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

Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang Proposal for Piznajko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody using Viatrovych as a reliable source for anything except for views of Viatrovych himself clearly has difficulties understanding WP:RS and ideally would not edit EE topics on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, he is back and makes comments that are not encouraging. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we have a WP:NOTHERE case here. The user is clearly on a crusade.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly is. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The following edit warring report for 4 reverts (3-4 May) on Antisemitism in the Russian Empire may be relevant to this discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and accusations by User:Certified Gangsta

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

They also made accusations there of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• WP:OWN accusations This might be another common charge from Certified Gangsta. At Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, he wrote: "As for Bagumba, I highly suggest you read WP:OWN in light of your conduct at List of nicknames used in basketball." I came across this same style back in November 2017 at Jamie Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where they were similarly move warring to change the title to Jamie Collins Sr.. With this move, he accuses the other editor that "you're in violation to WP:OWN, discuss in talkpage before moving again" So the pattern seems to be that someone else must be WP:OWNer if there is conflict (and not them), someone else is responsible to start the discussion and get consensus (not them), and someone else has to source the rest of the article if Certified's one unsourced edit isn't allowed.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• See also, Golden Tate III. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, an WP:OWN accusation there too. A 2nd editor has now reverted Certified's move.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm waiting to hear Certified Gangsta's side of the story, but I realize they don't edit on an everyday basis. L0URDES 00:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'll give y'all a run-down as to why I am extremely upset about the recent chain of events. Last October, I proposed that James Mattis' page be moved to Jim Mattis in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME policy [20] and tried to gain consensus. 3 users colluded to oppose it and, instead of attacking the merit of my proposal, dredged up my block log from 10 years ago (notice a pattern here?) in order to undermine my credibility, tarnish my record (which I am very proud of btw), and sully my character [21] (note User:Chris troutman's extremely uncivil edit summary "get off my lawn"). They also tried to get me to leave Wikipedia altogether. I was very frustrated and decided to take an indefinite leave from the project.

Fast forward to late November, I approached User:Bishonen on her talkpage and requested her advice on the Jim Mattis situation [22]. Bish agreed that User:Chris troutman and others were in violation of WP:OWN [23] (IMO it was more gang-patrol than OWN) and User:RexxS, who noticed our conversation on Bish's talkpage [24], was kind enough to step in [25].

That was when a funny thing happened. User:Corkythehornetfan, who was so adamantly against the move [26] mere weeks ago, suddenly sang a different tune and supported the move [27]. User:Chris troutman, who had relentlessly hurled insults and made personal attacks against me, didn't even make a peep. And the move was supported overwhelmingly Talk:Jim_Mattis#Requested_move_23_November_2017. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Corky and Chris had opposed the move not due to any genuine policy disagreement, but personal vendetta. Any fair-minded observer would agree with such an assessment. This level of hypocrisy, vitriol, score-setting, and battleground tactics (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground have absolutely no place on Wikipedia.

The present situation so far seems like deja vu. I made a good-faith edit to List of nicknames used in basketball [28], changing it to a more commonly used nickname [29]. Want source? This article alone [30] called D'Angelo Russell DAR at least NINE times. He was also named DAR here [31] and here [32]. And frankly, I've heard more casual fans use DAR moniker than User:Bagumba's preferred version.

The crux of the issue is Bagumba clearly feels he owns this particular page and is free to add/remove any nicknames he likes without consensus and/or sources to back it up. Don't believe me? Check out the history of that page. He was revert-warring with everybody before I even touched that page and selectively mass-removing nicknames he personally doesn't like [33][34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the nicknames on that page are either poorly sourced or unsourced. In his role as the self-appointed arbiter of basketball nicknames, only he has the authority to decide which nicknames can say and which nicknames should go. Did he week consensus on the talkpage before his unilateral changes and mass removals? No. Did he remove every nickname without sources on that page for the sake of consistency? No. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Devin Hester Sr. is a page Bagumba has shown zero interest in before our run-in at List of nicknames used in basketball and a cut-and-dry case of wikistalking. Explain how Bagumba suddenly developed an interest in Hester's page TEN MINUTES after he reverted me on List of nicknames used in basketball [46] [47]? Is there another explanation other than wikistalking? Hester's page was sitting there peacefully without incident for over 3 weeks with almost 10 intervening edits before he injected himself. The goal clearly was to taunt, harass, humiliate, and bait me into an edit war with him and then cynically exploit that as a precursor to boot me off the project because (and only because) I dared to challenge his "ownership" of one of his pet pages (List of nicknames used in basketball). Admin User:Jehochman and admin User:Bishonen are very familiar with this cynical tactics and how User:Ideogram and his allies employed them against me Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Editor_taking_advantage_of_Gangsta's_1RR_restriction_to_taunt_and_harass. During Ideogram's community ban case, Jechoman wrote that, Ideogram targets users who have been in some kind of trouble and are trying to correct themselves. Ideogram baits and trolls his targets until they relapse, and then he seeks to have them banned. This cynical behavior should not be tolerated at Wikipedia [48].

Bagumba's current behavior frankly doesn't seem all that different. And now Bagumba and others I had previously unrelated disputes with feel emboldened to dance on my grave [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. [54], just like the Jim Mattis situation all over again. Interestingly enough, not a single one of them bothered to start Wikipedia:Requested moves or seek consensus in the talkpage before moving it to their preferred version. Not a single one of them bothered to follow their own advice. This is frankly an interesting case study. When someone with the knowledge, experience, and passion to improve this encyclopedia in good faith is being treated like shit, it doesn't take a genius figure out why editor retention is such a big issue.

I have no interest in rehashing ancient history from 10 years ago, which frankly caused me a lot of pain and anguish. But given that every time someone gets into a content dispute or policy dispute with me, they try to gain an upper hand by citing my block log (the aforementioned Chris Troutman and now Bagumba), I feel I'm entitled to defend my record. First of all, most my blocks were overturned and some of them were apologies or 1-second block from other admins noting that the block had no merit and did not meet community consensus. User:FT2 was an arbitrator at the time and he correctly noted on my block log that User:Gwen Gale's block was highly questionable (we were rival candidates for ArbCom at the time and she was trying to gain an upper hand by shutting down my insurgent candidacy) and many admonished her for blocking me (she came under fire on AN/I and ultimately lost the election). I have no comment on the 3 ArbCom enforcement blocks other than to note that ArbCom lifted my editing restriction [55] after the aforementioned Ideogram plot was fully exposed and he was community-banned for trolling me. I've considered myself fully rehabilitated since and have a clear conscience.

The User:Kurykh's block was a mistaken 3RR and he corrected it himself as he noted in the block log. The Viridae block, which came during the height of Ideogram's harassment campaign to troll me, came under intense controversy on AN/I because he blocked me for violating the spirit of 3RR, yet didn't block Ideogram who actually violated the letter of 3RR. Great double standard there. Neutral observer User:Bladestorm noted at the time The person who actually reported the "edit war" was, in fact, the same editor who avoided being blocked for literally violating 3RR. Seriously, what sort of message does this say? Ideogram clearly violates 3RR, and isn't blocked. Gangsta doesn't technically violate it, and is blocked, when he's reported by Ideogram. Does nobody else see the inconsistency here? "Do as I say, not as I do"? (For reference, I'm not saying that ideogram should've been blocked either. But it's certainly a double standard, and a disproportionate application of policies; especially for very-much related cases. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Certified.Gangsta. What was his reward for voicing his unbiased two cent on AN/I? He got harassed and stalked by Ideogram Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Separate_Dispute_between_Bladestorm_and_Ideogram. Notice a pattern here?

The User:David Levy block is now filed under Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars(Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/User_pages#User:Certified.Gangsta) and he came under heavy fire Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing and ultimately forced to note on my block log that his block did not meet community consensus.

The circumstances of Centrx' vindictive one-second block (aimed solely to assassinate my character) was discussed at-length here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#One_second_blocks (User:User:AuburnPilot noted that it was "harassment/intimidation") and ultimately led to concrete policy changes to prohibit such vindictive abuse Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#Policy_edit.

Almost everyone agreed on AN/I that [56] that Od Mishehu's 1-second dummy entry on my block log was in poor taste.

In short, I've taken a lot of abuse on Wikipedia and I'm sick and tired of being treated this way. It is impossible to edit when I'm being hounded, stalked, harassed, having my name dragged through the mud, my record distorted, my name sullied, and my character assassinated over every minor disagreements. Disagree with me on content and policies all you want, but don't resort to character assassination and personal ad hominem attack by citing blocks from over 10 years ago. To stoop that low frankly just shows your argument has no merit and how desperate you are. It is utterly pathetic. I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever. I would greatly appreciate if someone can nominate List of nicknames used in basketball for deletion. It is unencyclopedic and frankly should've been AFD/purged 10 years ago, per many past precedents of similar pages, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teen idols of the 2000s. To have a page like this frankly reflects poorly on the project because it serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, extremely subjectively, and poor sourced and researched.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• If I understand this, you justify your behavior because you believe that you have been a victim at James Mattis, a page I am not involved with, where you say others displayed OWNership. You now say that List of nicknames used in basketball is "poor sourced and researched", yet you repeatedly made an unsourced change to it, even after I contested and asked you for a source. You call my bold edits to remove unsourced text that I could not verify as evidence of OWN, even though all my edits there have an edit summary explaining why I contested their inclusion, and there being no history of edit warring on my part on that page. And now you "would greatly appreciate if someone can nominate List of nicknames used in basketball for deletion"? You then charge that there is a "cut-and-dry case of wikistalking" because I later made a change to a grand total of—one page (Devin Hester Sr.)—that you also edited, and even though I left an edit summary explaining why I contested your move, initiated the thread at Talk:Devin_Hester#Sr._suffix for which there is consensus to remove "Sr.", and even after an admin just reverted your move again and move protected the page for 3 months.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Having looked at your block log, I agree that it isn't fair for other editors to be using it against you like that. I do not, however, appreciate being falsely accused of gravedancing. If I have had prior conflicts with you, I do not remember them. As for my decision to revert your moves without going through RM, I believe the onus is on you to go through RM when you are the one seeking to change a long-standing page title. When you make such a change unilaterally, I feel no obligation to go through RM to reverse it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• "I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever." Certified Gangsta, if you're serious about this, then I'll archive this discussion and we all can move on without wasting our time on your explanation. So do confirm (because if you're not retiring, I'll list out the reasons you should be topic-banned). L0URDES 10:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: your link for "explanation" is objectionable. A long block log doesn't give other users carte blanche for abuse, especially not an administrator such as yourself. Please strike. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC). Adding: I see you handed in your admin flag for "a couple of days" in February and have not yet reclaimed it. Even so. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

• Sure. I actually expected this to be a bit on the edge. Struck. L0URDES 12:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Since I was pinged... my actions were not based off of a "personal vendetta". They were solely based off of a) I didn't believe it was the common name at the time (from what I could find) and b) I believed that because he is a high-profiled official that a RM should take place... all of this can be seen in my revert of the page move. I had had no interaction with Certified Gangsta until that moment and have not had any interaction with them since then that I can recall. I have no idea why Certified Gangsta would assume that it was a "personal vendetta" nor do I care, but I can assure everyone here that it wasn't. I am not going to watch this thread so if someone needs/wants me, you'll have to ping me. Corky 18:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged... I agree with elected non-admin Lourdes. Certified Gansta finds utility in pointing to others to bolster a claim that they're being persecuted, like re-hashing what I said in October of 2017. I gather that I should have continued to argue about Jim/ James Mattis just to look consistent, rather than recognize that a pile of sources and the opinions of editors went the other way. So much for me trying to be a better editor by backing off. Certified Gangsta is the common point in all of these arguments. I'll leave it to admins to determine if Certified Gansta is right and everyone else is wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• I recommend closing this thread as no action. Given that CG has now retired, it doesn't seem necessary to take any further action at this time. However if they do come back and resume their behavior, a topic ban discussion might be in order.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Considering the tone in Certified Gangsta's response, I see it more as pouting than having "retired". A topic ban would not be appropriate, as their disruption had not been limited to a niche area. Certified's modus operandi has been to blame everyone but themselves, and cry OWN and Wikistalking just because others disagree. Edit warring over a page move and claiming their bold move is longstanding consensus after only 3 weeks is tendentious. This was not an isolated heated moment. I've seen no good faith from them. I see no indication that this 12-year editor understands what they have been doing wrong, nor would behave any differently if allowed to return without an explanation of how they will be different. Asking only that would be preventative and not punitive.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: Feel free to propose a sanction below in a sub-thread.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose 1RR edit restriction on Certified Gangsta

I propose an editing restriction of WP:1RR be imposed on User:Certified Gangsta. I see no clear indication that they have retired, and their past explicit announcements in 2007 and again in 2008 were short lived. They fail to take responsibility for their own edit/move warring, resorting instead to blaming others. This is not a lapse of judgement in a heated moment. Since at least November 2017, they have been using WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments to blindly mandate that suffixes (Jr. Sr, etc) be added to bio's titles, while others objected that doing so was not WP:COMMONNAME.

NeilN had suggested above that it looked to be a case of WP:TE for Certified to claim their title was "current fairly longstanding version", yet Certified still responded above that the "page was sitting there peacefully without incident for over 3 weeks". After not gaining support for their name changes at a WikiProject discussion, they accused the poster of CANVASSing. Their "other stuff" arguments extend to their attacking anyone that disagrees with them, charging them with WP:OWN and wikistalking, merely because of other incidents that Certified allegedly experienced with uninvolved editors. In a 2007 arbitration case involving Certified.Gangsta (one of their many former names), they were placed on a 1RR restriction for 1 year. Fast forward 11 years to 2018, and I don't have confidence that Certified understands what edit warring is after all this time. Lourdes wrote early on: "I think you're requesting too little Bagumba. Save a really convincing apologetic reply from Certified Gangsta, this is going to be an indef block by the time this thread closes." I still might be asking for too little, but some action is needed if not a WP:BAN.—Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'm all for the 1RR. But frankly Bagumba, I don't think there'll be other editors who'll support this in the light of CG having gone into self-claimed retirement. If there's no consensus for 1RR, you may have to settle for this thread being archived with a note that if CG returns to edit. this discussion may be continued thereon. L0URDES 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Self-claimed retirement" indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as nomiator.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I think 1RR is appropriate, whether or not the user is actually in retirement. There have been a number of cases where users "retire" during conflict and come back to return to their prior behavior. The idea behind this 1RR restriction is to prevent disruption and imposing it does no harm on the editor if they retire. It will, however, prevent the community from having to deal with rehashing this again in the future. The actions of CG indicate a tendency to create tension. -- Dane ^talk 16:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Given that there's no opposition to the 1RR, and there are three established editors including yours truly supporting this restriction, I would request any administrator to close this thread with the possible summary that applies the 1RR restriction but allows Certified Gangsta to immediately reopen this discussion from exactly this juncture if they return and join discussions at ANI. (In other words, if they return to editing but do not wish to re-join discussions here, the 1RR continues to apply without our re-involvement) Lourdes 03:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eyes still needed on Jweiss11

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

---

I drafted a long reply to this I wrote a long reply but the discussion was closed[57] by @Bbb23 so I posted[58] it on my talk rather than discard it.

However as I was wrapping up I spotted that @Jweiss11 has posted[59] at WT:CFB: My ANI was dismissed. I suggest someone else nominate this category unless you want to live with for I don't know how long.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS here's the borderline legal threat[60]. Jweiss11, see WP:NLT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Lepricavark: Look again at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. At the time I closed it, there was one response, and no indication of any wider interest. The nom did not disclose the wikiProj discussion, so there was no evidence of any wider interest, and no indication why JW chose to make a fresh nomination only 13 days after the previous closure. The essay WP:RENOM recommends "generally do not renominate the page for at least two months." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there was only one response, but it had only been open for less than a full 24 hours. I agree that Jweiss11 should have linked the WikiProject discussion. But now that we are all aware that there is wider interest, I don't see any need to keep the discussion closed based on the wording of an essay. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The essay describes isn't a here's-how-I-wanna-change-the-norms essay. It describes normal practice. WP:FORUMSHOP is not an essay; the assay just adds some numbers to a stable guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

In the DRV, Jweiss11 objected to "personal attacks and assertions of complete falsehood against [him]",[61] but a large part of us having to spend time in ANI is because he charged someone of "intellectual dishonesty", beginning in this case with his opposed CFDS nomination: "The issue here is that I've run into a smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat who values who own pride over other people's time." I haven't seen an apology or retraction. He threw around intellectual dishonesty and neuroses liberally over a one-month period at another discussion that began in late December 2017, where he expressed some views that had little support among almost 10 participants, myself included. Jweiss11 is otherwise one of our most productive editors, and these are the only two incidents I am aware of where he has gotten uncomfortably heated. At a minimum, I hope he curbs his use of "intellectually dishonest" and the like moving forward.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried to talk them into retracting and apologizing, but the latest advice is to steer well clear for now. ~ GB fan 11:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, he was banned from her talk page, but there's nothing preventing an apology here to the community.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given this some more thought. I think that the substantive discussion above was closed way too soon and far too equivocally. This was a classic WP:BOOMERANG complaint. As I noted above and it should not have been closed without hearing my substantive response. It should esp not have been closed so soon, so equivocally with no action.

This is not just a matter of Jweiss11's allegation of initial name-calling ("smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat" etc). It is his persistent and repeated failure to discuss disagreements civil and assume good faith from the very outset, a cycle which was repeated multiple times even unto his ANI complaint and his notification of it on my talk page ... accompanied along the way by football-field chants of "slam dunk" which have no place in consensus-forming discussion among editors of an encyclopedia.

No admin should be treated like this. No woman editor should be subjected to such vicious abuse and bullying because she does not submit to the demands of a male editor who has clearly expressed an entitlement to her time and entitlement to her compliance to his will ... and an entitlement entitlement to abuse and insult.

This whole pattern needs to be addressed properly, and not just the JWeiss11's first attack at WP:CFDS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If Jweiss11's mistreatment of you has been motivated by sexism, that's a serious problem. Do you have any specific, actionable evidence of that? Lepricavark (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Lepricavark, no, she doesn't. No one's gender has anything to do with this episode. But here she had decided to target for attack not any behavior or action on my part, but an immutable demographic trait of mine. No one chooses or is responsible for such traits. I think this takes the cake for any personal attack by anyone in this episode. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, however, that the ANI I opened should not have be closed before she had a chance to respond. That was not fair to her. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

JW & Lepricavark: please read what I actually wrote above: No woman editor should be subjected to such vicious abuse and bullying because she does not submit to the demands of a male editor who has clearly expressed an entitlement to her time and entitlement to her compliance to his will ... and an entitlement to abuse and insult.

JW considers this statement of principle a "personal attack". Your responses both chose to express indignation that a woman should object to being bullied in this way. That is a statement of principle which any decent person should support; the fact that both of you object so strongly to it encapsulates exactly why this needs to be taken further. The indulgence of male aggression against women on en.wp has been well-documented: in newspapers, in scholarly literature and by the WMF. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And now you can please read what I wrote. Nowhere did I object to anything, let alone strongly. If I so desired, I could create a strawman of my own and assert that no non-admin (i.e. me) should have his words misrepresented by an admin (i.e. you). Of course, you probably wouldn't like having your admin flag used against you anymore than Jweiss11 appreciates having his gender used against him. Lepricavark (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lepricavark, I did read what you wrote. The strawman was your assumption that I alleged sexism. I did not allege sexism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment certainly seemed to allege sexism and it was hardly a strawman for me to arrive at such a reasonable conclusion. At any rate, I am still far from thrilled by your claim that I chose to express indignation that a woman should object to being bullied in this way. That's not what I was doing. Lepricavark (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Indignation was possibly the possibly the wrong word in your case. My objection was and remains that at every step in this sub-thread it appears that your sole concern is to query the precision of my complaint about Jweiss11's unrepentant bullying rather than to challenge his bullying and his lack of apology, or to acknowledge the well-documented problem that male bullying drives women off en.wp. That is a strange set of priorities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BHG, as an admin you should well know, as well as any editor who has brought claims to ANI, that extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence. The idiosyncrasies aside, I would have to echo Lepricavark's request for evidence of sexism, if as you say these comments are symptomatic of a wider behavioural problem. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair, but let's not let those "intellectually dishonest" allegations slide either. To be fair, I think BrownHairedGirl is probably more referring to gender differences.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of JW's personal beliefs; as Bagumba notes I was referring to a particularly male pattern of bullying behaviour. Obviously only a minority of men behave this way; but is a pattern of misconduct which is mostly conducted by men and mostly against women. Such bullying is not as JW claims an immutable demographic trait; it is a form of misconduct in which some men choose to engage. JW is one who has chosen to do so.

My point is that JW's repeatedly aggressive conduct fits a pattern of male bullying: attack rather than discuss; personalise abuse rather than discuss substance; repeatedly assume bad faith; neither apologise nor withdraw; repeatedly express an entitlement to the time and work of the other person, and angrily attack if his demands are not met. Each of those misconducts was displayed by JW on multiple occasions in this ugly saga, and Cbl62's comments below make v clear that JW has previous history of protracted bullying.

All of this creates a toxic environment which is the precise opposite of en.wp's core mission and of its terms of use. It contravenes many user-conduct and procedural policies.

Two things are now clear: i) JW will not apologise or withdraw his slew of misconduct; ii) ANI will take no action to reprimand his bullying conduct, let alone impose restrictions.

This has made seriously consider walking away from en.wp. The only reason I have not done so already is that several well-established editors have contacted me privately to stay and take a stand, in order to change the culture which has allowed this episode to be handled so far without even formal rebuke to JW.

I will not take any legal action, but I have several other options for taking this further. I will pursue those options and then reconsider whether I still want to be a part of this project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe Jweiss11 was referring to his gender as an an immutable demographic trait, not his bullying of you. In fact, I believe his meaning was quite obvious and that your construction of it stretches the bounds of credulity. As for your comments about men bullying women, I find it hard to be sympathetic given that about four hours after you wrote this comment, you accused me expressing indignation that a woman should object to being bullied in this way. I had not expressed any such indignation. You complain about male aggression. Well, I believe your response to me was needlessly aggressive, especially as I did not do what you accused me of doing. Lepricavark (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree. I've been following this discussion the last few days and at no point did I find there to be an atom of support for Jweiss, but BHG's most recent comments are deeply disconcerting coming from an admin, and are (kinda-sorta) giving me pause to reconsider my previous review of the situation. BrownHairedGirl, neither your identity as a woman nor your status as an admin give you leave to ignore our policies on WP:Personal attacks, which (for very good reason) state that you cannot make allegations about bad-faith behaviour (including repeated accusations about a supposed gender-harassment agenda) unless you are willing to provide at least a miniscule amount of evidence to support that assertion.

Believe me, I can well imagine that you have faced genuine harassment (subvert and explicit) as a consequence of being a non-male admin, but, with regard to specific accusations, jumping from the fact of contentious interactions straight to the assumption that your opposition in this personal dispute must be driven from an overwhelming male desire to control you is just not a leap that I think you are going to find the majority of other community members (male or female) can make with you without some degree of indication beyond the fact that you are in a series of protracted disputes. And I personally am less than impressed that an admin would make such an accusation without something beyond an WP:INVOLVED intuition to back it up. Unless I am missing something? Do you have any comments from outside the bounds of the discussion that we have seen here that would support your assertion that there is gender harassment at work here?

Also, let me be clear that I think it would be a profound shame if you were to leave the project over this matter, but I don't think it's fair to put it on the community as if it is a consequence of project-wide implicit bias and unresponsiveness to harassment. These are problems that many of us have reason be sensitive to and which would prompt strong reactions from us where bias and harassment were clear, or even just supported by some circumstantial cause for concern. But (again, unless I missed something) these are new allegations and I think the community deserves either A) more evidence or B) at least a little bit of time to investigate the behaviour ourselves, before I think it is fair to imply that the community is failing you and that you have no choice but to leave. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: please read what I wrote. I did not make a personal attack (unlessyou consider a complaint about bullying to be a personal attack).

I did not allege gender-harassment agenda. I noted the fact of a male editor bullying a woman and I noted the existence of a significant body of literature about this problem on en.wp. @I explicitly stated that I have zero knowledge of JW's personal beliefs; as Bagumba notes I was referring to a particularly male pattern of bullying behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am tired of these insinuations that other people are not reading what you are writing. Above, you have misrepresented my words and you have done the same to Jweiss11. Do you not see the double standard? Lepricavark (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Were are deep down the rabbit hole of double standards here. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not helping your case with comments like that. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, as you must surely be aware as an admin, an accusation of misconduct which is not supported by diffs or other material clearly evidencing the purported behaviour is a WP:Personal attack under our policies. Nor are you allowed, as a member of this community, to use project spaces to speculate at length about bigotry you suspect another community member of having, if you can't provide at least incidental evidence that they have voiced such perspectives. And I'm sorry, but you clearly have intimated, repeatedly, that the conflict between you is due to gender-motivated harassment; no amount of my re-reading your comments can change that fact. I'd diff the statements that are of concern here to be more precise, but they are literally just a couple of posts above us in this very thread. I truly am trying hard not be entirely dismissive of your complaints, because (believe me) I well understand how subtle harassment of this sort can be, and I really don't want to tear down your accusations only to find out that there was truly blatant gender harassment going on here. But if there is proof of such, you haven't supplied it, you've just hinted at this supposed malicious mindset, and then trying to distance yourself from the accusation, with rhetorical tricks like "Of course I didn't say his bullying is gendered--but isn't it interesting how he acts exactly like a chauvanist bully?" That approach has seen you rapidly descend from the high ground in this thread.

