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

Violating IBAN with site-banned editor?

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

---

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),[1] 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,[2] before blanking the section.[3]

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)[4][5] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[6][7] 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.[8] 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’’’ [9] 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.[10] 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)

FWIW, at the time I wrote the above I never accused you on-wiki... I had forgotten about this "super-sexy-please-check-your-email-right-now" notification. I don't remember if I suspected CGW at the time of monitoring my contribs (it seems just as likely that I was trolling a certain off-wiki stalker of mine by making them think I was talking about them), but if I knew CGW was watching maybe I was hoping he would see it, put two and two together and realize I had forwarded his email to Alex, and take the notification header as a subtle (in that no one could have known who I was talking about except for CGW, Alex and myself) reminder to knock it off. It's unfortunate that he chose to hold a grudge against me over it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 7 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[11] or Qwirkle[12] -- 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 [13] 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)[14][15] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[16][17] The thanking of these editors at around the same time as the above mysterious message and the email discussed below might be a good-faith coincidence, and if it's anything like the definitely-not-a-coincidence thanking of me for responding to a message on my talk page about an RSN discussion it probably looks like it." - Hijiri 88 -It is clear that the push is for a connection to made is between "About three months ago I opened an ANI thread..." and my use of Thanks to swing votes. The problem is [| this] is the log that you should be looking at, all of it and not the Cherry Picking Hijiri88 chose to support their point. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

-EEng

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

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

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

Proposal: Vacate the IBAN

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

• Support as proposer. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support conditional suspension Yeah, that works. I honestly don't know why CWG didn't do this earlier rather than attempting off-wiki networking with DS's "enemies". I would prefer that the ban be suspended rather than fully removed, since there was unanimous support for the ban only a few months before what happened with DS (and what happened to DS had nothing to do with CWG). The suspended IBAN would automatically be re-"in force"-ed in the event that DS successfully appeals his site ban, but failing that CWG would be allowed act (within the boundaries of good taste) as though the ban did not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  Support withdrawn, now strong oppose 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)(edited 11:50, 7 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)

• @Cyberpower678: Will you re-open this? I would also like to oppose, which would make it a majority in opposition. This does seem uncontroversial at face value, but the standard offer is cheap and the prospect of DS returning at some point is fairly realistic (he's open to it, he's still pops onto his talk page occasionally, and many editors still support him). Maintaining the IBAN would avoid unnecessary drama if and when he comes back. I also think Tarage makes a good point. Swarm ♠ 02:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Shit -- I saw the close earlier today but didn't get a chance to ping Cyber, and I just left a message on their page challenging the close.

@Cyberpower678: Sorry for not checking here first (I did check that the subsection was still closed, but didn't see if anyone had posted below it) and for sending you a message that was essentially redundant with Swarm. Also, sorry if the message came across as confrontational -- I thought I would have to defend my claim that "support withdrawn" means the same as "oppose" in this context, and honestly I'm a bit annoyed about other stuff that's not your fault.

And on that note, I too would like to formally state that I oppose lifting the IBAN. Experience has taught me that when User X hounds User Y, sanctioning User Y and then using User Y's sanction to unbind User X (or maybe simply placing a two-way IBAN at the same time as a one-way sanction on User Y but not User X) just leaves the door open for more hounding. Befofe his ban, DS made more than 30,000 edits, more than a third of them in the mainspace, and everything I've seen from CWG over the last few days has destroyed any assumption I might have had that he would not just go around quietly undoing them if we unban him. That, plus the fact that his constant violations of both the IBAN and the TBAN, to the point of essentially denying they even exist, are grounds for an indefinite block; removing one of the bans (or both, as K.e.coffman is now arguing for) will just lead to the bogus "are we really going to enforce violations of a now-redundant sanction with an indefinite block?" argument.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Make that three, Cyberpower678. This needs further discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I didn't want to say this explicitly when I first noticed it (after I wrote the above), but you're actually number 4 or 5 depending on whether this comment by BMK is read as a request to re-open the discussion -- Tarage also challenged the close (disclosure: Tarage was responding to my ping). Put simply, even if one takes my comment as "neutral", which it definitely was not, 2-1 is probably the weakest consensus to have ever been closed as such on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - An IBAN against a banned user certainly seems unnecessary, but banned users have been known to be unbanned (unusual, but it does happen), in which case it's better to have the IBAN logged and standing rather than to rely on its being remembered and revived. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

So, about that TBAN

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

• Before the TBAN was formally put in place, he accepted a temporary PBAN as an unblock condition, and he appears to have violated said condition at least 58 times without immediate consequence.[18][19][20]
• This[21][22] combined with this[23] 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"[24] 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)[25] nor the IBAN violations (when there's no reason to assume DS has been doing the same)[26] 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: [27].

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)

@K.e.coffman: So you think editors should be allowed ignore their sanctions, for which there was strong community support, if one of the users they conflicted with was someone you also didn't like? A certain editor I won't name created an absolutely hellish environment on Japanese history pages (which didn't have the advantage of broad community oversight and a lot of admins actually understanding the topic) and I was topic-banned for the way I behaved in that environment -- I would have loved it if I had been allowed simply ignore that ban and when someone proposed I be blocked you jumped in and said that because that editor was himself later banned my ban should not be enforced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The original premise of this thread was “Violating IBAN with site-banned editor?” This seems a bit like a tempest in a tea-cup. Also, “His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious” is not exactly a solid basis for an indef block. And yet we are discussing it. So you can see how ANI threads can escalate. I would again reiterate my “oppose” to an indef block, as I don’t see a sufficient basis for it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: The simple fact is that CWG has not been respecting his sanctions. I opened the ANI report on Darkness Shines because he wasn't abiding by his editing restrictions, and I argued quite consistently with the editors there who were insisting that since DS is a great guy he should be allowed ignore his sanctions, and that discussion led to a site-ban: the idea that there is some "excuse" to ignore legitimately-imposed sanctions, even making good content edits, is extremely unpopular. The kind of IDHT behaviour DS engaged in, which is the same kind of behaviour CWG has been engaging in, is unacceptable, and virtually the entire community agrees. It simply is not fair on the rest of us who do abide by our sanctions if CWG is allowed ignore his because you think the sanctions were not implemented in a reasonable manner (which in turn appears to be just because you don't like the site-banned DS). The only sanctions that it is okay to igbore are ones that were unilaterally placed by admins in clumsy AN/ANI closes, and those are rare. (Similarly, it is unacceptable for an admin to unilaterally remove or lighten a sanction, as briefly happened further up this thread; if CWG had started openly reverting DS's edits or mentioning him by name during the brief period when the IBAN was "vacated", that would have almost certainly been treated as a violation of a sanction that was still in place.)

In short: Editors get indefinitely blocked all the time for consistently failing, either through incompetence or deliberate gaming, to abide by sanctions. Claiming that this is not "a sufficient basis" for such a block runs counter to how things have always worked in this community. Claiming that this didn't happen here is even more ridiculous, for the reasons elaborated above (your citing the title of this thread and an out-of-context quote from my opening comment, more than a day before I proposed a block, appears to indicate you didn't even read that evidence).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 9 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[28][29][30] (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[31][32][33][34] 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[35] and the Brownie sent to Deisenbe [36] 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)

Okay, assuming that I misinterpreted those messages and that there was no ill intent there, I'll reiterate my strong support per the fact that I'm now being pestered (pinged) about it. My point could not be proven more aptly—more of the same "slimey" behavior. Pinging a user to a completely unrelated discussion after they support a proposal to block you comes across as willful harassment, whether it's intended to be or not. And that is the problem with CWG in a nutshell. They engage in sketchy behavior, and the second they get called out on it, they play innocent. It's always a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation, or not their fault. Is it possible that CWG is not willfully malicious? Sure. But it really takes a serious lack of competence to unwillingly come across that way on a regular basis. Swarm ♠ 22:43, 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 [37] 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)

Yes, of course, there are other things to do here besides work on articles that are helpful to the project, but they don't do those things either: no category work, no work in template space or file space, just talk, talk, talk, nothing but talk. That's not contributing, that's using Wikipedia as a social medium, not improving an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I think you may be misunderstanding where my position differs from yours: I believe that someone who "talks, talks, talks" may still very much be WP:HERE, depending upon the specifics; in my view, its not how much one talks, but rather what they talk about, that indicates whether they are here to be social or to improve the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if that's so, we do indeed hold different positions. I recognize that there are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, but not improving the encyclopedia in any of its many facets is certainly not one of them. Talking without doing is using Wikipedia as a social medium, even if the talking is in some way related to the encyclopedia. Why should we pay any attention to the views of someone who does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, they're not grounded in any way. And if so, then the talk is not worth anything, and the editor is a free-rider, clogging up the system with their verbiage. That's classic NOTHERE behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, if someone contributes positively to a discussion that improves an article's content, they have, by definition, improved the encyclopedia. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not an unreasonable position. Could you provide diffs of CWG contributing positively to a discussion that improves ab article's content? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I think the reason SR hasn't explicitly supported or opposed the proposal is because he is speaking in generalities, which is not technically out of line when your !vote was worded as a general comment (even though it was obvious you were referring specifically to the behaviour of CWG). I was half-tempted earlier to contact you on your talk page about how it just invites off-topic discussion when you are careless about wording your comments to be case-specific or general. Obviously there are a lot of reasons for making relatively few mainspace edits: most admins are well below 50%, and I think one or two current members of ArbCom are below CWG -- I've been in off-wiki contact with another editor about how some frequent ANI contributors fall well below 25%, some as low as 2~3%! It really depends on whether one has a valid excuse (admins using admin tools is a good thing, but that's not an excuse CWG -- or you or I or the 2%er alluded to above -- can invoke) or whether the drahma created is considered a worthwhile trade-off for the positive contributions to the encyclopedia (prolific content creators can get away with the odd scandal, but the same occasional scandal from someone who never does any actual work is less excuseable). I personally think that CWG would have to be a great content creator to counteract the drahma he has been causing, but it seems he's rather a careless plagiarist and a creator of unsourced content with citations attached that have nothing to do with it. His edit rate plummeted when he was TBANned, and then did so again when his TBAN was strengthened, and now it seems like virtually all he's doing is creating trouble. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I do recognize that admins' mainspace edits generally go down when they start adminning, because they spend their time doing more admin stuff -- which is why they get the big bucks. CWG, on the other hand, has no excuse. Not only are they not an admin, they're not apparently doing anything to improve the encyclopedia as far as I can see, which is why I asked Snowrise to provide some examples of CWG improving articles by contributing positively to discussion about those articles. I'm willing to bet that it's going to be hard to find them, and that most of CWG's talk page contributions are going to be on the order of the discussion on my talk page recently ([38]) which was, frankly, a waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 10 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)

CWG and I have interacted on-wiki a total of one time before this. An IBAN is not happening. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:10, 7 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

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

---

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)

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

Move to close

... is anyone going to do anything about this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Specifically, all that's needed to wrap this up is a formal close of the #Propose indef block section. Participation has stagnated at 5-2, or 71%, in support of an indef, with the aggravating factor that that CWG already narrowly escaped an indef in the past. Would an uninvolved admin please formalize and carry out the consensus? Swarm ♠ 16:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:DePiep and DYK

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

I hate to come here, but DePiep's actions leave me with little option. DePiep has, over the past weeks, made a series of edits and/or suggestions on the technical side of DYK: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], and several others.

