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

Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-Protect a BLP

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

---

Hello, not sure of the best way to ask this, so I figured I would just jump in. There is a WP:BLP which is frequently edited to include private information that the subject of the page has requested not be posted. The cases of this happening that I have seen weren't from signed in accounts, so I was thinking that semi-protected status might do the trick. The page in question is CGP_Grey. Not sure what other information I should include, please let me know. Zchrykng (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a secret. There are references going back at least six years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

CBS News reported this person's full name back in 2011. Several other media outlets have also done so. What is the policy based argument for excluding the full name from the biography? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, marginally. I'm of the opinion (an unpopular one, I'm aware) that generally these types of things should not be included if the subject requests it; just because it's reported in the media doesn't mean we have to include it. Compare it to an editor's name - if the media reported linking an account to an individual and someone posted this information on-wiki, that person would be sanctioned for WP:OUTING pretty dang fast. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our public-facing article subjects? ansh666 03:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not someone who is completely anonymous, as is your example Wikipedia editor, Ansh666. This person uses their real initials and their real surname, and their complete name has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources for seven years. The Wikipedia biography is not their personal social media page where they control the content. I fail to see any reason to keep their full name out of the article. We routinely report the full names of public figures who are best known by shortened versions of their real names. So, why should we make an exception in this case? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Where has the subject requested not to have his name used? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I am the person in question and I am requesting here that my name not be listed. I have never in any of the work that I have ever produced intentionally revealed my full name. The places that post my name do so against my wishes. Obviously, I cannot control what Wikipedia does, but if you want to know what I request it is to not mention my name. CGPGrey (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See various comments by User:CGPGrey. I do not know whether the identity has been verified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, though, does reporting the subject's complete name add anything of value to the article? It seems to read perfectly fine as-is, so why not err on the side of caution and leave it out, right? As I said, I am aware that my extremely privacy-oriented take on BLP isn't particularly popular. ansh666 04:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does reporting President John Kennedy's full name add anything of value to his article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ansh666, I an reminded that I recently ran across mention of C. L. R. James, a writer whose work I had first encountered nearly 50 years ago. Curious about his full name, I visited the Wikipedia article about him, and discovered his full name, and lots of other useful information about him. That is how encyclopedias ought to work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. That's not the type of thing that I'd personally ever be curious about. ansh666 05:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Compared to C.L.R James, CGP grey hides his identity online and is a BLP who has requested not to show his name Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We have had a perfectly good arrangement these past few years of keeping those details off wiki, as the subject had been a Wikipedia editor. Fans, of course, insist on writing the narrative and cannot leave well enough alone. I find the details unnecessary and the disclosure to be pure fan service. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel compelled to remind people that assertions are not sufficient to move the needle at Wikipedia. Evidence is. Per WP:BURDEN, it is imperative that the person wishing to include the real name provide scrupulously reliable sources. Removing such information, where it lacks a direct cite, is perfectly allowed. In summation: what do the sources show: if the name is just kinda "out there" in sources of poor reliability, that's one thing. If the name is well-reported in reliable sources which show that the subject has revealed it, that's another. However, if it is clear that the subject has intentionally kept their name from public sources, then we should err on the side of "doing no harm" and respecting the subject's wishes. Plenty of Wikipedia articles are known under pseudonymous titles, like Satoshi Nakamoto, and I see no reason to do differently here. --Jayron32 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It would need a solid citation to be included. And if it has that, any claim that the subject wants it excluded would likewise need a solid verification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Right here and that's not the first time. I think it's reasonable that we suppress some private details when dealing with Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the second part is too easy. User:CGPGrey just needs to verify their identity to OTRS by emailing info-enwikimedia.org. And anyway, pretty sure WP:REALNAME applies even to pseudonyms in the case where they are the primary means of identification of a real person, so they probably should do so anyway out of an abundance of propriety. If done, ping me and I'll snatch it out of the queue real quick. A message from the cgpgrey.com domain should work just fine for our purposes. GMG^talk 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be the point. Someone claiming to be someone is not "solid" evidence. I could claim to actually be Mel Blanc, and the only evidence to disprove it is that he's reportedly deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Verified. GMG^talk 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, then it's just a matter of whether his full name can be verified, and I'm not so sure about that. The sources I've seen for it look a little shaky. Then there's always the issue of a subject's notability, but it looks like this one passes that test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And I do think the page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Not enough disruption to outpace normal reversion and normal consensus building. In fact, this can probably be closed. GMG^talk 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Ansh666: could I just ask that you please read WP:Oversight#Policy, paying special attention to the first bolded point and how it might apply to this discussion? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

AlexEng, let me start by saying that I am not supporting including this person's full name in the biography at this time, since we now have OTRS verification of the editor's identity, and I think that we should honor his request, based on his wishes and talk page consensus. I am not an oversighter and claim no expertise in the fine points of oversight policy. Feel free to discuss the matter with actual oversighters. But the relevant phrase is "Removal of non-public personal information". (Emphasis added). As I already pointed out, the person's full name was reported by CBS News in 2011. He formerly maintained a website that included the names he now wishes to hide as part of the domain name itself. He uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons in 2006, crediting that old website as the source of the image, and later uploaded a better version of the same image, crediting his current website. He had a Flikr account that included photos tagged with his full name. I understand that an element of his current online persona is to not mention his full name or include photos of his face, since he now prefers stick figure representation. I get that. But I do not think that there is justification for oversighting since he was once happy to reveal his various names online, and specifically on Wikimedia projects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to CGPGrey. Are there any inaccuracies in what I wrote above? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

From an oversight perspective, I agree with Cullen328 on this one; the content has been in and out of the page's history, and while Grey would prefer for his identity to remain completely anonymous that cat is unfortunately out of the bag. The best we can really do is try to ensure people don't re-add the full name. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

To be fair, Grey has always just said he is not happy with the degree of publicity that being in the page would cause, not that he wants total privacy. I think oversight has been mentioned to him before on Talk:CGP Grey, but he did not respond. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and accusations by User:Certified Gangsta

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

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

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

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

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

They also made accusations there of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film Fan and poster uploads

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

---

Film Fan always uploads posters without updating sources, and ignores advices to update sources. The current poster for Venom is not found anywhere on the net, and he replaced User:Brojam's legitimately sourced version (http://collider.com/new-venom-trailer/ ) as well as mine (http://www.impawards.com/2018/venom_ver2.html) without saying anything. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a proper source is needed, I easily found that poster image on the net from numerous sources via Google Image Search. --Masem (t) 05:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: The specific poster caption is what is difficult to find, I believe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the caption (in the film infobox) is an issue. There's generally a clear distinction between a teaser poster which usually lacks a textblock identifying key stars, director, etc., and the theatrical release that does have that, and that can be made by examining the poster image itself. ( eg this edit is perfectly fine). It's the lack of a legitimate source in the File: space that is a problem. Eg taking the same edit, the new image uploaded File:Hotel Artemis poster.png has a nonsense source "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor." that fails NFC requirements. --Masem (t) 05:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I see from below what the "caption" issue is, that being the film date under the title. I do see a large amount of variety in that in Google Image Search, looks like many regional versions, but yes, there's no immediate source for one that has "October 4". I see "10.4.18", "4 October", and "Coming Soon" among variations, but not the one uploaded. That is definitely a problem. --Masem (t) 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that initial issue was raised for edit warring. Film Fan was given a 1RR for this in the past, which is still in place. Along with the continued edit-warring, the lack of adding any rationles for new poster uploads suggest a much serious issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh, Lugnuts. Lugnuts, Lugnuts, Lugnuts. You never miss a chance, do you. There hasn't been any edit-warring. But grasp at any straws you can, mate. — Film Fan 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The version uploaded by Film Fan reads the date as "OCTOBER 5" whereas my version (from IMPAwards) and Brojam's version (from Collider) read "10.5.18". I cannot find the "OCTOBER 5" version anywhere on the net, and using this version in Google's Search-by-image feature, this is all I found. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If I get emails from distributors, "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor" is perfectly acceptable. — Film Fan 09:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: Can you please explain why you replaced well-sourced versions with yours? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it. — Film Fan 13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. The source needs to meet WP:V, and that means that a published version needs to be identified. --Masem (t) 13:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it"... But the source you've given is GoldPoster; isn't that just a Chinese knock-off site? Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I think Film Fan is receiving emails containing film posters, directly sent by the distributors. So does this violate WP:COI? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, or at least, not anything actionable. It is a violation of WP:V, private emails are not usable sources. We need something previously published, and ideally from a reasonable reliable source (to know they likely didn't edit the poster, etc.). For purposes of NFC, we should be treating this as a citation, so core parts of WP:V should be followed. --Masem (t) 14:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of FF's posters don't seem to have any rationale, all failing WP:V. This could be 2018's SvG problem. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's not an issue. In that list, where there is no text in the third column, those are all updated images where the original uploaded supplied a rationale. When FF uploads a new image, they add a rationale. They are following NFC in all cases except a valid source field. --Masem (t) 14:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying that when I add a poster from a PR email, I have to find some website that is also hosting the file? News to me. — Film Fan 14:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: It's analogous to a well-known scientist emailing an unpublished paper to an editor. We're not going to use that in an article either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. — Film Fan 12:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eyes still needed on Jweiss11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Lepricavark: Look again at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_24#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes. At the time I closed it, there was one response, and no indication of any wider interest. The nom did not disclose the wikiProj discussion, so there was no evidence of any wider interest, and no indication why JW chose to make a fresh nomination only 13 days after the previous closure. The essay WP:RENOM recommends "generally do not renominate the page for at least two months." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewdekhlo8822

• Reviewdekhlo8822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked this user for spamming, but someone with bottomless reserves of good faith might feel they can convert them into a productive user - if so, feel free to unblock. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have plenty of good faith, but I will not unblock an editor who added a source called "Guru Randhawa (Punjabi Singer) Height, Weight, Age, Family, Biography, Songs, Wiki", Guy.That just does not come across as a reliable source to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Me neither, my friend, but it could just be a clueless newbie in need of patient help. Very, very patient. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In the rename request, we learn they have the same name as the spam link they added. Yes, we all make mistakes, but I think they need to stay blocked till they know not to repeat this one--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User not participating in discussion; Personal attacks

