Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 [1]. 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: [2], 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 [3] 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 [4] 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 [5]. 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)

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)

Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI

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

---

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. [6] [7] [8] [9]). 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

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

---

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 [10], 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 - [11]. 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[12]
  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. [13]. 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)
• Support This guy has been shitposting on WP:ANI for literally years. Jtrainor (talk) 06:15, 6 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 [14],[15]. 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)

That strikes me as a peculiar stance, given Bugs has more than 13,000 posts to ANI alone (and about 33,000 posts to the ref desks). So there may be some reasonable variation in perspectives as to his value-to-problems-generated ratio, but I can't see the argument that he is a non-factor in WP space, when close to half of his 110,000 contributions has been made to WP spaces. Maybe I am confused as to your meaning though. If you are saying that Bugs is a non factor because people know him and what to expect of his responses (that he is a "zero" in that sense), I'm not sure I can agree, because the nature of WP spaces is that they get a lot of traffic from new users trying to navigate our psuedo-bureaucracy. Similarly, if you are saying that his comments are have insubstantial impact because they can be dismissed by the informed and present no greater question of disruption, I am afraid I must disagree there too. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I still oppose a ban encompassing all of WP space because I think it is just plainly unreasonable to deprive any volunteer of access to community process, and accomodating that access via alternative means would not be remotely worth the effort, if it were feasible at all. On the other hand, if a user has, over the many years of their contribution, steadfastly refused to internalize that WP:NOTAFORUM applies to the workspaces they most like to contribute to, and will not accept broad community consensus on what is and is not appropriate and productive topic matter for those boards/desks, there comes a point at which the community can reasonably assume that no self-regulating change will be forthcoming from the editor in question and that the editor may need to simply be removed from those areas. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a clear over-reach. Lepricavark (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support a T-Ban from Wikipedia space with the exception perhaps of contructive reports to AIV. On any other web forum I would possibly enjoy Baseball Bugs' comments. However, Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a blog, its mission is to build an encyclopedia. His edits for the past 7 years have been almost exclusively to Wikipedia space including a massive 13,000 to ANI (mine by comparison - and as an fairly active admin - are only around 600) and much of the commenting by univolved editors is one of the reasons why I, and I assume many admins, don't bother much with ANI these days. Aditionally, a recent discussion about the Reference Desk largely concurred that the way it is used is not always useful. Strictly, therefore, using Wikipedia mostly to satisfy his need for socializing, his edits fall under WP:NOTHERE. With extremely negligible contributions to content, his performance is clearly not sustainable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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)
  • 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)

• @Modernist: And no one's suggesting we kick Bugs off the encyclopedia. But I have yet to see any examples of how his long-term lurking at ANI has "benefited the encyclopedia". We've tolerated it, but when it crosses over from 'generally inoffensive' to 'egregious, hostile, disruptive, antagonistic, mean' as it did self-explanatory here, it's our responsibility to stand up and respond in a way that shows that there are some standards here! Swarm ♠ 02:29, 6 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)

