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

User:DePiep and DYK

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

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

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

In all of these situations, DePiep has repeatedly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

• DePiep has just requested an unblock to address this discussion, so I have undone the close as suggested by the closer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Redux

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

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

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

I think you've summed it up pretty well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• In case it wasn't obvious, I have pulled DePiep's TE right given the current topic ban, and some other reasons I recall from his past.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• I too think Beeblebrox sums it up pretty well. I think the edit-warring and gross incivility are easily dealt with; if they recognize the problem, they're on a tight leash (a 1RR restriction may be appropriate), and can be blocked indef if they repeat that behavior; if they don't recognize the problem, we site-ban them here and now until they do. The first problem Beeblobrox describes is trickier to define, and trickier to address. I would there reiterate my proposal to remove them from maintenance areas, defined as any namespace outside articles, article talk pages, user pages, and user talk pages, with an exception for appealing and/or discussing sanctions about themselves. I proposed this below as a temporary remedy, but I believe it's the appropriate long-term step, too. This proposal is, of course, conditional on DePiep recognizing and promising to rectify the other problems with their behavior; otherwise, it is moot, and I would support a ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vanamonde, the issues have been summed up very well by Beeblebrox. If DePiep cannot explain their edits in the maintenance areas, then they should not be editing in that area, so under any circumstances this proposal should probably sustain. Alex Shih (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Preparing replies, basically to the top thread. - DePiep (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Been working continuously on this since (on/offline), but can't get it finished today. Need a rest. - DePiep (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment After blocking DePiep in 2015, I received this email comment from an editor, who shall remain anonymous: In case you wonder how I got involved, I have been working on the immensely complex Module:[redacted] for nearly three years, and DePiep has been active on Template_talk:[redacted] with helpful advice for those asking questions, and by managing the documentation. I have also seen DePiep's useful work in other areas. I fully acknowledge DePiep's problems and I think your block for an extremely pointless edit war on a template was reasonable. DePiep does not speak English fluently and sometimes misunderstands colloquialisms, and finds it hard to follow long and complex sentences (like the ones I write!). DePiep's style is sometimes unhelpful.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Site ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:BarceloniUK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The feeling I get from my past interactions with Filiprino and looking at his edit and block history both in this project and at eswiki is that the user is deeply biased and disruptive to our project. The admin that indefinitely blocked the user at eswiki based the decision on the constant violations of etiquete and fights with other users and on an alleged political agenda (see here in Spanish). Apart from some Linux related edits, the user has been editing on multiple articles based mostly on the writings of a reporter named Jordi Borras, whose main objective seems to be trying to establish far-right political links with many associations and individuals opposed to Catalonia's independence from Spain. To achieve this goal Filiprino repeatedly violated many policies like WP:NPOV, WP:3RR for which it has been blocked here a couple of times and Wikipedia:Etiquette accusing other editors (myself included) that attempt to correct his edits of vandalism. This includes reports to the vandalism noticeboard: see here and here. Edit summaries accusing other users of vandalism see here, here and here... Wrongly accusing other users of being SPAs see here Use of offensive edit summaries (see here), etc... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon I am answering due to allusions. I have suffered persecutions from users like ApolloCarmb and ILoveCaracas exposing similar arguments as BarceloniUK, Maragm and you. Nobody warrants me that all of you are sockpuppets as were Apollo and Caracas. Moreover, I have not removed any of your contents. I have greatly expanded different articles like Inés Arrimadas, Somatemps, Linux, Josep Ramon Bosch and Societat Civil Catalana. As I understand, all of you have in common the impossibility of reading catalan or using translators because no one has cited what is false nor what is wrong with the information regarding members of SCC coming from Somatemps. I won't comment on my edit summaries nor WP:SPA statements because that's already been said. Filiprino (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view the user either does not understand or chooses to ignore all the advice about our policies and gives instead priority to pushing a point of view above all other considerations. The previous comment suggesting the possibility of socking, without providing any evidence, instead of addressing the serious issues raised is another example. Any attempt at neutralizing information of his claims of far-right relations in the articles Filiprino edits seems to be interpreted as "persecution" and is usually reverted almost automatically. Some examples of the repeated disregard for our policies can be seen at User_talk:Filiprino. Most of the information added is clearly biased and in many cases includes original research. for example this edit where Societat Civil Catalana is labeled as far-right (when is actually ruled by persons linked to the right, center and left) and support for a particular event is taken to mean support for the organization as a whole (Further info on why I believe it to be OR), also adding details of investigations and conclusions made by Jordi Borras without any attempt to reach a NPOV (see here) or blanking content (see here) etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger Troutman promotion IPs

Some person from Denver, Colorado, has been promoting Roger Troutman, the deceased leader of Zapp (band), in articles related to Zapp or Troutman. The activity includes pushing up the importance of Roger Troutman at the expense of his brothers, especially Larry and Terry. None of the changes are based on published references. Apparently, this person is Troutman's grandchild, who is a self-published musician, and is promoting himself as "Roger's Legacy".[12][13][14]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Axxxion