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

---

MusicalGenius2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to edit constructively at the encyclopedia. At the Kelly Rowland article, I removed sources in the "Discography" section, as they were unnecessary — an annonymous editor 2606:A000:4249:CA00:51E5:A7BE:48B7:F0DE reverting them, stating: These sources are supposed to show that the albums are official albums. When reverted, again, MusicGenius2 appeared, and stating (via-edit summary): es but now we are making it so the albums MUST be sourced with an iTunes or Amazon link so we can tell if it is real or fake. As an editor of music-related articles, I am unaware of any discussions of doing this, and even posted a question on their talk page (here: [62]) about the discussion, in the hopes of maybe being linked to it. Instead of responding, the user ignored me and made [ this edit], with the summary: fuck you cunt and instead of discussing it, they reverted the edits. Clearly, this should not be acceptable behaviour on this encyclopedia, and is against civility policies here. livelikemusic talk! 12:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

MusicalGenius2 has been adding promotional falsehoods about Kelly Rowland, along with IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2606:A000:4249:CA00:0:0:0:0/52. I think we need a rangeblock and an indefinite block for the username. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Another involved IP is Special:Contributions/174.99.91.53. FYI. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I left MG2 a note about how iTunes and Amazon are more promotional than RS.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Huw Nathan

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

---

I have been trying to contact this editor for six weeks or so, but they ignore all messages. Please see User talk:Huw Nathan#Ways to improve List of Middlesex cricket captains. They regularly add unverified material to articles and I was contacting them about creating an article with no clear references, as part of my work on New Page Patrol. I have directed them to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required as well as pointing out that communication is a matter of policy per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE but the editor just ignores all the messages. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As regards the List of Middlesex cricket captains, this was clearly referenced by the first of the external links provided by the creator. The titling of the section "External links" rather than "References" is hardly a reason to bombard the creator with messages and then bring this to ANI. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is the overall concerns - refusal to colloborate/communicate, adding unsourced content to article and creating unsourced articles - that led me to start a discussion here. I wouldn't say asking someone questions over time is bombarding them, and I asked specifically if that was their source (if they'd replied yes, I'd have just clarified the heading myself, as I have done on other occasions). Unfortunately, they wouldn't answer whether that was their source. Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But why did you need to ask if that was their source? All you have to do is to follow the link and you can see for yourself that it was. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's what we do on Wikipedia - we discuss things, check things, if things aren't clear to us. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC}

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

User Libracarol and edit to Toronto van attack

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

---

Hello - I draw your attention to the edit comments of this edit related to the Toronto van attack, where user Libracarol objected terribly strongly to having his/her edit undone. I don't know whether or not the edit comment can be hidden in some way. Can somebody in authority please deal with this person? Thanks in advance, PKT(alk) 19:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Diff: [63]. I've reverted again, we'll see how long that lasts. ansh666 20:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary personal attacks are not covered by WP:CRD. However, the user should probably be warned against incivility. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Has not edited since opining on article talk page about 20 hours ago.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mr.TinjuRaj - IDHT SPA

I've never brought somebody to ANI before, but as the saying goes, there's a first time for everything. Mr.TinjuRaj has a history fraught with warnings, e.g. [64], in December 2017. This month, the user has been adding what utcursch refers to as "castecruft", to the article Panicker. Mr.TinjuRaj has been repeatedly reverting several editors, and has violated 3RR in the process (there is a seperate EWN thread). However, the issue is more wide than a simple 3RR violation. The standard block that I anticipate will result means that there is no immediate risk of disruption, we should instead assess the long term picture.

IDHT

The user has been repeatedly reverting other editors without addressing their concerns. Look at the talk page - Talk:Panicker#Misuse of the article, and they just provide some quasi-english reference to prove that their edits were factually accurate - completely ignoring the concerns actually raised by the editors.

CIR

In fairness on the above point, the took away from the talk page WTAF. So they create a vast number of "articles" - single sentence sub-stubs that neither demonstrate any kind of notability nor are coherent English (some did vaguely make some form of claim of notability, however). They then proceed to continue their overarching purpose of adding a load of castes to the Panicker article, while still, returning to IDHT, not grasping the central point made by 2 other editors. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: You are required to notify anyone you're reporting here. I've done for you. I've given Mr.TinjuRaj a caste warning and agree he needs to be blocked if he won't communicate and change his editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I know and indeed I did, here, immediately after I posted this. It just got buried in the avalanche of speedies resulting from the beginning of this section. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Avalanche is right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The user also systematically removes the speedy tag from the articles they create (something that increases the avalanche). I've given them a final warning. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

• I've blocked indef. This user is not contributing anything to the project but disruption, which is something we can't work with if they are unable or unwilling to communicate. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant digression--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again? Seriously? Yes, they are not communicating and yes, they are probably a net negative to the project, but this "warn, no edits, then block" nonsense needs to stop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the definition of wheel warring is it not? --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC) I understand you're still mad about me blocking you, but I think you're projecting your outrage onto an uncontroversial indef of an incompetent user. Bishonen's warning was not related to their overall conduct, but for their conduct regarding article creation. I thought the block was warranted for reasons other than their conduct regarding article creation. I don't think Bish would agree that their warning precluded me from the block, or that the block was inappropriate. Swarm ♠ 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Issuing warnings is not part of the admin toolkit. It's not wheel warring. GMGtalk 21:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Yep. And even if it was, overriding an admin action is not wheel warring either. But, even at this point, Bishonen could disagree with my block and overturn it and it still wouldn't be wheel warring. @Tarage: I say this with nothing but respect, but it's over. It went to Arbcom, where I received plenty of feedback and taken lessons out of the whole debacle surrounding my block of you. We never have to interact again. Let's just agree to steer clear of each other. You do not need to be policing my admin actions or even opining on them and frankly you have a negative opinion of me so it's not fair of you to be doing so. Swarm ♠ 21:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Meh. Something something...whatever the Wikipedia version of prior restraint might be. We all police each other. That's the way things work. Both yall chill out. GMGtalk 21:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC) My 'policing' of you is no such thing. I'd be calling out anyone who blocks after a user got warned and then did absolutely no edits. You can say it's fine, but I don't think it is. Please don't cast aspirations on me again. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC) I think you mean Aspersions, not aspirations. AlexEng(TALK) 23:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block - Edit warring, adding a ton of crap to various talkpages, Cluelessness such as here, This editor would've been blocked sooner or later - No amount of rope would've helped them. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• endorse indef block amazing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree with the block too. Thank you for reporting, Bellezzasolo. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC).
• Sound block. Let's see if the user appeals and/or comes up with any plausible rationale for unblocking. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Persistent promotional edits to BLPs

• Gillian Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Juliet Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Devorahanna (talk · contribs)
• 68.197.73.244 (talk · contribs)

After final warning, continuing to create a spammy intro to the Gillian Sorensen bio, [65]; [66]; [67]; [68]; [69]; and removing sourced negative content from Juliet Sorensen [70]; [71]. This is a reasonably experienced editor who probably knows better. COI or paid contributor. There may also be longstanding copyright violation issues at the Gillian article, so a look at that would be appreciated. User block or page protection? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

All I am attempting to do is update the information regarding Gillian Sorensen. She no longer works for the U.N., as the opening sentence now reads. I am not sure how to proceed, since each time I make edits and changes, in order to create a more accurate Wikipedia site, the edits are rejected. There is nothing "spammy" here, but rather this is an honest attempt to improve and update the Gillian Sorensen entry. - devorahanna

• Devorahanna, there is nothing remotely acceptable about an article lede like this, which by my count you've posted five times today:

Gillian Sorensen has had a long career working for the United Nations, most prominently as Assistant Secretary-General for External Relations on appointment by Kofi Annan.[1] An experienced public speaker and compelling advocate, she has addressed audiences as diverse as Rotary International (with an audience of 22,000);[2] West Point Military Academy; and the United States Air Force Academy; university students; journalists, and leaders of civil society. She works with groups committed to peace, justice, development, refugees, and human rights and has recently addressed a National Model United Nations (NMUN) with students from over 130 countries.

In recent years she has made over 1000 public appearances. She currently serves as a Member of the Board of the International Rescue Committee[3] and as a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

• You've edited biographies here before, and know how to write. This is promotional, and only now have you chosen to respond. Divulgence of WP:COI and paid contributions is a requirement, not an option. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• By the way, I haven't addressed willfully misleading edit summaries [72]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• comment I have boldly fully protected both pages to enhance the discussion. Any admin may unprotect at will.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've unprotected, Dlohcierekim. (It doesn't seem to be the first time you and I have disagreed about fullprotecting when one of the opposing parties is editing disruptively.) I've also warned Devorahanna on their page that they must respond to the COI inquiry before editing the articles further, and must in any case stop editing promotionally. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

SO I saw. Well, the idea was to encourage her to engage in meaningful discussion. Didn't work. Discussion, sadly, does not seem to be her strong suit. I hope you got her attention.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, she does not seem to understand that part about promotional editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your attention to this, and I can appreciate the rationale behind each of your actions. Perhaps more contributors will watchlist the articles now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: You are welcome. Feel free to ping me if I'm around when the problem resumes.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