• Oppose - I have read the comments by Bugs in the closed thread requesting the unblock. I agree that Bugs's comments were offensive, but we are tolerant of mildly to moderately offensive comments. As to the student's lack of English, I will comment that I share Bugs' frustration about dealing with editors who cannot express themselves clearly. In particular, I have dealt with editors with very little command of English at DRN, and have had to advise them that, if they want to engage in dispute resolution, they need to do it in their first language. So I understand why Bugs expressed annoyance. His comments were inappropriate but understandable. Similarly, having a warped view of policies and guidelines that prevents the use of non-English sources is problematic, but it isn't sufficiently problematic to warrant banning him from ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe that a sufficient case has been made for banning Bugs from the noticeboards. Lepricavark (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Lepricavark: The "case" is self-explanatory. Do you care to elaborate on why you feel such a shocking display of hostility and antagonism, directed at an educator who did nothing but make an uncontroversial request for admin assistance, is insufficient for a response? Do you have an alternative, or do you think that we should just let that kind of behavior slide? Do you think that any user who comes to ANI in good faith deserves to get bullied by a non-admin like that? Swarm ♠ 02:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• I did not say that there should be no response whatsoever. Rather, I am !voting on the proposal as written and I believe that a complete ban from noticeboards goes too far. I have no obligation to propose alternatives of my own and I will not be doing so. Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you think there should be a response, but not this response, for reasons you won’t disclose, and not any other response, for reasons you won’t disclose. Swarm ♠ 06:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It is an uncontroversial request made in an overly dramatic way. The request simply had to establish that the blocked editor was the student of the person bringing the problem to AN/I. It is the initial wall of text and several subsequent smaller walls of text that impeded the resolution of the problem and invited commentary from multiple editors with multiple perspectives. You refer to someone coming to ANI in good faith. Unfortunately more is required than mere good faith. We are also required to be succinct. Extraneous commentary causes people to weigh in with opinions. Aside from Bugs, several other editors, not necessarily administrators, offered their thoughts on related issues. There were side conversations on various and sundry topics. This is a consequence of an "uncontroversial request" which was not asked in an "uncontroversial" way. AN/I is not a place for expounding on one's accomplishments or even one's lengthy involvements with the project. It is off-putting. There is a matter at hand and it should be addressed in a no-frills manner. There was not even a necessity for discussing the sourcing of those edits. Such a discussion is for a separate forum. The editor initiating the thread presented a complicated problem when it was a simple problem: my student made edits that some admins perceived as vandalism but I can vouch for the fact that this is my student and that the problematic nature of those edits were made inadvertently—can she please be unblocked—I will mentor her edits more closely in the future. By not sticking to those facts most pertinent to the immediate problem at hand, they just about invited input of various kinds by various people. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NOTAFORUM. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per BrownHairedGirl and Cullen328. In the first section I suggested one exception to a T-ban, but I would accept this if the consensus above is not sufficient. I don’t consider his edits over the past 7 years to have been particularly ‘hard work’, they have been almost exclusively to Wikipedia space and the Refrence Desk, including a massive 13,000 to ANI (mine by comparison - and as as a fairly active admin admin - are only around 600). The apparent lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines most certainly precludes his activity at ANI from being constructive (see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/In focus). Strictly, therefore, using Wikipedia mostly to satisfy his need for socializing, his edits would fall under WP:NOTHERE, and with negligible contributions to content, his collaboration without being subject to some formal limitations should not be allowed to continue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

Ref Desk ban too

In my opinion this was not a sufficent close. Baseball Bugs needs to also be banned from the Ref Desk - something there is sufficent support for between the two proposals. Do we need to revote on this? Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You would need to start a new section, and provide the necessary evidence. Or, you could leave well enough alone and stop what is starting to look like a personal vendetta. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Bugs' ears have been clipped enough. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I assure you there is no personal vendetta - I am strictly uninvolved. I just happened to be one of the three editors that proposed a course of action (one deleted their proposal in favor of mine). There is already plenty of editors who have assessed his participation at ref desk so additional evidence is not required nor is a whole new discussion. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I would personally support this, given the sheer volume/percentage of editors who made the RefDesks an explicit part of their !vote above and the fact that the close made no reference to these concerns (meaning no criticism of John, who was clearly doing their best with a voluminous and difficult discussion). I have no understanding of Legacypac's purported motivations in raising this issue, but it's not really relevant to my response in any event; the fact of the matter is, Bugs contributes nearly three times as many posts to the RefDesks as the noticeboards and his propensity for the behaviours that raised this discussion are even more on display on the desks than they are at ANI, as many respondents noted.

Indeed, under the circumstances, the only reason I can fathom for Bugs to have capitulated to the ANI ban is to preserve his ability to edit, without any change in his approach, to the desks, and he shouldn't be allowed to dodge the community's oversight in that manner. It feels very much like he is beign pushed "out of sight, out of mind" from these boards, while being given a green flag to just persist in the same problematic behaviours in the fora where they have always been most pronounced. This is precisely the outcome I was concerned about when advocating that Bugs should not be banned from all WP spaces, and in retrospect, its clear that we should have had a third proposal to cover the desks. And there's no harm in asking people to clarify their position on that issue now. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, enough already. There was broad agreement for an ANI ban but this is pushing it. Start it all over again, with new and solid evidence. OR JUST LEAVE IT BE. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 6 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: [16][17][18] 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 [19]. 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 [20][21][22]. Instead of trying to reach consensus, you disappeared [23].
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 [24][25].

