Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarage (talk | contribs) at 05:59, 19 June 2018 (→ZSJUSA copy and paste moving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT

    @Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.

    A sample of some of his recent changes: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.

    The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease [11][12][13][14]and most recently[15]. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.

    The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.

    - Nick Thorne talk 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just spent about two hours replacing the article title at the beginning of the opening sentence of a large number of fish articles edited by Couiros22 (more to come, but I do have to sleep sometime). I noticed a large number of category changes as I was working. I did not investigate the appropriateness of those changes as that's a can of worms I'd prefer not to open, but given this reply when queried about a category change by another editor approximately one day after this AN/I thread was started I am not convinced that Couiros22 understands, or cares about, the collaborative nature of our work here. Seeing that reply, I asked who had made that determination here and received this which to me implies a disregard for other editors' opinions. - Nick Thorne talk 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couiros22 simply does not engage properly in discussion, seeming to regard all comments, however polite, and however well grounded in existing policies, as a challenge to be resisted. Couiros22 needs to learn that editing here requires consensus and following established guidelines and policies. I support removing editing privileges for a time in the hope that this will lead to better behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be interested in other editors opinion on this edit. DexDor (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the editor continues to make no response to this ANI report I think it is time for a block to get their attention. Per his talk page, he notices that his approach is being criticized but he intends to make no changes whatsoever in what he is currently doing. On June 12 alone he has made dozens of category changes, with no evident support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That edit is obviously wrong and shows Couiros22 does not understand how categorization works. Fish of Australia (if they are not separated from Freshwater fish of Australia, and even then there are brackish water species) is a subset of Marine fauna of Australia, not the other way around.
    I tend to steer clear of categories for the most part, because I am not sure I properly understand how they work on Wikipedia. However, fish of Australia cannot be a subset of marine fauna of Australia because not all fish are marine. Freshwater fish of Australia must logically be a sub-set of fish of Australia, so if fish of Australia was to be put in a higher level category then it would need to be something like fauna of Australia, without the "marine" qualifier. C22's re-categorization does not seem logical to me and I suspect it makes it harder for people to find what they're looking for, not easier, which surely is the point of categories. - Nick Thorne talk 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole matter with the common fish names is that Couiros22 does not follow any logic. He picks certain common names at random and pushes those as the only validly accepted ones. It is becoming a mess and while fauna categorization and proper naming or documenting the various common names is useful, those tasks are now not done, "in favor of" wild and rogue edits that do not create a better encyclopedia. He seems deaf for objections, even when they are sourced and well-argumented and this example here above clearly shows he does not grasp the whole concept of categories. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been gradually working my way back through C22's contributions re-bolding and moving the article title to the beginning of the lead. To be fair, in a few cases, the articles' leads were either always the wrong way round or somebody else had made the change, either way since I'm there I am applying the MOS. In the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are stubs, so I suspect they do not get a lot of attention, but I'm adding them to my watchlist as I go. I'll be spending some time expanding articles about Australian freshwater fish (my area of interest and knowledge) once I've done, but obviously I can't re-write the entire fish area of the Wiki. I had considered just reverting C22's edits, but without spending a lot of time trying to understand how he has been changing the categorization, I did not feel that was a good ides, however, if others think he is making a complete mess of the categories, then I would support such an action. Meanwhile I will continue to try and undo the damage manually, but it will take a while to get through all the edits. - Nick Thorne talk 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for block

    @Couiros22: has continued their editing behaviour making over 85 edits today alone, even as this AN/I thread continues, changing categorization despite their approach being challenged. They steadfastly refuses to explain their changes, even when asked, not even using edit summaries. I have specifically asked them to explain their approach on their talk page, but they continues to answer with non sequiturs. See here here and here. I have left a final request for them to explain here, although I expect this to be handled in the same non-responsive way as before. I believe it is now time to act. C22 needs to stop making changes until a consensus has been established, it seems to me that the only way we can get them to listen is a block. - Nick Thorne talk 11:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As expected, a non-responsive reply: here. - Nick Thorne talk 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, I've reviewed all the present discussion on Curious22's talk page, and while I do see the issues with less than stellar collaborative mindset that have been raised here, I'm also not finding your approach toward Curious to be 100% ideal either, at least at the moment. For a start, I agree with MSGJ below that Curious does indeed seem to be engaging in discussion--you just don't seem to like their answers very much. Which is fair: their attitude is pretty gung-ho and they clearly do not understand the pace at which BRD is meant to work, and I would even go as far to say that if they cannot make an effort to re-calibrate their perspectives on how consensus is formed, they could soon find themselves blocked or removed from certain areas. But your own approach to them (at least at present) is overly aggressive; your unilateral declaration that they are facing their "last chance" is particularly problematic, in my opinion. If I were facing that onslaught of demands to answer your questions, to your satisfaction in every instance, and they were all phrased like that, I'm not sure my responses would be any less curt than those of Curious22.
    Now I can fathom that probably you did not start out approaching them this way and that you might reasonably claim that this is the result of frustration with a prolonged argument, which is fair enough. But other eyes are on the issue now, so it may be wise to stop grilling/engaging the editor in this fashion. If they continue to not engage substantially with the community in a review of these matters, very likely they will be blocked, in which case we will have begun to address your concerns. However, I see enough of a haze of antagonism here, that I'm not prepared to write off Curious as a problematic editor who cannot be made to see the need to slow down and discuss, if approached in the right way. Perhaps I am lacking details that would make me less optimistic about the liklihood of that, but I think right now both "sides" need to take a pause and step back, if only for a moment. Snow let's rap 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the "declaration...problematic" part of the above comment: But I've also seen an admin (in a discussion about a very similar editor to C22) say  "I elected to not block since I was not comfortable with the warnings I saw.". DexDor (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't perceive the implied relevance. Snow let's rap 10:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More detail: In a discussion (about NotWith) the closing admin said "... they need to receive formal warnings on their talk page to get an administrator to take action.". Nick's comment to C22 was "... Last chance now. What categorization schema are you trying to implement, and where did you get consensus for it?" that you described as "problematic". That leaves me wondering what warning a non-admin can give to a problem editor (who isn't an obvious vandal) that is sufficiently formal without being (in your view) problematic.  However, in this case C22 has already been formally warned (e.g. in Oct 2016) so IMO a block for disruptive editing is long overdue. DexDor (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I still completely fail to see how an admin's general comment (to another editor on a completely unrelated matter) that warnings should be issued before he feels comfortable instituting a block (a very conventional and reasonable position) has anything to do with the statement in question here; I don't know who the admin in question here is, but I feel confident in assessing that they were clearly talking about template warnings and the like--outreach efforts that are expected to come before blocks. That is not the same kind of "warning" as one party to a dispute making an ultimatum to another.
    But I really don't want to get into a back-and-forth with you on this. I can elucidate on my perspective for Nick if he likes, but until such time, the more you and I debate it, the more strident the whole matter becomes, and concerns that were once simply expressed (and which Nick may have taken completely in stride) become overstressed and thus potentially become new points of contention--which would completely defeat the original purpose of the comment, which was simply to point out that the breakdown in communication may not be entirely one-sided and that temporary disengagement to let the broader community step in is highly advisable. I would extend that same advice to you; if you and Nick are correct and Curious22 can't be reasoned with, then they will hang themselves with the WP:ROPE that we will try to extend them and you will be vindicated. But if the matter can be resolved short of sanctions, so much the better. Snow let's rap 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to get into an argument about this, but I feel you have misunderstood and mischaracterised what has been going on. You claim we should give C22 enough WP:ROPE, but how much do we need to allow? The editor has made over 18,000 edits with barely a handful of edit summaries and hardly any talk page comments (149 when I last looked), how much more evidence do you need to demonstrate that this editor does not collaborate? They did not stop and engage in discussion when their editing was challenged instead they continued editing up to 80 to 100 articles a day. I do not think it unreasonable to ask what categorization schema the editore was seeking to apply, a quaestion they have yet to answer. How else are we to understand what they are doing? What else do you think I should have done? I suggest you reread the discussion that started here. Note that the editor was being challenged by several other editors for over a month before I made my first comment, yet they were continuing on unabated with their editing in exactly the same way that was being challenged. C22 was making obvious errors that were being pointed out to them, but their response was basically to resist rather then provide a coherent justification for their approach. I am quite prepared to have my actions examined here and I will take any advice given, but I am very disappointed at the superficial way C22's activities have been scrutinised. I expected better. - Nick Thorne talk 04:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made a brief comment on their talk page. Basically I can't see what they are doing wrong. Perhaps the communication style is poor, but I do see genuine attempts to explain their rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Placing the category "Fish of Australia" within "Marine fauna of Australia"[16] then doubling down by re-adding it when reverted.[17] This is obviously incorrect as "Fish of Australia" includes "Freshwater fish of Australia" which it should be obvious cannot be included in "Marine fauna of Australia". This sort of action seriously questions C22's judgement. Never mind that C22 fails to properly explain their categorization system, only states things like "common sense" and that they have decided what to do as if their decision is the end of the matter. They do not actually explain the rationale behind their approach when asked, simply say "I have already explained" when they plainly have not done so. The burden lies with the one proposing change and C22 has abjectly failed to this when challenged. This is not the way to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne talk 11:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I made a mistake here, they did not place FofA in MFofA, but the other way round. This is even worse as marine fauna should obviously includes crustaceans, cephalopods, zooplankton, corals and other invertebrates as well as marine mammals and probably some bird species. - Nick Thorne talk 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if you'd like an example of C22 muddling up freshwater and marine fauna there's this. Note: The edit summary of my revert of that edit should have read "The rasboras are freshwater fish" (I was editing on mobile and hit the wrong key). DexDor (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied to this here which again, you seemed to have freely dismissed. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean this? "Initially I had no idea the category would eventually contain just fish in the absence of other marine fauna, nor that (ini the presence of the "Freshwater fish of Australia" category) there would have to be a sister subcategory entitled "Marine fish of Australia" to "Fish of Australia" - nevertheless it's no alarming matter and perhaps we could just *automatically?* change the title "marine fauna" to "marine fish" ?" What sort of logic is that? Competence is required. - Nick Thorne talk 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above quote came from this edit where C22 ignored the normal conventions of talk page use and gave a scattergun reply to individual points threading their replies within another editor's post thus making it very hard to understand who said what when reading the talk page. This is another example of C22 disregarding the norms of Wikipedia and failing to act in a collaborative way. - Nick Thorne talk 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shevonsilva

    User:Shevonsilva has been creating a lot of stubs with a lot of problems. A lot of time has been spent on their talk page by PamD, Vexations, Nick Moyes, Imaginatorium, and me. They have issues with things like sourcing information, mass creation of stubs with the same misspelling, bad titles, and using Wikipedia as the source for article creation. Despite a lot of patience, things have now devolved into personal attacks like:

    • I never expect you as a big liar. [...] You have no idea about the subject there [...] You do not appreciate other, and, telling lies and discourage other. If you cann't understand the article it is fine. STOP LYING to other people. [...] This is dis-graceful. You are attacking me personally. I am very unhappy about you, now. I hate liars.[18]
    • You like to involve in arguemnts with me and impress others while others are supporting me and suggesting me important things like bots and stuff. You only created two pages (according to your page), look like you got no idea how much effort we have to put to create pages[19]
    • and the ironic Your English is much like Gangster English.[20]

    I suggest they be banned from creating articles due to WP:CIR and strongly warned about civility. Natureium (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note that I am on Kenya constituency stubs (actually, already for three days) and I am steadily improving them. No need to intervene in this area. Just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about me. I will post the full discussion. There were personal attacks towards me and my work. I will post the full discussion. Creating stubs are something else.Shevonsilva (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    minus Removed

    Sorry for the whole mess. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Here are the full discussions:[reply]

    Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Indeed, Shevonsilva has created more than 1000 stubs on subdivisions of Africa over approximately 6 weeks. Many of these have included lots of careless errors (each one mass-duplicated); the most recent couple of samples I looked at did not have any obvious errors. So I find it easy to assume good faith, but I cannot see how all this effort is improving Wikipedia. For many of the countries concerned, there is absolutely minimal information, and some sort of list of subdivisions (e.g. Departments of Gabon): putting this list in tabular form, adding information such as "Capital" or "Population" would obviously be an improvement. But instead what happens is a mass of microstubs, giving the same information in less convenient form. Worse, when there is an occasional division with a useful article there is no way of distinguishing it, since every division has a microstub link. A few other points:
    • Shevonsilva does appear to be engaged in a bizarre "point scoring" exercise. When it is pointed out that many of his pages (for example from a previous mass-creation of "units" pages) have been converted to redirects, we get comments like "Re-directions are regarded as a creation."
    • The history for the page M'Bagne Department is curious. (See User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mauritania_now). Originally there were eight extra paragraphs after the usual boilerplate, the first duplicating the boilerplate (with the usual punctuation errors), the rest of an oddly poetic style. Shevonsilva replied to me that this "was in another source", and progressively deleted the last three, then the last two paragraphs. I cannot imagine how anyone capable of reading the text could truncate it progressively in this way; it simply makes no sense.
    • Many people (from the very first comment on his talk page) have asked Shevonsilva to "slow down"; the response to these requests has always been evasive. It is very difficult to cooperate with an editor with this approach. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I had no idea about point scoring thing. I don't need any point. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • These issues wouldn't be a problem if they weren't repeated by the hundred. The title of almost all of the stubs need to be changed because they all end in the descriptive word as though it is part of the title. Ex, Farafangana District. District is not part of the proper noun. There are hundreds of articles that need to be moved. I informed them about the title thing a few days ago and they are still creating new articles with the same problem. Natureium (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Before they recently removed a bunch of comments from other users, Shevonsilva's talk page looked like this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, they've removed a lot of comments. (Just a few examples.) And this may explain some of their approach to mass creation of sub-par articles. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very very motivational, please refer full discussion (the approaches are well discussed there): [21]https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Please_get_your_bot_to_take_a_little_more_care!. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway, FYI, I stopped stub creation of administrative divisions. Anyway, I am glad to discuss naming issues of the articles with policy makers and we have re-structure naming of over 10,000 articles (I never created or edit those) if we are going to make a change on naming. I am thinking to focusing on my own works. Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) The issue here is whether Shevonsilva should be sanctioned for their conduct. I lean toward an indefinite block based on a mixture of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT. Shevonsilva has over 5,000 edits. They didn't start editing in earnest until 2014, and in the three years 2014-16, they made between 350 and 700 edits each year. In 2017 they had one edit. In less than half of 2018, they have made a whopping 3400 edits, but apparently mostly not benefiting the project. I don't see a temporary block as serving any purpose, other than perhaps to slow them down, as I don't expect their abilities to improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly a ban on article creation with an appeal only allowed after they have diligently worked to repair the mess their mass creation made? I do fear, based on their writing here that there may be an English competency issue i.e. I am unsure whether they are not comprehending the issues being brought up and the need to address those issues, if they are simply engaging in willful WP:IDHT or if they simply lack the necessary clue to edit. If the first then it is possible they can learn to contribute constructively. Jbh Talk 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree to a ban from creating any new articles or redirects, widely construed, for an indefinite period. GiantSnowman 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That would give thee time to practice editing, expanding, and sourcing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    can anyone kindly, confirm me, in Districts of Madagascar do I have to change the naming for the articles which only I have created, or, do I have to change the naming of all pre-existing ones too with the syntax, "name department"? Shevonsilva (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Oh wise admins, is there a tool for mass moving of pages? Natureium (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, bots.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then, I will move articles I have created as this is everyone expects and that is my responsibility to do it as I am the creater. Heavy work. I will follow the pattern e.g. name (department). I will try to move other pre-existing ones (a heavy bulk, which I never created or edited, over 10000 articles) if I have a free time. Hope this is what all are expecting. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, the name should be discussed first, and per country. Do not rush to move before we establish consensus. I am actually happy with Kenyan stub names, and they follow the same pattern earlier articles did.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, dear, I am very sorry. Just now I saw your message. I changed the naming for the articles I have created as everyone was expecting it(except for Kenya as someone was in it). I really feel this is breaking the Extended metaphor. I think we have amend the policy of naming related things like this. Anyway, no worries. I will revert the naming if it is helpful. Anyone can easily trackdown the pages through my user page which has all the link for the articles. I am always here to help and go with consensus. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Senior Software Engineer and Researcher. There are a few cases. In user interface design (including web pages), we always follow the same metaphor to make the user less confused. The other part is search engines give more weights for URLs sometimes. If we use name (department), search engines have to use lexical analysis and probably gives a less weight, but, if we use name_department, it will filter the underscore, and, easily pick it. And, as I know it is a common practice to use name department than name (department). One good example is we call Hydrogen ion not Hydrogen (ion). To be honest, I only tried to help. I am getting nothing with these changes, only tried to help you all. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the saddest aspects of all this is that this flood of stubs are so ridiculously minimal. "X is a [type of unit] in [country]." and nothing else, except an infobox giving the same information (except when it's mangled, as for Madagascar). Even where the sources cited clearly state the intermediate unit(s) (eg Regions in Madagascar), Shevonsilva will not add that extra information which could transform a pretty useless stub into one which enables the reader looking for "X district" to find out roughly where in the country it lies, and get more information about the area. I've upgraded Sakaraha District from the original version, using the source provided. I've pointed this out several times, to no effect. The flood of all-but-useless stubs, many of which would be much more useful as a redirect to an existing sourced and informative list of administrative units, has continued unchecked until it finally arrived at ANI.
    There's a huge amount of cleanup to be done, which ought to be done by Shevonsilva before they are allowed to create any more mess.
    There is also a need to add navigation links - thus Sakaraha District should have a hatnote link at Sakaraha, and similarly every article called "X [unit]" needs a link by a hatnote, dab page entry or redirect from "X". If this editor had the interests of the readers at heart, they would be making these links. It looks as if their sole goal is to add to the length of the list of "Articles" created, seen on their user page.
    Editors with long memories may remember a slightly similar set of problems around obscure units of measurement a few years ago - over-enthusiastic stub creation based on a very dodgy source, and necessitating a lot of cleanup. PamD 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, as I promised, now I am going to improve the articles I have created as the second round, after resolving the naming issue with moving articles. These are really my responsibilities. Thanks all. After resolving all the issues, I am really going to focus on my own stuff. I will try to finish all the issues tonight. I am measuring myself how fast I am. Thanks everyone. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go for coffee and come back address all the issues.  :) [As, I am in a break of my job, I really tried to help Wikipedia.] :) Shevonsilva (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PLEASE learn how to indent... --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Title problems are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sub title problemsa are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added additional information for all the minimal stubs (as my stage 2 work). Hope things are fine now and resolved the issues. I am thinking to take a break now.Shevonsilva (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Shevonsilva. I'm afraid I do not see all the issues resolved. I recognise your keenness and enthusiasm to create all these microstubs. But I feel this editor is still not properly listening to, or acting upon, editor feedback here. Seeing some of those concerns deleted from their talk page raises 'alarm bells' with me. All these errors, taken on their own, are not normally of huge concern. But this user is clearly automating the process of stub creation in some way, and is not taking enough time to check that their work is good enough. Magnified over hundreds and hundreds of stubs, and possibly not always based on reliable sources, this is really not acceptable. (We had detailed discussions prior to Qbugbot going into operation making entomological stubs, which produced very high quality content. Sadly, and despite the best of intentions, this is not happening here.) I raised my concerns (diff]), and the user assured me s/he was doing this work manually, and admitted they shared my concern over the reliability of some of their key sources on which some pages' existence was actually based. But then the user deleted their answer to me (diff) and has not address my request for them to go back and fix the issues I raised. Since then, it's clear their process is automated. For example, looking at their contributions on 9th June between 16:57 and 16:58 they created 87 articles. That's one every 1.3 seconds! So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we tolerate innumerable microstubs that a user doesn't work to clean up any errors (either before page creation, or afterwards) but which we wouldn't have had without their input. Or would we prefer not to have them at all if their content - or sometimes even verifiability - is in question? I tend to lean slightly towards the former, but remain very worried at the quality of such rapid, sloppy content creation. As with Qbugbot, a Village Pump discussion required page creation to be throttled back, and for checks to be made on batches of new pages. This isn't happening here, so perhaps a temporary block on page creation would be helpful, only to be lifted when there is a consensus that past articles have been cleaned up, wikilinked, referenced to WP:RS and any unverified content like this removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That description for Ibanda was in French encyclopedia as I remember (I check it later again). Yes I will re-scan all the stubs again and do another clean up for the content. Every work was Manuel, but, I use some different techniques to speed up (that is why I removed that description from the conversation as readers get wrong idea. Sorry.) I will do the clean up today (I have to do these as I am the one responsible for creating) :). Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shevonsilva: Yes, the description of Ibanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo is in the French wikipedia, at fr:Ibanda. It is unsourced there. You have stolen the intellectual property of the editors of that French article by dumping a poor translation into English of their exact text into the English encyclopedia and claiming it to be your own work. That is unacceptable behaviour. Also, the two references you have cited might support the first sentence but have no mention of the rest of the content, so you should not have placed the references after the unsupported content. And you didn't bother to link to any other Wikipedia articles except "Commune" and "Congo", while the French article linked to Bukavu, Lake Kivu and Rwanda, so that your version of the French article was even less useful to the reader. This shows very little understanding of how to contribute to Wikipedia. And of course there needs to be a hatnote at our article on Ibanda, a Ugandan town, so that readers have a chance of finding the new stub about the DRCongo place. There just seems to be constant series of problems here. PamD 16:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As we operate under a creative commons license, and it is just a translation from the French Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, nothing has been stolen. Derivation, alteration, and usage of one's work on Wikipedia in perpetuity is something one can and should expect, and translating from one language to another is rather standard practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is technically true, Icarosaurvus, we do have guidelines for translation that should be followed. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, and I wish to state that best practice was certainly not followed here; I likely should have stated that above. However, calling it theft of intellectual property struck me as rather disingenuous. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link of we do have guidelines for translation. I noted a good point here, I can try to develop a more efficient bot to cross reference the missing bits across different encyclopedias with varied languages. Thnanks all.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icarosaurvus: I didn't look at the details here and dislike the phrase 'theft of intellectual property' in general but remember the guidelines come about for a reason. The CC BY-SA licence allows derivative works but it requires certain conditions are met. If someone is not meeting those conditions, they are violating the terms of the licence and therefore are likely engaged in a copyright violation. The fact that someone has chosen to release their content under the CC BY-SA licence doesn't mean we don't have to respect their intellectual property and so we should not tolerate copyright violations whether they are of CC BY-SA licenced works or works released under some different licence or simply not released an open content licence. Someone who released their work under the CC BY-SA licence isfully entitled to be as aggrieved about any misuse as someone with any other licence or no licence. The fact we can use someone work doesn't mean misuse is acceptable. If anything it's just dumb. To be clear, it's possible to comply with the CC BY-SA licence requirements without following our guidelines so I can't say this actually happened here. It's also possible copyright does not arise if e.g. the threshold of originality is not met. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good that you're trying to improve these articles now, but you're making upwards of 50 edits per minute. How is this possible? Natureium (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am using my own automation which is much more technical. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    hi all, :) I improved the content of the articles, and, localized information, and, citations tag when it is more required. Hope thigs are better and fine now. Thanks all. Anyone please suggest me a place (in wikipedia) to discuss re-structuring issues like article naming specially with administrators and policy makers and other relevent personnels, or, this is the place for it? Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa could be a good starting point. And pls stop editing until the consensus is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and, thanks for the link. I am too more interested about the naming consensus too. Anytime, I can surely help to revert all the namings with the top categories if it is required (for the articles I have created, and, if it is needed if i can help for other articles too). I too like to join with the naming consensus discussion too. Sorry for asking this in a different angle again. What would the better place (in wikipedia) to discuss a matter which is affecting whole Encyclopedia (e.g., if we take naming about all the areas in the wolrd or universe [which has hierarchies in classifications) or, here will be the better place for a discussion? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Shevonsilva, no, unfortunately the latest suite of articles you have just mass-edited at 17:56 UTC today still contain flaws. e.g. Matadjana and c.80 others all contain a url in the published field, which displays red in references. Can't you see this? Please explain why you didn't create one page, check it, and then carry on if it looked OK, or corrected it if not? I think WP:MEATBOT is relevant here - please read it and note that all bots require approval from Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. So, I'm pinging @Cyberpower678: to take a look at this issue, as I believe you've strayed into territory that needs involvement from an administrator with experience in that field. You tell us you are editing manually, but also that "I am using my own automation which is much more technical." Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Clearly an unapproved bot is at work here, and a very controversial one at that. I approved Qbugbot, and I ran it through numerous stringent trials to ensure the community would accept it once approved. Shevonsilva is to stop using their automation immediately before they land themselves an indefinite block. If they want to run a semi-automated/fully-automated process at such a speed, they need to file a BRFA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, thanks for letting me know about @Cyberpower678:. I am really looking forward to develop some useful approved bots for wikipedia and I may need his support in some point in future. Thanks for letting me know about reference url error (template is not allowing me to add an url, I was trying to find a way to include it in the template). Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    HEY Shevonsilva Multiple people have told you to stop with these mass edits and you are continuing to run your bot at this very moment. STOP. Natureium (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, I fixed url issue too. :) Hope things are fine now. :) Anyway, let me know if there is any missing thing. Thanks all for your support. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooooops, and, we are still discussing title naming consensus. It will be interesting thing to discuss too. Thanks Shevonsilva (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, kindly refer the following, based on the feedback from some contributors, I have moved some administrative units in the format, for example, ame (department) even though it is directly breaking existing standardards of other relevent administrative units.
    Kindly refer:
    Now these have amalgamated two standards (i.e.: e.g., Name Department and Name (department)). This is not what I expect from my work on administrative units which are missed in the encyclopedia to create less-user friendly-ness during the navigation by an ordinary user who is not aware of the wikipedia formats (here now there are two formats). Kindly, please everyone, present your ideas over this matter. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Best known for IP"

    First of all, I apologise for my very poor technical approach while filing the report, I am very dumb at doing these I'll admit it. The IP described as follows (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP) has returned with a new address, and in the ONLY (so far) article we have a beef in, Quique Sánchez Flores, they continue to taunt me in their summaries. This time, they upped the ante by removing references that I had just added just to reinstate their version, on the grounds that my English is bordering on the pathetic (see diff here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=845874914&oldid=845815780).

    Don't know if anything else is needed in this report, but I will provide it upon request. NOTE: User:Mattythewhite, also familiar with the situation, redirected me here; also, please note as this person says in the main article about them (or is mentioned to have said in the form of a diff) that they get/got tired of people randomly undoing all their work so they resorted to antagonizing because it amounted to the same as being courteous. I am the one trying to reach a compromise in the wording of Mr. Flores' article and adding new refs (I don't even go near the other articles the person works on), they are having none of that and blanket revert! Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for 36 hours for disruptive editing. Whether or not this user is the "Best known for IP" LTA can be ignored given their recent edit warring, reverts, and inability to respond appropriately to warnings. If the user is found to be this LTA, any admin is free to update or change the block I applied; no need to ask first ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erpert: you closed this discussion. Does that mean you've examined the evidence and decided that this is not the "Best Known For" IP? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I misread something, Oshwah indicated that s/he examined the evidence. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It might have been my fault for not responding clearly (and if that's the case, please accept my apologies). I looked at the edits by the IP and determined that a block was justified for disruptive editing and I stopped there. I did not examine or compare the IP user's edits to try and associate them with the "Best known for IP" LTA and make that determination. I wanted to leave that part for someone else whose more familiar with this LTA than I am to make that determination, or for others to state that the block imposed was good enough... one or the other :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the close. This discussion is obviously not done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate - Sorry if that was my fault; I tried to indicate what I did but it may have gotten misinterpreted due to me not being clear. I didn't mean or want to dump this discussion off in the middle like that - I just thought that someone would be around that's familiar with this LTA and could quickly identify this IP user as one of them. It would be my luck that I'd spend time diving and investigating this only for someone to go, "Oh, yeah! Easy peasy - definitely him..." and call it out in a snap. I'll be happy to investigate and determine if this IP user is this LTA if what's what is wanted... just let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood what you meant, but I guess you never really know how you'll be interpreted. I'm not really an expert in identifying socks of this IP, but I know we have some around here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate - Cool deal; if this sits unresolved for bit longer, I'll take a dive and figure out what the deal is. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know that I'm an authority, but I've tangled with BKFIP before. Edits such as this and this, coupled with the generally belligerent attitude suggest that this is indeed BKFIP, but given that the number of edits isn't large, I'm not 100% certain. Vanamonde (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Users repeatedly adding false information to Informal Talks page

    Pages: Informal Talks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Please refer to the list below:

    1. 203.232.213.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}
    2. 123.115.61.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 61.98.217.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who's been vandalising since 2016)
    4. 태현 정 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Since the creation of this page, some users have repeatedly added false (sometimes ridiculous) English names for the representatives. As the names are often unknown, I do not include them in the page, but some users have repeatedly added false ones without sources for fun, despite me leaving messages on their walls many times. Some names I know are obviously fake, either because it's the name of a celebrity, or I know the actual name of the representative, but just haven't added it to the page.