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

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

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

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

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

It appears we got through to him[15], for now at least... I don't think he was acting in bad faith, he just assumed that we weren't. Heptor (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not actually getting through to him, it's more of an indictment than a show of good faith. Why are these disturbing 'joke' responses (designed to provoke the reporting administrator) appearing on his own talk instead of addressing this thread? He is not a newbie, nor is it the first time he has demonstrated problematic behaviour... and eluding scrutiny strikes the wrong chord (i.e., trying to fly under the radar rather than recognition of any form of disruptive behaviour). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards interpreting those 'jokes' as somewhat slow restocking in the sanity department, rather than an indictment towards anyone in particular. Not saying that you are wrong though, he could be disruptive in bad faith also. But I think there is some reasonable doubt in this particular case. Heptor (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Lescandinave (talk · contribs)

• See examples: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] (Update: One diff struck through and two more recent added).
• Also claiming he checked a 1994 newspaper source to disprove the attribution: [24] The same thing is however also available from another source which is even quoted in the references section: Richard_Gott#cite_note-8

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

About the political parties in Latin America, I look at es.wikipedia and correct en.wikipedia. I can make mistakes, but your allegations are false in several cases. A source was added for the PRI [25] ("it has drifted toward the center-right since the 1980s.[26]") For the PSUN the source [27] said "derecha" (Right-wing) [28]. For the Japanese party, I removed an edit that was vandalism [29]. For the Peruvian Nationalist Party, indeed, I didn't have change the source, but the information was good (see the new source added today). I find curious the practice to search on several months the thread of contribution of a user.--Lescandinave (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The Peruvian Nationalist Party was socialist but it has drifted more to the centre during the Ollanta Humala Administration. Hence the confusion between the sources. Es.wikipedia indicates today "center-left". I changed centre-right to Right-wing for Peruvians for Change (not Far right). CNN indicates "derecha neoliberal" [30] [31] but indeed I should have added the source into the article rather than in Edit summary. And for the Socialist Party of Latvia, lv.wikipedia (in Latvian) indicates "Kreisa" ("left-wing" according to google translate).--Lescandinave (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NFL Undrafted Players section

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

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

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

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

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

Makers267, your ignorance of how IPv6 works does not mean the editor is doing something wrong. They change. The editor is NOT changing it. Where have you started talk page discussion? Where are your diffs showing somewhere his behavior has violated policy? What policies are you alleging he's violated? Lacking this information, from what you have given us, it is just as likely you are violating WP:OWN as anything else. And if you call what you wrote on one of the tables pages an attempt at discussion, IMO the project may be just as well served by sanctioning you as him. John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee and WP:Votestacking

Springee may have engaged in WP:Votestacking with this edit, following her/his comment here. The second comment indicates that Springee knew or believed that the group of editors s/he notified had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion" (c.f. WP:Votestacking). Springee failed to notify dlthewave, a participant in that same discussion who (based on previous comments) would likely have come down on the opposite side of the issue. So of nine editors involved in discussing "Proposal" here [32] that had not yet commented, user:Springee notified all eight on her/his side, and left out the one that would likely have been opposed.

Furthermore Springee failed to notify the editors on the involved in the closely related discussion of Proposal 2 here [33], including User:London Hall, User:Fluous, User:JustinFranks, and User:Icewhiz, at least several of whom would likely have been opposed to Springee's position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply: OK, has some computer time. High level, no this isn't canvassing as per WP:APPNOTE it is acceptable to notify editors involved in previous same or similar discussion. The origin of this complaint is based on an edit Waleswatcher made this morning. WW boldly added this content to the Colt AR-15 article [[34]].

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

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

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

Per WP:APPNOTE, I notified all editors who had participated in the previous discussion (Proposal 1) but were not active in the current discussion. I missed Dlthewave who didn't actually vote but replied to another editor. This was an honest oversight and WW didn't even know I had missed it when posting a canvasing warning to my talk page earlier today[[35]]. I have to assume WW didn't understand the allowances in APPNOTE.

I did not notify editors involved in the unrelated Port Arther inclusion discussion (Proposal 2). Dlthewave notified those editors [[36]] which was, unintentionally, canvassing. Most of the editors who opposed Proposal 1 also opposed Proposal 2. Thus the editors from Proposal 2 who weren't notified could be assumed to be largely sympathetic to the edit in question and thus reverse vote stacking (again, unintentionally). This was noted by Red Rock Canyon (talk · contribs)[[37]].