• User:ViriiK
• User:DrFleischman
• User:Mikist4
• User:Snooganssnoogans

Edit war taking place at this article. Admin intervention necessary. DrFleischman and Snooganassnoogans are restoring contested BLP material. All editors have been notified re: DS sanctions. – Lionel^(talk) 02:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For edit warring see WP:ANEW. Note also this issue is under discussion at WP:BLPN#Dana_Loesch. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought DS violations were handled here. I'll go to ANEW.– Lionel^(talk) 02:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected article for two days. And Lionelt, you need to ease back a bit. Asking for discretionary sanctions to be levied because contested BLP material is being restored is overkill in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for protection. About DS, I don't know if I agree with you. Even after I posted this report, K.e.coffman and James J Lamden joined the brawl. That's 6 editors. DrFleischman and ViriiK are both at 2RR at the article. ARBAPDS says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours." A quick glance at Snooganssnoogans' contribs appears to show they are no stranger to disruptive behavior. If editors are discouraged from reporting this kind of behavior at post 1932 articles then why do we even have DS?– Lionel^(talk) 03:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I mentioned this at ANEW but no admin has indicated that article is under AP discretionary sanctions let alone placed any editing restrictions on that article. Editing restrictions must be explicitly announced and logged. I have no idea where you're getting ARBAPDS saying 1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Really? In the middle of the edit war, DrFleischman posted two Discretionary Sanctions notices on the talk pages of the editors opposing him [73] and [74]. That's why I thought the article is under DS. So he posted those DS notices even though the article was not under DS? I'm really confused now.– Lionel^(talk) 03:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the DS notice: it says "Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks (emphasis added)." It doesn't say all articles under the topic automatically are subject to edit restrictions. An admin first has to impose and log any restrictions on a specific article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Okay, I'll try to explain. All post-1932 AP articles are under discretionary sanctions. Taken by itself, DS simply means "edit carefully". DS also gives individual admins the power to enact specific editing restrictions on specific articles. These restrictions are enacted by the admin, not Arbcom, and must be listed at the article and logged. There are no editing restrictions across all AP articles. ARBAPDS does not automatically set editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I got it now. Incidentally the DS notice says "all pages related to post-1932 politics" but it does not say "Editing restrictions must be explicitly announced and logged" and just between you and me, Neil, I suspect that this notice is being used to gain leverage over unsuspecting editors in content disputes. But I'm not naming any names.– Lionel^(talk) 04:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I hear you on the wording. Coincidentally, I and other editors are working on addressing this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt:I'm not entirely clear what the issue is. These are not called notices but alerts, and I don't see why they would have to say that individual restrictions placed on specific articles need to be announced and logged. An editor once notified can be sanctioned for things other than breaking individual restrictions, as those only exist on some of the article covered by DS. Also, as you did name someone, saying that you aren't naming names isn't helpful and is not the same as "I'm not thinking of anyone in particular" Doug Weller talk 12:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Elirbosley

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

---

Elirbosley recently replaced all of the images on the Girl article with inappropriate photos. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I just checked their edit history, and it turns out that they have done the same to the Shower article. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Shower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Does this warrant a warning or block? After viewing their talk page, I saw that they have previously been warned for similar edits. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

I have given them a Level 4im image vandalism warning, based on these and previous incidents. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(drama board stalker) While I fully endorse this block based on the edits to Girl, I’m not so sure how the edit to Shower was as disruptive as the ones to Girl. Sure, the new image didn’t really improve the article, but I don’t think that it significantly harmed it either. Sure, some people could say that the other image was obscene, risqué or pornographic, but, after all, it was factually accurate, and Wikipedia is not censored (or at least it’s not supposed to be). Again, I don’t object to the block as the replacement of the images on Girl crossed the line IMHO. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — 66.31.81.200 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet.

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

Vandalism at Blanchard's transsexualism typology

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

---

The article Blanchard's transsexualism typology has been repeatedly vandalized by Landfill baby, as visible here, here, here, and most recently here. I realize that I could have reported this at WP:AIV, but I am making a note of it here as I'd like to ask that the edit summary used in the last of the difs I've provided be removed as a form of pure disruption. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC) The edits here and here have additional outrageous edit summaries that need to go. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours and some edit summaries revdelled. No objection if another admin wants to indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• IMO, 72 hours was too lenient. Indeffed, no need to waste more time on this 42 edit account. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• It will always be a magnet for this. More admins should watchlist it. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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

91st Scripps National Spelling Bee

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

---

IP editor 38.102.61.227 (talk · contribs) is attempting to an unsourced list of hundreds of the children who have qualified for the US National Spelling Bee. In addition to just being a wall of text, these are living persons being discussed without citation, and well against our norms for discussing competitions like this. I've reverted them twice and would like some assistance. (Also I miss ANI, I haven't been dragged here in years, what happened to me!?!?) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Semied for BLP vios. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted the page back again. Using the previous years of the spelling bee as a guide, all that is needed is to say something like "There were X number of children that participated." Listing them all is insane to be honest and yes agreed with the Semi. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I was IP 38.102.61.227 and I didn't know how to use sources at the time, but when the protection expires, I will put it back, but this time with the proper sources. Also, I didn't discuss them, I listed them. -Erfson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is no amount of sources that would make including this list okay. Zchrykng (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Probably only the actual winner would merit a mention. We strive for thoroughness, but we also need to remember we are an encyclopedia, and that some sort of notability must guide that thoroughness.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Pro Regnum Siciliæ

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

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

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

Ujishadow and copyright violations

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose Topic Ban

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

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

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

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

Against

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

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

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

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

Sweetpear2

• Sweetpear2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sweet Pear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has had two accounts over a four year period, and has only ever edited the article on Tom Devine. I deleted that article due to long-standing copyright infringement, a new stub was created, and Sweetpear2 immediately started re-adding promotional material copy-pasted form the same source, leading to further revision deletions. I have blocked indef per WP:C, WP:PROMO and in the end also WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Snoopydaniels

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

I have blocked this user per WP:NOTHERE (also possibly WP:RGW). First edit 2010-08-12 18:43, 187 edits total, 23 pages. Early edits include IP to registered account and again promoting the idea that irreducible complexity is a scientific concept (it really isn't). Next mainspace edits were all to Blaire White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), edit-warring to restore misgendering, and agitation for the restoration of the article on creationist Günter Bechly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This user seems to be here solely to fight for Truth™ against all comers. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

user Kritkritkrit

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

---

please check on this user Kritkritkrit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) His Contributions look like...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he may is sockpuppets of Choccobkk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). thank you--NamiNami666 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666: If you suspect they're using multiple accounts inappropriately, better file SPI case, that's better venue than here. Unless, if you mean something else. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666 and Kritkritkrit: Y'all's funny.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666: u are funny and really imagine about me as a sockpuppet, i think u have to stop to watching Thai soap opera. u personalities looks like a girl who like to imagine in Thai soap opera stories.--Kritkritkrit (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I never sad even if you laugh my action because I had done my right way (for me).--NamiNami666 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Kritkritkrit is possibly a sock of Golf-ben10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note that I said possibly, and not definitely. Check the SPI case. ClimaxApproaching (Contribs) (CSDs) 13:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@ClimaxApproaching: i'm not a sockpuppet of Golf-ben10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) i just edited on the face pages, and never edited on other page like Golf-ben10 such as Music page, sport pages, korean reality tv. page. or southern Thailand province page.--Kritkritkrit (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Taiwan

Can I get a review of the lead change by IP's at Taiwan. Got some weasel words and grandioseness with reference spam.--Moxy (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, Moxy is wrong. No weasel words have been used in the article. Everything is done in good faith and every single piece of information added in the article is backed up by reliable sourced references, please feel free to check the references. Moxy is engaging in unexplained mass deletions of information due to his personal dislike of the information, of which all are indisputably sourced and referenced. Thank you very much! 118.106.145.105 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No weasel words? I would start with "wealthy and properous" (including the mis-spelling). We avoid such adjectives in Wikipedia. And i'm sorry, but "selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent" sounds just plain sick to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I second this. The IP is not only adding a bunch of weasel worlds, but also using some less than desirable references (Mirror, Sun) to add to the article. I would expect that an article about a country should have better references. More importantly, the IP is constantly reverting and not attempting to discuss at all.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah has protected the page. However, I am not sure why Denisarona did this edit. This edit essentially restores the entire content with weasel words and reference spam. Was this edit a mistake?--DreamLinker (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Must be a mistake....informed locking admin.--Moxy (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've appealed to @Oshwah: on IRC, to no avail. The current full-protected version is not remotely acceptable; it's POV pushing (almost vandalism) from a single IP editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah is off line. Would be happy to revert to clean version.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Check my work.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, though even a blank page would have been better than Taiwan invested heavily in their infrastructure as well as in the selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent, encouraging the attainment of high levels of university and graduate school level doctoral education, as well as fostering and retaining their superior IQ geniuses to help further develop and improve Taiwan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. And the IP editor argued there were no weasel words. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Dlohcierekim, Taiwan now looks more like an encyclopedia article and less like a glossy 16 page magazine insert produced by a joint venture between a Taipei tourist agency, the Harvard Lampoon and 4Chan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Check my work, further revert.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An IP hopper has been trying to force much of this superior IQ geniuses text into the opening paragraph of Four Asian Tigers for a long time (e.g. Jun 2017, Feb 2018, Apr 2018), ignoring discussion on the talk page. Kanguole 10:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Phryne Muybridge

Phryne Muybridge has been editing since 2017. I left them a message about an unreferenced article they had created, thanking them for their work and asking if they could please add their source. They responded by deleting my message and a message from another editor inviting them to the Teahouse, here [75] replacing our words with: 'Please leave all unwanted comments below'. This doesn't demonstrate the collaborative approach I was hoping for, but they are still quite new. As you can see at User talk:Phryne Muybridge, I messaged explaining why communicating is important and asking what the sources were for two of their creations. I have sent five messages, with no response and the issues haven't been addressed. They also have continued to add unverified material to existing articles, such as [76]. This person is relatively new and I don't think English is their first langauge; I am hoping thwey will communicate here and that we can help solve this together. Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be preferable if P.M. were to acknowledge comments made on their talk page, but I'm not particularly convinced that their editing is problematic. Lists of the form "(year) in (country)" are rife with minimal sourcing. They are basically manual aggregations of material in articles. I had a quick spot check through Phyrne's recent contributions and can't see any additions to the "in Japan" list pages that don't accurately reflect the dates of birth/death in the leads of the relevant articles, or in the infoboxes of said articles. It would be preferable if there were sourcing for these facts, possibly copied over from the articles themselves. This may be something that would probably be better dealt with through some kind of Wikidata integration, perhaps, but for now, they don't seem to be editing in a way that is different from the norm. While the essay you linked notes that "communication is required", we should note that it says: "Most article updates are uncontroversial, so discussion isn't needed".