    Examples of some of the edits

    1. Link I know for a fact 李越's English name is not Dean as I previously found his actual name on a university website, but haven't added it to the page yet. Reference
    2. Link
    3. Link This user decided to change from one fake name to another, this time to "Berlusconi", the name of the Italian president involved in a sex scandal
    4. Link Changing from one fake name to another
    5. Link

    There are many more edits, but it's too many to list.

    Some earlier examples:

    1. Link From Jan, 2018
    2. Link From Dec, 2017
    3. Link July 2017

    While they are different users, due to the consistent editing style (of adding false, sometimes ridiculous names), I am almost certain they are the same person. This has been an on-going issue for a very long time. I have left messages on their walls many times, in particular (61.98.217.150), but they have never responded. I previously reported this issue 2 years ago. Please refer to [22] It ended up in the page being semi-protected.

    Please help me with this issue by either blocking the users or protecting the page. Thank you for your time!PurpleLights123 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to admit, the Ma Ding/Martin Gaye (Marvin Gaye?) thing is funny, but, yes, this is disruptive. I would advise page protection due to persistent vandalism, which can be found at WP:RPP. —Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 17:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added semi-protection to the article for a few months in order to stop this. Whether or not the edits are true is the wrong way to look at this; it's whether the edits are referenced that's important. References are how we verify that changes being made to article content are accurate and true, and the contributions to the article in question clearly lack these additions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Also, if the user comes back with a number of different accounts/IP addresses and makes disruptive edits again, what can I do? PurpleLights123 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard.sutt and WP:CIR

    (non-admin closure) Editor has started talking and things seem to be heading in the right direction, so closing this for now. --Elmidae 09:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think it is about time now to bring to the attention of the noticeboard the actions and edits of Richard.sutt (talk, contributions), a relatively new (<1 year old) account that has in that time completed over 1000 edits mostly under 20 bytes (Edit count and stats by WMF Labs). I would estimate that of the 1000+ edits, 10% are actually constructive while the other 90% are either copy-pasting text between articles (often unnecessary and unneeded) or fixing errors created during attempted constructive edits (A good example is Chasmosaurinae article history). 43 of the 50 edits shown by default on Chasmosaurinae are by Richard.sutt, and of those 11 had 0 change in article size in bytes, 10 were removing content (largest removal was 251 with an average around 50) and the remainder were adding content (largest addition was 336 with an average around 50). This repetitive addition->fixes->revertion->addition cycle is found on most articles edited by Richard.sutt, and has become a great inconvenience to the regular editors of these articles as Richard.sutt has not once replied to a request or comment on a talk page where we try and assist them in learning proper syntax and recommendations for articles (see Edit stats link above). While not an urgent matter to resolve I will now ping Lusotitan, FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK, IronGargoyle, Casliber, Dunkleosteus77, Fanboyphilosopher and Elmidae as individuals who have reverted, tried to talk to, and had an earlier discussion on Richard.sutt. I myself am unsure what actions I would recommend are taken, as WP:CIR is most definitely violated by the edits of this user, but my lack of experience on what would happen (temp/indef block, topic ban or full ban) means I cannot make a judgement. --IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My calculus at the moment runs something like:
    +: well-intentioned, clearly knowledgeable in some areas, fair amount of good edits
    -: strongly laced with fatal sloppiness (e.g. that series of edits to WD identifiers starting around here - clearly didn't check a single one), tendency to edit-war about WTF head-scratchers (e.g. [23]), doesn't communicate, cooperate, or take corrections on board one. little. bit.
    It's the last one that makes them a net negative in my opinion. Requiring constant vigilance and damage control on the part of those few editors that know the subject area well enough, and then giving every impression that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely because there's no communication at all, is not a sustainable situation. I'd request a "start talking" block at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure what a "start talking" block is, guessing its a temporary block with a warning to start talking with other editors once lifted, but I agree with the pros and cons pointed out by Elmidae above, Richard.sutt has made several constructive edits, but these are overshadowed by the fact that we have to monitor every single edit daily (there have been upwards of 30 recently) to ensure that templates aren't broken or grammar incorrect or information too trivial. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Richard.sutt has replied for the first time on a talk page, so there may yet be hope. However it will take time to see just how effective communication with this editor is. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dream Focus repeatedly insinuating that I have a mental illness, etc.

    Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly questioning my mental state and refusing to retract these comments despite repeated warnings. I have been placing the warnings directly beneath the attacks in question rather than on his talk page since I'm banned from the latter. I can't imagine how anyone could consider remarks like the following to be acceptable.

    Quotes and diffs of "you are insane"-type comments
    • of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan[24] (this one's weak, but given my unfortunate history of being accused on-wiki of "paranoia", this is difficult for me not read in the same light)
    • There has never been any evidence of any keep spamming no matter how many times certain self deluded people keep claiming it as such.[25]
    • I ignore anything you say on your user page, since you are out of your mind, always playing the victim and convinced everyone is out to get you.[26]
    • [in response to a request to strike the above] Not going to happen.[27]
    • Will someone please click on the link he provided [in reference to the diff immediately above] and tell him he is blocking out reality?[28]
    • As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things?[29] (note that this was in response to a very clear, unambiguous "dude, you're going to be blocked -- take the hint; I'm being very careful to give you every out that I can, and you'd be stupid not to take them" final warning[30])
    • ignoring your crazy nonsense as always[31]
    • You believe people are out to get you[32]
    Inappropriate personal remarks that are not about my mental state

    He's also been making less egregious but still clearly inappropriate remarks like

    • Still stalking me? Have no life at all do you, just obsessed with someone who dared disagree with you, and got to follow them around bothering them nonstop. [...] you just determined to repeat the same bullshit lies every chance you get.[33]
    • Ignore Hijiri88 and his ridiculous lies. ... I also find it ridiculous someone can go to a Wikiproject they hate just to insult it constantly and spread lies every chance they get.[34]
    • You whine about stopping the personal attacks but then insult me with that idiotic lie.[35]
    • Of course you only know found yoru way here because you are still stalking me[36]
    • Kindly stop insulting people with your constant lies about the project or anyone who dares disagree with you anywhere on Wikipedia[37]
    • Do you deny you want to destroy the ARS? Have you not stated multiple times in various places you want it deleted? That's not hyperbole, that's fact.[38] (note that I actually requested a diff in support of the claim that I "stated multiple times in various places I want [the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject] deleted" two weeks ago and DF has ignored this request despite making similar claims that I'm "not interested" in ARS.[39]
    • Is English not your first language?[40] (as a rhetorical question: he definitely knows English is my first language, and I knowing that "believing everyone is out to get you" is equivalent to "being paranoid" is not really related; ironically this is WP:KETTLE, since DF rarely writes grammatically, he frequently inserting ungrammatical subjective pronouns into adverbial clauses, including immediately after insulting my English: "You believe people are out to get you, you claiming my creating an article was POINTY" -- obviously poor grammar on talk pages is not a problem, but he regularly writes ungrammatical articles, sometimes butchering a source's grammar in an attempt at "paraphrase", and users with poor English writing insulting other editors for not making mistakes is clearly inappropriate.)

    He also has a habit of misquoting Shakespeare in a manner that implies either he is accusing me of hypocrisy (in which case he has misunderstood the quote) or he believes attacking other editors in this manner is a core part of his personality, to which he must remain true.[41][42]

    Addressing "following" claims, and the reason this editor probably should have been indeffed before I ever came in contact with him

    What's worse is that he's continuously accusing me of hounding him (in some of the diffs above, and especially here), when in fact what happened was I noticed, based on his actions on an article to which he followed me,[43][44][45] that he is a serial plagiarist, and checked his contribs to see how deep went the rabbit hole: it's pretty deep, but he has continually denied that it constituted plagiarism, even denying that he used a copy-paste function as though that made it better, despite there sometimes being no alternative explanation. And the only places I followed him to that weren't related to copyvio (the above "yoru way" diff related to an incident in which he clumsily copied obviously plagiarized text onto Wikia in order to "rescue" it from our deletion policy) were AFDs he chose to promote via the "rescue list".

    [Edit: It should also be noted that he has done a lot more blatant "hounding" of me than I have of him, most recently here making an off-topic attack against me in an AN thread (nothing about wanting to TBAN people who "disagree with me", but rather with wanting to TBAN editors who routinely pretend to be experts on a wide variety of topics they clearly know nothing about), in his second post to the main AN page since 2014. The first was here, where he showed up to a thread about plagiarism by long-term editors and unsurprisingly took the opposite side to me.]

    Normally, editors who repeatedly violate copyright and deny any wrongdoing even after multiple warnings get blocked on those grounds alone to prevent the further plagiarism that appears almost certain to happen, right? So what we have here is an editor who shouldn't even be allowed contribute to the encyclopedia because of the risk of copyvio, harassing other editors and questioning their mental state: I really can't see how this editor has not been blocked for this yet, with the only explanation I can think of being that TonyBallioni (my traditional go-to for copyright issues) and his talk page watchers are too "involved".

