside from that, I don't see any bullying or inappropriate behavior with those edits at all.
2. Your example here, while I agree could perhaps have been worded a bit nicer and to a tone that reads that he's assuming good faith, this discussion seems fine and they seem to be working to correct some incoming link issues... no big deal.
3. You are incorrect with your implications when you state that "it is up to the admins to investigate using available tools and take a suitable action" - it is up to you to provide direct and solid evidence with all of your accusations and statements; so far, you have only given a link to a discussion and three edits made many years back. Your other accusations such as this user causing others to vanish and ongoing bullying and other violations made by this user to other accounts - have come with absolutely no evidence at all. This is not acceptable; accusations are taken seriously here, and making such statements without evidence can be considered uncivil and disruptive, which are grounds for having action taken.
4. You have not answered all of GiantSnowman's questions.

I highly recommend that you resolve the concerns I've expressed or clarify any statements above, as I'm seeing absolutely no weight behind your accusations against Obi2canibe so far... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rehman - That's what I said to myself as well - if the user was being belligerent and uncivil to that high of a level on your user talk page, you certainly would have taken some kind of action. Hence I took it as a conversation where the wording he used wasn't great, but also wasn't something I considered an actionable event. I understand your thoughts and feeling about Obi2canibe, but I need diffs and specific examples before I can agree or begin to make judgment here... Let me know how things go :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rehman - just wanted to check in here. Can we move to close this discussion for now, or are there further concerns and diffs that you wish to provide and add to it? Let me know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. After discussing the issue with another admin, I've decided to post the links here in public. I will do so within the next 24hrs (I'm currently at work). Kind regards, Rehman 06:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rehman - No rush; just ping me when you do. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

• 2008-11-12 - Created their userpage by calling Sinhalese people "the forces of evil", sometime after removing facts claiming were misinformation on Wikipedia by "Sinhalese nationalists".
• 2013-02-06 - Numerous 'sinhala vs. tamil" conflicts with User:Himesh84. Links on this page branch out to other large convos with other editors. The user disappeared, before/after eventually being blocked due to sockpuppetry following repeated taunting.
• 2015-11-08 - Opposed facts, calling it "Sri Lankan propaganda" and "Sinhalisation of names in Tamil areas". This was my first interaction with this user.
• 2015-12-25 - Refusing to state LTTE terrorist activities as such, and asking the opposing editor to "Leave Wikipedia"
• 2016-01-02 - Against Sinhala pronunciation? Note that this is against WP:COMMONNAME.
• 2016-01-03 - When question the above edit, the user accused me of being a "Sinhalised Tamil speaker". I am neither Sinhalese nor Tamil. This is my 2nd bump-in with this user.
• 2016-02-21 - Open-ended/convos that don't stick to the topic like these are quite common. Especially when it seem to involve editors from Sri Lanka.
• 2016-04-17 - This Sri Lankan user's talkpage is flooded by rude warnings, including one which asks him to leave Wikipedia. The user has vanished.
• 2016-12-14 - Various attempts to delete the article on this notable Sri Lankan figure.
• 2017-01-07 - Edits such as these are all too common. Note that Sinhala is the primary language of Sri Lanka.
• 2017-01-14 - Dispute on who wrote the Sri Lankan National Anthem.
• 2017-07-30 - Public personal attack on my work at the Wikimedia User Group on Meta.
• 2018-04-08 - Then finally, this incident, which made me take a closer look at this user's history.
• 0000-00-00 - Searching venues such as ANI, using keywords, or having a close look at the user's usertalk and article talk contribs, or any other discussion page for that matter, would definitely bring up more concerning results. Note that I haven't checked other Wikimedia projects.

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

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

@Rehman: is clearly involved here and explicitly violating WP:ADMINACCT and WP:INVOLVED with whom he has had content disputes. His threat to ban or block Obi2canibe will be clear violation of this policy.

Further there appears to be a clear case of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT here.

• On 8th April 2018 Obi2canibe asks him fix Dab and Rehman threatens to ban him
• On 10th April 2018 a sock -RitzAgasti comes out from nowhere solely posts in ANI and directly attacks Obi2canibe quoting Rehman in ANI and does not answer questions about previous account.Then Rehman posts in this discussion through he was not notified.Feel someone should open a sock invetigation against Rehman.Clearly fails WP:DUCK here.

None of the differences show any violation of WP:NPA ,WP:3RR or any major policy.Note Obi2canibe has been around since 2008 just as Rehman.

• There is a content dispute on 2017-01-14 - Dispute on who wrote the Sri Lankan National Anthem. Obi2canibe rightly goes to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
• This is content issue over the name which was discussed in the talk page Between Rehman and Obi2canibe both discuss the civily I see nothing wrong from either user
• Obi2canibe nominates to AFD once it is kept nothing wrong there. I couldn't understand why is Rehman saying, 2016-12-14 - Various attempts to delete the article on this notable Sri Lankan figure.
• User:Himesh84 was blocked over 10 times by various admins Here clearly false that he left due to Obi2canibe.Kaytsfan (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kaytsfan: Thanks, you saved me a lot of time in finding evidence to defend myself against some very weak accusations. How on earth did you find out about this discussion?