These changes are made in good faith. However, when reverted or otherwise questioned about them, DePiep has responded with startling amounts of off-topic bellicosity, and very little genuine explanation. Thus, we've had there have been edit-wars on multiple pages here, and here. We've also had There have also been a number of discussions with a poor heat to light ratio: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].

In all of these situations, DePiep has repeatedly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Site ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor emptying masses of categories, then nominating them for speedy because they are empty. Also BRD issues.

Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been emptying masses of "Celtic" related categories, and blanking the category pages. I challenged him on this, and pointed him to the correct procedures for this. After I did this he then started tagging the categories he had emptied for Speedy Deletion on the groud that they were empty. Again I tried to get him to follow procedures, and I reverted his actions. His response has been to start reverting my reversions, as well as removing my notice on his talk page about BRD here. His edit rate in emptying categories is phenomenal. It's 01.30 here, and at some point I will have to sleep. Help! DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I obviously have a disagreement on a number of edits; however his arbitrary reversions are neither helpful nor constructive. I have explained the reasons for the clearing of said categories to him and yet he seems to have no interest in discussing it further. I shall make my position clear: the specific categories I have removed were done so because they have been created arbitrarily by another editor in recent weeks, with no discussion nor wish to seek a consensus on the topic. In my view the spurious classification of "Celtic" offers little encyclopedic value, is incredibly controversial (as demonstrated on a number of talk pages) and has no source-led evidence to justify its existence. The fact that a large number of categories have been created in quick succession is the reason for the edits of this nature to begin with. Brough87 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

At least two of the categories Brough87 emptied with no edit summary have been around for years, Category:Celtic nations and another I mentioned on his talk page. He has also not contacted the editor who created the other categories. There is a procedure for proposing the deletion of categories, and Brough87 has been advised of it by me on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already answered the point about how long they've been in existence: "classification of "Celtic" offers little encyclopedic value, is incredibly controversial (as demonstrated on a number of talk pages) and has no source-led evidence to justify its existence". If you think all of your reverts are old edits, I recommend you look a bit deeper into them. In relation to the accusations of 'bold' edits, I have never heard of the removal of unreferenced/unsourced assertions being described as 'bold' before. Brough87 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Can either of you point me to a talk page discussion where these edits were discussed? Where consensus was reached? --Tarage (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, no consensus was reached. I made the edits, he contacted me on my talk page, I gave my explanation then he went on a mass reverting spree without even bothering to pay attention to the edits he was reverting. As a result not only did he revert some of the edits he intended to, but also a number of edits that were not controversial to make. Brough87 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories for discussion explains what to do if you think a category should be deleted. It includes the sentence "Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made." I raised this on Brough87's talk page earlier. DuncanHill (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on "Celts", broadly construed I'm sorry, but an editor whose user page includes that many dog whistles and red (blue and white) flags clearly identifying them as a British nationalist (ironic, given the etymology of "British") attempting to empty and mass-speedy cats related to Celtic topics including Category:Celtic nations (a closed category that has otherwise been stable for years) strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. They are bordering on being an "ethnicity and race" SPA judging by their top-edited pages[49] and their most edited pages outside their own userspace are Syndicalism (where his main contribution was to promote the popular rightist meme that "fascism was a left-wing movement that came from socialism") and Talk:Black supremacy (where their main goal seems to be to emphasize "See! Blacks are racist too!"). I just can't see how allowing this editor to continue to behave as they have been is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

TBAN on "ethnicity and race, broadly construed" would also work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

My past history of edits demonstrate quite clearly that I'm just as willing to enter into discussions and seek editing consensus as any other person on Wikipedia. Your recommendation for a TBAN seem to be more focused on whether you believe my edits are a "rightist meme" as to whether my edits offer an objective encyclopedic value. I've given my reasons for my actions on the categories, that being: the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought or any obvious value derived from their existence. I have not shied away from discussions on this matter, it just would have been incredibly impracticable to start 10+ talk page discussions on each individual edit. If someone can create a mass set of categories in quick succession with no justification or obvious encyclopedic value, I'm confused as to why I should be punished for willingly discussing and explaining my position regarding them. Brough87 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brough87: the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought Really? Of the 120 categories you've edited in the last 24 hours, all but 12 date to 2016 at the latest. Those 12, for the record (I checked all 120), are:

Category:Argentine people of Celtic descent

Category:Brazilian people of Celtic descent

Category:Filipino people of Celtic descent

Category:Indonesian people of Celtic descent

Category:Israeli people of Celtic descent

Category:Japanese people of Celtic descent

Category:Mexican people of Celtic descent

Category:Pakistani people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Manx descent

Category:Israeli people of Scottish descent

Category:American people of Faroese descent

Of these, several date to 2017 and are not truly "recent", and if you have a problem with the seven or eight cats Hus12345 created in the last week or so, maybe take it up with them on their talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Please stick on topic, the point at hand is me blanking categories, not making minor edits (see title). The only thing I removed from Category:American people of Faroese descent was the link to the spurious category of "Celtic" Americans. The reason for this ANI is the page blanking and the recommendation for deletion; I haven't nominated 120 categories for deletion so I don't why you're bringing up those 120. Brough87 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the point at hand (what you were reported for) concerned emptying masses of "Celtic" related categories and your edit rate in emptying categories [being] is phenomenal (emphasis added). This clearly referred to your edits to 120 cats in the space of a day. Anyway, even if we limit the discussion to pages you specifically nominated for speedy deletion, your claim that the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought only applied to eight of the 20 you nominated -- 40% is hardly "the overwhelming majority". Lying (repeatedly) does not make you look better -- it makes you look worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