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC) (edited 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Note that I didn't hunt down all the diffs of him receiving warnings over copyvio and denying any wrongdoing (there are probably dozens going back to late February); the reason for this is that this thread is primarily about the personal attacks. If anyone needs more diffs of the copyvio and related denialism, they can be provided. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BTWs, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) can vouch for my having discretely (for DF's benefit) and carefully done a lot more sleuthing than I disclosed publicly on the copyvio issues as early as "Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM" (that's how the date stamp appeared in his reply to my email). It does go pretty deep. TonyBallioni (who I suspect probably doesn't want to be pinged on this) can as well, per this. Also this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you added in something new, I'll respond to it. Please look at the proper link User_talk:Dream_Focus#Copyright_warning, not just what he linked to which eliminates a key part of it. Dream Focus 09:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you or Tony retroactively changed something weeks later without updating your sigs, I'm pretty sure I did link the whole conversation...? Rather, your linking to the live version of your talk without noting that it's the result of your having to be warned a second time after blanking the original warnings is what "eliminates a key part of it" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You deliberately left off part of the conversation. Dream Focus 14:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit, you're right. That said, there was nothing "deliberate" about it: gathering page history ranges (as opposed to individual diffs, which would not be as useful in this case) is tough and it's really easy to make mistakes; this is borne out by the fact that the edits I left out actually make you look worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you just added something to your collapsed bit above, without dating it for some reason, I'll just post a reply to it here. [46] We are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I did in fact while searching about go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard and saw Andrew D. mentioned there, and also have his talk page on my watchlist. I wasn't the only one who said there was no case made against him, and it was closed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. As for the old case [47] you complain that I disagreed with you, despite I not even noticing you. You also link to my first comment only, instead of the entire conversation which shows I was convinced to change my mind by the reasonable arguments of TonyBallioni, that the official website of the book in question could've just copied things from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I did not respond to anything you said, nor do I even remember you being there. I certainly wasn't following you. And I have been there before then on multiple times in my many years at Wikipedia. Dream Focus 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did date it; I just mistakenly placed the date after the addendum to my OP comment rather than the OP comment itself, as I am editing on a mobile device that doesn't allow for searching within the edit box, and all of this text kinda runs together in the edit window. I have now fixed it. You should strike that part of your comment, as it looks like you are looking for any excuse to undermine me that you can find. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see the date listed. Try again. And if you think it looks like someone is trying to undermine you, that's a problem with how you perceive others. You need to just assume good faith and stop thinking everyone is out to get you with every single thing they do. Dream Focus 22:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the diffs. Here's the original edit and you can clearly see it is in two parts, one being an extra date added to my signature, but a few lines down from the right signature; here's my correction, and as of right now you can clearly see (edited 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)) immediately following my signature on the OP comment. Are you deliberately not checking at this point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was checking the collapsed area where you actually made the post. That is where you should put it. While you have admitted to following me around on multiple occasions, even after being told quite clearly not to by an administrator, I have never followed you anywhere since I would honestly prefer to avoid you entirely. Dream Focus 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you made that addition because of my edit down below [48] it should've been there in the same area, or a new section for clarity. Dream Focus 22:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a script running that highlights collapse templates whose contents have been edited since you last uncollapsed them? It seems much more likely, especially given the time gap of only 34 minutes, that you noticed I had edited this thread in the page history, checked the content of the diff, and missed that the date tag had been added but had been added to the wrong place. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes like this, but when you come up with elaborate excuses about how you really didn't make a mistake but had just happened to be rereading the top of this thread and noticed my addition of text under a collapse template, but couldn't find when I had made it ... well, it looks like you just have some severe mental block on admitting you made a mistake, which is a problem when you make them so frequently (cf. the IDHT regarding copyvio, assuming it was actually just laziness with paraphrasing rather than a serious inability to understand our copyright policy; if it was e latter, and you sincerely understood that what you had been doing was wrong, you should have done what I did here with the mistaken pagehist grabs that cut off the end of the conversation and said "Shit, you're right"); or, worse, you are attempting to drag this discussion down with pointless wikilawyering over the proper signing and dating of edits.
    Anyway, the reason for adding it under the collapse templates at the top is that I am trying to keep all the independent evidence of your disruption at the top of the thread where any new readers are more likely to notice it. (This was the first one that required a substantial amount of original prose elaboration on my part, so it was the first time I altered my sig for it.) That you keep making new disruptive edits while this discussion is ongoing is ... well, it's not my fault.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The dating should be where the edit was made, not beneath a collapsed section in small letters next to an existing date so no one is likely to notice. And "severe mental block" seems like it'd be considered a personal attack by some. If I said that to you you'd add it to your list up there and be whining about it. Admitting you are keeping things where more people will see it and not my response, seems like you are gaming the system. Each individual thing should be separate for me to respond to and for people to comment on. 23:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    Some evidence of copyvio; more can be found if needed
    (edit conflict) Anyway, much of the early history of our list of Duck Dynasty episodes needs revdel, and while our Duck Dynasty article is a little more of a grey area as even DF's original version was closely paraphrased rather than directly copy-pasted (Phil Robertson claims to have spent 25 years standing in his dilapidated shed, handcrafting duck calls from the native cedar trees of the swamps of Monroe Louisiana. =/= For 25 years, Robertson said he stood in his dilapidated shed and handcrafted duck calls out of cedar trees native to Monroe-area swamps.; They previously were on the Outdoor Channel with the series Duck Commander. =/= The family has already had some television exposure on the Outdoor Channel with a series called “Duck Commander,” -- our Duck Commander article includes the same closely paraphrased text and has done since DF started it), it definitely is not true that plagiarism has never been an issue with this editor. Particularly interesting is this somewhat pointily edit-summaried blanking of a copyvio tag roughly a week before the copyvio in question was removed. Note that his very rarely making substantial prose additions to articles makes locating these problems on a brief scan of his contribs difficult, but the vast majority of the ones I checked had such problems. This was DF's handiwork, too, as was this; his original draft of Puzzle Puppers didn't include plagiarism, but it had barely two substantial sentences worth of prose, and both of those technically misrepresented the cited sources. The paraphrasing in this article wasn't too close, but it did contain text that had clearly been copy-pasted and then a random chunk of it blanked, so that it misrepresented the source, but had the text not been blanked it would have been copyvio. Here he showed a pretty poor understanding of the "no close paraphrasing" policy, even if the copyvio text itself was not his fault. This contained similar "close paraphrasing", as DF's Bruns states that his property is covered with booby traps, and his neighbors are serious preppers with lots of guns was much too close to Our neighbors are pretty serious preppers, with lots of guns, and there's lots of booby traps on our property. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    • (edit conflict) Sigh. Taking things out of context. First off, I did not follow him to that one article in question, I simply saw it mentioned, and tried to suggest improvements on the talk page, and then constant arguments erupted from there. He has appeared after me quite a number of times, so yes, was stalking/hounding me for awhile there. Now he hangs out at the Article Rescue Squadron just to insult the project and its members, despite stating multiple times he wants it deleted/destroyed/retired/whatever the words used were. Please read things in context and not his quotes he has given you. He says "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" I then responding "As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this."
    • The most recent problem had him erasing someone else's post [49] and playing the victim as always. Please read the conversation after that if nothing else. You'll see he follows the same pattern for months now. He shows up at AFD the Rescue Squadron is at, and brings up all manner of random things during the arguments, won't stay on topic. Recently an article I created went up to AFD despite clearly passing GNG Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puzzle_Puppers and you can see how he rants off the topic, making wild accusations about other things instead of staying on topic. Note I never stated he had a mental illness, please just read what was actually said in context before commenting. Dream Focus 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: I know the community is on my side (that ARS's mission statement is noble in theory, but that it doesn't actually do that a lot in practice, and that it sometimes serves to push fringe theories and promotional fluff off AFD, and might be better served by an overhaul of some kind), but I don't want to have that discussion right now. FWIW, I think your main concern is with Indian topics where the promotion of fringe theories can be (and have been) met with discretionary sanctions: making ARS "historical" would not ameliorate that situation as the problem is not really so bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. @User:Dream Focus, Leaving aside the matter of problematic editing on either your part or User:Hijiri88's, I think it's clear that your comments are out of line and the excuse about "questionable mental state" being taken out of context is somewhat disingenuous because we can all see the implication in the particular wording you chose to use. You may feel you have had provocation, but the best thing to do in these circumstances would be just to apologise and not do it again. He is then obliged to assume good faith, accept your apology and move on. Deb (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus definitely needs to tone down the rhetoric. That being said, as an outside observer with no prior background knowledge of the interaction between these two users, it certainly appears as if Hijiri88 was trying to pick a fight on the Puzzle Peppers AfD. He seemed more concerned with discrediting Dream Focus than with actually discussing the article in question. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark: If you read my first comment in isolation (as opposed to my later responses to DF's off-topic personal attacks), it's clear that what I was doing was adding to the already-stated notability concerns the observation that the article's creator was clumsy and didn't check. I would have done the same whether I had a "grudge" against said creator or not, as can be seen by my having made a similar comment on the "Wife and Wife" and "Virtues" AFDs. And there's also the fact that carelessly adding junk sub-stubs to the mainspace that contain egregious errors and not much else is also a recurring problem with DF (just not one I chose to focus on in this ANI thread) -- see for example [50]. Anyway, given that much of the evidence against DF dates from as early as February, it doesn't really make sense to call 50-50 based solely on an AFD from a week ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting description of your first comment, and I don't find myself in agreement. Dream Focus claimed that the article had received significant coverage, and you responded by observing that he had a different reason for creating the article. As long as the article has sufficient coverage, who cares? His first response to you remained focused on the notability of the article under discussion, but then you brought up an unrelated AfD in an attempt to discredit his argument. It's not hard to see why he was annoyed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How can him being "annoyed" because of something that happened in the last week justify what has been going on for weeks if not months? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not justifying anything. His comments are not appropriate and he needs to change his approach. I'm simply pointing out that in the one incident that I reviewed, you were the instigator. Lepricavark (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The link [51] you mention is an interesting one. Someone post on the Article Rescue Squadron's Rescue List to ask for help, and Hijiri88 starts his standard rant about canvassing nonsense insulting the project saying "most of the contributors here will auto-!vote "keep" while pretending to be familiar with whatever topic is under discussion.", and I tell them to ignore him and his ridiculous lies. Dream Focus 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually you made the standard rant about canvassing: I had advised the poster in question that since apparently no one on ARS except me reads Japanese, posting to WT:JAPAN (which I also watch) would probably be more effective. And no, it's not the "ridiculous lies" that I was trying to draw attention to: it's your calling me "deluded" almost two weeks before I "annoyed" you on the Puzzle Puppers AFD. Are you just posting as much nonsense as possible in this thread in order to filibuster it so you can get off without a block? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Please read other editors' comments before attacking them like that -- I clearly linked those AFDs because you weren't the clumsy article creator I was addressing in either of them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: FWIW, I would have apologized for the off-topic commentary at the top of this thread, had I not already decided days earlier to disown it by striking my !vote and walking away from the AFD altogether, but if it helps I should probably clarify that I do regret engaging in it in the first place and will try to avoid such incidents in the future. I was annoyed because of the mental health and other attacks, but that doesn't justify dragging down a content discussion with off-topic personal stuff, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit. Didn't notice that you had actually done the one thing I originally wanted to come out of this thread. No reason to argue with someone who did me a favour. The only reason I'm not striking the above is that striking an apology for my own sub-optimal behaviour could be misinterpreted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: well, that was probably because he did it 9 minutes after that comment. Easy to muddle timestamps that close together, though, especially if you're running in a different timezone to GMT. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bellezzasolo: No, he had done it two hours before I responded, so it doesn't matter which order he did it in. I responded to what I saw here, and only noticed the comment on DF's talk page by accident later, even though both had been made while I was asleep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Really? i feel like I'm missing something here, as the diff you linked was 22:22, while your post was 22:13. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit, you're right. Sorry -- as has been noted elsewhere, I have a tendency to take AGF too far. Still, even if Cullen only issued that warning after demanding I apologize for an incident in which I was the victim, and even if he has been ignoring the evidence that my initial comment was not off-topic (since "the article's creator has a recurring tendency to leave clumsy, draft-level content containing blatant errors, copyvio and more in the mainspace" is not off-topic when the article under discussion is apparently more of the same) ... well, I still should not have gone off-topic on the AFD in the first place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the heck did I demand that you apologize, Hijiri88? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what did you want me to do if not apologize? Why did you wait until after I had apologized for the one, brief incident in which I dropped the ball in order to warn DF about the personal attacks that were meant to be the subject of this thread, and why have you still not acknowledged that they were not just a reaction to the Puzzle Puppers AFD, even though most of them predate it? Would you have issued that warning had I not apologized? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Where to begin? Let's start with the timing of my warning to Dream Focus. Just as you sometimes sleep, I also sometimes do other things out in the real world. I decided to issue the warning but made that decision while I was driving about ten miles to a nice restaurant for a previously scheduled lunch with my wife. I issued the warning at the restaurant table after placing our order and while waiting for our meal, which was grilled halibut, a Caesar salad, and an average white wine. My decision to warn DF was completely unrelated to whether or not you apologized, and was partly motivated by a comment that Robert McClenon made. I care very little about apologies, although they are nice and I am always happy to offer one. I care most of all about preventing disruption and encouraging better behavior in the future. That I am not always successful in that endeavor should be obvious, but the community gave me the administrator's tools for a reason, and I do my best. I prefer to be concise, though it seems I am failing here. In that spirit, I analyzed your behavior at the Puzzle Puppers AfD, rather than posting a lengthy wall of text about all of your interactions with the other behavior. I encourage you to realize that your wall of text behavior is not in your best interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note, in the context of the above conversation, I found this edit by DF with a personal attack in the edit summary. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I told him to stay off my talk page, he then ranting about something so I used the edit summary (ignoring your crazy nonsense as always) when reverting him. In context, do you honestly believe that is a personal attack? Dream Focus 01:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Two-way no fault IBAN

    I basically proposed this to the two of you on my own, but it doesn’t appear to have worked, so I suggest we make it formal, not because anyone is at fault, but because it’s better for everyone (yourselves included in my view) if the two of you don’t interact. You both clearly don’t like each other, and I’ve been involved in enough discussions to know that this is just going to be a back and forth, so I’m going ahead and proposing: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) and Dream Focus (talk · contribs) are placed under a two-way no fault IBAN, subject to the usual exceptions.

