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

Shadegan

I've been trying to make him use the talkpage for his unjustified reverts[1][2][3]. I've cleaned up the years long messes in those three articles, but he keeps reverting to a version which is based on dead-links and unattainable references. I can see in the talkpages on various sites that Shadegan has for years now ignored everyone (incl. admins) in his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Feyli Kurds, Feylis (previously Feyli Lurs) and Iraqi Lurs are all about the same people. I merged them to make one article based on academia, which he seems to have reverted now with no explanation. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Laks (Iran)[4] too. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t expect the user to discuss his edits. He’a more interested in conspiracy theories[5] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really following what's happening (haven't had a chance to catch up), but I did protect the articles for three days. I also left Shadegan a warning about explaining their edits better and refraining from casting aspersions. El_C 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I know Shadegan has been around (because they had thanked me for the protection), but they have so far failed to respond to my note. So, I've taken the unusual step of editing the protected pages against their version. Hopefully, that will motivate them to engage in the discussion. El_C 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your reason for changing some revisions to some pages in order to nudge Shadegan's participation in a relevant discussion regarding the dispute. In fact, I've been tempted to do the same thing on numerous occasions where an editor involved isn't discussing the matter, and editing the involved page would certainly change that (though I've never acted on it and done so). Just be careful; you obviously don't want to be seen as "taking sides" or "favoring one revision over another". ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know what the revisions are about or how they differ from one another, so no risk of that. But what I won't let happen is to have the Kurdish set of articles turn into a sort of free-for-all, which unfortunately, has been the trend lately. El_C 16:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Completely understandable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no interaction with the rest of us. [6] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've left a talkback notice that links directly to this discussion, to make responding as easy as possible. If Shadegan still does not respond here, I think the next step is a short block to stop the reverting and allow Shadegan to focus on responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, excuse me for my late. I was busy for a while. I am against anarchy and edit warring although I have been involved formerly. During last days I had a lot of communication and reasoning in talk page of disputed pages, excuse me I forgot here!!

A continuous conflict has been between two very interrelated Iranian ethnicities for decades, Kurds and Lurs. They are very similar culturally and lingually. As you know, Kurds are dispersed between some countries but a very strong independence tendency towards them is alive and blazing for decades. To achieve their dreams they are very active physically and in virtual world. Sometimes this includes an emotional-based edits to use it as a propaganda. I have tried in recent years to alleviate these trends. The recent edits by User:Ahmedo Semsurî is an evident example for this. I apologize for the current trend of edit warring and I hope to come to a good and appropriate conclusion. Best SHADEGAN (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment One thing is obvious, all these articles are quite weakly sourced and poorly worded, thus, they need a major rewrite. Also, there are many versions about the ethnicities of those peoples, some seeing them as being Kurdish and others disagreeing with this view. When i'll have some more time, i'll try to ask to some experienced editors who are aware of this topic to help me to neutralize that set of articles.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I believe that there needs to be more admin involvement in Shadegan's actions. I will try to make it short: About a week ago, I started cleaning the Feylis page by first and foremost 1) removing dead links, 2) unattainable references, i.e. ("فرهنگ ایران زمین، جلد 20، ص 406-409"), and 3) unreliable sources.First edit, 25 May. Thereafter I removed unsourced files[7], removed unsourced segments[8] and started finding academic references which the article really needed[9][10][11].

Then this happened: Repeated ethnocentric and vandalism edits by PAN KURDISM and an Kurd users are reverting all pages for their desire wishes, please have a look to the histoy of their planned ethnocentric edits. They should bring their reasons to the talk page. by Shadegan. After an edit war, the article was fairly protected and I continued editing from the version Shadegan reverted[12] which he since reverted again[13].

Still no comments from Shadegan on what is wrong with the academia I have found.

Then we have the actions on Laki language. The user has been looking after this article for a long time, maintaining the claims that it is disputed language/dialect (as in, that academia profoundly disagrees). But this is not the case. Again, most of the info was either based on unattainable sources,[14] dead links,[15] simply unsourced for years[16] or just lies[17]. After a lot of cleaning, I started adding info based on academic sources[18][19][20][21].

Again, everything removed by Shadegan, This time it was: Ethnocentric edits were neutralizedRepeated ethnocentric and vandalism edits by PAN KURDISM and A user has changed the page identity to a determined path. Many sources and diverse contents have been deleted. Use talkpage and consensus for needed changes. No comment on what's wrong with the edits, but he keeps referring to pan-Kurdism despite most linguists referred to are westerners. I tried to make them use them talkpage, but nothing constructive: where other users have been involved

It's the same behavior at Iraqi Lurs, Laks (Iran) and Flag of Kurdistan.

I don't know what next step is when Shadegan always calls it 'ethnocentric vandalism' when I ask them to elaborate on the issues they have with the references. Nor does the user reply when I demand sources for his baseless claims[22][23]. Looking at the talkpages, Shadegan has prevented any move towards reliable and sourced articles since 2016 at least[24] And then we have the baseless claims which many users have confronted.

@Wikaviani:, I've pinged you since you just commented here.--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

dead links should not be removed. see here Wikipedia:Link rot 182.20.137.37 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And another revert despite everything being well-sourced. [25] This is nothing but Wikipedia:Ownership of content and disruptive editing. He is keen on keeping the weakly sourced version of the article, since the info aligns with his owns views. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: I'm afraid with prior edits like [26] you really need to watch your own editing conduct too. This is not an edit indicative of a proper effort to reach consensus-based neutral coverage. Claiming, in Wikipedia's own voice and in the very definition sentence of an article, that something is "the official flag of Kurdistan", when we all know that there isn't any politically constituted "Kurdish nation" represented by any unified political body that could possibly speak for it in an "official" capacity, is clearly tendentious editing on your own part. You need to dial it down, probably as much as the other parties in this dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thanks for replying. What was very clear in the article was that Kurdish nationalist movements in Syria, Turkey and Iran use this flag, while the autonomous Kurdistan Region in Iraq has recognized it as the flag. This was sourced. [27] You have a fair point about whether there is a lack of a 'unified political body', but does that mean everything else should be removed? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the user reverts everything by everyone, including Firstorm's rewording of sections and my chronological section which again was not controversial at all.[28] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect and others: I had corrected grammar and punctuation in "Flag of Kurdistan"; I understand Ahmedo Semsuri's anxiety that his writing not be corrected, but the unedited article is exceptionally awkward. The sole factual point on which there is disagreement (or incomprehension on the part of a non-native speaker) is the use of "Kurdistani Region" (or "Region of Kurdistan") instead of "Kurdistan". User Ahmedo Semsuri apparently wishes to believe that Kurdistan is an independent nation; much though I may sympathise with him, the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect facts, not sentiments. Firstorm (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstorm Using the official and recognized name of the region does not make me an irredentist who longs after an independent Kurdistan. Nevertheless, the reason I tagged you here was because the user Shadegan prevents any attempt to improve the article, which I argued includes your edits of the'Adaptation to international vexillological standards' and 'Iraqi Kurdistan region's flag day' sections[29] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahmedo Semsuri failed to notify me that he had complained here. I thought this a simple discourtesy until I read that, 'When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.' How is this entire issue to be resolved? Firstorm (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Firstorm: That's fair but since you were not the user I complained about, I didn't find it necessary. However, I did ping you every time I mentioned your work. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for Status?

The filing editor, User:Ahmedo Semsurî, has now made a request for dispute resolution at DRN. DRN does not handle a dispute that is also pending in another content forum or in a conduct forum such as WP:ANI. Normally I would either request that the case here be closed to allow as to proceed at DRN, or advise the filing editor to wait until the conduct dispute is resolved here. However, I see that the subject editor, User:Shadegan, has not responded here. Ahmedo Semsurî has said that since this WP:ANI proceeding is stalled, perhaps DRN will encourage them to explain their edits. However, they haven't explained their edits here. I think that we need to resolve this case in one of two ways, and the choice is up to User:Shadegan. User:Shadegan - Do you want to discuss your edits, either here or at DRN? If Shadegan doesn't answer, then I think that a topic-ban against Shadegan editing in the area of Kurdish languages will be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's time for the user to substantiate — demonstrate that they are applying due weight to the available scholarly and mainstream sources. The forum isn't something I find that important, but maybe give the DRN format a go(?). Whichever, it doesn't really matter. El_C 00:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:El_C. Moderated discussion at DRN is voluntary. I am willing to attempt to mediate the discussion if User:Shadegan will reply. However, they haven't replied either here or at DRN, so I don't think that it would be prudent to close this case without hearing from them. If they don't reply, then I think that we here at WP:ANI need to do something. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, excuse me for my late, I have addressed the ethnocentric edits done by user:Ahmedo Semsurî several times in the recent days. If you have a look to edit history of these pages (Laki language, Laks (Iran), Iraqi Lurs, Feyli Lurs), during last weeks, you will see that this user has tried to deviate the contents in a way to include these as only innate Kurdish ethnic issues by deleting sources about other theories, other classification debates etc. I tried to stop him/her to do that and he/she started edit warring in pages Lurs, Southern Lurs, Qadam Kheyr, etc for revenge (They were related to other Iranian tribe) and slandering several times. I wonder how the trend is done so appaently without any reaction by wikipedia adminitrators! I have made edits in the page Laki language some last months and I mentioned different ideas and believes about the indepency of that language, being a dialect of Luri or a dialect of Kurdish but the mentioned user has tried several times to delete the citation except for Kurdish. He even had tried to change the page totally and moving it to the name Laki Kurdish!! [30] instead but he/she failed by thorough opposed discussion by several users. I expect the administrators to have a simple look to the mentioned issues and decide which user is deserving topic-ban.Best SHADEGAN (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

How can adding templates for unsourced information on Qadam KheyrLursSouthern Lurs be edit war? And you still avoid answering the simple question: What part of the academic sources do you have a problem with? Stop focusing on me but the content. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. I appreciate you taking the time. I suggest you take Robert up at his offer to mediate at DRN, Shadegan and Ahmedo Semsurî, as my patience with all this has worn a bit thin — I already topic banned, then indefinitely blocked Coron Arol yesterday, for example. Plus, I will be away from Wikipedia for the next two days. I hope (and expect) that when I come back, you'd have made real progress toward resolving these various disputes. Good luck to you all! El_C 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed that I removed this flag File:LUZ_MAP.png from Southern Lurs as it was unsourced and is misleading (as it includes Laki as Luri). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is not the place. El_C 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible Mediation

Okay. I will also say this at DRN. Both parties are instructed to read and comply with User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. I will be opening this case for discussion at DRN, and this dispute can be closed here, but, if either party does not comply with the rules, I will fail the mediation and request administrative sanctions. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues,although they may make the person making the long statement feel better. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will lead the discussion. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. (If you edit the article, I will request a block.) Okay. I will try to start mediation at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the two users hasn't made a statement at DRN after 48 hours. It shouldn't be necessary for moderated discussion to consist of long waits for a response followed by lengthy non-productive apologies. I may close the attempt at moderated discussion, which will bring the matter back here as a conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If Shadegan has no intention of defending his points at DRN or be constructive here, how can this be solved? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If one of the editors in a dispute does not engage in constructive discussion and ignores efforts to find consensus, a topic-ban is the usual sanction. That cannot be imposed at DRN, which is not a conduct forum, but this is a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by user SBS3800P

User:SBS3800P has been editing pages without proper citations. I observed on his talk page that other editors have previously tried to engage him about this disruptive and destructive behaviour, but he chose to ignore it.

For example, he made very odd claims about fare rules for a train station on this page without citation. I have since removed the false information he added.

He is recently on an editing spree, again, many without verified citations. He used words including "probably" without solid substantiation, is worrying and will damage the integrity of information posted on Wikipedia. One example is on the page this, he made a claim and used the word probably without citing any sources. Trust me, I have lived in the country for very long and have never heard of this claim before. Another absurd and not cited claim is of a train station with the least amount of climbing and walking. Where does he get these information from!? — Preceding unsigned comment added 17:08, 28 May 2019‎ by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs)

User:Bring back Daz Simpson: NPA and ASPERSIONS

First some background, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was previously indefinitely blocked in October 2016 by Bbb23 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha. User talk page access (TPA) was also removed by Bbb23 a day after blocking the account per this edit because of "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". An attempt made by another administrator Ivanvector here to try and help out at the time apparently was rebuffed per this post. An unblock request for Sevcohaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), one of the previously blocked sockpuppet accounts, had been declined by here by Vanjagenije earlier in March 2016, partily based upon this post by Bbb23, with TPA access for that account also being revoked shortly thereafter. The Bring back Daz Sampson account was created a few months after that in August 2016, while the Sevocohaha account was still under blocked so techinically that's WP:EVADE. After the accout was blocked, the editor apparently decided to wait out the block per WP:SO and appeal after about six months had passed. An UTRS unblock request was filed and copied and pasted to use talk page here and TPA was restored by Just Chilling in April 2017. In their unblock request, Bring back Daz Sampson admitted to the socking and promised to not repeat the behavior which led to their being indef'd. Positive comments in support were posted by here and here repectively by Ivanvector and JamesBWatson, and the unblock request was accepted by Bbb23 here. All of this seems fine; an editor made some mistakes and was blocked as a resutlt. Some time passed and the editor was unblocked because it was believed they had learned from their mistakes and was committed to moving forward and not repeating them.

One of the socks (Målfarlig!) had been previously blocked by Swarm for edit warring and personal attacks in September 2015. Bring back Daz Sampson admitted to being Målfarlig! in their unblock request, so part of the behavior they were stating they were not going to repeat would also be making personal attacks against others. Recently, however, it appears that they is going back to making unsubtatiated comments about other editors in some talk page discussions and at an AFD. None of these comments appear to have been provoked in anyway; people weren't pinging them or even mentioning them by name let alone posting any negtive comments about them. It would've been entirely possible to participate in these discussion without making any comments about any other editors. Yet for some reason, they felt that these discussions were the right time and place to try and revive old disputes with others. Here are the most recent diffs:

1. May 11, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/896572069: An attempt to use a discussion at WT:FOOTY about non-free content use to re-hash previous discussions where files were removed by administrators for not complying with WP:NFCCP; the discussion was perfectly civil and there was no reason to make accusations or cast aspersions against other editors. A personal attack against Number 57 was even mixed in under the guise of supporting their position in the discussion. Requests by myself and Number 57 for diffs and a striking of the attack was never responded to and the thread was archived.
2. June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899892694: More accusations made in a different FOOTY discussion which seem only intended to try and re-start some long resolved dispute. Perhaps things didn't get resolved in a way that Bring back Daz Simpsom wanted perhaps, but they were resolved none the less. Stating that I exhibit "monomania" is something that was previously done here a little more than three years ago by one of the blocked sock accounts.
3. June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899890243: This AfD !vote could've just as easily been made without mentioning any other editors; yet for some reason, this editor felt the need to mention GiantSnowman by nameeven though Giant Snowman isn't participating in the AfD at all. It's almost as if this was a pre-emptive personal attack or casting of aspersions in advance just on the off chance that Giant Snowman might eventually show up and !vote.

I don't think there's any doubt that Bring back Daz Sampson makes a lot of positive contributions to articlese about soccer, particularly women's soccer. The problem is not really their ability to do that. The problem has to do with their behavior and their apparent inability to simply stick to commenting on content and avoid commenting on other editors as much as possible. All editors have their bad moments, and probably post things they wouldn't; morevoer, three posts might be only a small sample size when it comes to this type of thing for someone with no history of having problems with others. Even just three posts, however, might be one too many when you're coming back from an indefinite block, and. Moreover, there's no indication there won't be more such posts from here on. FWIW, I'm not looking for a reinstatement of the indefinite block; I'm not even looking for a short-termed block to be issued or even an apology to be made. I do, however, think that a stern final warning is needed that this type of conduct is not going to be tolerated by the community and that this editor is going to be expected to try to figure out a way to honor what they posted in their unblock request and also what they posted here. If this type of behavior continues after this final warning, then the community can decide to block if they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC);[Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling of the word “articles”, to change “short-termed” to “short-term”, and to replace the word “moreover” with “and”. — 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)];[Note:Post edited by Marchjuly to strike comment about GiantSnowman not having participated in the Referenced AfD. -- 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)]

Okay, here goes. I'd like to set out some background of my own: This all relates to an ongoing dispute over WP:NFC#UUI#17, a contentious "minimal use" image copyright policy. It's very boring but please bear with me. Marchjuly thinks some national sports team articles cannot contain logos because the teams are "child entities" of the national governing bodies. Even more controversially, he thinks women's sports teams can't have logos because they are "child entities" of the men. It's either a wacky stretch or unilaterally offensive, depending on your perspective. Unfortunately for Marchjuly, WP:NFC#UUI#17 doesn't really support any of this. Manful efforts to gain consensus have proved similarly elusive. So for five years or so he has been taking a piecemeal approach, targeting individual articles - think 'low hanging fruit' like Bhutan or Haiti, for example, rather than England. As WP:FFD gets little traffic and Marchjuly's posts are generally long and impenetrable, this often results in one of the two or three admins active there giving him his desired 'result' from a tiny quorum. Invariably when other editors working on these sports articles realise what he is up to and revert or query the lack of consensus, he demands each individual case go back to the admin and then be subject to the tedious rigmarole of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Persistently editing against consensus has given Marchjuly something of an adversarial approach. Indeed he is currently engaged in a parallel dispute with Tvx1 over the same issue, where strong accusations of edit warring and inappropriate conduct including WP:POINT are being traded. Undoubtedly Marchjuly has not been above edit warring over this matter in the past. There is also an allegation that Marchjuly is WP:HOUNDING Tvx1. I'll make no comment on the validity of that, except to say that Tvx1's edit history has not yet been subjected to anything like the forensic excavation mine has.

Anyway, to try and address each point in turn: Among your myriad talents, Marchjuly, brevity is not one of them. Upon sight of your latest imposing WP:WALLOFTEXT I likely thought: "Yea, I'll try and get back to this later". As well as usually being very long, your posts are often quite technical and can appear turbid to the general reader, so I usually have to be in the right frame of mind to try and assail them. This partly explains the delay in my response here too. I don't remember seeing N57's shorter response either as I think the topic went off the front page quite soon afterwards and WT:FOOTY is not on my watchlist. Is questioning someone's feminist credentials really a personal attack? My only previous interactions with N57 relate to them making a totem of WP:FOOTY's in-house notability essay and trying to use it to delete female footballer articles. That's why I found it particularly interesting that N57 described your position on women's teams being "child entities" ridiculous. Of course if I am wrong and N57 does have an interest in feminist issues I'd be happy to make a full retraction with apology. I see N57's 2014 link below has me being branded a "misandrist", among other things. Funnily enough I don't remember that being called as a personal attack at the time. I also felt that N57s description of your position as "ridiculous" was if anything more attacking than "idiosyncratic" and "radical" which were the terms I settled upon. Why did you perceive one as an WP:ASPERSION but not the other? As regards the second point, my warning to Tvx1 was 100% serious. If they keep at it I have absolutely no doubt that you will soon have them here at ANI fending off WP:DRAMA and WP:WIKILAWYERING. In point three GiantSnowman did !vote so your objection doesn't make sense. GS always votes "Delete - fails NFOOTY, GNG". GS voted this way there, in the relevant AfD I linked from three years ago, and in each and every one of the recent spate of AfDs on female footballers. GS has likely been voting this way for over a decade. Does GS make a genuine search for sources every time to weigh up GNG? Or even a cursory one? You would have to ask GS but given the sheer volume of these !votes it seems improbable to me. So the comment was on the !vote itself not on GS. That is to say it addressed the content and the action, not the person (unlike GS's swipe at me below). Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct about GiantSnowman having !voted in that AfD prior to your post. I apologize for that error and have stricken it from my post. As for the rest of your comment, I will respond below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Here he is calling trans rights activists 'transvestites'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. That, as well as this later response, is pretty offensive, from the scare quotes around 'activists' to the implication that only a miniscule proportion of the population thinks that not using offensive terms about other people matters, to the assumption that only people personally affected by a slur would want to protest against it, to the underlying presumption that it doesn't matter if someone uses incorrect terminology if the topic is not (in their personal view) immediately relevant... and that doesn't even touch on the fact that they admit to not really caring about other people being abused. A serious and final warning is the minimum here, and combind with the PAs, an indef does not seem to be undue. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I see now that 'transvestite' was not a well chosen word and I can't defend its use there. Although used out of thoughtlessness and ignorance rather than malice, that is no excuse. It was a stupid isolated comment made in the heat of the moment and not - I hope - representative of my editing before or since. On reflection I will strike the offending paragraph and offer a sincere apology. I am also likely to self-impose a topic ban to prevent me letting myself down in that manner again. Clearly I should stick to the soccer... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reading just the above, it's clear to me that BbDS has made a habit of making personal attacks. I'd be inclined to re-indef, unless a reasonable counter case is made. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've found this user to be nothing but a pain, to both myself and other editors. Serious attitude problem. I'd support an indef. GiantSnowman 07:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not (quite) intellectually dishonest enough to pretend this is a 'personal attack', GS. But its of a piece with anything I've posted in the three diffs in the OP. Arguably slightly unbecoming of an admin - although in the circumstances I can't really begrudge you a fly kick at me here! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• For context, it's also worth noting that BbDS previously edited as Clavdia chauchat and exercised their right to vanish after being blocked for personal attacks – see this ANI report from 2014. Number 57 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why they took an instance dislike to me! GiantSnowman 09:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, apparently, which John offered to cancel if I recanted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment for now. This user in the past has been resistive to efforts they perceive as instructing their behaviour; my most favourite version of that sentiment is this comment on performative contrition. For some background have a look at this October 2016 discussion. I do believe that the user sincerely misinterpreted the standard offer at that time and was treated somewhat harshly for it, and after having it explained and going out of their way to thumb their nose at my advice, it seems they actually did take it. Their April 2017 appeal was a genuine exploration of their behaviour and it was easily accepted. All of that is to say: I think they're here for the right reasons, and capable of listening to advice when it's given gently.

We should also note that in the past this user (under their many usernames) has suggested they are subject to ongoing harassment, which it seemed to me at the time of our last interaction to likely be the case. A user working in content creation for female athletes attracting gender-based harassment is no big surprise. However, they have indeed already been told many times that they should contact an administrator if that is the case, not respond with personal attacks.