When the issue is clearly about emptying categories (which you've just accepted), I'm confused as to what relevance minor edits are exactly. There is no rule against many edits, just as there are *seemingly* no rules against creating massive amount of spurious categories with questionable encyclopedic value. Secondly, my position is easy to understand and is right at the beginning of this talk and on my personal talk page. Thirdly I would not go about making claims about 'looking worse' after the statements you've made in this ANI. Your first comment demonstrates very poor behaviour on your part. My nationality is irrelevant (bordering on the bigoted), the discussions I've had on other talk pages is irrelevant (the whole purpose of that is to come to consensus) and now you've accused me of being a liar. Perhaps you should consider treating others with a modicum of respect? Brough87 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss something with you if you are going to respond to Devil's advocate hypotheticals with "which you've just accepted". You are either too dense to edit this encyclopedia or you are deliberately pretending to be so because you are a troll. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And I question your reliability as an editor when you think nationality, the subject of talk page discussions and number of edits are legitimate justifications for punishment. Brough87 (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between wanting to sanction (not "punish") an editor for his nationality (an outrageous accusation for which you should apologize) and wanting to do so for said editor describing himself on his userpage as a "nationalist", specifically one who opposes dissolution of a particular country, and making edits that are derogatory towards the ethnicities of the various modern and historical separatist movements within that country. Similarly, I did never said or implied that the vast majority of editors with low edit counts should be sanctioned: I only brought up your edit count in response to your making a ridiculous insinuation that I am WP:NOTHERE. I honestly have no idea what "the subject of talk page discussions" refers to, but then your repeated references to something in the range 6.7%~40% as "the vast majority" has convinced me thaf you are just making stuff up as you go along. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed as per Hijiri 88 - clearly a problem area in the 'Celt' area. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban, although based on evidence of disruptive editing, not any disclosed nationality. Richard⁰⁶¹² 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support only temporary ban on "emptying" any categories That is, this would be sufficient to deal with the stated problem, rather than using the meat ceaver which "broadly construed" inevitably becomes. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be treating the symptom and not the disease? What's to say the editor wouldn't start removing references to ethnic/national groups he doesn't like from articles (and other stuff I don't wanna say per WP:BEANS), then go right back to what they've been doing once the temporary ban expires? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Alas - that argument is akin to saying "let's execute all thieves because they might murder someone if we don't" or the like - we deal with the "crime now proven" not "but they will do far worse in the future if we do not ban them now." Preventive banning has never worked, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not an admin, so you can't see User:Zaostao's user page, and I don't know if you remember it like I do, but we remove people from the community entirely if their user pages include dog whistle indicators that they support political movements that might bring the project into disrepute if associated with them. Opposing dissolution of the United Kingdom is not in itself equivalent to saying in code "I'm a Nazi", but doing so in combination with actively going around the project making content edits that belittle the non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups, and that is all you are doing, would be reason enough to remove him entirely from the project: giving him a sanction that would allow him to contribute to the project but not to articles and categories related to the ethnic groups he is belittling is a mercy. Opposing such a move just makes you look like you don't understand the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Right, now I feel I can legitimately accuse you of WP:NOTHERE. You don't get to string out a supposed political motivation for my edits simply because of my nationality, and if you had actually looked at my edit history you would know that what you say is ludicrous. Tell me, what is a "non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups" exactly? Do you have some sources to justify such terminology? Or is your primary motivation political (you know the thing you accused me of) which btw would make you WP:NOTHERE. Brough87 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone with 800 edits, most of them in the last week or so to articles and cats related to ethnic groups he apparently doesn't hold in very high regard, telling someone with close to 30,000 edits that they are "NOTHERE"? Just keep digging, I guess... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps someone should investigate the quality of your edits. Because your accusations are baseless; case in point "ethnic groups he apparently doesn't hold in very high regard". What's the evidence for that statement exactly? Brough87 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your allegation that Hijiri88 is NOTHERE is nonsense. I don't always agree with them, but they're definitely HERE. I think you might to well to read WP:Casting aspersions and stop making silly claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've made silly claims? The guy's literally accused me of "making edits that are derogatory towards the ethnicities..." (among other ludicrous accusations). The first part of the WP:Casting aspersions page says "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation..." or are you trying to suggest that the accusations of this nature are correct? Brough87 (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a reasonable observation based on the edits you chose to make and the content you chose to include in your userpage: you responded to this by engaging in completely baseless mud-slinging, first saying I was trying to punish you for your nationality and then saying I am NOTHERE. And don't pretend like I was misinterpreting you: within this ANI thread you literally denied that there are non-Anglo-Saxon minorities in the UK, demanding I provide sources for the claim that these groups exist; your repeated attempts to classify the Irish as "a Germanic people" is just more evidence of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I said: "Tell me, what is a "non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups" exactly? Do you have some sources to justify such terminology? Or is your primary motivation political..." that is not necessarily a denial, it's merely a question. But even if it was an overt denial, I'm confused how that could possibly be construed as in any way derogatory to any ethnicity. It is for that reason that I accused you of having a political bias informing your outrage/previous accusations against me. I believe that to define these different groups in arbitrary 'Celtic' and 'Germanic' categories is informed primarily by some editor's political beliefs rather than an objective basis/standard. To refer directly to your Irish example; Ireland ofc has a Celtic background, but it also has a Germanic background brought about through the Norse settlement, Norman settlement and the English and Scottish settlement and plantation over the years of English (and later British rule). It is for that reason that I also defined them in the Germanic category which doesn't seem to be particular leap of faith if we're also going to have a Celtic category. Brough87 (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are confused how [denying the existence of indigenous minorities and just saying they are all Anglo-Saxon] could possibly be construed as in any way derogatory to any ethnicity then you are incompetent to edit articles related to ethnic minorities in general, which is actually an argument for a TBAN that is broader still than the one I am proposing. Going around the encyclopedia removing the claim that Irish and their descendants are Celtic and adding the claim that they are Germanic is difficult to take as meaning anything else. I'm on record as holding the unpopular view that many "ethnic Irish" are partly or even mostly of Germanic ancestry, but this claim is taboo in Ireland, and is usually only stated with the intent to antagonize, similar to how it may be absolutely true that All Lives Matter but the people who say that are by-and-large doing so with malicious intent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying or are you blinded by obstinate ideology? I haven't denied the existence of any minority nor have I declared they are all Anglo-Saxon. Brough87 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You made dozens if not hundreds of edits "declassifying" people as Celtic, and several (I haven't attempted a count, but on top of the Category:Irish people diffs above all your recent edits to Germanic peoples starting with this one are the same) "reclassifying" them as Germanic. Are you saying that "ethnic" Irish, Manx, Welsh, Cornish and Scots are Germanic in that they have viking ancestry, as opposed to calling them specifically Anglo-Saxon? And it is impossible to read a statement in an ANI thread requesting a source for the claim that there are non-Anglo-Saxon ethnicities in Britain as simply a request for reading material -- you were challenging the factual accuracy of my claim, and now trying to wikilawyer over whether the words you used "directly" said what you clearly meant them to say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The declaration that I'm engaging in wikilawyer is total rubbish. You defined a selection of groups as "non Anglo-Saxon", I questioned that definition and in response you declared that I was being disparaging and declaring that they were all just "Anglo-Saxon". There is a fair difference between questioning the legitimacy of declaring them all non Anglo-Saxon, and me supposedly defining them as just Anglo-Saxon. I have never gone around declaring these groups (including English btw) as being just Anglo-Saxon. My position has always been that the groups in the archipelago are a fusion between the two and I have sourced and given an explanation when required/queried about it. Brough87 (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been edit-warring into the mainspace your claim that the Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh are "Germanic peoples", and when other editors point out that this seems kind of arbitrary as they are no more descended from Germanic peoples than the French, you mysteriously made it about a "Celtic vs. Germanic" dichotomy, even though the rest of us have been using these terms in their proper linguistic sense and the French are, by and large, neither "Germanic" nor "Celtic" in a linguistic sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an example of "other editors" (meaning apart from you) having a problem with the supposed "arbitrary" nature of my "descent" edits followed by a mass edit war on my part? Brough87 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: @Batternut: Do you wanna chime in here? I took your stated agreement with me on the article talk page (and to some extent on RSN back in Jan/Feb) going out of your way not to revert my edit to the article as indicating that you agreed with me. I honestly don't know why B87 is bringing this up here, as my above comment was not about the "arbitrariness" problem but rather this editor going around multiple articles and cats attempting to recategorize groups in Britain and Ireland as "Germanic, not Celtic"; the editor seems to be getting the two issues confused as this is also no doubt why they brought up this "Germanic vs. Celtic" dichotomy out of nowhere on the article talk page. The two are actually opposite -- I didn't realize that B87 was the one who had inserted that content when I called it arbitrary, but now that I've checked I realize it's not arbitrary at all -- it's a pointed political move. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You're very good at making ludicrous accusations, I wish you were better at demonstrating that those accusations were correct. Brough87 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Umm... what? You asked me to list the users who agreed with me, and I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to the ping, I do not think the discussions and edits on Germanic peoples can be seen in isolation as connected to one person or one position, and while I find some of the opinions naive and not well-read, that is not what I think you're asking. There has been an awkward discussion on that article for years, involving many different editors and viewpoints. Eventually that problem might need a bigger type of RfC, but I am not sure how to formulate it. I would summarize the problem as coming from the impulse people feel to talk about a modern version of the Germanic tribes in Roman times, without really having sources, and without considering whether this is already more properly handled by other articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I found much of the Germanic peoples discussion to be an impossible attempt ethnic descent with little reference to source - often the problem with ethnicity discussions. I sensed frustration by Brough87 at what he saw as a lot of poorly sourced categorization going on. However, looking back at his recent contributions, the pattern of killing off a bunch of Celtic categories is quite clear. In subsequent discussion at talk page he does admit a measure of fault here. In view of the level of disruption caused, I think some ban is due. As suggested by Collect above, I feel a temporary ban on "emptying" any categories should suffice, as the disruption relates predominantly to his categorizing. Vaunting his nationalism in itself is not an offence, though it clearly raises suspicion in combination with this apparent campaign against Celtic categories. I hope me may learn to be more careful in future. Batternut (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban. Per above users. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 00:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban -- I confess, I am a bit confused as to where this should go at this point, but here it is. At first, I would have supported a warning only. But Brough87's conduct and responses here -- evincing nary a punctilio of collaborative or even collegial behavior -- have convinced me this is a more appropriate consequence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

TBAN discussion

Okay, opening a new subthread and copying !votes down so it's clearer and so this proposal can be discussed properly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Partially copying comments into a new section is misleading. These comments should be read in the discussion above where they've been responded to. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support TBAN on "Celts", broadly construed I'm sorry, but an editor whose user page includes that many dog whistles and red (blue and white) flags clearly identifying them as a British nationalist (ironic, given the etymology of "British") attempting to empty and mass-speedy cats related to Celtic topics including Category:Celtic nations (a closed category that has otherwise been stable for years) strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. They are bordering on being an "ethnicity and race" SPA judging by their top-edited pages[50] and their most edited pages outside their own userspace are Syndicalism (where his main contribution was to promote the popular rightist meme that "fascism was a left-wing movement that came from socialism") and Talk:Black supremacy (where their main goal seems to be to emphasize "See! Blacks are racist too!"). I just can't see how allowing this editor to continue to behave as they have been is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC) TBAN on "ethnicity and race, broadly construed" would also work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Support topic ban, broadly construed as per Hijiri 88 - clearly a problem area in the 'Celt' area. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support broadly construed topic ban, although based on evidence of disruptive editing, not any disclosed nationality. Richard0612 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support only temporary ban on "emptying" any categories That is, this would be sufficient to deal with the stated problem, rather than using the meat ceaver which "broadly construed" inevitably becomes. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support broadly construed topic ban. Per above users. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 00:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Do you want this thread to get archived without result or something? I wasn't trying to "mislead" and none of the comments I copied were "partial", and you probably shouldn't imply that they were; I just wanted a subthread with a clear proposal so more outside commenters won't be scared off by the massive strings of discussion (much of which makes very little sense) -- how would you prefer this be addressed? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, by saying the comments "were responded to", you are effectively endorsing the frankly nonsensical style of many of those responses, which have been looking increasingly like a deliberate attempt to filibuster this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop treating this as if you've somehow approached this issue with an upstanding and civil attitude, because you haven't. Brough87 (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've accused me, entirely without basis, of (a) statements "bordering on the bigoted", (b) wanting to "punish" you because of your "nationality", (c) being "NOTHERE" and (d) having a "primary motivation [that is] political". You have not apologized for these allegations nor made any attempt to justify them. This is on top of your outrageous content edits which include attempting to recategorize various groups as "Germanic, not Celtic", edit-warring over the same, IDHT dodging of questions, engaging in misrepresentation and misdirection to avoid addressing others' concerns with your edits ... I'm frankly astonished you haven't been blocked for any of this yet, but maybe if you are issued with a strong TBAN you can still get away without a block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've explained this to you already: a and b.) My nationality being irrelevant to any discussion c and d.) Spouting political conspiracies about why I make edits without providing any justification beyond the fact that you disagree with the edit. Despite your deepest wishes, any sanction I face should be based entirely on my edits not on your prejudices or political conspiracies. Furthermore, you've repeatedly accused me of making disparaging remarks against ethnicities without justification or a single piece of evidence to support that claim. Would you at least do me the courtesy of demonstrating that what you say is true, or are you expecting me to just ignore it? People are free to disagree with me and my edits (and in some cases they are certainly right to), but no one here is going to the extent that you are to insult and generally behave appallingly to me. Brough87 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out that your user page makes a clear political statement that is ideologically consistent with the worst possible reading of your edits is neither bigoted nor conspiratorial. You chose to write on your user page that you are a British nationalist who opposes Scottish independence and Irish unification, and you chose to make edits that declassify Irish and Scots as Celtic and reclassify them as Germanic. And honestly I'll bet you couldn't guess my views on the issues of Irish unification and Scottish independence if you had a gun pointed to your head, because I have never stated those views on-wiki -- you are just assuming I hold political views that are opposed to your own, because that is how you have been reading everything about this dispute. I am in fact only interested in the disruption your edit-warring, counter-consensus, uncivil behaviour is causing to our encyclopedia and the community that maintains it and don't give a damn about the "politics" behind it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I couldn't give a damn what your ideology is or what your views are on anything; I just don't care. I have no assumptions about your politics beyond the fact that you've been very unpleasant and a consummate conspiracy theorist. I have had plenty of collaborative efforts with people who have politics who are fundamentally different to mine, just as I have had immense disagreements with people who I might traditionally agree with (some in the last few days); it's just irrelevant when it comes to edits. I haven't accused you of an ideological bias because of what your attitude is on Scottish independence, because as you've said, you haven't ever stated those views on wikipedia. I've accused you of an ideological bias because of your actions and statements in this thread and elsewhere: case in point, the idea that questioning the supposedly wholly "Celtic" nature of Scotland, Ireland and Man is in some way a disparaging remark against those people. Furthermore, you've made assertions that somehow your opinions of a "rightist meme" (which incidentally suggest your political views) is somehow relevant to a discussion of this nature. On a final note, you've accused me of two more things: "edit-warring...uncivil behaviour" please justify that and while you're at it, explain how you're actions and approach represent the height of civility. Brough87 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The diffs are all there, and you know what you've been doing -- anyone can Ctrl+F your contribs for "no justification" and see you edit-warring, and your gross attempts to paint this whole thing as me being some kind of politically motivated xenophobe are also here in this thread for all to see. And you did say fascism came from socialism, and edit-war with MShabazz over it, right? And you did repeatedly engage Malik in an IDHT loop on the talk page, did you not? Anyway, you should apologize for calling me a bigot and a conspiracy theorist: you cannot expect other editors to treat you with respect when you behave this way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Will you two stop arguing with each other? Hijiri 88 you originally tried open this discussion to focus on the tban rather than whatever you were arguing about above, and then you are once again one of the 2 key participants in another lengthy debate here? "Do you want this thread to get archived without result or something?" Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically, that original purpose ceased being a factor before any of the above, and it's not exactly reasonable to expect someone to put up with being called a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. It's worse than being accused of sockpuppetry and I've seen folks get autoblocked for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, it may be argued that the categories affected here, indeed all Category:People by ethnic or national descent subcategories, amount to tagging contrary to guideline "do not add categories to pages as if they are tags" of WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages. I doubt that having some ancestor of nationality or ethnicity X is a "defining characteristic" of the subject, as required by WP:CATDEFINING. If a subject claims to be Celtic, English or whatever, even half or quarter so, they can can categorized as being Celtic, English etc. Considering the descent categories of Barack Obama, I'd say only the "African-American" stuff is defining. WP:CFD will be the place to deal with this properly, where I might indeed take it. Batternut (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: And I might well agree with you there (feel free to ping me when you do). But a POV-pushing, grossly uncivil SPA, mass-emptying and speedy-nominating the cats, while at the same time placing articles/cats in alternate, clearly controversial, cats, in order to push a political agenda, is definitely inappropriate, and really has nothing to do with the concerns you are expressing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BarceloniUK