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

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

Here you are earlier today accusing me of acting in bad faith [[38]]. So now I should assume you just wanted to do the right thing? It's ironic that you started to complain before you even understood the relevant policies. Springee (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've notified all participants of the other 3 recent Port Arthur massacre discussions here [39]. See here for info on the list [40]. As I remarked in the talk page, it seems to me 2 other recent discussions are equally relevant and so I would suggest participants in them should be notified, but I will leave that up to others. My last comment on this issue would be as general advice, while it's not technically wrong to leave neutral notification of all previous participants of a highly related discussion, if you have strong known feelings on an issue it generally makes sense to raise the issue before leave the notification so people can offer feedback. I actually considered doing that here, but as the previous pings had already been sent felt it was too late now as there was no real justification for notifying people who only participated in proposal 2, but then not notify participants of the other 3 recent discussions on the Port Arthur massacre, especially the RFC. But it is part of the reason I did not notify participants of the discussions on other issues. P.S. Frankly I think we're getting close to notifying anyone who has commented on the talk page in the past 3 months or so. I wonder if it might be better to just notify all talk page editors in 3 or even 6 months. That would hopefully end this IMO pointless debate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• It's worth pointing out that there were a number of editors to notify because the issue being discussed has been hashed out over and over. But Waleswatcher has ignored all the other discussions and demanded it all begin again because he discovered the article. The allegation of votestacking is baseless. This shouldf be closed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is actually an ANI? (wtf?) So he missed a ping... big deal. He admitted it was mistake, the whole world knows about that discussion now, what is there left to say? Or do? Nothing. So for luv of gawd... will someone puh-leeze close this already? I'm sure there are more worthwhile things on this project to attend to. - ^theWOLFchild 05:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

S/he missed the one ping in that one discussion that probably would have disagreed, and got all the others. Not to mention all the other participants in all the other closely related discussions that turned out the other way and might have wanted to participate. That's certainly close to violation of WP:Votestacking, although whether it crosses the line I'm not qualified to judge. But on top of that, s/he's been warned twice already about canvassing, and that page is under discretionary sanctions (which s/he certainly knew, having been warned about it and also having warned me about it here). Put all that together, and it seemed to me and User:Slatersteven, following a discussion with User:Springee on their talk page, that an admin should take a look and decide whether it warrants a temporary topic ban or the like. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

They have, and it seems to me the decision is that this was a mistake and that the user accepts they made a mistake. I think banning on about this serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WW, the fact that you're still pushing this tells me a lot. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus vs Local consensus

• Comment: the issue being discussed has been hashed out over and over, the qualified here is that was a matter of WikiProject:Firearms WP:local consensus. So, naturally, when previously uninvolved editors arrive at the page they are both amazed and confused about the state of affairs. That has been my experience; see for example: Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018 (2), and a couple of discussions that I started: Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Proposal & Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Proposal 2. “Proposal 2” was vigorously rejected by the page regulars, to the point that someone commented:

It's remarkable in itself that the Wikipedia article at the top of Google searches for AR-15, which has been getting 30,000 page hits a day, has nothing about the political controversy. Remarkable enough that this could be a scandal if meddling journalists found out about it.

And indeed, the journalists did write about it, sample: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page. We still had to have an RfC on this material: RfC: Port Arthur Massacre, which recently closed as “include”. As anyone can see, it took three months to arrive at a decision to include RS-supported, NPOV content. It’s perhaps time to let go of the cherished WikiProject-specific norms as consensus is clearly changing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue with editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Jeez. Hm. So, let me get this straight.

• Soapfan is an admitted sock of a indeffed disruptive editor and sockpuppeteer, Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but he was allowed to continue editing with some sort of WP:ROPE second chance by AniMate, secured by livelikemusic's own insistence at SPI that he had turned a new leaf (March 2012). He quickly changed his mind, apparently, and has been complaining about him ever since.
• June 2012 (AniMate, who gave Soapfan a second chance, considers reblocking for a personal attack)
• November 2013
• November 2013 (again)
• December 2013
• October 2015
• January 2018