@RitzAgasti: You are clearly a sockpuppet but whose? Rehman's? Himesh84's? Who are you? Be a man, reveal yourself.

@Rehman: You've spent a lot of time trawling my contributions to find evidence that I'm causing "serious harm to the community" but much of the evidence you've gathered is just content dispute. Disputes are fact of Wikipedia. If you go through any user's contributions, particularly one who has been here for as long as me and edits a contentious subject, then you will find that they have been in disputes. Does that justify a blanket topic ban?

I will for now only respond to one of the diffs you've provided, the very first one (2008-11-12). This is from ten years ago (there's no statute of limitation on Wikipedia!) and is something I regret. I came to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons (to balance my perceived imbalance in Sri Lankan articles) but stayed for the right reasons (to create well sourced articles on a topic that was under represented on Wikipedia). I removed the offending content from my user page but as it remained in its history I was advised by an experienced user to delete the page. I did this later. Now you have abused your admin privileges to dig up deleted content. Not cool.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kaytsfan:, I was not aware of @RitzAgasti: contribution history (i.e. only at ANI). I am more than happy if a sock check is done for the user, if that ensures things go smoothly. That being said, yes I do agree that there is a high chance Ritz is a sock. No new editor drops straight into ANI.

@Obi2canibe:, with all due respect, it is up to you if you decide to only respond to the easiest diffs. Yes I understand the older permalinks, despite being wrong, can no longer be considered relevant. I've been here as long as you, and I have done stupid things as well. Without beating around the bush, if you could clearly accept that you were unfair/wrong in cases like the Laxapana/Channukam/calling people "Sinhalised"/calling edits "Sri Lankan propaganda"/your personal attack on Meta, and can promise not to take that route again, I am willing to step out of this conversation and let you continue with Ritz, who initially started this conversation. Like I said, my best interest is the health of the community, and looking at most of your work, I'm sure it is yours too. Rehman 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Rajrajh

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

---

Note: Thread was unarchived because of continued disruption.

Rajrajh had many warnings now,[61] still he is edit warring on Ho people, by gaming WP:3RR,[62][63][64][65][66][67] and never participating on talk page.[68] Capitals00 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If Rajrajh does not respond here then a topic ban may be needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If @Rajrajh: is going to be topic banned then edit warring [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] on Munda people should be mentioned too, no discussion on talk page as well.[78] He is evidently aware that editors have to discuss their edits[79] but he prefers not to.

He is now edit warring over removing CSD tag from Ho revolt[80][81] an article he created himself. His talkpage comment also shows[82] he is not willing to understand copyright violations. Capitals00 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Filling out paperwork for a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

And after they were notified, they did this edit. Should we give them the one chance in case they didn't see the talk notification or is this a direct snub against the sanction? Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They were busy working on another copyright violation while this was going on. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User warned multiple times

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

---

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

He was warned multiple times, but he keeps adding unsourced content to the article Doctor Who (series 11). Titore (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry as Special:Contributions/Poleleads. DonQuixote (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sock drawer cleaned, page semi-protected. Courcelles (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Etc

Courcelles, you might want to mention on his/her talk page that s/he was indeffed (or is that not necessary to do anymore?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ve never seen the need to do it when blocking obvious ‘disposable‘ socks before. It’s not common practice among CUs, since the template appears if they try and edit anyhow. Courcelles (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A question

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

---

These admins got a little too logged out, if you ask me.

-EEng

See also: Dad joke.

-Natureium (talk)

See also: Your mother wears army boots.

-EEng

Recently, an IP editor User:200.30.250.136 who I reverted the edits of on the page Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, and left a warning sent me this note:

Löschen Sie meine Inhalte nicht, wenn Sie nicht wissen, dass dies wahllos zu einer Blockierung führen kann, denn heute erhalten Sie nur eine Warnung.

wikipedia admin

Translated into English:

Do not delete my content if you do not know that this can lead to random blocking, because today you only get one warning.

Wikipedia Admin

I reverted this edit to my talk page, and I am a bit confused about this, as to whether or not I should be alarmed. I took it here just in case it is somebody just messing around trying to get me riled up. If I have gone to the wrong place, just tell me, and I will take it elsewhere. Otherwise, just tell me what to do. UnsungKing123 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@UnsungKing123: nothing to worry about at all, a bad faith warning message. Your revert was of vandalism, you'd even be exempt from WP:3RR if they started fighting over the edit. An IP editor that knows the Wikipedia space (in particular blocking policy) may well be a long term vandal (or just lost). However, based on the warning message, they likely saw that you were a fairly new editor and thought they could give a shot at intimidating you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Thanks for the heads up. I was rather worried for a moment, thinking that it could possibly be an admin (in logged-out form). But I'm happy that there is nothing to worry about. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone says they're an admin in logged-out form, they're lying, so don't worry about it. Natureium (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Article ownership at Eldred Lee