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

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

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

• @Filiprino: Hi, we're going to need more specific information. As we're dealing with non-English sources, we can't check for verification to confirm your report. Can you detail which text is specifically failing verification? Swarm ♠ 22:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Swarm: Hi. Well, it is not only a matter of his edits not matching what the sources say but that the user keeps doing disrupting editing. Removes content added by other uses and replaces it with other content. His edit summaries are just personal attacks. This diff shows his latest modifications to the article. As for the previous edits, the text which fails verification is "Catalan civic society organization opposing catalanism" and "Separatist and far-left activist, photographer". On top of that he replaced " it has been proven to have close relations with far-right associations" with "representatives of far-right associations opposing independence of Catalonia have attended some of their events as so, have others from left, centre and right parties" which is also true but the articles cited as references do not talk about that. For example, this article explains the links with the far-right, with founders and current members of Catalan Civil Society being founders of far-right associations like Somatemps (Somatemps Wiki article happens to be also criticised by BarceloniUK, as his latest edit summaries of CCS show), mainly Josep Ramon Bosch and Ferran Brunet. Note that the Wikipedia article never says that the association is far-right, but that members of it are linked with the far-right or have relations with it. Moreover, an old member of CCS which also belongs to far-right Somatemps, Javier Barraycoa, posted that he was in the meetings of CCS for planning their agenda providing a photograph as proof [51]. It seems to me that seeing the word far-right is something this user does not like, but he is incapable of explaining his edits on the talk page and he does not answer any attempt at discussion. On top of that, that user account is editing only that article. He does not do anything more, which I think is WP:SPA. If you need more information please ask. Filiprino (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

still anyhow relisting afd

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

hi. user is still anyhow relishing afd. 7 days should pass before any afd relisting. can someone stress to him or not. The warning seems not working. [52][53] user involved:Kirbanzo Quek157 (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Is relisting discussions that don't need to be a habit of his? See also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine. Natureium (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Another question: is relisting really necessary if discussion is still ongoing? Are AfDs required to be closed at 7 days if not relisted or can discussion continue anyway? This one seems to be closable as delete, but people are kindly discussing with the creator why they disagree with him. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I and a few experienced users and admin discuss this right at this moment at ani and Tony warned him just yesterday Quek157 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

user notified Quek157 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @78.26 and TonyBallioni: I think a temporary topic ban of 7 days for afd is needed

[54] and is this close correct. want to let it slip after discussion with 78.26 but since he is recalcitrant we need to examine this Quek157 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

[55] not a SNOW keep. It lacked participation so you have 1 delete and 1 keep. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

at first I agreed with 78.26 to let the nominator and relist admin do drv. this need a block at least topic. this time I wasted with him can easily clear 2 afc submission Quek157 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

to add can I propose the script to close be given only to nominate for speedy keep as well as admin or anyone with added userrights Quek157 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC) I know this need rfc

see [56] Quek157 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC) and this for reference of warnings[57]Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I only asked for topic ban for relisting / closing only as I believe he will be useful in contributing, nominating as well as other areas of the project. That IMO is already very leinient as Afd is the last line of defence, we cannot ask NPP to put time into reviewing and then Afd then their Afd get closed in such a way which NPP cannot monitor themselves usually due to high work load (i.e. don't let him use Xfd closer for now). Sometimes the keep and relist he did is good and can save admin attention, this I am greatly for. Quek157 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo: I will suggest you really don't relist anything, or at least for 7 days (if its 8 May let it run till 15) as I am really afraid you don't see consensus right. However, can someone really keep an eye on things here or else this will be no end. --Quek157 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I re-opened most of the early-closed discussions (not going to do the relisted ones) and left another (basically final) warning. If they continue after this, then I'd say a topic ban is definitely warranted. ansh666 21:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, he is good sometimes. Sometimes I really want to end a discussion prematurely as it is so clear but I can't as I am not a sysop (and don't want to take flame}. His is brave, decisive, and have the entrepreneurial spirit; but please use it wisely. This is a double edged sword. With this I will close this discussion. However, I will not endorse him for Rfa, taking back my previous statement given this (as he wants to be an admin in the end) is clearly not what an admin should behave (if he becomes) --Quek157 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Reopened per [58]. Good also for others to respond. --Quek157 (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, congratulations! Nine years on Wikipedia and this is the first time my name has appeared here as part of the discussion! Kirbanzo, please do not relist or close AfD discussions. You're inexperience is showing. Goodness knows some of these are difficult enough for those with deep knowledge and long experience. Please limit yourself to !voting at this point. Much more impressive than a close would be a pattern of !voting that goes beyond the usual "Delete, doesn't meet GNG" and "Keep, there are tons of sources!". Even better would be to do the work to rescue an article from deletion, if possible. But as of now, you haven't shown the competency to close or relist these discussions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just an example how articles are rescued from deletion is [59]. And to be clear, !Vote = to vote (with proper rationale rather than just WP:GNG, I had to make it clear) --Quek157 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, Natureium, Legacypac, Ansh666, and 78.26: Just checking per [60] anyone have anything else to add to this. The entire discussion shouldn't have started at all. My account was started in 2007, and this is 2018, per 78.26, really this is in my 11 years I had taken anyone here also and asking for a ban and not warning. Congratulations also. It is a very bewildering case where a new editor with mere 3 months of experience do such things - and at Afd. Since the entire discussion is on non admin relisting / closing of Afd, we started this on the 8 May. I will end this discussion on 14 May if there is nothing else anyone to add as an non admin closure of this ANI. Please add if there is any. I have one point to add though Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine, this relisting is fair. There is simply no consensus yet and this CAM / Medicine based topic needs further discussion IMO. I will not say delete yet but it is really leaning somewhat there, I have just glanced through the topic and way too much terms and here and there. We should end this WP:DEADHORSE soon, and I really hope another thread should not need to start. So far today Afds seems okay. --Quek157 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't been responding because I find it very confusing to try to read what you've written. Natureium (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jeez, people. There's no need to rush through closing threads (if they even really need to be closed). What I really want is to hear from Kirbanzo; they haven't edited in over a day, so there's no indication at all whether or not they got the message. ansh666 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo:please respond can? Please --Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

(This is to Kirbanzo only not for Admins / other contributors / not WP:CANVASS meant)[61] do see my explanation of what is not meeting WP:GNG. As this will help greatly in your argument. I am not prejudicing the result of the Afd though but I don't wish to make this any longer by copy and pasting the long winded prose there. --Quek157 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek. Mate. It's fine. Just let it rest. There's no need to respond to or repeat every comment, nor to lay out every detail or every possibility. We can see and judge for ourselves. ansh666 19:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see his potential and wanted to coach him a little. I will end here --Quek157 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Still nothing from Kirbanzo, who appears to be on a break of sorts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I read them the riot act over some really terrible HOAX CSD taggings. No I feel like I was to rough on them. Or was I? They made a lot of good CSD taggings, but seeing this thread, I wonder. <<Dlohcierekim at work and cannot login cause I made my password to strong to remember>>[REDACTED - Oshwah] 07:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If their claim to be a high school student is true, it's AP test time in North America, so that may be why. Hopefully they return and are a bit more careful. ansh666 07:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, but I seriously worry if they is taking AP then why is they spending so much time on Wikipedia, I can't when I need to take my GCE. I hope their grades to be good though. --Quek157 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just ironically, they nominated an Afd which ended up in a SNOW closure, Afd SNOW which is what they should not do in the first place for this entire ANI --Quek157 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger Troutman promotion IPs

Some person from Denver, Colorado, has been promoting Roger Troutman, the deceased leader of Zapp (band), in articles related to Zapp or Troutman. The activity includes pushing up the importance of Roger Troutman at the expense of his brothers, especially Larry and Terry. None of the changes are based on published references. Apparently, this person is Troutman's grandchild, who is a self-published musician, and is promoting himself as "Roger's Legacy".[62][63][64]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Axxxion

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

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

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

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

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

File uploads by User:Syahmi Syafiq on Wikipedia

Syahmi Syafiq on Wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Syahmi Syafiq on Wikipedia is one long list of notifications and warnings about inappropriate or incomplete file uploads. I've tried bringing this to the editor's attention here and here and even issuing a level-4 user warning here and here, but none of that seems to have slowed this editor down and they continue to upload files which have problems.

After looking at this editor's contribution history, they don't appear to have ever made any article or user talk page posts. I'm not sure if these is just because they feel uncomfortable disussing matters or asking for help in English, or if they simply are not interested in communicating with others. It's kind of hard to figure out how to help this editor if they are unwilling or unable to repsond, but at the same time their repeatedly uploading problematic files needs to stop. Some of the user's edit sums like this, etc. are a bit "interesting" to say the least, and there may be WP:COI and WP:CIR issues involved as well (just an opinion), but it's the lack of any attempt to communicate with other editors in addition to the file uploads which stands out, at least to me.