And having said that, I have noticed there have been a lot of AfD nominations for biographies of female football players just over the last month or so, correlating quite neatly with reports in various places about Bring Back Daz Sampson's incivility. While it's probably not harassment per se, for someone who works in an underrepresented topic to have much of their work broadly put up for deletion, as though someone is on some kind of mission, it likely stings. Still, no personal attacks is policy.

All that I guess to say I don't know what to do here, it's complicated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There have only been four AfDs on female footballers since the start of May and none of them were articles created by BbDS. Number 57 13:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ivan, I don't remember ever using the word harassment myself. I've got a thick hide and can take the brickbats with the bouquets. If my skin was as thin as some on here my latest comeback might have lasted two weeks, not two years. All that said, the fact is, yes, it's often a toxic environment for us women's sports editors. Your links reminded me of Hmlarson - a much smarter, more stable and resilient editor than me. It seems even they have now been ground down and had to basically give up and walk away, which I think speaks volumes. I also remember LauraHale, another exceptionally gifted editor constantly subjected to WP:BATTLEGROUND by editors of - shall we say - more prosaic abilities. Such accomplished content editors are indispensable to Wikipedia as no-one else can do what they do. As diverse role models and mentors they are also invaluable as a bulwark against groupthink and the petty tyranny of the 'average Wikipedian'. There is a persuasive argument that gold standard contributors like this deserve a measure of extra protection here (Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi) Maybe a fast track to adminship under a sort of Rooney Rule? Such progress is probably still a few years away yet. But in the meantime they should still get no less than the same treatment and protections extended to other editors. I'm not trying to bracket myself along with Hmlarson and LauraHale, by the way, this was more of a general point to follow on from what you said.

Football (soccer) is a passionate game, an emotive subject, and sometimes tempers will run high while editing in that area. I am sure that GS and N57 will back me up that WP:FOOTY is a teeming cauldron of bad editing, non-notable sub-stubs, pedantic quibbling over statistics, IP vandalism etc. etc. I dare say that policing the minutiae of obscure image copyright policies is a very important job. I just can't pretend to share Marchjuly's enthusiasm for it. Clearly there are some wider philosophical differences here as well as the content dispute over NFC#UUI #17, but trying to get each other blocked is not the best way to deal with that.

As for our previous interactions Ivan, with hindsight I do believe that you were - as you saw it - trying to talk some sense into me. I recall you were working up to your admin position at the time and on something of a 'charm offensive' which made me wary. Also, if you ever get blocked (I hope not) you will find that strangers turning up unsolicited at your talkpage can feel a bit ghoulish. The fact that you are still here saying the same sort of things convinces me that you were sincere and my doubts were unfounded. I appreciate that you have kept an open mind and a balanced approach when others have not. You are correct to say that I thumbed my nose at your advice and I was wrong to do so. Although I'm disappointed you seem to have settled on giving me a thumbs down verdict, I hope you can reconsider based on the evidence presented elsewhere in my response. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I was ever on a charm offensive, but I can see your point. Maybe it was Hmlarson in that discussion that suggested harassment, and if I was trying to be unusually polite in that discussion it was because she seemed to have lined me up as your enemy. I can't read Bbb23's mind but I'd guess that he wouldn't have bothered cutting off your talk page access if Hmlarson hadn't been so adversarial. But that's all, what, three years ago now? I should respond to the rest in another part of the thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• The reason I am here is that I was notified of this discussion because I had previously suggested removing a block on this editor to give her another chance. I am a great believer in giving blocked editors another chance. I have now checked all of her comments on talk pages and other discussion pages from 23 April. (In "comments" I do not include such edits as archiving her talk page, adding categories or WikipProject banners, and so on.) When she is not expressing disagreement with other editors there is no problem, but in every single edit in which she expresses disagreement with one or more other editors she does so in a belligerent and contemptuous manner, doing such things as throwing insults at them and accusing them of incompetence or bad faith. An indefinite block on this account was lifted on the basis that she had acknowledged her past faults and would avoid doing the same again. I checked her editing immediately after that unblock, to see whether she had at first done better and then slipped back, or whether she had never improved. For a long time she simply didn't make comments in discussions at all, but when she returned to doing so the very first talk page comment she made after the block contained a personal attack. Looking through the history of her many accounts (12 that I know of; there may be more) I see that she has repeatedly been blocked and then claimed that she will not do the same again. As far back as December 2013 an editor wrote in an ANI discussion "This user is incapable of civil behaviour", and her actions since then have done nothing but confirm that impression. Over the course of more than five years there have been I don't know how many blocks on her various accounts, there have been ANI reports on her, discussions of her editing on talk pages of different accounts, and assurances from her that she now understands what was wrong with what she was doing, and she won't do it again. If she were at all likely to improve then she would have done so by now. Ivanvector says she is "capable of listening to advice when it's given gently", but listening to advice and then not taking it is no use. I don't see the evidence of "ongoing harassment", but perhaps Ivanvector can link to it; I do, however, see an editor who interprets civilly-expressed disagreement with her as harassment or attacks, and responds with attacks. The last indefinite block was lifted following recommendations from Ivanvector and me that it be lifted. Ivanvector said then "it seems apparent you know what went wrong that led to your block", and at the time I agreed with that, but knowing what went wrong is no help if that knowledge does not lead to a change in her ways, and it hasn't. I supported an unblock "to give him or her another chance". Giving her that other chance has not succeeded, and the indefinite block should therefore be restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't disagree with anything JamesBWatson wrote here. "Belligerent and contemptuous" describes my previous interactions with the user as well, notwithstanding what I wrote above. I wasn't aware of accounts predating Sevcohaha, but if this has been going on for six years without any marked improvement except when they need to convince someone reviewing an unblock request, then it's time we stopped playing their game. I support restoring the indefinite block, and they're going to have to do something better than swear they won't do it again this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

When I created S.L. Benfica (women's football) and it was sent to AfD within 24 hours I promptly "expressed disagreement" at the AfD. Far from being belligerent and contemptuous I actually apologised for not adding more sources. I then collaborated with the AfD nominator SLBedit at the page itself and the talk page. I think it is developing into a nice little article and between us we have even added the club's players, taking assiduous care to only create the notable ones with national team caps. Despite my frequent criticism of the football notability rules in their current form (which some editors seems to take personally) I do respect them to the letter in my editing. I played a small part in SounderBruce's dramatic recent overhaul of the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup. You will see that points 1, 2 and 4 express disagreement with the article as it then stood. Bruce's response to me said he disagreed with putting some of my suggestions straight in the article without further sources. No problems. The PR ended and I got back to Bruce a short while later for another friendly interaction on his talk page: "I think x might be notable?" Response: "No I disagree, I don't think it is." Again all very standard, civilly expressed disagreement. I then politely asked an admin to restore Kim Sun-hui. They were unable to do as I asked so I thanked them for their time and went on my way.

Even at Graham Linehan where it was fairly heated before I got there, with all sorts of "bias" and "whitewashing" allegations flying about, I made a single WP:BOLD edit, based on WP:BLPSOURCES concerns. When that didn't fly, I followed WP:BRD and stuck to the talk page. I apologised and refactored a comment another editor disagreed with. I had better address more fully my ill-conceived activity at Graham Linehan: the article was what the Americans might call a "dumpster fire" with urgent WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK issues. So my extended RfC was a worthwhile exercise in that it did bring more eyes and some modest improvements. But a rough consensus of previously-uninvolved editors emerged against my position which I accepted and I stepped back, after rather churlishly returning fire at a user called Bastun. I had originally weighed in at the Graham Linehan article with genuine intentions but endured quite a bruising experience outside of my football comfort zone, due perhaps to naivety and an overestimation of my own ability to bring about the required changes. Frankly, I feel much, much worse about what happened there than what Marchjuly is trying to accuse me of here.

So, even if we delimit this investigation to comments from my rare "expressions of disagreement" with other editors (a rather circular argument in itself), "every single edit" is simply not true. I can point here to evidence of long-term harmonious, productive interaction and editing which makes your characterisation of me both inaccurate and unfair, JamesBWatson. Even if we accept that I have made serious personal attacks here (which I don't), the years between them and your previous examples mean they have been episodic in nature rather than chronic as you have tried to imply. I am not incorrigible. I am very far from the recidivist portrayed in your post. My last block ended over two years ago and was for WP:SOCK. I have not and will not SOCK ever again and my penance is this ludicrous username. My block for edit warring with a personal attack was, I think, more than three years ago now. Since the block I have never edit warred and will always now seek assistance when needed. When one of my creations was recently subject to IPs persistently adding various madey-up birthplaces, I requested page protection. Shortly afterwards I requested protection on another article which was getting v serious BLP violations. That request was turned down - wrongly in my view - which I took on the chin.

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Open tasks it's pretty quiet and there isn't much chat, but me and a few other hardy perennials keep things ticking over. We're a little busier at the moment and I'm getting plenty of notifications as I am the proud creator of articles for a decent chunk of all the players at the soccer World Cup which is currently happening in France. For a few years now I've been as active as anyone at WP:WOSO and I don't think I've ever been involved in any conflict there. I've contributed happily to WP:WIR edit-a-thons etc too. During one such edit-a-thon, WP:WIR promoted one of my article creations on Twitter with a small factual error in the accompanying blurb. I pointed out the error to them, which they immediately corrected. Again from what I remember the exchange was quite cordial, perfunctory rather than "belligerent and contemptuous". Perhaps you'll wish to exclude all this from your deliberations because it isn't narrowly focused on me disagreeing, er, disagreeably. I'll argue that it is relevant though, because this is what I spend 99.9% of my time on Wikipedia doing and why I am here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that any claims of harassment should be taken seriously and looked into per WP:AOHA, but doing so means that diffs need to be provided as examples of this type of behavior to make sure it's not just a case of WP:HA#NOT. It appears that this editor was using other accounts before Sevcohaha; in their April 2017 unblock request they mentioned two specifically by name (Clavdia Chauchat and Målfarlig!), and stated they would declare all of their previous user names on their user page if their account was unblocked. They never got around to doing that and maybe there's no point in doing so now, but a listing of all of the accounts and perhaps and explanation as to why (at least as best as can be remembered) they were created might be helpful in figuring out if they were really harassed. I posted here because of my concerns about the three comments I referenced in my OP. I don't see this editor being harassed by anything posted in any of those three particular discussions; they weren't even mentioned by name prior to their posts. Rather, I see the posts as an attempt to try and insert personal comments about others the editor might have previously had disagreements with over various things Wikipedia; an attempt to use the discussions for per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SOAP and WP:RGW reasons. They appear to have been more upset by who was posting comments than what was actually being discussed, which is probably why their comments focused more on specific editors and their perceived flaws than actual content. It was a chance to take a cheap shot at another editor they might not really like; so, they took it. Maybe they hoped the other editors would lose their cool and do something that would get them in trouble; maybe they figured their last unblock combined with all of their positive contributions over the years would outweigh any behavior issues. You can't really tell someone they aren't truly being harassed if they feel they are, but specific examples are going to be needed so that the community can make a proper assessment. Personally, I don't think trying to use WP:BIAS as a de-facto justification for continuously attacking others or casting aspersions is a good approach to have been following, and, as pointed out by Ivanvector, it would've been much better instead to get administrators involved at a much earlier stage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

But you have a marvellous gift for sifting other users' edit histories, Marchjuly. I'm sure if you clicked on the 2014 link supplied by N57 above you could harvest some striking examples of the flak aimed in my direction. Flak which puts anything under consideration here firmly in the shade. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add one more diff for reference because I think it further illustrates what JamesBWatson mentions above about how this editor responds when they agree with someone and how they respond when they feel someone is in their way or otherwise preventing them from doing something they want to do. Swarm's response here to a WP:RFP/A request made by this editor doesn't seem to be rude or harassing in any way, and even seemed to include a request for further clarification. However, when the editor posted here on another editor's user talk page a little over a month later, they seemed to feel the need to label Swarm as a jobsworth (just reading the first sentence of the "jobsworth" article should be enough to understand why refering to a Wikipedia administator in such a way is probably not a good idea); not specifically mentioning Swarm by name seems irrelevant here because it wouldn't take much to figure which editor was being discussed. Anyway, I have no idea whether either Swarm or this editor remembered their earlier interaction regarding the Målfarlig! account and it affected their response, but this editor could've posted something on Swarm's user talk further explaining why they wanted to be "autopatrolled", even after the request had been formally denied here. Instead, this editor somehow felt entitled to take a cheap shot at Swarm on some other editor's user talk page, even though the response to the "jobsworth" comment given here actually seems to agree with what Swarm posted at RFP/A. This is similar to what was done in the three diffs I referenced in my OP in that the a personal comment about another editor was added when pretty much the same thing could've easily be stated without posting anything good or bad about anyone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? Even by the standards of the first three examples of so-called personal attacks this is getting pettier and pettier. Speaking charitably, it is now into the realms of the surreal. I gather that as the "accused" I am expected to take on a wholly supplicant role at ANI, but I will stand by my use of Jobsworth and offer you a detailed explanation as to why. In the UK, the term Jobsworth can be used humorously. Sure, it is informal but not necessarily derogatory, much less abusive. The background was that Swarm tried to set me a bizarre 'homework' task, expecting, I think, the written regurgitation of some basic Wikipedia policies. This homework assignment was set in the middle of the night where I live and when I hadn't responded less than 72 hours later my RFP/A application was summarily booted out. Is this normal? Had I been the sort of editor given to making personal attacks I suspect I would have furnished Swarm with one there and then. In Swarm's defence I suppose there's nothing stopping anyone taking it upon themselves to make up arbitrary additional criteria on this sort of random, ad hoc basis. Equally applicants would be under no obligation to indulge any additional criteria they diagnosed as pointless and/or demeaning. Clearly in my case it was superfluous - and so it proved when I was rubber-stamped at RFP/A shortly afterwards without any such fuss. I didn't remember any previous interactions with Swarm and I sincerely doubt they connected me to my previous incarnations. I doubt anyone would connect my Jobsworth remark to Swarm either, unless they were interested in conducting a detailed 'audit' of my edits like you seem to be here. Would Swarm have felt attacked by my exasperated Jobsworth outburst - which didn't even mention them - had they seen it? Would they have cared? Even a teeny bit? I can't speak for them but I have my doubts - I certainly wouldn't have done. In terms of potential for disruption to the wider Wikipedia community it wasn't exactly seismic.

Perhaps given the chance again Swarm and I would have both done things differently. Once I'd realised Swarm was apparently serious about wanting the homework I remember shaking my head and chuckling to myself at the impertinence. But other editors who lacked my patience, empathy and good sense of humour may have been turned off. The ensuing month or so taken up needlessly 'patrolling' my article creations could have been put to better use, easing the large backlog of new articles which actually needed to be patrolled. Maybe this very minor kerfuffle being cast up again six months later will give us both an opportunity to learn and grow? Although I rather suspect both of us had quickly forgotten all about it and had already moved on. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived, to give chance for BBDZ to respond. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 09:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Bring back Daz Sampson: do you wish to comment? GiantSnowman 17:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Your OP did not give a neutral outline of our dispute, Marchjuly, which I have tried to rectify. You have also rounded up admins involved in my previous problems and carefully selected others. So much so that I fear that you are sailing very close to the wind in terms of WP:CANVASS and WP:ADMINSHOP. I acknowledge that you withdrew your last posting and agree it was crass. Albeit I don't think it was out of place alongside the rest. As I tend to edit quietly and eschew WP:DRAMA, I am obviously not fighting on my home turf here at ANI. You on the other hand appear to have an inordinate presence here, relative to your editing. Roughly how many of these reports would you say you have filed now? Are you a serial complainer? You certainly seem to know the buttons to press and the buzzwords to hit - throwing in a couple of decorative nods to balance always plays well with the admins. I would prefer to see some honesty. Notwithstanding your claims to want "not even an apology", there is fat chance that you breathlessly typed out these essays and dragged me here to bring about a mere finger wagging. I know well enough - given my problems a few years ago - that another block would be an effective site ban and there would be no way back this time. So while this may be sport for you the stakes are much higher for me. As ANI is definitely not my thing - despite editing consistently I haven't been here for over two years - I have been idly reading through some other postings. Trying to take the 'temperature' to assist me in writing my responses. It is startling to me just how high the bar is set here for actionable personal attacks. The case above mine was about someone saying 'asshole [...] cunts [...] wank pheasant' which seemed to me like pretty strong meat. Result: no action taken. Incredibly, we also appear to have users telling each other to 'fuck off' all over the place, not least at this noticeboard itself, which is somehow (!) tolerated. You have tried to pad out your complaint with some irrelevant material already dealt with years ago, but at its crux you are claiming a breach of WP:NPA. Despite me assisting your case by being a bit of a wank pheasant at Graham Linehan, you haven't come anywhere close to establishing that I have made any personal attacks severe enough to be dealt with here. Finally, the various impugned parties on whose behalf you have raised these matters (N57, GS, Swarm) could presumably have meted out warnings or blocks themselves had they felt it necessary. The reason they didn't is that the matters are trivial. And if they set their thresholds that low, they wouldn't have time for anything else besides blocking and then dealing with the fallout. Am I a perfect editor? No - but who is? I've shown in my response how seriously I take my responsibilities here. If you continue making notices like this, then next time (or the time after, or the time after) someone will eventually "join the dots" and realise that you are the common denominator in your frequent trips to this noticeboard. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If you believe a BOOMERANG is warranted, please provided diffs. If you believe I've been edit warring or making personal attacks, please provide diffs. If you believe I've been editing against/ignoring consensus, please provide diffs. I've asked you previously to provide diffs here and here in support of accusations you've made against me, but you never got around to it. Perhaps, you can do so now?

I notified people of this ANI because they were either specifically mentioned by name or had something to do with a previous block or unblock request. I'm not trying to pad out a complaint against by bringing up your past, but pointing out that you've been recently exhibiting the same behavior that led you to be blocked before. Your past editing history (regardless of how many accounts you may have used or how many times you might have been blocked/unblocked) is relevant because you gave assurance that you would not repeat the mistakes you made before. One of our first interactions apparently was about User talk:SevcoFraudsters#File:Sheffield FC.svg where you decided edit warring and personal attacks would be acceptable substitutes to discussion, and from what I and others have posted above, you seem to be reverting to (at least) the personal attacks approach once again.

As for UUI#17, your narrative seems to be that (1) I created UUI#17 (not true), (2) I'm the only editor nominating or who has nominated files for discussion at NFCR/FFD for this reason (not true), (3) I'm going against whatever consensus was reached at NFCR/FFD and continue to remove files from articles just because I don't like the consensus (once again not true). I can provide diffs showing that (1), (2) and (3) are indeed untrue if needed. You make specific reference to files being used in the Bhutan and Haiti national team articles as examples of me exhibiting this type of behavior. Can you please provide diffs showing the consensus that was established about these files and me removing them contrary to this consensus? FWIW, I wasn't even a participant in the Bhutan file's discussion, and I wasn't the only participate in the Haiti discussion who !voted that the file should be removed from the team articles. Again, I can provide diffs showing these things. Regardless, both discussions were closed by administrators (just like the Sheffield FC one referenced above) who then removed the files from various articles and removed invalid non-free use rationales from the files' pages. There are many more NFCR/FFD discussion where a file has been removed for UUI#17 reasons: not all of them were related to sport team logos, and not all of them were discussions that I even participated in. The closes for these various discussions were made by different administrators and were pretty consistent in that this type of non-free use was considered not to comply with relevant policy. I'm not telling these administrators how to close these discussions or what the consensus should be; they are making that decision on their own. FFD is like any other XFD discussion is that an administrator closes based upon whether they believe a consensus was established; so, if you disagree with their close, you can discuss things with them as explained in CLOSECHALLENGE. If I subsequently removed the Haiti and Bhutan files from team articles or any other file from a team article, it was done based upon the closes of one of these discussions. If a new consensus is established overturning these closes, then the files and corresponding non-free use rationales will be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• So are we looking at a dispute over non-free content criteria then, with some spillover? That should be fairly easy to work through, WP:NFCC is not open to debate in most cases. But is WP:NFCC#UUI #17 the right recommendation from those lists? By my thinking, a women's affiliate to a men's football club is not (necessarily) a "child entity" that "lacks its own branding". It's an affiliate, which uses the same branding as the affiliated club (unless they have their own logo). It's not like the ladies are running around the field in plain white tees - they're clearly identified by the logo they use. So WP:NFCI #2 should apply.

But! These matters are decided by discussion, and if you have a lot of editors saying UUI#17 and none saying NFCI#2, then admins' hands are tied. No amount of questioning editors' "feminist credentials" is going to do much to change that. And Marchjuly is correct that the way to object to that sort of deletion is to take it up with the closer, c.f. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Or start a discussion to clarify NFCC between UUI#17 and NFCI#2 for this particular circumstance, to hopefully head off problems in the future. But much smarter people than me drafted that policy (with its legal considerations) so I'm just going to watch for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

This issue was previously raised at ANI here on 10 May 2019 but it was archived with no action taken.

Since that discussion, further editors have raised issues with page moves, including @MYS77: here. Ortizesp said he would start using RM here, but he hasn't, and MYS77 had to raise the issue again with him here. Today I have had to revert another undiscussed page move involving the Rubén García Rey article.

Based on the above, given the number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted his page moves, and given the number of broken promises to stop, it is clear that Ortizesp lacks the competence to make page moves. As such, we need an indefinite topic ban from making any undiscussed page moves, and he can only nominate using WP:RM. GiantSnowman 07:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban: Ortizesp is not reaching any compromise when it comes to moving pages, and has not kept his promise of using RMs to raise opinions over the page moves. MYS77 ^✉ 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN with v. minor exception - repeated issues despite agreement otherwise seems to warrant a TBAN. I've spotted a few things in your edits that look like they will turn either into AfC drafts or articles. If this generates any 1-off redirects that should be fine, but otherwise it needs to cover all pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, an exception of moving from user space into mainsapce is fine. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply disagree that moving Rubén García Rey needed nomination from WP:RM. Rubén García Rey is simply not his common name, and all external links and references state that. Most of my moves follow this logic, and i believe are valid. Obviously you and MYS77 disagree with my moves, but they are generally uncontroversial. I haven't used WP:RM because I'm leaving those pages for later, for actual controversial moves. In case you guys haven't learnt, it is recommended to be bold - and not the other way around.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As @SMcCandlish: said at the last ANI, "Hint: If people are controverting your moves, then they are controversial". The fact you still cannot see that is very concerning, and raises WP:CIR issues. GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• This runs the risk of going stale and being archived again, despite a clear problem. Can somebody please comment/close with implementation of the topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 09:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I've tagged this thread with a DNAU so it won't be archived until 18 June. Blackmane (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Blackmane: amazing, thanks! GiantSnowman 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Request an immediate indefinite IBAN of Hijiri 88

I would like to get some help from the community and or administrators to get an IBAN in place for Hijiri 88. Hijiri has been following me, and harassing me, accusing me of copyright violations and now accuses me of racism. I do not follow this editor to harass - or stalk the editor’s articles and to vote against the editor's positions. I follow the editor only to defend myself. I do not revert the editors edits. I do not speak to the editor in my afd ivotes or comments, or in my edit summaries. This is a big encyclopedia - yet this editor cannot seem to resist following me, and stepping on my work here and now is casting WP:ASPERSIONS by calling me a racist to other users. Last week I asked for a block or IBAN. Then Hijiri 88 said they were going offline and made some ridiculous comments about me on their talk page about me being a stalker (this is also WP:ASPERSIONS). The ANI I opened was closed with no result and after just two days Hijiri 88 came emboldened to immediately follow my edits and make claims about me being a racist. I want to apply for an immediate IBAN.