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

---

Using multiple accounts, some of which have been blocked, users claiming to be Mr. Lee has edit warred to delete content. It's entirely possible that some of that content can indeed be removed, but this has become disruptive. According to this edit [83], a colleague created the article, and is taking orders from Mr. Lee. 2601:188:180:11F0:1581:EFC0:30C5:ED97 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How is this person notable? The current version of the article (which reads more like a CV) is mostly based on primary sources (like his CV). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Filing an AFD. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Does marrying a 23 year old when you're 62 contribute to notability? [84] Natureium (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

See also: Streisand effect Natureium (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Lee wants the article deleted. This is my fault. He has sent an email to Wikipedia volunteers already regarding this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thayer2017 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:G7 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• In this edit and this edit Thayer2017 removed other editors comments from the help desk DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Right about the AfD, which ought to please the subject. The article's creator has made a mess this evening. 2601:188:180:11F0:1581:EFC0:30C5:ED97 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Un-sourced content and refusal to present a source

• Slapnut1207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff: 1, 2...etc

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

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

P.S, I just breached the 3 revert rule. Sorry about this, didnt notice how many reverts I did. I wont go into an edit war with this user but inserting inaccurate info should be stopped if Wikipedia will be considered reliable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Inna

Hi there! Recently, User:INNAjm keeps vandalizing Inna by making the picture in the article's infobox very big and changing the singer's name from "Inna" to "INNA". Some of his edit summaries include: "you, please stop vandalism", "wikipedia fo all users, this article or all articles for all users, and watch, small size pic" and "happy cartoon network freaky". He/She even sent me a message, clarifying that "you're monopoly style is bad, INNA Article MONOPOLY for Cartoon network freak, what this". Can someone help? Many thanks! Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have warned both parties here, Cartoon network freak, next time remember to avoid WP:3RR and bring the attention to the talk page of the article in question. Engaging in this type of behavior is unnecessary, and it does not look good on your end when you fail to communicate with the other party in question to resolve the issue. Also, when you bring an issue at AN/I, you must notify the other party(ies) involved in this case so they can defend themselves. Best – jona ✉ 14:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE sock

Hazratleri, per his edit summary[85] is WP:NOTHERE, and he is also engaging in sock puppetry per checkuser results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hazratleri. Should some admin already block these confirmed socks? Raymond3023 (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If they were really confirmed then they would be blocked. What I read from what is written is that they are likely related which would mean that some behavioral evaluation is needed. What I see when I run a check is: three editors, three different countries with two on proxies. Two of the UAs match as it is a common UA, one on a proxy, one not. So it should be decided based on behavior.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have struck confirmed because likely is the result. But there is nothing to left to wait for given its a case of WP:DUCK, and the accounts are used only for edit warring on Hookah for restoring a particular version. He is also engaging in massive canvassing,[86][87][88] and still edit warring. He is here for ethnicity-related POV pushing (WP:NOTHERE), should be blocked already with other two accounts and there should be no unblock without a topic ban. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Northernelk888