Maybe this can be resolved without a block, so perhaps there's an admin who might have better luck getting through to this editor. However, since I added this post, two more notification templates were added to this editor's user talk page about articles they've created. These were tagged for speedy per WP:A10 and appear to be just content copied-and-pasted from one article to another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

An indefinite block is in order till the editor responds and clarifies their position. Lourdes (Talk)

Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Pulsifier220

• Pulsifier220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has had multiple warnings about blanking sourced content and adding unsourced content, including a final warning. I have tried to patiently explain Wikipedia's policies to him several times (for example, User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#List of Columbia Pictures films and User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#List of Universal Pictures films). Despite this, Pulsifier220 persists in blanking sourced content (for example, 1 and 2 from today). This editor has been disruptive from the start and does not seem to care at all about our policies or following what sources say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I just reported him to ARV for yet another unexplained blanking. At some point, AGF simply runs out. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ammy.sohal

User:Ammy.sohal had been warned already for uploading copyright violations of images from Google in December 2017. Despite this warning, this user is still persistently uploading copyright violations and is not responding to any messages on their talk page. See User talk:Ammy.sohal. I am now going to perform a thorough check and nominate copyvios for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems the user hasn't been active for over a month. However, I am still checking for the copyvios. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for the persistent copyvios. They should have taken the hint in December, if not earlier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

With the naming convention and type of pages targeted, I have reason to believe they are the banned editor Lurulu. Therefore, I have opened a checkuser request at the associated SPI page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Chronic uploader of copyrighted images Lorrensharlina

In the past two weeks, Lorrensharlina has been warned ten times by seven users on Wikimedia Commons and twice on their talk page here against uploading and using copyrighted images. They haven't responded to any warnings, and continue to upload and use copyrighted pictures. Perhaps it isn't malicious, but merely a language competence problem, but the behaviour needs to be stopped. Additions of copyrighted photos: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I just blocked them on commons for two weeks, and deleted all the commons images as copyvios. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this user doesn't know about the talk page. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 03:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers talk page issues

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

---

A growing list of editors have been banned from User:72bikers talkpage for pointing out serious issues with his editing. 72bikers has now assembled a partial list [72] I'm seeing a combative attitude and multiple false accusations of harassment made against other editors. His false accusations I tried to get him banned for sockpuppetry [73] and general bashing of me - while insisting I can't defend myself on his talk have been up for a long time. I'm suggestimg some additional eyes on this editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this is actionable yet, but he has also this charming bit of rules reinterpreting [[74]] in essence using an article talk page to file a complainant. Whilst demanding that users issue warnings to him on article talk pages, and not his talk page [75], [76] (both related to warnings on his talk page).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If 72bikers is being abused he deserves justice. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a venue for justice. And user talk pages are where warnings go. Users cannot dictate to the community.18:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Maybe an admin need to tell him that (not about the justice bit).Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have invited him to opine here. On his talk page, he almost reads as reasonable. It always takes my breath away when the first item on a talk page is a block notice. Been here for a while, 2015. Here again/gone again.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I was preparing to bring this to ANI as well. Here are a few more relevant diffs, apologies for any overlap:

Examples of 72bikers "banning" users from their talk page and/or asking them to use article talk pages: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]

Note that they repeatedly accused these editors of violating some unnamed policy that could lead to discretionary sanctions and threatened to take the issue to ANI. Instead, they filed a complaint at Talk:AR-15 style rifle as mentioned above.

My attempts to discuss this behavior with 72bikers: [83] [84]

At the very least, an uninvolved admin should explain the relevant policies to 72bikers to clear up their misconceptions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL reverted last 3 talk page comments Perhaps will join us here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, recommend checking user talk history. Uses "archive by deletion" technique. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That is their prerogative, as long as they do not delete things like blocks. But they fact they have deleted rather them come here to explain does smack of a nothereismm.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Streisand effect. The more editors you demand to stay off your talkpage, the more attention your talkpage will get. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I am simple doing what I have been advised to do by admin Drmies and wiki policy WP:NOBAN. I have been repeatedly harassed by these editor. I can and will provide diffs for this just not sure I have enough time to provide this all right now. I was in the process of compiling this and bringing to a noticeboard. I gave notice of this, I presume this was started first in a attempt to show me in a bad light (as his heading suggests). Editor Legacypac who has threaten me with this after he repeatedly restored his same comment on my talk page. That I believe violates WP:DRC. I point out this was made after he was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation as well. You insist on removing my posts [85] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [86] by editor Legacypac. -72bikers (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have the right to remove there comment from my talk page. I have the right to ask them to not post on my talk page about my character, and simply keep conversation on topic on article talk pages. I do not see how there unfounded perceived opinions on my behavior justifies there repeated warnings on my talk page. I have not violated any rules or policies unlike them. I will address more when I have more time to show all diffs.-72bikers (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The guideline says that you may ask users not to post on your user talk page, and that users should respect that request. It does not say that you can avoid scrutiny by asking users not to talk about you when they have good-faith concerns. When you do the first thing then the venue for the second thing is this page. If you believe you're being harassed by these users, posting diffs of this harassment here at your earliest opportunity would be wise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I was about to post on the harassment issue before this was started. This was started by a editor I have had no contact with in over a month but for some reason has repeatedly made complaints to admin NeilN about me. It was also started immediately after I declared my intentions. The request to not post on my talk page was in regards to there unfounded warnings that were solely based on there opinions. This is clearly a policy violation of WP:HUSH. They could have brought up any issues on article talk pages or there own talk page and pinged me or to the attention of a admin or noticeboard. They also idmmediately deleted any comments I left on there talk pages is also evidence of not being cordial or of any interest to address any of there perceived issues. I am not attempting to avoid scrutiny, I am clearly just looking to not be harassed. Were is there proof I violated any Wiki policies, there warnings were baseless. If there was any real issues they would have tried to get me blocked.72bikers (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• A few comments. First, we are dealing with an area where I think all sides have been frustrated. 72bikers did ask several editors to stay off his talk page. My understanding is that an editor is allowed to tell any other editor to stay off their talk page. At that point the prohibited editor may only post required notifications. That means only things like ANI notifications, not just comments about "I didn't like how you did that last edit". I'm not sure why Legacypac is bringing this up as LP hasn't been recently involved with any of these edits/issues. I sympathize with 72bikers's frustration and a few times I've wanted to accuse others of acting in bad faith. I’m not claiming they were acting in bad faith rather the subject was causing frustration and under such conditions it’s easy to assume the worst. I can easily see how the talk page comments could be read as attempts to intimidate but 72's replies don't help matters. I suspect the editors placing the warnings were just as frustrated with the discussion (I think both sides feel that way). I would encourage 72bikers to remember the adage about attracting more bears with honey vs vinegar. All need respect talk page requests. Springee (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be the first to admit I can be gruff at times and I could be more cordial. But I still stand by I broke no rules or policies. I once again thank you Springee for trying to interject level headed thinking. -72bikers (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• And before this gets closed (because I don't see what issues require intervention, plus there's two admins around already), can I say a thing or two? 1. Please y'all don't come around to pile on here on 72bikers; 2. For clarity's sake, I did indeed inform 72bikers on what to do when they don't want someone posting on their talk page ("If you want Legacypac off your talk page, put a neutral notice on their talk page. "Please don't post on my talk page again. Thank you." After that, if they do it again, you can call in the cavalry."). Now let's move along... Drmies (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• This begs the question: How does one address editing issues with an editor who has banned one from their talk page? Should one post a warning on one's own talk page and ping them, as 72bikers suggested? What if one don't want them to post on one's talk page either? Can one render oneself immune to warnings by refusing to allow anyone to post? –dlthewave ☎ 02:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As (I think) was said above, you can still raise valid concerns, what you should not do is bang on about it (or post the same waning umpteen times, or restore it if deleted, you do not have a right to comment on a users talk page). Raise the concerns ("this is a warning that PA's such as here are against policy") and post no more about it, if the issues continue and they ignore warnings bring it here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

This was closed before I got my chance to show there harassment. I do not want these people on my page. They have not shown any ability to be able to judge what a legitimate reasonable cause would be to post warnings on my talk page.

I had already asked Whale and others very politely to not leave these opinioned warnings on my talk page [87] before the most recent harassment. Here is a most recent example, editor whale [88] leaving unsubstantiated warnings on my talk page. Here is the edit whale states as the reason to leave unfounded warning[89]. It was a very simple edit supported by the reference. I left a edit summery, I saw no reason to explain the word many removed. I simply thought it read better without it to give a more neutral tone, of which I believe I have a right to do. This issue was brought up on the article talk page [90]. I addressed this on the talk page there as well. He also started a edit war over the word many[91] and other edit wars [92] ,[93],[94] that exceed 3RR and his attempt to game the system [95]. He also immediately deleted information I left to help a new editor out [96] and others attempts do be civil [97] immediately removed. Editor Dlthewave then encouraged him to keep doing this harassment of unfounded false accusations [98]. After both of them had been ask more than once to not do this [99], [100]. -72bikers (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There comments here still show they do not understand policy and violations of WP:NOBAN and WP:HUSH. Should I post this here with a new heading or another noticeboard? -72bikers (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit notices in mainspace

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

---

The article List of countries by intentional homicide rate currently includes a notice in the edit page, a mainspace note in italics in a section and a template-looking notice in another section. I think this is a bit of an overkill, and especially the last one may be a violation of WP:NDA, so I'd like to have some outside opinions on whether they should be kept or removed.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Timeshifter: as they participated in the original discussion.

@Underlying lk: you can discuss this on the article's talk page. This is not the right place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I'm seeking more opinions as it's hard to reach any consensus with just two people involved.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong space. What data to use and what sources are or are not reliable (WP:RS) are normally first addressed on the article's talk page. If consensus cannot be achieved - either because of real lack of consensus or lack of participation - there are other ways to get the community's input (see Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:DR). I wish you the best of luck; but note WP:NDA is very limited and - not no "disclaimers" of any kind, but no repeating the listed overall disclaimers that apply to ALL Wikipedia content. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Try taking this to WP:VPP. I agree that those kind of permanent editorial meta-comments in articles are most likely already prohibited by something in the MOS, but I don’t have the time to look right now. VPP will surely provide the clarification. If it turns out that they’re not prohibited, you’ll have to take it to talk. Swarm ♠ 15:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Well, I boldly converted the article notices to comments while making the edit-notice more arresting Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Lescandinave (talk · contribs)

• See examples: [101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108] (Update: One diff struck through and two more recent added).
• Also claiming he checked a 1994 newspaper source to disprove the attribution: [109] The same thing is however also available from another source which is even quoted in the references section: Richard_Gott#cite_note-8

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

About the political parties in Latin America, I look at es.wikipedia and correct en.wikipedia. I can make mistakes, but your allegations are false in several cases. A source was added for the PRI [110] ("it has drifted toward the center-right since the 1980s.[111]") For the PSUN the source [112] said "derecha" (Right-wing) [113]. For the Japanese party, I removed an edit that was vandalism [114]. For the Peruvian Nationalist Party, indeed, I didn't have change the source, but the information was good (see the new source added today). I find curious the practice to search on several months the thread of contribution of a user.--Lescandinave (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The Peruvian Nationalist Party was socialist but it has drifted more to the centre during the Ollanta Humala Administration. Hence the confusion between the sources. Es.wikipedia indicates today "center-left". I changed centre-right to Right-wing for Peruvians for Change (not Far right). CNN indicates "derecha neoliberal" [115] [116] but indeed I should have added the source into the article rather than in Edit summary. And for the Socialist Party of Latvia, lv.wikipedia (in Latvian) indicates "Kreisa" ("left-wing" according to google translate).--Lescandinave (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP spamming db-spam