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: [26]. 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: [27]. 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 [28]. 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? [29] 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,[30] and again, [31] and again,[32]. 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 [33], and just today you decided - after months of distoring sources and refusing to budge [34] - that Jews can't really be communists because they're Jews [35]. 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! [36] 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" [37]; 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 [38][39]; suggested on several occasions that the whole discussion is motivated by money [40][41]; characterised the whole discussion in ethnic terms - "Polish" vs. "Jewish" - and backed the former [42][43][44]; repeatedly made edits that portray Polish collaborators as "unwilling" and "tacit", while pushing narratives of Jewish collaboration [45]; and finally, for the pièce de résistance, brought a source that claims that "ghettos were not that bad" [46]. 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 [47] - 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 [48]. 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 [49]. 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) [50]. 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 [51].

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 [52]. I already told you that [53], 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 [54][55]) 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)

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: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. —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)

I requested an edit filter. Swarm ♠ 23:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In case it's of use, here's the resolution of a prior related interaction [66] that was in part triggered by the edit [67] almost seven years ago. — Myasuda (talk) 14:42, 6 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),[68] 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,[69] before blanking the section.[70]

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)[71][72] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[73][74] 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.[75] 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’’’ [76] 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.[77] 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[78] or Qwirkle[79] -- 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 [80] 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)[81][82] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[83][84] 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

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

---

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)

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

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.[85][86][87]
• This[88][89] combined with this[90] 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"[91] 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)

May I respectfully ask, what I have done recently that desires this? It is an honest question regarding my recent actions, thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:36, 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)

@John from Idegon: Sorry about the above side-show, but have you gotten around to looking at the evidence? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 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)

@Slatersteven: Do you have a reason for opposing that isn't based on the flawed assumption that the above random troll was someone on the anti-CWG "side" making a really dumb move? This isn't AFD where a closer will explicitly ignore a !vote with no attached rationale, but it's still pretty poor form to make one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Also (and I just noticed this now) you were the only editor in the original IBAN discussion who did not even acknowledge the utility of a one-way ban on CWG, which given the very, very strong community bias against one-way IBANs is interesting (most times a one-way ban is brought up it is shot down by immediate and overwhelming opposition). This indicates that you placed more blame than anyone else on DS and less on CWG for whatever problem between them led to the ban (and I honestly have not looked into it that much except to know that it spun out of DS attempting to report CWG for some of the above-listed TBAN-violations -- and he was right, as the ban was strengthened accordingly), even though you later painted this as your not singl[ing DS] out for the IBAN, [but] blam[ing] both of [them]. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 6 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)

@K.e.coffman: Nothing CWG has done in the last two and a half months can be reasonably blamed on DS -- not the multiple TBAN violations (including right after being unblocked for promising not to violate the TBAN again)[92] nor the IBAN violations (when there's no reason to assume DS has been doing the same)[93] nor any of the shit he pulled on TB's talk page or the ridiculous IDHT side-stepping/filibustering that's gone on on this thread (just Ctrl+F "grave" -- it's in like 3/4 of CWG's posts). To paraphrase Tarage (talk · contribs), you can't let a gang-banger off the hook just because someone in a rival mob is already behind bars -- that doesn't even make sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Still waiting for an explanation, because it really looks like you're just opposing this remedy because CWG disputed with an editor you don't like months ago and willfully ignoring all the obvious violations (and, frankly, even more atrocious behaviour than DS) on their part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that the IBAN / TBAN should not have been enacted in the first place. I've interacted with both Darkness and Gilmore at Patriot Prayer. Darkness's contributions created a hostile environment on the Talk page; I eventually un-watched the page after this TP topic by Darkness: Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_4#What the fucking fuck is wrong with this?. I thus missed the ANI where the Darkness was nearly awarded a barnstar (!) for his behaviour. See other topics from PP Talk page: [94].

The problems for Gilmore were created by Darkness. The follow-on ANI threads / blocks were mostly related to the initial, misguided (IMO), IBAN / TBAN. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - Enough already! An overwhelming majority of CWG's participation here is to either talk pages or drama boards. The article here they have contributed the most to? They're banned from it, in lieu of an indef. A lengthy block log for IBAN/TBAN vios, which yet again they're trying to weasel their way out of. Strange, stalkerish behaviors as evidenced by this report and by the IBAN history. Repeated pleas from established editors for indefinite or long-term blocks[95][96][97] (always kicked down the road in favor of "last chances"). Ridiculously excessive bludgeoning, argumentative behavior that is abundantly evident here and well-documented in previous threads. Bizarre flattery[98][99][100][101] being sent out after this ANI thread was opened which I can only interpret as an attempt to alter the outcome. And through all the drama I've seen, I've never seen any convincing case made that CWG is even a net positive, much less a particularly valuable editor. He's a drama monger. This isn't normal. Let's just put an end to this already. Swarm ♠ 00:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You missed the Puppy Love sent to Diannaa[102] and the Brownie sent to Deisenbe [103] and other thanks I wanted to get out of the way before being 'Banned', in case that was the decision. However I'm did not do it to sway votes, to be very clear about my intentions. Thank you - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support- When someone misses being indef blocked by the skin of their teeth, escaping with only a topic ban from the article they have contributed to the most, they really should be on their ultra-ultra-bestest behavior, and that doesn't seem to have been the case with CWG. Their edit counts [104] show that they like to talk more than they like to improve the encyclopedia -- the "free rider" syndrome -- so it's not as if we'd be losing a net positive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