I have sent this editor five messages, in Jan, Feb and March - no response to any of it, but they do know how to respond to talk page messages and have done so to others. I was contacting them about creating unreferenced articles. I have pointed them towards WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required, but can't get them to discuss the issue or address it. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Northernelk888 should certainly respond to your comments on their talk page, however, I'd like to note this is the third or fourth AN/I report you've filed recently about other editors not responding to you. Do you think there's some reason for that (not for the reports, for other editors to not respond to you)? Your comments on Northernelk888's page seems straight-forward and polite, so I assume the same was true of the messages you left for other editors. Any idea what the common thread might be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I message dozens of editors when I see a pattern of creating unreferenced articles as part of New Page Patrolling - most do respond, but these are often editors who struggle with English/do not feel they need to add references/do not read messages at all and so there is no way to communicate with them. \luckily the majority are happy to resolve the issue or ask for and accept help - hopefully Northernelk888 will too as part of this discussion. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn, I don't see anything in the messages you've left him that requires his response to you or requires any action on his part. All you have done is suggest ways to improve a couple articles. There is nothing in the messages indicating why he needs to improve the articles; nothing indicating anything will happen if he doesn't; in short, nothing requiring either an action or a response. John from Idegon (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, my first message at User talk:Northernelk888#Ways to improve List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity says 'Please add your sources.' My second message at User talk:Northernelk888#List of Members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina by time in office also says 'Please add your sources.' Both were more than 2 months ago. My fourth message at User talk:Northernelk888#Sources and communication, a little later, pointed out that WP:Communication is required, with a link to the essay. It also pointed out the importance of WP:V and asked for the editor to reply to the first two messages. The fourth message, two weeks after that, pointed out that by not responding they were risking a block. A whole month after that, I left another message saying that this could lead to an WP:ANI and a block. I then waited a couple of weeks after that to actually initiate an ANI. This editor was editing in between all these messages, but not responding. The links to WP:V and WP:BURDEN indicates why he needs to improve the articles; the two mentions of WP:ANI and a potential block indicate what could happen if he doesn't; asking for a response and asking 'Please add your sources' clearly require an action or a response, especially with links to WP:Communication is required. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn, you are confusing content guidelines with behavioral guidelines. NorthernElk has no obligation to do anything to any article simply because you say so. Your recourses if he doesn't are to either tag (which you have done), fix (which you could do), or nominate the article for deletion (which likely wouldn't fly). Just like you no longer have any right to control the content you add once you add it (see WP:OWN), outside of obvious behavioral issues such as libel and copyvio, you also have no obligation to do anything whatsoever to it. NorthernElk does not work for you or answer to you in any way. Your threat, not even a veiled one, that he could be blocked for his inaction is both incorrect and a behavioral issue on your part. Now if he has a pattern of doing this, a much longer one than you've shown, that may be a WP:IDHT or WP:CIR issue, but you have not shown or even claimed that. If he edit warred over content changes, that is a behavioral issue. WP:Communication is required is a very useful essay, written by Dennis Brown, one of our most trusted administrators, but I doubt he ever intended it to be used as you are using it here. It is an essay. It isn't policy. All you did in your communication with him is point out some content issues. He isn't obligated to fix them, nor is he required to talk to you about it. Now if you had reverted some of the unreferenced content in the lists and he put that back and didn't communicate, then "communication is required". Pardon my bluntness, but you are not required to reply simply because I communicate with you. I am not required to answer simply because you communicate with me. Dennis is not required to answer the ping I left him, and neither is BMK (whom I am hoping will inform us if the ANI reports he alluded to earlier in this thread indicate a pattern of behavior on your part, Boleyn). IMO, you need to get over yourself. John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, insofar as Boleyn has started similar threads recently about other users, it's a pattern, but since I haven't looked into any of those situations, I can't say that it's necessarily a problematic pattern. I do you think your explanation, although (as you say yourself) blunt, is correct, and I would urge Boleyn to take it into account before he posts another similar, thread here.

Boleyn, I know from experience that a lack of response from an editor you're trying to communicate with can be very frustrating, but, as John from Idegon says, unless you've warned them about some violation of policy or editing norms, and they don't respond to that and keep doing it, it's really not an issue for this board, or for admin action. I least, that's my estimation of it. I'd also agree with the advice that you might try to provide the needed sourcing occassionally, under the guideline WP:SOFIXIT - but with your editing history,[89] I'm sure you must have done so at times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive page moves

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

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

• 11:41, September 17, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family, restore encyclopedic naming format)
• 09:21, August 24, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg: revert contriversial move)
• 08:22, August 24, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family)
• 03:27, March 11, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg over redirect: rv contriversial move not following the WP:RM)
• 10:38, March 9, 2017‎ Domdeparis (Domdeparis moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family: In English "House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of)

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

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

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

The WP:RMTR thread is reproduced below:

Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the answer to this is fairly simple. All of the "House of..." moves should be reverted, and Gryffindor warned to only go through the RM process to move these, otherwise sanctions may be applied. Note: not all of Gryffindor's moves appear to be wrong; the "X (noble family)" -> "X family" ones appear to be logical. Also colour me seriously unimpressed that Gryffindor is an admin who has previously appeared at ANI for doing exactly the same thing over other's objections. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• (EC) I do not mean to imply that all (or any) of the moves is wrong aside from being deliberately out of process. However, as mentioned above, Gryffindor has been warned in the past on this specific point, and has continued: see [90], [91] and elsewhere on the talk page, so I believe that at a minimum the conditions for and scope of any sanctions should be made explicit. Dekimasuよ! 09:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems that repeated warnings over a very long time have been pretty ineffective. How about a ban on any page-move-related edit or admin action? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• This certainly looks like a deja vu. I remmeber I had to warn Gryffindor off for exactly the same kind of misconduct (using admin tools for controversial moves against consensus, plus using the dirty trick of redirect-scorching) back in 2007; see here and here. I never crossed path with him since, but if he has continued the same pattern over all these years, that's pretty bad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gryffindor has replied to the WP:RMTR thread here, and I responded here. Another editor since asked that discussion not continue at WP:RMTR, so I have removed the thread. In the reply, Gryffindor wrote that "I think you are confusing edits from an editor that you disagree with, and activities as a sysop. See this editing guideline WP:BB for further information. Concerning the discussion you mentioned earlier on "House of X", feel free to comment in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of." This misinterprets my objections to the moves; I responded with "If this is directed at me, please rest assured that I do not particularly disagree with the edits themselves (I have no opinion on the titling of these articles) and I am not primarily concerned with whether or not these are admin activities. The moves would be problematic whether performed by an admin or not, because they are being performed without discussion despite being known to be disputed by other editors." To expand upon this, the reply shows that Gryffindor is aware of ongoing disagreement with respect to the titles of these pages, but is pursuing the moves as "being bold." This is already advised against by WP:RMCM; at the same time, Gryffindor been short-circuiting the WP:BRD process that is necessary for the proper application of WP:BB by preventing reversion and repeating the "bold" moves after reversion without engaging in WP:RM discussion. Gryffindor has also posted new replies to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of stating editorial reasons for the moves, but has not there touched upon any rationale for the process by which they have been carried out. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence in Gryffindor as an admin