• 81.182.100.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Per their contributions [117], an IP has been flagging multiple articles related to cryptocurrency for G11 speedy deletion. The ip also has been making a substantial number of edits to Draft:Bitcore. Any admins want to take a look at the situation?--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Additions reverted and user warned. See also edits by Ma.prezentalok (talk · contribs) which appears to be making comparable edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

92.233.57.59

92.233.57.59 (talk · contribs)

Although an IP address, the contributions made have followed a consistent pattern so appear to be related: unreferenced addition of family members to biographies of individuals (mostly actors but also some fictional characters and politicians). Examples: [118], [119], [120] - although pick pretty much anything at random; there aren't many exceptions. I've just undone that last example WP:V and WP:BLPNAME but haven't left a templated warning on their talk page because a bunch have already been left and don't seem to have had any effect. Could an admin see if they can get through to them? Thanks. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

NFL Undrafted Players section

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

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

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

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

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

IP Jumping

I've noticed a lot of so-called IP-Jumpers who have made unsourced edits to two specific Wikipedia articles - Fancy Nancy and List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior, since May 8 per the edit logs for each. I have reverted those edits and gave out warnings to each of them. The users in mind are:

• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:1DA5:1B57:1141:729A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:AD58:D17F:1934:CE24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:D9E1:109:13AF:A97A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:C9E9:EF20:508B:4015 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

All four of these IPs originate out of Toronto, ON, if you check the WHOIS for each of them. This could lead us to a possible sock puppetry case too. Also, what is Wikipedia's stance on these so called "IP-Jumpers"? Thanks so much. --IanDBeacon (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's stance broadly is that we don't generally hound editors who may have dynamic IPs and who don't wish to create an account. There's no case of sock-puppetry here, in my opinion. This is just a case of some fan(s) who may have read up on the premier date of 21 June 2018 on some social network and may have proceeded to place the same in the article in good faith. We need to handle such cases with kid gloves and guidance. And of course, please always inform IPs about ANI discussions where they're being accused. Muboshgu has already protected Fancy Nancy; you can request them to protect the other one too to reduce the disruption the IPs may be causing. Lourdes, 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a single user. With IPv6, users typically get assigned an IP address where the first four numbers are the same, and the rest may change rapidly over time. Give the editor an escalating series of warnings, and if they continue past a level four warning, I'll do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IPHOPPER -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As NinjaRobotPirate pointed out above, this is a single user and the IP change you're seeing is normal for many IPv6 addresses due to the way that the network allocates addresses to end-users. Many ISPs or networks will allocate the /64 CIDR block to the end-user and reserve the other half for the parent network, which is why you're seeing the IP change like this - it's not indicative of malicious behavior just because this IP change is being observed. It looks like there was edit warring going on at Fancy Nancy, but the article has since been protected. I'll check out the other contribs by this range and make sure no other disruption is ongoing... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: As I was looking through the /64 CIDR's contributions, the user made another revert to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior and added back the same content that's been repeatedly removed. I've blocked the /64 range for repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, and for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

LearnLurker

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

---

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

See the currently open sockpuppet case on him here, which has been running for almost 3 days now without anybody intervening in this case. Recently he has went straight onto Nick Moyes' talk page to say hi on him, where the previous sock, such as DashDog01, last edited. See this interaction timeline and the case itself in general for more evidence. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Springee and WP:Votestacking

Springee may have engaged in WP:Votestacking with this edit, following her/his comment here. The second comment indicates that Springee knew or believed that the group of editors s/he notified had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion" (c.f. WP:Votestacking). Springee failed to notify dlthewave, a participant in that same discussion who (based on previous comments) would likely have come down on the opposite side of the issue. So of nine editors involved in discussing "Proposal" here [121] that had not yet commented, user:Springee notified all eight on her/his side, and left out the one that would likely have been opposed.

Furthermore Springee failed to notify the editors on the involved in the closely related discussion of Proposal 2 here [122], including User:London Hall, User:Fluous, User:JustinFranks, and User:Icewhiz, at least several of whom would likely have been opposed to Springee's position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply: OK, has some computer time. High level, no this isn't canvassing as per WP:APPNOTE it is acceptable to notify editors involved in previous same or similar discussion. The origin of this complaint is based on an edit Waleswatcher made this morning. WW boldly added this content to the Colt AR-15 article [[123]].

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

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

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

Per WP:APPNOTE, I notified all editors who had participated in the previous discussion (Proposal 1) but were not active in the current discussion. I missed Dlthewave who didn't actually vote but replied to another editor. This was an honest oversight and WW didn't even know I had missed it when posting a canvasing warning to my talk page earlier today[[124]]. I have to assume WW didn't understand the allowances in APPNOTE.

I did not notify editors involved in the unrelated Port Arther inclusion discussion (Proposal 2). Dlthewave notified those editors [[125]] which was, unintentionally, canvassing. Most of the editors who opposed Proposal 1 also opposed Proposal 2. Thus the editors from Proposal 2 who weren't notified could be assumed to be largely sympathetic to the edit in question and thus reverse vote stacking (again, unintentionally). This was noted by Red Rock Canyon (talk · contribs)[[126]].

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

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

Here you are earlier today accusing me of acting in bad faith [[127]]. So now I should assume you just wanted to do the right thing? It's ironic that you started to complain before you even understood the relevant policies. Springee (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've notified all participants of the other 3 recent Port Arthur massacre discussions here [128]. See here for info on the list [129]. As I remarked in the talk page, it seems to me 2 other recent discussions are equally relevant and so I would suggest participants in them should be notified, but I will leave that up to others. My last comment on this issue would be as general advice, while it's not technically wrong to leave neutral notification of all previous participants of a highly related discussion, if you have strong known feelings on an issue it generally makes sense to raise the issue before leave the notification so people can offer feedback. I actually considered doing that here, but as the previous pings had already been sent felt it was too late now as there was no real justification for notifying people who only participated in proposal 2, but then not notify participants of the other 3 recent discussions on the Port Arthur massacre, especially the RFC. But it is part of the reason I did not notify participants of the discussions on other issues. P.S. Frankly I think we're getting close to notifying anyone who has commented on the talk page in the past 3 months or so. I wonder if it might be better to just notify all talk page editors in 3 or even 6 months. That would hopefully end this IMO pointless debate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Issue with editor

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

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

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

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

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

Waleswatcher and 3RR

Waleswatcher has been in a edit war [130] ,[131],[132] that exceed 3RR. When he was informed of this [133] his response could be construed as a attempt to game the system [134]. Any admins want to take a look at the situation? -72bikers (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong venue: pls see WP:3RRN. In any case, there's no 3RR violation here; see WP:CIR. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• No violation of 3RR has occurred. Currently at 2 reverts, and has already desisted. The addition of new material does not count as a revert. Besides, 3RR should be dealt with at WP:AN/EW and requires not 3 but 4 reverts. There was general edit-warring happening at the article (AR-15 style rifle), between a number of parties, and the same material was subject to a smaller edit war at Colt AR-15 between Springee and Waleswatcher. A warning to all parties to knock it off may be reasonable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: While (Personal attack removed) may be a bit harsh, this is certainly the case here as the msg left by the reporting editor refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: [135].

Also of note is the fact that 72bikers is currently subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction [136] in the gun control topic area, so perhaps some sort of boomerang would be appropriate to prevent further disruption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher didn't violate 3RR but was edit warring and failing to follow BRD. I don't think this is sanctionable but let's not assume 72bikers frustration is without merit. Springee (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This edit was an attempt to address the concerns raised by some previous language (the word "many" in "many mass shootings") which was removed from the article by User:Springee and User:72bikers (despite reverts and the lack of any consensus for its removal). User:Springee made the most detailed arguments for why "many" should be removed, essentially that "many" is vague and context-dependent. So, after thinking about it and doing some research to find a reliable source, I added language that is concise, precise, and informative, that I thought (and still think) addresses all those objections. Springee immediately reverted my edit without making any actual objection, as seems to be her/his habit. In fact to date no one has made any substantive objection to it. It seems that the strategy here is to revert any change that adds any details about mass shootings, and then canvas to obtain a large enough group of opposed editors so that consensus is never achieved (even though no valid arguments to oppose are advanced), and in this way prohibit all such changes. I'm not sure how best to deal with that, actually. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am simple at awe of the accusation being flung here. The above comments are highly uncivil in what appears to be a attempt to belittle and dismiss all others views.-72bikers (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was in a rush when I posted this. What I should have posted here was the harassment, along with obvious uncivil personal attack comments as exampled here.

I had already asked Whale and others very politely to not leave these opinioned warnings on my talk page [137] before the most recent harassment. Here is a most recent example, editor whale [138] leaving unsubstantiated warnings on my talk page. Here is the edit whale states as the reason to leave unfounded warning[139]. It was a very simple edit supported by the reference. I left a edit summery, I saw no reason to explain the word "many" removed. I simply thought it read better without it to give a more neutral tone, of which I believe I have a right to do. This issue was brought up on the article talk page [140]. I addressed this on the talk page there as well. He also started a edit war over the word many[141] as noted. He also immediately deleted information I left to help a new editor out [142] and others attempts do be civil [143] immediately removed. Editor Dlthewave then encouraged him to keep doing this harassment of unfounded false accusations [144]. After both of them had been ask more than once to not do this [145], [146].

There comments above under my name showed they either showed no basic understanding of policy or simply showed a disregard of there violations of WP:NOBAN and WP:HUSH. -72bikers (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers has been offered a gun topic ban if they continue their disruption [147] Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What disruption are you thinking of? Has something come up since your ANI against 72bikers was closed?[[148]] Springee (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That ANi was prematurely closed before 72bikers could substantiate the allegations he made against me. I'm still waiting for those diffs, and the ones to substantiate the allegations he makes on his talkpage about me.