And all of this becomes even more worrying because you have been predicating your unsubstantiated suspicions in a slew of comments which the male members of this community might very fairly view as gender stereotypes/slurs. In your second-to-last post alone, you suggested that men are more prone to bullying behaviours such that they: "attack rather than discuss; personalise abuse rather than discuss substance; repeatedly assume bad faith; neither apologise nor withdraw; repeatedly express an entitlement to the time and work of the other person, and angrily attack if his demands are not met." (and then, as to your point that you have not made accusations of gender harrassment against your opponent, you go on to link these supposed features of a male-dominated psychology of bullying to his conduct when you add: "Each of those misconducts was displayed by JW on multiple occasions in this ugly saga...". And I'm sorry, but your ad-hoc profile of the male psyche vis-a-vis bullying (aside from raising questions about your own possible gender biases) is just not sufficient reasoning to sustain your position that you should be allowed to speculate open-endedly about what you perceive to be the likely motivation of another editor, in clear violation of an important behavioural policy. It's just not. And I'm not saying that Jweiss is not harassing/attempting to bully you. That may very well be. I'm just saying that your relative genders do not allow you to ignore our normal rules that restrain accusations about maliciousness in another editor, speculation about their motives/character flaws, and the propagation of stereotypes of supposed negative qualities to be associated with a given gender (i.e. sexist claims). All of those are best avoided here (the first two unless/until you can at least weakly demonstrate that they are more than suspicions on your part, and the last one pretty much altogether). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think Jweiss' attack on BHG was motivated by sexism. Rather, I think it's simply an abrasive aspect of his demeanor and a belief that his opinions are infallible and that anyone who disagrees with him needs to be pressed into submission. As noted above by Bagumba, I was involved in a dispute with Jweiss in December 2017 in which he employed similar methods. The last thing I want is to resume hostilities with him, but I feel some obligation to note them here, in hopes that Jweiss may temper his future behavior. BHG has noted that the attacks were highly discouraging for her, and they were for me as well. In the course of the December discussion, Jweiss11 (1) removed en masse a lengthy group of my fully-sourced edits from 30 articles (a move for which he was roundly criticized by others), (2) resorted to an f--- bomb (diff), (3) overly personalized the debate by accusing me of being "self-centered", "flouting" policy and/or being "intellectually dishonest" (diff and diff), (4) asserted that my suggestions for simplifying certain charts amounted to seeking concessions to my purported "neuroses" (diff -- which, if one reads the wikilink, are specific "mental disorders"); (5) when called on this personal attack, doubled down by purporting to make a "clear diagnosis" of such conditions (diff), (6) engaged in perceived legal threats by asserting that another editor and I had libeled and defamed him (diff), (7) baselessly threatened to seek an "injunction or topic ban" against me (diff), and (8) when questioned about his perceived legal threat, indicated that his accusations of libel and slander weren't an actual threat to sue, but merely an "assessment" of my "ethics" (diff). When I protested his conduct, he refused to apologize and characterized my protestations as "theatrics" (diff). As I noted at the time, such overly personalized and aggressive argumentation, incivility, and rudeness create a toxic environment. Jweiss never did apologize, and he probably never will, but it is my sincere hope that he might now see that such comments are corrosive to our core mission and that he will refrain from such conduct in the future. Cbl62 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cbl62, I'm happy that we were able to put that situation behhis stind us and continue to collaborate afterwards (e.g. the WWII-era service teams stuff), as we have done for the better part of the last decade. I'm disappointed that you have given such a one-sided account of our collision over the college football schedule tables back in December. You completely skipped over the part where you knowingly contravened a longstanding consensus about a core structure for college sports articles and then refused to stop that contravention and wait for a discussion to reach a conclusion. I'm disappointed that in your advocacy for the new templates in question you neglected to acknowledge any concern for the forking that I predicted and that has indeed come to fruition, and I'm disappointed that you don't seem to care to do anything since to resolve that fork, a mess that you more or less engineered in spite of my pleas. Your editing there was highly irresponsible and you were roundly criticized for it as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

An apology would have been the best response here. Silence would have been the second best alternative. Instead, you have opted to restart your personal attacks by asserting that I "knowingly contravened" consensus, that I don't care to fix "a mess" that I supposedly "engineered", and that my editing is "highly irresponsible", and by falsely claiming that I was "roundly criticized" by anyone other than you. Your inability to see the error of your ways, let alone apologize, remains troubling. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, these are not personal attacks. There are assessments of your editing and talk page arguments. Bagumba agreed with me regarding template forking and your dismissiveness of the issue. Two other editors agreed that your editing was inappropriate/problematic; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 20#Straw poll on Cbl62's editing. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba's response to your "straw poll" was as follows: "Cbl62's edits have been fine. . . . Cbl62 has been adding verifiable facts, and anyone can enhance his presentation if they see fit." But, much more fundamentally, what you continue to ignore is this: The problem was not with whether your preferred version of schedule charts or mine was better. The problem was your aggressive and bullying approach, including repeatedly accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty", making implied legal threats by accusing me of libel and defamation, threatening to seek an "injunction" against me, and asserting that my editing preferences were due to my alleged "neuroses" (i.e., defined "mental disorders"). It is fine to disagree about content; disagreement can be healthy and good. But when you resorted to personal attacks and legal threats, that's the part that was not OK. You still don't seem to be able to understand that. Cbl62 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think a long block is in order, until JWeiss can convince us he can edit without calling people who disagree with him liars. I didn't realize this wasn't his first rodeo... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sarek, I'll make a commitment here not to accuse others of intellectually dishonesty in any future episodes. I think we should note, though, that intellectual dishonesty is not exactly the same as lying and that I have had many, many disagreements with others on Wikipedia over the years in which I haven't accused anyone of either. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that even at this late stage, Jweiss11 neither retracts either allegation nor apologises for them, let alone apologises for his repeated failures to assume good faith, for his many other personal attacks, or for his repeatedly-expressed entitlement to the time and work of other editors.

This extraordinary attitude still needs action, whether reprimand or sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has apologized for any personal attacks or failures to assume good faith. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Still extraordinary. That section opens with your repeated statements of your refusal to assume good faith ... and yet after you explicitly renounced it and made yet another barrage of personal attacks, you complain that I finally gave up extending to you the good faith which you refused me for nearly 3 months. Extraordinary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This section open as is does because that's how you decided to open it. It goes at lot of places between there and here. I'd like to apologize again for accidentally removing a comment of yours on your talk page. It may have been a bug, as another editor suggested, but it might have been oversight on my part, perhaps failing to notice that I was viewing/editing on old revision of the page. Not sure, but again, I'm sorry about that. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Jweiss11 I did not write "this section" I wrote the "that section" referring to section on my talk to which you lined and which opened with your repeated assumptions of bad faith.

Thanks for the apology for removing that comment. However it is an utterly trivial matter compared with the barrage or bullying which you conducted and for which continue to make no apology. Extraordinary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Concluding statement

Let us start with stating basic facts. We have an acute conflict between two very experienced users. Jweiss11 has over 250k edits, BHG has over 850k edits and is administrator. I have never intersected (as far as I can tell) with Jweiss11 before he opened this thread, I see that he is a prolific content creator with a focus on American football. (My apologies if I missed some important aspects here). BHG is also a content creator, and as an administrator she is performing a lot of community service, I interacted with her in earlier this year concerning mine and her activity related to categories, and the interaction was pleasant and unproblematic. BHG was never blocked; Jweiss11 was blocked once in 2012 for 24h for 3RR. I do not see any signs of long-term problematic behavior demonstrated by either BHG or Jweiss11. We must conclude that both of them are clearly net positive for the English Wikipedia. Even more, they are possibly among the most valuable users of this project.

What we see here is a trainwreck. As often happens, it is an amplified misunderstanding. I have first-hand experience with speedy deletion of categories, and I know policies are tricky and not always obvious there. Not everything can be speedy deleted, things often must be moved to full discussions, but admins working there often just remove the speedies without following up. Usually, if a wikiproject agrees that the category is not needed and they know how to handle it, is is easy to get deleted, but if they do not things may become complicated. Whatever. Anyway, Jweiss11 nominated a category for deletion, BHG did not delete it, there was some exchange, the actions from both sides were suboptimal, and at some point the parties stopped assuming good faith. The thread above started with accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" (which I, not being a native speaker, read as accusation of lying - at least I see how it can be read this way), and then the avalanche started, which did not make anybody good service. Which is not very much surprising, because if you stop assuming good faith, it is natural to see pretty much everything the opponent does as negative, and if you see that the opponent does smth negative it is natural to ask ANI to deal with that.

What can we do with this now? First, it has to stop. I closed the topic in the morning, and I will appreciate if the accusations will not be followed up elsewhere. They do not have any point now - we all know that to get opponent sanctioned one needs to demonstrate a long pattern of substandard behavior, and neither BHG nor Jweiss11 show this pattern. The opponent is just not going to be sanctioned, unless he or she will do smth extraordinarily stupid. I would strongly advise against doing anything extraordinarily stupid, for that part.

In the ideal world, I would like to see Jweiss11 apologizing for the "intellectual dishonesty" accusation, and I would like to see BHG to accept the apology and to admit that her reaction to this accusation was not optimal. Then they could sit together and discuss what to do with the category. In the real world, it is probably not going to happen for a multitude of reasons. I am already happy that Jweiss11 stated that in the future he will not operate with the notion of "intellectual dishonesty". It would probably be good for the sides to stop interacting for a while. Most likely the only topic they reasonably can intersect in is the discussion of categories, and there (unless smth changed after January when I was active there) multiple administrators are active on a daily basis. BHG should just not take any actions on Jweiss11's nominations, and somebody would do it for her. The sky is not going to fall if a nomination gets closed a couple of days later. If the sky is about to fall, BHG can just ask another administrator, there are plenty of them available. Concerning the category from which the whole thing started, if indeed the wikiproject has come to consensus that it is not needed, I would advise to talk to one of the admins working at CfD (not BHG, and ideally somebody not previously involve with these deletion requests) and see what would be the best and easiest route to have the category deleted.

And please remember to assume good faith, at lest until it is not possible any more to assume good faith. If you are interacting with a user who does not have a track record of long-term problematic behavior (which typically should have resulted in blocks, featuring them at ANI, AE and similar pleasant places) and the trainwreck is approaching it is most likely a miscommunication and not a systematic misconduct. At this point, just stop, think about it, try to resolve, and, if needed, ask for assistance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think we need to discuss this statement, and definitely not in the way the two threads above developed, but just in case anybody has smth important to say I take it out of the closed thread. Please in any case do not continue mutual accusations. You can accuse me in posting a bad text if you want, I can survive this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Question for closer

@Ymblanter: thank you for taking the time to close that. It must have taken some time.

However I am surprised that you ask me to admit that her reaction to this accusation was not optimal.

Jweiss11's accusation was false because I had noted that Amherst College#Athletics, which mentions neither "Mammoths" nor "Lord Jeffs". Here is that lined section as it stood then:[62] it does indeed mentions neither "Mammoths" nor "Lord Jeffs". Jweiss11's later comments assume I was referring to the entire page, a misunderstanding which could have been resolved by discussion ... but instead Jweiss11 personalised the discussion (creating busywork &c) culminating in his "intellectually dishonest" attack.

My reaction was to:

1. not respond at the WP:CFDS discussion (see discussion when delisted[63])
2. post on Jweiss11's talk asking for retraction[64] (I received no response and nor did SMcCandlish receive a response to their previous post [65])
3. My next interaction with Jweiss11 was when he pinged me to take admin action[66] which I declined in view of the attack.[67]
4. When Jweiss11 repeated the request I responded at greater length[68]
5. I had no further interaction with Jweiss11 until I closed two CfDs which I did not connect with the incident 6 weeks earlier
6. Jweiss11 did not communicate with me in any way about either close. T he next I heard from him was when he opened the ANI discussion above accusing me of Obstructive, spiteful administration, a claim which he repeated several times in the subsequent discussion along with his claim that my failure to to act on his demands was a clear abuse of admin powers

So please can you clarify how my reaction to this accusation was not optimal?

The only issue I can see is my failure to recognise that the nominator of those discussions was the angrily abusive and demanding editor from an incident 6 weeks earlier. So is my sub-optimal response my failure to maintain a blacklist of angry editors to avoid? Or something else? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I mean you should not have closed the two discussions (if I were you, I would probably also not have realized that this is the same editor, but after it became apparent I would have unclosed the discussion and ask another admin to close it), and also whatever developed into the sexism topic in the previous thread could have been avoided (again, I understand the background, but it was definitely not the best move).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It only became apparent after a barrage of personal abuse at ANI. I would have considered a post-facto request to recuse, but I do not take any such steps in response to personal attack or bullying. I make that v clear on my Editnotice.

I also I note with sadness that your close makes no mention of (let alone criticism of) Jweiss11's failure to respond either to two warnings on his talk page about personal attacks, and again when I pointed it out to him when he pinged me. I am also sad that you make no criticism of Jweiss11's decision to go directly to ANI alleging bad faith instead of discussing with me. And no rebuke either for his repeated insistence — even at ANI — that my failure to to act on his demands was a clear abuse of admin powers. Do you not consider those failings significant?

As to "the sexism topic" ... I did not and do not allege sexism. What I raised was that this was a case of a male editor bullying a woman in a context where male bullying is a systemic problem. There is extensive literature on how women are driven away from en.wp by male bullying (however motivated or whoever it is directed at); in a space where aggression and bullying are unsanctioned women tend not to hang around until it is directed at them. It makes little difference to the person targeted whether or not the aggression is motivated by sexism/misogyny; what matters is the risk of being monstered by an angry male mastodon.

So I am appalled that you entirely avoided any acknowledgement of the systemic problem and choose instead to rebuke me for noting its existence after a discussion was closed without even a summary rebuking the bully. The problem of unsanctioned aggression is one of the factors which causes low participation by women on en.wp, esp on noticeboards. In this case JW's conduct from the outset was at every stage to attack, demand and bully. What does it say about the culture on en.wp that you think it unwise to even try to discuss how this is part of a wider problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BHG, I know you don't see this, but if you are not really alleging that you were harassed because of your gender--and I think given your comments above, a lot of us are having a hard time swallowing that argument, but let's accept that premise for the moment--then your repeatedly returning to discussing the other user's gender becomes even more of a problem, not less of one. Because at that point, you are not raising the issue of his gender for any pragmatic reason, but instead just repeatedly asserting that he is a bully as consequence of his being a man. In other words, a gendered assumption--and honestly, in the way you are wording it, a slur and still very much a violation of WP:NPA. And there's a broader term for it: gender discrimination. How can you not understand that these kinds of comments are not one whit less offensive than if Jweiss had said "She can't help it, she nags--that's what female Wikipedians do. And give me a break, we all know about it." I am fairly sure that you would be (very justifiably) livid, and you can be certain it would provoke a pretty strong reaction from the other editors here, yours truly most assuredly included. Actually, to be frank, if Jweiss had dragged your gender into this particular discussion with stereotypical comments about how various of your negative qualities were typical of your gender, he would blocked by this point, if not sitebanned--I have very little doubt about that.

And what has been asked of you (keeping fidelity with our civility policies and not speculating about the motivations and qualities of other editors) does not represent a problem for Wikipedia culture with regard to gender inclusion. If you were alleging gender discrimination, the expectation would be that the community should investigate aggressively. And if it didn't take your claims seriously under those circumstances, then there would certainly have been a problem. But you haven't presented any diffs or other evidence to back up you implication of gender harassment, not even circumstantial content. And according to you, you never were making such an accusation, but rather we all just misunderstood you, so there is no cause for you to be discussing the other user's gender in this particular discussion, which would otherwise not be about gender in any way, shape, or form. Similarly, you are completely at liberty to discuss general issues of gender, harassment, and inclusion on this project (what you refer to above as the systemic issues)--there are many contexts where that is not only appropriate, but indeed broadly viewed as essential to improving community equality and accessibility. What you cannot do (if you are not alleging gender discrimination yourself) is repeatedly bring up another editor's gender in a personal dispute and then link that gender to the character flaws you perceive in that other editor. That is offensive. It is discriminatory. It is for these reasons against our behavioural policies. Please stop. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, what I said is that this issue should not have been developed to the point that it showed up at ANI. I did not on purpose list all the details how it happened and who has done what. These details would only be important if we were talking about sanctions, and here, as I said, sanctions are not going to happen. Therefore we need to concentrate on the big picture and on what we should best do to avoid the repetition in the future. And the big picture is that after a developed misunderstanding and a number of bad moves you both assumed bad faith, and after you both assumed bad faith, we eventually arrived to where we are now.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for taking this on. I think you summarized a lot of the community's sentiments on both sides. However, it sounds like you are suggesting a sanction of sorts for BrownHairedGirl to avoid any future Jweiss11 CfD nominations. You are entitled to that opinion, but I dont think it should be co-mingled with the close, unless I missed that having been a popular viewpoint. Consider starting a new thread for that topic if you think it should be pursued. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I absolutely do not suggest any sanctions. I am just saying that it would be a good idea if for some time BrownHairedGirl would not deal with Jweiss11's nominations - there are enough other admins who can do that, and nothing good could possibly come out of this interaction in the near future.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. As an admin, BrownHairGirl is already responsible for upholding WP:INVOLVED. It seems out of place to suggest in a close for her to avoid Jweiss11 CfDs, unless there is consensus that she has been biased with him as an admin, as opoosed to possibly having misjudged a CfD (DRV still pending) Otherwise, I think we can trust her best judgement whether she chooses to close them or not.—Bagumba (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually disagree, but we have another discussion running in parallel in this topic, let us may be first wait until that one ends.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

DRV Update

I just closed the related DRV. When I wrote my close, I was aware of this ANI thread, but hadn't actually read through it. Having now read it, it looks like Ymblanter and myself are pretty much on the same page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Pro Regnum Siciliæ

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

---

I have sent Pro Regnum Siciliæ several messages since February but they have ignored all. The messages were about repeatedly creating articles without clear sources, and other editors have also messaged them about adding unverified material to existing articles. This led to an ANI in March, which Pro Regnum Siciliæ did not participate in, and they were given a two-week ban. Unfortunately, Pro Regnum Siciliæ still ignores all messages, won't address the issues and continues to add unverified material to articles, post-block. Please see User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ especially User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ#Sources (again). I think the only way to get Pro Regnum Siciliæ's attention and for htem to address the issues is an indef block, which hopefully would make them communicate. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread. He has been conversant before as seen here last Summer but not since. Communication is required so if he doesn't respond within three days, I'd endorse blocking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This editor hasn't edited anywhere since the 25th; gaps like this seem fairly common so I wouldn't assume it's in any way related to this thread. They seem to be promoting Sicilian identity (for example, [69]) and doing little else. If they're doing that without proper sourcing, and don't reply to questions, the indef will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed them. Communication is required for collaboration and maybe they will oblige us.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Ujishadow and copyright violations

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

---

Hi all,

I've recently been brought to the attention of Ujishadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while reviewing a permission ticket on File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg (now deleted). After looking through their upload history, they appear to have uploaded a number of files with no evidence of permission, and the ticket for that one does not show (IMO) they represent the organisation they claim to while uploading files. I think a block to prevent further copyright infringements - as most of their history has been deleted, I'm bringing this here rather than CCI, as I don't think there's sufficient history left to investigate. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block - Classic IDHT. They were warned in May 2017 by Ad Orientem at User talk:Ujishadow#Warning: Disruptive Editing. They haven't changed their ways. Net negative to the project. If they want editing privileges back, let them go through the unblock process, acknowledge their errors, and actually engage with the community. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A look at their contrib log has satisfied me that this is not a WP:NOTHERE editor. And I very rarely start off with an indef block otherwise. That said I do agree we have a problem and it needs to be addressed. Hopefully Ujishadow will join the conversation here and let us know that they understand the serious nature of WP:COPYRIGHT and will not continue to upload non-free files. Failing which, they will be blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they've been warned more than enough and that it would not be unreasonable to block now and not unblock till they agree to desist from uploading files. As they cannot distinguish what files they must not upload, they should desist entirely. One can have a long and productive Wiki-career w/o uploading files.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Your delete on those pictures are unreasonable. They are all the pictures Titan Sports sent to me, only except the one of Shinji Okazaki. I have sent the email for approval to permission email address but you never give me reply. Only except the one I received yesterday regarding the shinji file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This response is not encouraging and I now doubt that you have an adequate understanding of copyright to be uploading files at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For reference - Ticket:2018011510003406. Following reviewing the ticket and history there to date, I'm not happy it is anywhere near close enough to even AGF they understand where the images are from. Mdann52 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose Topic Ban

• I propose that Ujishadow be topic banned from uploading files with the understanding that they can appeal the ban in not less than one year. Any appeal must be approved by the community here after Ujishadow makes it clear that he has an adequate understanding of copyright and will not upload non-free files. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The file File:Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg, uploaded today, appears on 27 web pages, many of which are copyrighted. I have deleted that one, but of course that suggests that the others may well not be valid either. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

And I note that image was previously deleted, so they simply uploaded it again. It dates back to 2014 on some web-pages, so ... Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Having a 1 year limit on appealing seems entirely unnecessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - Based on their responses here, I think a topic ban is an appropriate step to prevent further copyvios. In the event that they ignore the ban and continue, i'd support an indef block as well but only as a last resort to prevent further issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, I guess, but what about blocking? Both in this thread and in their actions leading up to it the user has been displaying serious IDHT, so a TBAN will only make the inevitable block slower. Pretending you got images from a certain source and were explicitly authorized by the copyright holder when in fact you took them from somewhere else is the worst. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to blocking on principle, but I view that as the last resort. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Against

Topic ban is not fair at all. I have written to the wiki permission email quite a long time ago but only got the 1st reply yesterday. Those photos are of no problems at all but the supervisors did not start the supervision procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In the above discussion, you stated "They are all the pictures Titan Sports sent to me". Why would Titan Sports be sending pictures to you? In all of the images in questions, you've claimed that Titan Sports is the copyright holder. If that is the case, why are you the one sending the email to the permissions address (see above where you state "I have sent the email for approval to permission email address")? -- Whpq (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It was sent to the email address firstly through ([email protected]). But you never reply. Now the email address has expired. They now asked me to negotiate with wikipedia for your unreasonable deletion of their copyrighted pictures without any concrete evidence. Regarding Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg. You have no rights to delete as it is firstly produced by Titan Sports. Violation of image copyrights is common in China so it is not surprising that it could appear in other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Why are you being asked to negotiate on Titan Sports behalf? Are you being paid? I'm not finding this explanation very credible given that you claimed File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg as from Titan Sports and there was some form of email sent to permissions, but the image is in fact from Getty Images.-- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Proxies and banned users

At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan, who even claimed that he was blocked for using a proxy at [70]. Some of them are proxies, e.g. Special:Contributions/158.169.150.5, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.4, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.6, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.8, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.8 Suspected proxy servers, Special:Contributions/23.83.37.154 Network sharing device or proxy server, Special:Contributions/196.245.9.70 blocked for two years by Zzuuzz as a VPN proxy. Iovaniorgovan also has left behind a trace: [71], namely hiding Special:Contributions/2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40. Why is this important? Well, similar IPs, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B0C3:AD74:2C0B:5DC1 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:C4FD:1E27:9714:EFE1 have edited Timeline of Romanian history and are behaviorally WP:DUCKs of Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37, who was still blocked when Iovaniorgovan started editing. At [72] 158.169.150.5 has shown behaviorally being a WP:DUCK of Special:Contributions/Avpop, who has been indeffed as a WP:SOCK of Special:Contributions/Iaaasi (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi). At [73] Iovaniorgovan spilled the beans that he used the IP which Zzuuzz has blocked for two years and he is arguing with Vanjagenije, maybe because Iovaniorgovan thinks that he is still blocked (maybe he still uses a proxy/VPN, so a checkuser may investigate the matter, even if checkusers don't tell the IPs of usernames). Iovaniorgovan displays awareness of his probable wikifate, Anyway, like I said, I may get kicked off of Wiki for posting about DNA, at [74]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms what exactly it was that I did wrong? Thanks.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCK and WP:PROXY. Now a completely new user, Cealicuca claims he was socking, instead of Iovaniorgovan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

May someone close this topic? I have initiated an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Tgeorgescu:, This is difficult for anyone not intimately familiar with the LTA case. Iovaniorgovan does appear to be advancing a nationalist POV, but the evidence of socking is ambiguous. This would appear to be covered by WP:ARBEE though - these articles could usefully be tagged under DS and that might provide heightened awareness. It does strain credulity to believe this is Iovaniorgovan's first account. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Nationalist: • a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others." Would you kindly point out even ONE of my comments which the definition above applies to? And yes, I never used Wiki before this year, this is my first Wiki account ever.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You have included Iosif Constantin Drăgan on a short list of "many reputed scholars". Dragan was a nationalist extremist through and through, he is reputed for propagating pseudohistory. And you have attacked Lucian Boia as a "Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party". Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Anky95

New editor User:Anky95 has been problematic since account creation on 24 April. WP:SPA contributions have all been self-promotional, confined to what appears to be an autobio at Arindam Sharma (speedied A7 and G11 on 24 April, now in AFD), and Sharma's unreleased film Advitya (film). Multiple removals of AFD template from both articles after level 4 warning [75][76], as well as via anonymous sock[77] and via obvious sockpuppet User:Sanki011: [78]. Further diffs of disruptive behavior available on request, but I believe I've expended enough effort on this highly disruptive and self-promotional editor, who's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(Reverting archive by Sigmabot) Could I have some admin eyes on this please? Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Last edit was April 30.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTHERE/spam Block needed.

• UA85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has proved they're NOTHERE.. Has been inordinately promotion himself and his businesses. See, Youth Group Limited, and Youth Group Limited, Ahmad Nagar Chattha a well as File:Youth Group Limited.png. Then see the deletion log of Umair Ahmad and see the the ongoing AfD. In addition, they just recreated it under different title IamUmairAhmad. See their talkpage. It is only block that they can understand at this time. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup. I don't think they're NOTHERE, just overly enthusiastic. It's possible they should be blocked for editing disruptively, though... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - Was just about to close this but upon looking at UA85's contribs their last edit was to remove a draft submission template yesterday[79] - Not sure if a block is warranted but thought I'd let you know incase you think so (or not), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 - I can't tell. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TBAN for Darlig Gitarist

• Darlig Gitarist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count
• contribs to William M. Branham

Please consider a topic ban for User:Darlig Gitarist (DG) from William M. Branham topics, or an outright Wikipedia editing ban. This editor has shown a trend of disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a platform for activism over the past six years. He often resorts to intimidation, harassment, and insults; which make objectively editing the William Branham page almost impossible except for the most experienced and confident editors.