BMK, could you clarify just which talk spaces you are concerned about? It may very well be that this user is a drain on community resources and patience; I'm not familiar enough with their contributions to refute it. But I don't think a high article talk page contribution count (even one as high as their 40%) should be treated as a per se indication of WP:NOTHERE, as a lot of vital work takes place in that particular namespace. Of course you might very well have been talking about their high contributions to User talk space (21%), which is somewhat more a cause for concern, since that is much more an inherently social space that is a bit more removed from mainspace content work. But absent some evidence that the majority of their article talk space contributions are social/WP:NOTHERE in nature, rather than oriented towards content, I can't view those counts as an inherent negative; if a user committed 75% of their time on project to answering RfCs, for example, they would have a very high article talk count, but would still presumably be very much WP:HERE. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: An editor whose edit count show over 72% of their contributions are to Talk, User talk, and Wikipedia space is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that is your perspective, that's your perspective. Myself, I just can't endorse such a black and white rule; I know of at least a couple of editors whose percentile of mainspace contributions are in the single digits and who are nevertheless massive assets to the project. There's a lot to do here and not everyone who volunteers their time is interested in drafting article prose, even if they still take a direct interest in article content. Again, none of which is meant to refute that CWG is a problem (that's a broader question); I just can't get behind your brightline rule. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: There's evidence peppered throughout this thread that CWG is either NOTHERE or at the very least a net negative. It can reasonably be assumed that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) looked at the diffs of the unapologetic TBAN-violations, super-creepy IBAN-violations, IDHT responses when said violations are brought up, outright trolling and so on, and decided to supplement his !vote based on this evidence with "Oh, yeah, and he never actually builds articles to boot". Making a lot of talk page edits is not a bad thing by itself, but if the community doesn't forgive drahma-creation on the part of its active content-creators (see the linked discussion that led to DS's site ban), it can't forgive it on the part of people who don't create content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; I don't disagree in principle. Though personally, I don't create as strict a dichotomy of value between article content writers and other volunteers, provided that whatever editor in question is reasonably WP:HERE and follows our policies. I do think it's unwise to jump directly into volunteering one's time in policy areas before a substantial history of content creation, but I don't hold it against an editor if they are more comfortable debating content on a talk page than they are being the original author of said content. Indeed, Wikipedia depends upon people volunteering their time on talk pages to break editorial deadlocks and provide needed quality checks; if we were all typing away generating article content at maximal rate, the quality of our articles would be the lesser for it. Trolling and violations of bans are, of course, another matter entirely. Those are the bigger issues that you have raised here, but my comment was not meant to address those questions, but rather a much narrower one. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:, the TP% is from his propensity to WIKILAWYER/BLUDGEON/IDHT/TLDR. See Talk:Ridgefield, Washington for example. There was also a excessively legalist/IDHT solliquey on Drmies talk that ended with Doc telling him to take a hike. Sorry, I couldn't find it but perhaps Doc will help us out. CWG has wasted enough of my time already. Just the fact that he insists on calling what every other editor here refers to as talk pages, "talking pages", should be a pointer that we are dealing with a less than collaborative person. Support indef. John from Idegon (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi John. Can you be more specific about where you think the editor was problematic in the Ridgefield article? I've read through most of the non-archived discussions and while I think the editor in question has been a little dogged in promoting their view, so too was the other side of the content dispute. Let me be clear that I think you were probably right on the content issue (I think it probably would have been at least a little WP:COATRACKish to include that content/relabel that section). But while they may now be pushing the line of refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK there, CWG seems to have remained civil and focused on the content throughout previous discussion, and their position isn't exactly way out there in the fringes of policy; it's a pretty reasonable (if I think ultimately wrong) position. Also, I should note that before I even posted my first comment here, I did take the time to pull up a random selection of the editor's recent and historical contributions to talk pages. I mostly found the same situation as I describe above; they can be a bit fixated, but they mostly seem to be using talk pages for exactly the purposes they are intended. Per my comments to Hijiri above, there may well be issues here that I haven't seen which warrant a sanction (violations of bans, trolling, or anything of that non-collaborative nature) but based on the evidence presented here so far, I can't say as I can accept (as yet) that their behaviour on talk pages nor their high volume of contributions in that namespace are, in themselves, reason for an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