If a user wishes to quietly toil on non-controversial articles like "year list" articles, and they've shown a preference for solitude and aren't causing any trouble, we shouldn't demand they talk. While communication with other users might be preferable, we shouldn't demand they communicate unless they do something about which discussion is required. I can't see any admin action that is required (or would help) here. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere DS violations

Over at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland there are DS in place, and (in my opinion) User:François Robere is now in breach them [[77]], [[78]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor made a highly contentious suggestion backed by some OR analysis of Greek etymology [79], aimed at pushing an obviously FRINGE position [80]. I opposed it, and made two comments on its factual inaccuracy and circumstances [81][82]. Others have done the same [83]. The OP chose to single me out for no apparent reason, as he has done several times before. This request is unfounded and should be dully rejected. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you're talking about the civility restriction then I don't think François Robere's comments rise to the level of breaking it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• The first diff looks like a perfectly reasonable response to your comment, which you strangely dismissed as "soapboxing". I'm wondering what exactly you felt he was promoting, because the comment comes across as purely academic. Swarm ♠ 21:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"This suggestion to break down the acts to different ethnicities, each "its own victim", is part of the "memory war" some people are engaged in, and an attempt to draw fire away from the subjects of this article: People who, despite or because of the disaster, collaborated with the Nazi forces and enabled their atrocities. Last week we saw a denialist writer offered as a source by an unscrupulous editor; this is another step down the same descent. ", hard to see how that is about improving the project, rather then commentary about off wiki politics.

"Poles as there was for some other groups - namely Jews, Roma, homosexuals, public intellectuals and artists of all dispositions, and the infirm. It may have come to that at a later time - it would probably have come to that at a later time, if there were any Poles left for them to murder - but at that time the Nazies haven't yet had a Wannsee Conference for the Poles.", blatant editorializing and OR.

As I said fair enough if no one thinks that the above is a violation of DS, but academic or not, I still see this as bringing an off wiki fight onto wiki, it is a rallying cry to oppose the "memory warriors" who would...well I will let you decide what "this is another step down the same descent." is trying to imply.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

IP users using disruptive edit summaries

• 104.32.200.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2605:E000:1610:84F8:0:BDE2:559C:9D2E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For context, please see this prior ANI discussion.

Basically, IP user 104.32.200.134 was blocked previously (per the ANI discussion) for leaving a long trail of disruptive edit summaries (many of them dummy edits0, many of which called out other users in a disruptive manner. After the prior block, the IP has continued the same pattern of behavior -- see, among others, [84], [85], [86], [87], and [88], but just a quick look at the IP's contributions shows a recent history of dummy edits containing disruptive or ranting edit summaries.

In addition, the IP user now has a friend, 2605:E000:1610:84F8:0:BDE2:559C:9D2E, who has been tag teaming with 104.32.200.134, who has been making the exact same types of edits (see [89], [90], [91], and [92]).

Both IP users were blocked for 72 hours last week for harassment, but they started the same pattern of edits again once the blocks expired (I was alerted to this by a tattle-tale type post on my talk page). I'm posting here to request that an administrator keep an IP on these two users because I don't think they're going to stop anytime soon. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aoi: One of these IPs tripped an edit filter earlier as User:Vote (X) for Change. I put in an RPP request to protect this talk page, but it's still pending. Home Lander (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User Djambo75

• Djumbo75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account created with account Royalhouse to delete a specific page that have been publish after 1 moonth in draft with 5/6 contributors. The only actions of accounts is vandalizing page Benjamin Charles-Lemaire, and war editions like deleting all my conversation with a user (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&action=history). AfD is opened, that's not the way it works... Was vandalyzing before with account John_doe123456987, that he finfally admit it was him Tifftiff1234 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Investigations shown that Djumbo75 had multiples accounts even if he said below it was false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Djumbo75

Users keep vandalizing even the vandalisme page undoing SQLBot modifications...

Tifftiff1234 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, after doing the SPI, I'm inclined to block them both for abusing multiple accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• EDIT: Investigations shown that Tifftiff1234 had too multiples accounts even if he said below it was false (Group 2: 1°)Plantinaute, 2°)Tifftiff1234, 3°)Martingally !! My old account John doe123456987 I change my account see "talk" with ut: ToBeFree at my request! Too multiple accounts are now clear and his history shows that he always undoing modifcations (even on this page, he did 3 times! Me only Djumbo75 not JohnDoe123456 bcoz closed defty)--Djumbo75 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please not that my fake account Martingally was not a real fake account, just a stupidy to show that anybody could come and vote ;) (as said on his profile page 92.90.20.140 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• What a sock-infested mess. I have blocked the socks as suggested above. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Christian evangelism promoted by Wikipedia?

The template pages of Christianity in India has a cross on the map of India.

How can it be allowed that Wikipedia openly and unabashedly is promoting Christian evangelisation and proselytisation?

Under what rule or bylaws of Wikipedia is the portal being used for such overt evangelism and proselytism? Please clarify.

On pointing this out and editing the template, an avowed "Catholic" user reverts it and another admin threatens me. Is this how Wikipedia treats its contributors?

The admin is "Ohnoitsjamie" and the avowedly "Catholic" user is "LeoFrank". Additionally, LeoFrank reverted an edit I have done with a proper citation (page titled "Madurai_Adheenam"), in what appears to be a revenge. What kind of behaviour is this?

Is such bullying allowed on Wikipedia? Please clarify and fix this.

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkv22 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to abuse the template to promote your own views concerning Christianity. Your edits to the template are disruptive, and you were warned correctly. Please reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia, and please notify other editors when you post at ANI as is required. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't look like you notified anyone of this discussion, as required. Home Lander (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've taken care of that. Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've replied on this user's talk page regarding their perception of that image, and there is clearly no basis for this complaint. Reviewing this user's contributions, I'm not convinced they're a net positive to the project. Swarm ♠ 21:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Nor am I convinced of a net positive, given their unilateral and aggressive approach to editing and communicating (i.e., deciding that a image with a cross on a Christanity-related template is "evangelism"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • My concern as well. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments and would strongly encourage the OP to withdraw their complaint before this gets ugly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a nice complaint. This user is free to believe whatever they like but they should not be using Wikipedia to promote their anti-Christian beliefs. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mkv22: You have not supplied any dif's to back your assertion, and I do not want to plow through many edits to find what your are referring to. Otherwise, these are just wild, unfounded accusarions that may lead to you being blocked. Please provide dif's.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mkv22: Now as to the template from which you removed the image, it seems appropriate to me, and I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. Its statement is obviously on target, "Christianity in India". You seem to be allowing your personal feelings on Christianity to cloud your judgment. There is nothing promotional or evangelical about it.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Further, I think dragging another user's religion into a discussion at AN/I says the dragger is probably the one acting out of bias or prejudice. Concur with foregoing comments above mine.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

OP appears to be on a mission.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

.....and he seems to not really listen, either....💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I have seen just enough cases where someone has come to the site for purposes of proselytism that mentioning their religion in a report is not an automatic red flag for me, but that they're complaining about the most obvious symbol for "Christianity" put in the most obvious placement for "inside" in relation to the most obvious symbol for "the physical nation of India" does scream a special mixture of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Where these the only edits the user had made, I would have already blocked them. As is, I'm waiting just a little bit more before pulling the trigger.

I can start to see how this complaint could be made in good-faith, up until they say Using bible verses to showcase Grantha script is overt evangelism and Christian propaganda. That's a failure of WP:AGF there, and a sign that this may be a recurring problem. Using a piece of Hindu scripture (with an English translation) or a secular text could be more appropriate, just as it'd be more appropriate to use either the Tanakh or a secular text for Hebrew rather than the works of Johann Reuchlin.

However, it also follows with this and this. At this point, if I see one more bit of bigotry or disruptive behavior coming from them, I'm going to block under WP:NOTHERE. If someone else blocks them before then, so be it.

@Mkv22: You need to realize that you've got a pretty obvious bias against Christianity and against Christian users. While you are entitled to your opinion regarding Christianity, you are are being illogically disruptive when it comes to topics relating to Christianity. While you are entitled to your opinion regarding Christians, this site operates on civil behavior and the assumption of good faith, which you are not demonstrating to anyone you can accuse of being a Christian. If I see one more incident where you are disruptive or uncivil because of your attitude toward any belief system, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I will respond to you all in a summary format. Please allow me to do so. I posted a version of this on my own talk page. It is mostly relevant here too. So I will post it (a version) here –

1. Does Christianity in Pakistan, Bangladesh or any other non-Christian country's (or perhaps even a Christian country) corresponding page have such a template? Please show by sufficient examples and/or data, before threatening to block me or accusing me of "bigotry".

2. Whatever I have stated, I stand by it. None of it was without evidence or baseless. They were factually and empirically provable. More importantly, I used very polite language and "no" abusive language. That does not mean I should also refrain from stating unpleasant empirical facts from history. If you deny my empirical factual statements, please counter with evidence (say, academic-quality citations, or other such reasonable evidence). But kindly do not accuse me of bad behaviour or bigotry or bias or such.

I hope this is an evidence-based forum and would remain so.

3. Given 1 and 2 above, is the threat to block me morally and ethically valid? Kindly clarify.

Please be fair to an evidence-based approach to facts. This is not a forum for political correctness at the cost of facts. This is a wiki-pedia / encylopedia. As long as the language is civil and not abusive, and edits / reverts are evidence-based empricial-factual based, threats of blocking, accusations of bigotry and bias, etc. is inappropriate.