Taxee and Darlig Gitarist are the same person; the two user names were merged in 2017. diff

It is important to note that he is a "former member of a Branhamite church” diff who engages in advocacy, mainly manifested through disruptive editing. He is a disruptive editor as defined by Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Examples of disruptive editing. The following shows that this is an ongoing pattern and not an isolated incident. I can provide many more examples if needed.

A disruptive editor: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources:

• November 2014: Another deliberate misrepresentation of an author: “Branham is viewed as a false prophet by most evangelicals” diff. He attempts to attribute this to author Hank Hanegraaff by adding his own opinion right before the reference to Hanegraaff’s book. This cannot be found in the book he references. Again, displays clear bias and willingly deceptive editing.

Cites unencyclopedic sources:

• October 2014: DG references online articles written by a co-activist to a forum hosted on a San Diego State University server in an attempt to give more weight to the Jim Jones reference he also added diff (More on this below). DG later implies that the referenced material is “ from articles from University of San Diego website.” diff. After contacting the research editor where these articles are hosted, I received this reply to my questions: "Are the articles posted on your website peer-reviewed, vetted, and/or endorsed by San Diego State University?" Editor (No). "Does SDSU have oversight over what is published on your webpage? That does NOT mean that an employee works on editing the site. It means that this is an official University webpage that represents SDSU, not simply a page that is hosted on the University’s server." Editor (No) "Do you represent SDSU in an official capacity? If not, who can I contact with my concerns?" Editor (No. I could refer you to somebody, but I would want to be sure that these email exchanges be part of the record.) This is clearly and attempt to add credibility to the self-published material by saying that they are from San Diego State University when they are not. diff

• August 2012: He added a link to a web site devoted to posting daily anti-Branham blogs (a website commonly referenced by DG). diff

• September 2017: DG blocks another editor’s attempt to add newspaper references to the article “Danpeanuts - one more time - Wikipedia policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”. diff

Yet he doesn't follow his own advice, and here uses a single article to make an exceptional claim that William Branham is connected to yet another infamous character:

• October 2016: DG adds a reference to William Branham to the Paul Schäfer page, with the sole source being a single newspaper article with a two-sentence mention. diff diff Within minutes, he added a link to Paul Schäfer on the William Branham article diff. It was deleted, but he re-added it a few months later. He then added a reference and link to Jim Jones on the Paul Schäfer page diff.. There is no encyclopedic justification to add a Jim Jones link to the Paul Schäfer article other than to satisfy DG’s activist purposes. This is simply employing circular reasoning to attempt to make William Branham "guilty by association".

Is tendentious:

• August 2012: DG’s edit summary states: “reverted a biased edit that moved a pro-Branham website to the top of the list” diff This tit-for-tat reverting is common on his part, but not with other editors on the page. The other editors seem to just give up.

• August 2012: DG adds non-NPOV wording “Branham’s claim is suspect” diff and references the same anti-Branham web site.

• September 2012: DG’s edit summary: “Added link to an ebook that is critical of Branham's ministry” diff. Adding a link simply because it is “critical” does not seem appropriate for a NPOV editor.

• September 2012: DG advocates for “highly critical”, self-published blog material: “Over the past couple of years a number of ebooks and websites have come out that are highly critical of William Branham's ministry, including: A Logical Refutation of William Branham's Message, Believethesign.com, Legend of the Fall, by Peter M. Duyzer, Seek The Truth website. The information and research provided in these sources must be included in this article in order to achieve NPOV status, which I think is presently lacking" diff

Rejects or ignores community input:

• October 2017: DG protested references BEFORE reading them. “I haven't read any of the newspaper reports but I doubt if they will stand up to the scrutiny of more skeptical editors…Did they do background checks to ensure that the people that said they were healed were actually sick to begin with? Did you look for any skeptical articles with respect to Branham?” diff. ( “…I don't think it is appropriate to doubt a source is legitimate without reading it. ” diff

• September 2017: A different editor complains: “Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too…” diff

• September 2017: Another complaint about his non-NPOV when he refused to cooperate with another editor wishing to add material: “From my outside perspective, it appears valid sources are being discounted” diff

• September 2014: DG’s edit summary: “added paragraph on Branham's 1956 meetings with Jim Jones” diff. This is a BIG DEAL because it was added to make William Branham guilty by association. The inappropriate nature of this reference being in this article is best summarized by this opinion given by a respected Wiki editor here, who is at this time attempting to bring the page up to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

• There is, and has been, consensus among editors to remove the Jim Jones reference, but DG reverts any attempts to remove it. Just a few weeks ago another editor tried to remove it as others have. DG reverted it again and said in his edit summary “The majority of editors agreed to keep this paragraph as it is relevant” diff This is not true. There is consensus to remove the reference.

• After another different editor tried to remove it by claiming consensus and it was again reverted, the discussion on the Talk page came under a sockpuppet attack in order to sway the consensus. (see here) DG was questioned by an admin on his Talk page concerning this: “On an unrelated note, quite a few editors who recently commented at Talk:William M. Branham were recently blocked for sockpuppetry, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarynn7/Archive. Do you know anything about that??” diff. DG answered the question in an evasive manner “I am aware of the discussion on the Willianm Branham talk page” diff as he has before when asked about his role as an advocate/COI website editor.

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: manifested in this case by resorting to personal religious attacks to editors DG believes are followers of William Branham

• July 2013: DG removes links to the official William Branham Ministries web site and others, while calling them “cult websites”. diff DG labels disagreeing editors a cult often.

• July 2013: More insults “In this case, followers of the cult of William Branham are trying to avoid the obvious concerns from those outside the cult that the outrageous claims of William Branham are given credibility.” diff

• July 2013: More insults, threats, and intimidation “at the very least, the wild claims of Branham that are perpetuated by members of the cult here on Wikipedia should be eliminated” diff

• May 18, 2015: When other editors disagree with him, he immediately infers that they must be Branham followers “I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are follower of Branham” diff

• July 2013: DG looks up editors outside Wikipedia and uses information for further intimidation. “That you are biased in respect of this article is perfectly clear, given you online comments outside of Wikipedia”.diff

• March 2018: I posted my opinion on the removal of the Jim Jones reference on the Talk page according to COI guidelines, and he harasses me by accusing me of advocating: diff I was in complete compliance, as you can see from the history. He went on to discredit and intimidate me further by saying, “but as an employee of an organization (by your admission above) that exists solely to promote William Branham and believes him to be infallible... ” Note that this is not true, and further, it is an insult to me and my faith to say that I believe any human being is infallible, and he knows it. This is another attempt to mischaracterize anyone as a cult member who challenges him, just as he did with Rev107, Eforsund, and others.

• April 2018: I went to DG’s user talk page, asking him if he is an editor of an anti-Branham web site (which he is). He again refused to answer and instead tries wikilawyering by accusing me of harassing, etc., and went on to stereotype me as he does with many of the other editors.

No other editors (other than socks) on this page have used the word “cult” or resorted to personal insults like DG has. This pattern has persisted since 2012.

Please note that I, DEvans, work for William Branham Ministries. It is my opinion that a well-written, neutral, factual page is a benefit to everyone. I plainly disclosed my COI on my user page and on every edit to the WB Talk page. DG, on the other hand, has neither disclosed his COI nor his position as editor of an anti-Branham activist web site. Please consider a Topic Ban or a complete editing ban based on DG’s advocacy and disruptive editing that has resulted in his misquoting of authors, insults, intimidation, original research (opinions published as fact), and his constant harassment of other editors. This will help secure the integrity of Wikipedia in this issue. DEvans (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished at DEvans accusations above. I think a valid question is whether DEvans is being paid by an NRM to try to influence the content of the article on William Branham?

My "crime" is that I spent a great deal of time on William Branham article and managed to get it qualified as a GA in August 31, 2017 which resulted in it being listed as such. This was the first time I have worked on getting an article GA status. It was resubmitted for good article reassessment in October 10, 2017, which result in its status as a GA being kept. I would ask that you please review the GA article conversations to see whether my actions could be considered inappropriate.

I would also ask @Display name 99: (who did a great job in conducting the GA review) or other longstanding editors such as @Theroadislong: or @Bonadea:, who have also been involved in editing the William Branham page (and whom I do not know other than through their editing on Wikipedia), whether my editing has been tendentious.

Achieving GA status was a great learning exercise for me in what makes a good Wikipedia article (and involved me removing information in the article that I and others had previously added). All references to primary source materials were removed and the entire article was thoroughly referenced to secondary source material in accordance with what I understood to be good Wikipedia practice.

The William Branham article is currently undergoing a peer review with the view to making it a feature article. I have been largely uninvolved in this significant rewrite of the article and am happy to see the article improved.

My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham. I am also interested in NRM's in general. A Wikipedia article on a new religious movement should not be a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but the focus should be to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement.

Please note that there are only 2 references to "incidents" in 2018. With respect to the first, DEvans took no offense at the time. My comment was based on the research I had done as to the beliefs of those that followed William Branham. I also commended him for being transparent. If he had taken offense at the time and corrected me in my statement, I would have apologized for misunderstanding his belief set. But he did not. I am astonished he is now taking exception to it.

With respect to his second reference to 2018, it is my understanding that speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. He decided to try to harass me on the basis that I had a COI. I chose not to respond to his speculations, which is my right. It is not surprising that given the failure of his efforts on that front, he has decided to take a different approach.

I do understand why the word "cult" is offensive to DEvans. However, it is used in some secondary sources on William Branham and the word "cult" still can be found today in the William Branham article, even after it has undergone multiple reviews by experienced editors.

Attention should be made to DEvan's contributions which clearly show that he is only focused on one thing on Wikipedia and that is to influence the content of the article on William Branham (DEvans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would ask why he is making these accusations against me. Is it because he wants to benefit the users of Wikipedia or is it solely because he is being paid to influence the article in a particular direction? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's my take on the situation: the Branham article used to be a glowing hagiography, as can be seen in pretty much every version before mid-2014. Darlig Gitarist was one of the main editors working hard to set that situation right, by for instance removing claims in Wikipedia's voice that supernatural events took place in reality, and by adding tons of scholarly sources. I first noticed the article in August 2017 (I have forgotten what brought my attention to it, but maybe a Teahouse post?) ; I had never heard of Branham before, but it became rather obvious rather quickly that this is one of the many articles about various religious persons or organisations that suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way. That is not uncommon, I've seen it in many other articles, but that's why we have NPOV policies in place. Anyway, Darlig G is not the POV warrior here, and the fact that the article was evaluated for GA status and passed after DG's efforts to improve it is indicative of that. I don't know exactly what's been going on there recently. I removed the article in question from my watchlist a couple of months ago because I couldn't take the constant POV pushing and sniping from Branham's followers, but I applaud DG's persistance in maintaining a NPOV stance in the article. There is absolutely no cause for a tban against Darlig Gitarist. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea Thank you for your comment. Although I don’t agree with some of your edits/opinions on the WB page, I think you are a NPOV editor, and you have a great history of all kinds of contributions. You certainly have my respect. I also 100% agree with you that some of these pages “suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way.” DG is VERY close to the “faith in question.” In fact, contrary to what DG said above, “My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham”, he is a disgruntled former church member diff. Do you see the pattern of dishonesty? His contribution of what you termed “scholarly sources” is limited to scouring text for any obscure negative comments and adding self-published material as long as it is negative (please read the case). Further, I and at least one other editor, asked him about his role as an editor to an anti-Branham website, and he would not answer the question. diff. I, on the other hand, could have easily chosen to edit the page under another user ID and had a whole lot more impact, but I chose to be honest and divulge my association. As you can see from my history, I’ve only weighed in on the most egregious anti-Branham edits by DG and have done my best to follow the rules to the letter. Please take another look at what I have written above along with the DIFFs. His own words should show you his intentions. Also notice that he did not address any of his actions listed above. His only defense was to try and discredit me. DEvans (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for what's gone on at the article since the GA review, having not kept track of it, but during and before the review I saw nothing particularly wrong with Darlig Gitarist's edits. There was some disruption at the article which did cause me to consider failing the review, but it seemed to me at the time that the blame would go mostly towards other editors using the article to push an agenda. Display name 99 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Thank you for your comment. No reviewer should be responsible for much more than spot-checking references, so I am in no way questioning your GA review. I believe you did a professional job. However, would you have supported the GA nomination knowing this type of misrepresentation of authors was in the text? diff diff DEvans (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The first edit that you linked to concerning Branham being viewed as God does seem problematic, but having checked the article history from when it was promoted in August 2017 I can see that it was no longer there. I found nothing wrong with the second edit except for the fact that it wasn't sourced. I presume one was eventually added or else I would not have passed the review. Basically, both problems seem to have been corrected by the time I arrived. So yes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There have now been 3 responses and no one has addressed any of the facts I presented. DEvans (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Richhoncho

Within the past 24 hours, User:Richhoncho proposed to merge Lavender (BadBadNotGood song) with Lavender (Nightfall Remix). After I objected to the proposal, Richhoncho decided to side-step any attempts to gather consensus and went ahead and merged it. I've tried multiple times to explain that consensus is needed to close the discussion, but instead the editor keeps on trying to edit-war in the decision to merge the two articles [80][81][82] (both of us are very close to breaking the WP:3RR). I believe this is the very definition of WP:Disruptive editing: attempting to close a disputed merge by repeated reversion rather than by consensus. ^Falling_Gravity 22:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone here? ^Falling_Gravity 23:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI

This started at the end of the #Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock section above (just in case it's archived while this section is open: diff at closing). In it, Bugs' comments amounted to a false allegation of restoring an edit and incorrectly repeating assertions about the use of non-English sources. As that's part of what seems like a pattern of unhelpful edits, I started this tangential thread afterwards (admittedly, I should've just started a new thread). Since that's well up the page now, I've created a new thread and moved the comments down here. Please undo if this is controversial. To be clear, I don't know that I've provided enough diffs below to formally propose a topic ban, but the idea was floated by others and I think it's worth getting some additional thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Post-move pings: @Baseball Bugs, Lepricavark, Only in death, Ymblanter, NeilN, Galobtter, Malerooster, Legacypac, and Piotrus: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Tangential, but can we just talk about how almost nothing Baseball Bugs said in this thread has any basis in WP:PAG? Ironically some of the comments were about competence. E.g. How did this xenophobic nonsense not get called out before the thread closed: That foreign-language page should not be allowed as a source. This is the English Wikipedia. That page could be saying "Death to all English-speakers!" for all we know. -- Wouldn't be bringing it up if it weren't part of a pattern (of heat-to-light ANI comments -- not the xenophobic part). Possibly worth a separate thread, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with Bugs' sentiment regarding foreign language sources, but I think you are going to far in applying the label 'xenophobic'. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Its a matter of policy (WP:V) that foreign language sources are allowed (although English are preferred where available for the same content). Complaining that something shouldnt be allowed because its not in English (when policy expressly permits this as the editor well knows) comes across as extremely xenophobic. Its deliberately inflammatory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If Bugs does not like that policy, he is free to comment accordingly, just as others are free to disagree with him. I strongly object to such reckless assessments of his motives. Lepricavark (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: motives, see below. Apart from that: ANI is not the place to disagree with clearly stated policy/guideline. This thread is not about that policy. It is about a block. If someone interjects their own opinion about a policy, stated without qualification, to weigh in on the matter of a block, that's completely inappropriate. As I've said multiple times now, this is more about Bugs' comments at ANI generally, of which this is just the latest egregious example of being not just neutral but counter-productive. In short: he can disagree with the policy all he wants, and even talk about it in discussions about that policy. What he should not be doing is weighing in on a block and the quality of someone's edits in relation to that block with his own opinions that run contrary to policy. He not only did that, but he did it in an offensive way (whether or not it was intentional). Even if we weren't at ANI, it's unacceptable to tell new users that they need to use English sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. My tendency is to play devil's advocate (speaking figuratively, I'm not literally calling Bugs the devil) when I am concerned that an editor is being misunderstood or misrepresented, but I can see the problem in this specific case. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing from a mobile device, so I'm going to be brief, blunt, and allude to some things I would usally provide links for. This reminds me of the recent KoshVorlon thread, but with one key difference: the "content" at issue is comments on wikipedia pages not content being added to articles. The "death to America comment" part was perhaps unwise, but otherwise the comment and other behavior linked is not contrary to behaviourial policies. We should not be the political corectness police but rather should defend the expression of unpopular beliefs when they are not unreasonable. I cannot support any sanction based on the evidence currently provided. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that Baseball Bugs is a xenophobe or seeks to promote some xenophobic agenda on Wikipedia. However, I stand by my characterization of that statement as a rather textbook xenophobic sentiment. Not only is it a policy-defying assertion that we should not use foreign language sources, but it jumps straight to "Death to all English speakers" as what it might mean (indeed, Bugs obviously doesn't think it says that, but offered that as a hypothetical anyway -- precisely the kind of damaging hyperbolic rhetoric we're accustomed to hearing stand in for more overt xenophobia). But the point of this isn't actually the xenophobia but to highlight the latest example of adding far more heat than light. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Part of the concept of requiring sourcing is "so that others can check your work." Using a foreign language source automatically restricts the checking that can be done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The same argument would prohibit citing paper books and paper journals.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Those things could be checked, although it would take more effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Other language sources can be checked as well, even though it takes effort. One can learn the language or ask a language speaker.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually it takes less effort than that. Google translate works remarkably well nowadays (I've tested it repeatedly on Chinese, a language I know and notoriously difficult to machine-translate). It's still not good enough for composing articles, but for verifying basic information it's quite adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It takes a lot to irritate me on here, Baseball Bugs, but this argument has done the trick. Are you bringing up the same rationale when paywalled journals, dead-tree books, subscription-based magazines, out of print academic books, etc., are used as sources? If not, I suggest you take a closer look at why you're singling out this particular type of source. I, for one, don't particularly like what I see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nor do I. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hence my comment about TBANing him. I think if you'd want to improve the atmosphere at ANI that would be what I'd do. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support this, for the record. It would take some time to do a proper dig for diffs, but just in the very recent past there's jumping in after a matter is resolved to comment about how liberal Canadians are, jumping into a thread just to call someone a bigot (and then doubling down), denying an obvious violation because of one-way ibans being "bogus", interrogating an IP, asking for personal information (then again here) (I've seen this one many, many times -- Bugs very much seems to dislike unregistered users, and jumps into discussions to interrogate them or toss in assumptions of bad faith), again commenting on someone's English... and this omits the large number of comments that aren't problematic but don't add anything (e.g. [83] [84] [85] [86]). None of these would be problematic alone, but all of them being just from the last couple months should say something. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If an editor is incapable of understanding that non-English sources are acceptable, despite it being repeatedly pointed out that that is long-standing policy, they have no business being here. See WP:Competence is required. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah its about high time Bugs be banned from the project. That's a joke, but actually the IP has a point. --Malerooster (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

My use of the word "here", as well as echoing one of Baseball Bugs's comments, was deliberately ambiguous. It could mean this specific noticeboard, all noticeboards, all of Wikipedia space or the whole project. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs has long been an unhelpful participant at ANi, much like his often thoughtless participation at help desk. I'd support a TBAN from notice boards. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I can't say that his contribution was helpful at anypoint. Until you get to be an admin, using ANI for flaming and such is not a good idea, and actually looking at BB's contributions he seems to be totally unaware of WP:NOTAFORUM, so I think Legacypac idea has a merit. Someone who is here just to discuss (flame...?) is not here to build an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually like Baseball Bugs and enjoy his remarks sometimes. But far too often, both here at ANI, and at the reference desks, he is prone to spout off with uninformed, speculative and sometimes offensive remarks. Over and over and over again. I do not know what the solution is, but this has been a problem for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Some quotes from his RfA from 9 years ago are still relevant: "His posts at ANI are atrocious"; "I've only seen the user at ANI".."From his actions, he always seemed to me as not assuming good faith, quick to judge in an overly harsh way [doesn't that seem relevant to the just concluding incident..], condoning problematic administrative behavior"; "Has a strong tendency to add fuel to fires"; and so on. His contributions are rarely helpful, and when they are only of the slight kind that can easily be done by anyone; in other times they are offtopic; and in many times too they're hostile and add fuel to fire. (For evidence, see the ANI thread just before and the diffs by Rhododendrites, and anyone who regularly looks at ANI should be able to see that too). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In the past five years, his contributions to main space articles have been trivial, and 70% to 80% of his edits are to Wikipedia space. He is basically an opinionated blogger here, not someone who actually improves the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

yup, I saw that too. It appears in the past he atleast did contribute something to article space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

+Anyone can review his contribution log. He may think Ref desk and AN/i is free wheeling spout off anything like Yahoo Answers, but sadly we can't vote his useless posts to the bottom here and are left with voting him off the board. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"In the past five years, his contributions to main space articles have been trivial, and 70% to 80% of his edits are to Wikipedia space." Several Wikipedia editors are barely active any more, but banning them is not part of policy. We are unpaid volunteers, remember? Baseball Bugs did bother to correct formation problems in Mutt and Jeff, and slightly expanded the article on the Messer Street Grounds. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And he can continue to do whatever good work you think he's doing in Article space, since nobody is proposing he be blocked from that: quite the opposite. And if it were simply about the ratio, nobody would give two shits about this: it's the ratio between useful edits and time-wasting ones which is the issue. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban on Baseball Bugs from Wikipedia Space

TBAN from Wikipedia space (except of course if he is the subject of a notice board complaint). That covers the Ref desk and the notice boards mostly and I suppose some other stuff. If he really has a need to work on some wikiproject the closing admin can carve that out. Never seen one of these exact TBANS but this would mean he would have to ***gasp*** work on building an encyclopedia if he wants to stick around, and his chit chat would be confined to content talkpages where users can enforce keeping the topic on how to improve the article.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Ehh, let's try this then first, I suppose. (proposed an ANI TBAN above, let's merge it in then) My comment was: "See my and others comments above. Negative for ANI. If someone wants to propose a ban from reference desks/help desk/overall noticeboards too (of which Reference desks make up a staggering 30000 edits or something) feel free to do so, I don't view the reference desks/consider them mostly useless anyhow etc but from the few edits I saw they didn't seem constructive either". Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Perpetual pot-stirrer and generator of much heat and little light, about time they switch their focus to writing an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - After a look at his edit count, I’m in. 13K edits to this page alone... is enough, and his ref desk stuff is three times that. Jusdafax (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Student/editors are particularly difficult to gauge as to their intent. I think that is because their "intent" is to fulfill a class requirement, thus there is an indirectness that can be particularly indecipherable. When looking at the edits in the case here, it is hard not to see this as vandalism. A ballet company producing cheese? Since the thirteenth century? Not only involving milk from cows but also crude oil? It is understandable that one would reach the wrong conclusion about edits like that. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is more for being consistently hostile instead of reducing tension and being WP:BITEy than one incident. Baseball bugs could look at the full editing history and had the context of it being a student in good faith, so him assuming it is vandalism is bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVAND: ... sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language).—Bagumba (talk)