How about an IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Another last final chance? And an IBAN from whom? Yeah, I'd like him off my back, but he's literally only been harassing me for three days; he's been flouting the will of the community for months, so banning him from interacting with me would solve nothing. And given how he's responded to his other IBAN and TBAN, there's no reason whatsoever to think he'd even abide by a third ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but he is not forbidden form talking about his TBAN (is he) or from appealing any bans? So the only grounds for wrong doing would be to either violates his TBAN on multiple occasions (and this ANI is not about that, and he has been sanctioned for that), or a violations of his IBAN (do off wiki e-mails count?). In fact your report seems to be more to do with CWG being creepy then any blatant violation of his IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

He is banned from going on, and on, and on about his TBAN in unrelated contexts, yes, especially when said comments involve complaining about how it "did nothing" and how it "block [him] from doing some much needed edits" (given how narrow the TBAN is, it's obvious he's complaining about the present state of that particular article).

As for IBANs: off-wiki e-mails don't generally count, but the IBAN was meant to prohibit him from following DS's activities, which it repeatedly failed to do. Publicly "thanking" other editors for disputing with DS, as he did, is definitely forbidden as well. If you try to place more IBANs to protect more users from his harassment, we have no reason to believe he won't just continue creepily following them, emailing editors who conflict with them (some of whom, unfortunately, will no doubt play ball) and trying to skirt the boundaries of the ban by "thanking" those editors publicly but maintaining plausible deniability by making sure those thanks are only for "benign" edits, then gaming the system by denying that there was anything out-of-the-ordinary in thanking them for edits he would have no reason to thank them for.

All in all, there really doesn't seem to be any solution other than a block. Same rationale, ironically, as the DS discussion: How does stepping down to a lighter sanction than last time change things?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Odd how those thanks were months ago, and it is your assumption about what they are for (they may well be, but it is still an assumption). If this was clear cut I would support, it is not, if you had filed because of harassment I would have been sympathetic. What you did was to complain (in effect) about harassment of you, then bring up unrelated old material. Hence the suggestion of an IBAN (with you).Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I know absolutely what the thank I received was for, and he even clarified in an email, saying that he admired both me and another user he had never interacted with but who had just come off pushing for DS's ban. It's my assumption what the others were for, but the difference is between him definitely violating the IBAN several times and him definitely violating the IBAN several times and possibly also violating it a few more times.

The "old material" is from the first of two times CWG interacted with me: I could have reported him at that time, but decided to wait to see if he tried anything again -- he did, so I reported him. And even in terms of time, it's not old enough that CWG didn't himself see fit to report me for it on TB's talk page.

Anyway, I said at the top of this thread that I wanted nothing more to do with this: I can understand CWG's trying to make it all about me ("retaliation", to use his word), but this is also the second time you've tried to make it about me, the first being a bogus accusation of sockpuppetry. You still have not even provided a rationale for your opposing the block beyond your claim that I or someone else CWG doesn't like was socking.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 6 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)

Can we stop this retaliatory filing? This entire section is baseless... --Tarage (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Request topic ban for new SPA Aheezau

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

This account is exclusively attacking BLPs mostly of centrist Democrats but also of at least one conservative thinker: [105]

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)

HouseOfChange - How's it going here? Any luck sorting things out or do you still need help? Let me know and I'll be happy to. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. Yesterday I got a copyright image deleted that he'd uploaded. I think there's a competence problem here also. If he continues to cause problems.... Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive / edit warring editor

• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lapadite77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alicia Keys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unconstrutive/disruptive drive-by editing and edit warring by Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Alicia Keys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First unconstructive, incorrect edit, revert, second revert Editor repeatedly removes factual notable roles of artist, which are noted per multiple reliable sources, a number of which are cited in the #Career, #Artistry, #Influence, #Philanthropy sections (and one can continue supporting notable roles with dozens more reliable sources). Editor clearly did not read article and is not remotely familiar with the artist. Anyone who is familiar with the artist/reads at length about knows the artist is prominently notable for the stated roles (songwriting, production, philanthropy), and has received nominations and awards for them; Keys also co-owns a music production company, as cited in article. Again, editor clearly has no knowledge of artist or even bothered to read the article, but repeatedly removes notable, sourced information regardless. See talk page discussion I started, after their revert, where I noted the roles are supported in article by reliable sources, WP policy, which editor ignored before reverting again. I'll quote policy and MOS guideline again here: WP:V: “[WP] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors”. MOS:BIO: "The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played ... The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph".
Editor is making these kinds of edits in multiple articles per their contributions page, and has been called out for disruptive editing on their talk page. Lapadite (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Editor is also trolling/disrupting my talk page, most recently by adding the required ANI notice I posted on his talk to mine: [106]. Lapadite (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please talk to this editor about reducing drama, not reverting good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, and not templating the regulars. Thanks. LK (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, as evidence by editor's comment above, they have no issue with their behavior, and feel entitled to it. Also disregard their templating me, a "regular" (which is irrelevant), and trolling my page with their ANI link. I think a preventative block for editor is evidently warranted by now (also note: editor has been blocked before for edit warring). Editor clearly will continue to inappropriately and disruptively remove/revert reliably sourced content per their own desire. Lapadite (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Another trollish comment from editor: [107]. Lapadite (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Your inability to work through a content dispute in good faith is concerning. You participated in the edit war as well, but the only difference is that LK has started an RfC to resolve the dispute, has not assumed bad faith, has refrained from dismissing you as a disruptive editor or a troll, has commented civilly, has not become over emotional, and did not run to report you to admins. I think now would be a good time to stop commenting on LK entirely and either focus strictly on the content or let it go, before we start looking into your behavior more closely. Swarm ♠ 20:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please, how suspect is your comment. First, there is no "content dispute" when an editor is merely driving-by articles removing 'reliably sourced information - against WP policy - and reverting on it without discussion (which I started, and he ignored before reverting again), and said editor has not even bothered to read the article and knowns nothing/has not read about the subject of the article he drive-by removed sourced content from. Second, another editor also reinstated the sourced content editor disruptively and incorrectly removed. Third, editor started an RfC to promote his pov (vs plethora of reliable sources - against policy) after that other editor reinstated the content. Fourth, editor's disruptive drive-edits and reverts as well as his arrogance and trollish behavior are by no means "good faith". Fourth, you falsely accuse me of multiple things (and thanks for your condescension, I don't have any emotional problem - you conveniently decide to interpret and dismiss legitimate policy/guideline-based response to a disruptive, topic-uninformed editor as "emotional"), and you have nothing to say about the disruptive actions and trolling behavior of editor reported. Please. I haven't been here so long, I forgot how biased/prejudiced some admins are, play favorites and disregard objectivity, and often those are the first ones to comment too as others have pointed out before. You accuse me, more than once, essentially target me, with no concern of reported behavior and actions of editor, and one has all the right to question your intentions. Spare me those tired, biased, 'boomerang' threats the aforementioned ilk of admins automatically trigger while disregarding the wrong actions of the reported 'regular' editor, when the disruptive editor, who you implicitly defend and find no problem with his actions which started this, is violating more than one WP policy, and WP guideline, and trolled my page, and has an entitled attitude problem as evidenced above, which you also implicitly seem to validate. You disregard his multiple incorrect actions, and yet target me, the one reporting. Funny. Lapadite (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Islam84

I have contacted this editor four times about their creation of blps with no clear references (see User talk:Islam84#Sources.) They have continued to edit in between messages but have not responded despite it being pointed out that communication is a matter of policy at WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT. There are regular messages at User talk:Islam84 since 2014 asking them not to add unverified content and this was part of the reason for a previous block. They have been editing for six years and clearly know how to edit their talk page, but have only responded to other editors twice, and one of those was making an unblock request. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The user has been warned by Doug Weller that they need to respond to their talk page messages and they have edited since but have not responded to any messages. They created and continue to edit 2001–02 Zamalek SC season with poor sourcing. Competence is required and i'm not sure that this user has it. At the very least i'd suggest a block to prevent further disruption until the user decides to communicate. -- Dane ^talk 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it will be soon ripe-time to allot Boleyn a seperate board to bring up cases of incommunicado users.....And, I agree with Dane on this case.Communication is integral and important. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Cautious topic ban breach

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

Cautious was indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to Cage (organisation) in November 2017, very broadly construed [108]. They received a short block for breaching the topic ban on 12 December 2017 [109]. After that block, Cautious left this message on my talk page re: Cage, and I warned them [110] that making that comment could also be construed as breaching their topic ban, since they were continuing the behaviour that got them topic banned in the first place.