    • Oppose obviously good-faith but problematic proposed solution Primarily because I know from experience that an IBAN will be gamed: even if DF himself does not do so, someone else will bring it up next time I have any kind of dispute with someone (or even when I comment on an ANI thread about a dispute I'm not even involved in -- this literally happened, even though the IBAN in question was also "no fault", but I don't want to provide the link because BEANS). Combined with the fact that IBANs are generally associated with hounding, and DF has been repeatedly accusing me of hounding him (despite the actual definition of hounding), this would not be a good look -- even if it's not me, someone needs to address DF's problematic editing, but he will just be able to point to the IBAN that was put in place the last time someone hounded him. Why can't someone just tell DF that the next time he question's another user's mental health or similar he will be blocked? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my nuancing my !vote to "conditional neutral, otherwise oppose" has been split, I'm going to clarify here, directly below my original !vote, that as long as I am not placed under a formal or de facto one-way PBAN on ARS, I have no problem with this proposal. My initial reservations were entirely based on the problem that for the general community "IBAN" means "hounding" and that this could easily be gamed; assuming the "no fault" is clearly placed in the close and the consequent WP:RESTRICT entry, I have no problem with this, but I don't want to directly "support" because both me and DF supporting could lead to a premature close that would dismiss the concerns expressed by the other "oppose"s. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone could use a search engine to search Wikipedia for your name and "IBAN" if they actually cared. You also admitted elsewhere in a previous discussion you had been topic banned before, anyone can search for "TBAN" if they thought it relevant. I don't see how that matters. While some petty obsessed editors may look through someone's contributions just to find minor things that happened years in the past, just to bring those up to try to sway people to their side, and constantly try to paint a negative picture of them, most people hopefully have enough sense to ignore them. Dream Focus 17:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I think DF has been hounding me as much as he thinks I've been hounding him. My edit rate has fluctuated according to real-world circumstances like either job-hunting taking up all my time or a need to distract myself from job-hunting not going well by editing Wikipedia (emailed the closer of the Puzzle Puppers AFD about this some weeks back) and on-wiki stuff like Asian Month and being burned out after Asian Month, and otherwise remained fairly consistent, while DF's edit rate skyrocketed when he started interacting with me (he hadn't made more than 100 edits in a calendar month between September 2015 and February 2018, but since February 2018 has not gone a calendar month without making more than 100 edits, and disregarding calendar months the month-long period during which he was least active was the month I was largely ignoring him, before I made the mistake of PRODding a copyvio nonsense substub he had pointedly created as a POV-fork of an article I had been working on, at which point it jumped back up again), and even though he's a "card-carrying" ARS member (as opposed to my "observer" status) virtually all his edits there in the last four months have been responses to me. This is why I'm most concerned about the proposed "no fault" IBAN: DF has made it pretty clear that he believes my continuing to comment on ARS will constitute a violation of such a ban, as he has been saying for months that I'm only there to harass him, and so will probably try to paint the next time that happens as such even if he violates the ban by responding to me. This is really my only concern with the proposal, which I would supportchange my !vote to neutral in a heartbeat if I thought it would actually stop DF's harassment of me rather than aggravating it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not hounding you because I have more edits when you argue with me, there just more post I have to make. If you weren't around to do that, most of the post in the AFDs and elsewhere I make wouldn't happen. Hounding means following someone around, checking their contributions to pick apart everything they do and call them out every chance you get. Unlike you I have never done that to anyone. Dream Focus 23:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the proposal you are supporting is supported by DF, apparently as a way to avoid facing the one-way sanction that should be coming his way, while I've opposed it; you seem to agree that my "disruptive behaviour" at ARS has not actually been disruptive, so placing a sanction on me, even a "no fault" one, that I have opposed seems questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Experience tells me that one way bans are ineffective. And there is no such thing as a "no fault" two way ban. It's symbolic at best to ease DF's feelings.--v/r - TP 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as splitting the blame between victim and the violator in the personal attacks about mental illness. Sometimes, because blocks are preventive and not punitive, the need for a block is missed when the offense occurs, and then what is needed is a warning that the next offense will result in a longer block. Start off by warning Dream Focus that any mental illness comments will result in a one-week block, and do it. No need to split the blame until we have tried a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - while I have some reservations about iBans in general, I'm of the mind that the better of available options is a 2-way. Atsme📞📧 21:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With two exceptions (Cullen and Atsme), all of the above "supports" seem to note that the disruption is one-sided on DF's part, and yet they are supporting a solution that lets DF off the hook for his disruption and that DF has supported, and which sanctions me while I've opposed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m with TParis, and I am certainly not faulting you for anything and it’s no fault because I am sympathetic to your position. I do think that you and Dream Focus just always clash heads and as Cullen noted, anytime the two of you get together it tends to result in walls of text and fighting. Dream Focus’ actions towards you are wrong, but I also think it’d be best for both you and the community if you didn’t interact with him. Basically the two of you interacting isn’t good and even though his conduct has been worse than yours, I think making it two-way will be easier and better in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: If I can be guaranteed that a closer will explicitly state that I am allowed continue posting related to ARS, and to AFDs related to it, that I did not "follow" DF there, and that if DF makes any more responses to my activities there like he has been DF's actions and not my own will be considered to be in violation, then I will change to supportneutral. The problem, though, is that we've got one uninvolved editor having apparently only reviewed the second-to-most-recent incident placing equal blame (and an equal threat of a block) on both of us, and one other citing some unspecified comments by both DF and myself in favour of this IBAN (implying they consider something DF has said in this thread, perhaps the "hounding" claims as they would be the most relevant to an IBAN proposal, to be valid). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure, but I think on balance I oppose because this was a WP:NPA violation by one party and a unilateral sanction (warning or restriction) would seem more equitable. That said, Hijiri88, is definitely a "frequent flyer" here. The point above notes that the source of conflict is the Article Rescue Squadron. I could easily be persuaded that topic-banning both from ARS would be a net gain. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Actually, in the last six months I've basically been "involved" (as opposed to my just commenting on threads on issues I first became aware of after they were brought to ANI, and those have actually been relatively few of late) in four ANI threads, all of which were large blowouts, but of the four two (the Darkness Shines SBAN discussion and the C. W. Gilmore discussion) were me opening discussions on larger community problems in which I was really a bit player, one (the Huggums537 discussion) involved me having been hounded for some time but doing all I could to avoid bringing it to ANI (the thread was actually opened by Tony, against my wishes), and the fourth is this one. The "frequent flyer" stuff mostly dates to 2015 and earlier -- yes, in 2016-2017 I did make hundreds of ANI posts, but they were almost all "uninvolved". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck it. Not worth it. JzG is one of the good guys -- no pun intended -- and actually one of only two editors so far to fully agree with me on this matter. And, FWIW, probably also right that the project (English Wikipedia) would benefit from me spending less time on ARS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. In effect, there is really no such thing as a "no fault IBAN". Dream Focus has clearly violated WP:NPA. Sanctioning the victim of such attacks would be wrong. Paul August ☎ 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (Non-administrator comment): per Paul August. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 00:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If there is no consensus for a two-way interaction ban, then so be it. But I expect that we will then be discussing the misbehavior of these two editors again, probably soon. I hope that I am wrong. I agree that the mental health comments by Dream Focus were egregious. I gave that editor a strong warning about that issue, which they removed from their talk page, which is their right. However, Hijiri88 is far from blameless here. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers, where Hijiri88 argued that it was somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game. There are countless reasons that article topics might come to an editor's attention, and no policy or guideline says that an editor cannot write an article about a notable topic when a family member is a fan. Hijiri88 then went way off topic in that discussion, criticizing Dream Focus for a variety of things utterly unrelated to to the article being debated. Consensus to keep the article was strong despite Hijiri88's inappropriate advocacy for deletion. I appreciate that Hijiri88 has apologized above for that conduct. But this dispute was a two way street and I do not believe that Hijiri88 is a blameless victim in this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to point out that that is certainly not the only AFD he has done that to me at. Also he has been insulting the ARS in AFDs since the beginning, as seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, he bringing up unrelated things there and refusing to stay on the topic. I could easily find many other examples if necessary. If he could be made to just stay on topic and not insult the work of other editors, I think a lot of conflict could be avoided. Dream Focus 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: FWIW, I have already apologized for everything beyond my initial !vote, and said initial !vote was not meant to imply that it was "somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game"; it was meant to point out that DF's article creation is clumsy and disruptive in general, as can be seen by this and a bunch of other stuff I noticed while looking for copyvio. Several of them he leaves in the mainspace with scarcely two sentences of running prose, sometimes lifted word-for-word from other sources or containing really blatant errors, sometimes both. This seemed relevant because, at the time I wrote it, the article under discussion similarly consisted of nothing but an unsourced description of the gameplay and a single sentence that grossly misrepresented the mixed reviews in two gaming webzines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream focus is a special valuable Wikipedian and we need all types, getting on. If you do not have a mental illness, say so simply and once. Dream Focus, stop it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (Non-administrator comment): Honestly this is a rather unsuccessful discussion due to the constant interjecting of the two parties who are supposed to be having their actions judged. DreamFocus is constantly repeating the same point of ARS needing protection from Hijiji, while Hijiri is constantly trying to apologize for their past actions while also blaming DreamFocus for being completely unreasonable. I agree fully with Cullen, both people involved with this have done their fair share of causing issues, most often when they confront each other, which results in going extremely off topic and disrupting discussions. An IBAN would hopefully fix this and stop the editors here from aggravating the situation, and if it is not enough in the future more severe actions should be taken. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose: I am a skeptic of the cost-benefit utility of IBANs under ideal conditions conditions (some of the same disputes that Hijiri references above helped cement this opinion, although I started to form it many years ago), and in this case in particular I feel that the likelihood the sanction will only create more work for the community is high. In the present case, though I have not looked deeply into the older underlying conflicts, I am not impressed with the conduct of either editor from just what is on display (and linked) here. DreamFocus clearly crossed a line into the unacceptably incivil with some of those comments, and should probably face a short-term sanction if they cannot recognize the matter, try to make amends and assure us that it is not likely to happen again. On the other hand, I think a lot of us on this board are familiar with Hijiri's propensity for claiming conspiracies and hounding against them (which seems to be what DF was getting at, however inappropriately) and for leaping towards aggressive accusations when their conduct is questioned. More to the point of considering the value of an IBAN here, Hijiri can be a little...let's be diplomatic and say liberal in their prosecution of IBANs (of which they have had more than any other user in the history of the project) once said sanctions are established; if there is even incidental cross-activity of these two in shared editorial areas, I feel it is inevitable that this matter will be back here in a matter of months or weeks. That is the reason that I opposed Hijiri's last two IBANs with other editors (well, to be fair, I oppose about 90% of IBANs in recent years), and sure enough, that is what happened. In fact, over the last four or five years, the community has spent more time on discussions regarding Hijiri's IBANs (which discussions number more than a dozen, none of them short) than those of the next two or three contenders combined, I have to imagine. That is not good return on a sanction.
    I do want to note, in the spirit of fairness and clarity, that while some of my comments above are clearly critical of Hijiri's approach to these matters in the past (by way of explaining my strong objection to the proposed "solution"), I have observed a more measured approach in their conduct here on this board and elsewhere on this project more recently, so I think putting them in a position to face their biggest bugbear (an editor they are locked in a mutual IBAN with) is not conductive to continuing that trend and keeping them focused on the content areas where they are most productive. Would I have brought this issue to ANI if in Hijiri's place? Probably not. Do I suspect that this battle of wills is far from one-sided and that Hijiri has put more than his fair share into forming the mutual antagonism? Yes, my observations of them on the project in the past suggest that is probably so. But suspicions cannot sustain a sanction and DreamFocus has failed to present sufficient evidence of behaviour that is as explicitly out-of-touch with behavioural policies as their (DreamFocus') own. Meanwhile Hijiri has provided numerous diffs with regard to DreamFocus' conduct, some of which flies well past acceptable behaviour. So I'd support a short term block against DreamFocus instead, if they cannot make a rapid turn around and make it plain that they understand where they departed from acceptable standards in responding to what they perceived to be harassment from Hijiri. That can be a lesson to them: when you feel someone is acting irrationally or disruptively, there are ways to say that without engaging in PA's alleging mental illness or basic character faults, neither of which is necessary or helpful. Failing further evidence, I do not support a block against Hijiri, and I strongly oppose a mutual IBAN for the reasons described above.
    Further, if an IBAN is instituted, I think it would be a monumental problem to describe it as "no fault"; IBANs by their nature are not meant to ascribe (or for that matter, deny) fault, but are the option we reach for when we hope (usually wrong-headedly, in my opinion) that merely telling the parties they are to stay away from one-another will resolve the tensions; if we had a community finding of fault, it would make more sense to censure the party that was uncontroversially out of line. So trying to create some sort of dichotomy without broader community input on if this is a good idea just does not fly for me. In fact, I'm fairly certain such an approach would take the project's arguably most flawed dispute resolution tool and make it even more prone to another subjective layer of analysis, which in turn will only increase the likelihood that it is counter-effective at resolving the underlying issues. Snow let's rap 02:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link to which comments I made you believe are a problem, and please tell me you read the entire conversation in context. I never said he had "mental illness". I just now looked it up and the expression "out of your mind" apparently means crazy, so I regret that expression being used. As for the first one he listed: "of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan", because of the long drawn out argument at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion, they claiming it not a concept and they knew more than the former Prime Minister of Japan, a noble prize winner, and all the reliable sources that were found saying otherwise. So no idea how that would bother anyone. Dream Focus 03:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're laying out the context for exactly why it was a personal dig and you don't understand why it was received as provocative? Anyway, in answer to your question, I found the "questionable mental state" comment to be the most express violation of WP:NPA, but there's a general theme of needless antagonism in a number of the diffs provided. Even when you personally are convinced that another editor is acting irrationally, there are ways to comment on actions or behaviours that are appropriate to this project and others that are not. And finding the line is not a difficult job; if you ever find yourself commenting upon your theory of their mental state or characteristics as an individual generally, you're well outside policy and anything relevant to a discussion on this project. Where another editor's actions violate a behavioural policy or they become WP:Disruptive in some fashion, you can raise those issue with the community, but only in those terms. Whatever features of personal character you believe you perceive underlying the user's conduct is never acceptable topic matter for a discussion on this project, and open speculation about another editor's mental faculties is, quite clearly, well into prohibited conduct. Now, I don't think the "out of your mind" comment qualifies (that idiom is generally received as "you have got to be kidding me"), but I don't understand how you can think "As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this." would be acceptable. You really are not doing yourself any favours by not owning up to this, because if you can't demonstrate that you see where you went off the rails here and convince the community that you can respond to perceived errors in the conduct or reasoning of other editors (even those you really don't care for and think are harassing/manipulative/whatever) without resorting to personalized sarcastic digs and calling your opposition deranged, I think you're going to find there are a lot of us who are going to be expressing concerns about whether you understand WP:C/WP:PA well enough to collaborate without issues. Snow let's rap 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But in response to the "out of your mind" bit, he said "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" and so playing on those words I said "As for your questionable mental state,". That's why I was wondering if people just took that out of context or actually read everything in that conversation. Dream Focus 11:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actual dialog in full, no selective editing, just relevant comments in question bolded. I never seriously questioned his mental state.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    So... first you tell me I am out of [my] mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see the point you are trying to make, but at the very least you chose to add the modifier "questionable" before "mental state", which only gave vitality to Hijiri's accusation (which I would have previously judged as hyperbolic) that your previous comments were directed at questioning his mental stability. And then in the same beat, you invited other users to join in such speculation as to whether he is delusional/paranoid, at which point you should have felt that particular breeze that comes when one is sailing off the rails. If you think another editor's accusations and comments diverge from the reality of a situation, there are ways to say that without resorting to commentary/speculation about the other party's mind and what defects you believe you perceive in it. That is true even where you may feel gobsmacked by the chasm between what you believe to be the truth and what the other contributor is saying. That is the distinction I think you need to take on board here, and where you ran into trouble in this situation. Snow let's rap 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I never once said he was paranoid and I don't see anywhere I called him delusional. I said "And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality?" Dream Focus 15:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire thing in context. Only change is bold added to two things to show my response was using his words to respond to what he said
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    After he erased someone's post and got reverted [53]