If I were able to deal with the editor Hijiri's bullying and unfounded accusations alone I would not bring it here to the community. As I pointed out in the last ANI I filed- Hijiri has a long history of this behavior.

Here are Hijiri 88’s follows of me for just one day June 3.

• Following me
• Following me
• Following me and speaking to me in edits
• Following me
• Following me

Here Hijiri is now claiming I am a racist WP:ASPERSIONS for my WWII reference on my user page which has zero to do with Hijiri. I am a former history teacher and I have made no mention of this editor. Accusing me of racism on another user's talk page And accusing me of racism on Hijiri's own talk page

I will need to apply for an IBAN until I get some relief from this editor's WP:FOLLOWING, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:HARASSMENT.

• Support as proposer" Lubbad85 (☎) 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I fail to see how you are being "racist" by remembering the attack on Pearl Harbour, which was a sneak (unexpected)attack that came to the surprise of pretty much every nation at that time. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Oops I misread that. Better rescind this comment as I clearly have no idea what this is about. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 Petitioning a voter directly to change their vote doesn't seem right. Lubbad85 (☎) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Just gonna note that Lubbad has apparently been going around distributing barnstars to pretty much everyone involved in this and the previous ANI thread. I'm not going to publicly speculate on exactly what the motive for issuing mass thank-yous to everyone, regardless of how minimal their involvement in the thread has been, or which "side" they are on, except to say that it's pretty weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I say this as someone who's never interacted with either editor. I see Hijiri returning from Wikibreak and jumping into 4 more AfDs Lubbad85 participated in. Oldest / Longest / Kelly / Resistance with the opposite vote each time. There are many articles for deletion, why must Hijiri follow Lubbad85? starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Iridescent, Boing! said Zebedee, and Toa Nidhiki05: - what about these incidents? If Hijiri88 had a problem with Lubbad85, they could have attempted something like ANI. But here we have quite clear following. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

they could have attempted something like ANI I did. Lubbad was told to stop harassing me like he had been doing. He made a single bad-faith feint at "friendship" on my talk page before going right back to harassing me. He then opened an ANI thread and should have been hit with a boomerang for his harassment and personal attacks against me and other editors, but these were ignored because the copyvio (which was already at CCI and so, IMO, didn't need an ANI discussion) was taken as being more serious. After the ANI thread was closed and archived, he immediately went straight back to harassment and personal attacks (not just at me but also at other editors at the AFDs you link to -- at the 6.3 one he took a needless shot at Banner who had already withdrawn their nomination, and at the Gould one he repeatedly made bad-faith canvassing accusations and insinuated that Bearcat was a serial deletionist who was misrepresenting policy). There were already two ANI threads that failed to deal with this issue because of Lubbad's WP:IDHT attitude toward the advice of others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - so you took them to ANI on 16 May, but you still followed them on 3 June after you returned from Wikibreak. I don't see 6.3 as a shot at Banner, and even so, 5 others, including you, also commented later, 4 saying keep. Indeed, he shouldn't have commented on Bearcat at the Kelly AfD. So they may have had problematic responses in 1/4 AfDs in my view. Still, you followed them to all 4. starship.paint (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

At the "twins" and "marriages" AFDs Lubbad (and the other "keep" !votes) are arguing for the preservation of pretty blatant OR and SYNTH, and at Gould Lubbad not only argued that his insertion of trivia about how she was uncomfortable cursing on film when she was seven-ish made the article not just a list of films she was in, but said she wasn't "faking her notability", which is either speculating about the subject and her involvement in Wikipedia in a manner that arguably violates BLP, or is accusing the delete !votes of doing the same. I have no intention of arguing with you that I am in the right on the 6.3 article; that's for the AFD closer to decide, and I frankly don't care all that much one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I was party to that first ANI (where I agreed what they had said was a PA) and it did not say "stop harassing" anyone. The close was "stop bringing these petty disputes here" (And as you were the filer it was aimed at you).Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The close, as clearly indicated by the diff above, was "Stop doing that", which was directed at Lubbad, in reference to the blatant personal attack; it probably could have gone further and explicitly said something like "stop baiting Hijiri, and definitely don't stick a bunch of random jabs against the country he chooses to call home on your user page". Yeah, the demand that I no longer bring to ANI harassment and personal attacks like the one Lubbad made in mid-May, and like the ones he's been making in the past few days, did discourage me from opening more ANI threads about, for instance, the bizarre Pearl Harbor references; but it doesn't discount the fact that Lubbad was told to stop harassing me and he did not. Anyway, in the past year I think I've filed a total of three ANI reports on issues involving me (not including random trolls/socks/whatever I noticed and thought ANI was the best way to handle it) so one editor's opinion that I repeatedly bring every little "petty" dispute to ANI is just simply wrong on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The close said not to bring such trivialities to ANI,and for Lubbad85 to make no more comments of that kinds, it says nothing about harassment. Now maybe he has been warned not to harass you elsewhere, but not in that ANI. It says nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I responded to the first, inaccurate, draft of the above on your talk page, before noticing that you'd posted a more accurate accounting here. The above is basically a fair recounting, but it fails to take into account that the opinion that I have been bringing "every tiny little thing" to ANI simply is not backed up by the facts -- heck, it was noted further up by another user arguing against me that I should have used ANI to report the harassment, but frankly I've lost a lot of faith in ANI doing its job, and so have been just "bearing the cross" whenever something like this happens, and waiting for someone to notice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No it does not, as the point you made was it was telling someone not to harass you, which it does not (thus I take into account all relevant information, and just point out it was not quite as one sided as you imply). Maybe if you had reported them for harassment you might have got the response you did, rather then for PA's (when you did get the response you wanted, they were told not to do it). Indeed I find it odd that having raised a minor issue at ANI (and got the result you should have wanted) you claim there is no poi t in reporting a more serious matter. It is clear form this thread that you would have in fact got what you wanted, you just did not bother.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone reviewing this, have a good read of this thread before going any further. There's considerably more to this than meets the eye; as far as I can see, Hijiri88 spotted Lubbad85 engaging in cut-and-paste plagiarism, called them out on it, and Lubbad85 has spent the subsequent two weeks trying to needle Hijiri88. ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban for Lubbad85. The copyright violations and the harassment against the editor who remove his violations(making false ANI reports) is enough to get him indeff banned. I don't this editor have made any good faith edits, all are copyright violations. I am not involved in this but I have seen enough of harassment against Hijiri and I think admins should step up and stop this nonsense.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Excuse me? I said nothing of the kind; what's this per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban nonsense coming from? We don't indef people for being annoying, much as I'd love it if we could; I concur with those below in pleading with you to stop commenting on processes you don't understand as your attitude at ANI is just aggravating editors who are already upset. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Iridescent—I'm pretty sure SharabSalam meant they "oppose per Iridescent", not "support an indef per Iridescent". It's pretty common for people to misuse commas like this, and now we see why punctuation matters. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• And the diffs links aka "following me" drama, are laughable. ADF discussions. XDDDDDDDDDDDDD. "Following me and speaking to me in edits" wow that's awful, speaking to you in edits??!! How awful-- SharabSalam (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose after reading this thread, and suggest there might be bendy wooden things flying soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Just a reminder to all participants here that Arbcom has authorized escalating blocks for editors violating the ban on coy circumlocutions for boomerangs. EEng 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: what are we supposed to infer from the thread you link? It's old, in any case, dating to before the previous ANI report, which was closed without action. I'm not sure how it's relevant to this case. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Mainly that we've seen a very poor attitude from Lubbad85 towards Hijir88, that Lubbad85 responds poorly to civil critique of genuine (and serious) problems, and essentially that there's more backstory here than Lubbad85 is telling us. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: My previous request for help at ANI was closed - and one of the reasons was because Hijiri88 claimed to taking a wikibreak and that was mentioned by the closing administrator as a reason to not go farther with the case. Regarding my own editing here on WP, there is no plagiarism... some accidental paraphrasing which has already been fixed. Hijiri88 has accused many editors of copyright violations as I pointed out in the last ANI - it is a useful weapon. None of this gives Hijiri88 the right to call me a racist. My request is for the community or administrators to see that this editor harasses me and then cries victim. In ANI last week Hijiri88 followed and reverted user eggroll97 after a vote in support of my request, and now Hijiri88 has petitioned user kingerikthesecond to change their vote. I am asking the community for protection. Calling me a racist without proof should be reason enough to enforce an IBAN. An IBAN does nothing to hurt the community or Wikipedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No need to bring me into this again. I already removed myself from this discussion as I misunderstood it entirely. My points are null; I am not in favour of a punishment towards you or Hijiri. I am going to sit on the fence again. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, and this should WP:BOOMERANG back at Lubbad85. This is verging on harassment of Hijiri88 at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 17:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose—having read through this and the last one, and the discussion Iridescent links to, it's clear that this is just harassment. I don't know if Lubbad85 should be blocked or banned or anything, but there should be some sort of restriction on them bringing this back up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• A 2 way IBAN will not hurt anybody. No harm comes to Wikipedia from a two way IBAN. For my part I do not edit where Hijiri88 edits and I do not interact with the editor in any way. Regarding Hijiri88's claims that I am a copyright violator. The accusation was made by Hijiri88, and now it has stuck to me like glue. Editors have gone through all of my started articles and major contributions - as any other editor is welcome to do. The WP:following behavior started long before Hijiri88's claims of copyright violations. The WP:following by Hijiri88 began when I started helping the Article rescue Squad. As I pointed out in my only other request for help on this forum: Hijiri88 began following me and calling me out in comments, and edits and edit summaries, as soon as I began working with ARS. I ignored the editor until finally Hijiri88 was tendentious on a deletion review - I responded to the editor on the deletion review. Then Hijiri88 came to my talk page to extend their comments, and at that point (on my own talk page) I told Hijiri88 to "get out of the basement and take a walk". These were my first ever words to Hijiri88 after ignoring the editors tendentious editing, commenting and following. Hijiri88 took me to ANI for the comments on my talk page, and the item was speedy closed. Hijiri88 has had issues with other users on Article Rescue Squad. Most recently ARS contributor Dream Focus was granted an IBAN with this editor for the same reasons that I am asking for an IBAN: Hijiri88 accused Dream Focus of Copyvio and harassed and followed Dream focus. I became a target of Hijiri88 at the point that I started on Article Rescue Squad. In conclusion, like all of you here, I do not want to be harassed or to be accused of racism. I do not want to spend my time in here when I could be editing. I do not want to waste time on negativity. I want Hijiri88 to leave me alone, and for my part I will leave Hijiri88 alone. If a two way IBAN can accomplish this, I am all for it. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2-way IBAN. It is clear these two editors don't get along, and are intent on needling each other - I think there's a strong case that both have not acted well since the last ANI. Hijiri does seem to have followed Lubbad to the specific AfDs mentioned, given that all !votes were after Lubbad's and Hijiri did not visit any other AfDs on the day in question. But then again, the comment about Pearl Harbour on Lubbad's homepage seems to have been reasonably clearly targeted at Hijiri. These two just need to keep out of each other's way.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 way IBAN This has been going on for almost a month now, with one or the other filing ANI's. In all fairness whilst (as far as I know) the initial attack was aimed at Hijiri88 it's also clear they have no backed of either. No harm can come from a 2 way (if wither user genuinely is not going to poke the other), and achieved the aim (I would hope) of ramping down the drama.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The evidence presented clearly shows that Lubbad is disruptive in more ways than one, and they need to be monitored and coached at best, indeffed at worst. Hijiri's clearly acting in the best interest of the project here, and I'd be inclined to block unilaterally next time this user claims they're being harassed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you for your kind words regarding Hijiri's clearly acting in the best interest of the project here (and sorry to take an "is" 's and make it a possessive 's). But I feel the need to point out that Lubbad's been told all the above before (the thread linked by Iridiscent above shows me politely advising Lubbad that he was on his way to a block, which he later chose to interpret as a threat). WP:IDHT is perhaps the single biggest problem here, which is why I've proposed below that he be issued with a formal final warning that he can't wriggle out of like the last two times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Yes this is the best way to nip the problem at the bud due to issues with both users' editing.Eliteplus (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

[31] ...is it weird that I'm a little creeped out by this string of new editors suddenly showing up to ANI specifically to propose sanctions against me? (Yeah, I know the above account has existed for two years, but the above is its fourth edit outside the mainspace, and its first to the Wikipedia space. There were also those two that showed up last week, one of whom also showed up here again today.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose (any action against Hijiri 88, since it has now become unclear what people are supporting in this section.) No credible evidence is offered of any unacceptable behaviour by Hijiri 88, and quite a lot of evidence of firm, but patient interaction. Marginal hypersensitivity perhaps, but not hounding nor accusing another editor of racism.Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way IBAN against Hijiri because it misses the mark, and also oppose 2-way IBAN because neither editor really wants that, and because both editors have expressed a desire to avoid the other in the future. So that's basically a voluntary 2-way IBAN anyway, and I think we should WP:AGF and give it a shot. Let's see if they voluntarily avoid each other going forward. If not, then we can look at a formal IBAN (one way or two way depending on the evidence, but depending on the evidence from this point forward). – Levivich 01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I assumed this was a two way IBAN, I suspect others have as well.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: One-Way IBAN

Something needs to be done, and it is User:Lubbad85 who is causing the disruption.

I propose, as the first, and what I recommend, alternative, which is a one-way interaction ban without the usual exceptions, so that User:Lubbad85 is absolutely banned from interacting or commenting on User:Hijiri88. This will allow Lubbad85 to continue editing as long as they stay clear of Hijiri88 and recognize that Hijiri88 and other editors take copyright seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• I do not communicate with Hijiri88. Not in my edits, not in edit summaries, not on afds, not on any talk pages, I do not talk with other users about Hijiri88. So a one way ban against me seems like an inappropriate application of IBAN. It is me who asks for an IBAN because the user speaks to me in all of those ways, and now accuses me of racism to others and in public. I do not have a long history here on WP, however my history does not show me to be an editor who requires IBAN - not in this case, nor any other. I ask the administrators to close these two additional proposals and respond to my proposal regarding protection from Hijiri88's racism accusations Lubbad85 (☎) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) IBANS include opening ANI threads, and frankly we're all sick of the endless threads on Hijiri you keep starting. It also probably isn't the wisest idea to try to shut down proposals on a boomerang, but there's no explicit rule against it, so just know that ANI is a two-way street- you opening this thread opens you wide to criticism of your own behavior as well as Hijiri's. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support after all of this, it is now obvious that something should be done to stop Lubbad85 from doing what they are doing. They wasted Hijiri88 time and our time.--SharabSalam (talk)
• Support Per SharabSalam. This needs to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN; as worded, Lubbad85 wouldn't be able to respond if Hijiri88 were to request a WP:CCI, or nominate an article on which they've worked for deletion. I would have absolutely no issue with a broad "any more shit from you and you're no longer welcome" formal final warning; Assuming good faith is a fine policy, but it doesn't mean the rest of us should be expected to clean up messes indefinitely once it's been explained that something isn't acceptable. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't want my name to be mentioned on WP:RESTRICT. I have historically had one-way IBANs with two other editors -- one of them ended with a third party repeatedly claiming it was a two-way IBAN, and reading the singular "they" in the ban's wording as meaning an unrelated TBAN also applied to me, and me having to request the ban be lifted for that reason; the other ended with the banned party complaining how unfair the one-way IBAN was and it being upgraded to a two-way IBAN for basically no other reason. Also, IBANning Lubbad would not actually solve the problem (not just copyright, but also the habitual personal attacks and harassment of anyone who disagrees with him -- see what he's been doing to Bearcat on the Gould AFD), and would only make it easier for him to claim I'm "poking the bear" and making unfair actions to which he can't respond by not withdrawing my CCI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN, as per Iridescent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way IBAN against Lubbad for the same reason as I oppose the proposals above–a one-way IBAN misses the mark here, and since both editors have expressed a desire to avoid the other, we should see if that works before burdening the community with imposing a formal sanction. – Levivich 01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: BAN

If you don't like that, the alternative is a boomerang ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this was already suggest in here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding.. There was a consensus to actually sanction Lubbad85 for copyvio and boomerang. It was a mistake that the discussion was closed because Hijiri took a break. If the discussion continued there, Lubbad85 would have been sanctioned already.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support indeff block per WP:DCV for copyright violations, the editor was warned about copyvio and he constantly reported Hijir who removed his copyvios claiming that Hijiri is harassing him see user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds. this was already suggest in here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding.. There was a consensus to actually sanction Lubbad85 for copyvio and boomerang. It was a mistake that the discussion was closed because Hijiri took a break. If the discussion continued there, Lubbad85 would have been sanctioned already.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Some type of action should probably be taken. Not sure if it should be an indef ban or just a limited amount of time but this user is harassing people and making serious breaches of policy on Wiki pages. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose None specific sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, assuming that, per the definition at WP:SBAN, Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban, and that a site ban is essentially indistinguishable from a community indef. As I said at last week's ANI thread, I would have supported a final warning that any more copyvio or revenge harassment would result in an indef block. This really should be the last straw. I would also not be opposed to this thread ending in a final warning (not a slap on the wrist like last time but "you're going to be blocked for a long time on your next infraction"), similar to Iridescent's "any more shit" comment above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this is getting beyond a joke. Lubbad85 clearly is a disruptive influence on the project, as I said in the previous thread copyvio is a very serious matter and continually bringing Hijiri88 here for having the temerity to call them out on it only doubles down on the probllem and exacerbates it. Site ban Lubbad85 ASAP, please. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as someone described it below, this vague, hand-waivy, "something something off with his head" ban. A site ban is way over the top. Begoon's advice below is excellent. Clear warnings identifying the problematic behavior, issued by an uninvolved experienced editor or admin, followed by closure of this whole thread, would probably be most helpful IMO. – Levivich 03:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't think either editor has conformed themselves to a high standard since the last ANI was closed, and I would support some sort of block for both of them, but, CCI report aside as that's serous and justified, I think the project would be better off at this point if the two editors involved can just agree to stop antagonising each other and wasting our time here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, because it's not clear what sort of ban individual people are supporting here and there's a general feel of "I support something but I don't know what". It was clarified below by the proposer, but obfuscated again by the "But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction..." addition. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Editor gets caught violating CCI by second editor and files a retaliatory ANI report full of bunkum as revenge." That pretty well sums up the previous ANI thread, and if things ended there, warnings and "let's do better" closures would be fine. But Lubbad85 has a stick, won't drop it, and is trying to use ANI to bash Hijiri for expecting Lubbad85 to adhere to really basic and significant rules of editing. I don't see how a boomerang isn't justified. Grandpallama (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  You don't see how a community site ban isn't justified for an editor who has never been (as far as I can tell) blocked, sanctioned, or even formally warned? Let me give you one potential reason why that's not justified: because we should try something less than the ultimate sanction as a first step. – Levivich 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I see how someone who has been on Wikipedia for barely seven months is quick to lecture others and discuss the community as if he were a longstanding part of it. I also see how a problematic editor here has engaged in copyright infringement, reacted largely in a very poor manner to being caught, and has repeatedly tried to get the person who caught him "in trouble" by filing numerous reports, which is fundamental bad faith and a serious misuse of these boards that goes beyond the initial CCI issue. Grandpallama (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Those might be reasons to issue a warning, or an IBAN, or maybe a TBAN, but a site ban, for someone who's never been sanctioned or even formally warned before, is way over the top. – Levivich 18:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nothing over the top for someone who violates copyright. Grandpallama (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the proposal based solely on the interaction between the two. Now there may be other reasons for banning Lubbad (e.g. I am seeing comments in this section alleging any or all of WP:CCI, WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE on their part; but those are topics to be tackled elsewhere, and I am not commenting on them here). But on the interaction itself, IMHO I see two parties who don't get along and seem intent on trying to wind each other up through oblique references on user talk pages and other prickly comments. But not to the point of warranting punitive action. That's why I recommend an IBAN which would ensure they can both continue to contribute without reference to the other, and be quickly blocked if one or other does infringe again.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but I'd say the ban should not be indefinite. Maybe six months instead? Rockstonetalk to me! 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Something has to be done, and a one-way interaction ban with the usual exceptions isn't strong enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have never been in trouble on Wikipedia, and I came here because there was not a resolution last week. My perception was that I still had a problem with the other editor following me. The issue I brought to this ANI is an issue between two editors. I came to ANI because it was the only available process, as I knew it. I did not intend to offend anyone here on ANI. I love to contribute to Wikipedia and I only want to be left to do that in peace. I have a long productive history on Wikipedia. This experience however, has been mind numbing and stomach turning for me. Reading through this ANI board, it seems many complaints often wind up with no consensus and a frustrated administrator who has to weed through the threads.

Here are some guarantees regarding my own behavior which I can make going forward:

1. I will not perpetuate the problems or the controversies submitted on this ANI.
2. I will treat ANI regarding the other editor as off limits, My only request is that I am not followed by the other editor.
3. I will not respond to the other editor and I will not interact with the other editor.
4. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were copyright violations in the past: it will not happen in the future.

In conclusion, the goal of ANI should be to solve a problem (and it has for my part). If discipline should be required it should be progressive and corrective, not punitive and destructive. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia together and we should ask how a resolution on ANI will contribute to that mission. I hope to work with you all in the future under better circumstances.