This is not an error in syntax. Bus stop (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nor is she editing dishonestly.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This has next to nothing to do with a student editor - that was just the latest incident. 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - He's earned it. Swarm ♠ 07:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A complete Wikipedia-space ban would also cover stuff like WP:AFD, WP:DRV, WP:DYK etc. If you want to ban him from noticeboards, it's probably best to tighten that one up a bit. Black Kite (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is intended to keep him off Ref Desk, site policy discussions and similar as well. We don't need him at XfD throwing around nonsense off topic comments either, and him banned from just notice boards, that is a likely place he would go. He is always free to appeal for a carve out for some limited purpose if his editig takes him to an area he needs Wikipedia space. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Bugs is clearly a menace at ANI so in principle I am tempted to support. However, this proposal risks driving Bugs into articles where his opposition to non-English-language sources could wreak havoc. Is that a risk worth taking? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you suggest a full site ban then? If that happens I hope we can quickly ban him completely, though I wouldn't oppose a site ban now..Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A site ban sounds harsh. I just wanted to note the risk of displacement. I don't have a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is that possibility certainly. Site ban is probably harsh; I do hope that removing him from ANI and the references desks leads to constructive editing in article space. I think we should keep aware and watch if problems as you say continue and then a site ban would be appropriate Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from ANI and Ref Desk. I oppose a permanent or unappealable TBAN. I think the TBAN should be restricted to 6 months or a year, or be appealable at six months. Bugs's month edit counts were well-balanced back in mid-2011 [87], but since then he has enexorably become a flaneur, here apparently only for his own amusement (in spite of the fact that his comments are sometimes useful). He needs to demonstrate that he is a well-functioning member of the Wikipedia community before returning to ANI and the ref desks. I'm sorry it's come to this but one could see this coming several years ago. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC); edited 09:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean every TBAN is appealable and this would be to. I'm not one to prevent appeals anyhow; but he'd definitely have to show how he has become less bitey etc, and I don't have any hope since it has been the case for 10 years or something. Even when his edit ratios were balanced, there were still problems with his ANI edits, atleast from the comments on his RfA Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - he doesn't add anything to discussions. GiantSnowman 08:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Disturbed by his nonsense assertion that we should limit ourselves to English language sources as a disruptive attempt to change the encyclopedia focus and my own experience is that she or he is argumentative or disruptive for the sake of it here at ANI. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support ~80 mainspace edits this year? None at all for the last two months? A pattern that stretches back eight years? No thanks; editors have been found to be WP:NOTHERE, and treated accordingly, for less. Or more, depending on how you look at it. When he can show six months of productive editing in other namespaces, then we can revisit. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban from ANI, initially for a fixed period of time - six months maybe. The year counts section of this link is telling - [88]. Baseball Bugs has made 1,295 edits to article space in the last 6 years; in the same period he's made 22,289 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Bugs has made 13,079 edits to AN/I alone, and a very small proportion of those have been useful. An enforced break from AN/I would do him good, and everyone else good. He's made tens of thousands of edits to the reference desks, I leave it to people who can bear to look at the reference desks to decide whether he should be barred from there or not. Fish+Karate 09:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Bugs has a lot to say here and elsewhere in WP space. They say things oft-times that I disagree with. Their take on the non-English language sources issue is a case in point, but I suggest it does come from a real problem where non-English sources at times are used in lieu of available English sources as a way of subtly pushing non-neutral POVs. I think Bugs may well be going at it a bit hard with their insistence of English language sources and certainly at times they lack tact in the way they state their case. However, it is precisely because I do not agree with them, as I suspect neither do the majority of us here, that I believe it is inappropriate to seek to silence them by issuing him a TBAN from WP space. If we seek to silence opposition then we risk becoming an echo chamber. This is not healthy for the project. I suggest instead of a topic ban, Baseball Bugs be "officially" warned that further incivility or PAs will result in a block. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing is to dislike non-english sources, it is another to help BITE a newbie about it on a forum we should try to keep friendly, however it may not be or that be difficult. This student is hardly pushing a POV with using a foreign language source. This isn't as much about silencing opposition as about improving the atmosphere at ANI. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"This isn't as much about silencing opposition as about improving the atmosphere at ANI." yes, kill the witch! Sorry, not convinced, it looks a lot more to me like stacks on the mill. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yes please! Has anyone bothered to find the last ANI discussion quite a long time ago when this was proposed. My distant recollection is that a sanction was escaped by a promise to voluntarily withdraw. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One month voluntary ANI topic ban (2012).2014, no consensus for reference desk topicban. 2008 warning about civility at ANI·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Per my comments above, I was unsure about this. Then Bugs appeared on my talk page where he a) complained that I had implied that he would engage in sockpuppetry (I hadn't); b) demonstrated no understanding of what he himself wrote about foreign-language sources. Discussion here[89]
  That combination of prolixity and lack of comprehension is a nuisance which project space doesn't need. The fact that it comes in the middle of a ban discussion when he knows he is under scrutiny gives me no reason to believe that he is likely to reform. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The notion that I would go on some sort of crusade against non-English sources is astonishingly bad faith on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I mean this as kindly as I can, but you're not exactly a poster child for assuming good faith yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Extraordinary. Bugs thinks it is bad faith to assume that he means what he says, and would therefore follow through on that principle. The alternative interpretation is that it was all just hot air and he didn't really mean it ... which only reinforces the case for a ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Like Cullen328, above, I quite like Baseball Bugs - probably through familiarity going back some years. But I have to say, Bugs' comments here at ANI seem to be turning more and more into just disruptive background noise these days, and the latest were so far off-policy that I'd really only expect them from a newcomer. The ideal solution would be for Bugs to understand the problems and make a commitment to toning things down, because I really wouldn't like to see a ban being necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is my lost post on ANI. Banning myself. Block me if I come back here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This should count as a support vote, and I think that means we can move to close this discussion enacting the topic ban, under the conditions Baseball Bugs has specified.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, if it applies to main WP-space as a whole rather than just ANI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. As shown above, the problem extends way beyond AN/I. And this last-second “sweat-promise” in the face of consensus is another sign of that. Formal remedial action is called for, I believe. Jusdafax (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NOTAFORUM. Of course he can ask for appeal after a few months or such, if he can show that he can actually contribute to building the encyclopedia first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This posting pretty much seals the deal, as it's either basic reading comprehension problem or bad faith. Neither is helpful. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - What Boing! said. I'd rather see Bugs change how he interacts here and on other noticeboards, but if a TBan is inevitable, it should be written in way that allows him to make relevant reports to AIV, AN3, etc. rather than as a blanket WP-space ban. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose such a broad topic ban. Bugs is mostly harmless; at the reference desk he does often contribute useful references on word etymology and other things (though there as elsewhere he can get a bit off topic and chatty). If he's being disruptive in specific areas, a more tailored ban may be more useful, but I can't support something as broad for him. --Jayron32 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As Baseball Bugs is fairly active at the RD, I have left a notification there of this proposal. [90]. I'd like to remind any participants that as this is a discussion, they're support and oppose it in parts if they feel that it the best solution. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Whilst BB's comments were unhelpful and offensive I am not sure that they are banable, unless they are part of a pattern (are they?). He does need to be warned that his attitude towards non English sources if wrong, and offensive. If however this is part of a pattern, blockSlatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. There IS precedent for banning time-wasting editors from Wikipedia, especially when their time-wasting is wrong, ill-informed, or disruptive. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't agree with Wikipedia witch-hunts and I find it ironic that a user such as Legacypac, who is frequently offensive, overly abrasive/insulting, and continually skirts the bounds of policy on civility and NPA is the proposer of this draconian ban. Issue a stern warning as a last chance to Bugs and watch closely for further problems. If such behavior from him rears its head within six months, bring him here again and then we can talk the ban proposed here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the previous 1 month (voluntary) ANI ban and the thread there serve as enough of a warning? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, words have consequences: please don't use the term "witch hunt" loosely. Many people don't know this, but it has a very specific meaning and a set of connotations that is frequently highly inappropriate. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies:. Guess what? I'm considerably older than you (which means I've been around the proverbial block more often) and I have the same level of education as you (and more of it). Moral: don't condescend. All that said, I'm quite aware of how words have consequences as well as the colloquial and precise meaning of the term "witch-hunt". I also know when I see a portrayal of Abigail Williams and Giles Corey occuring in AN/I (I'll allow you to figure out who's who). Good day to you, young man. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, asking sincerely here: did you just respond to perceived condescension with condescension? AlexEng^(TALK) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: On Wikipedia, we are all very much the same. Can you please adjust your signature so that it complies with WP:SIG. Many thanks, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"we are all very much the same" That's certainly the theory. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kindly don't use a discussion about another editor as a forum to continue your long term trolling of me. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

QED. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi remember this advice you received the other day about pitching in where your services aren't needed? For someone with such a long block log, you would think avoiding the drama--and starting it--would be things to avoid. I sadly will not be surprised when your name is back on one of these threads.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? And for what, exactly, does your crystal ball tell you I will be brought here for? Never mind. You don't have a crystal ball. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Partial Support - Very little of the above thread relates to comments outside of noticeboards, and this seems like an overreach without a close examination (with diffs, etc.) of, say, his WikiProject edits, his TfD comments, etc. (I don't know if there are any off-hand, and that's part of the problem here -- he has more then 100k edits, which makes such a broad ban difficult to gauge without proper discussion). The other thing is that I know that I've been part of at least one discussion about banning him from the ref desks in the past (which I would've supported -- Bugs and I got off to a very bad start on the refdesks when my very first interaction with anybody there was this thread back in 2013, where Bugs responded to a question about literary criticism by straight up insulting the concept the person asked about and offering no substance at all). I don't remember the specifics of that thread(s) but I know there was not consensus to do so, and I'm fairly certain there have been multiple other proposals to do so that have failed. Thus while I don't disagree necessarily, I feel like it's inappropriate to include the refdesks here, since this didn't start out with any discussion of his contributions to the refdesks. In short, this is an overreach. Very little of the discussion leading to this had anything to do with Wikipediaspace outside of noticeboards. Support ban on noticeboards, Abstain on the rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - a WP-wide TBAN is too broad in scope. If there is a consensus that Bugs is not contributing usefully at ANI then an ANI TBAN would be an appropriate sanction. But a TBAN from all of Wikipedia space looks like an over-reaction to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as too broad. I'd support a ban from noticeboards, but stuff like XfD should still be available. Also, very amused by the amount of pots and kettles in this thread... ansh666 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can't speak for Bug's behavior at admin talk boards, but he treats the reference desk as nothing more than a social club. He responds to many questions with non-contributing replies but sometimes goes a week or more without actually contributing a reference. He seems to live for asking unnecessary clarifying questions, even though he has no intention of providing a reference regardless to how his followup is answered. ApLundell (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Propose siteban forBaseball Bugs The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Baseball Bugs doesn't just interfere in discussions - after everyone has had their say and they have been closed he comes along and removes them [91],[92]. Support as nom. 150.143.107.191 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC) This is not a reason for a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Could someone just close this subsection? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Note that I've blocked the IP for socking. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal is just too broad, how has Bugs earned a topic ban for areas outside here? I would support a short TBAN from WP:ANI as I feel it would be good for him to take a break (based on the comments of ticked off editors here). I already learned here that lurking around at WP:ANI too much bites you in the behind after awhile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too broad. The entire Wikipedia space? Really? A modest break from AN/I may be called for--possibly Bugs recognizes it--but that'a about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support I paid close attention to the thread referenced in the original post. The input from Baseball Bugs was disruptive throughout the discussion. If disruption extends to other parts of wikipedia space (as noted by other users, re: refdesk), then I agree with the substance of the TBAN as proposed. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose if every time someone were to get on the wrong side of "consensus" that person would be expelled from Wiki space, we'd be in worse shape than we are. I think that all make mistakes, some own up to them, and others need more guidance not bans. I have no reason to doubt Bugs' good faith and it seems he has owned up to mis-citations in the thread above. Move on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 3:28 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Oppose - far too broad. If Bugs is disruptive here and at the ref desk, we should be talking about a ban from here and the ref desk. Had that been proposed I'm not sure whether or not I would support it. From what's been presented here so far I'm leaning towards not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - too broad. If one of his articles were taken to AfD, he would be prevented from defending it. I doubt that is the intent here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A vast overreach for an editor whose positions are generally not vituperative nor objectionable. This precedent is, IMO, dangerous entirely, and any closer should note the potential for abuse of such bans. Collect (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support temporary ban from ANI and RefDesks, strong oppose to removal from all WP spaces: Sadly, this is a long time coming. I do believe Bugs' contributions are by and large good-faith in nature, but he's shown a marked refusal to contemplate the many, many concerns voiced by fellow community members regarding the limitations and proper purpose of certain work spaces, particularly as regards WP:NOTAFORUM (and these problems are much more pronounced at the reference desks). Unfortunately, I think a removal from those spaces for a time is the only strategy that stands a chance of stimulating a reform of habits that have long been disruptive to particular spaces. However, removing Bugs from all WP spaces is clearly overkill; if we were to do this, we might as well just give him a temporary siteban, because any and every editor who works consistently on this project is likely to have need to access community processes at some WP space or another, from time to time, and depriving them of that access while allowing them to continue to contribute is a recipe for disaster. (Indeed it has the potential to even let problem editors game their restrictions to avoid proper process in many circumstances). Further, the issues with Bugs' behaviour which we are trying to address here are not likely to arise in most WP spaces, even with his proclivity for taking discussion into random and inappropriate directions.

I'd also propose that even the ban from ANI and RD should be time-limited or set with a default period after which Bugs should seek appeal. If I'm to be perfectly frank, I am skeptical that Bugs will return to work in these areas with a more nuanced understanding of what is and is not appropriate discussion, but he nevertheless deserves a fair shake in this regard and I feel the scope and duration of the TBAN should be as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve a shot at the best possible outcome. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• oppose too broad. too overreachy. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can think of a handful of examples where Bugs had no idea how to answer a Reference Desk question in the past month or so, left a snarky comment anyway, and then other people (myself in one case) gave an actual answer. Very actively working against the spirit of the RDs, whether on purpose or not. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - wow! Bugs has always been kind and helpful to me - most recent was when I was being hounded by a sock. Sometimes we all need a little voluntary brake and Bugs seems quite capable of doing that on his own, but to pile-on like what's happening now seems quite harsh. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm opposing now, in favour of the narrower scoped proposal below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Now & then, I bring a question to the ref desks. At no time has BB annoyed me. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support either in full breadth, or in a more focused form (ANI + RefDesks). Banning repeat problem editors has been extremely effective in the past at improving general culture; for example, the recent ban of StuRat from the RefDesk has markedly improved the quality of the environment there. BB is a similarly problematic participant. --JBL (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I did a detailed analysis of RefDesk when we were TBANing StuRat from there and found that BaseballBugs was just as big a problem as StuRat. I hoped that StuRat's TBAN amd the strong community statement about acceptable behavior would be enough to push BaseballBugs into better behavior but it was not. Wikipedia space is pretty broad, but it is intend to be broad to cover RefDesk and AN amd any simolar places he might migrate to like Teahouse or policy boards when banned from AN and RefDesk. This is desigjed to make him work on content. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: No disagreement from me. The StuRat experience suggests that banning people from where they are currently causing a problem works pretty well, but as I said I would like to be counted as support for both the broader and more narrow proposed bans. --JBL (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see that some editors consider Bugs a problem -- generally speaking, I do not -- but in any case I cannot support such a broad TB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (all) "Mostly harmless". Not the most vital either, but that's no reason to start throwing tbans around. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. If we banned everyone who made a moronic misinterpretation of policy on the drama boards, there'd be practically nobody left to post here. (I wonder if that's a bad thing...) But that's not really the story with this one. The complaints about his Refdesk behavior would only underscore how little that kind of genuine Wikipedia administration work seems to matter compared to seizing an opportunity to suppress any expression of "xenophobic sentiment". To be sure, we should resist such sentiments, but not punish them: we should not join an international pattern of heavy-handed censorship in other realms of discourse that has not brought harmony, but rather has fanned the flames of fascism. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't agree because Bugs has worked hard over many years; and although through many incidents of craziness and trouble here; Wikipedia has benefited by the work put in by Bugs...Modernist (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As noted above, this is unnecessarily broad. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• I have known editors who were net negatives in project space. Bugs is not one of them, because he is a zero in project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban from administrators' noticeboards

Let's get this back on track. This is what this whole thread was about before the proposal above pulled all of projectspace into the discussion. Throughout the supports and opposes there looks to be pretty strong support for a topic ban from administrators' noticeboards (AN and ANI), so let's just focus on that one. Exceptions to this topic ban: opening new threads, participating in threads he opens, and responding to threads about him.

pings: @Ivanvector, Carlossuarez46, AlexEng, Wehwalt, Knowledgekid87, Ansh666, Gandalf61, Winkelvi, Calton, Nil Einne, Slatersteven, Jayron32, DoRD, Piotrus, Boing! said Zebedee, BrownHairedGirl, Johnuniq, Nick Thorne, Fish and Karate, SerialNumber54129, RichardWeiss, GiantSnowman, Softlavender, Black Kite, Swarm, Bus stop, Jusdafax, Maunus, Galobtter, and Legacypac: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and per my reasoning above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support again, per my rationale above. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I prefer the wider ban proposed above, but I would support this as a compromise if there is not a consensus for the wider ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per my comments above. He shows continual hostility/not assuming good faith, BITEyness and irrelevant comments; previously being restricted from ANI and comments still relevant from 9 years ago show this isn't a short term problem but a long term one deserving of a topic ban. This topic ban would improve the atmosphere at ANI, and isn't specifically about his views or this one incident. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per my reasoning above. The first proposal was too broad to realistically pass, but the merits are sound. Swarm ♠ 19:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. IMO could be a little bit broader (e.g. ref desk and Teahouse) but this works as a starter. ansh666 19:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly, but let's keep it simple for now. There's no real discussion of the help desk above, so IMO while probably warranted, I'd prefer to see a separate section for those so inclined (I have not spent time there and therefore don't feel comfortable opining about his comments there). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Question so this topic ban would prevent Baseball Bugs from lodging his own complaints or issues on ANI or AN? How does that work? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd support an exemption for reporting incidents too, and presumably that is meant too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's a good question. That's not the intent here, as I'm not aware of any problem Bugs has with opening threads -- just on commenting on others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• That should be clarified. He should not be prevented from using AN and ANI legitimately. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've updated the wording. How does that sound? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• That looks fair. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support apart from raising genuine issues affecting him, or responding to threads about him. Basically, he should not comment on anything else (per TRM). GiantSnowman 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support per above discussion. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Support only with exceptions as noted by GiantSnowman. Changing my !vote to oppose - As another editor said below, people can ignore his comments. AN/I or any other noticeboard isn't the United Nations -- nothing said or decided here has any real consequences outside of Wikipedia. Beyond that, I think this kind of thing - without giving a warning first - would set a bad and dangerous precedent in the way of censorship at noticeboards. Give him six months to cut back on the offensive comments and any insults or attacks that may have been part of his pattern of commenting, if it doesn't change visibly and consistently, then back here for talk of a t-ban. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Winkelvi: without giving a warning first (?!?!) -- he has received countless warnings. As Galobtter pointed out before, people were criticizing his ANI contributions 9 years ago. If you think 6 months will make any difference, you haven't looked at his edits here over many, many years and many, many warnings, requests, tips, pointers, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:: If its been years and years, then what's another six months? Put him on notice that six months is the last chance saloon. If he crosses the line, ban him from the noticeboards. If he crosses the line after the six months are over, ban him from the noticeboards. Seems pretty simple to me. But give him the opportunity to make the choice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: this kind of reasoning allows terrible users to make communities terrible indefinitely. As the ban of StuRat from RefDesk proved, the right thing to do with chronic terrible users is to ban them; the result will be immediate improvement, and in six months or whatever if BB wants to suggest reconsideration based on good works in the interim, it can be reconsidered then. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This reasoning is a catch-22. "Let's give him time to reform." "We have." "Oh, then that proves he doesn't need to reform.". ApLundell (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per TRM and Giant Snowman. It’s a start, I suppose, and thanks for the ping, but something also needs to be done about BB’s help desk blogging obsession. Jusdafax (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support but the first proposal is intended to keep him off the Ref Desk and anywhere else he should not be - focusing him on building the encyclopedia. The Oppose voters appear to have missed the point or are unfamiliar with the overall issue. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Allow me to just move my post from the above section to this section: I think the death to English speakers comment was a joke. That joke illustrated the situation of dealing with an incomprehensible edit supported by a non-English source. The comment may be unconventional but it is fairly innocuous. It should be noted that student/editors are adding material to meet the requirements of a class assignment. From what I have seen it can be difficult to decipher why they are adding the given material. Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's no question it was a joke. It was a joke that one of many blatant and disruptive misrepresentations of policy, adding nothing to the discussion, and was unintentionally offensive to boot. And that was just one diff. Regardless, this thread isn't about that one diff. By opposing you are saying that Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI (in the most recent thread and elsewhere) are, in your judgment a net positive (or, I guess, neutral at best). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly with the point made in that thread by Baseball Bugs that "[t]he complainant here should be compelled to review every new edit by the blocked user." Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to see the gain to Wikipedia, and can easily see that this sort of precedent might be a tad dangerous. Collect (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the reasonable exceptions outlined above. It is the random opinioneering that has become disruptive and sometimes offensive. Baseball Bugs should also be warned that similar disruptive conduct at the reference desks may lead to a similar topic ban there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above, I don't see this as a bad thing for Bugs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Obviously, Korean sources are great when they are well chosen. So that 페코리노 로마노 from Doosan Encyclopedia is surely reliable about Pecorino Romano, even if it could seem strange to use a Korean source about an Italian cheese (or using an Italian source about 김치전골, a Korean dish). But who can argue against when you cut the cheese and you see some whey coming out, this means that the cheese is crying to be eaten (with a strong red wine) ? Nevertheless, it remains that quite any Korean text turns into a total failure when Google translated. For example, the first paragraph of https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B1%84%EC%A0%9C%EA%B3%B5 turns into: <<Kajeonggong ( 1720 ~ 1799 ) is a tattoo, politician in the late Joseon Dynasty. Yeongjo late and tank units namin to receipt of chastity is one of the closest greetings, Jeong , yigahwan was a political party such as guardianship. He was a teacher of obsessions and omniscians, a teacher who taught the Sadducees, and one of the aides of the court. The main building is Pyeonggang, Baekgyu, Hoan, Fan 翁, and Shiho are Munseok>>. So that, to ban or not to ban, is not so clear. Pldx1 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. His posts are generally off-topic chatter or unhelpful commentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Others are free to ignore his posts if they are less than helpful.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Dlohcierekim: You're assuming everyone who reads his posts here knows they're less than helpful. For those of us who have been around a while, we know to just ignore those posts, and we know what's helpful and what's not because we know how Wikipedia works. But it's not just a distraction and time sink for us; it's problematic for anyone who doesn't know that what he says might be his own perspective that radically differs from the policies and guidelines (and/or interpretations thereof) that have broad consensus. In other words, if I look at that thread that started this and I don't already know the rules, and I don't know who I should be paying attention to, I could easily get the impression that Wikipedia is either mistrusting of or straight up disallows non-English sources. It's not enough to say we should just ignore unhelpful comments if they're not just unhelpful but detrimental. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: this kind of reasoning allows terrible users to make communities terrible indefinitely. As the ban of StuRat from RefDesk proved, the right thing to do with chronic terrible users is to ban them; the result will be an immediate improvement in the culture. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• switch to support per counter arguments. also, if the ref desk is a probabem, TBAN there too.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  per Legacypak, support TBAN ref desk as well.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: maybe the wrong link? --JBL (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Could be.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but... I am deeply concerned that the two proposals here vary between the broadest possible approach in the circumstances (all WP spaces) and the most narrow (just AN/ANI). I feel strongly that a blanket removal from all WP spaces is both overkill and also highly problematic. However, all of the problematic behaviours that this discussion seeks to address (primarily his refusal to accept WP:NOTAFORUM and that there are necessary restrictions on how one approaches discussions on this project) have become a hundred-fold more common to his routine behaviour at the RefDesks over the years, so if there is any ban, it should definitely extend to the Reference Desks as well. Thankfully, a ban from both the admin noticeboards and the reference desks seems to be the ultimate consensus implicit in the interplay between the two proposals here, so I have fingers crossed that the closer will give voice to the fact that this moderate approach best represents the opinions voiced here, when taken together. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: I hear you, but since this started with discussion of his comments at ANI, stemming directly from an ANI thread, it doesn't seem appropriate to tack on other bans when they haven't been thoroughly discussed (at least not in this thread). IMO it would be best to keep it simple, since there's no reason other threads can't address other issues. What I don't want is a bundle that people want to unbundle in various ways. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Rhod. I understand your position, but do bear in mind that the task of interpreting the consensus that results from a discussion is not predicated in what we would like the discussion to be about, but rather what people were actually !voting for. I think it's explicitly clear from the wording of numerous of the commenters above that they intended one or both of the bans they were voting for to extend to the reference desk when they voiced their support. Additionally, the single largest voting block so far wants a blanket ban from all Wikipedia pages (though I have tried to make my personal opposition to that approach plain) and obviously that certainly includes the Reference Desks (and again, numerous respondents cite it as a driver of their !vote).

I totally get where you are coming from with regard to the "bundles", as you put it; that's why I did not create a third proposal to cover the space between the first two, as I realized it would only muddy the waters, this being a complex survey already. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping the closer from looking at the spread of perspectives, the relative weight of support for each approach, and the overlap between them and deciding that consensus lays within a position which was not precisely the one voiced by either of the proposals, but that it was ultimately a third option which captured the majority of support. Indeed, that would be the most policy-consistent approach, if ultimately consensus is for an approach which straddles the two proposals. Of course, wherever the consensus may lay at the moment, there's still enough time that we can't be certain it won't shift, even if no other proposals are forthcoming. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban Anyone with such a disproportionately large ratio of ANI to main space edits is clearly not here, more so when the contributor is not an administrator. 2600:1003:B859:5752:B5FE:D6A4:22E6:81CE (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion, IPs (or registered users, for that matter) with no traceable editing history should not be calling for site bans on the basis of NOTHERE. Just my 2 cents. Lepricavark (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support ANI has enough misguided commentary. Posting a joke or passing thought might offer the poster a temporary warm glow of satisfaction, but such comments often derail issues which need attention. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Long-term intermittent AN/I observer here. I am still assuming that Bugs' interjections at AN/I are meant in good faith. But this is now pretty much the only noticeboard where new users and those who are feeling harassed can bring complaints, and it has a terrible atmosphere that we have to improve. Not only is there a long history of Bugs having been repeatedly told that his contributions to this noticeboard are more disruptive than helpful, but he was previously temporarily banned from it—I had thought that was imposed by a vote, but apparently it was self-imposed—so he is aware that his comments have been viewed as problematic. With the reasonable exceptions in the current version of the proposal, I heartily endorse the suggestion, and I hope it will lead to his returning to article space. I have noticed various threads in the past about his refdesk contributions, and I suggest the other regulars there talk about whether he should also take a break from that space. Many of us are insufficiently familiar with the refdesks. Beyond that I agree, I see no reason to preemptively ban him from the rest of the Wikipedia space. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You say this is now pretty much the only noticeboard where new users and those who are feeling harassed can bring complaints but the complaint wasn't brought by a new user. It was brought on behalf of someone who may become a new user. I wish that new user much success, but the command of English language is pretty rudimentary and it may present a challenge at the beginning. Bus stop (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This goes beyond that one case, where his comments about foreign-language sources can be said to have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was brought on behalf of a new editor, and the issue was not about the level of English required to edit here, it was about whether the indef block for making a few mistakes was excessive. Yes, English is required, but a newbie (who was very likely watching) should be treated with a bit of friendship and help, and not be subjected to the off-policy tirade she faced here. There was a clear consensus to unblock and a number of folks have offered welcoming words at her talk page, but I'm sad to see she has not edited since. She could be forgiven for thinking she was genuinely accused of saying "Death to all English-speakers!" - when speaking to or about people from different cultures, it's vital to not be flippant with aggressive "jokes". I fear we have yet another well-meaning newcomer scared away by being bitten at ANI, which is surely the nastiest forum we have. We need to stop that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

newcomer scared away by being bitten at ANI That sounds like a newspaper headline. A teacher assigned a project to a student to make edits at Wikipedia. The student was blocked by an admin because the edits looked like vandalism. The teacher, instead of addressing the blocking admin directly with an explanation of what had happened, initiated a thread on AN/I. In my opinion the teacher should have reviewed the edits made by their student for errors, and the teacher should have spoken directly to the blocking admin. This whole thing was avoidable and a joke about death to English speakers is just a joke. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and I agree the whole thing could perhaps have been handled better. But this is specifically about Bugs' contributions to the thread (and not just the death to English speakers thing), on top of a growing history of unproductive comments here at ANI. We can disagree on whether Bugs' specific behaviour was worthy of a ban, but that is what this is about, not about what the teacher might have done differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that you are overlooking that it was Bugs who said "The complainant here should be compelled to review every new edit by the blocked user" and it was Bugs who said to the teacher of that student that "You've been here since 2004. You should know better." Rather than demonizing Bugs we can give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that Bugs correctly analyzed and responded to the boondoggle that is this AN/I thread. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not overlooking that, and I'm not suggesting that every word Bugs said was a problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, you are not suggesting that every word Bugs said was a problem but can you name anything Bugs said that was a problem? This is the thread that is primarily under discussion. It is the thread that prompted this motion to take action to curtail the editor's input to this page. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already made my position quiet clear on what I see as Bugs' disruptive approach using non-policy arguments, and I'm not going to repeat it in multiple different ways or answer every wiki-lawyering change of tack you pursue here. My comments are not aimed at convincing you, but other observers and whoever closes the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You say that your comments are aimed at ... whoever closes the discussion. The closer should note that nothing has been cited from the thread ostensibly prompting the suggested action. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - he offered to take a break, give him the opportunity to do so voluntarily...^{Atsme📞📧} 06:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