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

• It's a bit early for this. Page moves against consensus are only kind of abuse of tools, and they are tools that we also give to non-admins. Also, this thread has been open less than 24 hours and Gryffindor should be given a reasonable chance to respond. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gryffindor has actually used admin tools to move some of the pages, as in some cases the targets were not simply redirects. I can't see an example where's he's edit-warred over one of those, though, and he hasn't used the tools since concerns were raised on his talkpage (although he has carried on moving pages and not replied to the concerns). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Having said that, Gryffindor hasn't used admin tools at all apart from in page moves for a very long time. He hasn't blocked anyone since 2006 and has only made one protection that wasn't page-move related since 2007 as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's my point - he became an admin in 2006, has used his admin rights for almost NO tangible benefit to the project, and in fact only uses them in pursuit of his undiscussed page moves. We have to weigh the costs and benefits here - This user would probably not even be able to retain "page mover" rights based on his actions (WP:PMRR), so why are we letting him keep the keys to the kingdom? --Netoholic @ 02:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• ArbCom is the only body that can desysop. I'd also be hesitant to see a case request here. I'm also probably more cautious on moves than most (since I work the RM desk semi-regularly), and I don't see this as needing the committee. I'd suggest just a community reminder to use the RM process. If they kept not using it, then we'd have an issue. While the community can issue sanctions against administrators short of a desysop, it would likely result in an inevitable ArbCom case (high-profile disputes amongst administrators being within ArbCom's explicit remit), and I don't see this at that level yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) What Tony said. See also: WP:DESYSOP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Ivanvector; I'm not opposed to this procedurally as it would simply lead to an ARBCOM case. A TBAN on moving pages other than through the RM process might be a better idea if action is necessary. Regardless, more discussion (and an opportunity for Gryffindor to respond) is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose desysop as I don't think we're at that level ... they're not exactly communicative which is an issue however they've not exactly abused their tools, However I would support a topic ban from all page moves - If they want an article moved they know where to go. –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not familiar with Gryffindor's other contributions and cannot offer much of an opinion on whether his admin credentials should be revoked. I'm sure he's done fine work elsewhere, which makes the nitpicky and easily fixed nature of this complaint all the more frustrating. I do believe that Gryffindor should immediately stop making any moves, should not make moves on Wikimedia Commons, and if he refuses, should have his admin (and page-mover) credentials revoked for this reason. It's a silly and minor thing, but his persistent refusal to engage in the WP:RM process and flagrant "gaming the system" by poisoning the resulting redirect so his moves can't easily be reverted does not speak to a spirit of collaboration. He has an opinion on article titling, that's great, file a requested move like anyone else and don't use technical tricks to force the impetus on others to clean up his mess. Even when he has been reverted, it's unreliable anyway, because he's repeatedly moved the same article before, and simply waits a year to see if people have stopped paying attention. This is conduct unbecoming of any editor, admin or not. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the First time that I have ever attempted to edit on Wiki...

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

---

Dealt with.