• Soapfan has been gently warned for personal attacks or incivility in some of these reports, and has been warned a couple of times on his talk page as well[41][42] but nothing ever rose to the level of admin intervention, and LLM had been criticized for his own problematic behavior as well. The question here is whether SF deserves a moderate response for the personal attack, an indef for failing to live up to the expected standards of his second chance, or if this is strictly a long-term interpersonal conflict that warrants an IBAN. I think some response is warranted by now, but I'm not entirely sure which kind. Additional admin opinions requested here. Swarm ♠ 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  It looks like there is no more rope left.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. Swarm ♠ 19:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• So, I've finally gotten the time to review Soapfan's edits going back several years, and I must say, given the history I gathered earlier, I expected to find the evidence to justify an indefinite block. So, let me be clear to both livelikemusic and Soapfan2013—that is truly where I was coming from. I assumed these repeated complaints and accusations were legitimate, and I had actually planned on indeffing Soapfan upon finding any examples of problematic behavior. I did not even extend Soapfan the benefit of the doubt due to his history. So, I owe Soapfan an apology for jumping to conclusions. Apart from a small handful of unpleasant run-ins with LLM, I see no evidence of any pattern of problematic behavior in edit summaries or on talk pages. It really does appear that these repeated complaints casting Soapfan as a malicious disruptive editor are frivolous and inappropriate. Soapfan is definitely HERE, and does not appear to be a disruptive editor, so I don't actually think he deserves to have his past used against him like this. I've taken a look at LLM as well, and they appear to be a good faith, valuable editor as well, so I'm not going to BOOMERANG them over this. But I do think LLM has what I would characterize as a lack of patience, an abrasive communication style, and a tendency to become upset and emotional.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] Mind you, this is all from this month. It's plain to see why LLM was chastised for his own conduct in previous reports. I approached this fully believing that LLM has been given a hard time, and that Soapfan has been let off easy. I want the record to strongly state that this is not true. This pattern of reporting Soapfan for every minor offense needs to stop. Not only is it hypocritical, given your own style of communication, but it is also unjustified, motivated by a personal grudge, and borders on harassment. If you come here with another unjustified complaint, this thread is going to come up, and if that happens, I would advise future responding admins to consider a boomerang for harassment. Enough is enough. Refrain from any form of unnecessary interaction with Soapfan, keep your comments restrained and civil, use talk pages and not edit summaries to communicate with others, and I don't want to see any more of these reports unless there is a serious violation. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from Yudhacahyo

Today, this user had disruptive edits:

1. [51]: He moved page against RM consensus;
2. [52]: Unexplained removal references in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

WP:MOR. Pages can be moved to an existing redirect's title as long as there's no other page history. When this happens, the redirect is automatically deleted. Swarm ♠ 00:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for pointing that out! Thayts ••• 09:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Raiyan HA

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

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

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

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

I wanted to block, but I was at work and could not remember my password :{-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Massive edits of wikilinks by Bear-rings

User Bear-rings has started a massive campaign for "fixing" wkilinks: 113 edits since the beginning of May, most of them concerning wikilinks. Many of them consist of removing from the "See also" section, the items that are linked to in the body. This is generally fine, although it may be useful to repeat a link in the See also section when it is difficult to find in the body of the article. Many of their edits amounts to unlinking repeated links. This is also generally fine, except when this consists in changing "see Zariski's lemma" into "see Zariski's lemma", which has a completely different meaning [53].

Many of these edits consists in replacing redirects by pipes. This is explicitly discouraged by WP:NOTBROKEN, and has been notified to him several times in edit summaries and in atleast eight sections of their talk page (two other sections are about disruptive edits without indication of the nature of these edits). Worst, several of these redirect "fixing" change the meaning of the sentence, such as in [54] (as "function of a real variable" is the title of the article, the emphasize on "real-valued" was intentional), [55] (here also, emphasizing on domain was intentional]] [56] (link to a different concept).

When Bear-rings's edits are reverted, they start immediately in an edit war without discussing in edit summaries nor in talk pages. See [57] and [58] (I apologize for having breaking WP:3RR here, but I thought that I could convince them by clearer explanations in edit summaries).

Even after a clear notification on their talk page, they try starting new edit wars: [59], [60] (in this case, they did three different edits, and only two needed to be reverted).

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

New edit wars by the same editor:[61], [62]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Incidentally, [63] is a good edit (the old link was incorrect). I just can’t tell whether a good edit like this is by accident or by intention... —- Taku (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sirlanz

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

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

Me adding the names of the parents of scientist Christopher_Longuet-Higgins: [64]

Pulling out information on Facebook (Oculus) employee Michael Abrash's education: [65]

And this sort of thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I started taking a look through Sirlanz's edit history. As I said, he went through my edit history and reverted all my edits (many of which were reverted back by other editors, who thought my contributions were useful). He went through User:Kingston, CA's edits and reverted all of them. Now, going back to April, I see he also decided to go through User:Karim Manouar's edit history, and revert all his edits, such as this one[66] that noted John Rabe's former house is now a museum.

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

The four examples now cited in defence by Minimax Regret:

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

I could continue to cite pages - I added to Martin Sheen's biography that he had worked at the Living Theatre - this information was removed. [67]. I am still going through sirlanz's disruptive reversion of my edit history Minimax Regret (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• This editor has been making many POV wording changes in articles. These are a sample of once I reverted [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] however the bulk of their contributions have been reverted by others and those edits are problematic as well. I guess these can be considered as good faith, if misguided, attempts to 'soften' wording but such edits are disruptive and should not continue.
  @Minimax Regret: please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies such as Neutral point of view, the policy on biographies of living persons and the requirement for information to be verifiable in reliable sources. Please pay particular attention to how changes in wording can lead to misrepresentation or distortion due to varying connotations of the words used. Jbh ^Talk 02:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

With regards to the aforementioned mention of citation for the Professor Christopher Longuet-Higgins article, I have cited his parent's names.[73].