He's taken a voluntary break before, and here we are again. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I would've oppose the first proposal as too broad too, but I think this is okay and even necessary measure. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure whether to support, seeing as Bugs has self-imposed a ban, which is what I'd hoped for. But I like the far narrower scope of this proposal, and I think an enforced ban is needed to increase the chances that the lesson will be learned. So I support, largely in line with Yngvadottir's words. ANI is nasty, and it's largely because of aggressive responses we see far too often. I strongly support efforts to make ANI even a little bit nicer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If he wants to recycle Borscht Belt jokes and misunderstand policies, maybe he can find another outlet for that. --Calton | Talk 09:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per my above comment in previous section. Fish+Karate 10:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral - acknowledging ping. I don't really think this will help make ANI a fun and cheerful place, if we even care about that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - How would the guy be able to report incidences, if he's barred from AN & ANI? GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  That's covered in the proposal: Exceptions to this t hiopic ban: opening new threads, participating in threads he opens, and responding to threads about him. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the exceptions listed above. Natureium (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• As above, I support (and also support extending this to the RefDesks). There is an easy fix to the problems caused by users like BB. --JBL (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If you consider his conduct bad enough to be banned from the admin boards, please don't fob him off on the Reference Desks. All the same rules of conduct apply there too. I hope the people who monitor ANI understand that he does not become different person when he's on boards you don't personally read. Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What I see here is a massive episode jumping on the bandwagon, regrettably including some editors I have come to respect. This is not main space disruption, I do not see walls of text or bludgeoning of conversations, although ironically, some of the editors in this discussion have seen fit to make numerous comments in multiple sub-threads. Yes, Bugs has made intemperate comments and should be warned to stop that. It is noted that they have made a very large number of posts here, but no-one has demonstrated that the majority of these are problematic. A tiny percentage of a very large number may well be quite a large number, but it is still a tiny percentage. This has the flavour of a moral panic and I for one find it distasteful. We diminish ourselves if we cannot bear to hear contrary voices. Stop the witch hunt now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

We have had these discussions about Baseball Bugs intermittently for more than ten years. Already his RfA ten years ago failed because of his ANI behaviour, and lack of meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia. Something this long in the making is not a moral panic or witchhunt, it is finally being fed up with someone who contributes no value to the project and drains resources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not see walls of text or bludgeoning of conversations... You're right, it's certainly true that these are the ONLY criteria we're allowed to use here. Nothing else counts. Glad you're here to set us all straight. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not wit, it's mockery, since creating strawmen and employing hyperbole are the lowest forms of rhetoric and deserving of said mockery. --Calton | Talk 23:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But, but, but I like hyperbole. And cockney rhyming slang. Oh well.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You are saying that you are fed up with someone who contributes no value to the project and drains resources and you are referencing his RfA ten years ago. Shouldn't this be about the thread supposedly prompting this block request? It can be found here. Curiously I see no reference to that thread. And speaking of draining resources, why was it even necessary for Piotrus to initiate that thread at AN/I? Couldn't Piotrus just go to the blocking admin directly on their Talk page and explain the teacher/student relationship?
Instead we have an AN/I thread started by Piotrus with a mass of text that begins with "I've been teaching with Wikipedia for a decade..." This is about a student who was blocked because her edits were mistaken for vandalism. The whole thread is a massive boondoggle. In my opinion Bugs' comments reflect the frustration with an unnecessary subsection on AN/I. But I cannot speak for Bugs. I am only reading into the sequence of inputs from the various editors weighing in. In my interpretation Bugs is responding to Piotrus for a waste of everyone's energies with a post that may not even belong on AN/I. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk about the thread then. If in it Bugs had really only wanted to express a frustration with an unnecessary subsection on AN/I, then I think they would have done something other than repeatedly troll everyone who commented. What's more concerning is that they accused Piotrus, with a diff, of reinstating a piece of vandalism: with nothing remotely relevant to be seen when clicking on the link. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala—I don't see trolling, but yes, Bugs made a mistake in claiming that Piotrus restored a problematic edit made by the student. Bugs apparently became aware of his error when NeilN questioned him about it and then Bugs apologized, saying "My apologies. Wrong editor." I think that's a simple honest mistake.
Also, you are referring to the edit as a piece of vandalism. That was the edit of the student. Or is it your understanding that the edit is vandalism? Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Since you asked and pinged me. I did ask the blocking admin, but he hasn't replied in time, and it was time sensitive block (it was disrupting my ongoing class due to IP range issues) so I had to bring it here, hoping for a speedy unblock (sadly, unblock happened only few hours later, since clearly, saying stuff like 'bad block rationale, disruptive IP block interrupts class in progress' is NOT a reason for any admin to take a speedy action). As for my support for the minor topic (noticeboard, etc.) ban here for Bugs, I stand by what I said - his arguments where not constructive or helpful. I don't see what he is doing here other than creating noise. He should focus on building encyclopedia, not talking about it in a manner that in the case here was, I repeat, not helpful. If he wasn't making noise, wrong accusations and displaying ignorance of relevant policies like WP:NOENG, maybe my student would have been unblocked faster. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Piotrus. I remain curious as to why Uanfala refers to an edit made by the student as "vandalism". Perhaps Uanfala can shed light on that. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala did no such thing, as anyone with basic reading comprehension can see. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you and I have a difference of opinion. But I can hope against hope that the referred-to editor weighs in to clarify the situation. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support A disruptive contributor at this venue causing more much more harm than good. AIRcorn (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don’t see where anyone has proved that this is necessary. I personally think more diffs are needed to establish a than. I do think that BBB should take this opportunity to read this thread and recognize that the community’s faith in them is broken. —-AdamF in MO (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: Re I do think that BBB should take this opportunity to read this thread and recognize that the community’s faith in them is broken: this kind of reasoning allows terrible users to make communities terrible indefinitely. As the ban of StuRat from RefDesk proved, the right thing to do with chronic terrible users is to ban them; the result will be immediate improvement, and in six months or whatever if BB wants to suggest reconsideration based on good works in the interim, it can be reconsidered then. --JBL (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do not see sufficient evidence to justify such a ban. It's my feeling that Bugs is a net positive here, and, frankly, I don't see where the discussion cited supports such a proposal at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I encourage Bugs to read WP:BDDR (when it comes to Sarcasm) no matter what the outcome of this discussion is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I might support if it were limited, let us say, to three months.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A disruption that we've all become used to is still a disruption. I guess he might be some sort of (humourless court jester that experienced folks have learned to ignore, but ANI (like RD) is a open space used by a lot of editors, and to most of them he probably appears as a bossy admin to whose one-sentence posts they're obliged to respond. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic palaver

If Bugs is banned from the AN noticeboards, then he might want to try to stir up some of the other drama venues? WP:AE is one place that could do with some cheer! – Uanfala (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Uanfala—you say here that What's more concerning is that they accused Piotrus, with a diff, of reinstating a piece of vandalism: with nothing remotely relevant to be seen when clicking on the link. What piece of "vandalism" are you referring to? That link was to an edit made by the student of Piotrus. Do you consider it vandalism? Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC) @Bus stop: I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding Uanfala's fairly simple point, but just to spell it out carefully: in this ANI thread, BB twice accused Piotrus of restoring this edit after it was reverted. However, the accusation was completely false: Piotrus did not restore that edit. (Other users, but not BB, characterized the edit as "vandalism".) --JBL (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Hi JBL—it is my assumption that Uanfala can explain why he chose to refer to the student's edits as "vandalism". As to the terms of reference—vandalism, student edits, what have you—it was established from the start of that thread that any of the referred-to edits were student edits and not edits that constitute vandalism. Although you have correctly made this point, this point bears repeating: Baseball Bugs did not refer to the edits as vandalism. Additionally, Baseball Bugs apologized for incorrect assertions regarding Piotrus restoring any of those problematic edits. Baseball Bugs said "My apologies. Wrong editor." It would be obvious to anyone looking at this thread that Baseball Bugs was apologizing for an honest mistake. Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Uanfala is also not characterizing the edit as vandalism, and so none of your comments that take that as a premise make any sense. --JBL (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Uanfala writes "What's more concerning is that they accused Piotrus, with a diff, of reinstating a piece of vandalism: with nothing remotely relevant to be seen when clicking on the link." It is not "a piece of vandalism". It is a student edit. It may be malformed. But is it vandalism? Perhaps Uanfala thinks it is vandalism. But you and I are not going to answer that question. Only Uanfala can shed some light on why they choose the term vandalism. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC) It is amazing that you have not understood your own misreading yet. You should strike all your posts on this topic, they make you look a complete fool. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC) No problem—I will give up trying to have a rational conversation with you. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Since this is the fifth time I'm receiving a ping from Bus stop who asks me to answer their question, I guess I ought to. I was reporting Bugs' characterisation of the student's edit. He hadn't used the term "vandalism" so I apologise that I've misrepresented him. And Bus stop, I – and probably the rest of those involved here – would be grateful if you could appreciate that this thread is not about that student's edit, neither is it about Piotrus' involvement (there wasn't any, only Bugs said there was), and it's not about Bug's accusation either (that was given merely as an example), the thread is about his long-term behaviour at ANI. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC) You can't skip the proximal cause of this thread and go on to allege long-term behaviour. This thread begins "This started at the end of the #Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock section above... " This thread presupposes wrongdoing at the thread titled "Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock". But no wrongdoing has been shown in that thread. No diffs have been provided. The editor apologized. He said: "My apologies. Wrong editor." What more is expected of someone when they make a mistake? You and others are making a mountain out of a molehill. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Maybe you can illustrate some good behavior by a person who made a mistake by striking the enormous pile of garbage edits you've added to this thread. --JBL (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC) I shan't waste my time responding to edits such as this and this. I find adversarial behavior counterproductive. You will notice that I will not engage in destructive conversation. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Your entire contribution to this thread is destructive. An easy way to avoid problems with adversarial behavior is to not repeatedly fill up a thread with incompetent, pestering mis-readings of others' comments, then refuse to acknowledge your own errors when they are repeatedly pointed out to you. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC) I'm taking the liberty of collapsing this whole subthread as none of it is related to the topic. The ANI thread about the blocked student has already been resolved and archived, but those wishing to revisit the issue are free to start a new thread. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My first look in AN/I in years, and I find this. I actually interacted with Bugs in article space many years ago. I found his style off-putting, but never enough to do anything about it. I do remember him being somewhat disruptive in here. I would have supported this, but this being my first day in here in years, I'm holding back a bit. Donald Albury 01:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support I feel that this is the logical response to the user's actions. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. I find Bugs amusing, as do others, i believe, but there are times when humour does not aid a resolution, and unfortunately he has the knack of finding those times. Honestly, though, this should probably be closed (with or without an Official Pronouncement), because he has accepted the outcome, and asked to be held to it. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral, but... I have no opinion on this (haven't looked at the evidence in this thread, have seen BB be either an asset or a disruption depending on the circumstances, more often the former than the latter), but does this apply to ANEW? The title of the thread and the bolded text in the proposal imply yea, but the parenthetical elaboration implies nay. He rarely edits it, but the same is even more true of AN (5771 edits to ANI, 61 edits to ANEW, 4 to AN). Banning an editor from a specific noticeboard to which they've only given four of the 111,000 edits seems weird if you're not going to ban them from the main noticeboard (AN) and all of its subpages (ANI and ANEW). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Bugs worked hard over many years; and although through many incidents of craziness and trouble here this encyclopedia has benefited overall by the work put in by Bugs...Modernist (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, appealable in six months if he demonstrates sufficiently that he is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to be a flaneur. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral - I would support a ban from the Reference Desks, but my opinions on the Reference Desks are neither here nor there, and the Reference Desks still exist. AN and ANI are rough-tough drama boards. As Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but the question here is what to do with someone who keeps spitting in the soup. EEng 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Piotrus entirely blameless? I see walls of text here. If as a teacher they are sending students to wikipedia to edit it seems obvious that they have to mentor every edit. To BB's credit he pointed that out to Piotrus numerous times in numerous ways. Any admin could have unblocked the student of Piotrus. I don't think it was necessary for Piotrus to initiate that thread at AN/I. And if they were to initiate it, it could have been kept short and simple. All they had to say was that this is my student and therefore those edits are not vandalism. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop:, some advise: knock it off already. At this point you're beating a dead horse. You've made your point. Watching this discussion like a vulture and swooping in to make the same challenges isn't helping. You're currently building your own disruptive walls of text. So, walk away and let this play out. 2601:401:500:5D25:BD38:3DAE:7DF4:C58B (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Who are or were you, unregistered Mobile editor? GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• shrugs* Could ask the same of you. Doesn't matter who I am or where I am; doesn't matter who you are or where your are. All that matters is that we're both here to positively contribute, right? You elected to create an account; I haven't, which granted makes it hard to believe me. *shrugs* So do, or don't. I don't have thoughts one way or another on Baseball Bugs. I stand by my advice to Bus stop. 2601:401:500:5D25:BD38:3DAE:7DF4:C58B (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, editors come here because this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. They may be naive and not know this place's reputation, or they may know it and still not know where else to turn. Robert, are you telling them to stay out of the kitchen? 92.19.26.167 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No, IP. I am telling them to stay out of the kitchen if they don't like the steam, vegetable aromas, and noise. No one has to come to ANI, and if you don't, you won't encounter its antogaonism, just other antagonism. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There are countries where many won't go to the police for fear, justified fear, of being beaten up. You make it sound like Wikipedia's one of those countries and we just have to accept it. I've been editing as an IP for the last couple of years not because I was under a cloud - I wasn't - but to help me break my wiki-habit and stay away from the endless, pointless fights. Sometimes I start drifting back, but then I read something like this and remember. 21:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.26.167 (talk)

Bring Medeis back

Not something we can do here. ansh666 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Medeis were keeping each other in check, but Medeis has stopped posting here since a few months, this has caused Baseball Bugs' behavior to get off the rails a bit. So, a simple remedy may be to get Medeis back here. Count Iblis (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Yes, I have also noticed Medeis's absence, to the extent of recently checking out her latest User contributions for some clue. I hope she is OK. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I hope he's OK as well, but it can't be denied that the reference desks are better without him around. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I had also noticed her absence. Other than some vague clues as to her general location in the world based on context clues from what she has written, I don't know how to contact her to check on her state of being; a psedonymous name on a website like Wikipedia is impossible to follow up on. --Jayron32 14:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC) It looks like she can be emailed. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Entirely disagree with the premise of this section and don't know how this being an additional subsection helps the current discussion except insofar as a few people have tied in the refdesks. (none of this is a comment on Medeis at all btw -- just that I've seen Medeis and Bugs defend each other against others' complaints far more often than I've seen Bugs' comments improve while Medeis is around... regardless, that's refdesk and not ANI). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Student deliberately ignoring copyright

ScylarA has created the same article repeatedly in article space and in his sandbox and had it deleted with the same warning about copyright violations. I can't count how many he's had deleted because I don't have admin x-ray vision but there are several messages posted on his talk page, and he has ignored them and continued to recreate the article, even adding back copyrighted material after someone from Wiki Ed removed it and explained again the rules surrounding copyright. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: I've notified them of the discussion. I see signs of IDHT. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I notified them of this discussion under the warning I posted earlier, which they of course ignored. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm counting three copyvio attempts, though that was a casual perusal after a nap and not a proper investigation. If the user wasn't a student, I'd just block them and call it a day.

I'm checking to see what other students in the course have been up to.

The teacher for the course appears to be Nwohao. I've sent a message to him. He don't have email enabled so I don't see anything further to be done if he doesn't respond. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What I found:

• User talk:Zaphany101/sandbox used a couple of lines from [93], which I've removed.
• User talk:Sreybruney1/sandbox and User:Sreybruney1 (same material, slightly different formatting) contains overly close paraphrasing of [94] ("Harry Dexter White...") and [95] ("40% of the $186 billion increase..."). I'm inclined to remove the material but have not done so yet.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Natureium, Bellezzasolo, and Ian.thomson. Wiki Education has reached out to the professor and we’ll provide updates when we have more information. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just make sure that anything copyvio that's removed gets a {{revdel}}. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed) has spoken to Nwoha, who has asked the student not to edit further without running it by Shalor (Wiki Ed) first. The student appears to be inactive now, and the copyright violations have been removed. We’ll be keeping tabs on the situation moving forward. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

user:Lucas-Recio

A new editor (created on 30 April 2018), Lucas-Recio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been removing "Moroccan" from Morocco history-related pages. Claiming that Morocco has nothing to do with this articles, and spamming pages with this edit summary, "X is not Morocco" (Marinid is not Morocco, Almohad is not Morocco.....). I guess this is a vandalism-only account with some trollish behaviors like in this (he added Category:Morrocan people to Constantine the Great and claimed that "According to user Atlas was Morrocan"). Other examples of his destruptive edits:

• He removed referenced content from Almohad Caliphate [96], and called me a "racist trolll".
• He removed 5 sections from Military history of Morocco without giving any reason (Why Roman times?, Morocco is since Alawite dynasty)
  After searching in this articles histories. I'm suspecting that this is a sock of the blocked user, Bokpasa. They're sharing the same anti-Moroccan agenda. I opened a Sockpuppet investigation -Aṭlas (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is Bokpasa??, ..I am not anti-Morrocan, you are anti-history that is!!!Lucas-Recio (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lucas-Recio: Intrigued. Please elaborate.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Question re legal threat

I'm still new at this so I wanted to ask; the user Strongaingel made a clear legal threat on Talk:For Britain with these edits. I've already blocked the user, but do I also remove the threat, or leave it? 331dot (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I'd remove it as it's not really contributing anything of value to the talk page. If he had posted some three-volume screed amongst which were some suggestions for article improvement that could be taken in good faith in isolation, then I'd remove just the threat-y bits and leave the rest alone. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done so. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I forget the exact protocol here, but this is perhaps worth forwarding to WMF legal as well, given that this isn't your general vague assertion of a legal issue but rather a very concrete ultimatum based on a threat to bring suit if the article is not edited to user's satisfaction. Said user's grasp of the realities of their legal threat seems extremely tenuous, but given the specifics of the threat, WMF legal might appreciate being brought into the loop. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ian.thomson. I will also do as Snow Rise suggests. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The only time I tried that, they threatened to block me for WP:NLT. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Threatened for making legal threats by reporting legal threats? I guess Kafka works at Legal now, does he?!  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, meaning no offense to Dlohcierekim, I feel there must be a little more to that story. (i.e. some kind of miscommunication in the manner in which the report was made). Snow ^{let's rap} 00:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the same person, trying to crowdfund[97] his cause:"Weʼve raised £0 to Overthrow a Government and Media who wilfully deceive Britons and their Children about the islamic war machine preparing to wipe us out." Doug Weller talk 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's going well, then... GoldenRing (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the reference to "UCC regulation", you might be dealing with a Freemen on the land believer.[98] So i don't think they'll get very far with WMF Legal. --Calton | Talk 14:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• (IANAL) Don't overlook legal threats especially where BLPs may be concerned, but this one does seem pretty frivolous; good NLT block, anyway. The statement that For Britain is a far-right party is supported by at least four good citations in the article, and if the person behind the legal threats and clearly intending to associate themselves with that label does not like being associated with that label, there's not actually anything Wikipedia can do about that. But do contact legal, they're the ones who can offer both legal advice and support for admins who are being harassed by vexatious litigants. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wingwraith

1. He lost a discussion at Talk:Communist Party of China - no one agrees him.
2. He lost another discussion there.
3. He accuses me of communism
4. He accuses me of fascism
5. He accuses me of believing in "shithole" ideology
6. He refuses to engage in discussion, and when he does, he accuses you of stuff (like that above).
7. In addition his edit is factual inaccurate. For instance the All-China Women's Federation is not part of the CPC, and neither are the student association and the trade unions
8. He adds information to the infobox which does not make sense. Why add that 19 out of 19 members of the CMC are members of the CMC... when the CMC is a party body? His inclusion to the infobox of everything doesn't either make sense... I've never seen another infobox include how many cabinet members they have (which, again, China is a one-party state).

Conclusion. Impossible to engage with Wingwraith. I've tried to uphold the consensus and bring him to diaolog. At last, I'm also reinstating the infobox to when it passed GA status.

Can anyone block him?--TIAYN (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It would help if you provide links to all of those actions, ideally diffs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Communist Party of China#Left wing / far left and Talk:Communist Party of China#Adding every ideological development in the infobox is wrong. The edit history is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_China&action=history

do you need anything more @Boing! said Zebedee:? --TIAYN (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't play it both ways, you can't accuse me when of refusing to engage with you when you claim that a term for which I provided you with an academic citation is not a "scholarly term", make false claims of consensus and ram through mass reversions without even discussing them on the talkpage beforehand. As for your specific charges, I didn't lose anything (and in any case editing on Wikipedia doesn't work by winning or losing), I never accused you of communism/fascism/believing in a shithole ideology, the refusal of engagement applies to you not me (the discussion here will make that charge clear) and your last two points are non-starters because you should have discussed them first on the talkpage. I would advise any involved administrators to dismiss this request with prejudice, if nothing else for its naked attempt to game the system. Wingwraith (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I support TIAYN’s assertions. This has gone on for far too long, and the more personal the comments, the less accurate the statements. Take a Wiki-break or something!DOR (HK) (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by TIAYN on the CPC article

Further to this, I am requesting administrative intervention for the pattern of disruptive editing that the user in question has exhibited in relation to the involved article. All attempts by me to engage constructively with that user (from proposing a compromise position to consulting a third-party opinion) has been summarily dismissed by lies or false claims of consensus. Prospective administrators will also note here that there is an emerging consensus on a key point of dispute that is in opposition to the position that the user holds (or at the least in the absence of that user's participation in the discussion), but given TIAYN's history of disruptive editing I am appealing to an administrator to enforce the rules which would allow for that emerging consensus to be implemented. Wingwraith (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: You wrote

• Proof 1 "As I said I understand that you are pro-CPC so it would make sense that you would try to eliminate any mention of its political position but that really is no excuse for refusing to compromise by resorting to these ridiculous arguments. It's a complete fucking crock what you are doing and I will not stand for it
• Proof 2 "I personally think that your ideal society is a shithole that's run by fascists"

Here he goes again, even making another section. --TIAYN (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll note that you didn't address any of the substantive points that I raised in my OP. As for the two comments:

1) Yes I said that and I stand by it, it's a complete fucking crock for you to refuse to acknowledge that a term for which there is an entire article on Wikipedia, scholarly usage and a position that can be mapped onto the same device that you use to derive your political orientation which you display in one of the infoboxes on your talkpage is "made up."

2) That is a misrepresentation of what I said which actually is that it doesn't matter what you personally think (e.g. "The CPC doesn't have a student wing for instance." which is something that you actually have to prove) just like how it doesn't matter that I personally think that your ideal society is a shithole that's run by fascists, what matters are the facts of what you've done here in the (virtual) public which is to refuse every opportunity to engage constructively. Wingwraith (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this appears to be an edit war at Communist Party of China - full protection may be needed. I note that China is NOT under discretionary sanctions. From a quick glance at the talk page, I don't see either Wingwraith (talk · contribs) or Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs) being more at fault than the other. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to take a closer to look at what is happening, especially the discussion under the "Socialism authoritarianism political position" section of the talkpage. TIAYN said there that a term for which there is an entire article on Wikipedia, scholarly usage and a position that can be mapped onto the same device that the user used to derive his/her political orientation which he/she has displayed in one of the infoboxes on his/her talkpage is "made up." There's no way that I can be more at fault than a user who edits like that. Wingwraith (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. On the other hand, he's right about your "shithole" comment (diff) being concerning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But that user has no reason (or right) to be concerned about that comment when he/she has rejected every attempt that I've made to resolve the content dispute with him/her (which you don't deny). Wingwraith (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Prospective administrators should also be aware of an edit warring report that I have filed against the user here for another page that the user has edited disruptively and involves some of the same third-party users. Wingwraith (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • TIAYN's edits look a lot more troubling when their changes on related topics are considered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: You called me shit hole, and when you don't care about the other users who oppose you.. Secondly, show good faith. Instead of arguing have you ever thought of checking the women's federation website or anything else? No, because you're only interested in edit-warring. --TIAYN (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that Wingwraith has opened a discussion at the edit warring board... so where should this discussion be moved, here or there?

Very simple

1. Authoritarian socialism is not a scholarly term... most of the sources in that article don't discuss "authoritarian socialism", rather authoritarian nature of Marxist-Leninists dictatorships.. what we commonly call communist states / socialist states / Marxist states.. You get it. That article is bull and should be deleted... But that article is smbol of what is wrong with Wikipedia. As long as you have users like Wingwraith, who pretend to know things they don't know, and instead of making constructive edits only adds ideoloogies and positions to infoboxes and start edit wars...I'm not being nice, I know, but that article is terrible... and yet again, its not a term, its not a scholarly term... yes, maybe som authors wrote "authoritarian socialism" but that doesn't mean anything, you might as well write ""authoritarian libertarianism" or "authoritarian anarchism"
2. The Chinese trade unions, women's federations and student assocations (among others) are not part of the CPC... If Wingwraith would have interested in compromise he would have visited their websites. He would have found the answer for a long time ago. But he refuses. Instead of talking in a constructive manner he's engaging in an irrational manner - I'm a mixed-raced man, he can of course not know that, but being accused of fascism is very strange indeed...
3. The infobox fails to understand the difference between ideology and theoretical tools.. For instance, Deng Xiaoping Theory and Mao Zedong Thought are thought of as ideologies to us, but to the Chinese CP they are concrete policies for specific times/eras to implemenet Marxism–Leninism. Thats why every Chinese leader gets his own - because new leader = new time period, new difficulties and so on and so on.
4. I nominated the Communist party of China article to GA. I know how it looked when it was nominated to GA. I'm literally returning to the previous good consensus version.