If I am wrong, please clarify and justify, particularly about (1) and (2) immediately above. Many thanks for your constructive engagement. Much appreciated.

Mkv22 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

my accounts

I can't log in my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Sajeb Islam (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Muhammad Sajeb Islam: which ones?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Muhammad Sajeb Islam: if you have lost your password there is a link below the login form with instructions to reset your password. If you cannot recover your password you can create a new account, but please see the advice at WP:ALTACCN to privately notify the Arbitration Committee. If you can log in to your account but are prevented from editing, and you do not have a message as to why you cannot edit, please log in to your account and then submit a request to WP:UTRS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting a range block for Special:Contributions/2601:646:8500:EF2::/64. Bunch of disruptive, unsourced, unexplained date changes from this range. Brief checks with related articles suggest the changes are to incorrect dates. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I can block longer if they resume the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Persistent WP:OWNERSHIP, edit warring, and WP:INCIVILITY

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

As it stands, this user is currently in violation of persistent WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, WP:LAWYER, and WP:GAMING at Seven (1995 film) and Talk:Seven (1995 film)#Plot. Because the editor has already tried deflecting blame onto me (poorly), I will be providing a full breakdown of the situation. Bare with me, as this is done to avoid wasting too much time bickering back-and-forth (should this user attempt any dishonesty here) by putting all of the cards on the table.

Breakdown of the Situation: The situation started with what appeared to merely be a run-of-the-mill content disagreement. I made this correction to the Plot section of Seven (1995 film) in concordance with our editing policies, which state in more than one instance that "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field". Thewolfchild reverted it with the vague edit summary "fine the way it was", which I reverted with the further explanation "Unclear wordings to everyone who hasn't seen the film for themselves is hardly "fine the way it is."" It was then reverted again by Thewolfchild with the summary "per WP:BRD, go to the talk page", which I subsequently did. At this point, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Thewolfchild would reply with a WP:GOODFAITH justification of their revert, right? Well, that's unfortunately not what went down...

Two days later (today), I finally reverted them on the article with the edit summary "Three days have past and no explanation of the revert has been given other than "I just don't like the edit, alright!" (A clearcut violation of WP:OWN) If you eventually think of one, the Talk Page is waiting. Otherwise, continued reverts, WP:GAMING, or personal attacks will result in immediate WP:ANI." I also left a Dummy Edit for outside observers stating "See the absurd exchange that took place at Talk:Seven (1995 film)#Plot". But, of course, Thewolfchild did not heed this warning and reverted again with the smug edit summary "Yup, your tp posts are as absurd as your edit summaries. still no support for your edit btw.". And here we are. DarkKnight2149 03:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply from thewolfchild;

Not sure if an ANI for this is necessary. This editor was pretty hostile from the start at being reverted (once!). There was not much willingness to discuss with all the anger and accusations. As it is, another editor has since agreed with the revert of this users edits. He also reverted my recent edit and I posted a more civil and mature response in an effort to discuss. Had Dk2149 been willing to discuss this in a more collegial manner, I'm sure this could've been resolved. For the record, I am still willing to discuss this on the article talk page, if Dk2149 is willing to be a little calmer with his responses and lay off the needless accusations (eg: I don't see how a single revert can constitute "OWN", especially since I rarely edit there nor do I see where "GAMING" comes in. Lastly, 2RR in 3 days is hardly "edit warring" and Dk2149's assertion that my post to TOJ is due to any warnings is plain wrong. The timelines shoud bear that out. Dk2149 should probably also watch out for boomerangs with his accusations of incivilty, looking at his comments. But above all, I'd like to have seen input from other editors on that talk page (about the edits, not the tp comments) and see if a resolution could be found. I take it by this filing Dk2149 is no longer willing to have any discussion? Bur if so, lemme know. - ^theWOLFchild 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Dishonesty such as this is precisely why I broke down the full discussion above. As has been pointed out, simply opposing someone or calling them out on their behaviour does not equate to hostility, nor does it justify being even more hostile in return. Looking at the discussion, it's clear that Thewolfchild didn't like being called out on what he was doing. Him providing no explanation for the revert beyond the vaguest "I didn't like it", changing the subject by deflecting blame after being repeatedly asked for an explanation, repeatedly urging for us to "Wait for other users to comment" when being asked for an explanation (for his revert), misconstruing WP:BRD, and trying to use other users not replying as an excuse to keep his preferred version in the article ("No one supported you!") all strongly point to WP:OWN.

"As it is, another user agreed with me" - Two days later, which is exactly what he was holding out for to happen (as shown in the breakdown above). It does not excuse his behaviour and it is no surprise that he is pointing this out.

"I don't see how a single revert can constitute "OWN", especially since I rarely edit there nor do I see where "GAMING" comes in." - First of all, he has edited there a lot lately and has been a regular on the Talk Page since January 2016. More dishonesty. Second, he reverted twice immediately when I made the edit, as shown above. Then he did it again after the final warnings on the Talk Page and edit summary, which he clearly saw given he replied to the following dummy edit. It is not the number of reverts that constitutes WP:OWN, but his statements and actions.

"Lastly, 2RR in 3 days is hardly "edit warring" and Dk2149's assertion that my post to TOJ is due to any warnings is plain wrong." You do not have to violate the 3RR in order to edit war. He reverted every single time I made the edit, even two days after he refused to give any sort of explanation for the revert on the Talk Page.

"I take it by this filing Dk2149 is no longer willing to have any discussion?" - We are here due to persistent disruption. The content itself is almost beside the point. Take a look at the thorough Talk Page breakdown above. I opened with a very straightforward explanation of my position, and Thewolfchild had plenty of opportunities to respond in good faith. That didn't happen. DarkKnight2149 04:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the original content dispute is incredibly minor, but the conduct of editors on the talk page could use discussion here. I have no confidence in either editor's ability to de-escalate disputes on their own; there's excessive heat on the talk page from both editors. Arguments over who is applying BRD correctly are almost never useful in any way. If both editors can be talked down from climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, that would be great. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thewolfchild received a warning at AE fairly recently for this type of behavior, as well as multiple talk page warnings. This "filibustering" serves to prolong discussions indefinitely with no effort to cooperate or reach consensus. I've been involved in similar discussions with this individual before and I don't think there is a way to deescalate it without admin involvement. If you ignore the accusations, TWC will continue to bring them up and insist that you respond to them before proceeding.

In this case I don't see any legitimate content dispute. It looks to me like TWC reverted an edit and insisted that DarkKnight gain consensus before reinstating it, without providing a reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This isn't how BRD works, you have to give some sort of actual objection to the content that the other editor can address. I also don't see any incivility from DarkKnight, they simply asked TWC to provide a reason for the revert and explained the relevant policy.

I would also point out that TWC's discussion style tends to draw other editors into very long and off-topic conversations in order to address TWC's concerns and accusations. There are multiple examples of this happening with other editors on the same Talk parge. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Update: I'm not going to escalate the situation by replying to any of this, but Thewolfchild doesn't seem to be taking this report very well at all (see: [93], [94], [95], [96]). Even a neutral editor involved with the article said on the Talk Page that they want nothing to do with either side of this (after Thewolfchild gave a lengthy, unsubstantiated rant). I can't say I blame them [the neutral editor], given how this is shaping up. DarkKnight2149 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proxies and banned users

At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan, who even claimed that he was blocked for using a proxy at [97]. Some of them are proxies, e.g. Special:Contributions/158.169.150.5, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.4, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.6, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.8, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.8 Suspected proxy servers, Special:Contributions/23.83.37.154 Network sharing device or proxy server, Special:Contributions/196.245.9.70 blocked for two years by Zzuuzz as a VPN proxy. Iovaniorgovan also has left behind a trace: [98], namely hiding Special:Contributions/2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40. Why is this important? Well, similar IPs, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B0C3:AD74:2C0B:5DC1 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:C4FD:1E27:9714:EFE1 have edited Timeline of Romanian history and are behaviorally WP:DUCKs of Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37, who was still blocked when Iovaniorgovan started editing. At [99] 158.169.150.5 has shown behaviorally being a WP:DUCK of Special:Contributions/Avpop, who has been indeffed as a WP:SOCK of Special:Contributions/Iaaasi (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi). At [100] Iovaniorgovan spilled the beans that he used the IP which Zzuuzz has blocked for two years and he is arguing with Vanjagenije, maybe because Iovaniorgovan thinks that he is still blocked (maybe he still uses a proxy/VPN, so a checkuser may investigate the matter, even if checkusers don't tell the IPs of usernames). Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

user Kurzon

• Kurzon (talk · contribs)

Is it possible that after persistently lobbying to be unblocked, this editor is resuming work on the articles which led to blocks in the past? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh my word. Looking at that user's talk page does not inspire hope that they will walk paths of righteousness. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this a COI request? What basis for this request?Lihaas (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm very worried by this edit, as the "talk" appears to be his sock-puppet comments from 2015, and jumping right into long-term disputes after an unblock generally fares poorly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This rationale is entirely remarkable [101]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparent behavioral problems at Portal:Baltimore

I became aware of a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Baltimore. My work to improve the portal has been called "vandalism" by User:Legacypac who has reverted the changes, calling them "ugly". They probably ARE and I requested help with colors, but reversion is not helpful. Editor has made multiple comments that appear uncivil and now the reversion of the edits that the AFD calls for in the improvement are becoming disruptive to the process of collaboration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand this struck me as rather questionable behavior, but on the other, it looks as though the moment has passed, and the changes will be allowed to remain. So I don't see that there is anything to do other than a Sternly Worded Message. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Anky95

New editor User:Anky95 has been problematic since account creation on 24 April. WP:SPA contributions have all been self-promotional, confined to what appears to be an autobio at Arindam Sharma (speedied A7 and G11 on 24 April, now in AFD), and Sharma's unreleased film Advitya (film). Multiple removals of AFD template from both articles after level 4 warning [102][103], as well as via anonymous sock[104] and via obvious sockpuppet User:Sanki011: [105]. Further diffs of disruptive behavior available on request, but I believe I've expended enough effort on this highly disruptive and self-promotional editor, who's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 (2)

I'm not happy about the archiving of this thread earlier this month. I wish to comment further because the explanation for the swearing (that it was an unusual one-off because of that single day and was due to the removal of an in use template) is unconvincing. The incivility occurred before the in use template was added,[106][107] and it is not a one-off.[108][109][110][111][112].