Also, I did edit the East Germany[74] article, which you said was an example of my "POV wording changes". You changed my "Explaining the internal impact of the GDR government..." to "Explaining the internal impact of the DDR regime..." and my "The changes made by the communists..." to "The changes wrought by the Communists ...", and so on. I have to admit to some continuing confusion, as I don't fully understand how my wording was POV, and the new wording is NPOV. Any how, I don't have plans to revisit that article.

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

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

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

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

• Hel, I like Sirlanz, a lot.
  Sorry, I really don't know the editor and have nothing worthwhile to say about the report, I just couldn't resist that. Trouts accepted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• BMK, nice. And, should you feel the need to thank me, you are welcome, a lot. Dr. K. 21:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible votestacking by TIAYN

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

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

Can we talk about the fact that he opened this DIRECTLY AFTER the above section was closed? Oshwah, you're the one giving this editor rope. Please talk some sense into them. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And for extra bonus points, per above Wingwraith posted a pretty spurious EW report (here), I foresee a 2-way IBAN here, if not a block. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, it should be addressed that Wingwraith simultaneously opened a case at the edit-warring noticeboard- like they're covering all their bases. These administrators' boards are getting littered by these two editors' battleground dispute. An interaction ban may be in order. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: I did not take TIAYN to task so you could do exactly to them what they're doing to you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a mistake in the above. I thought it was TIAYN making the filing. Poor show Wingwraith. I support an IBAN. --Tarage (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I don't see how my 3RR report was spurious as the user started edit warring on the related article immediately after s/he got off a week-long ban (as User:DarthBotto noted here) and @DarthBotto: It wasn't unreasonable for me to read it that way and you could have made the implications of what you were writing less ambiguous, but what's done is done and I'll leave that issue as your opinion on it conflicted with mine, I don't know what you mean by "covering my base" and to be sure I don't see how this is a frivolous filing as it's dealing with a legitimate conduct issue instead of a content dispute that I could have easily dealt with that user on the related talkpage had s/he cared to raise it there FIRST. Nevertheless in light of the comments here I am wiling to settle this matter by voluntarily withdrawing the report. Wingwraith (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction Ban

• I think a two-way interaction ban is probably needed. TBH it was probably needed in the last round of these back-and-forth "report each other to ANI and AN3 to cover all bases" reports. SQL^{Query me!} 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support this seems to be the only way to prevent one (or both) of these users from inevitably being banned from the project. I'm not 100% certain that this will avoid problems if both try to edit Communist Party-related articles, but it's worth a shot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if neither of them want the IBAN and promise to tone it down, it's not worth having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support This has gotten stupid. --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I also am fine with a topic ban or banning all together. Whatever gets the message across that they need to stop this bullshit. I support any fix here. --Tarage (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been pinged a few times during the course of these reports, surprisingly - as I was merely summoned by legobot to one of their RfCs and added some consiliatory notes to one of their heavier discussions below it. They are apparently both trying to improve the article, but need to understand the importance of collaborating in a friendly way. I don’t think an IBAN is the best way to do that. A short topic ban or even a short block might be in the pipeline if those concerned don’t pull their socks up, but these two need to be encouraged to work together, not prevented from doing so. Edaham (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose but knock it the hell off. Both of you need to take a month off Communist Party of China to give somebody else a chance to fix that junk. Carrite (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough and this has been too much. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's either this, or blocks start being handed out for disruptive editing each time one of these users attempt to accuse the other of "this and that" and "tit for tat"... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - 1RR between our interactions would work best. We are collaborating on the talkpage and the problem is not so serious to warrant an interaction ban as we are only having trouble over one article. FWIW you have my formal guarantee in light of this exchange to not simultaneously file multiple AN reports again. Wingwraith (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I gave it a day, to see how these two would interact and despite them going into it on the talk page with the stance that they'd sort it out, it's already deteriorated to personal attacks. I'm in full support of a two-way interaction ban. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We are sorting it out and there hasn't been a a personal attack made (at least not on my part). Corroborate that allegation or move on from it already. The exchanges have been testy but that's to be expected on any article where there's a disagreement, that said the language has been toned down and more people are now involved in the discussions so more progress should be made. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I've been observing this for a while and had a look at the most recent exchange on the talk page. Since these two can't sort their shit out then, as it's been brought to ANI, it's up to the community to do so. Blackmane (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We are sorting our shit out. Wingwraith (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

alternate proposal

The next time Wingwraith or TIAYN complain one about the other here, they both are instantaneously blocked for a month.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose because the incident report can be legitimate (it's irrelevant who files it). Like I said I think that a formal 1RR warning will do. Wingwraith (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think one of the combatants here has the insight to agree or disagree with limitations proposed by members of the community to stop there disruptive behavior. If they possessed and exercised such insight, none of this passion play would be unfolding before us.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But I do, to be sure the comments are free to anyone and the disruptive editing has stopped. I've already said that what I did was ill-advised and made a formal guarantee to not do that again. Emotions played a factor in all this I'll admit it and do better next time, but I don't see why you can't just issue a warning instead of going to the extreme of imposing a ban. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