I am interested in fixing the problem, not fixing the blame. To that end: A dual IBAN is acceptable to me because it likely fixes the problem between me and the other editor. I sincerely apologize to all concerned, including Hijirii88. 02:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Lubbad85 (☎)

User:Lubbad85, re: "My only request is that I am not followed by the other editor", that's unworkable as a condition unless a 2-way ban is imposed - which has already been rejected, quite rightly IMO. You have to understand that another editor editing on the same page as you, even apparently 'following' you, in not inherently WP:HOUNDING. The essence of hounding is that it is done largely for the purpose on annoying, not simply that it does annoy. How do we assess intent? Subjectively, whether we think the editor had some legitimate reason to question edits, or was just 'needling' for its own sake. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - definitely, the wrongdoing as presented here isn't at a level to warrant an immediate site ban, the harshest punishment out there. In this case, escalation is warranted. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In no way is this merited. Would the person who proposed this please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian and unnecessary, a discretionary indef and the subsequent appeal process should be allowed to work like normal, jumping straight to a proposed CBAN is out of process. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3:One-Way IBAN with Usual Exceptions

Something has to be done. I think a one-way interaction ban with the usual exceptions may be gamed, but we need to do something. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This proposal is that User:Lubbad85 be banned from interacting with User:Hijiri88. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: - it's likely you're referring to Lubbad… you should explicitly say so. starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  My omission. Thank you for calling it to our attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing sufficient to warrant this has been provided or demonstrated. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – per Softlavender and my oppose !votes above–this is unnecessary at this time and we should see if a voluntary separation works first. – Levivich 01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Final warning for Lubbad

As I said above (and said at the previous ANI thread, and thought was implied by the thread before that) I'd support a formal final warning of the kind Lubbad's disruptive behaviour (which consists of violation of copyright on both text and images, bludgeoning AFD discussions, badgering editors who disagree with them, factual misrepresentation in noticeboard reports, posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past, generally behaving in an uncollegial manner, and refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters) has been noted by the community, and they are placed on notice that they may be blocked without further warning by any uninvolved admin should this behaviour continue. and so I might as well propose it at this juncture. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Iridescent, who said (no diff because the edit has been revdelled because someone posted something they shouldn't have before it, but it's the one time-stamped 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)) who said something similar (I would have absolutely no issue with a broad "any more shit from you and you're no longer welcome" formal final warning). I'm not sure if a broad "any more shit" would work, since I thought that was what he got three weeks ago from Floq, and it's definitely what he should have taken away from last week's ANI, so I think explicitly including a reference to his IDHT behaviour (refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters) would be a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: I'd support this if you voluntarily agree to stay away from them as part of the proposal. After your wikibreak, only !voting opposite the way Lubbad85 voted in, and only picking AfDs that Lubbad85 had previously voted in, didn't help any of this. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: If I haven't made my deep-seated desire to do just that clear over the past week, I haven't done my job right. :P

That being said, such an agreement would assume as its primary prerequisite that Lubbad now has more eyes on him, not just regarding the copyright issues but everything else (note that in the AFDs you refer to, Lubbad was engaged in the behaviour alluded to above, and I could have easily seen that because of the ARS posting; I !voted the opposite way to Lubbad because virtually everyone would have !voted the opposite way to Lubbad, not just to undermine him). The CCI also needs to remain open (even my critics seem to agree with me there), and if anyone wants to add more diffs (including ones from the permalink to my sandbox, which also includes ones that probably don't need to be added, hence why I never got around to doing it myself) they should feel welcome. Also, if anyone pings me back into the CCI for whatever reason, or Lubbad edits a page on my watchlist (or Lubbad has repeatedly edited a page linked to from a messageboard on my watchlist), and I notice the same pattern of behaviour being repeated with absolutely no change, I might message an uninvolved admin (not, I need to stress, edit the same pages as him just to intimidate him). Under those conditions I wouldn't be violating a voluntary agreement to stay away from him, anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm striking the above, since it was meant specifically to get the support of SportingFlyer, who never responded, but my posting the above appears to have confused two or three editors further down into thinking I had accepted a voluntary editing restriction at some indefinite point in the past, and that my "violating" said restriction in ... some manner meant that Lubbad was without fault, and (apparently?) opposed this proposal for that reason alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - I find this statement of yours extremely questionable: I !voted the opposite way to Lubbad because virtually everyone would have !voted the opposite way to Lubbad, not just to undermine him).

(1) If it really would be the case that virtually everyone would vote the opposite way, why is your vote needed? Here's the number of people weighing in before either of you: 7 at Longest, 6 at Oldest, 5 at Kelly, 6 at Resistance. It wasn't as if those AfDs were not receiving attention, you could have simply left them alone if virtually everyone would vote against Lubbad.

(2) It was actually not the case that virtually everyone would have voted the opposite way to Lubbad. Let's see how many editors essentially voted similarly to Lubbad. 4 at Longest, 2 at Oldest, 4 at Kelly, 7 at Resistance. If you're telling me virtually everyone would vote the opposite way, frankly, I expect 0 or 1 to vote Keep. This was never the case here.

As a result of your inaccurate statement, I have no confidence that you are able to interact with Lubbad properly. starship.paint (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Please stop haranguing me.

(1) I explicitly said I wouldn't !vote the opposite way to Lubbad if I noticed him !voting disruptively in multiple AFDs going forward, so repeatedly questioning me about my !votes in AFDs that have already been closed or are about to be closed anyway is irrelevant.

(2) The fact that some other disruptive editors who have themselves been called out multiple times for disruptive AFD !votes agreed with Lubbad in those cases is irrelevant. Your repeatedly emphasizing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6.3 Resistance movemnet when I have asked you before to just let it go is noted.

I have no confidence that you are able to interact with Lubbad properly Your personal opinion doesn't matter all that much to me. I don't want anything more to do with Lubbad (or you, for that matter) and have already stated multiple times, including immediately above, that I would be all to happy if he never darkened my doorstep again, so why are you badgering me about how you think I shouldn't be interacting with him?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the least disruptive, most drahamah-free solution. The "last warning" should apply to behaviour such as the "Pearl Harbour" stuff as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past was meant to specifically cover the "Pearl Harbour" stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - not until substantial evidence of every charge listed above is actually provided here (best to collate it in one post, this is a mess), and even so (if such evidence is provided), it should be a package deal with Hijiri88 agreeing to stay away from Lubbad unless there are copyright violations, because Hijiri88 is clearly not faultless in this matter starship.paint (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Vote will be updated below. starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Substantial evidence has been presented; you have ignored it because of some weird hangup you have about believing everything Lubbad says and ignoring everything everyone else says. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Collate it please, even as a reply to this very post, and I will check it out. starship.paint (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Okay...

• violation of copyright on both text and images Do I need to present more evidence of this? I guess the "images" thing hasn't been discussed much. As of January 27 (I was not the first person to raise this issue, by a long shot -- I was just apparently the first to notice that the multiple prior warnings were not working and the pattern was continuing) 11 out of 21 of the threads on his talk page were about orphaned non-free images and other image copyright problems.
• bludgeoning AFD discussions The Kelly Gould AFD should be enough, but see also Kelly Meighen. That's just the BLPs on women named "Kelly". There's also the Jean Mill AFD.
• badgering editors who disagree with them The above AFDs count, but see also the Kelly Meighen DRV and the previous ANI thread. There's also this string of bogus accusations and already-answered questions directed at an AFD closer.
• factual misrepresentation in noticeboard reports Virtually everything he wrote in the previous ANI thread was bogus. The choicest examples, including the claim that I was still subject to an IBAN that I had successfully appealed in January 2013, are highlighted here. (See also below, where he accuses me of "still needling him" and gives a diff that's a week old, accusing me of addressing him in the edit summary when I did nothing of the sort. 03:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC))
• posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past [32]
• generally behaving in an uncollegial manner This thread was linked to near the top of this discussion. It shows Lubbad, having been told off for an extremely offensive and unprovoked comment telling me to "get out of the basement", pretending to drop the stick and offer me friendship, me agreeing and offering him some friendly advice, him pretending to take the advice, and then him suddenly, two days later, showing back up and accusing me of not "assuming good faith" (when in fact that was exactly what I was doing -- compiling evidence for a CCI and specifically going out of my way to prevent him from being blocked because of the assumption that the copyvio was a good faith mistake) and then repeatedly escalating things without reason. Then there's encouraging a blatantly NOTHERE troll, apparently because of some "enemy of my enemy" nonsense. There's also the fact that, in response to me opening a CCI on him because of the undeniable copyright problem, he trawled through the last seven years of my edits to find all the most unpleasant experiences of my Wikipedia career, apparently just to make me feel miserable, deliberately misrepresented said experiences as me having been the "bad guy", and claimed I am currently still subject to two bans, one of which was appealed in March 2017 and the other in February 2013.[33][34]
• refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters See the above -- I offered him advice, he pretended to take it, and then turned around and repeated the exact same behaviour as before. Also the first ANI thread, where he was told not to do "that" anymore and apparently took a very narrow interpretation of what "that" was, and the previous ANI, where a bunch of editors told him a boomerang would be coming his way, and then he jumped right back here at the first chance he got. Also, his response immediately below indicates he still doesn't recognize any problematic behaviour on his own part, and this pretty flagrant IDHT regarding the copyright problem: I am not a copyright violator.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that if your interpretation of any of the above differs from my own, I'd be happy to hash it out and amend the proposed wording to accommodate you, or to get more evidence to convince you of anything you might be on the fence about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for striking. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support final warning only for copyvio. Support first warnings for badgering opponents, misrepresenting facts (even if unknowingly), possible offensive content on talk pages, needing to listen to other editors. Support reminders (assuming good faith) to not to bludgeon discussions and to edit collegially. I'd also advise both editors to steer clear of one another, though copyvio is an acceptable exception. starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, I'm curious, which diffs persuade you a final copyvio warning is needed? – Levivich 05:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: - [35] - showed multiple issues with copyright, whether images or articles. starship.paint (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Thanks for the quick answer. That diff is from January, though. This May 28 edit is the only recent example of copyvio I am aware of (source). In the last ANI thread, Diannaa said "Spot checks going back to May 10 reveal no new copyright issues." The WP:CCI#Lubbad85 investigation does not appear to have completed yet, and the reported diffs there are all from September 2018 – January 2019 except for that May 28 one. On the image side, the most-recent (May 23) orphaned fair-use image file is no longer orphaned. Before that are a couple images in April that seemed to have been worked out amicably with Marchjuly (see threads here). Lubbad has said above (on June 6) that "it will not happen in the future". Just the May 28 diff alone may merit a warning, but I was wondering if you had seen something else recent. – Levivich 06:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: - thanks for informing me. Your earlier question actually prompted me to ask Hijiri88 for a more recent diff, and the same diff you provided (which I hadn't seen at the time) was also provided to me by Hijiri88. No, I haven't seen anything else recently, but the earlier behaviour is still concerning. starship.paint (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I thank Levivich for looking into my recent editing to show that most of my deficiencies have been corrected. Growing as a Wikipedian is my goal! And I want to thank Starship Paint for being thoughtful about my future on the project. I have never been called out as bludgeoning or many of the things listed by the other editor. If reasonable minds think I have been bludgeoning I certainly need to listen to that and will stop. In regard to my discussion on the Jean Mill afd.. that should be called out as straight up ignorance. lol. (regarding the copyvio allegations in the past - a CCI was filed by the other editor so I will be awaiting that). Thanks. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The other editor is still needling me as of today. I started an article called - Jean Mill - and today 6/6/19 while this ANI is still open, Hijiri edited the article and spoke to me in the edit summary While we were in the other ANI - Hijiri reverted one of my edits and spoke to me in the summary as well. Perhaps the other editor enjoys poking me, but I do not enjoy this. As to the editor's list of grievances presented here..it is fiction. Really I have no energy to defend against all of these accusations - but they are quite hurtful to me, and they are WP:ASPERSIONS presented with no proof. I think this 4th proposal for a final warning to me, is because Hijiri already has had 6 IBANS and yet the editor refers to me as not-collegial? The 6 IBANS likely helped solve a problem and make Wikipedia a better place, which should be our goal - and which is why I asked for one. Anyway, sorry for bringing that up again. I do not wish to throw stones at Hijiri, but again, I just want to be left alone by this editor. I am going to log off and take a break to collect my sanity. I am not going to interact with the other editor as I have said yesterday. My hope is that an administrator mercifully closes this whole miserable thread soon. A 2 way IBAN is appropriate if I am harassing Hijiri, then Hijiri should want it too. And it will help us get on with the business of building this amazing encyclopedia. My best to you all. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FTR, I have no idea who wrote that section of the Jean Mill article; the "you" in my edit summary was a generic "you", not specifically address Lubbad. I could say the same for this edit, but that was a week ago. I guess in the spirit of good faith I'll add on to my above promise to steer clear of Lubbad a promise to avoid editing articles I know Lubbad has been involved with in the past to avoid any potential misunderstandings, and that if I absolutely must edit such pages I'll engage in due diligence to make sure I'm not directly reverting one of his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: The revert of my edits during the last ANI was called out as a bad idea by an admin and my guess is the edit from 6/6/19 would be called "poking the bear" - but I am over this argument. It is less than truthful to say the editor did not know it was my edit. The editor seems to be throwing everything at me to see what sticks. I have apologized for whatever part I have played in this drama and for bringing this thing to ANI. We should ask how is Wikipedia best served. How can a result on this ANI serve the building of this encyclopedia? My assurances to the community are above in one of the many proposals. Regarding the other editor, I am sure that without all of this grinding the other editor must have great value here. Otherwise the other editor would have been banned for the many fights and discipline the editor has received on the project. So I have been steering clear, and will continue to do so. I hope to continue to contribute and grow as a Wikipedian. If the other editor could stop trying to get a pound of my flesh, and agree to a 2 way IBAN will likely solve this problem and serve Wikipedia, maybe we can put this ugly ANI to bed. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hijiri is clearly still messing with Lubbad, in spite of assurances that he wouldn't, as seen in this edit from less than four hours ago. I don't think anything is going to work except either a one-way IBan imposed upon Hijiri, or a two-way IBan. One does have to wonder how and why Hijiri keeps collecting IBans (either one-way or two-way) like a bee collects pollen; clearly there is some problem with the way he interacts with a lot of editors. Wikipedia has very clear procedures for dealing with (and reporting) problem edits; and stalking, hounding, and antagonizing editors are not part of any of them. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I never made any "assurance" -- I offered to voluntarily steer clear of him, assuming this proposal passes; and the edit you are referring to was made not "less than four hours ago" but rather more than thirteen hours before I said that, as can clearly be seen here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Your !vote seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Could you please respond to my above ping? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Seriously, the closer's going to ignore your !vote if it is based on a misconception and you have been ignoring repeated pings requesting clarification. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not sure it is quite as black and white as is being presented, neither user has made real efforts to steer clear of the other (for example going to a user page to see what they are up to and then commenting on it is not steering clear). I would agree to a warning, but not a final one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

@Slatersteven: Did you mean to post the above in a different section? This proposal has nothing to do with either of us steering clear of each other. I offered to do so as a condition to another user supporting this proposal, but your opposing because, several days ago, I wasn't already adhering to a voluntary self-restriction that I only offered to take on this morning ... doesn't make sense. Yeah, Lubbad and Softlavender (talk · contribs) gave similar seemingly irrelevant oppose rationales further up, but that doesn't justify your doing the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Except you are still commenting on them (and indeed proposing sanctions for them) now. Sure you have not intersected with them, or commented on them) of this ANI since this morning. But you in fact did do out of your way to check what they were up to, and this is the cause of this ANI. Thus I can see why they (and to a degree you as well) feel aggrieved. Thus whilst I think a warning is in order, not a final one. As that should be after a series of breaches of prior warnings. They have never been warned as a result of ANI not to stalk or harass you. They were warned to make no more PA's against you, and they appear to have adhered to that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? This proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I am "still commenting on them (and indeed proposing sanctions for them) now". Not only would my above-suggested voluntary self-restriction not take effect unless this proposal passes (actually it's not even valid until SportingFlyer explicitly supports the proposal...) but you are actively seeking to undermine the proposal, so why would you expect me to already be subject to it? Moreover, what sanctions have I proposed? This is a warning that Lubbad is expected to abide by the same policies everyone else on the encyclopedia adheres to, or he will be blocked. That's not a sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC) I am saying that I disagree with a final warning as they have never had any other warnings about this up till now (you do not count, I am talking about formal warnings as a result of community consensus), and that you are in fact not wholly blameless for this situation in the first place. Thus this user should not receive a final warning when (it can be argued) they were at least partially provoked. The fact you agree to do something (if you get your way) but are not doing it now is indicative of this, and why I do not think a one way sanction is workable. I would point out that his Pearl Harbour comment (for example) whilst it might have been aimed at you, might (by the same toke) not have been (its the kind of silliness Yanks make all the time in anything to do with WW2, in fact I am sure I have seen exactly this recently off wiki). You chose to represent it in the worst possible light. Thus I have reason to think that this would mean he could make no comments about Japanese matters without you deciding it was a dig at you. As I said if this is a first warning, fine no issue with that. But we are too keen here to jump at server sanctions for (what is in effect) a first offence (in relation to harassment of you). Its an overreaction, in a situation where neither side is blameless.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC) The "Irony" is if you were in fact asking for a lesser sanction about other issues (such as copy right violations) you would have got consensus I suspect. As I said this should be either closed now with no action or a Two way IBAN and a new ANI opened discussing Lubbards other issues (with the understanding this would not count as an IBAN violation).Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC) they have never had any other warnings about this up till now He has literally received warnings for the copyvio beyond count, from multiple editors, going back to at least January. I am sure I have seen exactly this recently off wiki Umm... citation needed? That's a pretty outrageous claim that demands very strong evidence. Yeah, as CT said, there are a lot of virulent racists who bring up Pearl Harbour every time Japan is in the news, and Japan's emperor did abdicate a month ago: but how is "he might just be a virulent racist" a defense? The bogus D-Day excuse should be clincher that it was meant in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC) And you wonder why I am suspicious you will misrepresent whatever he says as an attack on you, you are not calling HIM a racist but " virulent racists who bring up Pearl Harbour every time Japan is in the news", no you just imply he might be. I also said "I am talking about formal warnings as a result of As far as I can tell they have had one message about copy right violation in 5 months, and that a[[ears to be overt old issues (and is not even a warning). community consensus", as far as I know his actions (apart form one minor PA) have never been sanctioned as a result of an ANI, not one official warning. All of the other warnings are from January, is there any evidence they did not heed these warnings and continued to add copy righted material? We do not sanction users for stuff they did (and stopped doing) 5 months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC) I have explicitly said numerous times that I don't think it was racist: I think it was just random trolling meant to get a rise out of me. I know the difference, having been the only person in my junior high school who took Japanese: do you not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Yet you have on multiple occasions mentioned the fact that it is often racist, which is irrelevant if you accept it was not racist. And I would point out that he did not say it was about you (just as your comments about this being a racist meme are not about him). He said this was not about you, just as you say your comments about this being a racist meme are not about him. Where is the difference, why should I accept your word and not his? Maybe if the pair of you gave the other the same benefit of the doubt you expect this would not be here now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC) All of the other warnings are from January, is there any evidence they did not heed these warnings and continued to add copy righted material? [36] Your constant misrepresentation and deflection would be amusing if they weren't so disruptive. Yet you have on multiple occasions mentioned the fact that it is often racist, which is irrelevant if you accept it was not racist. You said you heard the same thing recently off-wiki. I think whoever you heard it from was a racist reacting to some recent Japanese news by shoehorning in Pearl Harbour. You have failed to refute this but have rather been dodging the question. Err I think it is clear i said I have seen the link made between D-day and Pearl harbour, not the fact it is racist. And again you continue to say "its a racist term" but you are not calling the person who said it a racist. I do not not have to refute it is racist, you have to prove it is if you want a user sanctioned over it. As to the Warning, it is not a warning, it is advice about policy, it even advises them how to get permission. As I said, I see no WARNINGS issued since January. I see no major issue that needs a sanction more serious then an official (first) warning.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Allow me to remind you, sanctions are not punitive, they are preventative. So they should never be applied to prevent something that is not occurring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC) I was unable to find a single edit where he added a substantial amount of original prose that wasn't copyvio: the latest large mainspace edit, that was neither the addition of an infobox nor artificially inflated by long citations, is also the latest copyvio edit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC) So what, it does not matter if he has stopped doing it. So when (I ask again) was the last time he added a copyright violation?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC) So... we should ban him from making substantial prose additions to articles, because when he doesn't make substantial additions to articles he doesn't violate copyright? I'm not seeing the logic there. The last time I have found, as I have now stated several times, was a little over a week ago -- he's been at ANI, with eyes on him, pretty much constantly since then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC) No, and you are fully aware of that, as I have already opposed any bans (above). As to being at ANI constantly, errr yes mainly reporting you, but he has not been reported TO ANI for any of these things (a point I have also made above). Now I have already said what (at worst) I think can be done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks for your diligence Slatersteven. Thanks for noticing that I am growing as a Wikipedian! Lubbad85 (☎) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral - Unfortunately, it appears that there is no such thing as a final warning in Wikipedia, because an editor who has been given a final warning will be given another final warning every few months. Maybe a four-day block with a final warning? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I oppose this as written, for missing the mark. Chiefly, a final warning isn't merited when no previous warnings have been given. An "only warning" isn't merited here because the problematic behavior identified doesn't rise to the level. However, I would support closing this thread with the following warnings:
  1. a warning to Lubbad that future COPYVIO may result in sanctions (this is based on one identified instance of COPYVIO in the last four or five months)
  2. a warning to both editors not to WP:BLUDGEON discussions (Lubbad at AfDs, and both at ANIs; I'm taking this opportunity to plug the WP:PEPPER essay)
  3. a warning to Lubbad against starting ANI threads for matters that are not serious, chronic, or urgent, and where other forms of dispute resolution have not been tried first
  4. a warning to both editors that they should each avoid the other voluntarily, and future problems may result in a one-way or two-way IBAN – Levivich 01:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  I would support this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  By request in the threaded discussion section, I have made a new proposal subthread: #Proposal 6: Close with warnings. – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as long as Hijiri88 agrees to voluntarily steer clear of Lubbad85. Despite their best intentions, Hijiri’s involvement with this user has created more problems than it’s solved, and I think we should thank them for their dedication and let them focus on other matters. Lubbad85 seems to me to really want to help the project, but should be advised that if they cannot do so constructively, civilly, and within policy, they will face further sanctions. —Rutebega (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Two way IBAN

As you can see above, this conflict between the two editors is continuing in spite of many proposed remedies, none of which are getting support. Let's just get this IBAN on the books and get this over with!