I made a substantial addition to a page, after posting my addition, I re-read through it, and made a few minor alterations to what I'd written, spelling, typos etc. So 3-5 edits showed up relatively close together. No one did anything to my edit. Then I noticed a side topic at the bottom of the page, and decided to contribute to that as well. This particular topic seems to have a Hot Button Issue for a particular Administrator. It was deleted BEFORE I even posted it! Along with my original lengthy edit of the original topic! In the History, I saw that It was claimed to have been removed for VANDALISM, which it WAS NOT! It was also claimed to have been NON-Productive, which is Also inaccurate. The "Administrator" sent me *****3***** Templated Warnings in quick succession or simultaneously, to I think attempt to create a reason to BLOCK me. I attempted to find a way to use the pre made templates, to express to the entity, that they were "Hasty", "Biting" the Newbie, as well as Erroneously Labeling my work/ contribution as "Vandalism". However there does not appear to be a clear way for me to use the templates or to send them as messages to other editors. There also was no clear way to communicate on the "Administrator's" Talk Page. I did not touch the entity's Hot button topic, but reverted my original contribution back again, which was immediately deleted ANEW, with a new Template Warning. While the Hot Button Topic Edit (That was deleted Prior to, or AS I was posting it, before it ever posted) was originally in the history as having been deleted, It NO LONGER IS. NOR is that edit/ Contribution LISTED on MY page, under MY List of contributions as ever having existed. Completely wiped out of existence. It does NOT qualify as something in need of SPEEDY REVISION! My original Contribution IS COMPLETELY VERIFIABLE! I fully intended to come back and cite more sources, after getting the bulk of the information up. My contribution the the "Administrator's" Hot Button Topic, does have some verifiable content (I cited a Supreme Court Judgment) However, I acknowledge that it was Not written in Encyclopedic format, but more like a Response. The Administrator However GROSSLY abused their Privaleges, And while very few people are likely to have ever seen my post on that topic on that page, The entity's ABJECT FEAR of ANYONE SEEING the CONTENT/ INFORMATION that I Posted/ Shared, has fueled a desire in me to put it on Billboards, and News Sources around the GLOBE!!!!! Or Print it and hand deliver it door to door or on street corners!!!!! The Administrator's RASH Censorship of solid content, regarding what the entity viewed as an "opposing" point of view, or threat to their own World View, will likely make their Fears become a Reality! At anyrate, this individual ought to lose "Administrator" Status, for the abuse of the tools at their disposal. They may yet still contribute useful content, However ought not be able to so Rashly or Speedily, REMOVE ALL TRACES of others' work, or contributions, or Harrass or Misslabel,or Attack, what they were actually doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.252.136.133 (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I only had to look at the above and one of your edits to see that you are clearly here to promote an agenda in opposition to the actions of US state child welfare agencies, through airing grievances about them. Wikipedia is the wrong forum for you to do that. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

E to the Pi times i and policies and guidelines

I came very close to blocking this user myself for disruptive editing, as I consider reversion of a major change to the notability policy that took place without discussion to be administrative in nature, but I thought I'd take it here to get more admins to look at it. Just looking through their last contributions, they have been through at least four major policy and guideline pages messing with the wording (if you look through their contributions WP:N, WP:ADMIN, WP:DEL, and Wikipedia:Bot policy all show copyedits that were reverted in the last 3 days). I reverted them on WP:N and warned them that further "copyedits" to major policy documents could lead to a block.

Following that, they reverted me claiming it wasn't disruptive and that I wasn't assuming good faith, and then started a section on the talk page claiming that they weren't going to edit war, after the had already been reverted and warned by another user not to make the edit (which on a significant document such as WP:N, certainly goes against the intent of the edit warring policy).

As I said, I think I'd be justified in a block and view my initial revert as administrative in nature, so thus not INVOLVED, but since it did involve content changes to a policy, I would prefer to get feedback here or let another administrator review. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked deeply into this, but edit warring over a policy page is absolutely not acceptable, and I have issued a short block for that. Anyone else is welcome to adjust my action as they see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have offered to lift the block if User:E to the Pi times i agrees to not edit anywhere other than this ANI report until it is resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The thing that gets me is that most of the policy edits seem to be off just so: the ones I reverted at WP:ADMIN and WP:CSD, but also others, such as PERM/TE and Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained. Not sure what to make of it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that they are trying to copyedit/simplify, but they seem to be missing the point that for all of these documents, the core wording is usually the way it is for a reason, and that in simplifying the wording, they are, in fact, changing the meaning. In the notability example, they removed Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. While you could argue that the edits they made kept the meaning, that line is one of the most significant lines in the notability guideline. I wasn't thinking anything like an indef block (I was actually thinking 31 hours like Boing!'s edit warring block), but the issue is that by making these simplification edits with minimal experience, they are actually impacting the policies and guidelines and wasting other editor's time reverting and getting into the discussions for things that really aren't a priority. Now that they're blocked and have been unblocked to only edit ANI, the immediate disruption has stopped, but I'm not sure how to deal with it longterm other than "don't do this", which I already tried with a warning. ​TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I've been waiting for weeks for the opportunity to use that, I turn my back for 10 seconds and you steal it. EEng 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Unblocked as per conditions agreed at user talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• This user and their alternative account have been trouble from the outset. Unless they completely change their stripes (unlikely) or leave Wikipedia (more unlikely), they are going to be indeffed at some point. We're putting off the (almost) inevitable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Bbb.2604:2000:E016:A700:FCF6:5A0A:A1B0:A425 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's a common pitfall for new-ish editors delving into project space for the first time to encounter our bewildering word salads of policies and guidelines, and in the spirit of WP:BOLD that's encouraged everywhere else they try to simplify based on their own understanding. Most are cooperative enough to back off when they start getting in trouble, though. I propose a topic ban from directly editing any page tagged as a policy or guideline, but simultaneously encourage the user to participate in discussions on these topics. When they gain some understanding of the complex discussions that back up changes to these pages (we somewhat recently spent 22,000 words on exactly how to define a legal threat), they could apply to have the tban lifted some time in the future, and in the meantime they will still be able to contribute to a part of the project that interests them via discussion with other editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Would it be useful to add to WP:BOLD a mention that it's not appropriate on policy pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, that's a damn good idea, I'm heading over to BOLD now to make that unilateral change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is already a fair amount of discussion on these issues at WP:PG. Not the clearest discussion, but discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• There's a section at Wikipedia:Be bold#Non-article namespaces; it could be strengthened to further discourage unilateral edits to policy pages. It's a difficult balance, though: it's pretty hard to get comments on minor grammatical changes or other housekeeping edits, so requiring a consensus discussion for everything can lead to stagnation. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would say that routine housekeeping corrections like that really aren't BOLD at all, so there shouldn't be a problem with making the change and commenting in the edit summary that it's not an attempt to change the policy. If someone thinks it is inappropriate, they can revert and discuss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course they are not intentionally doing so, but the problem statement to which you responded was good-faith editors inadvertently changing intent or emphasis. Even with experienced editors it's easy for a change to be seen in different lights by different people. A change, revert, discuss cycle may still be the best approach in this scenario. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with bold edits to policy pages when someone is trying to update documentation as to what current practice is (as I'm sure isaacl is aware, I do this myself more than most, but I'm also typically fine being reverted). I think the issue here (that has thankfully been resolved for the time being) was that we have a relatively inexperienced editor who was going about making what they viewed as clarity changes across some of our most visible and significant policy pages. As Ivanvector points out, this is relatively normal for newish users, but they normally take the hint after the first one or two reverts that it might be better to tread lightly. Now that Boing!'s initial block and unblock seems to have calmed the immediate situation here, I'd be fine with E to the Pi times i voluntarily agreeing not to directly edit policy and guideline pages until they have more experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Not to be antagonistic, but I just want to clarify: I am not at this moment agreeing to the clamp of "more experience"; I am simply ensuring (for both myself and the community) that I will avoid further contention by not editing until this discussion is completely resolved. I have a great interest in discussing this further, before falling into the restrictions of "I need to learn more about Wikipedia's community norms and come back later". E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if editors engage in productive discussion, then all is good. So I'm not certain if Beyond My Ken's suggestion is the way to go, at least for now. I appreciate it's kind of annoying when a whole slew of well-meaning but less-than-proficient writers try to copy edit a policy, triggering a lot of discussion. But with English Wikipedia's current decision-making tradition, it's tricky to try to limit this. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I appreciate the irony. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Topic ban discussion