• If I sound arrogant it is because I am. I know more about the Communist Party of China, the Soviet party and system and communism in general then most users do... but instead of having constructive editors we get users, who instead of improving articles, make a mess out infoboxes and make edits about topics they don't understand. This is about what is correct and what is wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • While it's important to be right, it's more important for other people to be able to verify you are right, through the use of secondary sources. Some of your changes (The Internationale being the "de facto" anthem) are removals of unsourced content, which is fine. I also agree that trying to characterize the CPC on a western left-right axis is difficult if not impossible. I don't doubt that you know more about this subject than I do, maybe some other editor can help resolve this dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I know little about politics, it's not a subject for me, but Authoritarian socialism has no meaning? So why is there a full article on it? Oh, because it does have a meaning. Authoritarian libertarianism is not at all comparable. Socialism is an economic system, and can be either libertarian or authoritarian in implementation (at least in theory). Libertarianism is a social philosophy characterized by maximising personal liberties. It's the opposite of having a centralized authority which limits freedoms, i.e. authoritarianism. It is a non-starter to call something Authoritarian libertarianism. I don't know anything about the CPC, but TIAYN's comment above gives me concerns. Not least of all because point 1 is debunked with a Wikipedia search, let alone a google books search and the few brain cells that I've devoted to politics (probably not more than two digits worth). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The world doesn't just revolve around you, there are other people who also edit on Wikipedia as passionately as you do on the same topics that you are interested in and yet hold views on them that are completely opposed to the ones that you have. It's a stupid fucking story that you need to stop telling yourself and if you can't do that then you should do something else. Wingwraith (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

While I do have some concerns about the language used by Wingwraith here, the user is definitely correct that the term "Authoritarian Socialism" is used in academic parlance; Not only has it been introduced to me during the course of my anthropological studies, I have also noted its occurrence in more casual conversations between scholars. (Most recently, a discussion between myself and my mentor; in short, it is common enough that it comes up even in informal academic conversation.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus and Mr rnddude: You don't seem to get it. Authoritarian socialism is Marxism–Leninism. All socialist states have been authoritarian. All Marxits–Leninists tates have been authoritarian. All communist states have been authoritarian... The next article which is going to be created is now totalitarian socialism.. As I've said repeatedly; authoritarian socialism is not a separate scholarly term. Note how all the articles information deals with Marxist–Leninist states, states influenced by Marxism–Leninism and states that established Marxist–Leninist policies... Authoritarian socialism is covered in the Marxism–Leninism article, socialist state article, communist article and so onn... You are creating therefore one more article about the same topic.... Which is a bloody problem because socialist state and communist state are also the same bloody thing. --TIAYN (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Get over yourself already, you've already been given good reasons why your inane, pseudo-intellectual opinions about authoritarian socialism make no sense. There's already a sufficient level of agreement for the establishment of a consensus over this particular issue, so the sooner that you accept it the better. Wingwraith (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN, you are absolutely not helping your case by failing to differentiate socialism and communism. Indeed, these are two different systems. Further, while a totalitarian state might be the goal of authoritarians, it is not the same thing as an authoritarian state. Further, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-socialism exist. Please do some research; I now severely doubt that you have the expertise you previously claimed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Prospective administrators should note that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened against TIAYN. Wingwraith (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure where that SPI investigation went, but the trend I'm noticing (all issues of the nature of the content aside) is some concerning mentality/attitude on the part of TIAYN.
  • "That article is bull and should be deleted"
  • "that article is smbol of what is wrong with Wikipedia"
  • if Wingwraith would have just visited the sites TIAYN wants him to embrace, "He would have found the answer for a long time ago"
  • "The infobox fails to understand"
  • "If I sound arrogant it is because I am. I know more about the Communist Party of China, the Soviet party and system and communism in general then most users do"

My takeaway from that is that regardless of how accurate TIAYN might be, he's not engaging in collaborative behavior or editing with collaboration in mind. Those are the kinds of statements that we commonly find in folks who are on a mission to right great wrongs. Grandpallama (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: The SPI was determined to be inspired by an unconnected sock, and therefore deleted by User:DoRD. Just FYI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus and Mr rnddude: OK here it goes. Socialist states and communist states are the same thing. Here's the story.

1. A guy name Karl Marx, with a guy named Friedrich Engels, conceived of a thing called historical materialism. Historical materialism believed society was governed by universal laws. History began with primitive communism, the developed in the slave mode of production, then the feudal mode of capitalism and then finally capitalist mode of production. After capitalism society would develop into the socialist mode of production (see Socialism (Marxism) and from there develop into pure communism.
2. All the Marxist–Leninist states defined themselves as socialist states. The constitutions of China, the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, Vietnam el cetra all define themselves as "socialist state" and uses the term "socialist state"... No one has ever used the term "communist state" before because no Marxist–Leninist state ever achieved communism. So here we've proven that all "communist states" actually defined themselves as "socialist states"... if they hadn't achieved socialism, they would interchangeably refer to themselves as people's republics, people's democracy and so on.
3. So no @Icarosaurvus: I'm not making a fool of myself, you are! Marx said it. Stalin said it. The Communist Party of China is saying it.. The Chinese constitution says in Article 1 "The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.".... and, more importantly, its says its in the primary stage of socialism, which explains why capitalism exists in China.

@Grandpallama: Very true, but now, as I've understood, Wingwraith has been blocked. So I'm more collaborative now :) --TIAYN (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Any blocking of the OP does not address your own behavior (which you appear to have just confirmed was tendentious and questionable), and smugly stating that you can now edit things the way you want them to be does nothing but heighten my concerns; it should also alarm any admins who are keeping an eye on this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't interpret me correctly. I intend to consult with the other editors, as I did at the Talk:Communist Party of China. The others don't call me fascist, communist, shithole or tell me to fuck off. @Grandpallama: I literally just want to get over with this. --TIAYN (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Very important, read this comment from @DOR (HK): at Talk:Communist Party of China: "I agree with TIAYN. @Wingwraith:, you have no support for your position and are simply being obstructionist. Get over it. " (its at the very bottom of the talk page). --TIAYN (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd be thrilled to have this over with, since bringing someone to ANI with a request that they be blocked from editing inevitably results in greater scrutiny of your own behavior. Thus far, everything I've seen strongly suggests editors and admins should be alarmed about what you're saying and doing with your edits. And for the record, I don't really care what other editors say about your content position; I'm concerned about your behavior and your motivations. Grandpallama (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: I can't really respond to that, other that I do agree that I did not behave properly regarding the CPSU article.. On the CPC article I didn't escalate it, but I should have been bigger. But you're right, I've been annoyed (and I feel rightly so), and been brash and angry.

This is not an apology, but rather.. I get you're position. --TIAYN (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Volunteer Marek in page subject to DS

User:Volunteer Marek has repeatedly made uncivil comments towards me at Talk: Home Army, which is a page related to Eastern Europe, and as such subject to discretionary sanctions. Diffs: [99][100][101] François Robere (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 100.33.106.43 (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out and backing up that someone is misrepresenting sources is not uncivil. Pointing out that someone is engaging in original research, and particularly obnoxious and over-the-top POV original research, is not uncivil. Frqancois Robere's edits in this topic area have been a significant source of disruption for about a month now (due to his persistence and attempts to insert said OR into other articles, they had to be put under 1RR). And I'm totally sick of dealing with someone who's clearly playing games. For example, he keeps asking me "what did I misrepresent", "what OR did I engage in" - and then I replied THREE TIMES. Hell, one of those times I was tired of writing the same thing in different ways so I just copy/pasted myself (as the diffs show): "I note that there's still no source for "late", in either war or "rebellion"." And THEN he comes back and demands to know AGAIN [102]. How are you suppose to have a discussion with someone like that (he finally quoted... another author)??? I don't appreciate having someone sit there and waste my time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't back anything, Marek:

1. I addressd your question about "late" several times [103][104][105]. Instead of trying to reach consensus, you disappeared [106].
2. You claimed I made aMn accusation against AK, which I didn't. I asked you to clarify - you didn't.
3. You said I distorted some quotes; I asked you to show me where - you didn't.
4. You claimed I was "deeply ignorant of basic facts" just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong, but you didn't retract it.
5. You claimed I was "slapping this over-the-top extremist and fringe POV", which is supported by at least 6 RS.
6. And finally, you claim I "brought" 1RR to the article, despite the fact that the whole field has been contentious since at least 2007 [107][108].

This isn't "backing up" anything, this is smearing. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"I addressd your question about "late" several times " <-- No, no you didn't. You pretended to address it. The question was "please provide sources for your claim that the Home Army only provided weapons to Jewish Fighting Organization "late in the war"". Let's look at your diffs.

First diff: [109]. First you try to weasel out of not having sources by changing "late in the war" to "late in the rebellion". Then you cite a source WHICH DOES NOT say EITHER! That IS misrepresentation of sources.

Second diff: [110]. This particular comment from you is the one that is over-the-top obnoxious and POV and offensive. It's classic WP:TEND. And it's so wrong I don't even know what to call it. Where are you sources? You're just throwing up a bunch of ridiculous and absurd original research, the gist of which is that the Home Army should've supplied weapons to the Jewish Fighting Organization ... before it actually existed and since they didn't they're responsible for deaths in the ghetto from starvation and in Treblinka. I'm sorry but that is just fucked. "They didn't supply weapons to an organization which didn't exist so they're guilty of Treblinka!" It shows exactly how biased and absurd your WP:AGENDA is on this article. And did I mention no sources?

Third diff [111]. Again, no sources, just more (incorrect) original research. Oh, wait, you quote... a Wikipedia article (which happens to have gotten it wrong). And this incorrect original research DOES NOT actually address the issue!

I'm sorry but this isn't "answering the question". This is straight up obfuscation and weaseling intended to mask the fact that you got busted misrepresenting sources.

As an aside, I've actually had conversations and communications with families of the Ghetto Fighters (I'm actually the guy who wrote quite a number of Wikipedia articles on these guys) and inquired about historical details, memories, etc. What you are doing here is offensive to their memory and is just shameful. Go screw up some other topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And " just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong" <-- I didn't get any date wrong. You just either have no clue what you're talking about or you're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I take to the diffs, note that you've only answered the first point; apologies are still due for the other five.

• First diff: Again, you start with an insult ("weasel out"). I gave you a source stating arms were at a "meager supply" until halfway through the war, and on several occasions suggested you rephrase as you see fit. I see it as "compromising to reach consensus"; to you it's "weaseling out".
• Second diff: You asked for a timeline, didn't you? [112] So I gave you a timeline. Considering I based it on both "my" RS and the ones already in the article (and other articles, like Warsaw ghetto uprising), saying it's OR is OR in its own right. The rest of your comments about bias and POV are completely fictional, and not as much as tethered in anything I wrote.
• Third diff: There's nothing OR about it. It's all very straightforward, and I really don't get what's your problem. If we have sources saying the ghetto was ill-supplied, and we know the resistance was hesitant to supply it, and we know they only agreed to do so after a personal appeal to Sikorski and a "proof of concept" battle with the Germans - both of which took place months, or even years after the ghetto resistance was formed - then what's the problem? All of this is well sourced, and considering I didn't even insist on that word - you did - I really don't get what's your problem.

I didn't get any date wrong - you said ZOB didn't exist until November 1942; it was actually founded in July of the same year, as its article correctly states (RS). So yes, you got it wrong, and you should apologize for the slew of insults that followed.

As for your conversations with families of ghetto fighters: Wikipedia is based on RS, not on your or my personal feelings. What's more, you assume you're the only one who's had "conversations and communications" of this kind - how well do you know your fellow editors that you'll make this assumption? Even worse, you're blind to sources that were themselves fighters or survivors: Krakowski, Feiner and Bauer - who are you to say their words are worth any less than yours? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't find Volunteer Marek's comments uncivil, especially considering François Robere constant coming back with the same issues. And he does it on multiple Poland's related articles, over and over again,[113] and again, [114] and again,[115]. It appears his actions are intended to exhaust the opposition. Troubling and should be finally addressed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you don't find anyone's comments "uncivil" as long as you agree with them. You didn't even mind citing this handsome gal as a source when it suited you [116], and just today you decided - after months of distoring sources and refusing to budge [117] - that Jews can't really be communists because they're Jews [118]. This should indeed be addressed. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was that they were not religious Jews but communist partisans of Jewish heritage, STOP making things up. On top of that, it appears that you just accused me of being racist! [119] This is too much!GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so there's no such thing as secular Jews? Bella, how many Jews do you actually know? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

MYSELF! Anything else you'd like to add?GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You described historical anti-semitism in Poland as "small conflicts" [120]; characterized wartime anti-semtisim as marginal, and backed sources that claim it was due to some Jewish affinity to communism; made a point of marking sources according to their nationality, suggesting their reliability is compromised [121][122]; suggested on several occasions that the whole discussion is motivated by money [123][124]; characterised the whole discussion in ethnic terms - "Polish" vs. "Jewish" - and backed the former [125][126][127]; repeatedly made edits that portray Polish collaborators as "unwilling" and "tacit", while pushing narratives of Jewish collaboration [128]; and finally, for the pièce de résistance, brought a source that claims that "ghettos were not that bad" [129]. I don't know what's your story (and it doesn't interest me in the slightest), but I'm well past believing anything you say that isn't backed by RS. François Robere (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• comment Holy cow! François Robere is accusing Volunteer Marek of incivility! Is this a sign of the end times?! I don't know how you ANI regulars do it. Anyway, proposing a TBAN of each against posting about the other at ANI or AN of maybe anywhere else.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reported FR anywhere (though he sure deserves it) so I'm not clear on what the purpose of such a ban would be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. You accused me of "making shit up" as early as March 18th [130] - why would you want to report that? François Robere (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, perhaps it's time for TBAN of François Robere on relevant articles. My impression is they are a greater net negative than Volunteer Marek. Too much drama and disruption.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, travel guides are proper sources [131]. I'd hedge my bets better if I were you. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see much actionable in either VM or FR's comments on the talk page; VM's comments aren't personal attacks (edging on them, but not there), and FR is trying to get specific information from VM that VM seems to not be providing. I would think that it would help if VM addressed the specific comment on what mis-characterization of Zimmerman that they state FR is using, as that's what FR is trying to figure out to address their argument better, but instead VM is deflecting it. Again, we can't act on that behavior, but it's not helpful to keep heated discussion away. --Masem (t) 17:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what info I'm not suppose to be providing. He made a claim. I asked for sources. He evaded the question. I asked for sources. He evaded the questions. As to Zimmerman, it's simply NOT the case that he says anything like FR claims he says. I don't know how I'm suppose to prove a negative, except to say "no, he doesn't say anything like that".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't disappear for five days only to come back and claim "I already answered this!!!". What exactly did I "evade"?

As for Zimmerman: I asked you a simple question: What did I supposadely say that he didn't. The answer should be straightforward. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And like I already said several times, I already answered it several times Like here. Here it is again. You claimed that, according to Zimmerman ""Keep in mind AK and other organizations routinely referred to Jewish refugees and partisans as "bandits" regardless of their activities"" This is completely false. Zimmerman says no such thing. I guess you can try to get out of this by claiming that the claim is made by ... someone else, Krakowski, in a volume edited by Zimmerman. Ok, but then there's also this: "As for Rashke - he's just a secondary source here, but his claim is established by Zimmerman quoting the actual message from the Jewish resistance to Sikorski." Which again, is a misrepresentation of Zimmerman (and your own original research) And this is the part you are trying to falsely portray as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense ("late" being 1943, a few months after ZOB was first formed). This discussion right here is a perfect example why it's impossible to talk to you about this topic. You just jump from one falsehood to another and then claim that when people don't immediately respond to your nonsense they "disappeared". It's a standard WP:CPUSH tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is another misrepresentation of Zimmerman. You say: "Zimmerman, p. 255[5] suggests the difference between the report and the order was due to outside criticism, or fear thereof". Here is the source [132]. What it actually says is omission of any mention of Jews in the actual order "suggested" (as in "maybe") that "Komorowski was aware that (...) (mentioning Jews in this context) would make the underground vulnerably to accusations of antisemitism". Now, you can interpret that in a way which is charitable to Komorowski, or in a way which is not charitable to Komorowski (Zimmerman more or less splits the difference), but one thing for sure, **there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism"**. Komorowski decided to word his actual order the way he did all on his own, and Zimmerman is clear on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that, according to Zimmerman... - No, I didn't. I quoted Zimmerman regarding Bór-Komorowski's orders (116 & 220) [133]. Krakowski is a whole different source.

I already answered it several times - I don't know what you're referring to, but I know I gave you 4 RS on it [134].

What's wrong with stating that Zimmerman and Rashke both cite the same order, but only Zimmerman also quotes it? That's not OR, that's two sources in agreement.

this is the part you are trying to falsely portray [Zimmerman] as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense - no, I don't. The article already quoted Zimmerman (Zimmerman describes the supplies as "limited but real) - I merely summarised it [135]. I already told you that [136], but you keep insisting.

there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism" - what's "accusations of antisemtism" and "[evidence] to accuse the Home Army of complicity" if not "oustide criticism"?

This is important: You keep reading into my comments things I didn't say: You think I accused the AK of the ghetto calamity, but I said nothing even remotely close; you think that by using the phrase "outside criticism" I suggested that Komorowski got "help" with the letter, but I didn't - the way I used "criticism" was completely in line with Zimmerman's "accusations". It's like the discussion is taking place in two parallel channels: I say one thing, you hear something completely different (then complain about it). Why is that? François Robere (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment2 - François Robere should focus on the matter of this complaint instead of attacking people commenting not in his favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You inserted yourself into the discussion, Bella. Don't pose. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented on the matters related to the complaint, that is a usual procedure. Instead of focusing on the claim you attacked Dlohcierekim and me directly for addressing remarks that were not in your favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You gave your point of view, and I gave background on where you're coming from. It's all pertinent. François Robere (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You attacked the reputation of people who are not directly involved in the alleged uncivil commentary complaint for merely daring to comment. That is not okay.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What's not okay, Bella, is smearing an editor (or a source [137][138]) just because they disagree with you. You know what? I encourage anyone reading this to follow your comments links (I'll even fix the broken one for you), and see for themselves how these discussions unfolded. Then they can opine on whether your comment had any merit, or was it another smear. François Robere (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• AE time perhaps even in this thread I evidence of TE , POV pushing and aspersions in a DS area. Sounds like a good candidate for AE to look at Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ARBCOM is on the verge of accepting a different case related to editing World War II topics; I've discouraged them from pulling the ongoing Poland-related WWII disputes into that case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: ArbCom (new cases) and AE (enforcement) are different processes, as I understand. DS system already exists under the Eastern European case, so this perhaps should be taken to WP:AE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BalbinoFelipe

I have sent this editor several messages about sourcing on several articles over the last five months, but they haven't replied to a single message. They have also not replied to similar messages from other editors. They have continued to create unreferenced articles since they have had warnings about this. I have pointed out that WP:Communication is required, it is part of the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. They have been editing for seven years but have never responded to a message. Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:OVVL

I have sent OVVL six messages, all ignored [139]. They have only ever edited their talk page to delete people's messages. The messages were about the creation of unreferenced articles, such as 2018 French Open – Men's Singles and 2018 French Open – Women's Singles. I have directed them to WP:V and WP:BURDEN and pointed out that WP:Communication is required as part of the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE, but to no avail. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully they're not related to ovv-services, a technology marketing solutions firm. Lourdes 03:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any promotion in their edits, so I assume not, but OVVL, perhaps you'd like to answer the above? Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OVVL, you've continued to edit including adding unsourced information [140]. Please respond. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Aligarh Muslim University

Could someone please semi-protect the article for a day or two? A flood of IPs (several of them geolocating to the university...) and new accounts are repeatedly making unconstructive edits on the article (more than 50 edits over the past two hours), and I'm tired of reverting them. I requested protection at RfPP more than an hour ago, but that page is backlogged, and nothing has happened there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's already semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It got protected at RfPP 35 minutes after I posted here, and about two hours after I posted there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We haven't been doing a great job with keeping up at RfPP. When I checked in there was a substantial backlog and I started at the back end. It took me a while to get through it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Break-in attempts to accounts belong to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics

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

---

3 members of our very small project have had this occur within the past few hours. Given the politically charged nature of the topic, I don't think this is random. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#failed_login_attempts --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's actually an issue that's happening to a number of people. It's been reported at the village pump as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a relief then. Didn't see the other report, but I also am battling a cold today so my bad. Please disregard --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this. A site-wide issue (that's also affecting the French Wikipedia) would randomly affect the Gun politics project without necessarily being politically motivated. No one needs to explain how because of WP:BEANS, but it's really no trouble to try to log in to everyone's account. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I had an attempt too. Glad it's not just me, although I wasn't unduly worried. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There was an attempt to hack my account last night as well. In a discussion at User talk:Winkelvi, at least eight random editors report such attempts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Nothing to do with gun politics, methinks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Might be related to this? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-passwords/twitter-says-glitch-exposed-substantial-number-of-users-passwords-idUSKBN1I42JG (Change your passwords) --Tarage (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a notification too, but I have never used Twitter and don’t intend to ever do.Tvx1 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This was a bot attack on thousands of accounts. Any further discussion should take place at WP:AN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Edgarmm81 - legal threat

Edgarmm81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[141] Give that the user is WP:NOTTHERE anyway and last time barely escaped an indefinite block, may be it is time to block them indef. There are enough more constructive users representing both sides of the Catalonian conflict.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter I am much relieved now. In the beginning, I thought you were going to investigate that, but I see you prefer to kill the messenger and conceal an impersonation (offense). Sorry, if you were not in my evocate list, maybe I should also include you. But you know, there are not more that 3-5 potential users, so the offenser will get caught soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd personally want to see diffs indicating that the behavioural issue at the last ANI report continued. I see tehy're an SPA, but I'm not well enough versed on the previous dispute to comment on their continued edits. With the issue at hand, this is very much a questionable NLT violation.

Btw, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BallenaBlanca will you request an investigation of the user and IP, expel that person and facilitate my sue or you'd rather conceal and obliterate a criminal offense?

— Edgarmm81

Since the hacking attempt is obviously from an unknown source, we don't know whether they're a Wikipedian or not. NLT is quite clear, in my view, "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors" (empahsis added). I'm not sure if there is a legal threat against BallenaBlanca there, hence I'm somewhat uncomfortable with an indef. However, Edgarmm81 did seem to be casting aspertions at Crystallizedcarbon and BallenaBlanca. "So, do you know anything about that ...". Again, nothing explicit, but perhaps grounds for 4im warnings.

Also, I edit conflicted with the user in question. Make of the above what you wil. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say that that marking the exit in question as a legal threat is marginal at best. No comment on the SPA issues or other, but this heading is asking for action under NLT, which is a stretch. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Could this be a coincidence with all the multiple reports of account access attempts here? Which he probably got a notification and thought someone was trying to break into his account and made him think it was an attempt to impersonate him? ViriiK (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite possible. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it can be indeed read this way, in which case it is not a legal threat (at least not the one they should be indeffed for). May be we can drop this, unless someone wants to investigate the NOTTHERE aspect.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming so, not least looking at the above section #Break-in attempts to accounts belong to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. Many editors affected are thinking that they've been singled out. Alas, this isn't going to be very conducive to a CIVIL environment over the next few days. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't just restricted to any single sphere of WP. There's a thread on WP:AN and the Teahouse where editors from all across the spectrum have been hit with failed login attempts, myself included, and it's not project related. @Edgarmm81: I would recommend you retract the potential legal thread in your statement to Ymblanter. This was a misunderstanding within a much bigger issue that hit WP. Blackmane (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much everyone for your feedback.

I am not a member of the WikiProject Politics and I have also suffered a failed login attempt today.

I ask Edgarmm81 to apologize to Crystallizedcarbon and me. And I repeat, once again ..., that please, put a little more interest in learning how to edit our encyclopedia: you continue without signing the messages, you have not learned to ping, you continue editing on a single article, you are casting aspertions, etc. And you are not listening to our multiple warnings.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, has anyone noticed that the name is quite similar to Edgar181? SemiHypercube (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I doubt it is intentional, and not enough to be counted as impersonation. 181-Edgar sounds more like a radio callsign. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, like every admin I've had a number of stalkers, impersonators, etc. creating multiple accounts in feeble attempts to annoy me over the years, but I don't recognize anything familiar with this account. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edgarmm81: Don't know if anyone mentioned this already, but many accounts were hit today with login attempts. This was not about you. It was a general attack.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Aye, I am virtually a nobody, and even I was hit with one. It seems they tried to cast as wide a net as possible. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The claim I saw would put the login attempts in the low hundreds of thousands. I imagine they just hit everyone who made an edit in the last month, or something like that. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221, it looks like the work of some kind of bot. I was hit once as well. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Actions of FaZeCastorm

FaZeCastorm has had some pretty questionable actions, and I am not sure if it should be edit war notice board, SPI or here, so I thought the more generic here was the best place. This user first is clearly editing while logging out, as you can see they even signed this post [142] while posting logged out. Besides for that comment being nothing but a pure mimic of someone attempting to actually contribute, right after they attempted to close the debate while logged in [143] (note they created this article, which I nominated). Once their action was rightfully reverted, they logged out and did it again [144] and [145]. They also attempted to remove the deletion notice from the top of the article, which they were warned against here [146], however rather than following the advice, they logged out and did it again [147].

This same user also created the page WWE 2K19 with this edit [148] which you can see is just the WWE 2K18 copied and pasted, with the exception of the marketing section, and changing 18 to 19. Their very few other edits are no different, such as this [149] were an unsourced changed and immediately reverted, or this [150] which was immediately reverted due to them just randomly adding something with a future date without a source. They also created an article with this edit [151] and The Absolution, both of which were previously deleted through an AfD.