It looked Cautious had moved on, but unfortunately, they breached their topic ban again yesterday here [111]. TransporterMan reverted the edit and left a warning re: topic ban breach on Cautious' talk page [112], but Cautious then commented about Cage again on TransporterMan's talk page [113].

Apologies to TransporterMan for interfering, but I think Cautious has been given more than enough chances since their first block for breaching the topic ban. Marianna251TALK 13:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Has not edited since May 5. They believe they are only person who can keep the page up to date. They have suggested articles on their talk. Cannot let go of the one page they cannot edit.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cautious, do you agree not to edit the article again? Do you understand that editing this topic further will result in a longer block? Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixela

Nixela appears to be very new to Wikipedia, although I would be interested in whether they have edited under a different name previously. Despite numerous messages from myself, as well as messages from others, Nixela does not answer messages and has added a lot of unverified content to Wikipedia. I don't know if they are reading any of their messages, but I have pointed them to WP:V and pointed out that communication is mandatory per the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. Perhaps they will comment here and we can resolve this? Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixela, do you have anything to say about your edits? Are you unaware of how to how to use your talk page? Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

IPs and accounts vandalizing pages by insertion of "Firооz Oskооi" references

Most likely new sockpuppets of Jaredgk2008 .

• 45.222.194.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
• 39.60.201.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.225.36.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
• TwoRosesMeanRaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KaleJanese288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both accounts and all three IP addresses vandalized different pages.

• 45.222.194.34 vandalized Diddy Kong Racing DS on 23:18, 2 May 2018
• TwoRosesMeanRaws vandalized Office Space on 21:18, 4 May 2018
• KaleJanese288 vandalized The Princess Bride 21:31, 4 May 2018
• 213.225.36.213 vandalized Kentwood, Louisiana on 14:42, 5 May 2018
• 39.60.201.60 vandalized List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees on 00:32, 6 May 2018 . He actually did that twice, reverting his own first version.

All of the above edits have in common:

• Referencing a "Firooz Oskooi"
• Asserting he is located in Orange County, California - with four referencing more specific locations of either Newport Beach or in one case, Irvine (located in close proximity)
• Asserting antisemitic tendencies from said person
• Other than 45.222.194.34, who did not use the term, misspelling "antisemitic" as "anti semetic"

"Firooz Oskooi" references have apparently been used by Jaredgk2008's alts since 5th March 2017 or so (indicated by the sockpuppet investigation archive)

The Fifth Horseman (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:The Fifth Horseman. It appears that User:NinjaRobotPirate has been active in the last few hours in cleaning up this problem. They have blocked all the accounts and IPs listed above. If you see any more occurrences of the abuse, why not contact NinjaRobotPirate on their talk page? Since it is being handled, this report can probably be closed out as an ANI matter. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few people who habitually clean this stuff up. It's probably best to ping me or report any suspected socks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008. This is someone who should be checked for undetected sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User makes repeated reversions; fails to respond to messages on talk page

Anonomys7‎ (talk · contribs)

User:Anonomys7 has been improving articles related to the entertainer Shari Lewis. The user's edits are generally constructive, but I had some concern about the user removing information (names of sources and dates) from references (see, e.g., [114]). I reverted these changes, but the user reverted them back in later edits ([115], [116]. I made attempts to reach out to the user on their talk page, but they simply blank the messages ([117], [118] and continue reverting, ignoring my questions. I'm thinking the reference changes might be from some kind of automated editing tool (I don't use these tools so I'm not familiar with them), but if that's the case it doesn't negate my concern about their lack of communication. Note, the user also appears to be editing from an IP as well, looking at very similar edits to the Shari Lewis article and other articles; for example, [119]. Anyway, could an administrator please get this user's attention somehow? I don't understand how removing reference information is helpful to these articles, but I don't want to get into an edit war with the user on it. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)