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

• Support per my thoughts above: I think this is a good faith user, but I don't think they grasp how their edits are disruptive, and looking through their past contributions after Bbb23's comment, I'm not buying the sleep deprivation excuse. They were doing this same thing almost two weeks ago at the WP:SOCK page with their alt, and after Bbb23 reverted them, they restored their own edit which was also a minor tweak that had a policy impact. This was eventually undone again by another experienced user. While I get they are good faith, this is clearly either a competence or arrogance thing where they can't seem to understand that when they are being reverted by functionaries and admins on policy pages, they need to slow down. A topic ban that is appealable after 3 months does the trick and forces them to slow down, while allowing them to have discussions as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't do this now. I want to discuss this further, without you pulling your basket of edits which I do not currently have the capacity to individually address currently. I understood and acknowledged the disruption of my edits, and I will continue to acknowledge that. Regarding the other two bot edits, those reverts were a different matter entirely, and the reverts were made solely on the basis of the account that made them. The quality of those edits was strongly outweighed by the account that made them. Those edits are both currently standing, and one of them was supported by multiple community members. If that's your example of incompetence in policy editing, I find it a poorly chosen one. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Before we whack 'im with the topic-ban sledgehammer let's try this: e^iπ, you need to cool it for a few months (at least) with the WP:PG editing, and do more bread-and-butter article editing. That's where you learn how the project "really works" and why our PGs are the way they are. Can you just do that, please, and in the meantime if you see something you think really needs fixing on a PG, raise it on the talk page? EEng 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would actually be my preferred option as well (and what I tried to propose above), but which to me seemed like they rejected. That was why I took Ivanvector's proposal and made it formal. The ideal here is that we don't have sanctions and we have what you are suggesting. If they don't agree to that, however, a TBAN does the same thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not outright reject that option; I simply indicated that it wasn't my current inclination.

If however, there is an urgency or desire to mop this issue away and be done with it, I will obviously agree to the softer voluntary recommendation (with the intent to abide by it or otherwise face consequences). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Realabdulr

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asphalt_9:_Legends&diff=prev&oldid=835919192
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Need_for_Speed:_Most_Wanted_(2012_video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=835927933

Seems like a spam-only account. Warned by The1337gamer on User talk:Realabdulr, the text is suggesting The1337gamer is an administrator but why does that not show on Special:CentralAuth/The1337gamer? Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

NO, that's a template User:Alexis_Jazz. User:The1337gamer is not pretending to be an admin. Note that he's saying you may be blocked not I will block you. Its a standard template.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I guess its a substitution template in that case. To me, the wording is confusing but that's no fault of The1337gamer in that case. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User WeWuzPhoenicians