Filing a frivolous 3RR and ANi is disruption. Making all these claims of harrassment by other editors with no evidence is disruption. Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Disruptive editing: note that User:72bikers altered someone else's (K.e.coffman's) comment in this thread here. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  Calling someone incompetent is close to a personal attack; indeed WP:CIR itself states that "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors." If he's mistaken about how these noticeboards works (that's no surprise, wikibureaucracy is sometimes insane), then maybe point out how he's wrong instead of linking that guideline? On removing personal attacks, see: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Removal_of_personal_attacks --Pudeo (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

He has been (there is even an ANI above about it). His reaction to being told he is breaching policy or is not acting according to guidelessness is to tell you to not talk to him on his talk page (that is why we are now linking to the guidelines, he does not listen).Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As others have pointed out it is clear that 72bikers has a serious issues with misunderstanding (and then enforcing those misunderstandings ) of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Indeed as a perfect example of total lack of comprehension of how things are done is this [[149]], where he informs the user of this thread, by pointing to the edit warring thread (where he has not made a complaint). I would say this was just incompetence, except to get that notification he must have gone to the right forum in the first place (or at least be aware of it). Yet he in fact launched it here. That looks deliberate, and given his other tendencies tells me he is a rules lawyer and system gamer who is going to be (I think) a net drain. I think a boomerang is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• 72bikers has been involved in a number of firearms articles. Most of those who are speaking against him are ones with opposing opinions in discussions. This would be an effective way to shift balance in article discussions to drive content changes. WW very much was edit warring and 72bikers complaints about editors on his talk page was legitimate. It seems that offering some instruction as to how the sometimes convoluted Wikipedia system works would be more helpful. Springee (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not cast aspersions about others users (that is a PA). I am not going to comment on the edit warring (as he was not alone). I am going to comment on the claim that 72 was right to complain about other users on his talk page. In at least one instance he was just told that his understanding of the proper place to raise complaints was not the case, that his version of that policy was against policy. His response was to say "Please keep all comment to article talk pages. Leaving comment about your perceived opinion are not welcomed on my talk page. Thank you.". In other words to continue to misplay talk page guidelines (which in fact are the exact opposite of this). How is that a legitimate complaint about being told it is incorrect?Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers has made numerous false allegations against various editors, this thread being just the latest. Springee continues to participate in this negative activity. For weeks 72bikers talk has been maintained as a attack shrine against me, complete with Springee's comments, and I'm banned from responding there. I'm half a mind to take his talk to MfD.

What would a boomerang look like, to discourage the continued flinging of false allegations? A short block or some kind of Tban? Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

At this time I think just a very stern warning (as it may just be an inexperience issue), and mentoring.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

They have been here three years and have had blocks and warnings before (including DS block in a related topic), I think a temporary block may be in order, as it is clear in this area they have far to much of a battleground mentality to think straight. Thus I think this is going to continue to fester.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets look at this edit war complaint. I warn the user [150], there is then a debate in which I explain that whilst he is not defiantly in breach, he is close to it, but has not yet breached it. Another users say it is not a 3RR breach [151] 72 then launched his edit war ani [152], without I may add having issued any warnings about edit warring. When 72 launched this ANI he was already aware no breach had occurred, as multiple users had said so. It is thus impossible (leaving out its timing) to see this as anything other then malicious and frivolous.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed part of a pattern of inappropriate allegations. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well yes as WW did not breach 3RR, and this was said mutiple times on his talk page, which you were active on. So yes it is a false allegation, one you had every reason to know was false.15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Are these false or inappropriate allegation?

Legacypac clearly violated WP:HUSH and failed to understand it with this [153], just one example of the harassment I have received. And by the complaint above under my name they still fail to understand.

With all that said I don't see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat. I point out this was made after he was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation as well WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [154] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [155]by editor Legacypac. I do not think he understands Wiki policy that allows any editor to remove anything they wish on there own talk page. This was also highly disruptive as he was doing this on my page as I was trying to have a conversation with a admin, and a further violation WP:DE.72bikers (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The hostile and false accusations being flung here speak volumes.72bikers (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

please do not hijack my comments and clearly what was stated was about you.72bikers (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also (unless I am missing a vital diff) you are yet again wikilaywering over a policy that does not mean what you think it means. The diff you provided does not show the user (who is not the subject of this ANI) reinserting a post you had deleted, nor was it a warning but asking you to explain why you called an edit disruptive, so unless you did not do that ("You will be blocked again for your disruptive editing ", a warning issued in an edit summery) it does not (as far as I can see) violate wp:hush. I also did not hijack your post you did however move a comment of mine [156], and this is a policy violation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it I think it you may have incorrectly formatted your posts so that one comment did not seem to be part of another, was this the case?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

His behavior was addressed as being inappropriate (as well as others) on the edit warning. I have already addressed that I was in a rush when posted this. I have also never started a noticeboard complaint. I was going to when you beat me to the bunch (when you were not even involved) before I had time to prepare myself.72bikers (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about him, this is about another user. And I will ask again why you moved my post?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not touch your comments Slatersteven please cease your false accusations. Clearly there was no name to your post and I assumed I was still talking to Legacypac72bikers (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yep forgot to sign it, So why did did you move another users comment?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

please stop the false accusation as I have already mentioned. I moved nobody's comments.

I also see you have elected to distract instead of addressing editor violations such as this,You insist on removing my posts that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? This is a blatant threat made by editor Legacypac.

His attempt to throw stone against others all the while he himself is being very hostile and uncivil, speaks volumes. Others incivility and personal attacks speak volumes also. Food for thought. 72bikers (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did NOT violate talkpage policy on 72bikers talk. I, and User:NeilN arrived there to discuss 72bikers bad behaviour in various places and seeking clarification of certain things 72bikers said. The result of that discussion was a short block of 72bikers and them being placed under DS 1RR on gun related topics. The accussations leveled here are simply not true, just like the accusations at the previous ANi and those leveled on 72bikers talk where he has banned me yet feels free to maintain a shrine of false accusations. Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please indent properly.

Yes you did, you posted "Are these false or inappropriate allegation?"., a user (it does not matter who) responded with "Well yes as WW did not breach 3RR, and this was said mutiple times on his talk page, which you were active on. So yes it is a false allegation, one you had every reason to know was false.", you then moved A comment to put the latter comment above the former, in effect moving the later comment. Which altered what someone (it does not matter who) had replied to. I have asked you to explain why you did this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

1. WP:3RR was not breached.
2. Springee has three obvious reverts and was more likely to get blocked if the edit war continued.
3. Article is fully protected for four days by Oshwah. Back away from each other and drop the sticks.
4. Use show preview and proofread before posting. This is not rocket science.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter what Springee did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Of course it does. You know (or should know) that the behavior of all participants of both sides of an edit war will be looked at. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The point was that this is not the edit war noticeboard, and thus this is an inappropriate (as well as false) complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, NeilN is correct, I may not have crossed the 3RR line but it was an edit war. While 3RRN is the best location for such a discussion, ANI can, based on my understanding, cover it as well. I've heard NeilN's warning loud and clear. I would ask that Waleswatcher do their part to avoid edit wars in the future by following WP:BRD as well. Springee (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Range block request for 2600:1700:6440:7EB0::/64

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

---

Range contribs: [157]

Hundreds of vandalism edits over months. Falsifies dates. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for three months. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Range block request for 2601:646:8500:EF2:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

Similar to above, tons of edits over months, all falsifying dates in some fashion. Range contribs: [158] EvergreenFir (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for two weeks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from Yudhacahyo

Today, this user had disruptive edits:

1. [159]: He moved page against RM consensus;
2. [160]: Unexplained removal references in this article.

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

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

Withdrawn

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

---

*Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Facts of the attack:

1. Beyond commits vicious personal attack against me [161]
2. I make a request to Beyond that he revert his attack [162]
3. Beyond refuses and threatens retaliation if I exercise my right to report him writing: "I have the diffs to show that you're following me around, so I'm good" [163]
4. Beyond claims "harassment" [164]

Beyond will attempt to justify his attack using a strawman argument that I am harassing him. He is wrong and this diversionary tactic will not work. Looking at Editor Interaction [165] it is obvious he will cite Turning Point USA and Alt-Right. I arrived at Turning Point when Charlie Kirk [166] was merged into that article. I arrived at Alt-Right back on 4/21/18 when I removed the Conservatism sidebar template [167]. I was working from a list of articles regarding the sidebar. It's been on my watchlist ever since. I did not follow Beyond anywhere.

Beyond's behaviour is outrageous, unacceptable and unjustified. We cannot allow editors to bully other editors at Wikipedia. – Lionel^(talk) 04:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

1. That is the mildest personal attack I've seen in a while. Grow thicker skin.

2. You not only asked him to revert, you REMOVED his comment that was NOT a personal attack. That one is on you.

3. That's not a threat. Please learn what a threat is.

4. He's right. You would do well reading it.

Quite frankly you're wasting your time with this. It seems like you've done this already and been told to knock it off, and yet here we are again. You'd be wise to watch yourself and what you say here, lest you end up in Australia. --Tarage (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also did you miss the big notice at the top saying When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page? I'm going to guess that you couldn't be assed and I did it for you. Strike two. --Tarage (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No I haven't filed NPA within the last 5 years. No I didn't remove any of his comments relevant comments.– Lionel^(talk) 05:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you daft? Look at your own diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turning_Point_USA&diff=next&oldid=840946452 Do you see the part where you REVERTED this comment: "That's really the point here - he's done nothing notable whatsoever outside of the context of TP." Let me guess, you hit an edit conflict and decided your best course of action would be to stop all over it. Removing or modifying another editors comments is something that WILL get you banned. You REALLY need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh. That was a content comment that was accidentally deleted. Has nothing to do with his attack. --(Unsigned comment by Lionelt)

You are really bad at this. --Tarage (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

He explicitly banned me from his Talk page. – Lionel^(talk) 05:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So? You are REQUIRED to notify the editor. This is non-negotiable. You REALLY need to read things instead of just blindly acting. --Tarage (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We are getting driven off-topic. This was not a personal attack and bringing this to the noticeboard with disingenuous descriptions of diffs seems like a vengeful tantrum, simply because Beyond My Ken came out on top in this dispute. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely thought the comment was unacceptable. I filed this report in good faith. I truly bear no animus toward Beyond.

I see that I was wrong. The community is wiser than I. I regret wasting anyone's time. – Lionel^(talk) 05:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The "vicious personal attack" was no such thing and the rest of the complaint collapses like a house of cards when you read what BMK actually wrote, which seems apt as this discussion proceeds. Here is my advice to you, Lionelt: Leave BMK alone, and be very careful in the future to avoid making false accusations against your fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Too late. I recommend anyone who needs a refresher see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#Disruptive_behavior:_Beyond_My_Ken The editor in question needs to cease these activities, and the only solution I see that will get through to them is a block. I do NOT want to see this a third time, and frankly, I don't trust you Lionel to not do this again. TWO DAYS LATER. --Tarage (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Lionelt returned to Wikipedia this year after a 5.5-year break. During both of these time periods he has opened, comparatively speaking, numerous reports at both ANI [168] and ANEW [169]. I see no reason for an experienced editor here to build and encyclopedia to have all of this BATTLEGROUND behavior. The point of Wikipedia is to discuss and avoid reports if at all humanly possible. It seems to me the editor needs to review the basics of dispute resolution and engage in those behaviors rather than battlegrounding and reporting. Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang time?