alternate alternate proposal

1. Each of the involved parties should use the Template:Give_cake or similar on the other's profile along with a message, which if not straightforwardly complimentary, acknowledges the other's time spent contributing and commitment to a better article.
2. Both learn the phrase, "We're not getting anywhere fast on this point, but there's lots of other areas of the article we could work on (there really are). We don't have a deadline, why don't we file this for a bit and move onto something else." Edaham (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OTOH you can jump into the fray and (help) end it once and for all. Wingwraith (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact you consider it a "fray" looks to be reflective of a battleground mentality. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No because that's what it factually is. In any case we are collaborating, the language has been toned down and more people are now involved in the discussions so more progress should be made. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Asking both parties to just hug it out doesn't work and is condescending. --Tarage (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Asking both parties to just hug it out doesn't work" I don't believe this to be true. The recommendations at Wikipedia:Civility and at the essay Wikipedia:Apology would seem to suggest otherwise
  • There are five pillars which form the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. One of them is civility. Encouraging editors to abide by these principles is a good thing. You may find it condescending to be asked to act in what ever manner defuses a hostile or adversarial situation, but you can rest assured that the quarter of a teaspoonful of pride one has to swallow in order to assuage one's opponent in a debate is far outweighed by the benefits of collaborative engagement in article creation and maintenance. Hopefully both the involved parties will take this to heart with the result that we'll see much needed improvements to the articles they are editing in the near future. Edaham (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know this; I'll gladly stop to edit the Communist Party of China

Guys, if you think I'm the problem I'll gladly stop editing the Communist Party of China. No problem, as long as you get someone to actually fix the article, that doesn't need to be me. --TIAYN (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

here. @Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane:

I will however note this.... I have proven his edits breaches WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research.. Countless of times. Why on Earth can't you literally back that? If he can't prove the All-China Women's Federation is part of the CPC (its not, its an NGO) why on Earth don't you remove it?

I'll gladly stop editing that talk page, it makes me depressed communicating with @Wingwraith:. It really does. --TIAYN (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane: This will be my last edit on the CPC talk page for a while .... One last thing. I mean, you're saying me and Wingwraith are arguing.. Thats not correct, the majority in the talk page (even admin) wants to remove position and "authoritarian socialism" from the infobox—please count. This is not an arguement between me and Wingwraith (even if it may seem like it)... At last, while the edits regarding the women's wing, students wing and have not garnered as much attention, I have proven with WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research that they can't be there without referencing.

Again, my last edit. If you admins had actually done anything this would have been solved a long time ago. --TIAYN (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

At last, I hope don¨'t block me... 99% of my edits have been here User:Trust Is All You Need/Socialism the last day. I'll gladly follow a ban of anykind as long as I can continue to edit the infobox. Its going quite well, even if the lead is fucking terrible :P --TIAYN (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

One ping was enough. Please don't ping again. --Tarage (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page, 24 archive pages and related links

Please check reports in the last ten days concerning User:Philip Cross. Please would it be possible to put User talk:Philip Cross and all 24 archive pages, plus any links connected to User:Philip Cross, and created by myself using this account on a 50/300 block, ideally for an indefinite period. And for an admin to revert any changes if any vandalism occurs before these changes can be enforced. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also my 4 sandbox pages both user & talk should be on 30/500 indefinitely as well. The links are listed here, but not the talk pages. These are unusual circumstances and I hope my request is followed and any vandalism reverted if it occurs before this request can be enacted. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: I've assisted with this particular situation but see no reason why your talk or user page require protection. Protection is not done preemptively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well if the policies indicate it is not possible, I will have to leave things as they stand. Thanks anyway. Philip Cross (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is this has appeared: User talk:SamHolt6#Your deleted section at User talk:Philip Cross. Users are trying to persuade me to respond or antagonise me. I only created the 24th archive page earlier this evening, and it explains the reason why I being accused of censorship. It is clearly another troll tactic, and it is obvious what they will be saying in afew minutes. In the current climate I believe it is desirable that I do not. Please refer to other parts of the community, if necessary. I do not want to be tempted to edit Wikipedia for the moment. The trolls here and on Twitter are not going to fed for the next few days, perhaps a little longer. I leave it others to protect the site, and "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" principle which certain vested interests seem intend on damaging. Philip Cross (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Dionigi