    @GreenC: I don't see how restoring the above could be justified: I withdrew my proposal as a result of the harassment I was receiving from several of the more militant members of this project, and all but one of them continued to comment, inappropriately, even after the proposal was closed. If I recall correctly, I tolerated it at the time (even though I would have been wholly justified in blanking continued inappropriate discussion in a closed thread) because I thought protesting would just make things worse; but someone coming on four months later and saying you agree with the editor whose closest thing to an on-topic comment was this strikes me as needlessly disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still playing the victim claiming anyone who disagrees with you is "militant" and giving you "harassment". Anyone can post here if they wish, you can't get whinny every time someone disagrees with you. You erasing someone's comment was not acceptable, so GreenC reverting you was justified. Dream Focus 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, the above is exactly why I never wanted this discussion reopened, not in February immediately after User:Redrose64 closed it (pinging in a perhaps-vain attempt to get this whole thing "re-closed") and definitely now more than four months later. DF is the worst of the editors who engaged in vicious personal attacks against me above (in fact has refused to focus on content in any of my dozen or so interactions with him since), but he wasn't the only one, so solving this by opening an ANI thread to get him blocked (something that would not be difficult when he writes things like this on a near-daily basis) would not actually fix the problem with continuously commenting on this RFC months after it was withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality? This is ridiculous. He goes to that AFD and starts arguing with me about unrelated things. Anyway, Hijiri88, you don't like this project, you already stated in multiple places you want it retired, you just argue with everyone in it constantly, why do you keep coming back here? Dream Focus 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So... first you tell me I am out of [my] mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    of course [you think] everyone is secretly out to get you[54] obviously means "you are paranoid". The only alternative reading is that you weren't being sarcastic, "you think" isn't actually what you meant, and what you actually meant was "Everyone including me is actually out to get you", which would be even worse. And "paranoid" is basically synonymous with "holding delusions about people being out to get you" (read: delusional). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you really do read a lot into things. I say one thing and you then twist it around to make it sound so much worse. Dream Focus 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely missing the point, and after doing it so many times it is beginning to look like you are doing so deliberately for the specific purpose of filibustering this discussion with nonsense side-tracking. The "assume good faith" reading is that you were calling me paranoid: the much worse alternative reading is one I don't hold to. If there is a third reading that I am somehow missing, you should elaborate on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't call you paranoid. Is English not your first language? You believe people are out to get you, you claiming my creating an article was POINTY but refuse to state what that point could possible be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma, then nominating it for deletion despite it passing the general notability guidelines. While the AFD was still open you posted on your friend's talk page [55] asking if he thought I was going to somehow put content from another article in there, which makes no sense at all, then decided "It now looks more like he's just trolling us by pretending like he walked away from the original dispute because everyone but him was behaving poorly". I walked away from the Mottainai talk page discussion, and then ignored it, since you were being rather unpleasant and there was no point in arguing nonstop with you. I found references to a notable book while looking up information there, so I made an article for it, just like other book articles I made at times. It was not pointy, or trolling you, you need to start assuming good faith and stop twisting things around. Dream Focus 06:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, regardless of what additional action might be called for against one or both individuals. Deb (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose IBAN but Support block for DreamFocus. Doing even the simplest of research shows that this has been a problem in the making for nearly 10 years. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Dream_Focus_%282nd_nomination%29 I don't honestly give a shit how you feel about this Dream, there was a point at which you needed to shut up, and we are well beyond that point. --Tarage (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, partly per Tarage. An IBAN would completely ignore the root of the problem, wouldn't solve a thing, and often creates problems down the road—for example, the IBAN between John Carter and Hijiri led to JC constantly gnawing at the edges of the IBAN, and thus constant returns to ANI until someone grew a pair and finally dealt with JC. Don't pass the buck this time, ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Watching the back and forth between these two in this thread illustrates why this is needed regardless of who is more at fault in this particular instance. I would also support a week long block based on NPA for Dream Focus because the repeated mental heath jibes should be discouraged by more than a 'Bad. Do not do that again.' response. Jbh Talk 22:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Sanction against Dream Focus for egregious and repeated personal attacks

    Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and egregiously violated WP:NPA. Dream Focus is to be strongly reprimanded for such attacks and warned that any future personal attacks will not be tolerated.

    Support as proposer. At a minimum some such sanction against Dream Focus is needed, regardless of any other sanctions which may be thought desirable. Their behavior, in this regard, is nothing short of reprehensible, such attacks should not be tolerated. There needs to be consequences. While I'm not a big fan of blocks for such things, we need, as a project, to voice our strong and collective disapproval for such behavior. Paul August ☎ 10:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the proposal is for a censure, not necessarily for a block. Paul August ☎ 17:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like TParis above, I would also support a block of Dream Focus for NPA if there was consensus for that. I try to go with less restrictive sanctions first, but I agree the attack was particularly egregious, and blocking the would also solve the problem an IBAN would. I still support a no fault 2-way IBAN if there isn't a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. Per WP:NPA "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment." As several have suggested above, there's two sides to this. Since Febuary Hijiri has been making edits that Dream might see as provocative, even harassemrnt, regardless of the likelyhood that Hijiri had good faith reasons. That said, of course it was wrong to make negative suggestions about another users mental state. Im not sure a formal IBAN is needed but it would be good if they both try to disengage , at least for a while. Maybe any bad blood will fade away if they don't interact much for a year or so, and later they'll be fine collaborating with each other. Let's not demotivate a very valued editor with unnecessary sanctions. Dream has already been warned by Cullen that any further speculation about another editor's mental health will result in a block. IMO, no further action needed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not necessarily suggesting a block here, see above. Paul August ☎ 17:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Since Febuary Hijiri has been making edits that Dream might see as provocative, even harassemrnt" - Yes, that's the point and why a block is an option here. This perspective of Dream Focus' is the result of his mentality, which we call a battlefield mentality. A block prevents him from editing until it is changed.--v/r - TP 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be noted that Feyd is apparently an old friend DF's (!voted keep in the MFD Tarage linked above), has done nothing on Wikipedia in the last week apart from defend his old friends on admin noticeboards, and explicitly referred to this phenomenon in this edit summary. Obviously DF's "friends" are just as free to comment here as his "enemies", but it is difficult to take as a good-faith coincidence that an old friend of DF's just happens to have examined all the evidence presented and it agreed with what he already wanted to say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you mentioning this? Should I post a note after Curly "JFC" Turkey's comment that you two are friends in real life? FeydHuxtable's arguments are not invalid because they agreed with me in the past over something. Dream Focus 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    CT and I are not friends in real life; I don't know his real name, age or profession. He and I just both know Japan and both know Wikipedia policy, so we tend to agree on clear-policy Japan-related stuff on-wiki. And it's not like he doesn't have his own history with you; even if he had just showed up and supported me (he didn't...), it couldn't be explained simply by his being my friend. Feyd's comment, on the other hand, looks like he came here with the intention of defending you regardless of what the actual evidence said, saw that another editor had made some vaguely pro-DF-looking comments, and decided to cite them as though they had actually said you were without fault and should not even be reprimanded. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri's obviously working in bad faith here—as my user page clearly states, "Curly Turkey" is my real name. I would thus support a punitive block against Hijiri for being such a lying dick and an indefinite TBAN for him from child pornography-related articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose anything stronger than a warning at this juncture. I do not believe any formal sanctions would be appropriate. Lepricavark (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support See my above comment. This is not new behavior. This has been going on for 10 years. --Tarage (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any kind of sanction the community can agree upon. Honestly I think nothing short of an indef block or at least a TBAN on AFDs and perhaps article creation will solve this problem at this point, per all the non-NPA-related disruption. That said, as I also said above, I don't necessarily expect more than a short block to come from this thread, and would be satisfied with him merely being put on probation for his attacks against me. Ideally, more eyes on his behaviour would also be appreciated, so I don't have to do all the heavy lifting and put up with the "hounding" accusations alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (trimmed 22:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
      You just admitted earlier today that you were following my contributions! [56] You just admitted you went there with a tool, poured through my contributions, hoping to find something. This is WP:HOUNDING! An administrator told you to stop doing that, then when I had to go back and ask for clarification he told you not to follow my contributions for that purpose.[57]
      Can you please clarify your instructions and just tell him to stop following my contributions please? Dream Focus 14:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
      If he notices plagiarism naturally, then he should point it out, but he should try to avoid your contributions and shouldn't seek them out. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
      Does everyone see the problem here? He is wantonly violating the rules then trying to act like something else is going on. Dream Focus 23:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I can support some sort of sanction for this, up to and including a block for simply grievous personal attacks. However, my first instinct would still be something more resembling a one-way interaction ban. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support--Some kind of sanction, which might be a censure, at very minimum.∯WBGconverse 09:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - As noted above, I recommend a warning that any future personal attacks will result in a block beginning with one week. (There should have already been a one-day block and a three-day block, but blocks are not punitive and cannot be given out after the fact.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. What's mainly needed now is to shut this drama-fest down and so give everyone a chance to go away and do something else. I doubt that anyone will be keen to repeat the experience. Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comment in the above section. Jbh Talk 23:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some sort of community sanction for the personal attacks that precepitated this filing. Agree with an earlier expressed opinion re: a warning that any future personal attacks will result in a block beginning with one week, or something like this. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    -It seems that there has been stalking behavior on the other side[58], so I will have to oppose one-way sanctions at this point.Worldlywise (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose per Andrew Davidson. Allowing this ANI thread to continue is like trying to extinguish a fire by pouring petrol on it. The best thing to do would be for everyone to forget the whole thing. James500 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration

    Arbitration is for user conduct issues the community can't fix. The long-term spat between Hijiri88 and DreamFocus appears to fit that bill exactly. Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 23:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess? Like I said, I'm seeing more bullshit from DreamFocus than I am from Hijiri, but if you wanna go for it, I won't oppose. --Tarage (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not exactly sure that it would be the correct forum (I have faith that the community can hammer something out), but I won't oppose, either. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 23:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's probably better than here, in that arbs have near-infinite patience with the endless "and another thing..." that we get every time this raises its head here. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: The spat isn't that long term: it started four months ago, had a hiatus, and has been "active" for about two of those four months, and I brought it to the community's attention for the first time less than two days ago. There are two proposals, the newer of which has been opposed by one of the two whose earlier comments indicated they might oppose it and one other old friend of DF's (see the 2010 MFD Tarage linked), and is still supported explicitly by more editors. This does not count the multiple others who said earlier that they would support something along those lines, who in turn account for everyone who has opposed Tony's earlier proposal. How is this something "the community can't fix? Furthermore, the problem is not limited to user conduct: ArbCom would, AFAIK, not accept all the relevant evidence about DF's copyvio, addition of unverifiable and inaccurate content, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I mostly agree with Guy. This won't be the first time that User:Hijiri88 has been dragged to ArbCom over a conflict with another editor. In that case, the other editor has since been site-banned. In this case, User:Dream Focus is taunting and attacking Hijiri88. Maybe the deliberative process of the ArbCom is needed to determine what there is about Hijiri88 so that he is a magnet for hostile editors. It may be appropriate for the community to recommend that ArbCom consider the conflict between these editors and the long-term editing patterns of these editors (and possibly any others). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      He is just good at taking things out of context knowing most won't bother to click a single link and read the entire conversation. Also he feels the need to insult other editors, make crazy accusations all the time, and follow the contributions of others in violation of WP:hounding even when told by an administrator to stop that, and then again told a second time to clarify it. [59] Can you search for his name and how many times "hounding" has been mentioned on a talk page with him? [60] He seems to always have one person he follows around. Dream Focus 19:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling Hijiri88's accusations "crazy" is not helping your case here. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been holding back on saying it, but now that Robert has mentioned the elephant in the room -- ArbCom already cleared me the last time I was subject to bogus hounding claims; in the evidence and workshop phases, words beginning with "hound-" were used 15 times, all accusations against me, but in the final decision the "hounding" principal was carefully worded so as to say "No, that wasn't hounding; stop calling it that". It is only "hounding" when the intention is to cause distress, and in the 2015 case I was the one being hounded, while the multiple editors who claimed I was hounding them all had serious editing issues that justified monitoring their edits; all of them have since left the project. I am confident that ArbCom, given their history of addressing "mentality"-type personal attacks, would take my side in this matter, and probably subject DF to no less than a site ban; the reason I don't want that is simply because it would be a waste of my time at this point, because the community can deal with this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But see, Hijiri, that recounting is kind of indicative of one of the reasons I think Robert may be correct here. You have a way of recollecting past community concerns regarding your (quite plentiful) community disputes in such a manner that always vindicates your behaviour, even if that was not the actual outcome of those discussions. ArbCom actually censured you in that case and one of their enumerated findings of fact in the case was "Hijiri88 has engaged in personal attacks and threatening behavior."[61]. The committee not using the term "harassment" in the briefly worded outcome statement is not the same thing as them affirmatively stating that you never harassed anyone; that's a positive assertion which you have stamped onto the absence of a statement and which I don't see any kind of corroborative evidence for anywhere in the Committee's ruling. And the fact that you read it that way is indicative of a certain troubling degree of confirmation bias that is common to your outlook when you get into these personal disputes. Now, having seen your engagements here for a few years now, I don't believe these assertions arise from a conscious effort to mislead, so much as a genuine propensity for seeing community support for your interpretation of events more often (or to a much greater degree) than such support has actually been asserted. Mind you, it is worth mentioning that some of the contributors you have gotten into these battles of wills with clearly were violating behavioural policies no matter how you slice the cake; in the present case, I'm particularly not impressed with DreamFocus regarding their IDHT in response to clear community expression that they crossed a line here, context of your ongoing dispute or no. I've tried to make that clear to them above, but have apparently failed and I think they are going to walk themselves into a block as a result.
    But I think Robert is nevertheless right; the frequency with which you get locked into these combative relationships with other editors raises fair questions as to your own patterns of behaviour when these grudge matches form. Once you have been party to the number disputes that you have reached where the community had to step in (including a record number of IBANs and an ArbCom case, to say nothing of the huge number of ANI threads), you need to start realistically reconsidering what in your approach to collaboration and disputes here may be contributing--and being more receptive to interpretations of these escalating conflicts which don't frame you in a 100% positive light from start to finish. Because when you are citing an ArbCom case in which you were censured for aggressive behaviour towards other editors as evidence of the proposition that you do not harass and would never do, you are clearly not hearing the community's concerns. Snow let's rap 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88: I think you would be well advised to pay careful attention to what Snow Rise is trying to tell you here. Paul August ☎ 00:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise and Paul August: Though to be clear, I don't need to be reminded that ArbCom didn't clear of all guilt regarding edit-warring, personal attacks, threats, etc. That would be stupid -- they TBANned me from almost everything, because of that stuff. I was just talking about "hounding" above. There was other stuff I was accused of besides hounding, and ArbCom did find me guilty of that, a fact I acknowledge. I apologize that my above comment gave the impression that I was denying that; rereading it, I can see how it would give such an impression. Sorry; that was my bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I'm going to invite Dream to shut the hell up. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not going to; they seem determined to be Hijiri's star witness against themselves. Snow let's rap 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Penultimate resort
    Last resort
    • I'm not usually one to suggest going to ArbCom but, given DreamFocus's long history of personal attacks, wikilawyering, and trying to taunt people into an outburst, that the community doesn't seem to have ahd the will or ability to address, this might be the only option left. Reyk YO! 05:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Egregious personal attacks and other inappropriate conduct by User:Nickag989