• Support As proposer. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 05:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Note that the above new editor came along last week and proposed banning me from the site entirely. I would appreciate a one-way IBAN against Thunderchunder whereby he is immediately blocked if he ever comes anywhere near me again (and would also appreciate his user page, which consists almost exclusively of POLEMIC about me, being deleted). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I was being facetious. That being said, I would like someone to speedy-close this subthread, warn TC about his recent behaviour, and tell him to go build some articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang 5.6% of ThunderChunder's edits to Wikipedia (2 of 36) have been to try to ban or punish Hijiri88. 11 have been to ANI. Only 5 have been to actual article space. I don't know quite what's going on here, but this seems a crystal clear WP:NOTHERE to me. SportingFlyer T·C 07:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and BOOMERANG. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

*Boomerang As I have said above this seems to be the fairest proposal. Both users have gone out of their way to look at what the other is doing, and comment on it. Oddly I am also leaning towards a boomerang as well, but I dislike one way IBANS. But this is the suggestion of the main thread. So not sure what the boomerang should be.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven: Just to be absolutely clear in terms of the boomerang, I'm advocating for an indef for ThunderChunder on NOTHERE grounds. I'm incredibly skeptical of any user who shows up and jumps straight into the ANI deep end, and I'm incredibly skeptical of a user who has spent more time dedicated to banning another user than they have on helping the project as a whole. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I took it to be a boomerang of what they had proposed. No I would not support an indef, at least at this stage.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As such I change my vote to Oppose. I have no idea if they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The proposal that is being !voted on in this section is essentially the same one as the one you supported in your comment timestamped 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC): do you mean you oppose a boomerang for the editor who opened this section? If so, you should be more clear; and also maybe not oppose proposals on whose grounds you "have no idea". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said as I understand boomerangs they tend to be the user getting what they asked for (which would be an IBAN). This was clarified to say it was not for that, and so I opposed what it is for (and this was the first mention of an indef). I think there needs to be action over this, and have said what I think it should be, but I cannot say "support" when I do not support what the suggestion is, even if I think something needs to be done (i do not sign blank cheques). This is why I have said before we should not have unspecified sanction, it is all too easy to make assumptions about what they are for.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and support warning boomerang – I think an experienced editor should close this Proposal 5 subthread and place an explicit next-time-you-may-be-sanctioned warning on the editor's talk page. – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose with a trout to the OP. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Close with warnings

Propose to close with the following warnings:

1. a warning to both editors that they should each avoid the other voluntarily, and future problems may result in a one-way or two-way WP:IBAN
2. a warning to both editors not to WP:BLUDGEON discussions
3. a warning to Lubbad that future WP:COPYVIO may result in sanctions
4. a warning to Lubbad against starting ANI threads for matters that are not serious, chronic, or urgent, and where other forms of dispute resolution have not been tried first

• Support as proposer, because:
  1. For #1, both editors have expressed a desire to avoid the other in the future, and I think this sort of de facto voluntary 2-way IBAN is preferable to a formal recorded sanction. If a problem develops in the future, conduct from this point forward can be examined at a future ANI thread and any necessary sanction (one-way or two-way) applied at that time.
  2. For #2, this is based on Lubbad's participation at AfDs ([37] [38]) and both editors' participation in these ANI threads.
  3. For #3, there were problems in January and earlier but it seems to have improved except for this is based on this May 28 copyvio (source). Lubbad has said in this ANI thread that it won't happen again. There has not been a recent formal warning, and I think one is merited in the circumstances.
  4. #4 is based on opening this thread in the first place; a poor decision, but not one that merits anything more than a warning IMO. – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  W/r/t why #1 and #2 are directed at both editors, my concerns about Hijiri underlying #1 are the Article Rescue Squadron userbox, the "hypocritical" userbox, the four AfDs discussed earlier in this thread [39] [40] [41] [42], and the "troll" comment, resulting in this advice. My concerns underlying #2 are that at the last ANI thread, three users made comments advising against over-participation [43] [44] [45]. Those comments were not heeded in this ANI thread, as evidenced by the arguing with editors: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] (partly retracted) [51] [52] [53] [54]. The advice in the previous ANI thread didn't take, maybe a more formal warning will. – Levivich 05:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  So ... you think Slatersteven has been bludgeoning this discussion and I've been responding to him too much? Yeah, I do too: why does your proposal sanction me and not the editor who originally did the bludgeoning? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I checked the "partly redacted" diff and assumed the diffs were all from my interaction with Slatersteven. They're not. I would encourage anyone considering listening to anything more Levivich has to say on this matter to click through the "evidence", and ask themselves how most of the diffs are me "arguing with editors": one of them is me presenting a proposal for a final warning, one of them is me posting on another editor's talk page asking for clarification of their comment ... do I need to go through the rest? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  Just to pick one thing: An editor opposed your proposal, and you pinged them three times [55] [56] [57]. Go ahead, tell us how that was a good idea. – Levivich 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If someone makes a comment, apparently based on a good-faith misunderstanding, pinging them is standard procedure. Poor Erik, on the other hand, had already retracted his comment and said he wanted nothing more to do with this before Lubbad pinged him back, he reiterated that he wanted nothing to do with this, and then Starship pinged him again and he said he wanted nothing more to do with this again. Softlavender and I have a somewhat mixed history, but I've never known her to make a comment that completely missed the point of the discussion and got the timeline wrong, like the one she did above -- at least not without being willing to retract once her mistake was pointed out. I have no idea why she hasn't responded to my pings, but I'm sure there's good reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - based on the rationale of my previous votes above, and in light of the community's failure to agree to anything else proposed above, I have to support this even if they are weaker actions than I supported previously, because I strongly believe if this fails, no action will be taken at all. Both editors can improve their behaviour. starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - this has been going on for far longer than it needed to. Let's get a close on the books and go from there. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 03:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please block the above NOTHERE editor and strike their !vote? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I agreed to avoid Lubbad voluntarily on condition that he be placed on notice regarding the rest of his disruption, which he has already been warned about several times in the past. I cannot agree to this proposal that explicitly doesn't do so regarding any of his personal attacks, harassment, "opposition research" (essentially hounding), etc. and instead chooses to punish me for having "bludgeoned" an ANI thread about me by posting X number of times, after having already waited a good nine hours until multiple other editors had already commented. Yes, it is my intention to avoid Lubbad going forward anyway, but only if I can safely assume his abuses will be subject to more scrutiny from the community than they have been, and this proposal is essentially a copy-paste of Levi's above opposition to said scrutiny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Hijiri, who did nothing wrong besides deal with a problem user in the interest of the project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  There was following by Hijiri, in my view. starship.paint (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: There is a difference between WP:HOUNDING and following editors one believes, in good faith, to be violating policy.[58] The former is done with the intent of harassment, not dissimilar to what Lubbad subjected me to by going back through my edit history of seven years when he wrote this string of lies, whereas the latter is not only permitted but encouraged by our editing policy: confusing the two is, at best, a gross misunderstanding of our harassment policy, and at worst a deliberate violation of the explicit wording thereof, and contrary to more than a decade of community consensus and statements by the Arbitration Committee. I have been assuming good faith thusfar because on your talkpage and in your responses to Proposal 4 you seemed amiable and rational, but the fact that you are still making statements like the above after numerous attempts by myself and others to explain the policy to you and the other relatively new users who seem to be thronging to this thread is making it hard to keep doing so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - so when I agree with you, I'm amiable and rational, but when I don't 100% align with your views, you're starting to assume bad faith? From your relatively new user, starship.paint (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Where did you ever "100% align with my views"? I was referring to your prior acceptance that Lubbad's behaviour was disruptive and required oversight as amiable and reasonable, as opposed to your above personal attack accusing me of hounding. I don't need to "assume" bad faith: you are clearly either acting in bad faith, or are ignorant of Wikipedia policy and are choosing to ignore the explanations that have been provided to you out of ... what? Laziness? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 I read the explanations and do not agree. Perhaps, I am more stupid than you think. Perhaps, I just think differently. starship.paint (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia community? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• There was following by Hijiri — yes. There was. Following. Of a user who needed to be followed. There's literally nothing wrong with that. That's a good thing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri's WP:BLUDGEONing of the discussion itself has been disruptive, IMHO, and requires appropriate warnings. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 03:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Case in pointThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 03:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven is more guilty of bludgeoning than I: I have been compelled, not dissimilar to other editors in recent disputes, to defend myself against groundless hounding and NPA accusations, while two sections up SS did the same in a discussion that didn't involve him, with the quite transparent motive of filibustering any proposal that didn't end in me being sanctioned, and baiting me into a long and pointless back-and-forth that could then be used as "evidence" that I was "bludgeoning the discussion". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You did see that part where I said I would support a warning against Lubbard, but mentioned no other action? I came here to comment on the bizarre "I dont know what I want but I want it and I want it now" proposal (and until then I had not taken part, as I said before, maybe if this wasn't such a blatant such a blatant attempt to just get a user banned (for really a non bannable offense) it might have got somewhere a lot quicker. As to me being more guilty of bludgeoning, today alone I count 3 fresh posts from you (one SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ME, and another asking for a user to be blocked, in fact most of them commenting on other users actions). On the other hand I have made 2 (3 if you include this one, a reply to your accusations against me, and my first mention of you today).Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Might I suggest that it would be a good idea for you to spend a bit more time writing articles and less time posting on places like ANI and AE? You've been on the site for less than seven months, but 30% (the largest share) are to the Wikipedia namespace, with ANI alone accounting for 1/12 of your whole edit history. It would be one thing if your input demonstrated a precocious insight into Wikipedia policy, but it seems in both this thread and Tryptofish's ban appeal at AE that your commentary has been creating both heat and light.

(And since I have had to explain this virtually every time I've offered advice like this in the past, I might as well point this out proactively: yes, I to have at various points in my Wikipedia career been a regular ANI contributor, but not until I'd been on the site for about 11 years, amassed well over 10,000 edits to my name, and reported a fair few editors to ANI myself, starting in my eighth year on the project and so already had a pretty good idea of how things worked.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if I had felt this way, I certainly wouldn't have made this comment had I been one of the subjects of an ANI thread. starship.paint (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Umm... it was largely influenced by comments from two admins (and former Arbs) at AE last week, and another comment by Grandpallama further up this thread, as well as another editor whom I won't name but with whom I was communicating off-wiki about the matter and who has been involved in this thread. It appears to be an opinion shared by virtually everyone who isn't willfully ignoring it due to their happening to agree with Levi on the substance (for whatever counter-policy reason might be). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support For all the reason I have said throughout this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral knowing that final warnings in Wikipedia are just more warnings that will be repeated as final warnings over and over again, and knowing that we will be back here and will provide another final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support as final warnings. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If the users involved don't already know not to do these, they should be banned. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to warn either user for bludgeoning - a more specific warning would be to Lubbad85 to try not to canvass involved users. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose—the only warnings needed here are #3 & #4. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as utter nonsense, because the fact that Lubbad85 would receive multiple warnings (or warning for multiple issues) makes it so blindingly obvious they're the problematic editor. Not to mention, per Swarm, that following an editor is not the same as hounding an editor, and should not result in any sort of IBAN. This proposal is just the latest in a series of false equivalencies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Hijiri. Otherwise Neutral "knowing that final warnings in Wikipedia are just more warnings that will be repeated as final warnings over and over again, and knowing that we will be back here and will provide another final warning." But even pointless 'raps on the knuckles", should have some logic and Hijiri has nothing actionable. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thread discussion

• I have no idea what kind of "ban" is being proposed. A limited block? An indefinite block? A community ban?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I meant a community-imposed site ban. But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction that will at least stop Lubbad85 from filing these stupid reports. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nor me. Could be any of those things, including a topic ban. Anyone? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• It says boomerang ban. I don't know maybe ban from reporting to this ANI. Or for the copyright violations. I don't know what type of bans that a copyright violator deserve see this discussion user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  So you support it but you don't know what it is? -- Begoon 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support a boomerang ban, I don't know how that sanction is imposed but I believe the ban should be applied because it is boomerang. It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction. Whether it is 72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc that's something up to the admins.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Ok. "the ban should be applied because it is boomerang", but you don't know what ban (or what one is, really) and "It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction". It's an opinion, I guess. Not one I understand, but an opinion, nevertheless. -- Begoon 18:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• "72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc" are not bans - if you don't know what a ban is, you should not be supporting one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well I thought that a 72 hours is a ban. So I am now puzzled. I think there should be a suitable sanction for all of these reports and the waste of time and copyright violations. Whatever that sanction is. I said 72 hours blocked. Maybe topic banned from this notice board. Or indeff block for copyright violation. In any case I support, just to stop this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• 72 hours is a block, not a ban (or, at least, a 72 hour ban from something would be stupid). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Something something off with his head. 2001:4898:80E8:8:3A83:2DCD:7473:53F2 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that means... Support. -- Begoon 18:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It means there's a quick race to block, any block, by SharabSalam. That is concerning. 2001:4898:80E8:A:C648:CDEE:794:B9B7 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I do know what is WP:BOOMERANG but I don't know the sanction against it. I am not really familier with these policies. I supported when I saw WP:BOOMERANG ban.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What is WP:BOOMERANG, as you understand it? And how are you specifically "applying" it here to reach a "ban but I don't know what ban (or what one is)" conclusion? -- Begoon 19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That an editor is making a report when it's him who should be reported and the sanction will turn against him. In my support vote I said the editor should be sanctioned for copyright violations and for constantly making reports against the same editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You said. "I do know what is WP:BOOMERANG but I don't know the sanction against it.". That doesn't make any sense. WP:BOOMERANG isn't an offense, it's a description of a common outcome and a reminder that all behaviour will be considered - including a filer's, so how can there be a "sanction against it" (and what is "it") ? -- Begoon 19:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the vote for better.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You also said: "I am not really familier with these policies". Given that, do you really think it is a good idea for you to be supporting sanctions on editors? I wonder if you might consider that easing off on your recent, heavy participation at these boards until you are familiar with policy would be a good idea? -- Begoon 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I made the vote with a good faith. I read what that policy says and I thought the editor deserve it. I just didn't know what is the suitable sanction. Anyway this discussion is time-sinking and it might make editors not see the survey. I am here to learn about these policies as stated in my userpage. I have been here when the editor made his first report, I saw all of what was happening between them. I knew that the editor who made the report should be sanctioned and then again another report today and again with completely baseless accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So "no"? Fair enough. Now, please go back to your vote and use strike-through to make it clear what the original comment was, and where you altered it, and never change comments that have been discussed or replied to. Thank you. -- Begoon 19:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the strike-through. Now, I really would be grateful if you'd consider the advice I gave above. There are a couple of reasons. One is that comments on this board have the potential to influence the ability of other editors to edit this site, so commenting here is a serious thing that requires knowledge and experience. When you comment from an ill-informed position it is detrimental to the fair and policy-based discussions and decisions that need to be made here. The second is that if you do this a lot it reflects badly on you, and this board is highly visible. I know you have the best of intentions, but the impression you make on others can be lasting, and it would be a shame if that was a poor impression. Sorry if you found any of this harsh - my genuine intention is to help you. -- Begoon 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That I don't know all of the banning and sanctioning policies doesn't mean I shouldn't be here. I would be here voting what I see right. The above vote was corrected. everyone make mistakes, and the rationale of my vote is still the same which is copyright violations. I just didn't know what would the sanction be. That isn't a good reason for me not to be here. Just because I made a wrong comment. Thats asinine. I have made a lot of contributions here. Made a lot of good votes. Now I should be kicked out because of that small issue?. Also it's just these days I am active in this notice board mainly because I am fasting and I wanted to waste my time with something that is effortless.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, please listen to what Begoon is telling you, before you get yourself in trouble. The very fact that you're talking about "voting" shows you don't understand the purpose of ANI. We're neither an electorate nor a judiciary, and we don't do votes, we discuss whether people have violated policies and if so how that violation can be prevented in future. If you don't know the policy on which you're commenting, then by definition we don't care about your opinion on this board. That's certainly not to say that your opinion isn't valuable elsewhere, but ultimately this is the administrators' noticeboard, and uninformed commentary just disrupts us trying to do our job. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, anyway, it's already the end of my fasting but I am interested in this particular case. Editors like Lubbad85 should probably get banned for this type of behaviour. Constantly reporting an editor and harassing them. I have sent to Hijiri wikilove for deleting reverting his copyvios. This is the only case I will be participating in.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I received this message on my talk page. I do not appreciate such a direct message from the subject of an AN/I thread and and feel that it is entirely inappropriate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Both users have been posting comments on users talk pages about this ANI. I am not sure either party is exactly whiter then Gabriels knickers here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I messaged you because you made an inaccurate statement above, which implied you had misunderstood the nature of the dispute, and then blanked your own message -- would you have preferred that I restored your message in order to respond to it? The circumstances of me messaging Erik are similar: he owned up to his mistake and struck his comment. That's about it on my end; Lubbad has been systematically messaging everyone.

BTW, anyone considering taking Lubbad's requests for friendship seriously really needs to read up on what happened when he tried to pull the same thing on my talk page: I accepted, offered him friendly advice on how to be a better Wikipedian, he pretended to listen to my advice, and then two days later showed back up and started complaining that I hadn't stopped sweeping his edits for the copyvio he was still engaging in despite my advice.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmm so you contact two users who had expressed doubts about your actions, in order to correct them. And Lubbad contacts everyone (regardless of what they said).Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85 posted a star on my talk page as well, but not as specifically as on Nick Thorne's, though I don't consider the post on my own talk page inappropriate as I did go through to fix any copyright edits they had introduced, see [59]. However, the post along with the fact that Lubbad85 claims "I am not a copyright violator" on Nick Thorne's talk page extremely concerns me, as I looked through the articles they created and the vast majority of them had at least one potential copyright issue, along with some blatant copy-pastes which I fixed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree something needs to be done, but its clear that solo sanctions for lubbard is not going to swing it. The only thing I can see passing is the Two way IBAN, and continuing to try and find a way to sanction Lubbard alone is just dragging this out without getting anywhere. I think either this needs to be closed now as no action or the Two way is put in place, and we see where it goes from there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• I know the intent is good, Robert, but this sort of spamming proposals and seeing what will stick is not a productive means of resolving AN/I threads. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment- did anything come of the CCI? Reyk _YO! 07:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk: It's my understanding that almost nothing ever "comes of" CCI. There's a CCI I filed over a year and a half ago still languishing in the "accepted, and open" section, and another I filed five months ago that's received no attention. The backlog is massive, and receiving hardly any of the attention it needs (I actually noticed a very serious problem once, and emailed the filer, expressing my concern that the filing might have retroactively become bad taste due to events that happened during the years it has been open). Basically what I'm saying is that it doesn't actually mean anything for this ANI thread one way or the other that the request I filed a little over a week ago is still open and awaiting attention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk: Before this was filed I looked through several of the user's major contributions, cleaned up some blatant copy-pastes, and rewrote sentences which had been copied and quoted with proper attribution. That being said, there's a huge backlog at CCI - how would one become a clerk? SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I now note that Lubbard is not on a wikibreak [[60]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: - can we get your proposal in a new subsection? I'd even call it the final proposal, because if that doesn't pass, I don't think anything else will. starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I slightly re-ordered the list of warnings, and added my reasons for supporting the proposal. I agree with you about "the final proposal" but I just called it #Proposal 6: Close with warnings because I don't want to be presumptuous :-) – Levivich 03:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Levivich. I'm thinking of pinging everyone who has participated in this discussion so far, to get input. Would that be encouraged? starship.paint (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, honestly I have no idea and I wonder the same thing (is is encouraged?). I've seen people ping participants in these situations and it works out great, and I've also seen other instances where it turns into heated allegations of canvassing. I'd love to know what "the answer" is. – Levivich 03:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass pinged to invite you to write your opinion on Proposal 6: Close with warnings. Pinging those who already commented in this section before but not in Proposal 6 yet. starship.paint (talk)

@Bbb23, Robert McClenon, Black Kite, and SharabSalam: starship.paint (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon, Boing! said Zebedee, Iridescent, and Nick Thorne: starship.paint (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lubbad85, SportingFlyer, Reyk, and Kingerikthesecond: starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey, Amakuru, Eliteplus, and Pincrete: starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane, Grandpallama, Rockstone35, and Softlavender: starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

God dammit I already said I didn't want to be a part of this. I'll continue to be neutral. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 11:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

rubs eyes, yawns... You pinged? looks around... Oh, this, still? Good grief... tiptoes out hoping nobody noticed him come in... -- Begoon 19:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading the latest responses, and considering only ~2/20 of the above haven't edited since I pinged, I don't think anything will come out of this (maybe boomerang for #5). Have requested closure. starship.paint (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nationalism, nationalistic sentiment, lack of neutrality, lack of response

• Stan Tincon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) utilizes pro-German nationalistic (Wikipedia:Nationalist editing) sentiment and exaggeration on articles related to Poland and its history. Disrupts all Polish articles linked to Germany, lots of mistakes and somewhat anti-Polish sentiment which can be clarified by the highly un-neutral and controversial tone when adding irrelevant information on cities or towns that are part of the Recovered territories. This has been going on for weeks or months perhaps. I posted an answer on the user's talk page, however, it was completely ignored. User:Mike Winowicz has also noticed this action and also posted a message on Stan Tincon's page but no again no answer was provided. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Stan Tincon has misunderstood the meaning of Wikipedia and turned it into a political and controversial tool to misinform users. By adding singular secondary sources, the user exaggerates, blames and adds biased information. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Stan Tincon has incorporated personal lengthy opinions instead of well-sourced factual sentences. In every single alteration nationalist editing is clearly present, which suggests that the user's permanent role on Wikipedia is to continue this conduct. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs please.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Elbląg - 0 Not true; personal opinion. I explained why on Stan Tincons's talk page.
• Malbork - 1 No source given. Apart from resettlement and language change to signs the castle was reconstructed.
• Dobre Miasto - 2 Is this addition necessary?
• Krosno Odrzańskie - 3 Exaggeration and strange language.
• Kołobrzeg - 4 No source. Contradicts to Slavic settlement.
• Szczecinek - 5 Not neutral. Hasn't explored why Germans were expelled nor who has conducted this. Suggests Poles stole property, if so a source needed.
• Jelenia Góra - 6 Poor grammar, punctuation. Obviously does not care how the information is written as long as it is there. The source seems unreliable; no page given nor link to the published source.
• Masurian Lake District - 7 Ceded per Potsdam Agreement, not just annexed and kicked out.
• Gryfów Śląski - 8 Again the same unnecessary exaggeration about being "settled for centuries".
• Warmia - 9 Per Potsdam Conference borders were redrawn. I don't know anything any peace conference and no source provided.
• Świebodzice - 10 Personal misleading opinion. Suggests Poland was complicit in redrawing the borders without a source.
• Poznań - 11 So he describes Poles as settlers after border changes in World War II, but the Germans that came to settle in Poznań after it was annexed by Prussia in the 18th-century were normal ordinary citizens. There is a trace pro-German or anti-Polish sentiment entailed.