I wouldn't be surprised if this user was connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123 due to the actions, but at this point I do not have enough evidence to support opening that case, however I believe it is clear in either scenario that this user is not here to offer constructive edits. - Galatz^Talk 03:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Long-term sneaky insertions of apparently non-notable individual

There is an editor or set of editors who has been insistent upon inserting the name Ivan Taslimson into various wikipedia articles for years now. There are no clear references supporting this person's notability, and the insertions often have a devious nature: wikilinks that have no clear relationship to this person, or references with nothing besides the name "Taslimson Foundation". It seems that the actions of these person(s) is to the detriment of wikipedia, and I want other editors to at least be aware of what's going on. Some examples over the years (by no means exhaustive) include: [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161]. —Myasuda (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, this is indeed at best spam of a non notable individual, at worst some hoax, but certainly something that has no place on enwiki. I have removed all entries which remained in articles, but probably they will be back soon. Fram (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Violating IBAN with site-banned editor?

About three months ago I opened an ANI thread about Darkness Shines. I had no previous negative interactions with the editor, nor did I have any particular "beef" with them (I didn't even necessarily disagree with them on the content dispute that led to the ANI), and brought the issue to ANI purely as a procedural matter -- and an unpleasant one at that. I certainly didn't expect his "enemeies" to start seeing me as one of them and "thanking" me.

After the thread closed with an indefinite site-ban, I received a mysterious message on my talk page from C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs),[162] an editor with whom I had never interacted but whose name I recognized because, when filing the ANI thread, I checked WP:RESTRICT and noticed that DS and CWG were subject to a mutual IBAN. I gave CWG a polite warning to refrain from doing what he appeared to be doing for his own benefit,[163] before blanking the section.[164]

His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious: the edit for which he thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but I can't think of a reason he would thank me for that edit in particular -- it was clearly a symbolic gesture of some kind, and given the timing it's obvious what he was actually thanking me for. Also, he did seem also to be thanking several people involved in the DS site-ban discussion during that general time frame, Bishonen (talk · contribs)[165][166] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[167][168] The thanking of these editors at around the same time as the above mysterious message and the email discussed below might be a good-faith coincidence, and if it's anything like the definitely-not-a-coincidence thanking of me for responding to a message on my talk page about an RSN discussion it probably looks like it.

He then emailed me with the title "we have a common cause" and apparently alluded to DS's username and a potential unbanning of said as the return of the darkening skies, and claimed to have watch (sic) [me] and Turkey from afar and only wish the best for both of [us]. This really creeped me out, and I forwarded it to Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) (who was named therein) and Alex Shih (talk · contribs) (since I was considering sending it to ArbCom to see what the whole committee thought but decided first running it by an Arb I'm in semi-regular off-wiki contact with would be better). Alex's reply essentially amounted to "Yeah, it's creepy, but so is a lot of stuff; best just let it set for now".

CWG promised in the email to leave me alone until said "darkening skies", but today showed up on an unrelated discussion on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s talk page where I had brought up an unrelated problem and unfortunately referred to it as "grave-dancing" (when in fact my problem was really the opposite). He explicitly referenced the above exchange on my talk page and email, which was two months and twelve days ago.[169] If I hadn't completely forgotten about the whole affair in February, I wouldn't have responded at all (which I unfortunately did) but rather emailed Tony explaining the situation (which I have since done).

I'm really not sure if it's okay for CWG to be going around attempting to make contact with people he sees as the "enemies of his enemy" when said enemy has an IBAN against him, or how DS's own SBAN could relate to this. Honestly, it seems very slimey for him to be doing this after DS has already left the site: I'm less comfortable referring to it as WP:GRAVEDANCE than I might have been a few days ago, but it's definitely icky, and frankly I'd rather have nothing more to do with it, so I'll leave this for the community to address. If the community determines that what CWG has been doing is perfectly acceptable, then he has my apologies for bringing this up on ANI; if they determines that this is a case for ArbCom to address privately ... well, that was my initial assessment until CWG referred to it on-wiki today, but if anyone wants to tell me I should just email ArbCom I'd also take that advice into account.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• • I said nothing when I got titled, ‘’’Slimey grave-dancing and IBAN violations’’’ [170] as is suggested in dealing with false accusations of WP:GRAVEDANCING. I came across Hijiri 88 claiming Andrew D. also doing [it], that is when I mentioned that this was not Hijiri 88’s first time claiming this on a thin pretext. This appears to be what has set off this current of AN/I retaliation, digging up stuff from past months and weaving it together with a good bit of fictional enhancement. Someone gave Hijiri 88 a great piece of advice and noted that I felt it would be well to be followed, using myself as for example, and somehow Hijiri 88 is claiming this is a IBAN violation? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

While I was drafting the above, CWG also admitted (as an explanation for his suddenly showing up on Tony's talk page) to apparently being a fan of Tony's, which in turn is suspicious as Tony also supported banning DS back in February.[171] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• There are many editors that I follow and watch their talking page unless asked not to and thus I noticed, [User:Hijiri88] claiming twice within 3 months that an editor was dancing on graves. I thought this odd and mentioned it. I do not believe that I violated either the spirit or the letter of the IBAN, and only communicated my sincere thoughts and expressions with other editors.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

To be sure, continuing to monitor the activities of the other user, and going so far as to reach out to other people who dispute with them, is most definitely a violation of both the spirit and the letter of WP:IBAN. You do not seem to have a legitimate, non-DS-related reason to be involved with TonyBallioni, Curly Turkey or myself, which supports this assertion.

If the community decides that it's okay for you to violate your IBAN in this particular manner now that DS is subject to an unrelated site ban, then that is that, but for the record I would appreciate you taking me off whatever list of "friends" you have compiled, as I want nothing more to do with this matter. Coming after me to a completely unrelated discussion and claiming that by offering you this extremely carefully-worded and polite advice I was somehow accusing you of grave-dancing is inappropriate. (Yes, I did directly accuse you of grave-dancing in my emails to Curly Turkey and Alex Shih, but you do not seem to have been aware of those.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You now admit to accusing me and Andrew Davidson and tell me how many more??? -This is not assuming good faith and does not build a healthy environment by making so many accusations so often of Grave Dancing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please drop it already. It is not cool for you to be going around expressing schadenfreude that DS got site-banned (this is WP:GRAVEDANCE) or discuss or otherwise indicate that you are watching DS at all (this is a violation of your WP:IBAN). Whether it is okay for AD to bring up the name of another editor in a discussion in which said editor is unable to defend themselves is an entirely unrelated matter, and if you are not going to do the research then you really shouldn't even be talking about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one that posted this about me, and you are the one making claims about others also Grave Dancing when they are not and you are the one accusing me of following someone wrongly, when I was/am following this ANI page; you are one to talk about dropping things. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, you really should drop it. The last that came of the "claim" in question before you showed up was Maybe "gravedancing" was a poor choice of words. [...] It's discussing an editor who is still actively contributing to the project but who cannot respond to a comment in which they were explicitly named that concerns me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one making stuff up and need to stop - "CWG also admitted (as an explanation for his suddenly showing up on Tony's talk page) to apparently being a fan of Tony's," - As I have stated [here], TonyBallioni is only another editor that I came across and wanted to follow months back as to follow many users. I'm not a fan but I find that I learn a lot from watching others interact and I Thank a lot of people. You need to stop twisting my words, just because you are upset that I pointed out how frequently you claim others are WP:GRAVEDANCING - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not allowed monitor the activities of Darkness Shines or his interactions with other editors unless you have appealed your IBAN. That he is subject to a separate site-ban is irrelevant. I never accused you on-wiki of grave-dancing, but you keep honing in on that because you know what I actually accused you of is something you can be blocked for and you have all but admitted to doing. Please stop trying to distract from the main issue here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you make stuff up, I WATCH THIS AN/I BOARD and avoid any subject of an IBAN, unlike you are saying. Also, "I never accused you on-wiki of grave-dancing," does not line up with what you said [here], so just stop. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

- P.S. I try my best to thank at least one editor per day as this is a volunteer endeavor I find it as one of the few ways editor's have to know that what they are doing is valued.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an extremely unusual use of the WP:THANK function, if that is what you were doing when you thanked me for this edit. I would advise you to give it up and only thank editors for edits that (a) concern you directly or (b) are an unambiguous improvement to the encyclopedia. I can guarantee you that the majority of editors would be creeped out by what you are doing otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Strange how you leave out people I strongly disagree with and have had edit conflicts with before such as Anmccaff, from the many people I have regularly "thanked" for making quality edits to Wikipedia. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Above you wrongly "cherry pick" examples of people I have "thanked" to make suit your piont. I have "thanked" many people, and among them are those I have had issues. If the edit is good, it doesn't matter and I have never use the Thanks function in the way you wrongly suggest.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't say or even imply that all or even most of your "thank"s were made in bad faith. What I said was that your thanking me was clearly in bad faith, and your thanking those two particular editors (and maybe a few others -- I wasn't thorough) looks similar. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait ... you don't appear to have ever thanked either Anmccaff[172] or Qwirkle[173] -- what gives? Why does everything you say make you look more suspicious? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it was this edit [174] that I thanked them for dispite thier rude comments. Anyway, I apologize for thinking your edit was an improvement and I will never thank you again. In fact I would very much like to never think about you again, very soon. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

But there is no record of you having ever used the thank function on the editor who made that edit -- seriously, this is getting more and more creepy... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I remember thinking them and looking back I can thank him for the before and the one after but I can no longer thank them for that post. It may be a problem from when the thank-you function was having problems. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it as an IBAN vio because Hijiri88 is not Darkness Shines.
  C. W. Gilmore, that being said, I was not impressed by you continuing to make a conversation on my talk page about Hijiri88 after I told you the type of environment I try to promote there. If you search through my archives, you will see that I get questions from editors about conflicts they are in, and I do my best to provide neutral advice, with the goal on my end almost always being to deescalate potential conflict without the need for administrative intervention or a noticeboard discussion.
  It is just generally good advice to not talk to engage with people who don't want want you to engage with them, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Given that Hijiri88 says he's asked you to leave him, I'd suggest you respect his wishes, and if you didn't know they were his wishes, you do now. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - I have not and will not post to your page again on this matter. I have said all that I wanted to say in that this is not the first time that this editor has been accusing someone of 'grave dancing'. It is your page and you may do as you please, sorry that all this happened on your TP. 05:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)C. W. Gilmore (talk)

So let's leave the "grave-dancing" distraction aside and address the IBAN violations...

Seriously, do other editors think this is okay? Tony said it was not an IBAN violation, but that was apparently because he interpreted the main problem as being CWG's hounding of me -- but honestly that's not what concerns me here, and that's why I didn't talk about it in my opening comment at all. The problem here is that an editor with a live interaction ban is no longer editing, and the other party to that interaction ban has been violating it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• You say this because you first go over the top with claiming WP:GRAVEDANCING, then later take it back, as you did with first with me and then with Andrew Davidson on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s TP. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggesting that you follow good advice so you do not end up like me with a 'scarlet letter' on your chest, is hard to twist into a IBAN violation any more than being one of the hundreds of people I have THANKED. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @C. W. Gilmore: there was a case on here a couple of months ago, I'll dig out a link when I have time. It was about an IBAN violation by thanking the IBAN'ed user (the thanker was concerned, so came here). Clearly an IBAN violation. But it transpired that he'd sent thanks to editors reverting the other party of the IBAN, which wasn't viewed favourably. Long story short, thanks aren't exempt from IBANs, including thanking people who revert the other guy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't recall go around thanking people for their reverts of anyone I was involved in an IBAN in the past, for I would have been brought to AN/I within minutes given what I was dealing with then. If I did it, that would have been an error that I would try to avoid. What Hijiri 88 has been saying is that people I had dealt with and/or were on my watch list that I "THANKED"; then went on to vote a certain way regarding a site ban. This is hard to imagine, that a 'Thank You' could change votes, but that's the allegation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

* Bellezzasolo from the complaint above: "His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious: the edit for which he thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but he did seem also to be thanking several people involved in the DS site-ban discussion during that general time frame, Bishonen (talk · contribs)[175][176] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[177][178] The thanking of these editors at around the same time as the above mysterious message and the email discussed below might be a good-faith coincidence, and if it's anything like the definitely-not-a-coincidence thanking of me for responding to a message on my talk page about an RSN discussion it probably looks like it." - Hijiri 88 -It is clear that the push is for a connection to made is between "About three months ago I opened an ANI thread..." and my use of Thanks to swing votes. The problem is [| this] is the log that you should be looking at, all of it and not the Cherry Picking Hijiri88 chose to support their point. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Twist words much? Very well -- the edit for which you thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but it was also 100% clear that your thanking me was all about DS. The comment for which you thanked me was something for which no one except possibly FS would have reason to thank me (and FS just to acknowledge my reply without replying back). Your email backed this up. It is entirely inappropriate for you to be monitoring what happens to DS and going around "thanking" other users who dispute with him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments are edits as well, as I have been 'Thanked' for making comments on Talk Pages from articles to personal pages. In fact, I have 'Thanked' people for bringing items here to AN/I. At this point I am quite sorry I ever interacted with you, but it does not change the fact that as you see from my complete "Thanks" [| log], I have 'thanked' many people I disagreed with: Note the entries from (19:10, 30 September 2017 and 23:46, 5 October 2017) as examples of this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • • Bellezzasolo - Please note on that log, the entries from (19:10, 30 September 2017 and 23:46, 5 October 2017) among the many others. Thank you C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not well enough versed in this case to say for sure, but the above points are far better than expressing surprise over inspection of your use of the thank function. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Is he making an ascent edit, or a descent edit?

-EEng

If I come across a descent good edit, I believe it to be reasonable to "thank" the editor; it does not matter if I've been in edit conflicts with them, or grown to like them and Never is it done to gain advantage or sway someone. Thus I have even "thanked" someone that I was later to be in an IBAN with and people I dislike greatly as well as those I hold in high respect. If you wish to ask more of those better versed, I might suggest Doug Weller, Drmies, Cyberpower678 and SarekOfVulcan for persons that you can contact privately on this matter as they have been close to the issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit you thanked me for was not "a descent good edit" -- it was just a reply to a comment on my talk page. You "thanked" me, purportedly for a "benign" edit, solely because I was involved in the decision to site-ban Darkness Shines, an editor you are not supposed to be following, and in your email to me (dated 2018/2/22, Thu 22:27) you were explicit that your dislike for DS was your motivator. It was a violation for you to even be aware of my involvement with DS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My like or dislike of persons has never motivated my use of "Thanks" nor have I used off-wiki contacts to avoid the IBAN. I have never mentioned parties directly and only learned about the email function a this year. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Vacate the IBAN

My rationale is that the IBAN does not serve a useful purpose now that DS has been community banned. There's no need for the IBAN as it currently stands. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support conditional suspension Yeah, that works. I honestly don't know why CWG didn't do this earlier rather than attempting off-wiki networking with DS's "enemies". I would prefer that the ban be suspended rather than fully removed, since there was unanimous support for the ban only a few months before what happened with DS (and what happened to DS had nothing to do with CWG). The suspended IBAN would automatically be re-"in force"-ed in the event that DS successfully appeals his site ban, but failing that CWG would be allowed act (within the boundaries of good taste) as though the ban did not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  Support withdrawn The editor's actions since I wrote the above (which essentially amount to denying he is even subject to an IBAN, something a quick glance at his block log reveals he's done before) have convinced me that lightening his restrictions would be a terrible idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That said, the IDHT demonstrated below (essentially "I don't recognize the IBAN to begin with, so amending/repealing it is meaningless -- I'd violate it anyway") makes me wonder if this is a WP:CIR issue that might need to be addressed with more restrictions, not less. Yes, enforcing an IBAN where one of the parties is not editing anymore is not easy or pleasant, but this kinda feels like we are rewarding disruptive behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not what I said or intended. The IBAN is not in my way and I have no reason to go near the subject, so it matters less than the TBAN which currently block me from doing some much needed edits. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@CWG: So do you acknowledge that you violated the IBAN in the first place by following the Darkness Shines SBAN discussion, thanking me for opening said discussion (you obviously didn't actually mean to thank me for this edit, as that would be completely ridiculous), and emailing me about it? If you are requesting that the IBAN be suspended so that you are not blocked for this previous transgression, which you are now acknowledging and for which you are now apologizing, then that is perfectly acceptable, but denying that you ever violated it is highly inappropriate.

Anyway, please note that repeatedly making comments like it matters less than the TBAN which currently block me from doing some much needed edits, outside of the context of an appeal of said TBAN, could be taken as TBAN-violations in themselves. No one brought up said TBAN in this discussion (I didn't even know you had a TBAN), so complaining about how inappropriate it is and how it is preventing "much needed edits" to be made looks really bad.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -The TBAN is the one that has tripped me up and I could care less about the IBAN or issues around it as they are in the past and I want to leave them there. Both were caused by the same reason and interactions, in fact I had asked for the IBAN last Oct., but the Adim(s) decided different. The TBAN did nothing and only the IBAN was helpful to me, this is why I have not pushed to have it lifted, I find protection and comfort in it. It is the TBAN that I currently see as a problem. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Whether you care about the IBAN or not, you are not allowed to violate it while it is still in place. If you want to appeal some other TBAN or some such, that's on you, but you violated the IBAN: either the IBAN is suspended (or lifted, or otherwise amended), or you are still subject to it, and if the latter then you are liable to be blocked until you recognize that your previous violations of it were inappropriate and promise not to repeat them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no reason to go anywhere near the IBAN so it currently is not an obsticle, but the TBAN that blocks my ability to edit. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

CWG, you need to stop and try very carefully to understand this: whether or not you care about the IBAN or feel like it restricts your editing, unless something is done about it you are still subject to it, and what you have been doing would be seen by almost everyone as a violation. If you do not accept this, that is a much bigger problem, and it is one that may need to be addressed regardless of whether your IBAN is lifted/suspended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support solely because it's not worth anyone's time to Wikilawyer an IBAN against a blocked user power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Editor has shown no sign of respecting the iban, so why should it be removed just because the other party can't edit. That's like saying a gang member should be released because another gang member he fought with got a life sentence. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And frankly, I also oppose the TBan being removed. Find something else to edit. --Tarage (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So, about that TBAN

In response to the above apparently off-topic mentions of a TBAN, I looked into this a bit, and (silly me!) took my first close look at CWG's block log.

• Before the TBAN was formally put in place, he accepted a temporary PBAN as an unblock condition, and he appears to have violated said condition at least 58 times without immediate consequence.[179][180][181]
• This[182][183] combined with this[184] really makes it look like CWG doesn't understand what "broadly construed" means. Gibson is the founder of the group and is only notable as such, so he really shouldn't be going near the article at all. The reason he was blocked was not simply his using the words "Patriot Prayer" on the talk page, and I'm actually quite astonished he wasn't immediately reblocked after those edits he made immediately after being unblocked.
• I really don't think it's appropriate for him to be complaining about his TBAN in an unrelated ANI discussion as he has done here, here and here.

All of this, combined with the constant IDHT regarding the IBAN (whose suspension/lifting I still support as a practical measure) has made me really think this is a WP:CIR issue -- this user just doesn't seem to "get" that they are subject to these restrictions. What are we going to do?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"what are we going to do?" -(Hijiri88) I'm sure you will continue this retaliation for calling you on your over the top comments about grave dancing until you find something that sticks. This much seems clear. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually my immediate motivation for taking the IBAN violation to ANI now (rather than ArbCom later like I told Alex I would) was your threatening to report me for "false grave dancing allegations" (your emphasis). Lo and behold, I come here and report you for IBAN violations, explicitly saying I don't think the problem is gravedancing, and you repeatedly try to make it about gravedancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• TBAN amended and clarified:

-Per the ANI discussion, your topic ban has been amended as follows.

C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Added for context. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my above comment, particularly the third bullet point, was based on the assumption that your ban applied to the talk an WP spaces as well -- are you just adding irrelevant strings of text in the hopes of filibustering the discussion or something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose indef block

CWG was "lucky"[185] to get off with just a TBAN the last time an indef block was presented as a solution. Clearly this user is not interested in abiding by or properly appealing his sanctions, instead just complaining about them in public or openly violating them while pretending they don't even exist. I'm increasingly of the mind that an indef block is the only solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support this should have happened a while ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support You can only receive so many sanctions before a full ban is the only option. Klonniyeah (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And, although this will likely be controversial, support an unblock of DS. Klonniyeah (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

-Pray tell, what do you see in my current actions do I need to be sanctioned for or banned? Sincere question and one I would like a detailed answer so I might alter my future actions, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the above !vote after consulting with DoRD who has CheckUser blocked the account. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Although I agree CWG is a net negative for the project, I cannot really support this without some further evidence. So how about adding some? John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: He's subject to several sanctions, which were initially presented as mildly preferable to an immediate indefinite block, and this thread is littered with comments by him about how he doesn't have to abide by the one that was the original subject of this thread, and complaining about the other one in a manner inappropriate to a discussion that isn't specifically about it. And he's been violating them both on a near-constant basis for months; at this point, he is either incapable of understanding what he is doing wrong, or is deliberately pretending not to understand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If by several you mean one TBAN and one IBAN with someone that has been Indy Banned, then yes; and both rise from the same source that is no longer with us. @John from Idegon:, here is what I know. I have had one issue since January, I made a mistake and mentioned the TBAN on an articles Talking page which I reverted as soon as I became aware of it and as soon as I could. This happened last month and you can see it all on my TP, apart from that, I have no idea and why I asked Klonniyeah for an explanation so I could understand as well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Within the last day, you have complained about the TBAN three separate times, even after being warned, on a forum that had nothing to do with it -- it was not an accident. Last time you were blocked for violating it, you successfully appealed, and then violated it again right after being unblocked. And regardless of whether DS has been "Indy Banned" (tasteful, by the way) you are still subject to the IBAN and must abide by it or be blocked. You have blatantly violated the IBAN on a regular basis and have shown no interest in actually submitting to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You have also stated you brought this AN/I because you thought I was " threatening to report me" so I will take your criticism with a pound of salt. I would be far more interested in critiques of my recent actions from @John from Idegon: that I oft time disagree but at least respect. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, I already suspected you had no respect for me, but it's not generally a good idea to say that as directly as you have. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a direct person without guile so I say, "I look forward to the day when I can say nothing to you at all." These past few days of your vendetta have been more than enough interaction, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and maybe boomerang, it is odd that ca new account shows up here, votes for a block and asks for an unrelated unblock for another user. I do not know who is is who is socking, but it must be an involved user. Checkbuster does know, and thus I think n this needs to be enacted upon on the sock master.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC

CheckUser has indicated the above sock is not connected to anyone here and it is just a troll. Hatting this before it spirals out of hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Slatersteven: Umm ... I argued very strongly for banning DS in February, and nothing has changed except that I now know that one of the dozens of editors he ticked off was even worse than him -- why would I create a new account to propose unbanning him? Also (not that you would have any way of knowing this, so I don't blame you), I independently requested User:Yunshui look into the obvious-sock-that-is-obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "I do not know who is is who is socking, but it must be an involved user. Checkbuster does know, and thus I think n this needs to be enacted upon on the sock master.", I think it is clear I am not accusing any one user, this is a request for action against whoever it is. I said that this should boomerang on the sockmaster.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven, it is just some troll, so please stop with the accusations. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven, the request for unblocking may be key to the consideration of the sockmaster, and it may not be a "directly" involved user. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: many of the issues can be traced to autrocious behaviour by Darkness Shines, who has thankfully been community banned. I don't see a reason to indef block Gilmore. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Using AN/I as retaliation

It appears that Hijiri 88 brought this case in direct relationship to my reporting of claims of "Grave Dancing" being used in a false and exaggerated manner:

Actually my immediate motivation for taking the IBAN violation to ANI now (rather than ArbCom later like I told Alex I would) was your threatening to report me for "false grave dancing allegations" (your emphasis). Lo and behold, I come here and report you for IBAN violations, explicitly saying I don't think the problem is gravedancing, and you repeatedly try to make it about gravedancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I reported the continued exaggerated use to TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) on the 3rd of May and all the related discussions are [here] and [here]. When [this] was posted about me in Feburary, I ignored it; however when Hijiri 88 made reference to Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) saying, “…with virtually the whole text of your comment being grave-dancing…” on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s Talk Page, I reported that these types of unfounded claims where not new for Hijiri88. Since those comments were first made by Hijiri88; Hijiri88 backtracked to say of me, "“I'm less comfortable referring to it as WP:GRAVEDANCE than I might have been a few days ago,…” and “Maybe "gravedancing" was a poor choice of words.” of Andrew Davidson. As Hijiri88 has shown by back-peddling on the original statements, they were not accurate and my reporting of this to TonyBallioni was the reason for this AN/I. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Impersonation