The incident was archived on the basis that Davey2010 apologised and promised to 'not post anything like that again'. But it's still continuing: [113][114][115]. Instead of a pat on the head, users should be told in no uncertain terms that using the F word is uncivil and should stop. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, fuck that. Editors regularly cuss shit out. Its incivility when directed towards individuals, not just because he said "fuck". If it isn't clear: "fuck off" (referring to an article, not an editor), "tough fucking shit" and "fuckssake" are not examples of incivility. Of your other diffs, "idiot" is the only genuine incivility to be found. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I find your response offensive. You may enjoy offending other editors. I neither enjoy doing it nor receiving it. "F* off" was directed at the creator of the article, but that is beside the point. There is no need or excuse for foul language of any sort. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear: We do not censor, and we do not police people's word choices; except racial slurs and the suchlike. We are a community of mostly adults, adult language is to be expected. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not censor articles as a general rule. However, we do identify uncivil behavior by policy as "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions" -- that's clearly happening here. I request that you remove the profanity and cease continued use. There may be a place for it in an article, but this is not an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In what variety of English would the "fuck off"s linked above not being referring to a user (e.g.)?? Now, granted, since I don't know the context for that exchange, and since Winkelvi might (don't want to assume) give as good as he gets with that sort of thing, I would want to see him complain about it rather than Celia, but yes, that's pretty much textbook incivility outside of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. None of this is to say I think there's anything to be done here (I don't know) -- it's just a pet peeve to see people eat away at WP:CIVILITY at ANI by declaring that telling someone to "fuck off" is in the spirit of WP:5P4. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites One of you might have chosen to ping me so that I can respond. My reading of it was that the article could "fuck off", not any individual (I am referring to the AfD). Am I wrong? Celia suggests that it was directed at the author of the article. If so, then yes I'd agree with you and Celia that it is uncivil. With regards to "fuck off" from somebody's talk page, I can link you to any number of AN/I cases which closed with the summary of "if someone tells you to fuck off their page, it's a strongly worded leave me alone". As I said, and as I maintain: profanity in itself is not incivility, directed at somebody then yes. Gross profanity, Paulmcdonald is a rather subjective term. How gross is gross. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: My own preference is to be pinged each time, too, but some people get testy when pinged to a page/section that I [should?] know they're watching. Meh. Anyway, I cannot think of how reverting someone's comment with an edit summary "fuck off" on a user talk page (the one I linked) could be understood as talking to an article. I appreciate you may have been talking about a different diff. Regardless, it sounds like we agree on the general principle if not the particular reading. I do think it's best on Wikipedia, as in any place where you have to work with lots of people you don't know particularly well, to avoid immediately alienating other people with choice of language, but also agree that it's not the sort of incivility that's going to get anyone sanctioned unless it's targeted at another user. (edit conflict) Regarding the "fuck off" on someone's user page, directed at another user, any admin who says that it's perfectly acceptable behavior and that it's the responsibility of others to avoid triggering that person should not be an admin (or, at least, should not be speaking/acting as an admin in matters of civility), if I may be so blunt. I can't disagree that there won't be sanctions, though, but that there haven't been sanctions for certain people in the past should not be an argument not to enforce civility in the future (i.e. that it has happened that a small number of people have had enough defenders to get away with such things enough times that ANI regulars became jaded by the erosion of WP:CIVILITY, does not mean it's a good idea to discourage people from raising pretty basic civility issues here). Anyway, $0.02, and tangential. I'll leave it at that, since I'm talking in very general terms rather than this specific case, so realize I'm not contributing much here. (edit conflict) again — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I was talking about a different diff. Yes. I saw afterwards that you were linking to the UP diff. Hence my later additions to my comment. I agree with you on substance regarding "fuck off" from user talk pages. I don't appreciate it, and neither would anybody else. My standard is strictly is it targeted yes? incivility, no? profanity but not incivility. The UP issue is just precedent that I have seen on multiple occasions. If anybody wants to change that precedent, count me as a supporter. I am not one to get testy over pings, but I've seen it annoy people myself. I understand withholding the ping for that reason. For future reference, you are free to ping me whenever needed irrespective of whether I am likely to see your comment or not. I won't be annoyed by it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Celia Homeford Of the three "it's still continuing" diffs you provided, the first one was a heart-felt but non-specific expletive in an AfD (maybe stronger than strictly merited, but not entirely uncalled for), the second one occurred in a discussion about a singularly unpleasant troll, and the third one was also a general expletive which Davey2010 furthermore retracted and apologised for, and the editor involved clearly accepted the apology (before you posted this thread here). So no, "it" is not continuing, and none of these diffs is relevant unless one has a general objection to swearing, but that's never going to fly here. I can't see where you were involved in any of those three discussions, so what am I missing? --bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility seems clear to me. It doesn't say profanity, aggressiveness and sarcasm are acceptable. It says to avoid them,(Edit summary dos and don'ts and Identifying incivility: Direct rudeness sections) and when approaching the editor directly doesn't work, to seek dispute resolution at places such as this board (Dealing with incivility section). Celia Homeford (talk)

Celia Homeford, I tend to agree with you that we really should be striving for better civility and less verbal aggression, but whenever it's come up for discussion the community consensus has essentially been that anyone can use whatever language they please providing it's not a direct personal attack. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Celia Homeford The policy talks about "direct rudeness" (boldface mine). To my mind, cherry-picking isolated instances of language that is not to our personal liking (including an example of such language that had already been explicitly retracted and apologised for) and dragging a fellow editor to ANI over them is rather worse than the use of a few general expletives (which are not "direct rudeness", since they are not directed at a specific contributor). And I'm sorry, but I'm still not seeing where your involvement was in these discussions. --bonadea contributions talk 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to those discussions. And given that they are nasty, won't be doing so. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Right I'll explain my diffs:

Diffs [116] and [117] are explained here [118] and I also explained this on the last ANI report you opened[119],

Diff [120] was in response to this (IMHO that editor blows everything out of proportion and over-exaggerates on things),

Diff [121] was me giving up on the AN3 report for the IP in Diff 106,

Diff [122] was an IP who thought it was hilarious to undo my "removing a space" edit whilst making their own changes - The challenged bit was way out of order and shouldn't have been said (I did note it in that report and did say "it shouldn't of been said"[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=835485454#User:107.77.209.32_reported_by_User:Davey2010_(Result:Withdrawn_)])

Diff [123] again was the same IP and again the idiot part shouldn't of been said,

Diff [124] was in response to this where I removed that thread stating "It's 3 in the morning I'm not arguing - If you want it changed start an RFC."[125] - I realised after all of that drama that summary could've and should've certainly been better,

In 2 of the diffs I was out of order and so I apologise to that IP (107.77.209.32) for those 2 incidents .... The rest are more or less me getting in a huff,

If I'm out of order in what I say A) I recognise it and B) I always apologise after [126] (where this happened),

As I've said before whilst "Fuck off" may not be nice to see It's my only way with dealing with things and I'd rather say "Fuck off" than to give stupid replies such as this,

That all being said It's very rare I tell anyone to F off and I wouldn't really call the other diffs as incivil as such .....,

Celia Homeford I would kindly suggest you drop whatever stick you have with me and focus all of your time and energy on improving the 5 million articles we have here. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just spotted the other 3 - Diff [127] was a flippant comment I guess which I had already explained here but in hindsight that probably shouldn't of been said (I've now apologised and reworded it[128])

Diff [129] - I was annoyed at the fact an editor who returns after creating 700 socks and causes a lot of mayhem here returns with "Apologise for past transgressions & request unblock. It's been 11 years+. Time's come" which to me comes across as "Boo hoo I made a mistake, Now unblock me" .... There was no remorse, no "I apologise for my very bad mistakes and will do x and x in future" .... know what I mean ? well that's how I read it anyway

Diff [130] is already explained above and again was waaaay out of order - I assumed everyone here know what "indeffed" meant but having realised that editor didn't I reinstated their post apologising for that[131],