I think a warning is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I find many of these edits unobjectionable. For example, it is clearly correct to call the territorial changes between Germany and Poland after WWII "annexation" rather than "cession" (since Germany wasn't in any position to voluntarily "cede" anything at that point); it's also correct to not call people "settlers" after they and their ancestors had lived in a certain place for several centuries (as opposed to a new population group coming in after them). These are legitimate content disagreements, if anything. On the other hand, several of the additions have a WP:COATRACK tone to them, and insisting on the term "annexation" for the Polish-German territory shifts while at the same time changing "annexed" to "reattached" for the Polish-Soviet shifts reeks of tendentiousness. Also, for a newish contributor with a couple hundred edits to be focussing entirely on edits of this kind is something of a warning sign, so I do agree he needs to be advised to dial it down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that a warning will be sufficient enough; the user was already informed and he continues to edit only the articles that have to do with war or repressions against Germans, or former German territories. This has been going on for months and it seems the account was created for that purpose. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Oliszydlowski, you forgot to notify Stan of this thread, which you were required to do. I'm doing this now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought that by linking the name he would receive notification. Thank you for doing so. Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well as the header says (although in smaller text) "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Obsessive SPA on a Hulk crusade

The user User:Hhggtg3279 has been here for 48 hours and has made 50ish edits and counting. They are a single purpose account focusing on the article The Incredible Hulk (film). Their goal is to prove that the actor Edward Norton, who portrayed Bruce Banner in the film, also portrayed Banner’s alter ego the Hulk. They added it to the article three times, plus probably another four times while logged out. After I protected the article they took to the article talk page (as well as my talk page). They posted dozens of notes proposing sources which they said proved their point. Their sources were either nonreliable or did not say that Norton portrayed the Hulk, or both.

I warned them yesterday, on their talk page and the article talk page, that their obsession was becoming disruptive. Their response was to continue trying to prove their point, posting another seven notes at the article talk page. IMO at this point they have exhausted Wikipedia’s patience. I am not advising any particular action because I am WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't make that editor angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry. Dumuzid (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, I needed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think you're involved and would invite you to take action as you see fit. El_C 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But since I have discussed content with them, I do feel involved and would like someone else to handle it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I gave the user some words of advise. If they continue to act as if this issue is their raison d'être, then perhaps some sanctions would be due. El_C 03:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but let's not close this just yet. Let's wait and see how they react. They've been advised before. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see what the user does since the warnings and notes have been left on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, it's very likely that any post-2012 sources that say Norton portrayed the Hulk are confusing Norton's Hulk with the supposedly-sharing-continuity-but-otherwise-completely-unrelated character portrayed by Mark Ruffalo. The Incredible hulk is a relatively obscure film (and appears to have been a box office disappointment) that is most notable for a Robert Downey, Jr. cameo kinda-sorta tying it in to another film that was released the same year and virtually nothing else connecting it to the later "MCU" films. I can totally imagine unreliable fan sources just forgetting about it and getting it confused with the more notable Avengers and Thor films in which the character appeared. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You are overplaying any disassociation of this film from the rest of the MCU. We've seen William Hurt's Thunderbolt Ross in three further MCU films. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't wanna say it in advance of someone making that comment, but I figured someone might. He's essentially a completely different character. As far as could be gleaned from the films themselves, the two might as well be twin brothers who share a surname and a face. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

IMDB lists Lou Ferrigno as the voice of the Hulk in this film. I therefore choose to believe it exists in the same cinematic universe as the 2009 film "I Love You, Man." Now please imagine the sad piano line from the television series while I log off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the most sensible ANI comment I've seen in months. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was summoned to this anticrusader tribunal on account of my username. Contrary to popular belief, I'm a currently unauthorized reproduction of a formerly unauthorized reproduction of the man who Lou Ferrigno and subsequent replacements legitimately pretended to be. Totally different character witness and completely useless to this case, just want to sincerely apologize for any confusion or disillusionment I may have recklessly inflicted here over the last thirteen years. But if it please the court, I'll remain wholly remorseless for my supposed role in any jewel theft, sexual assault or prison break, as I'm not the one on trial here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, June 7, 2019 (UTC)

You should probably hire a lawyer, just in case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm so innocent of being a Marvel knockoff, I didn't even know she had a day job! Thanks though, I'll keep her in mind if Chuck Harder ever would chuck my schtick. And even if that somehow fails, they'll never catch me in my trusty trademark springshoes! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, June 10, 2019 (UTC)

The editor did not post for several days. Now they are back at that article's talk page, but in a non-disruptive way at this point. So I think we can close this with no action - at least for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Absurd case of citation bombing by Pr12402

Note: this was originally reported on WP:CCLEAN.

On and off since 2017, Pr12402 has been citation bombing (WP:REFBOMB) a handful of articles to a height of absurdity I've never seen. Single sentences have up to 30 citations apiece, and this article about a Belarusian band has 327 citations, almost 50 more than the article on the American Civil War. It's almost surreal how bloated the citations in these articles are. See also: Cyruĺnia Svietu; Gentleman (Hair Peace Salon album); Open Space (band); Bristeil; beZ bileta. I was going to speak to this user myself, but I feel something like this warrants an intervention from an administrator. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 - I don't see anywhere on Pr12402's user talk page where anyone has attempted to notify them or even educate them in good faith about over-adding citations to articles where their placement aren't trivial, relevant, or useful. I see one warning left for this user in January 2019 about overlinking, but that's completely different from "reference bombing." I think we need to start at square one here: We need to assume good faith on the user's part (I'm sure that he/she believes that their edits adding references are helping; any user doing this would...) and talk to them about their edits, and try to educate the user in a positive and encouraging manner. Just leave them a custom note and help them out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Pr12402 has absolutely been informed about this problem, but not necessarily on his/her talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon, Talk:Hair Peace Salon, and the currently in-progress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Space (band). Those are the ones in which I have participated, there may be others. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also created a thread at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard asking what is their relation to the brand since this user was the main contributor (over 90% of edits) for both the Belarusian and the English version of Hair Peace Salon. They never replied and it had no consequences. I totally agree that this editor's behavior is beyond a simple warning or a "nice word". They should be banned for the disruptive editing. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll go on the record saying I'd support something like a WP:TBAN. Pr's rampant, chronic, intractable disruptive editing and general disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines (and basic etiquette) combined with their complete inability to acknowledge – let alone learn from – mistakes makes it unambiguous that a nice word or even a slap on the wrist will not change this editor's behavior in any meaningful capacity. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a nice word may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pr12402 (talk · contribs)'s reaction to the problem of refbombing Hair Peace Salon was to offer more refs (Special:Diff/872893540 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon). This needs more than a nice word. Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

After the deletion discussion was closed on 28 December 2018, practically nothing was added by me to Hair Peace Salon. What's wrong with this? ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ The notability of the subject had to be verified by the multiple sources already put in there before 10 December 2018, I don't know why the deletion discussion was being re-listed multiple times and took so long. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

It is true that you have made no additions to the article, but everyone in that discussion other than you has recommended significant reductions to the article, which you have resisted with red herring arguments that ignore Wikipedia policy, especially WP:CITEKILL and WP:MASK. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Some additional evidence to consider here: a while back, I PRODed an article created by Pr12402, Harkin Deximire as part of new page patrol. They responded by going to an article I had created and with a different signature rather hostilely threatened to nominate it for deletion and cast completely unfounded aspersions as to the subject's notability. A few days ago, they attempted to canvass me to an ongoing AfD, where they pretty clearly demonstrate that they don't understand how to cite sources (and possibly English). As additional evidence of this pattern of behavior, see Talk:Hair Peace Salon and the associated AfD. While they haven't been warned with templates, at this point multiple experienced editors have very patiently tried to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to them such that template-warning would be overly bureaucratic and unlikely to be productive. In line with Cabayi's suggestion, we've tried nice words and it hasn't helped much. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Rosguill has declared that knows Russian, the language of the main scope of sources over at Open Space, and had shown the deep knowledges of ins and outs of WP:GNG over at Talk:Obongjayar, it should be considered an appropriate notification. IMHO. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

Please see my comment below elaborating on why both this and another related instance of canvassing by Pr would be classified as inappropriate notifications per Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• To add to what I said before and to Rosguill's comment, I'm not going to sugarcoat this: this editor's disruptive behavior is chronic, rampant, and completely intractable. Any article they touch in a non-trivial capacity is run into the ground unilaterally by them because of their flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines and for other editors' input. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE, and no amount of kind and informative messages on their talk page is going to change this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've kindly explained some takes over at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Space (band), and personally for TheTechnician27 over at #Pump the brakes. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

• Speaking of, it would appear Pr12402 has also kindly explained some takes here where they tried to WP:CANVASS another editor into an ongoing discussion for deletion, much like they did to Rosguill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Canvassing, it is an appropriate notification ("Editors known for expertise in the field"), since Melilac has shown decent abilities to contribute in Russian and Belarusian (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Melilac) and therefore could rightfully evaluate sources in these languages what is useful to the deletion discussion on Open Space while the majority of disputed sources there are presented in these languages. -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

• You'll also note that, according to WP:CANVASS, under 'Inappropriate notification', we have Campaigning and Vote-stacking. Campaigning is defined as: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." I wonder if leading with "Foreigners here are too obsessed" and "Of course the one who nominated does not know the source language" count as a 'non-neutral manner'; I'll have to think on that. Moreover, vote-stacking is defined as: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a [...] prior statement)". It's been made abundantly clear that you support the article being kept, and you state: "According to your understanding of the WP:GNG on the example of Talk:Obongjayar, the article meets it", which can also be construed as "Campaigning", since you not-so-subtly nod them toward voting to keep the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have pondered Pr12402's obsession with hundreds of citations to support trivial tidbits of info on moderately notable bands. It could be a conflict of interest and Pr12402 is a promoter, or it could be something as lame as editcountitis. But I suggest boiling down this mess to one simple statement: the articles are unreadable and do absolutely nothing for those bands, or for Wikipedia. Who in the world would be enlightened by a statement that a band appeared at some minor festival, followed by 15 citations to brief media notices? With his/her obsession for ref-bombing and inability to see the point of why it is disruptive, Pr12402 is clearly uninterested in writing encyclopedic articles that are useful to readers. I'm with TheTechnician27 in supporting at least a topic ban. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request

Two successive issues have occurred with Lithopsian that have issues with OWN or a |NPOV. (Everything corresponded here[61])

• Changing sources and dropping them into a reflist.[62] Policy is clear, as stated, but it is deemed by them as "...a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. " and asserts that: "If you seriously think I'm contravening the policy, now or two years ago, you know where to go. Discussion over, here at least."[63]. (then closing the discussion with an archive template.) CITEVAR is clear and concerns stated appear justified.

• A response to Talk:Antares on magnitudes here[64], being transferred from their talkpage here[65] and described as "moving content-related whinge to mainspace talk page" The response is problematically saying: "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you. We're not here to change the world, or right great wrongs." No support for this and nothing to be able to achieve any consensus, where the question arose with this edit.[66] They did a similar set of edits to the star magnitudes in Crux for nine instances here[67] This was explain to them and notified here[68]. They didn't respond.

Usage needs to be applied so the pages like the recent significant edits like: Photometry (astronomy), Apparent magnitude, Magnitude (astronomy), Photographic magnitude or Absolute magnitude can be further improved. Discussions like here[69] have been very positive.

Yes. Their own contributions have been greatly improved the project on astronomy related articles. No contest. But there seems a growing tendency of intolerance by this editor towards other obvious POV that differs from their own views. These two issues seem to support this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Lithopsian on the usage of language in the arugment above. I recommend any uninvolved admin look at the size of Talk:Rigel and its contents and draw their own conclusions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh good lord. First bullet - L's (very minor) tweak of the ref location is precisely per WP:CITEVAR. No issue there.

Second bullet - editorial issue, take to article talk page.

Neither one of these has any NPOV implications whatsoever. Quit spamming ANI with asinine complaints. VQuakr (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read the link on CITEVAR. Again:

WP:CITEVAR also says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." It also says under To be 'avoided'': "changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist."

Lithopsian has done both, whose response is "And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. If you don't like the policy, take it up at the policy page." Yet the words above is the policy. e.g. They did not seek consensus to change and they are moving cites around seemingly to be DE. Is this an example of an "asinine complaint"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is asinine because even if you were correct it wouldn't merit a trip to ANI. But as it happens, you are also not correct - the edits you have linked were examples of making the citations within that single article consistent, per WP:CITEVAR. You excised the relevant condition from your selective quote above: When an article is already consistent... VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, read the reasoning in the ANI. They changed the cite format here[70] on the 18 Oct 2017. Before this the article was: ...already consistent...

Even if this were deemed acceptable, they also did this[71]. Evidence suggest they've done this. What's wrong here is it a disruptive tactic being done likely to avoid scrutiny and making article editing by others more difficult. That damages the project but help editors not to waste time ajudging new contributions.

Perhaps instead of discrediting and undermining everything that is said, it is better to use objectivity. Is the evidence given true? That's the point. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No, actually, the edit you cite here: [72] only makes the referencing consistent. Note, also, that the edit you are complaining about was from a year and a half ago. Attic Salt (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

But this is all a distraction. Lithopsian's position here is seemingly untenable, because even when faced with specific usage, they are prepared to both revert back to some own singular viewpoint. This is not the first time e.g. RfC: Inclusion of this statement under 'Nomenclature' and their (unsigned) reesponse[73] It doesn't help when his eagerly apostles seemingly blindly follow their lead and unable to be pliable enough to accept the evidence, even when it is overwhelming. Lithopsian in saying: "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you." sets a dangerous precedent as it damages the whole point of Wikipedia - based on statements supported by verifiable sources. Impositions like this edit by them on Deneb[74], but they don't even bother to respond to an RfC Bayer designation#RfC : Placement of Alternative Names (They were advised). Another is that Rigel has no variable star designation, when it does. Dismissing that Rigel doesn't under go blue loops, even though it is cited, but they remove it as alleged 'fantasy', but use the same source on another related page.

The big problem with OWN is that it destroys the ability to collaborate between editors, and it attempts to enforce a singular viewpoint. It also discourages other editors from contributing unless they tow the line on that viewpoint.

This given text that is based on International Astronomical Union (IAU) precepts, and it was reverted back on Lithopsian's opinion without evidence ("nobody does it") and based on this they content, on their word alone, "I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you." No consensus, no compromise, just dictating a POV. Yet they repeatably by doing this across multiple articles and get bolder every time it is ignored. Worst, they merrily ignore any involvement and do something else, and leave others to squabble over the mess they leave behind. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

User:YuxinJiang - request for short-term block

Repeatedly recreates the same blatantly promotional page, first as a (now-salted) draft and now in their sandbox. No response to talk page notes (both templated and personalized), plus continued editing following Jimfbleak's COI warning post. Since they're unresponsive, hoping a short block will get them to pay attention and respond. creffett (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I dislike to say it this early in a users career, but I think a TBAN is in order, clearly not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I dislike to say it... Given the volume and nature of your comments on this board, that seems very unlikely to me. --JBL (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you will find I very rarely call for bans on new users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I've applied a 36 hour block to the user for the repeated creation of inappropriate pages that were worded like an advertisement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: That's a bit harsh. The user is a student. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Oh dear. Okay, I'll unblock the account right now. Hopefully they'll be able to improve their page creations and we won't have any more issues. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 -  Done. Thanks for responding and for your feedback. I was originally very hesitant to block this account; your response shows me that I should've listened to that hesitation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: I think unblocking is right. After all, they are not editing in article space. Nonetheless, if they haven't responded to other editors' messages, perhaps it would be a good idea to try to contact their teacher, Fransplace.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Indeed. Thanks again for responding and for your feedback. I also think that unblocking was the right thing to do after taking my initial hesitation and your response into account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think they should have gotten a short attention-getter ban (student or no, they still didn't reply on the talk page or get the hint about their article after the fourth speedy), but I respect your decision. That said, I have to wonder about the quality of a class that teaches people to edit Wikipedia but doesn't cover things like "how to not write blatantly promotional content" or "your talk page is there for a reason." creffett (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think editors should have been more diligent in researching the user. I also think it's unfair to blame the instructor who probably has many, many students and can't keep track of all of them. I imagine different instructors vary in terms of what they teach their students about editing on Wikipedia, and they certainly can't cover all of our policies and guidelines, or they and the students would never get anything done. Unless students are really being disruptive - and I don't think what this student has done fits in that category - they should not be blocked without at least trying to communicate with their teacher. If the student didn't know how to respond to the Talk page messages, I doubt they'll know how to respond to a block, either. Wikipedia is a mine field for new user, and although a block of this user if they weren't fulfilling a class assignment would have been appropriate, it's not the way to handle well-intentioned students.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: If you don't mind, I'd like to turn this into a learning experience for me (since I'm pretty sure I tagged most of the editor's submissions and was the one who requested the block), so a couple questions:

1. Yes, I saw that the user had the student userbox. How would I have located the instructor? I don't see anything on that page linking them to a specific class (I just see a link to the general Australian Wikipedia-class page) and their edit history didn't have anything suggesting the specific class either.
2. In a future situation like this (new user keeps doing the same thing, unresponsive to talk page), what is the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure I've seen similar ban requests (for uncommunicative new users to get them to stop what they're doing and respond) in the past, why is this different? I guess the bigger question I have (and I mean this as a genuine question, not as a pointed rhetorical question) - why should student editors be treated any differently from other new editors? creffett (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It ain't easy, and you don't have to go to the trouble to do that. If you look at the student's contributions, you'll see they said hi to a classmate, and you'll see OLES2129. There's probably an easier way to do it if you understand how all this is structured, but I searched and found the course that way, as well as the teacher. If you see this again and you can't find the course, I'd take it to AN (or ANI I suppose) and ask someone to help you. There's probably a better forum, but I'm familiar only with Wiki Education Foundation, which is responsible for classes in North America and has its own noticeboard. As for your question about why students should be treated differently, I have no answer other than because they are students and we shouldn't be making their experience here distasteful. As I implied above, if they are behaving like vandals or are being very disruptive in article space - and I'm sure there are other examples - that's different. There's only so much disruption we should tolerate. That wasn't the case here, so blocking was not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK the Education noticeboard tries to deal with all student assignment related issues. And FWIW, someone asked there and received a response in just over a day on a related issue: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#OLES2129 Question Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, thank you both. I'll keep that in mind for next time I run across something like this. creffett (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has chipped into this discussion and worked on rectifying things that our students have done. We have only gratitude for what you do and though I know this student seems to be disregarding editors' advice, I think he is just scared that his work disappears and we will think he didn't do anything. Just so you know, this is a 13 week course with 3 hours a week dedicated to teaching them what they need to know to edit and create an article on Wikipedia. So we do go through all the pillars and everything, starting with WikiEdu training modules, teaching them about copyright, good research and sources, adding media. Everything they should know. Some get it and do a wonderful job and others trip up at various points. This semester's been a lot tougher for us because 1050 students enrolled and we have had to train new teachers to help keep up so we do feel sheepish that some of these have caused you so much work. From next year, they'll be broken into smaller classes across the year so we will do much better, we promise. Please thank you all again for being so considerate and for all that you've done to help draw attention to our students' errors. Fransplace 02:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fransplace (talk • contribs)

Disruptive IP

2001:16a2:5369:f500:a1e2:5c08:eeb3:1c5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The above IP is actively edit warring against several users (including me and an admin, El C) on numerous articles. Some examples of his reverts :[75], [76], [77], [78]. The user ignored the warnings and does not write any edit summary to explain his controversial changes. Administrative action may be required. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Darts editor

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

---

An IP editor 82.141.199.81 is creating dozens of articles about darts players, many unreferenced.

The editor was warned User_talk:82.141.199.81#March_2019. and has hundreds of edits undone, e.g User_talk:82.141.199.81#Australian_Darts_Players.

The editor continues:

• Draft:Amanda Abbott
• Draft:John_McDonald_(darts)

(There are dozens more)

Do we need more warnings before a block? Is there a way to mass delete the unreferenced creations? Should that be done?S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user

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

---

The following user tries to cause problems by bringing up a resolved edit-war which included me and another user, two days ago in Eurovision Song Contest 2020. He even went to my talk page and asked me questions in the form of interrogation.

• Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

—Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not realize that the edit war has been resolved. If it has been resolved, then a request should have been made to have had the article unprotected. Banana Republic (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It has not been resolved from what I can see. At best a stalemate between the two users. The Eurovision article is protected. That is my only input here.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the edit war was not between myself and Dimsar01. The edit war was between Dimsar01 and Lordtobi. Looking at the edit war, it seems that none of Dimsar01's edits were rational, so I went to their talk page to find out what exactly was their motivation. Banana Republic (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dimsar01, the editor's questions on your talk page were civil and reasonable. You chose not to reply, which is your prerogative. What action do you want from administrators? Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there are some emotions concerning the Eurovision article at play here. There are no case here against Banana Republic. If anything Banana Republic had been extremely civil in their interaction with Dimsar. BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see here Banana Republic is doing what is pretty standard practice: communicating. Banana had some concerns about some of Dimsar's edits, and asked for clarification. I think this falls under Communication is Required. Dimsar should have calmly responded and had a nice dialogue with Banana, but instead ran here. ANI should be a last resort. I don't think Banana was being interrogative or disruptive here, and in fact find Banana's actions admirable. I don't think this case is actionable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The only disruptive behavior displayed here is this edit repeated twice by the user who opened this discussion. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dimsar actions are inexplicable considering he is an experienced editor.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I've looked deeper into the issue and genuinely appalled by the utterly childish behavior displayed by Dimsar01. He isn't new to edit warring over petty issues where he was wrong: I just recalled this discussion from last year I had with him. Experienced or not, he triggered the full protection of an article that needs constant updating, and this should not be acceptable. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Kirkuk

I've reverted most of PumbaPumbata's editswith reason but they don't seem to get how Wikipedia works[79]. The user have been warned by another user as well on their own talkpage,[80] but doesn't seem to understand[81]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• You removed an actual information, tied to the subject with all required links. You violeted all possible rules and you're using the page as some kind of propaganda machine.I highly suggest to administration to ban Ahmedo Semsurî. --PumbaPumbata (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahmedo's "with reason" had an edit summary of 1) Blogs shouldn't be used as sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability). 2), the Britannica article doesn't mention Kirkuk at all, 3) https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Arab_tribes_in_Iraq looks to be a duplicate of Wikipedia. 1) is definitely correct. 3) Per [82], it's another open wiki, and per [83], Every page from Wikipedia is already here on Everipedia to build on top of and improve. All three points are correct: PumbaPumbata, you mustn't add content from such sources, and Ahmedo improved the article by removing what you added. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• * Britannica doesn't have to mention Kirkuk in particular. That's self explanatory - Abbasid Empire map shows where Arabs in Mesopotamia lived. The point was that this kurdish Goebbels wrote about Arabs like about something new, recent.--PumbaPumbata (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • PumbaPumbata "this kurdish Goebbels" ? Curdle (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The user continues to remove sourced information. I believe admins should intervene. [84] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• This kurdish guy keeps adding nonsenses with unrelable sources. Here's about PMU(why it is not a "militia"): PMU part of Iraq's military; here's why so-called "peshmerga" is in fact a militian and not a military or "forces": Iraqi forces demand Kurdish militia's withdrawal from Kirkuk area--PumbaPumbata (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Not even Iraq considers Peshmerga as militias [85] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Further to this request for page protection I’ve fully protected the page for 2 days due to content dispute and edit warring. This does not endorse any user’s actions or is it meant to conclude this discussion here on how to handle potential troublesome editing behaviour of individual users. N.J.A. | talk 12:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@PumbaPumbata: welcome to english Wikipedia. The user with whom you are in conflict is on this noticeboard every day and he is in conflict with every other user in these areas. I think a topic ban would be useful for him. I hope the administrators finally react. 91.225.230.5 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole continued tendentious editing on Catholicism and homosexuality

Previously discussed on NPOVN; I've brought over the evidence from there as well.

Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs), formerly BrianCUA, has an ongoing problem with disruptive editing of topics related to Catholicism and homosexuality; his edits have the result of functioning as promotion for the Church and its various affiliate organizations, but are also misbehavior on their own independent of any promotional or non-neutral aim. A selection:

• Feb. 2019: Slugger adds euphemistic, promotional wording which was very explicitly rejected by the other users (FreeKnowledgeCreator, Doniago, Contaldo80, and myself) in a discussion in which Slugger participated two months earlier. Slugger claims in this edit that there is no consensus against the wording that he is trying to add.
• Feb. 2019: Among other NPOV violations related to promotional content and WP:WEIGHT, Slugger insists on vaguely writing "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people" in place of the more clear and source-supported "against LGBT rights," insisting that to say "rights" would violate NPOV and, nonsensically, that because LGBT people are also interested in other matters, "rights" is overly narrow. (Here's the only other user in the discussion besides myself, Contaldo80, specifically rejecting this proposal.)
• June 2019[86]: Slugger removes text indicating that the Church "opposes the extension of at least some aspects of civil rights legislation, such as nondiscrimination in public housing, educational or athletic employment, adoption, or military recruitment, to gay men and lesbians", claiming that it is not in the source. The sources read:
  • ...In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples....Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated [in initiatives with negative impact on the family]....There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. and
  • in some matters...concern for the commonwealth justifies [sexual orientation] being taken into account. For example, the church teaches that discrimination based on sexual orientation is justified in the employment of teachers and coaches and in military recruitment.

The latter I had already directly quoted for him (after his first attempt to remove it, falsely claiming it was unsourced), and the former is right at the beginning of the source.

• June 2019[87][88]: Slugger, astoundingly, continues to edit-war against the statement that the Church is politically active against LGBT rights. This time, it is "active politically to support or oppose civil government legislation on the basis of Catholic moral theology and Catholic Social Teaching," which goes beyond being a WP:WEIGHT violation and somehow manages to convey no information at all.
• It's the little things: June 2019, an organization which campaigns against LGBT discrimination has as its function to "advocate for LGBT people to be able to engage in sexual acts."

I can really only say what I said in February - I do not know how else to proceed when, say nothing of listening to me, this user will not listen to anyone who disagrees with him even when formal procedures like 3O have been followed, will flat-out claim they agree with him when they do not, and will remove very blatantly source-supported text, claiming it isn't supported, on a whim. This is a user behavior issue, not a case of any given discussion needing broader input.

The topic area of Christianity and sexuality is subject to an ArbCom case, but unless I'm mistaken, this does not belong at Arb Enforcement because there are no general discretionary sanctions. Please let me know if this does in fact belong there instead.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

To the first point, as I explained in my edit summary, I had a different understanding of the consensus. When I later understood that the consensus was against me on a broader scope, I accepted it. That article has been stable for months now. On the second and fourth, I still contend that the issues of importance to that population go beyond rights, to things like AIDS prevention. I also don't believe, as I have explained to Roscelese, that explaining what the basis of the Church's decision is violates Weight. As to the third, the text Roscelese is citing is not on the page she cited. I later found it, but still believe there is a difference between teaching that something may be "justified" in some circumstances and "actively opposing" it in all, which is what she said. As to her final point, I AGREED with her and edited the text to reflect so. She was right, I was wrong. Currently, the paragraph in question was last edited by Roscelese. I'm not sure what her issue is there.

More broadly, three weeks ago I suggested a group effort to try and calm tensions, build good will, and learn to collaborate with one another. No one, including Roscelese, took me up on that offer, even though she was pinged about it at the time. I started working on it in the last few days when no one else took the lead. Rosclese then came in and made some edits in response to mine. When I agreed with her, as shown above, I said so. I've even publicly thanked her four times in the last day or so for her edits to this article. I am willing to work with anyone who works with me. I am often the one who requests 3O or RfC when things get contentious. And, even when the consensus is against me, I respect it. I am sorry to see what was supposed to be an effort to build good will end up like this. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Manager27

Someone want to investigate Manager27 (talk · contribs) more carefully? I'm too annoyed (by their repeated undoing of my removal of sockpuppet edits) to do it fairly, and anyway I need to go to bed. But their edits largely consist of indiscriminate reversions of IP editors (some appropriate, others like this one less so) and indiscriminate welcome-new-editor messages left on others pages. I smell socks (and not the one I was just blocking and denying over on Kynea number), but maybe I'm just overly paranoid. I should mention that after they re-did the sockpuppet edits on Kynea number a second time and I suggested on their talk page that they self-revert, their response was instead to remove the message from their talk (as is their right) and keep going on doing other things. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Backing this request. This editor reverted perfectly valid alphabetical correction of the clients' list in Tox (protocol), and also removed additional comments to one of the entries, which were backed by a link to developers' statement. Judging from their contributions, it appears that Manager27 (talk · contribs) mostly removes and/or reverts edits from anonymous editors. I believe that such destructive and biased behavior should not be tolerated. 134.191.220.74 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• I support this request as well. I came back to Manager27's talk page to see if they had replied to my message after they removed information with a source and reinstated a broken version of the page with a poor edit summary only to notice that another user (the IP user above) had also left a message on the user's talk page about poorly explained removal of information as well. I was ultimately led to the Admin Noticeboard and noticed this case. A brief look at their recent edit history only shows me that they are mainly clicking "undo" and reverting IP user's edits. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:B838:C894:556E:E993 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC))
• Was there anything wrong with the sock puppet's edits? As much as I get annoyed when people encourage sock puppets to continue editing, policy allows them to "take complete responsibility for the content" they've restored. However, it looks to me like Manager27 may be indiscriminately reverting recent edits to get permissions. See, for example, this edit, where Manager27 restores blatant vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• The relevant sockpuppet edits are not completely terrible (i.e., not vandalism, BLP violations, etc.) but do not improve the encyclopedia. They are essentially adding enormous lists of trivia of a particular mathematical kind. --JBL (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Separately, Manager27 reverted David Eppstein a second time (with no edit summary, of course), after DE explained the issue: see [89]. --JBL (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've declined the PERM request. Someone else can go ahead and do a CIR block - long enough for them to at least understand they have a talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2402:B801:2878:5700:0:0:0:0/64

• 2402:B801:2878:5700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC First Round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Myself and multiple other users are concerned about the behaviour of the user behind this range on pages related to 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification, more often surrounding edits that have violated WP:CRYSTALBALL or were not backed by sources. I am unsure about their behaviour on other football-related pages since the World Cup qualifying pages are the only pages on my Watchlist. Multiple users have attempted to discuss these issues with this editor, all of which have been blanked by the editor (allowed per WP:OWNTALK), yet even after the blanking, the behaviour continues. IP range appears dynamic. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You posted about an IP range. Can you provide a diff of any talk page discussions you have had and which IP accounts are the cause of the disruption? Just a few would help understand your case better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

The article for Noise Factory is recently becoming flooded with vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:824:0:0:0:40 (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Noise Factory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Here is a link to the article. I'm not sure what this has to do with cluebot though. MarnetteD|Talk 04:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Hari147

• Hari147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user insists on not putting spaces after punctuation. Not just forgets sometimes, not is just unaware, but simply passively refuses to correct their behavior after being asked to recently here at ANI, back in 2016 by Anna Frodesiak, and who knows where else. I tried again here. They removed it without comment and just kept on doing what they've been doing. Some might think it a minor annoyance, and those of us concerned with such things are used to quietly fixing such things here and there, but it's just not reasonable for someone to effectively tell us to f*** off and expect us to follow them around and fix everything they write. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think these two edits encapsulate the 'refuses' thing. More worrisome is the recent plain vandalism [90] repeating [91] and problems elsewhere and here. Having been here since 2012 and thumbing their nose at simple conventions and now pranking us, hey, when does the low-grade fever finally exhaust the immune system? Shenme (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. If this continues after the block expires I will block indefinitely — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I hace declined their unblock request as they say they do not understand the reason for the block.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks MSGJ, Dlohcierekim, and Shenme. The silence you hear is the sound of a dozen gnomes resting a moment, anticipating a little less work for their arthritic fingers. I realize I didn't notify the editor about this discussion, for which I apologize (and thank Shenme for doing so). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive anti-China editing from Syopsis

Previous AN/I report

• On China–United States trade war and talk

Related discussions

• RFC on restarting article from scratch due to subversion of NPOV
• Talk:China–United States trade war#Article concerns

Warning given

• Special:Diff/900966515#Talk page guidelines

Report

Let me preface this with saying that I was told I should stay away from the dramaboards, and since then I have followed that excellent advice for the most part. Also, most of this report refers to the bolded conversation linked above except when mention is made to the RFC.

This report comes about from an off-wiki conversation that occurred at WP:Discord. Viztor asked for some feedback on the situation and was advised to take it to AN/I. Instead of getting involved with that*, I made a few edits to the article. ^{[92] [93]}
*I later did though.^{Diff unavailible}

Since then, most of my substantial edits besides one were removed. ^[94] It's hard to get a diff for this because of edits like this, though.

What was the one edit? A tag I put on the article citing my concerns with WP:GLOBAL. ^{[95] [96]}

Now, despite Nyttend saying there was significant undue weight in the article at ANI, ^[97] an RFC being started on completely re-writing the article ^[98] with multiple editors agreeing in said RFC ^{[99] [100]} (Well, it's only 2/3), and my repeated explanations... Syopsis has insisted that the tag be removed. ^[101]

In the conversation that labeled "Article concerns" (which concerns the tag), this user has made personal attacks against editors, [102], doubling down on those attacks, [103] [104], WP:SHOUTING [105], and has even stated "I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive."

This is on-top a general habit of ownership of the article in general. ^{[106] [107] [108] [109]} I have additional concerns about their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. ^{[110] [111] [112]} Even more concerning is their propensity to follow Viztor around to undo their edits. ^{[113] [114] [115]} or give them unneeded warnings ^{[116] [117]} (this second diff alerting them to an ANI thread that Viztor started! That might have to do with this edit, though?). On its own, these edits would be fine, but taken together I have to include a mention here.

I know I have lost patience at least more than once and have had my own fault in this mess. I tried resolving the dispute on my talk page, but as mentioned before Syopsis doubled down. I don't have any recommended action to take, but I would prefer to see a resolution into this matter. I really hate spending more time on this than I need to.

I don't watchlist ANI, so ping me when needed. Thank you all, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• His POV is another question, the more serious one is his behavior: (1)persistent blatant attacks at multiple other editors (2)hounding them around, (3)tracking and reverting their edits in a systematic manner, so to scare (4)the editors from contributing (5)in the attempt to own the article in question. None of which is an acceptable behavior in this community. Viztor (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to request help with Syopsis. I can't even tell you if I agree or disagree with their POV because the content issues we are trying to discuss are being obscured by Syopsis' personal attacks against other editors. For example after my very first post at Talk:China–United States trade war, [118], Syopsis responded with this — and keep in mind this is also our first interaction on Wikipedia [119]:

"It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"

I thought I had only been recommending measures for article improvement, so I objected [120] to Syopsis' rude response, and they quickly came back with this [121]:

"let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position"

Syopsis has been ever more rude to MJL, for instance supposedly repeating their concerns using a kind of pidgin spelling, mockery and insults [122]:

"I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning... it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling... what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing..."

This is really distasteful and I hope something can be done to stop it. Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be editorial boards: more or less professional environments. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Since @MJL: was the one who filed this request I am going to respond to directly to that user and i am not going to bother wasting my (or anyone else's) time by responding to the borderline personal attacks by the other two users here; everything i have to say to Darouet i will say on the related talk page and I am not even going to address the comments Viztor made because it will just degenerate into a useless back and forth. But i will say at the outset I absolutely, 100% stand by the things that i wrote which that user quoted ("mediocre," "dog's breakfast" "pseudo-intellectual dog whistling") - they were attacking arguments. That is obvious to anybody who actually read the whole conversation...in full. They were not personal attacks because they were not even directed to a user. I've never made a derogatory personal comment since I started using Wikipedia and I will never make a derogatory personal comment so long as i use this encyclopedia. If that is what you call a "personal attack" then I would hate to see what an actual "personal attack" looks like. It certainly pales in comparison to some of the other things i have seen on wikipedia.

"...their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. " Ah so there it is. Your point-of-view to attack "anti-China" (what ever that means) POVs or defend a "pro-China" (again, I have no idea what means) POV. Little wonder that the user contacted you for help on discord (which seems very much like a case of tag-team editing aka Wikipedia:Tag team. Why even bother editing the article in the first place?). yes if things were only that simplistic. Whatever. Of course the label is just nonsensical, there is for starters a difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, and there is a difference between attacking the views of a political party and attacking the culture of a particular place like some mindless idiot. No different than the difference that exists between, say, attacking a religion (christianity, Islam, judaism) and attacking its believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews). I have to say i do find it very curious you did not cite my most recent edits about Hong Kong here, here and here as evidence of my (non-existent) "anti-China" views - probably because you finally figured out the truth of what I just said.

Please stop misrepresenting things. I didn't remove the material you edited, i rearranged them and I left the tag in there as a compromise gesture - hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. By the way, you and anybody else who is reading this should also be aware that the changes I made which included reverting your edits have stayed almost entirely in place - again, hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. I challenged you multiple times on the tag issue with the aim of actually resolving it and all I got from you were just mediocre, sub-standard arguments - that isn't a personal attack, that is just stating a fact. I asked you how the tag isn't a form of discrimination and all i got from you basically was "because it just isn't". And that is before we even get to your allegations of bias in the content. And about the RFC...that was before the people involved in it made massive changes to the article to rectify the bias and whatever else the RFC initiator complained about, which in any case it must be said was decisively rejected.

Okay I will admit: I have to tone down the language. Going forward, i will do my best to refrain from using profaniies and just using general insults. I and like most of the people on the encyclopedia (including everybody involved in this request) are passionate about things, but at some point you have to draw a line and say enough is enough. Fair enough. As for the hounding accusation - that's not accurate. There was one edit that was hounding (the one about Xinjiang) but the one about the anchor was to revert a hound edit by the other user and then the third one is not even an example of hounding. That said, I apologize for that one edit and haven't done anything like that since.

It's pretty simple. My position is that these are content disputes which should and can be resolved...between the two of us. If it helps, I am willing to shift the basis of my argument so that we now focus on the hard evidence that you have that the sources are "biased". This is a further compromise by me because I am downplaying the fact that it is wrong for you to discriminate the sources on the basis of nationality. Involving the two other editors is just going to drag this out way longer than it should and they aren't adding anything to the debate that we don't already know anyway. I don't know why you are trying your hardest to railroad this conversation and turn it into a conduct dispute when it isn't. Syopsis (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only should you not curse, don't insult people at all, let alone in "general"! Argue over content, not editors, on talk pages. And in terms of POV, it /must/ be neutral. Overall though, from these edits I see serious attempts to WP:OWN the article, and little effort put into building consensus. Syopsis is clearly very difficult to work with. In terms of resolving the issue, I would support a carefully worded warning on conduct, or a post 1932-American politics T-ban. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: post-1932 politics t-ban seems a little much. Maybe a subset that has to do with US-Chinese relations, but I would not support such a broad topic ban for a relatively new editor.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Syopsis: response incoming. Let me start with what is good about you. I think you are genuine person who takes criticism better than most. I appreciate your contributions so far to this project, and I hope nothing that occurs as a result of this ANI report discourages you in anyway from being a part of this community.
That being said, your tone can be very off putting at times. As CaptainEek pointed out, you really shouldn't be insulting anyone nor anything. It's a bright line violation of our WP:civility guidelines. The sorts of language you tend to use has a negative effect on people.
In that regard, I must address the tag team allegation because that most certainly is something I aspire to never do on Wikipedia. I believe I have been, from the beginning, the most transparent I could possibly be with you in regards to any offwiki communications I have had with Viztor. As previously said, Viztor had general conduct concerns that were brought up on discord (which is fairly common among editors there). I personally took notice of the article (it covers a subject I care about- namely trade) and made the edits. I never even knew Viztor before this interaction, and they had no reason to believe I would get myself involved.
I said I had concerns about a bias on your part, and then I provided diffs to substantiate this claim. I did not review every single edit you made and only reviewed significant additions or subtractions to Chinese-related articles. Also, China in this case was shorthand for People's Republic of China (the government). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Listen, I really, really, want to work constructively with you, but just take a look at some of the changes you made which concerns sourcing. ^{[123] [124]} That second diff was really bad in my opinion because you removed something cited by Reuters but left a statement that was cited to a tweet by Donald Trump. It's hard for me to make sense of that.
I appreciate your ability to own up in the places you know you were wrong. I also like your passion for the subjects you cover, but I don't like it when that gets in the way of the group's ability to cooperate with one another. We're all on the same team here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Community sanctions

As a humble editor, I have been blocked by Admin as part of a content dispute (Interaction Timeline). This seems to me a clearcut case of WP:Misuse of administrative tools. Step 1: I have raised the issue with User:Fayenatic london. Step 2: I have raised the issue with an "Independent admin" User talk:Mike Selinker#User:Fayenatic london with no joy. Trying to follow WP:DR, I mistakenly posted here when I now believe that I should have posted on this board and do so now.