    Indefinitely blocked by User:Shirt58. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Here is a mere sampling of the deeply egregious, habitual personal attacks made by this user:

    • "Fuck you"[62]
    • "FU and your mother"[63]
    • "Die in fire"[64]
    • "You retards"[65]
    • "You brainless puppet"[66]
    • "You idiot"[67]
    • "You moron"[68]
    • "You're a dumbass"[69]
    • "You jerkass, you still the noobie here"[70]
    • "You fucking moronic jerkasses, I'm fucking done with this bullshit"[71]

    His talk page history reveals sections created by other users with the titles "Being rude to people" and "No need for the name calling".[72] As seen from Nickag989's edit history, he also has a problem with totally unexplained, WP:OWN and WP:JDLI-style reverts.[73] A block very much seems relevant: I'm stunned there hasn't been one yet. 185.51.228.239 (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow... I may be new-ish here, but I have never seen such language used towards other editors by a long-time peer... Perhaps we should wait for their explanation; give them WP:ROPE, but... wow. byteflush Talk 05:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef Block (Non-administrator comment) Actually, after I took a closer look, no amount of edits could recluse this editor from the PAs they made. If it all happened within a day or two, that might have been a reason to postpone disciplinary actions; however, it seems that it's an ongoing issue with them. So, indef. byteflush Talk 05:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my mind to just Block. I realized the user has no blocks logged, so probably a shorter block would get them to act civil. If disruption continues, longer blocks are always available. However, I won't oppose an Indef if that's the community's decision. byteflush Talk 06:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my mind yet again, per EvergreenFir. This is Indef stuff. They can take the WP:STANDARDOFFER when they mature. byteflush Talk 06:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    EvergreenFir (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef block , for the record. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly suspect the user may be a sock puppet of User:*Treker, who has been indefinitely blocked. The accounts were made around the same time in 2015, compare their edit history, very similar interest both on professional wrestling, editing the same articles , they have also edited each other's user pages a few time, User:*Treker user page last edit after getting banned was by User:Nickag989. Another suspect is user User:WarMachineWildThing see the very similar "i am semi retired logo on user page" very similar edit history in professional wrestling also you can see that Nickage989 constantly reverts user edits from edits by other users to latest version by User:WarMachineWildThing, just one out of many many examples WWE Championship Revision history, see 500 edits for comparison: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=WWE_Championship&offset=&limit=500&action=history Logan11111112 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I half-considered blanking the above troll comment from an obvious sock, but then I realized leaving it here to be addressed by someone with a mop would be better: how does someone whose account is one month old and has only ever edited one page know about Treker, who was blocked before that? And accusing an editor in apparently good standing of sockpuppetry based on their being one of hundreds of users with bogus "retired"/"semi-retired" banners is ... bizarre. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again wrestling "fans" causing more problems. Is there discretionary sanctions for this idiotic topic yet? --Tarage (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy moly why are they not blocked indefinitely or even blocked yet?Marketless (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They are. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Follow-on discussion re addressing disruption in the pro wrestling topic area

    Every time any article appears on any admin board EEng#s posts stuff like this. It adds nothing to the conversation and derails the entire thing. I would appreciate an admin chiming in here, as to me this goes against WP:CIVIL. Why continually post it and just aggravate other users? - GalatzTalk 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion in chief was closed so there was nothing to derail.
    • Not "any article", but rather any article that falls within the areas listed at my link, which have historically attracted SPAs, fans, and other ill-behaved types who have difficulty grasping what Wiipedia is about.
    • I am utterly (half-)serious about such a proposal, and as you'll see in the last few posts of the discussion in chief, I'm not alone.
    • Tarage's idea of deploying discretionary sanctions in these areas might be a more practical idea than mine, and if my repeated posts helped bring that idea to the surface, then they've been helpful indeed, IMO.
    EEng 01:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng's contributions do not in any way breach WP:CIVIL, and Galatz' suggestion that they do is unwarranted. EEng's contributions to ANI threads are, generally, not only a welcome break from the oh-so-deadly-serious tone of discussions here, but also frequently manage to make a salient point while being amusing. Every now and then we all need to be reminded that we're simply building an encyclopedia here, not determining the fate of the world. EEng's contributions do that, and I thank him for it.
    I suggest that this sub-thread be closed, and Galatz be trouted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Trouted? Based on? You didn't address my concern at all. He could contribute valuable stuff but still add stuff that derails the conversation. How does saying every professional wrestling article should be deleted add anything to the conversation? Like you said we are here to build an encyclopedia, how do comments like this help us do that? WP:CIVIL states Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. How is he showing any consideration or respect to those working on the professional wrestling articles by continually saying they should all just be deleted? - GalatzTalk 01:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your inability to comprehend the meaning of my "half-serious" proposal is, ironically, emblematic of the very reasons that editing in topic areas such as pro "wrestling" and snooker and beauty pageants needs special restrictions. EEng 01:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's face the real facts here: Galatz is a member of WikiProject Professional wrestling and doesn't like EEng expressing his opinions about the value of the encyclopedia covering that sport spectacle, given the number of disputatious editors involved in writing about it and the noticeboard complaints it generates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Next you'll be telling us pro wrestling isn't real. EEng 03:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who works in the performing arts, one has to appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into conceiving, staging, choreographing, and rehearsing these shows -- about 15 minutes of appreciation should be sufficient. I still like the line from one of The Thin Man films, where someone tells Nick that he's going to see a great wrestling bout, and Nick replies "Why? Were you at the rehearsal?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I understand its not serious. My complaint is the continual disruption to actual conversations and lack of respect for those editors who work hard to improve and fix the articles which get vandalized by those people you are complaining about. How does the constant chiming in every time something about professional wrestling it mentioned in any way shape or form help wikipedia? - GalatzTalk 02:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I well remember Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom which was a highlight of Saturday early evening television in the 1970's. My grandmother would eat grapes and stamp her slippered feet to the epic bouts of Jackie Pallo and Giant Haystacks, while shooting out pips into a strategically - placed brown bag. Jackie Pallo lived up the road and very graciously allowed me to metal detect in his large garden. He was always chatting up my mum in the co-op in Bush avenue in Ramsgate, where he had retired.It was usually at the meat counter. There are no controversies at the Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom page, as far as I can see. I think I have made my point. Irondome (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine if all that effort were redirected at something useful. Here's an excerpt from Israeli Wrestling League:
    "Fitness guru" Udi Fitness went out into the ring and claimed that while training the entire holiday at the gym, the whole crowd was busy eating potato latkas and sufganiyah. Fitness offered a free personal fitness workout to a person of his choice. He brought a boy to the ring and, after he had been harassed, asked him to perform 10 push-ups. Towards the end, Fitness interrupted the boy and shouted at him that he was out of shape and threw him out of the ring. Udi Fitness did not give up and asked if there was anyone who thought he was fit enough to train with him. Then came the mysterious Chinese, who withstood in everything Fitness threw at him and even surpassed. Fitness got mad and attacked the Chinese and left him on the ring after hitting him with DDT.
    That kind of stupidity belongs at Wikia. Here at Wikipeida there are real articles, on real subjects, on which behavioral issues arise that need straightening out. We shouldn't be spending one minute refereeing disputes among people who think junk "content" like the above is of any value whatsoever. It's complete idiocy. EEng 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. Jschnur (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrestling is stupid and if you get into an edit war over it you are stupid. I'm not going to sugar coat this. Wrestling has taken up far too much of the community's time dealing with stupid shit like this. If you can't behave, then it's time for adults to come in and set stricter ground rules. Might I suggest 1Revert limits? --Tarage (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely you mean to restrict what you say to pro wrestling, though while I'm at it let me suggest that we add MMA to the pile. Can we enact such restrictions here at ANI or does it take Arbcom? I like the DS idea as well. EEng 11:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the arbitration committee can put topics under discretionary sanctions. The community can put articles under general sanctions, which is similar. This is supposed to happen as a result of consensus at WP:AN. Once that's done, admins are authorized to place articles under 1RR or to topic ban editors. MMA used to be under general sanctions; see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts. This was revoked in 2015. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm. Those links re general sanctions are a bit vague as to what they are and how they work. But since this seems to be an AN matter, I'd like to here how much interest there is in raising a proposal there. EEng 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in support of this. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The original 2015 revocation of D/S in MMA appears to have been based on a calming of edit wars and general issues in the subject area. however there was an assumption that D/S would be renewed if shit started again "Support with no prejudice to re-imposing if problems resume. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)." Is one such (qualified) support vote for its scrapping. I would suggest the issue has returned. Irondome (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said wrestling I meant wrestling, as in all of it. MMA, "pro", whatever it is. There's far too much drama in such a small space. If someone brings the case forward I will support it. --Tarage (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe you man to include high school, college, and Olympic wrestling. But we can worry about that later. EEng 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was about to expand my post to include wrestling, as I was unsure if MMA was too narrowly defined. I would support also. Irondome (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EEng, Natureium, and Tarage: re general vs discretionary sanctions: The community can impose any sanctions regime it can get a consensus at AN for. Just a couple of weeks ago the community imposed sanctions equivalent to DS at WP:GS/Blockchain. The only difference is, I believe, that violations are handled at WP:AN rather than WP:AE. I think the proposal for the Blockchain GS was worded something like – impose restrictions equivalent to discretionary sanctions plus WP:1RR to the topic area… – so, if you think it would help, just propose the same for pro-wrestling, MMA and/or whatever else. Jbh Talk 20:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay seriously please stop pinging me over this. I'm watching the thread. You don't need to ping me every time. I see it. And I've already said I'll support a motion. I don't have time to draft one up myself. --Tarage (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I will not. Next time, before jumping down my throat, you should probably check whether a) I have commented in the thread before and b) whether I have pinged you in this, or any other thread, in the last month or so. Being ornery is a viable rhetorical tactic at ANI but do please take care upon whom you focus it. Thank you. Jbh Talk 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Being ornery is a viable rhetorical tactic at ANI but do please take care upon whom you focus it." That's a keeper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    This-- "Wrestling is stupid and if you get into an edit war over it you are stupid." was not very civil, even if it may be true. Either EEng's or Tarage's proposals would be an improvement. And anyone who thinks EEng was/is incivil should probably have fish for dinner.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes the truth is incivil, and I happen to agree with that sentiment - wrestling is stupid.--WaltCip (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I said that, not EEng. 2. Who is saying EEng was uncivil? 3. What Walt said. Professional Wrestling is entertainment, nothing more. It's in the same category as reality TV shows, and I don't think anyone would be phased if I said those were stupid and people who religiously follow them to the point of edit warring are also stupid. I'm all for civility but time and time again editors in that space have proven to be the most petty and incompetent editors I have ever seen outside of conspiracy theory pushers, so quite frankly, if I offended anyone in that realm I'll wear it as a badge of honor. If you care THAT much about an entertainment show to get into an edit war and bicker like a child, you are stupid and should find a better hobby. --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dlohcierekim: How do you not see it as being "incivil". If every time we had a discussion here that happened on religion I chimed in and said "Religion article cause too much trouble delete them all from wikipedia", and added nothing to the conversation other than that, would you say I am helping the point of wikipedia? WP:CIVIL clearly states editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably. Are those comments showing consider or respect? No. Do they help improve the encyclopedia? Nope. Do they maintain a pleasant editing environment? Last time I checked minimizing other people's effort certainly doesn't make things pleasant. Being as adding those sort of comment consistently when professional wrestling comes up, I would say its a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. - GalatzTalk 23:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's got a point, though. Wrestling is one of those areas like porn where we could dramatically improve the project by excluding all subject-specific sources, and allow articles only where there is significant coverage in mainstream media. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very good idea. Natureium (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I worry this would be a hard needle to thread. It does occur to me, though, that one approach might be to declare that all these subject-specific sources aren't independent, being just part of the promotion apparatus. EEng 22:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that make any sense? ESPN can never be used for sports anymore since thats just part of the promotion apparatus for sports right? WP:PW/RS has a list of sources that are industry specific sources which are independent and deemed notable. There is no policy based argument to disqualify them. To apply auto confirmed restrictions similar to WP:ARBPIA3 thats one thing, but to outright ban all industry specific sources is basis and against the entire point of wikipedia. - GalatzTalk 23:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a ridiculous analogy. While there's no denying that there's a fair amount of promotionalism in ESPN's coverage of sports they paid big money for the rights to broadcast, they are not, lock stock and barrel, part of the promotional machinery of the NFL, MLB, the NBA, or the NCAA. The same cannot be said for the kinds of sources which are cited in article about professional wrestling, which everyone has to remember is not a competitivesport but a scripted entertainment spectacle. Using those sources would be the same as quoting from press releases touting Broadway shows, or advertisements for Cirque du Soleil and claiming that these are reliable secondary sources, which they ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the page I mentioned, because you comment shows you did not. If you did you would realize they dont just post press releases. They are independent sources that have proven fact checking and editorial staff, just like any WP:RS. There are discussions and work that goes into determining is something should be included or not. You will see the list of non-reliable sources is much longer than those that are, which shows not just any website is being used. I might not be a broadway expert but I am sure there are plenty of website that review broadway shows, you don't disqualify those and say the are promotion pushers, so why disqualify sources that focus on professional wrestling? - GalatzTalk 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So anyway, can some wise and experienced admin take the lead on crafting an appropriate proposal (in an appropriate forum, if this isn't it)? I'm taking about some kind of behavioral rule (e.g. General sanctions or whatever), not changes to sourcing as described by Guy just above, because I think the latter is a much tougher hill to climb (though I agree with what Guy says), and to get such changes would require first bringing common sense to the discussion i.e. getting some editing restrictions in place. EEng 21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does there have to be an time consuming proposal rather than once-sentence a la [74]? Or a wise and experienced admin? This inexperienced and doltish editor will start the proposal below. If this blows up in my face somehow, at least I tried to do something. Any necessary edits are welcome. Natureium (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw my appeal to the wise and experienced. I'll take help from the inexperienced and doltish, or anyone else. Thanks for stepping up. EEng 00:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    General sanctions proposal

    moved to WP:AN [75]. Natureium (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Should the community authorize standard DS + 1RR for all pages related to professional wrestling, broadly construed?