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

• A single-purpose account, serious WP:CIR problems, the only reaction to the talk page message was one more revert in the only article they are interested in.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  They also are the creator of that article, so that I do not quite understand what is going on. I do not think they have ever posted at any talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind considerations. The amendments I have suggested for the wiki rely on professional journalistic sources on the events, which I find more credible than the rather obscure references that were previously provided. That is why I am keen on the page to stay as it is so that to better represents the reality of events. I apologise if I have more made this clear before, and remain available for further clarifications. The fact that this is my only current contribution so far does not necessarily diminish its validity or relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionigi (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Which article are we talking about here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Most likely Andrea Rocchelli. Kleuske (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess nothing more can be done at this stage, as I am not going to edit-war, to restore removed sourced material, and to properly referenced what is now in the article. The current article text has been tidied, and we can probably close this, though I still do not believe massively removing sourced material is approppriate, at least not without careful analysis of each piece.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ymblanter, thanks for your message and consideration RE: Andrea Rocchelli. Best wishes, Dionigi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.16.14 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Alduin2000

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

---

Alduin2000 (talk · contribs) is trolling me. Creating an attack page, posting personal attacks, using his userpage to attack a straw man. I have asked Alduin2000 many times to stop wasting my time. Edward Mordake (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see you commenting on Talk:Kanye West about Alduin using personal attacks "3 times", [75]. I don't see anything that I would understand as a personal attack on either that page or their talk page, which is where you've been discussing this issue. I agree, that the (now deleted) page violated WP:POLEMIC, but it was just a compilation of the discussion - it could even be valid in the context of this ANI discussion, although clearly it was made beforehand. Other than that though, you're going to have to provide WP:DIFFs to support your assertions. Otherwise, unsubstantiated accusations of NPA violations can be seen as harrassment. I also note that you have violated 3RR, which Alduin2000 noted and didn't take further. In fact you've made 6 reverts (Alduin has made 5). This is going to boomerang. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't, because blocks are not punitive but meant to prevent further disruption. There is no reason to assume there will be any further reverts, because the current version is stable. But Alduin2000 needs to be blocked so that he stops trolling me. You are not an admin. Edward Mordake (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edward Mordake: Nor is there a reason to assume that there will be any further alleged trolling, for which, aside from the aforementioned page, I have requested diffs. However, if no diffs are forthcoming, while this case is open the harassment issue is ongoing. I'm not an admin, no. That doesn't make my points any less valid - nor was I even angling for a block, but rather convincing you to withdraw this case. Because I virtually guarantee that, if it stays open, it will lead to a block, quite possibly for both of you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I am looking for an alternative to Wikipedia. When you figure out how the sausage is made... Admins (should) know that blocks are used to prevent disruption, not to punish people for reverting one time too many on an article that is currently stable. I have posted some diffs below but you can simply read the talkpage. Saves us both time. For some trolling examples you have the page that has been deleted and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alduin2000&diff=prev&oldid=841332581 for example. Edward Mordake (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

disruptive (2x) disruptive clearly not knowledgeable on the subject (after 17 years of listening to hiphop). Alduin2000 refused to provide a source (reliable or not) that supports Alduin2000's ridiculous claim, because he couldn't find any, because there aren't any. Edward Mordake (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I defer to a more experienced editor on this, but frankly I don't consider these to be personal attacks. Disruptive? Violating 3RR is disruptive. "Disruptive editor" - seems to be reasonable in the context of the page. Likewise, "not knowledgeable about the subject" was backed up with some behavioral evidence. They weren't as targeted at the edits as they maybe should have been, but I really don't think that there's anything remotely actionable there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote I would estimate a 90% chance that you've very quickly skimmed a part of the conversation. You are not an admin and your comments here are unhelpful at best and misleading at worst. Calling someone disruptive (read WP:DISRUPTIVE) is clearly a personal attack. There is a lot of evidence on that page that Alduin2000 is not knowledgeable on the topic of hiphop (the worst example is probably the quote "In fact hip hop was more popular on streaming than pop in 2017." which was based on Alduin2000's misinterpretation of a source). Alduin2000 has caused quite a lot of disruption... You don't think trolling people is actionable? Admins probably disagree. Edward Mordake (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not intend to troll user: Edward Mordake; in fact I tried to calm the situation several times by trying to make compromises to prevent an edit war, calling for a consensus from other users when it was apparent we weren't going to agree, and trying to explain my point of view concisely throughout the dispute. At one point I even added an apology on his a talk page (which he removed - I will find the diff if it helps). From my point of view it seemed like Mordake was being disruptive so I left a help me template on my talk page to ask for advice from experienced users and at no point did I explicitly state that Mordake was the user or attack him with the accusation. The page I created of the conversation which has been deleted, if I've understood correctly, was made solely to document what seemed like a bizarre event that, being finally over I thought, had a funny side I wanted to remember simply because it was so bizarre. This was not made as an attempt to troll Mordake. I called him unknowledgeable on the subject of Kanye West because, as is outlined in the article Kanye West - he started his career as a hip hop producer and continues to be well known as a rapper and hip hop producer. Whether I or Mordake are ignorant when it comes to hip hop is irrelevant to either of us getting blocked. Perhaps I went too far on some occasions due to the fact that Mordake seemed uncompromising and rude and I became a little frustrated, for example I didn't even realise I'd made 5 reverts, in fact as I've said I tried to prevent an edit war. I hope I've addressed all the accusations against me and this can be put to an end once and for all. If there are other issues I need to address here I'd be happy just to get this all over and done with. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: Now that you are aware you've gone too far, and might get blocked for it, you've changed your tone. Good. Are you going to apologize now? After you've done that, please ignore me for the rest of your life. If your intentions are as good as you claim they are then you must be very disappointed by what happened. You have enough self-reflection to see what you did is wrong, so apologize and we will never speak again. I will remove the thread and we will consider this to be behind us. I am being exceptionally kind here considering the circumstances. Edward Mordake (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to keep my tone civil throughout, in fact this comment you have left itself is rude and unpleasant in attitude as have many of your other comments towards me. I have already apologised, but I will apologise here again: I'm sorry for going about this dispute in a way you have perceived to be trolling - it was not my intention. I will gladly leave you alone if you want. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I had removed this section (like I promised) but someone restored it (for archiving). The problem is solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlduin2000&type=revision&diff=841368474&oldid=841368458 Edward Mordake (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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