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

---

Hi, WeWuzPhoenicians is engaged in multiple edit wars. This user has been blocked temporarily but as soon as the block expired, he came back and is actually going on with his disruptive edits and accuses other contributors like me or Dimadick of "vandalism". Please have a look and note that WeWuzPhoenicians and IP 151.236.179.140 are suspected socks (they edit in the same way in numerous articles and a SPI is opened). Some evidences of edit warring : [92], [93]. I have helped him and found a source for one of his edits : [94]. I also proposed to help him finding reliables sources, but this was declined. He also erased all the discussions and warnings in his talk page : [95]. I have not reverted his edit here : [96] where he replaces Assyrian with Arab without providing any verifiable relable source (however, the article does not contain a source for the Assyrian claim either, but this is not a legit reason for replacing an unsourced claim with another unsourced claim), i think it's better that an admin deals with this case. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to note that the name "WeWuzX" is possibly related to the meme "We Wuz Kangz", a racist meme that is popular right now based on the latest Assassins Creed game. Probably a troll. --Tarage (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Just another Kang" from their user page. Yep. Troll. Good block. --Tarage (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

See how much I miss out on by not playing video games? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated re-addition of off-topic personal attack

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

---

[97][98]

Could someone block this IP, or semi-protect the talk page for a few days, or something? They've made it really clear they're not interested in improving the article to begin with, so it's not clear what they are even doing there.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As personal attacks go, those are pretty lame. And you really shouldn't be messing with someone else's talk page unless it's something directed at you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Actually (assuming you meant "someone else's talk page comments") my understanding (per some earlier advice from EEng (talk · contribs) regarding similar remarks directed at me) is that it should be left to third parties to blank "borderline" personal attacks. Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) is pretty thick-skinned and doesn't seem to think much of blanking of personal attacks in general, but that doesn't mean a comment that essentially amounts to "you have been blocked in the past, so you're wrong" should be allowed stand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN (talk · contribs) has reverted my latest removal with the curt edit summary "stop". If that's how it should be, then fine; I won't revert again now that someone other than the obvious sock-IP himself has re-added it. I guess if I was "wrong" that it should stay blanked as a personal attack, this thread can be closed now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hijiri88: I've undone your repeated removal. Do not remove it again. It's certainly no worse than other editors' comments on that talk page including thinly veiled accusations of socking and "We already knew what bad-faith tricks you were up to" which you seem to have somehow overlooked. Everyone could stand to focus on content more and minimize the sniping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This thread should have already been closed. I don't like being told that it's my responsibility to tell editors I agree with that they should use the appropriate user conduct fora to discuss user conduct issues. But there's no point responding, so collapsing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I removed it exactly as many times as the disruptive editor in question added it, and it's hardly my responsibility to point out where someone who is right on the content and has been putting up with IDHT and other such tricks (including, yes, apparently logging out in order to create an illusion of other people sharing one's views) for weeks would perhaps be better off not indicating such directly on the article talk page and instead taking such concerns to ANI (where they had already been ignored) or SPI (where nothing will be done because IPs can't be CUed). It doesn't really help to create a false equivalence between an editor who never focused on content and refused all attempts at compromise (and even requests to clarify what changes exactly they wanted to make to the article) and the editors who are putting up with them; the page was full-protected for a week to allow discussion, and no discussion took place because the IP and Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) refused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on pages under DS:Eastern Europe

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

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

Repeatedly removing the protected template ([99][100]), despite warnings by multiple users on talk page ([101]), and despite the fact there is no valid reason one could want to remove it.

Refusal to participate in talk page discussion (despite multiple reverts on the article in the last two days, last interventions on the talk page date to the 8th and 7th April and are either mostly unrelated to the edit warring, ([102]), or simple WP:PAs which do not seek to build consensus ([103])).

Reinstating ([104]) material which has been superseeded by talk page consensus.

Generally unfriendly/non-collaborative behaviour on talk page/in edit summaries, ex. (Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_3#Another_false_edit_summary, Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_2#You_can't_be_serious)

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

Reinstating disputed material and going against talk page consensus, ([105])

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeating the same (inaccurate) statement multiple times (also, at multiple places), once, twice, thrice, even four times.

• François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• All of the above

Long-term edit warring on the first of the above mentioned pages, and the ensuing discussions on the talk page seem to be of a rather toxic kind.

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't have notified you because your talk page is protected. Stop the WP:PA. If you think I'm a sock, WP:SPI is the place to go (and then you'd need a stronger agreement than just "he agrees with somebody else") 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the IP contributor does have a significant edit history under that address. If they are a long-term editor, they should know that no editor is subject to more frivolous ANI/ANEW reports than Volunteer Marek. As Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is semi-protected and the editors cited in this report don't agree with each other, I think that allowing normal editing to proceed and/or referring this to WP:DRN is all that is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment a long-term edit warring[106] by François Robere and consistent reinstalling opposed material[107] against talk page consensus[108] by François Robere is the only case that I find feasible on this record.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)