    Edited to specify as DS + 1RR. Natureium (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
    • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
    • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
    • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.
    Jbh Talk 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Limited support - Certain things such as requiring auto-confirmed similar to WP:ARBPIA3 I would support, however certain things such a WP:1RR I would not. Most major professional wrestling shows/events, of which there are multiple per week, things can change rapidly during live broadcasts and certain things could easily be misconstrued as a 2nd revert when they are not. I would be afraid WP:1RR could hurt wikipedia, while requiring auto-confirmed on articles in this project could help it since they are frequently vandalized. - GalatzTalk 00:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah see, that's the thing, articles shouldn't carry the kind of detail that requires updating during broadcasts. Wikipedia isn't a news crawl. EEng 00:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See thats the problem, you are commenting on a topic you do not understand. Set aside the fact that you clearly do not like the topic, and think of professional wrestling as a male soap opera rather than an attempt to mimic sports. Things are done to create controversy/drama. For example, tonight Dolph Ziggler won the WWE Intercontinental Championship, however he cheated behind the referees back. This occurred 30 minutes into a 195 minute show. Based on your logic that shouldn't be updated because its still being broadcast, but that does not make any sense, how does that help anyone by waiting until its over to update it, almost 3 hours later? There is often times a title changes more than once in a show, and these edits could be misconstrued as your one revert. Do you think MMA or boxing shouldn't be updated during a broadcast? When do we update the Olympics, do we wait until the entire multi-week games are done? Do we wait until game 7 of the World Series is over before we include anything on the series? What about movies, should we not include anything about their time in theaters until every last theater removes it from their screens? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    tonight Dolph Ziggler won the WWE Intercontinental Championship, however he cheated behind the referees back. "Cheated"? Are you kidding? You do know that pro wrestling is scripted, right? What in the world does an attempt to mimic sports mean? It is indeed a male soap opera. We don't live-update the plots of movies as their premiere showings proceed. Quite frankly we shouldn't be live-updating any breaking event – in fact I, and a large number of others, have discussed at length not covering any subject until it's been out of the headlines for several days, weeks, or even months – but for now we'll start with this topic area, which has been the locus of an amazing amount of disruption over things only children and young adolescents would be expected to care about – superheroes in capes, schoolyard taunting, girls with big boobs, that kind of thing. EEng 01:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Natureium, would it make sense to extend this to cover MMA as well? I can't bring any recent examples to mind, but I must have added to "my list" for some reason in the past few years. EEng 00:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you thinking the MMA that kids participate in or the professional kind? (I haven't noticed a lot of conflict related to MMA articles.) The professional MMA realm seems like it should fit under professional wrestling broadly construed, but I can add that if needed. Except that now people have voted. What do? Natureium (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I think about it, let's stick to just pro wrestling, which I think everyone remembers as a problem. We can move on to MMA, beauty pageants, snooker, Catalan separatism, Ru Paul, and all the rest later, one at a time. EEng 01:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Thanks. Natureium (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think DS would be sufficient, but DS + 1RR was suggested in the conversation with Jbhunley, EEng, and (I won't dare ping) Tarage. If others disagree with this, we can change it.
    Now that I'm rereading the GS page for the third time, I see that maybe this be moved to WP:AN? Here's more of the inexperienced and doltish showing. Natureium (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes. I think AN would be more appropriate for this discussion. The DS+1RR was just from the GS/Crypto discussion. Unless there is a lot of edit warring in the topic area 1RR is probably excessive. GS/DS should give enough flexibility initially. Jbh Talk 01:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As this just opened, and no one has actually supported or opposed, would it be inappropriate for me to just start a new topic at AN? Natureium (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest archive boxing this and placing a note that it has been moved to AN. At AN make a clean proposal and link to this thread for reference. Jbh Talk 01:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with that, including dropping the 1RR part. A clarification: in the AN discussion, are only admins welcome or can the little people participate as well? EEng 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least 5 non-admins voted on the blockchain one and no one stuck them, so I think it's fine. Natureium (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jaco IV

    I have been contacting Jaco IV since Aug '17 about creating articles without sources and many other editors have contacted them on the same topic and also about edit warring [76]. There was a previous block and ANI that I am struggling to find the discussion for. Despite my many messages and other people's, Jaco IV doesn't respond. It has been pointed out that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE and the importance of sources, but ten months later, there is no response and they have not addressed the issues raised. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Iistal

    Iistal's appeal of the topic ban is at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Iistal (talk · contribs) was unblocked in 2016 with an indefinite topic ban "from making edits related to a living person". He was subsequently indefinitely blocked and engaged in sock puppetry. Following this, he was unblocked in May 2018. Since being unblocked, most of his edits have violated this topic ban. I reminded him of this topic ban on 15 June. He said on 16 June, "The thing he linked is from 2 years ago so I can't imagine it would be relevant now." I have no idea why Iistal would think that an indefinite ban would simply expire by virtue of it being old. He then edited Barbra Streisand (diff), another topic ban violation. I think this editor should not have been unblocked, and I suggest restoring the indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Power~enwiki: worth a look is WP:CONDUNBLOCK - it's within administrator discretion to impose an indef TBAN as an unblock condition for an indef block. Personally, AGF and give Iistal a final warning, making it quite clear that the TBAN is still in effect. The whole standard offer stuff could legitimately confuse a user.
    Relevant policy line: After the blocked user has accepted the conditions and been unblocked, the conditions may be appealed only to the unblocking administrator or to AN.∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe this discussion is unnecessary. Administrators are talking to Iistal on their Talk page. No administrator requires a consensus from the community to block Iistal. I have left a stern warning that I will block them if they continue to edit BLPs. Other administrators may feel differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Iistal has requested that their topic ban be removed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dr.Koo disruptive editing - continued content removal without justification

    Sadly, this editor has not responded to multiple requests to use edit summaries as recently as yesterday [77][78][79] and continues. Their editing includes completely unexplained content removal on fairly high profile articles like Kazakhstan here, they have also been warned about at least three instances of unexplained removals before [80]. Is it CIR or just don't care? Whichever, it's disruptive. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Bri. Dr.Koo often makes rapid-fire edits on an article without using edit comments, making it hard to figure out what he's trying to do. He has been warned multiple times by different users, but refuses to communicate. It's been going on for way too long. -Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin might consider warning User:Dr.Koo that they might be blocked 24 hours the next time they remove content from an article without providing any edit summary. This outcome could be avoided if they respond here and promise to address the problem. They have never posted on their own talk page since their account was created in 2015, and have never answered any of the previous warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unregistered user attack on Cades Pond culture

    I didn't plan to bring this here. I had intended to request semi-protection for the article as I have reverted content deletion a couple of times today, but I ended up setting the semi-protection myself. The IP-hopping user has deleted the same content at 1, 2 and 3. I believe this is connected with this edit at History of Florida. I have not reverted at Cades Pond culture, as that would be my third revert today. I am asking for this forum to either approve or remove the semi-protection I put on Cades Pond culture. - Donald Albury 03:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ani-notice placed on three IP talk pages. - Donald Albury 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some links to the head of the report. Since one anon seems to be using multiple IPs in the same war, I agree that semiprotection is justified. Looks like Donald Albury started a thread at the Talk page of History of Florida which might be related to this dispute, and should be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ImSonyR9

    ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor has a long history of bad and unsourced edits, as can be seen on their talk page. They recently added content that claims Aap Kaa Surroor (album) sold over 50 million copies, with no references supporting it. I think administrative action is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ZSJUSA copy and paste moving

    ZSJUSA moved United Kingdom (WWE brand) without explanation and without sources, which I moved back with an explanation as to why, as sources supported the previous name. Rather than addressing the issue, they twice copy and paste moved the page. I wrote on their talk page here [81] about this, as this user has been around long enough they should understand this. Rather than addressing the comments, 12 minutes later the user once again copy and paste moved another page, here [82] [83]. - GalatzTalk 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem to have an issue with rarely communicating or using edit summaries. ZSJUSA, communication is required. I think if the editor begins communicating better and/or stops the page moving that no administrative action should be taken, but a short block might be needed if they continue the disruption without communication. Nanophosis (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More wrestling bullshit, if I didn't have enough evidence already... --Tarage (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of users like Tarage doing nothing to aid building an encyclopedia. What benefit did posting a useless comment like this this serve on any planet? - GalatzTalk 23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should see the section above where there is discussion about making discretionary sanctions on these "articles". --Tarage (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And then upon viewing your user page and seeing "Professional wrestling pages I created" I understand the problem. I'm sure that your wrestling articles are beneficial for "any planet". --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage: I notice you ignored all the other pages I have created outside of that section. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't make it not beneficial. More people watch WWE on a weekly basis than most other programming on TV. What makes their performers less worthy of inclusion that others? I have yet to bring forward anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, yet WP:ENT supports inclusion of them. - GalatzTalk 23:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Beneficial" is an interesting word choice, considering how often the community has to deal with fights over "beneficial" fluff pages about fictional wrestlers. Just because lots of people watch it does not mean it isn't a problematic area of Wikipedia. That's like saying reality TV is the pinnacle of quality entertainment. Again, see the section above, and don't ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SaltySaltyTears

    Goodnight. Natureium (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I blocked SaltySaltyTears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know, this just seems like one of the usual trolls and griefers to me, but I have been up since 5am and my judgement may be cloudy. Please review and dispose as you see fit. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha! Or maybe not. Checkuser identified sock. OK, bedtime. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 172.76.158.201 / IP 172.76.171.26 has continued to alter comments on Talk:Bird's Opening talk page despite several warnings

    The first incident was on 23 May, when 172.76.158.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) fixed another editor's typo without asking. I left a note on their Talk page, pointing out that besides being against wikipedia guidelines, it was simply bad manners... and you can see what happened after that. On 18 June, the behaviour was repeated when 172.76.171.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) altered the text of my Talk page comment. The narrow topic range and the behavioral similarities overwhelmingly point to these IP's being the same person. I reverted and told them not to alter my comments again. Not only did they repeat that behaviour, they removed that whole section of the Talk page. I left a warning template plus a few words of my own on their Talk Page. They removed that section again. Clearly this editor is a troll who is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Request an IP range block. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - the disruptive talk page behaviour has continued even after the ANI was raised. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Revision deletion request

    Hi, would it be possible to get this edit removed? I only just stumbled upon it by chance editing the current events page.

    While Wikipedia:Revision_deletion/examples states that "User:Example is a jerk" would not normally be removed, I feel this is a bit more inappropriate than that. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting indefinite block of User:Crawnax

    User disrupted proceedings by blanking content[84][85] and attacking other users.[86][87] Was issued a block on 26 April, but has since persisted with blanking (and simultaneously celebrating the death of a UK politician),[88] abusing other editors[89][90] and WP:OWN antics.[91] The whole thing seems remarkably familiar,[92][93] to be quite honest. 5.71.120.66 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a pattern of disruptive editing to me. Probably worth having a CU check their magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser does seem relevant here. We have three accounts, all with a strong presence in the pro wrestling section, all with recent blocks on their resumes, and all directing the same insults at users who threaten their WP:OWNership. 5.71.120.66 (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP user is making legal threats on their talkpage while blocked. Can an admin please revoke their talkpage access and perhaps oversight/rev-del the legal threat from public view if it meets those guidelines? Thanks. 126.74.221.240 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Discussion on Hastily Closed Topic Ban (Not An Appeal)

    OP blocked a month. --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I don't believe it's fair for the topic ban to not be able to be appealed for another 6 months. I was unaware of the topic ban and 2 admins assumed good faith [94]. The edits I made in the past few weeks (after no editing for 10 months) were all good or mostly good edits. I think that when someone has devoted countless hours to improving an article (researching, source gathering, proofreading), if another editor then objects to the changes, that editor should make modifications rather than obliterate all of the valuable content and revert the article to poor condition. There are many recent examples of this done by NinjaRobotPirate and Yamla, except they weren't doing it out of interest for the articles. They were just going through my edit history and reverting everything one by one.

    I don't like ambiguity, discrepancies or inaccuracies. Articles with these flaws tend to have a low volume of editing activity. I edit articles that need improvement and that no one else is willing to put the necessary effort into. Effort needs to put into them because these days, mainstream media uses Wikipedia as their source of information. Access Hollywood has repeated sentences word for word from Wiki. So, by reverting articles to poor condition, you're indirectly purporting falsity.

    The editor who pointed out the topic ban, NinjaRobotPirate, made blatantly false accusations on my talk page [95]. He wrote "you added unsourced gossip to a BLP" when in fact, the page he linked was not a BLP, and the edit he linked was not gossip at all, but a well known, neutral biographical fact. I replied to NinjaRobotPirate, explaining (in a polite tone) that what he'd just written on my talk page was wrong. NinjaRobotPirate refused to participate in the very discussion he started, and after ignoring my replies, he posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I can't say his initial post was a lie, because I don't know if the falsity of it was intentional, but his behavior fits the definition of harassment. It also fits the definition of passive-aggressive.

    I waited a long time for the opportunity to edit again and have demonstrated diligence in my edits. Having followed the standard offer, an additional 6 month wait to appeal a topic ban that I didn't even know existed is unreasonable.

    I recently requested the topic ban be reconsidered here [96]. It was a short request, and the first replier critiqued "Iistal gives no explanation as to why the project would benefit from the topic ban being lifted." [97] Before I had a chance to reply to that with an explanation, the section was closed so I had to make another one to write out an explanation. In that section, an editor said "It's reasonable to assume that Iistal was unaware of an active topic ban." [98] It was swiftly closed. Iistal (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=846509245"