WP:DR states "The community may also impose general sanctions (known as "Community sanctions") on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." I know how much you guys love your boomerangs and it will be me hit with more sanctions but I really do think that Admin User:Fayenatic london's actions reflect badly on the office. I have informed User:Fayenatic london here JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

My previous response is here. – Fayenatic London 07:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mike Selinker in that this is something that the two of you should be able to discuss and sort out without community intervention at this point. Sasquatch t|c 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith undos

While this is the last place I want to be, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making bad-faith assumptions that because my account is relatively new, I must be a sockpuppet. I already responded to the claim and reverted his deletion once, but with his second undo (where he unabashedly labels me a "trolling sleeper"), I am forced to request an extra set of eyes to hopefully defend my side. I don't really appreciate my voice being silenced with such negative allegations. 1F6😎E 10:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Your account was created 24 May 2019 (2.5 weeks ago), and you had previously made only 11 edits. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I'm a sporadic editor. And it's mostly due to stuff like this. That's not really a strong case. Previously unregistered editors make accounts all the time. If you truly believe I'm a sockpuppet, then please open an investigation. All I ask is that I be treated with some bit of respect and to have my opinions heard the same as everyone else. 1F6😎E 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being "sporadic". It's a matter of a 2.5-week old account with 11 edits posting borderline trolling comments on BN. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

How was it trolling? I was stating my opinion that evidence still seems to be missing. If it came off as trolling, then I'm sorry for being an inarticulate idiot. And if there was content in my comment to disagree with, I'd much rather have the opportunity to discuss it where everything else was discussed than being given such a negative label. At this point, the restoration of my comment is much less important to me than the fact that I've been put into one of the worst categories of editor. 1F6😎E 10:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't see anything wrong with 0x1F60E's comment other than the fact as others said it's always a bit suspicious when completely new editors show up in policy areas. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

He said that Fram's post re: ArbCom was block-worthy and "absolutely reprehensible". Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Others have said the opposite. If we shut out one side simply because we disagree with it, the WMF are just going to ignore anything we say. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(EC/clarification) Heck I will ignore anything that is said. Which gets back to my earlier comment. There is nothing intrinsically wrong from the comment. The only concern is any new editor commenting there is going to be viewed with suspicion. But we have to treat both sides equally. If we allow new editors who feel that Fram's comments were completely okay and the ban was reprehensible, we equally have to allow those who feel the ban was okay and the comments reprehensible. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think the ban was okay, but I do think the comments were reprehensible. Take this opinion however you want, but I think an appropriate block would have been one done by a local user, at the time of the incident, for like 3 days tops. No way do I agree with a 1 year ban, 5 weeks later, by the foundation. 1F6😎E 10:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(EC) BTW, I think the other issue is that the comments were wider. They pointed out, correctly IMO, that some people seem to be taking this as only a few specific instances were of concern. But the WMF/T&S haven't said that. And a careful reading of Fram's response suggests this probably wasn't the case. From what they said to Fram they appear to be generally concerned about the way Fram engaged here from what they saw at a wider level. It's true that some specific instances were highlighted including the final straw, and editors may reasonably disagree as to whether any of these instances were actually a problem, especially the final straw and so those are completely valid areas of discussion. And I'm definitely I'm not saying the WMF were right, or the way the WMF handled this was right, or that the WMF provided Fram with enough info to help them improve or that the WMF should have gotten involved or anything like that. But it does seem to me that not only is any editor in good standing who isn't socking ultimately allowed to have that opinion you mentioned, the comment served a wider purpose than simply the parts you highlighted namely to emphasise it's fairly likely we still don't have the whole story. So there's IMO even more reason to allow that comment unless we choose to ban anyone who is too new from any comment. I mean it's not like the editor was even all in, they seem to agree that the WMF handled this very poorly and probably shouldn't have gotten involved at all. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And that's my opinion. Did we read the same comment? I found it to be insulting and aggressive. Having a differing opinion from you doesn't make me a troll. I also said that I didn't believe the block was within WMF jurisdiction. And that I believe the community is still not being seen as an accountable entity by the WMF. Opinions that were echoed in nearly every other statement. If I were afforded the same respect I expected here, we could have been discussing your opinion of my comment on the same page that the rest of the discussion is taking place. Instead, we're here, where my differing opinion is being used as evidence that I'm here to disrupt the project. 1F6😎E 10:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a valid opinion to hold (just not one shared by many others) and Winged Blades of Godric should not have reverted unless they have evidence sockpuppetry. It is not acceptable to silence comments you don't agree with. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, Determining master is not necessary, always. Someone, who has been barely auto-confirmed seems to know too much 'bout the place and the page has been already subject to trolling attempts (see revdel-ed entries). I don't buy his version of events but grant the liberty to restore his post. ∯WBG^converse 10:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then please request a checkuser, so you can see that I'm on a relatively stable, non-proxy IP that has 2 previous edits. 1F6😎E 11:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would very much like my comment restored, so that we can move discussion of my opinion back the relevant page. I will not restore it myself, as I remain wary. 1F6😎E 11:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"I’ve never been a big community player at Wikipedia, and tend to avoid the posting on the drama boards" coming from someone whose account is 2.5 weeks old? Definitely fishy. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The user admits to being an IP before they crated their account (hell I was). So I am not sure what this proves.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Where does he "admit to being an IP before they created their account"? Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Quoting the second sentence of first post in this thread "I already responded to the claim". (The claim being they were socking, so not surprisingly their response was where they said they edited as an IP before.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And I edited as an IP editor for many years before I established this account. And there is nothing wrong with an editor abandoning an account with a lot of baggage and starting a new account as long as they don't overlap and there wasn't a block on the previous account. And don't forget there is courtesy vanishing or RTV. I think some editors here leap to the worse case scenario instead of waiting for an editor to actually make a serious mistake. We were all newbies once. That doesn't disallow them from having an opinion. However, I do think it is unwise for a new editor (or a new account) to tread into arbitration waters but that's just advice I would give, there is no policy against their participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Thank you. I knew it would be incredibly unwise. This situation is just so baffling and outrageous (I don’t think anyone will disagree), that I absolutely could not help myself. I have no intentions to comment at the venue further, especially because I think this discussion is bringing out the worst in everyone. 1F6😎E 07:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Drama will bring out the sock puppets, trolls, curious new editors, people who were previously using their account just to save display preferences, and old-school editors who can't remember their password. Don't cast aspersions, make personal attacks, violate talk page guidelines, or harass new editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And then again, sometimes when people smell smoke, there actually is a fire. [125]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that makes my message to them a bit embarrassing... I am still open to any scrutiny, because I am absolutely confident in my truths. 1F6😎E 07:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I must say I am emotionally satisfied with the support and good faith some of these responses have. While having my comment restored would be nice, I am not going to insist on it, not least of which being that the discussion has long since moved on. I am not sure if any efforts to (dis)associate me with a sockmaster have been made, but I’d like to continue on with the benefit of the doubt. Anyone can feel free to close this now. And hopefully anyone reading this section is inspired to take WP:AGF one step further than they already have. 1F6😎E 07:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I do not wish for any action against Winged Blades of Gothic. I do believe they jumped the gun in their assumptions, but I think they were still doing it with the project’s best interests in mind. There’s enough community drama already, and all I really wanted was help defending myself. Thank you to those who responded kindly, and I apologize for any unintended drama tangent to an already extremely conflagrant situation. 1F6😎E 08:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Our World In Data

A reference to funding from the Bill Gates Foundation referenced to OWID's own website was added and removed on the 9 June 2019 (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Our_World_In_Data&diff=next&oldid=901045000). Is there a problem with mentioning the funding? I presume an admin was involved as both edits say Username or IP removed.TSventon (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, any issue won’t be with the content, TSventon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A registered user is removing my edits and belittling my IP status

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

---

Can an administrator please help me? I know the adminstrators always try to make sure everything is correct on Wikipedia and that rules are followed so could someone kind enough please help me? A registered user (Urselius) removed all of my information that was properly cited without any edit summary. They then published a factually incorrect version claiming Nepalis have East Asian ancestry despite the fact that "Nepali" is a nationality and not an ethnicity and that most Nepalis are related to North and East Indians, not East Asians. I reverted their edit and left a message at the talk page but they reverted my edits again. They told me that there was "too much information about South Asians" despite the fact that there's a lot of information about other groups within the article. The thing I am however most upset about is that they told me to "create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously" whilst also telling me via the talk page that all IP users are treated suspiciously. What have I done wrong? I was merely trying to provide information about South Asian minorities with properly cited citations but they dismissed it by deleting the entire thing and basically told me that I, as an IP user, am unwanted here on Wikipedia. They look like a well established registered user here so I don't know why they would say such a thing. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:6864:D098:3C24:9CA5 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

• Please note that my IP address changes all the time for some reason. I don't know why it has changed again but I am the same user. I am not IP-hopping. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:6864:D098:3C24:9CA5 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC))
  • See IPv6#SLAAC privacy extensions. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G: Thank you for the link, I now understand why my IP address changes. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

This is why many Wikipedians do not like IP editing, when you register an account, you may be addressed at a fixed talk page and chances are you will be pinged when somebody is trying to talk to you. Please do register an account. Carrite (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment 2001, per the heading at the top, you are supposed to notify the involved user of this ANI report. I have just done this for you. Your concerns are valid here. IPs are human too, and they should be treated with respect. Even more importantly, it seems like Wikipedia:Assume good faith was not followed here by Urselius. From my view, you have done nothing wrong as to warrant this treatment. (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL: I'm sorry I wasn't aware of the fact that I was supposed to notify Urselius of this report but thank you very much for notifying them. Also, thank you for providing the links to the articles (they were very interesting to read) and for giving me your viewpoint. Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help. :) (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

    [Thank you for the ping] Of course! If you ever need help, please check out the WP:Teahouse or write to me on User talk:MJL. Some of my favorite editors have used IPs (like B0B). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    • @MJL: Thank you very much for providing me the link to the Teahouse and for allowing me to request help from you if I ever need it, I really appreciate your help MJL! :D (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC))

Response - What a ridiculous complaint. I am solely interested in content, nothing else. This editor wanted to add a screed of information about minority groups in South Asia that will distort the balance of a section of an article. A section that is already hard to read because of all the examples that are listed in it. It is an article that I rescued from having very little useful or valid content and poor citation. However, this sort of 'bleating' and reactive 'coddling' is what I have come to expect from Wikipedia, which is part of the reason why I hate it so very much. Urselius (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated IP editor here - "create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously" contradicts your statement about being interested in content and nothing else. Your dismissiveness towards basic civility is worrisome. If you hate Wikipedia no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to edit. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment is mistaken. The content I care about has to be readable, just because content added to an article has citations does not mean that it improves an article. On the contrary, if extra information overloads a section that is essentially a list making it less readable and less readily intelligible, when that information is in too much detail for the balance of a section, then it does not improve it. I hate Wikipedia, but I love accurate information, well presented, readable and well reasoned, that is why I edit. I utterly despise the apparatus of Wikipedia, and many of its apparatchiks. I assert that my opinions are as valid as anyone's, I do not have to espouse Wikipedia as an institution in order to use or edit it. Urselius (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please explain the edit comment "create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously" 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that there are fluffy inclusivity directives in existence. However, if any experienced editor sees an edit summary from a page on his or her watchlist there will be a gradation of responses depending on the nature of the editing editor. If the editor is known to be reliable the edit will be assumed to be valid, if the editor is registered but an unknown quantity the edit may worth checking, if the editor is an IP address the edit will be checked, as there is a significantly higher likelihood of the edit being disruptive or inappropriate. If any experienced editor denies that they employ this hierarchy of suspicion then they are being less than truthful. Human psychology, and Wikipedia has negligible influence on this, dictates that edits made by IP address editors will tend to be regarded with a more jaundiced eye. If you wish to avoid this, call it prejudice, then it is simple enough to create a user account. The comment was not belittling IP status, as asserted, it was merely advice. I reverted the edits, not because they were made by an IP address editor, but on their lack of merit within an already overloaded section, and because I considered that they were too detailed in comparison to the remainder. Urselius (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Urselius: (Reply from the IP user that opened this ANI report and is involved in it) "The comment was not belittling IP status, as asserted, it was merely advice", it was not advice and I know it isn't because I read the two articles that user MJL sent to me. I don't know why you're trying to act innocent because you clearly did the wrong thing. I only opened up this report because I wanted an administrator to help mediate and hopefully come to a resolution. I did not create this report to attack you, I wanted help to understand why this has happened and my first thought was to go to the Admin Noticeboard to get help. I don't know why you have such a suspicious attitude towards IP users. The article MJL sent me stated that according to studies between 2004 and 2007, "over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism" so why did you treat my edits with suspicion and tell me that I need to create an account to be taken seriously? I carefully made sure all my citations were correct but you deleted everything, including the sources, and dismissed me because I am an IP user. I know IP users are discriminated against by some on Wikipedia but I did not expect it from someone like you. Your comments in this thread only show me that you have a low opinion of IP users and thus consequently treated my edits as rubbish. I can see that MJL restored my edits and you have made some changes as well so I'm okay with moving on from this. I can't change your views on IP users and I'm certainly not trying to do that with this report. I just wanted help to understand why my edits were reverted and why I was told to create an account and I understand it now because MJL provided me some links and gave his viewpoint. I don't want this to turn into a huge issue as I now understood the problem here so we can all move on if that's okay with you.(2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC))

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

Student editor and possible Paid-Editing

I found this article EPayLater (company), it was created by a student editor User:Lastchancej5. Although there are indications that the user is a genuine student editor, editing as part of a course, I feel the article chosen, the way it was picked up(from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics ) and the way it is written is indicative of paid editing. Could someone have a look. Daiyusha (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• My gut reaction is that the writing is more indicative of a student writing, but in a style better suited to a school writing assignment than to an encyclopedia. The company has been listed on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics for nearly a year without action, so it is plausible that this topic was picked at random from that list. bd2412 T 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agree, although the tone might also indicative of too liberal borrowing from the company's press releases and coverage. Regards SoWhy 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  That does seem more likely - reads like they grabbed the top 10 sources, with those generally being positive (unless the company's had really bad news). The individual's course (OLES2129) has been generally been dramatically above the average in general article competence and willingness to engage. The ANI notice was quite hard to see - I've dropped it into its own section. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Facilitated communication articles

I am here to dispute actions being made by User:Wikiman2718. This user is currently removing large portions of articles that contain quotes from non-speaking autistic people, as well as the biographies of non-speaking autistic people, on the premise that facilitated communication is discredited (including removing portions of Neurodiversity, Lucy Blackman, Sue Rubin, and removing nearly all of Benjamin Alexander (writer)). I have provided extensive evidence to the contrary, but regardless of one's position on FC, completely removing every reference to it and every person who has been purported to use it cannot be the appropriate action to take. Please assist in this matter. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not removed every reference to Facilitated communication: only those that fail to recognize that it is a psudoscience. I would appreciate administrative assistance in this matter. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: User has now removed nearly all of Amy Sequenzia. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. We discuses in the article the counter claims about FC. There may well be arguments for a re-write, not wholesale deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Per NPOV, each claim must be given due weight. That means that scientific consensus is stated as fact while psudoscience is called out as psudoscience. Giving science a chance to make a counterclaim against psudoscience is a violation of NPOV. I deleted all information that implied or depended on the proposition that FC is science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you re-write, you do not just blanket delete (including removing the criticism of the procedure).Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the "criticism of facilitated communication":

According to skeptic Steven Novella, a professor at Yale University School of Medicine, Sequenzia's writings under FC are unusually eloquent for a nonverbal autistic individual. He additionally stated that there is no given explanation for how she spontaneously learned to read and write at an advanced level when she was eight years old. Novella also said that he would have to personally meet her understand better. In response to this and other studies that found the facilitator and not the facilitated are doing the communication, Sequenzia has said that critics of facilitated communication do not understand how a neurodivergent brain works or how their body responds to internal and external output; that organizations such as ASHA have a financial interest in people needing oral speech to communicate; and that skeptics don't meet FC users, care about the learning process, or acknowledge studies of authorship. She has labelled most of those critics as bigots who have fear and disdain for those they believe are intellectually disabled.

This passage fails to communicate that the technique is psudoscience, and I don't see how it is salvageable. I don't see how any of the information I deleted could be useful in an article which reflects the psudoscientific nature of FC. For instance, it makes no sense to include quotes from a person who cannot communicate. If the article cannot be re-written, it may have to be deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You are making the claim that FC is pseudoscience based on incredibly tight goalposts. Again, I have provided [extensive evidence] that it is not. There are many, many qualitative studies confirming authorship that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Now it has to be "medline indexed" in order to be reliable, apparently. I will wait for admin intervention. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain which bit of that "Extensive evidence" you link to is the bit we should read to show us that this is not pseudoscience? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All of it does. The idea that FC is pseudoscience is predicated on an antiquated version of what autism is (which is why that page includes research on autism being a neuro-motor condition and presumption of competence.) However, I did provide a specific journal article on the Amy Sequenzia Talk page when I was asked to provide something from within the last five years. (This one.) And I know that you saw it, because you responded. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For the convenience of the administrators, here is a list of pages related to this discussion.

• Amy Sequenzia‎
• Lucy Blackman
• Sue Rubin‎
• Benjamin Alexander (writer)
• Neurodiversity‎

There are also other pages about facilitated communication and it's users, but I have only listed those pages that are in dispute. The other pages for the most part seem to reflect the psudoscientific nature of FC. This 2014 literature review concludes "Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity." I do not believe that any reputable source exists to challenge it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship." So this review ignores every qualitative study that has proven efficacy, and we're using that as the sole determiner for whether FC is pseudoscientific or not? Quantitative data isn't the only reliable source, particularly when you're trying to evaluate competence. Just because someone gets an "F" on a test doesn't mean they don't know the material. There are a lot of factors involved. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

User:Marvin 2009

User:Marvin 2009's history shows that he's a single purpose account pushing a pro-FLG narrative on the highly contentious Falun Gong articles, which are under an arbitration case. He has engaged in soapboxing on the talk pages [126][127][128][129][130] where he attempts to discredit sources critical of FLG. He was also involved with edit warring, with User:Unicornblood2018 (now banned) [131] who he called a CCP apologist, and previously, he received several warnings for his disruptive editing [132], and was blocked for 48 hours for violating 3RR. In light of this I think a topic ban may be in order--PatCheng (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• None of the diffs you linked to seem to show problematic editing on the article itself- and the archive of his talk page only shows me that you and him have had past disagreements, going back 3 years. While verbose talk page walls of text are unpleasant, this strikes me as a dispute over sourcing and content, which ANI usually doesn't get involved in. Furthermore, his last edit to the Falun Gong article was around 2 months ago. I'm not sure this situation warrants a T-ban. Non-admin comment by: Rivselis (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:BobRoberts14

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

---

Disruptive editing by BobRoberts14 (talk) over at Gainesville, Florida. Continues to argue even when presented with facts. Responses are that the editor knows more about the city than others. Multiple reverts. Attempts to discuss the issues are contentious to say the least. I understand that the editor is new and I hope that they continue to edit but they seem to refuse to read any information presented to them on how to accurately edit and expand Wikipedia.

I need help handling this but I do not know what appropriate action would be and look to administrators for guidance. If there was something I could have done better or differently to effect a less contentious outcome, I would appreciate the feedback. Thank you. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

PopularOutcast is attempting to claim that Santa Fe college is not in Gainesville, Florida. They are not presenting facts, just a single source. If you search up any article on Santa Fe, it states the location as Gainesville. Although Santa Fe is technically a few blocks outside of the city limits, it's within a mile of the boundaries, and therefore is considered part of the city. The college has 22,000 students and is a major part of the city, yet PopularOutcast insists that it isn't in Gainesville and must be removed from the article, even though it is later stated in the article as being in Gainesville. BobRoberts14 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

It appears both of you are getting frustrated over a content dispute. Bob believes that being in Gainesville doesn't necessarily mean being within the city limits (for instance, the city of Boston is much smaller than the Boston metro area, and both are conflated with one another all the time), while PopularOutcast believes that since it's not within the official city limits, it's not in Gainesville. I would suggest seeking uninvolved editors to try and reach a consensus on the issue, as well as finding reliable sources- any of us can crack open Google Maps, but doing so is definitely Original Research. Rivselis (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rivselis, there is more than this issue. I did not bring in the contents of the dispute to this because I thought I was not supposed to. The issue has been mostly about changing the lead without sources. The only reason I brought the issue with Santa Fe college up was because BobRoberts14 said that s/he had found a source which indicated that Santa Fe College was a major employer in the city. The source did not say that and I posited that it was likely because the college was not within the city limits. There are issues with BobRoberts14 doing original research and synth. Again, I didn't post here because I thought it wasn't the place. The history of the Gainesville article and the talk page as well the editor's talk page give what has led up to here. Other editors have been involved (again see history of the page and talk page) and the behavior continues. BobRoberts14 has undone edits of editors not involved who were just trying to improve the article. I can try to reach out to other editors. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That is completely false. I never stated that Santa Fe was a major employer of Gainesville, although multiple sources state that it has over 1000 employees. I said that UF has over 27,000 employees in Gainesville and UF Health has over 13,000, and I cited sources. The only editor whose edits I reverted was you and Meters, and after Meters agreed with me, only you. Once again, Santa Fe is a major part of Gainesville, since it is only a few blocks outside the city limits and has over 22,000 students, and UF and UF Health both employ a large amount of people, with all the teachers and students adding up to over 96,000. All of that is factual and can be easily verified by accompanying sources. But you decided to dispute it for whatever reason. If a college is within a mile of a city, it's still considered centered around that city. And almost anyone would agree that UF and UF Health are major employers. BobRoberts14 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

This is a content dispute among editors, not an instance of disorderly conduct, vandalism or socking. You need to have additional editors weigh in on the article talk page or go to Dispute resolution. Whether or not the university is or is not in Gainesville will not be determined here on a noticeboard and neither of you have provided diffs/edits as example of any misbehavior. If you are both willing, I think DR is your best bet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Liz, thanks. I thought edit warring was here but I guess I was incorrect. Appreciate your time. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 22:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a problem with WP:OR here, some of it quite problematic. I saw Bobroberts14 via the late termination of pregnancy article, in which he added this. That, combined with other edits (including minor things like this) indicate a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. No action is needed here, but Bob, keep in mind that everything on Wikipedia should be based on what reliable sources say about the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man

I neither know nor care what the hell all this is about, but it's clearly not going anywhere good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As what I think likely to be my last edit on the project, I'll ask that someone do something about this egregious grave-dancing. [133] ~ Rob13Talk 21:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Not grave-dancing, and I'm glad you've done the right thing. I've struck out my comment relating to my misunderstanding about the retention of those tools. Farewell. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Really not ANI-worthy, particularly as it's been struck. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC) His next comment is even worse. – bradv🍁 21:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Not as bad as calling someone "an abuser" without evidence. That's bordering on defamatory. CassiantoTalk 21:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC) TRM has been on Wikipedia for long enough that they should know by now such statements are uncivil, struck or not. Rivselis (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Not uncivil, just your subjective way at looking at it. It was said, pointed out, struck and apologised for. Nothing to see here. CassiantoTalk 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 99 edits and you find your way here? Amazing. But in response to your material concern, see above. Rob was materially offensive and needed to be told. Sysops and even former Arbs need to be corrected from time to time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC) And just before I permanently leave this discussion, I'd like to thank BU_Rob1_3 for all his endeavours within the project. It's sad to see any prolific content contributor leave: as well all know, we're here to serve our readers. Good luck Rob, in all your future work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Nothing to see here, hat this sucker. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Classic TRM behavior: skirt the line and rely on friends/enablers to escape unscathed. He's been doing it for years, folks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Skirt the line -- have you seen some of his contributions on the FRAM page? Amazing that the community tolerates this. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC) TRM makes a comment, TRM is told he's inaccurate/incorrect, TRM strikes the offending comment .... so excuse the blunt language ... but why the fuck are we even here?..... –Davey2010Talk 02:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Block request

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

---

Hello everyone. I have chosen to officially retire from Wikipedia, and I would like a block placed on my account to avoid any temptation to return. I just do not see anything constructive coming from continuing to work on here. I know that it is an odd request, but I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Might I recommend Bishonen for this? Best regards and thanks for the service. Cassianto^Talk 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation and the message. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, have a read of this first before making any rash decisions. I see you've had some issues on another user's talk page. Don't chuck it all away because of a silly argument. Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I know it will sound rather silly, but I just feel really embarrassed. I honestly forgot about the wikibreak enforcer. Would it be alright if I go with that option instead? You are right in that rash decisions are rarely ever good, particularly in the long run. My perspective will most likely change down the line. Thank you again for the message. It may seem minor, but it is a huge help for me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Help yourself. I'm sure Bish would rather you take a break rather than ask for a self-block. No need to be embarrassed, and I wish you well on your break. Cassianto^Talk 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If I may? I'm sure no one will judge you for taking a wikibreak. We all need one sometimes. Best of luck! —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Nice edit history, by the way. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Tim198 again

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

---

A few months back, Tim198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as an outcome this ANI thread. In that thread, I made note of two other accounts that they appeared to have used, but they were not blocked due to their inactivity. Well, in the time since then, it appears they have resumed using the Tim198NY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account to continue doing the same stuff that resulted in the original block. I request that the Tim198NY account be blocked for NOTHERE behavior/block evasion, and their userpage be deleted under CSD U5. Thanks. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 22:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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