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Also just spotted the "Davey2010 apologised and promised to 'not post anything like that again" comment above - I promised I wouldn't make replies such as this this (which was a first and will be the last) but I never promised "I wouldn't use the f word" .... Just thought I should add that in.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think my 'stick' is really with you specifically. It's with an attitude among male editors that it is fun and normal to use disgusting language: [132][133][134]. (And before anyone says anything further about gender, yes, the editors all identify as male. And then wikipedia wonders why women don't participate?) Celia Homeford (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't claim that this is in any way a gender issue, unless you have actual data about actual gender differences - specific isolated diffs from three individuals who have consciously chosen to use a word for a specific pragmatic purpose are entirely irrelevant. We could all dig up diffs of editors identifying as male being upset about people using the word that offends you personally so much, and diffs of editors identifying as female using that word. Not to mention the fact that none of us have any idea what any other editor, male-identified, female-identified, or neither, thinks about something unless they tell us - I'd ask you to kindly not try to speak on behalf of a huge, amorphous group of people of very varying backgrounds. I find that just as offensive as you appear to find the use of swear words. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Some may like it and others may not but this thread isn't going to end its use nor is it really helping you or I, As for the male thing - That's just hilarious and I agree with everything bonadea's just said. –Davey2010^Talk 14:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Both these responses are a variety of 'I can offend you, but please don't offend me'. If it's not acceptable for me to say a comparatively weakly worded statement that offends; why is it acceptable to make a much stronger one? Celia Homeford (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Fuck men am I rite? I don't really think Bonadea or Davey2010 are offended at all. Certainly not as offended as you are at vulgarity. Honestly this just reminds me of the Cathy Newman and Jordan B. Peterson debate. I'll summarize the critical point on offense for you. Every time you speak, no matter how innocuous what you have to say is, you risk offending someone. It is not possible to speak on a platform with thousands of readers and not offend someone. I will not seek to shut you down for being offensive. Rebuke you, sure; but revoke your right to say silly things? only if it becomes disruptive. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"It's very rare I tell anyone to F off" Yeah, not so rare. And fairly recently, as well. See edit summary from April 5 here [135] and edit summary from April 14 here [136]. The entire story can be seen here [137] and here [138] (if anyone's interested). I had decided to let Davey's unwarranted personal attacks and hounding of me go, but when I saw this thread, and his claim that using F-Off is something he rarely does... decided to not let it go after all because it's a blatant lie. And apparently, the use of "F-off" as personal attacks for him is an increasing, developing trend. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Winkelvi, Nice to see you!, I feel I should correct you there - You state "It's a developing trend" however without digging my own grave this has been an issue since 2016 12 and even before that! - The only difference is that in those 2 years I've learnt to control the anger and am a lot more calmer now than I was back then, I also don't swear as much as I did back then (I still do sure but not as much), I shan't reply to the "hounding" because that's wholy unrelated to this report, Many thanks for your comments. –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I'll clarify: It's a recent aggressive behavior trend. It's also obviously violating WP:NPA. As someone pointed out below it's a vio of WP:CIVIL and for further explanation, see WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Truth is, you're being intentionally untruthful when you claim it's rare for you to say these things, and that's further supported by your claim that you were once worse behavior-wise in Wikipedia. Rare? Definitely not. Now frequent and recent. Better than before? Sorry, that's not acceptable as an excuse. Just because your old behavior became normalized in your psyche, that doesn't mean we have to accept your aggressive and uncivil verbal attacks toward other editors for behavior in the now. I'll also note that while not a personal attack toward me using the f-bomb, the following is yet another example of your uncivil use of the same word/tone in another edit summary "close ffs." ("ffs" = for fuck's sake), knowing you were asked to abandon that type of edit summary wording earlier in the month. I might also note, that you - who has stated at your Userpage that you edit "Transport, Actors, Actresses, Character, TV shows and Film articles", somehow found yourself using that edit summary and !voting 'no'at a U.S. Politics RfC I started. Kinda odd for a Brit who has no interest in U.S. Politics editing-wise and has never edited that particular article or article talk page before. In other words, I believe you intentionally sought out yet another one of my edits and RfCs just to WP:POKE by your no !vote, your presence there, and the use of "for fuck's sake" in an edit summary. This, with everything I've presented here evidence-wise, along with what the OP presented evidence-wise, definitely shows an aggressive trend. You said to Chris troutman at his talk page (linked above), "Hi Chris, I never want anyone to feel like they're being bullied that certainly isn't who I an although the from an outside perspective I can see it may look different, Will do, Thank for your comments". That was on April 8, here. Sounds to me like someone else is feeling bullied by you, and not long after you said you'd stop with that behavior.-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Give it a rest!, The same old "YOU'RE FOLLOWING ME AROUND AND HOUNDING AND BULLYING ME" is rather boring now, I commented on quite a few RFCs that day and I was in no way "hounding" you but again we've been over this again, again and again, Just because I put what I edit on my userpage doesn't mean I edit just those!, You have an axe to grind and that's the whole reason you're here - If you wanna start a HOUNDING report knock yourself out otherwise kindly stop derailing the report, Many thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Striking as would rather not have this derailed by this silly squabble. –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's not acceptable for me to say a comparatively weakly worded statement that offends; why is it acceptable to make a much stronger one? I did not say that would be acceptable. I tried to make very sure not to use any language that you might have found offensive - you'll notice that I consciously avoided even quoting the word you dislike. If I said something specific that you found offensive, I apologise, and would like to know what it was so I can avoid it in future. The offensive content of your statement had nothing to do with the wording, but with the substance. Making incorrect generalisations is not a matter of offending me (it does that as well, but that's obviously irrelevant here), it is a matter of perpetuating destructive myths. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice you did not use the word. There is nothing in your comments which is offensive or for which it is necessary to apologise. My point is that your comments here are along the lines of 'Editors are allowed to use language that offends but not to state beliefs that are offensive'. My view is more like 'You can discuss points of view that others might find offensive provided that the discussion is a courteous one'. You ask for evidence regarding female participation. There have been surveys that show hostile environments are especially uninviting for women and that women are more sensitive to negative comments: see https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia as a starting point. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm relieved to hear that I hadn't put my foot in it. The Harvard Business Review article makes a number of generalisations, some of them are more sound than others, but I believe I read it very differently from you. I don't think this is the place to discuss that, but I will make the observation that for me it is very different when someone uses profanity in a playful way on the user talk page of another editor who is known not to mind - that is, to me, a way of creating a more open, welcoming, and friendly encyclopedia - the opposite of a hostile environment. If used on the talk page of someone who gets upset by profanity, it is a different matter, and I don't particularly like being sworn at in anger, either. The context is vital. --bonadea contributions talk 17:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think what we're seeing is a clash of culture, and not actionable. Clearly, "go fuck yourself" was unacceptable, as it was directed at a person. That's already been addressed. I also note Celia, that you "quoted" while redacting the quote. Clearly, you don't even want to repeat what others have said, and that's fine too (although, when I did a similar thing IRL, I was advised strongly not to do so). The simple fact of the matter is that, in different parts of society, in different societies, the frequency of profanity varies. That's just something we have to live with. I would ask Davey2010 to try and make a conscious effort to reduce profanity somewhat, as it will avoid needless conflict. However, it's certainly nothing actionable, in and of itself. Please don't make this a gender issue, Celia. Everybody swears. Maybe in some places, there's a gender difference in the words used (i.e. "fuck" vs "bitch"). However, I'd ask that you please try and avoid getting offended when somebody swears, for the mere word. If it's not Davey2010, it'll be somebody else: like what I asked of Davey2010, taking such an approach will avoid needless conflict. Hopefully, there won't be another ANI report on this. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comments like "fuck you", "go fuck yourself", "fucking idiot", "fucking moron", "shit for brains", and the like, when aimed (directly or indirectly) at other editors are extreme, aggressive, and unacceptable violations of WP:CIVIL. For many users, these phrases are highly, highly offensive, and their use should absolutely not be tolerated. Cbl62 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cbl62. While some cultures may view profanity as acceptable and others do not, that does not matter. What matters is how do we view it here on Wikipedia. For that, go to the policy WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL which states that direct rudeness including "gross profanity" is uncivil.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And bear in mind WP:CIVIL is one of our core principles. This is block-worthy conduct IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• My 2¢ How one communicates with others is a direct reflection on their respect for those around them and how they wish others to view and treat themselves. Which is to say that polite people do not use potty language casually when speaking (or writing) unless it is their intent to offend or declare to all that they have no consideration for their sensibilities. Some allowance should be made for those who are greatly agitated or provoked. But unless the language is clearly directed at another editor there is no "rule" other than the normal ones involving common courtesy. I should also note that there is no rule requiring that any response or even acknowledgement be extended to those who choose to be rude and or crass as a matter of course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum Apparently the gratuitous use of gutter language is considered WP:UNCIVIL. I stand very happily corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I feel I should add I treat everyone with respect - "Treat others how you want to be treated" is something I've always been brought with and followed, Ofcourse at times I've fell short of that sentiment but we're not perfect, I expect to be spoken too with respect just like I'm expected to treat others with respect and as I've said I've for the majority always spoken to editors here with respect. –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WTF, as they say in Saudi Arabia. I guess it's still better than saying faggot? But it's certainly not just Davey. Some editors can't help but make an exhibition of their edit summaries. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that (as Bellzzasolo pointed out) most of this conflict is due to what people define as "gross" profanity. I would suggest an RFC, but I am not confident that an RFC would help. Personally, I think that both sides have a point. No, I don't think profanity should be eliminated, however, try not to be too extreme. I do think that Davey's swearing is too gratuitous, however, opposing the word "fuck" being used at all is too strict of a measure, as it is a normal part of language used by people. My opinion is that this ANI should be closed, with reminders to all parties involved that what is viewed as excessive profanity varies from person to person, and to try not to use profanity if the other person in the conversation is uncomfortable with it. Don't unnecessarily aggravate people by using profanity. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Waht ThePlatypusofDoom said. That said, I guess we'll never return to the days when greater decorum was required. We can complain all we wish about such examples of the vernacular, but I don't see it having an effect w/o a massively contentious RfC.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"I guess we'll never return to the days when greater decorum was required." Depends on what you mean by "decorum". WP:CIVIL is a core principle, and it expressly prohibits "gross profanity". Using profane words in an encyclopedic sense, as part of a content discussion, is one thing. Spraying gross profanity in talk page discussions, directly or indirectly targeting other editors, is an entirely different matter and plainly violates WP:CIVIL. Such incivility is perceived by many as pure aggression and bullying. We need to maintain civility. It is time to enforce our core principles. Doing so will be a huge plus in our efforts at editor retention. Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note In response to my evidence, diffs, and comments above, Davey first says, "Many thanks for your comments", then posts that my comments are "rather boring now", "you have an axe to grind and that's the whole reason you're here", shouts by using all caps in order to discredit my comments/diffs/evidence, and "stop derailing the report". Three minutes later he responds to Ad Orientem with, "I treat everyone with respect". His treatment of the OP is/was not respect, his comments in response to my own show no respect - that's why we are posting the diffs and general complaint. Is anyone else starting to see a real disconnect here (I'm hesitating to flat out call it denial) from Davey? At any rate, I think we're dealing with something larger than the occasional and now escalating use of "Fuck off!". I'll let others come to their own conclusions and be done with this report now, unless someone has a particular comment or question for me specifically. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh dear oh dear!, I struck it to avoid a derailing!, Any opportunity to stick the axe in eh!, Don't you have better things to do like I dunno .... Improve the encyclopedia? .... –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• A silly squabble, it seems, but only potentially. If only edit summaries could be as easily struck, retracted or modified(?) And heaven knows I've left a few in that category. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock

Resolved: student unblocked, with Piotrus' assurance that they will coach the user in areas of difficulty. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

---

I've been teaching with Wikipedia for a decade, had few hundred students in my courses, and usually their work is good enough to qualify for WP:GA/WP:DYK (see User:Piotrus/Teaching or the WMNF blog about me). I am not here to brag, I am just saying this so people unfamiliar with me don't say something like "read the WP:SUP guide" or such. I wrote most of such guides, m'kay? And generally my students don't cause problems, because I try to ensure they know the basics and more. I am quite aware we have had bad experiences with some educational projects, but that's what happens when people (instructors) don't bother to follow our guides or even don't know about them, despite all that the Wiki Education Foundation and some volunteers has been doing. Anyway, over those ten years I've never had such a strange and rather unpleasant accident happen to one of my students: User:SungMinSeung got suddenly accused of vandalism, and blocked for some vague reasons "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". She asked for an unblock that was declined on the same grounds, after she make it perfectly clear she is a student who is learning how to contribute to Wikipedia. Well, it's ridiculous - she IS here to contribute to encyclopedia, like each and every one of my students, who are enrolled in my courses (including what I think is the longest running college-level course about Wikipedia). Some of her edits were incorrectly reverted because some editors mistakenly thought she was citing Korean search engine sources; a discussion she started (as an anon) at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_758#My_quotations made it clear she is not doing that, and some uninformed and revert-trigger recent changes (?) patrollers cannot distinguish between Korean search engine and encyclopedias, so she ended up with several unfair warning templates on her talk page, and being a newbie she didn't blank them (and I didn't do it, neither). I am guessing that a quick glance at her talk page caused the next tired RC/admin patrolled to conclude she is a problematic editor in need of a long block. Anyway, an indef block for [139] is an unhelpful example of WP:BITE. Her edit was actually the best referenced edition to that page... She is an ESL so some of her edits suffer from grammar/vocabulary problems, but she didn't get a single warning about that, and anyway we are not in habit of blocking people for having imperfect command of English (and anyway, nobody complained about her language skills before - and it is the only possible problem with the edit that got her blocked, because other than that it is on topic and cited to a reliable source, Korean Doosan Encyclopedia). So I hope we can get her unblocked, and somebody can offer her an apology. Ironically, I was teaching today a module on civility and such, and was telling students about WP:BITE - and her block was a "helpful" illustration here, through I'd prefer not to have such an example at all. PS. I'd also add that if the warning / blocking editors bothered to look at her user page, they'd have noticed she is a student in a course. And her block caused a disruption in my live classroom due to IP issues, as suddenly several students and myself found ourselves unable to edit due to IP issues (relevant bug T193378 reported). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hard to not see this edit [[140]] as not vandalism, did they not even bother to read the articles? Or this [[141]]. Maybe it is a competence issues, but these really do not look like constructive edits so much as attempts to include extraneous information.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Since when adding referenced information is a vandalism? Yes, the first edit seems not relevant, but the second, outside some translation issue (ballet?) added referenced information on the cheese's inception (currently article doesn't have a reference for that), and production (ditto). I'd understand if someone would warn her to be more careful with grammar/vocabulary (I did so, in class, twice at least). But that's not what happened. Repeating myself: nobody posted on her talk page about grammar/vocabulary issues. She got warned about bad references (unfairly) and then blocked, despite being a student who is clearly acting in good faith and is trying to be constructive (if albeit not careful enough on grammar/etc.). Nothing here is 'vandalism', however. PS. And she is clearly improving, there's nothing wrong with most of her recent edits like [142]. Again, I can see a warning about 'please be careful with your grammar' or such, but a block for vandalism? Seriously? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is that the blocked user's command of English is not very good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? That's not a blockable offense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If an editor is incapable of writing proper English, they have no business being here. See WP:Competence is required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a block policy. Any admin that blocks others based on an essay shouldn't be an admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I expected you'd be de-sysoping over half of the active admin corps and probably more if you decide that it's not acceptable to block for lack of competence. That's probably why there's fairly widespread support for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Does the community agree with WP:CIR?. I have not checked the discussion extensively, but I didn't actually see anyone even disagreeing that we already do so. The closest is people saying it's not necessary to cite the essay. Many of course do acknowledge that the vagueness can lead to problems including excessively hasty blocks of people with a poorer command of English. That's quite different from suggesting we should never block for competence. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: That's a nice essay and I agree with the spirit of it. The point is, I don't think the spirit intended for CiR to be used to justify 'now we can block any newbie who makes several mistakes, without warning them first, since by making mistakes they've clearly shown they are incompetent and dangerous'. Welcome to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia anyone can edit, assuming you don't make a single mistake. If you do, indef ban for you. Welcome! (And don't let the door hit you on the way out, we will throw you out of the window anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone should put effort in turning the essay into policy. KingAndGod 11:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It is called a pattern, two edits that add extraneous information (one of which cannot be due to poor language skills). Plus these edits [[143]], [[144]] adding information already in the article (in the former case the paragraph immediately below it (which taking into account my first diff again raises the question of are they even bothering to read the articles they are editing?)), in fact this seems to be their main style of contribution. We have this bizarre edit [[145]]. There is also overuse of this source [[146]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As was discussed in the teahouse, there is nothing wrong with terms.naver.com (it was declined from a spamlist). Despite the name, it is not a dictionary, but it is an encyclopedia. I do agree with you that in some cases she does not appear to have read all the information, but the correct response would be to POINT IT OUT to her. Nobody bothered to do so (well, I did, in class, verbally, but that's not the issue here). People should really keep in mind WP:BITE, WP:AGF and such. Making mistakes is not a blockable offense, not unless said mistakes are explained, and the editor continues to ignore this. Nobody bothered to explained such issues to her on the talk page before a block, and hence, the block is totally unfair. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You've been here since 2004. You should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I know better: years ago I wrote a mini-essay about a major problem being some admin's fondness to solve everything with a banhammer. I am disappointed, but not surprised, this destructive mentality is still doing well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"read an article before editing it" should not have to be explained...seriously that should be basic common sense. But OK lets unblock them with a warning that they must read articles before editing them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That IS a (more) constructive approach. She does need a warning about that, unlike other irrelevant stuff she previously got (mostly about sources, which are fine), this one is indeed relevant as I agree, it doesn't seem like she always reads the articles carefully enough. The point is, she should never have been blocked in the first place. Not before getting said warning first. Now, if she continues to make problematic edits, a block would be justified (through there is also the issue of duration, few hours, or a day or two, is usually sufficient, nuking a newbie with an indef block is an overkill that is part of the problem here - it's like WP:BITE, kaiju-level... ). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, I have to say "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" as a block reason seems obviously wrong to me, and even if there are CIR reasons for a block then I still think it was premature. I support unblock, with assistance being offered instead of a boot. User:Piotrus, if you're happy to keep an eye on them and lend some help, that's good enough for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The complainant here should be compelled to review every new edit by the blocked user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Which I do. And I warned her, verbally, about grammar, vocabulary, and context. Nothing however seemed, nor seems to me, like requiring an admin level intervention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • You did more than that. You restored this[147] ridiculous edit, which brings your own competency into question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to try to defend that edit - it looks like the product of machine translation - but where did Piotrus "restore" it? —Cryptic 10:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) You might have the wrong diff? At any rate, let's not all go on a hunt for each other's errors if they are more exceptions than the norm.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. While we do block for CIR, it doesn't seem necessary here yet and the actual rational seems even more wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That foreign-language page should not be allowed as a source. This is the English Wikipedia. That page could be saying "Death to all English-speakers!" for all we know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Take it up with WP:V then Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not been here long enough, if WP:NOENG is not something you are familiar with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I'm willing to guess that using sites like www.doopedia.co.kr and naver.com, along with a few mistakes by a new editor whose first language is not English gave the impression that she was a spammer. And then the first unblock was denied because her unblock reason said she didn't vandalize, but that was not the block reason. However, "not here" would make little sense to someone who honestly thinks that they are here to help. Unfortunate set of circumstances for the editor, but not very surprising either.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • First, the complainant needs to explain why he restored this[148] edit, which is nonsensical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Where's the restoration? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • My apologies. Wrong editor. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I do not see any problems unblocking as soon as Piotrus promises to look after her edits (and he already did so). May be explanations on how to communicate better would not harm, but that is it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'll paraphrase what I said at her talk page. Just unblock her. Few subpar edits or something from someone in good faith isn't a reason for blocking. Neither is somewhat poor english, unless it is too the point that her contributions become negative and she refuses to listen. And trout everyone who here who is saying otherwise (and maybe TBAN baseball bugs from ANI for good measure). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

• That was one fucked-up thread. EEng 13:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Piotrus: I made rule clarification on the amount of expected language proficiency as described at Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_required#Required_level_of_English. Being more welcoming to people whose native language is something other than English is only part of what needs to change, but this is my go at contributing something right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attack

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

---

A user by the name of User:El pepe15243 has called me a homophobic slur. I know this could very well just be some kid fooling around, but I took it here because anytime someone makes a personal attack, I take it here. I'm not sure whether or not a block is in order, or if we should just let this go. UnsungKing123 (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unaware of that, so thanks for helping out. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Can we get their talk page keys taken away based on this? (I've reverted.) Nate • (chatter) 16:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTHERE/spam Block needed.

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

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

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

Disruptive Edits by Jane Dawson

User:Jane Dawson is using Wikipedia to push a political stand by editing selected articles in a manner to discredit anyone and any entity linked with the Singapore Government. The user intentionally commits other violations, including infringing Wikipedia's policies on living persons in doing so. I removed one edit, then realised that the user's contributions are full of this, gave up, and came here instead. --219.75.113.186 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)