Someone created a fake profile on me.using my picture.has caused tremdous damage in my family.i want to press charges and request all data from that app — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:D713:FC78:2919:B28D:57BB:BD92 (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Where? What article? What image? Please understand you are very close to violating WP:NLT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 09:41, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Is this type of revert allowed? (See here and here) TIAYN is reverting my opinion on an article nomination which was initiated by that user. AFAIC that's a personal attack as it's my comment/property that s/he is reverting but don't know enough about Wikipedia's editing regulations when it comes to that kind of edit. Any third-party opinions on this would be welcomed. Wingwraith (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: He said, in his words, that I was a sockpuppet without proof and does not state any other reason to oppose the nomination except his accusation of sock puppetry. --TIAYN (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN, you do not get to vet other editor's !votes or comments, and if you do that again I will block your account. Wingwraith did not state that you are a sock, just that there has been a sock report filed - and that is factually accurate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that if you think someone else's comments at such a venue are problematic, ask for help from a third party (eg here) rather than removing them yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You can see that the vote is not serious right? @Boing! said Zebedee:? Why does he oppose it? He doesn't say. How can I persuade him? It doesn't say. What work shall I do to fix it? He doesn't say. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and thats not true and has to be removed. SO remove it @Boing! said Zebedee:! Its not fair to accuse me of something without proof! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you personally think of the validity of someone else's !vote - you do not get to be the judge of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Who can help me? Cause no one. I'm being accused all things knowing. Of white washing history, of sockpuppetering el cetra el cetra--TIAYN (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been brought here now, so leave it and see if an independent third party believes the comment should be amended, removed or left. Note that I'm not supporting or opposing the existence of that comment at all, I'm just saying that you should not be the person to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Redact the socking part' It is irrelevant to the matter discussed on that page, is just yet another jab at the other user, and is disruptive. It's what people of my generation would call a "low blow". Purely done to goad the other user. In fact, I think it merits a block for disruption. And I think that if the SPI does not pan out then filing it would be further disruption. WP:AGF does not equal close your eyes and ignore.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted you Boing. It is a personal attack. Spreading SPIs around to irrelevant places, such as FAC in this case, carries obvious implications, aspersions if you will, of wrongdoing. It has no place being allowed to stand. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, you're an independent third party and exactly the kind of editor who I hoped would make the decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. Dlohcierekim's redaction suggestion would work as well, though that would leave one word "Oppose" (struck out) and a sig. I think removal is preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that having looked closer (and having understood the SPI better than on my first inspection), I agree with you. TIAYN, I apologise for my threat of a block, as I had not fully grasped the nature of the SPI report. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever works. I still want to block Wingwraith. He started this mess, then ran here with a complaint when TIAYN took the bait.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I dispute that what I did was disruptive; at the very least I don't understand how what I did was disruptive. The point that I was making when I linked that SPI investigation to the article was that the user wasn't nominating that article for featured candidacy out of good faith which I thought was an entirely reasonable one to make given that user's pattern of disruptive editing and specific comment about how "if I sound arrogant it is because I am. I know more about the Communist Party of China, the Soviet party and system and communism in general then most users do." It wasn't (meant to be) a personal attack, low blow, entrapment or anything of that kind. On reflection I could have waited until the SPI ran its course and THEN post the outcome of that investigation to the FAC article. Or would that still not be allowed? I don't know. Like I said in my OP I don't know enough about Wikipedia's editing regulations when it comes to this kind of edit so that's why I'm trying to learn what I can about them so that this kind of misunderstanding doesn't happen again. Wingwraith (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ringthrust (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a  Confirmed match to Nasteek hunt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is linked to the Architect 134 trollsock farm. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As such, I have deleted the SPI case because this was a joe job, and there is no value in keeping the SPI active. I have also deleted the ill-advised WP:Long-term abuse/Wingwraith. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked accordingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrator note: I just realized that this is connected to the #User:Wingwraith section above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! :) But can you revert you're deletion @DoRD:? @Wingwraith: is a problem. --TIAYN (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The deletion of the LTA page? No, this doesn't rise to nearly the level required for LTA status. This is best dealt with elsewhere, such as here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of abusive language

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

---

An anonymous user with the following IP address :@97.33.195.77: has been using abusive language on my talk page for no good reason. This can be viewed here. Please look into the matter and take relevant steps to resolve the issue.U1Quattro (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

single edit. warned. dynamic ip.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Anti-Semitic user NOTHERE

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

---

I submit that this vile, anti-Semitic talk page post by User:Pastel xenon suggests that they are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite block by JzG, who beat me to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

New ip of long term disruptive editor already blocked several times

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

---

Hi. The "false dates vandal" active on Ottoman personalities since months is again active with a new ip to block : [186]--Phso2 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There's lots of vandalism from 39.49.0.0/16 on Turkish biographies. I'll keep an eye on it. Maybe I can figure out a narrower range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Opinion about AfD notification

I recently participated in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination) where one editor notified multiple other editors on their talk about the AfD, almost all of whom voted keep. Link to notifications. I am not aware if any particular selection criteria was followed while nominating. Although I don't think the notification was done in bad faith, I still want to know if this is allowed and appropriate. I read WP:CANVASS and from what I understood, notification on user talk is not encouraged. What happens in a case where the notification has already happened. Is the AfD closed as a no-consensus and we wait 6 months for nominating? Or is the AfD still considered valid?--DreamLinker (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD looks valid to me, although the canvasing in another matter. The poor deletion rationale by the nom is probably the downfall here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I left a note to the closer about this thread. (I also !voted keep.) Hopefully someone can look into the canvassing. I'm off.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I admit, I did posted about it on people's talk pages. I stopped. I will not do that again. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And here I was for a moment thinking I was somehow special. I suppose I was since I was the 5th you told. But seriously, I hadn't bothered with the article in any way for more than EIGHT YEARS. And that was only because I was in 2009 straight up reading the AfD page and found it. I am curious why you sought me out after the passage of so much time. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC) CORRECTION: There were more I didn't see. I was 13th. I voted for retention in 2009 but I think I also said YouTubers annoy me. You seriously temped me to vote delete because wp:IDLI 10:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't look in-depth (going to do that now), but I'd guess that it was either people who contributed to the article or people who commented on previous AfDs. Anyways, it doesn't really matter. The page has survived six previous AfD nominations, and I'm not sure what would make this one different. ansh666 17:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  @DreamLinker, Lugnuts, and Dlohcierekim: If any of you looked at the user's talk page, it would have become clear what they were doing. It is indeed both. Anyways, since I was there, I also left a notice to alert them to this discussion. ansh666 17:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I dodn't know all rules and whatnot. I admit I did it. I will not do it again. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• When someone nominates an article for deletion the seventh time, and we're discussing the behavior of another editor for canvassing...well, I think we're focusing on the wrong problem. Jacona (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

Mr. Sands was not Irish he was British. It isn’t vandalism to make wiki more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamy202 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Steamy202: Please use the article's talk page to discuss and stop adding comments to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeap, no malfunction here. Edits like this should indeed be reverted. --Yamla (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is it that the people who refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki" are always clueless?EEng 21:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I dare you to go over and ask that question at WikiInAction.--Shirt58 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• INDEF Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

He has a point though. Sands was either Northern Irish (a fudge to avoid saying British) or British. He certainly wasnt an Irish national (for the purposes of 'nationality' in the infobox). Given the limited information about his parents its likely he wasnt eligible by descent prior to the 1956 act, after 1956 while he was eligible to be an Irish national it was not automatically conferred, and there isnt any evidence he took it up as far as I am aware. He died before the later amendments kicked in. So while putting 'British' in there is problematic (albeit accurate) having 'Irish' in there is wrong. There is a reason why most sources state 'republican' to avoid precisely that question. There is also the rather odd 'military service' part of the infobox. Since when has being a member of a proscribed terrorist organsation been 'military service'? Is that usual for terrorists? I see Osama Bin Laden has a similar section. Its a bit insulting to members of actual militaries who dont go around blowing up unarmed men women and children. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

wrt the above point, I agree about the infobox. Anybody interested may wish to comment at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#"Military service" - parameterize title?, which is a technical proposal to enable changing the default behaviour. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, this is not the place to debate the nationality issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Filthy troll - admin intervention please

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

---

Can someone please block the author and revdel my latest love note on my talk page, presumably from a sock or a banned user. The filth contained within this is unacceptable. Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ta. Cassianto^Talk 22:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Threat of legal action by User:TheRealEditor101

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

---

This user has threatened to take legal action against me for a generic notice that I had placed on his talk page, advising him against editing unconstructively. Diffs: [187]. This is against policy, and there are a couple more he violated as well, namely: WP:NLT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. I understand that the action was committed a while ago, but I've just noticed this today. Might I add that as long as this user rescinds his legal threat, I'm fine with not indef-ing him (of course, administrators can override this), as I believe it was in a fit of rage that he posted that rant. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 04:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Clearly not meant as a sincere legal threat, but just part of a long string of bizarre personal attacks. The editor probably wasn't even aware that that part would be taken any worse than the rest of their ridiculous comment; heck, "one day you’ll be dead"[188] might as well be taken as a threat of violence, with how this editor seems to think it is acceptable to communicate. Anyway, indef, and consider removing talk page access off the bat since the disruption took place on the editor's own talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've got no idea if they intended that as a real legal threat or not, but regardless, their behavior shows they're not here to contribute. Indeffed accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks to all. It's that bad huh...sigh. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 04:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry case review

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

---

• Note: This has been escalated on the recommendation of an admin [189].

Some days back, an SPI case was filed involving Capitals00, a user with a history of (quote) "WP:SOCK, WP:BATTLE, pro-India WP:POV and WP:NPA" issues across WP:ARBIPA, and MapSGV, who, in their remarkably short experience of editing, has demonstrated countless violations of NPOV, NPA and WP:NOTHERE. Both accounts are active on multiple content disputes in the India-Pakistan topic area. Whilst the CU/technical data was inconclusive, I believe the behavioural evidence between these accounts is unbelievably strong and there's more than meets the eye. I'm escalating this for review here only following these remarks by the closing admin, and because I remain convinced by what I've seen. Of particular note are the following pieces of evidence from SPI:

• "MapSGV was registered in 2014, and was rarely used until February 2018 when one of its first edits involved inserting this disputed text into Siachen conflict (which Capitals00 supported on talk). For a user with below 100 edits prior to February and below 300 currently, MapSGV had surprisingly good command of Wikipedia jargon, noticeboards, acronyms, and editing know-how which was noted by admin Sandstein [190]." The account was topic banned from India-Pakistan articles (see decision here) which was removed on appeal [191]. Capitals00 opposed MapSGV's indef block and then topic ban, including on his talk. [192]

Some background

• "One of MapSGV's first 10 edits on Wikipedia in 2015: ([193]), insisting on repeated replacement of "defeat" with "ceasefire" on List of wars involving Libya ([194]), ([195]), ([196]), ([197])." Capitals00 restored the exact same edits only months later ([198]), ([199]) There's no explanation why Capitals00 restored MapSGV's edits on obscure articles like these, which Capitals00 never edited before, when these two had no interaction, and when MapSGV's own edit count was less than 20 (!). See below also.
• One of MapSGV's other first edits, replacement of "victory" with "ceasefire" on List of wars involving Egypt in 2015 ([200]), ([201]). Capitals00 restored the same result months later without previous edits to article. ([202])

• In 2013, Capitals00 replaced the infobox result for "Egyptian military victory" on Libyan–Egyptian War with "Status quo ante bellum" ([203]). In 2015, MapSGV restored the same result ([204]), ([205]), ([206]), ([207]), ([208]), and in 2016, Capitals00 again restored the exact same ([209]), ([210]), ([211]). Both accounts edit warred with one user on this article.

• Both involved on Talk:Libyan–Egyptian War on the same obscure content dispute: MapSGV ([212]); Capitals00 ([213]), ([214]), ([215])
• Same POV elsewhere; Capitals00 ([216]) and MapSGV ([217]), ([218])
• MapSGV has edited 96 pages in total, of them 32 overlap with Capitals00. Refer to the SPI for overlaps.

The style of language, editing and behaviour is virtually identical (see below).

• Removing content under the rationale of "copyvio" [sic] as per edit summaries: Capitals00 ([219]), ([220]), ([221]), ([222]); MapSGV ([223]), ([224])

• 1) Calling other users "incompetent".

MapSGV:

(but you are being too incompetent that you have to cry out loud for disruption..), (incompetent editor who can't keep discussion at one place), (He is clearly saying that editors are not allowed to be competent in Wikipedia with this much edit count, even though I am editing for 4 years) (I haven't come across any editors with this much incompetence that they can't even understand simple English)

Capitals00:

(but given your incompetence and WP:IDHT issues you just can't understand a thing), (NadirAli, let me be crystal clear that EdwardElric2016 is more competent than you and Xinjao put together.), (I can't do anything about your incompetence and WP:IDHT, I can only tell you the guidelines), (You should better blame your incompetence that you can't even detect), (and it is nothing but further indication of his lack of competence), (That's why I am in favor of indef block, due to your lack of competence)

• 2) Same grammatical mistakes e.g. use of "despite":

MapSGV:

(Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed), (I am also topic banned from "Afghanistan" despite I never edited that subject), (your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future), (despite it was correctly sourced... despite he never even asked... topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite I never even edited Afghanistan)

Capitals00:

(you have clearly singled out MapSGV despite he is the biggest victim here), (I should describe my changes with "an accurate edit summary", despite I already have), (with a meaningless edit summary despite you are being the problematic editor... you can't even detect what is a copyright violation despite you have been warned enough times), (he violates his topic ban despite it has been clarified to him very clearly.), (despite Classical period is only from 200 BCE to 5th or 6th century CE)

• 3) "Frivolous"

MapSGV:

(Sandstein first blocked me... by finding sense in a frivolous report filed by a ban evading sock... filing frivolous reports and he even trolled on SPI by claiming that CheckUser absolved him... and also for filing a frivolous report), (why are you buying into frivolous tagging... You can't edit war over such frivolous tagging... before such frivolous tagging you have to raise them here), (Frivolous SPI aside..)

Capitals00:

(frivolous notification is just another example of your WP:IDHT), (I didn't even saw your frivolous warning I just went ahead to write a note on your talk page, highlighting your history of mass disruption), (By entertaining such frivolous complaints we are only encouraging editors to misuse), (Elektricity has filed a frivolous complaint against MapSGV, just like FreeatlastChitchat had filed a frivolous complaint against D4iNa4.)

• 4) Heavy use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in comments, e.g.: MapSGV ([225]), ([226]); Capitals00 ([227]), ([228]), ([229])

• 5) Similar terms used in edit summaries/talk discussions: Capitals00 (topic banned disruptive editor), (topic ban evading sock); MapSGV (ban evading sock), (Why I have to notify that topic banned sockmaster?)

There was obviously more on the SPI, but this is the gist of it all. I've been editing long enough to know that such behavioural matches are not mere coincidence, and have never found as consistent the glaringly same idiosyncrasies (and lack of even subtle differences) as I have between these two. Irrespective of the final say, I really believe this should be of merit to at least some form of review before there's further full-blown disruption by "new" accounts like MapSGV. Mar4d (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block on Mar4d for his long term pattern of WP:GAMING, WP:BATTLE, WP:CIR, WP:NPA and failure to drop WP:STICK when repeatedly asked. Mar4d there is really no doubt that you have gross incompetence issues and your inability to give up your nationalistic POV pushing has always been a concern. Rehashing a frivolous SPI that was filed in revenge of a block on disruptive sock puppeteer FreeatlastChitchat does nothing good for anyone except you but given you have exhausted community's patience with your long term disruption, I find it best to simply get rid of you. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

^This incessant WP:BATTLE is exactly what I'm highlighting. Your comment above (attempted diversion of a thread actually about an SPI review) is exactly indicative of the issues plaguing this topic area. Your own involvement in several of the above articles with MapSGV says a lot about credibility. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Could there be a more blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black? MBlaze Lightning ^talk

• Support indef block on Mar4d, as suggested above. Mar4d's deliberate misrepresentation of checkuser results ("unlikely" as "inconclusive") and personal attacks made on this thread while engaging in mass disruption. Such a long term disruption clearly warrants an indef block. I expect no return without a topic ban from South Asia subjects, because of his lack of competence as seen in many of the recent articles, Siachen conflict, India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present), where his participation did nothing other than wasting time of every other involved editor. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: Umm ... I haven't looked into this thoroughly, but have you tried bringing this up with User:Ivanvector (courtesy ping)? They already refused, unambiguously, to block for sockpuppetry in this case, so you are essentially asking another admin to relitigate their decision without telling them. Yes, SPI sucks because oftentimes people who are obviously socking can get away with it as some SPI closers will close without even looking at the behavioral evidence, just because CU was inconclusive (don't ask...), but that doesn't appear to be the case here -- IV looked at the evidence, and didn't find it convincing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Please read the above, as it was meant to be addressed to you. Please also make your comments a little more compact, as the above wall of text is confusing and blends in with the much shorter comments that follow.

@MBlaze Lightning: Sorry, I thought you were the OP. Please ignore the above comment, as it was not meant for you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MBlaze Lightning: Ridiculous. I'm not here throwing unsubstantiated arguments, only referring to the evidence available. It was none other than the closing admin Ivanvector who suggested I raise any of my concerns on WP:ANI or WP:AE [230], which I see as valid. Here's another desperate manoeuvre at derailment by another involved editor. I'm not going to be surprised where this is going, as is the case elsewhere. Mar4d (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If an uninvolved administrator blocked every one of the disruptive editors involved in this matter, the encyclopedia would function a little bit more smoothly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks, noted. I did bring it up on Ivanvector's talk, please see the note on top. Ivan suggested I take this issue to either ANI or WP:AE, hence this request for review. Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: "Mblaze Lightning"? Or Mar4d? Mar4d has already tried bringing this issue with Ivanvector[231] and he already got his answers there, even though it was nothing but failure to WP:GETOVERIT. I think you can say now that Mar4d has clear WP:IDHT issues, though its not limited with this bogus SPI but elsewhere,[232][233] like it has been mentioned above that he engaged in nothing but disruption. Given Mar4d has been disruptive for a long time, this disruptive forum shopping and personal attacks he has made here are making me agree that Mar4d should be blocked indefinitely as his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is getting out of hands. Capitals00 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You did not respond on the SPI or on Ivanvector's talk when the case was open, or after it was closed, and were editing during that entire time. But you obviously have enough time now handing out "indefinite block" proposals, and not rebutting a thing about the subject of this thread. Mar4d (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to reply frivolous SPIs. Outcome was obvious. I understand that why you are not getting over that absurd SPI because you are asking us to block you indefinitely for your CIR issues. Capitals00 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Mar4d (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support block on Mar4d for his annoying attempts to disrupt Wiki. Ivanvector told Mar4d that: "If you feel that Capitals00 and MapSGV are disruptive influences within the topic area then WP:ANI and/or WP:AE are available to you to review their conduct".[234] This is not same as saying: "Try WP:ANI for reposting the SPI." Mar4d is clearly misrepresenting comments of Ivanvector.[235][236] This deliberate misrepresentation or failure to understand English shows there are WP:CIR issues with Mar4d. Mar4d, after having inter-actions with you before, I find the concerns from others to be correct after seeing here that it's a mammoth task for you to understand what has been told to you by Ivanvector. In this situation how can we trust you with the articles that require competence? Stop changing your comments after they have been already replied. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm confident my "English" is fine, and haven't asked for a re-interpretation on behalf of the admin. What I'm seeing here instead is a repeat of the same tendentious WP:STONEWALLING and WP:TAGTEAMING, and the above attempt to corner is no exception. Four involved editors with the same WP:NOTTHEM, and not a single response pertaining to the topic or issue raised. Speaks volumes. Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Why you are failing to understand what Ivanvector said? Clearly because you lack the grasp of English language. WP:NOTTHEM is a guideline, exclusive for guiding unblock requests. It is not for shoving your incompetence and stopping other editors from talking about your problematic conduct. SPI was just a garbage. Issue is only you that you are engaging in long term WP:DE, WP:IDHT and other problems. When you bring any issue to ANI, your conduct is always judged as default. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Problematic conduct" brings up a lot of implications - so far as the farce that this section has predictably become is concerned, and there's a serious lack of self-introspection in that respect. And WP:NOTTHEM in this context includes deflecting from the issue at hand, which I thought is self-evident. Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from admin whose actions are being reviewed and who was not notified about this discussion - Mar4d did misinterpret my last comment in our discussion, I was not inviting them to forumshop the SPI. I was suggesting that if they found Capitals00 and MapSGV to be disruptive, they could ask the community to review their conduct, but I expected that Mar4d would frame that discussion appropriately and understand that their own conduct would also be open to review. I stand by my conclusion that Capitals00 and MapSGV are not sockpuppets. I've already explained why I came to that conclusion in the SPI and again on my talk page when Mar4d inquired. There are known sockmasters operating in this topic area and we take reports seriously, notwithstanding that there are also a group of editors who run to SPI every time more than one editor disagrees with their opinion, which is precisely what you'll see if you scroll past the very first report in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive. Mar4d is the one who has ignored evidence, not me: the checkuser Yunshui (who also should have been notified) explained why their result was {{unlikely}} (which means probably but not quite definitely not related), not {{inconclusive}} (which means that no conclusion can be made). I have no opinion whether any of these users should be blocked for other reasons but they are not sockpuppets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

More specifically: Capitals00 and MapSGV are not sockpuppets of each other. I have not reviewed and am not commenting on other accounts in this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

... notwithstanding that Capitals00 has already been investigated for sockpuppetry with at least one other account that has edited this thread, and there are other accounts here with their own SPI histories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes, your conclusion is evident both on the talk page and SPI closure linked here - and there to see. It's my tacit understanding that when you suggested escalating these concerns to WP:ANI or WP:AE, it would have revolved around the same set of evidence on which I elaborated my questions on your talk, and hence here in the review (in green text above) following that suggestion. As I mentioned before, irrespective of the final say, it's the link between the two users which requires review or investigation. That includes, if nothing less, WP:MEAT (per the talkpage message), which IMHO is amply supported in the SPI evidence. As you mentioned 'conduct', are you suggesting this report should have been framed differently or should it be outside of the SPI altogether (where the evidence was presented in the first place)? Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef CIR block - Mar4d has socked for over 7 years and was unblocked in 2016 per WP:ROPE. Regardless of his continued disruption on South Asia-related articles, he is now alleging two long term active editors as socks. He has been told too many times that they are not related in any sense. Mar4d's own words confirm that he is trying to eliminate editors by engaging in this WP:FORUMSHOPPING for a laughable SPI so that he can get the chance to push his own POV that has been already rejected by other editors on concerning articles. Is there really any reason why I should not support block on Mar4d? Where Ivanvector told him to rehash a spurious SPI? Where CU told him that data is "inconclusive"? Mar4d is too incompetent to understand those words of Ivanvector and Yunshui or he is just being deceptive for making his weak case look strong by misrepresenting SPI clerk and CheckUser, either way he is a net negative. A WP:CIR block is completely necessary in this situation. Lorstaking (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If you really want to bring up user histories, please be my guest and we'll have a long discussion about everyone's block logs. This is not what this thread is about. Neither is this a venue for blatant WP:TAGTEAMING, which is more than evident. I am not sure what, if anything else, we are supposed to make of a situation where all editors from one topic area quickly turn up within moments to support a spurious "indef block" proposal whilst completely ignoring or refusing to address concerns which have been raised validly of the actual subject. This is a clear joke and gaming of the system. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Khalid sadeq

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

---

Khalid sadeq has been editing since 2013, and during that time has only once edited their talk page. Please see User talk:Khalid sadeq where there are numerous messages from myself and others, asking Khalid sadeq to stop adding unsourced content to articles and to stop creating unsourced articles. I have sent several messages over the last 8 months, with no response, except to continue to add unsourced information. I have directed them to WP:V, offered to help, pointed out that communication is required as part of the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE, but the same editing pattern continues. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Calling any admin.... We need a block. Pronto.

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

---

Rabbi Melchizedek Soapbarstein See 2018 Armenian protests. Reported at AIV. Kleuske (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done - not seen a user with so many 'final' warnings...! GiantSnowman 08:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Request topic ban for new SPA Aheezau

This account is exclusively attacking BLPs mostly of centrist Democrats but also of at least one conservative thinker: [237]

I see that other editors besides me have reverted many of his edits, with explanations concerning POV, OR, SYNTH, etc., resulting in edit-warring in at least one case I am not sure what our policy is, but I am confident this is not the first time Wikipedia has encountered a similar problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This account is two years old but only started editing just yesterday. He's been informed regarding discretionary sanctions due to his edits to the topic area, but other than a note left by Doug Weller, nobody has reached out to this user or offered to educate or help them in a non-templated manner. Wouldn't this be an ideal thing to try and do first as opposed to jumping straight into a topic ban discussion? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

He got a nice welcome note from Doug Weller, but is showing zero interest in that welcome. I am sorry if my message was bitey, but it is rosebuds and whipped cream compared to the stuff he is putting into BLPs, with a clear purpose to do maximum damage. I did go to IRC first to try to figure out what to do, but nobody was there to help, so my second choice was trying to get admin advice here at ANI. I noticed somebody else had asked for a topic ban on somebody, so I thought "That looks good." Sorry if it wasn't the right suggestion.HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Following suggesgtion of ~Oshwah~, I did just add a more educational message linking to various Wikipedia policies: User_talk:Aheezau#WP:BRD_"Bold,_revert,_discuss" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Dohhh sorry I forgot to sign the above. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A potentially libelous edit

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

---

Just to make it clear, I am not threatening any legal action here, but would appreciate an admin taking a look at an edit. An anonymous edit added a potentially libelous comment here before deleting it several minutes later. I am a member of the snooker project and follow the sport well, and never heard of any impropriety regarding the player prior to the newspaper sting. The sting was actually targeting the player's manager as far as I am aware. Anyway, even though the comment is on the talk page and was deleted, it is still a part of Wikipedia's edit history, and the player in question was never found guilty of any actual match fixing. I was wondering if this should be excised from Wikipedia's history altogether? Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• Davey2010, for transparency's sake, it was me. I was in the car and managed to do the oversights but crashed my mobile browser repeatedly trying to re-load the extremely large ANI page. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Hey man, don't delete and drive! Just kidding.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Courcelles, Ah okay thanks, Could I ask for future reference - When oversight is used nothing will show in the logs will it ?, Admittingly I've never got the differences between OS and Revdel and probably never will but for future cases if it's not shown in logs then I can put "Done by the oversight team" as opposed to saying "It's been dealt with but no logs show who" which then makes that admin come forward I guess, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• RevDel and OS differ by who can see the revision. If it is RevDel, all admins can see, if OS is used instead, only our local oversighters and the stewards can see it. They're done in the exact same manner, on the same screen; it just takes one extra checkmark to do an OS versus a Revdel. RevDel will leave an entry in the public deletion logs, OS will not, there is a separate "Suppression Log" view-able only by OS, stewards, ombusds (I think) and WMF staff. And, yeah, if something looks RevDeled but there is not a corresponding entry in the deletion log for that page, it has been oversighted. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Any admin can revdel or see a revdel'd edit. Only special people can oversight/see oversighted edits, This probably just needs revdel.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Both edits have been suppressed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Out of curoiusity, why oversight something instead of revdel-ing it? Natureium (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky

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

---

• I've dropped a notification at RfPP, but I know there's more eyes here than there. Some twitch streamer/youtuber summit, has practically put the page on blast for his fans to vandalize. I need someone to instate semi-protect asap. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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