An user disruptively contested a move and added unencylopedic information to Century Square, Singapore

Background: I moved the contents from Century Square, Singapore to Century Square (as mentioned in the entire string of edit summaries about the move) - mainly due to no other Century Square , therefore, no need to disambug such pages. I also removed WP:NOTGUIDE issues and added sources, however, all the efforts get undone in just one undo and saying it is not valid and the user just reverted."(Undo. Not valid edit.)" This can be a mere content dispute, which should be done at talk page, and the move can be a requested contented move. Which all of those 2 will make AN/I an inappropriate forum. However, I chanced upon the talkpage of the user, a checkuser had indefinitely banned the account due to disruption [76]. This will warrant an AN/I to make sure why the block was evaded and repeated warnings have been there for content disruption before [77]. In the entire story, I am jsut making sure the page can comply to standards by adding a reference [78]. This was partially rescued by an IP, but the page get covoluted afterwards, [79].

User involved: Razerby96

User Informed: [80]

--Quek157 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

--Checkuser: Drmies

-- Addition, this user have been moving all malls in Singapore from X to X, Singapore (to prevent confusion of malls worldwide), isn't that not the reason why disambug, if there are more than 1 then we do such disambug?? All the malls in Singapore seems affected [81] --Quek157 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The block of Razerby96 was erroneous, and they were unblocked the next day.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Response - Replied at talkpage [82], glad to clarified that it was erroneous. Will withdrawn this and end with a level 1 warning of disruptive editing as nothing seems right after they reverted (one of reliable sources get removed in the process also), thanks the IP for firefighting also. --Quek157 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:HMAS onslow

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

---

Greetings all. Sorry to bring this issue here but I really didn't see an alternative course of action. Anyway, this editor has been blocked for 2 weeks for disruptively creating articles by copying content from other articles, in such a way that is often misleading or just downright false (have you ever invented an Air Force? No, me either). They have received numerous warnings & attempts have been made to communicate with them via their talk page, without success. Their first edit today, after coming back from their block, was to create another copy & paste article from chunks of other articles. I think a longer block may be in order? Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for that. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Jhoven Sulla

It is with great reluctance that I am reporting User:Jhoven Sulla. This user has been warned multiple times by multiple editors about copyright violations, creating unsourced articles and making unsourced edits, but continues unabated in his behaviour. His latest edits after being warned again were the addition of false area sizes for Poblacion V, Calamba and Poblacion I, Calamba. He has already been blocked as user User:Ivan P. Clarin. Thank you David.moreno72 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:David.moreno72

See the references for Poblacion I, Calamba and for Poblacion V, Calamba, in Filipino, I is Uno and V is Sinco for english people, here is the references. Thank You. what is wrong?? about Poblacion I, Calamba and Poblacion V, Calamba that i tag for Land Area hectares.Jhoven Sulla (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To administrator please understand my english language is poor i do not now how to follow the guidelines and the policies, about the copy right violation, multiple times again and again but i am bring back in good terms not badJhoven Sulla (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Kingces95 and POV pushing and edit waring on Nunes memo

This is a little bit out of control:

User warned here: [83]

POV/Edit Warring 1 (wikisource): [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]

POV/Edit Waring 2 (Allegedly) : [90], [91],[92]

POV/Edit Waring 3(dems warned}: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]

Will continue to work on this, but feel free to add evidence above.

Casprings (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Kingces95 has 82 edits, and 77 are to Nunes memo or its talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

While I am adding to this let me suggest what should happen. 1. Revert the page back to the version before the user started to edit: [98] 2.User ban from the page. User is clearly a SPA. Casprings (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - No need for an SPA here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)