This user opened a thread on this same topic nary three days ago, and now that it has backfired he's angrier still and even calls pointing that fact out a "vicious personal attack"? How much more of this do we have to put up with? Yes, repeatedly reporting someone on ANI because you don't like them is "harassment" and BMK has every right to call it that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support one-week block of Lionelt If nothing else that'll prevent a third frivolous ANI thread for the next few days. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Really? So... you lied above by saying you haven't done this in 5 years? REALLY?! Okay yeah, you need to be banned Lionelt. I can't tell if you are lazy or incompetent, but you are showing yourself to be a net negative to the project. Stop doing the stupid shit you keep doing. --Tarage (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Different issue. Previous report I filed at at ANI was removal of a maintenance template. Not a personal attack filing. – Lionel^(talk) 05:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

And again, you missed the big notice at the top of the page not once but TWICE? Please, stop saying words. Everything you say is making me realize you do not have the competency to edit here. --Tarage (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just looked at your history and yep... you failed to notify them then as well. --Tarage (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, unless the user withdraws this ridiculous and frivolous complaint immediately and opens no more ANI complaints against BMK. User is clearly harassing BMK, and needs to stop and go his own way. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support: It was bad enough to even consider utilizing this noticeboard for getting back at another editor, but you then presented a dishonest, disingenuous account of the matter. It's time you learned your lesson and focused on building a better wiki, rather than hunting people who don't mesh with you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Raiyan HA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My talk page

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

---

User:NeilN and other administrators. Probably the same sock as before, but someone is now vandalising my talk page. I am not the best person to deal with this issue, although I left a message which I think should probably be deleted. Please consider a 30/500 block of a necessary duration to deal with this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross - Are you sure that you're talking about your user talk page? I don't see any recent or repeated vandalism in progress here - or am I looking at the wrong page? Let me know. I'll be happy to take care of current on-going harassment or vandalism if that's what's going on... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see.... I just looked through your recent edit history and I saw that you left a warning here regarding your user page just now. Okay, I can protect that for you - stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You're all set - I've added indefinite extended-confirmed edit protection and indefinite full move protection to your user page. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have noticed that many of the sock accounts I have reported in the last few days were created earlier in the month which seems to coincide closely, to within a few days, of this. The accounts always begin with a few innocuous edits, unrelated to issues connected to recent events, perhaps to avoid detection as socks. For a while, this troll edited as an IP user which continued until I filed multiple accounts indicating his consistent location, and then reverted to reviving recently created accounts which had been left temporarily dormant. It is possible this behaviour exploits flaws and bugs in mediawiki software and I believe should be looked into. It might explain why this wiki sock has managed to continue creating accounts, whereas his ability to create accounts has supposedly always been blocked when his latest exploits have been terminated. Philip Cross (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Ista9975 would seem to be the wiki troll. here. Philip Cross (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Massive edits of wikilinks by Bear-rings

User Bear-rings has started a massive campaign for "fixing" wkilinks: 113 edits since the beginning of May, most of them concerning wikilinks. Many of them consist of removing from the "See also" section, the items that are linked to in the body. This is generally fine, although it may be useful to repeat a link in the See also section when it is difficult to find in the body of the article. Many of their edits amounts to unlinking repeated links. This is also generally fine, except when this consists in changing "see Zariski's lemma" into "see Zariski's lemma", which has a completely different meaning [170].

Many of these edits consists in replacing redirects by pipes. This is explicitly discouraged by WP:NOTBROKEN, and has been notified to him several times in edit summaries and in atleast eight sections of their talk page (two other sections are about disruptive edits without indication of the nature of these edits). Worst, several of these redirect "fixing" change the meaning of the sentence, such as in [171] (as "function of a real variable" is the title of the article, the emphasize on "real-valued" was intentional), [172] (here also, emphasizing on domain was intentional]] [173] (link to a different concept).

When Bear-rings's edits are reverted, they start immediately in an edit war without discussing in edit summaries nor in talk pages. See [174] and [175] (I apologize for having breaking WP:3RR here, but I thought that I could convince them by clearer explanations in edit summaries).

Even after a clear notification on their talk page, they try starting new edit wars: [176], [177] (in this case, they did three different edits, and only two needed to be reverted).

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

New edit wars by the same editor:[178], [179]

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attack from User: Ceoil

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

---

I rolled back an edit by Ceoil because it looked like a test edit or vandalism. Ceoil came to my talk page to ask why, and I explained. Ceoil called me a "prick" (twice), and seems unwilling to explain my mistake. See my Talk page.

I wouldn't bother pursuing this but for the personal attack left in the edit summary, which is hard to scrub off. I'm not going to stand for slurs on my talk page. Happy to let bygones be bygones if Ceoil wants to take it back. Popcornduff (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Ceoil: no matter how long you have been here or how much content you have contributed calling another editor a "prick", officious or otherwise, as you did repeatedly on Popcornduff's talk page, is completely unacceptable. You need to reconsider your interpersonal communication strategy and if you can not be civil in such a simple interaction as this take a break until you no longer think you are entitled to call your fellow editors pricks. Jbh ^Talk 17:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Just to clarify: at 16:25 Ceoil makes an edit [180], there's a word missing and the spacing is off, which happens during copyediting, with the edit summary of "clf", "clarify" for those who don't know. At 16:25 Popcornduff hits rollback, [181]. When Ceoil complained about the rollback, Popcornduff had this to say. I might have sworn too. This is an absurd report, and beyond that it's a misuse of rollback. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that this report has only been filed so as to take the heat away from Popcornduff's abuse of the rollback button. Had Popcornduff taken more time, and assumed good faith from the start, they would've known that Ceoil was most certainly not a "vandal" and one of the site's very best editors. If your prepared to act like a dick, be prepared to be called out as one and don't go running to teacher. Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If I were trying to cover something up, I certainly wouldn't post about it here. I was wrong to take the edit as vandalism/random crap/whatever, but I assume it was at least an error, so don't feel too bad about reverting it. In any case, all this would be have been extremely easy to resolve without swearing. All I ask is not to be called a prick twice. Maybe once would have done the trick. Popcornduff (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Who said you were trying to cover it up? Not me. If you don't like bad words, don't behave in a way that may warrant a few coming your way. So it's ok for you to revert "vandalism", and call it as such, but not ok to be called an equally nasty word? Cassianto^Talk 18:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's not debate over "whose problematic edit(s) are worse than whose", "you deserved it because you started it", etc - both users slipped up here and it's not fair to put one's mistake above or below another's. What's important is that both users understand that they messed up, it doesn't continue, and that they move on from this peacefully. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff - Your use of rollback here was not within Wikipedia's policy regarding the proper use of the tool. Please review this policy and give yourself a brief refresher over when and when not to use rollback. However, it does not give other editors the excuse to resort to incivility when bringing the matter to discussion. Ceoil, your repeated personal attacks toward Popcornduff are not acceptable - please stop, and refrain from making personal attacks in your future messages and communication toward other editors. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't the right place for a rollback - like I said in the first place, I took the edit for vandalism or random crap, and misjudged it. Happy to apologise to Ceoil for that. Popcornduff (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The copyediting has now been referred to multiple times as "random crap". Just sayin' Victoriaearle (tk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hang on there. I said I took it as random crap. In fact I said I was wrong to take it as random crap. Popcornduff (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff - I appreciate your response acknowledging that you used rollback in error and that you're willing to apologize to Ceoil for the frustration. Mistakes happen; I've certainly made ridiculous amounts of mistakes over the years that I've been here, and I'd be a hypocrite if I held other editors to the standard of perfection ;-). Instead of waiting for the other user to respond here, why not just look past the uncivil messages (s)he left, make a new section on his/her user talk page, and just apologize so you can move on? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: They apologized in their initial response [182]. Ceoil's response to the apology was "There are better ways of conduct rather than being an officious prick.". Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Tsk-- half asleep here, so please don't judge me. But doesn't writing that make the writer one.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge the apology (even though I would have at least worded it with a bit more sincerity and with more than just, "sorry" (just my personal opinion though), and will note that the response by Ceoil wasn't the best nor the most civil way to respond. Really, so long as the personal attacks stop and Popcornduff understands the mistake (which he's already explained and stated that he does) - I'm not inclined to take any action. If we just take a step back, let ourselves calm down, and make sure that emotions and feelings are in check - we can call this a heated incident that cooled down and we can move on :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not an apology. It says, "oh, you can't write, you can't format, you don't know how to use edit summaries, it's random crap, so, so sorry but I hit roll back." What happened is an egregious misuse of rollback, that's not how we edit collegially, his comment wasn't collegial, and he got as good as he gave. What Popcornduff might want to do is take a look at the article history on the talk page, figure out who brought the article to FAC, and more importantly whether the quotations he's "copyediting" now should be formatted as they were initially, presumably by WesleyDodds, who knew a thing or two, or whether it's okay to smush them together as Popcornduff has been doing. Without the sources at hand, it's hard to know. Plus, why show up on an article like that for the first time today, use rollback within an minute and then go on to make so many edits to a featured article without consulting with the primary editors? There's a lot here that's wrong. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's leave out the content-related issues and focus on the matter at-hand here (the use of rollback and the incivility). I understand the frustration, but we should also be understanding and acknowledge that mistakes happen and nobody is perfect. Yes, the apology could have been better... and yes, while the mistake is frustrating (which is very understandable) - it may explain the uncivil messages that were left in response, but it does not excuse them. I refer to the comment I made above - I think we should all take a step back and allow ourselves to cool down and move on. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nice to see you again, Victoria. As I recall, in the one run-in I had with Ceoil, you were one of his staunch defenders. He was just as unpleasant then as he is now. Popcornduff should do whatever they deem best, but I personally doubt there is any need to apologize to Ceoil. This thread will go nowhere of course, because even if everyone agreed that Ceoil was at fault, civility up to and including this kind of attack, died a long time ago (if it ever lived), especially for long-term editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Using rollback in that manner on an experienced editor, in the middle of a copyedit, is not ok. Period. It needs to be taken seriously and it isn't. Instead you're all in tizzy because of the word prick. This is the type of response that lost us Tony. It's problematic and needs to stop. What if that had been a first time editor, the edit was rolled back and the person decided never to return?? What if it was a female editor, the edit rolled back, and the woman felt bullied??? Victoriaearle (tk) 19:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to want to blow this up into something it is not. Perhaps it would be best to, as suggested repeatedly, let this end where it is. Bluntly, you are shit stirring to no useful purpose. Please stop. Jbh ^Talk 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think making mistakes with power tools is inevitable. The thing to do is apologize, allow them to vent, acknowledge you made a mistake, and move on. And not take undue exception to the fact that one's misuse of the tools angered someone deeply.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well you or Bbb or someone can block me to make me stop. I have rollback privileges and take them seriously, as should everyone else. Calling me a "staunch defender" is akin to saying that my opinion doesn't matter, telling me to stop is the same. Think about what you all are doing. The person who misused rollback hasn't made a mistake, the person who used a naughty word deserves a report, the person who points out the misuse of rollback is told to stop. Ok. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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