Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Violating IBAN with site-banned editor?

About three months ago I opened an ANI thread about Darkness Shines. I had no previous negative interactions with the editor, nor did I have any particular "beef" with them (I didn't even necessarily disagree with them on the content dispute that led to the ANI), and brought the issue to ANI purely as a procedural matter -- and an unpleasant one at that. I certainly didn't expect his "enemeies" to start seeing me as one of them and "thanking" me.

After the thread closed with an indefinite site-ban, I received a mysterious message on my talk page from C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs),[1] an editor with whom I had never interacted but whose name I recognized because, when filing the ANI thread, I checked WP:RESTRICT and noticed that DS and CWG were subject to a mutual IBAN. I gave CWG a polite warning to refrain from doing what he appeared to be doing for his own benefit,[2] before blanking the section.[3]

His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious: the edit for which he thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but I can't think of a reason he would thank me for that edit in particular -- it was clearly a symbolic gesture of some kind, and given the timing it's obvious what he was actually thanking me for. Also, he did seem also to be thanking several people involved in the DS site-ban discussion during that general time frame, Bishonen (talk · contribs)[4][5] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[6][7] The thanking of these editors at around the same time as the above mysterious message and the email discussed below might be a good-faith coincidence, and if it's anything like the definitely-not-a-coincidence thanking of me for responding to a message on my talk page about an RSN discussion it probably looks like it.

He then emailed me with the title "we have a common cause" and apparently alluded to DS's username and a potential unbanning of said as the return of the darkening skies, and claimed to have watch (sic) [me] and Turkey from afar and only wish the best for both of [us]. This really creeped me out, and I forwarded it to Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) (who was named therein) and Alex Shih (talk · contribs) (since I was considering sending it to ArbCom to see what the whole committee thought but decided first running it by an Arb I'm in semi-regular off-wiki contact with would be better). Alex's reply essentially amounted to "Yeah, it's creepy, but so is a lot of stuff; best just let it set for now".

CWG promised in the email to leave me alone until said "darkening skies", but today showed up on an unrelated discussion on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s talk page where I had brought up an unrelated problem and unfortunately referred to it as "grave-dancing" (when in fact my problem was really the opposite). He explicitly referenced the above exchange on my talk page and email, which was two months and twelve days ago.[8] If I hadn't completely forgotten about the whole affair in February, I wouldn't have responded at all (which I unfortunately did) but rather emailed Tony explaining the situation (which I have since done).

I'm really not sure if it's okay for CWG to be going around attempting to make contact with people he sees as the "enemies of his enemy" when said enemy has an IBAN against him, or how DS's own SBAN could relate to this. Honestly, it seems very slimey for him to be doing this after DS has already left the site: I'm less comfortable referring to it as WP:GRAVEDANCE than I might have been a few days ago, but it's definitely icky, and frankly I'd rather have nothing more to do with it, so I'll leave this for the community to address. If the community determines that what CWG has been doing is perfectly acceptable, then he has my apologies for bringing this up on ANI; if they determines that this is a case for ArbCom to address privately ... well, that was my initial assessment until CWG referred to it on-wiki today, but if anyone wants to tell me I should just email ArbCom I'd also take that advice into account.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• • I said nothing when I got titled, ‘’’Slimey grave-dancing and IBAN violations’’’ [9] as is suggested in dealing with false accusations of WP:GRAVEDANCING. I came across Hijiri 88 claiming Andrew D. also doing [it], that is when I mentioned that this was not Hijiri 88’s first time claiming this on a thin pretext. This appears to be what has set off this current of AN/I retaliation, digging up stuff from past months and weaving it together with a good bit of fictional enhancement. Someone gave Hijiri 88 a great piece of advice and noted that I felt it would be well to be followed, using myself as for example, and somehow Hijiri 88 is claiming this is a IBAN violation? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

While I was drafting the above, CWG also admitted (as an explanation for his suddenly showing up on Tony's talk page) to apparently being a fan of Tony's, which in turn is suspicious as Tony also supported banning DS back in February.[10] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• There are many editors that I follow and watch their talking page unless asked not to and thus I noticed, [User:Hijiri88] claiming twice within 3 months that an editor was dancing on graves. I thought this odd and mentioned it. I do not believe that I violated either the spirit or the letter of the IBAN, and only communicated my sincere thoughts and expressions with other editors.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

To be sure, continuing to monitor the activities of the other user, and going so far as to reach out to other people who dispute with them, is most definitely a violation of both the spirit and the letter of WP:IBAN. You do not seem to have a legitimate, non-DS-related reason to be involved with TonyBallioni, Curly Turkey or myself, which supports this assertion.

If the community decides that it's okay for you to violate your IBAN in this particular manner now that DS is subject to an unrelated site ban, then that is that, but for the record I would appreciate you taking me off whatever list of "friends" you have compiled, as I want nothing more to do with this matter. Coming after me to a completely unrelated discussion and claiming that by offering you this extremely carefully-worded and polite advice I was somehow accusing you of grave-dancing is inappropriate. (Yes, I did directly accuse you of grave-dancing in my emails to Curly Turkey and Alex Shih, but you do not seem to have been aware of those.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You now admit to accusing me and Andrew Davidson and tell me how many more??? -This is not assuming good faith and does not build a healthy environment by making so many accusations so often of Grave Dancing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please drop it already. It is not cool for you to be going around expressing schadenfreude that DS got site-banned (this is WP:GRAVEDANCE) or discuss or otherwise indicate that you are watching DS at all (this is a violation of your WP:IBAN). Whether it is okay for AD to bring up the name of another editor in a discussion in which said editor is unable to defend themselves is an entirely unrelated matter, and if you are not going to do the research then you really shouldn't even be talking about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one that posted this about me, and you are the one making claims about others also Grave Dancing when they are not and you are the one accusing me of following someone wrongly, when I was/am following this ANI page; you are one to talk about dropping things. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, you really should drop it. The last that came of the "claim" in question before you showed up was Maybe "gravedancing" was a poor choice of words. [...] It's discussing an editor who is still actively contributing to the project but who cannot respond to a comment in which they were explicitly named that concerns me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one making stuff up and need to stop - "CWG also admitted (as an explanation for his suddenly showing up on Tony's talk page) to apparently being a fan of Tony's," - As I have stated [here], TonyBallioni is only another editor that I came across and wanted to follow months back as to follow many users. I'm not a fan but I find that I learn a lot from watching others interact and I Thank a lot of people. You need to stop twisting my words, just because you are upset that I pointed out how frequently you claim others are WP:GRAVEDANCING - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not allowed monitor the activities of Darkness Shines or his interactions with other editors unless you have appealed your IBAN. That he is subject to a separate site-ban is irrelevant. I never accused you on-wiki of grave-dancing, but you keep honing in on that because you know what I actually accused you of is something you can be blocked for and you have all but admitted to doing. Please stop trying to distract from the main issue here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, at the time I wrote the above I never accused you on-wiki... I had forgotten about this "super-sexy-please-check-your-email-right-now" notification. I don't remember if I suspected CGW at the time of monitoring my contribs (it seems just as likely that I was trolling a certain off-wiki stalker of mine by making them think I was talking about them), but if I knew CGW was watching maybe I was hoping he would see it, put two and two together and realize I had forwarded his email to Alex, and take the notification header as a subtle (in that no one could have known who I was talking about except for CGW, Alex and myself) reminder to knock it off. It's unfortunate that he chose to hold a grudge against me over it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you make stuff up, I WATCH THIS AN/I BOARD and avoid any subject of an IBAN, unlike you are saying. Also, "I never accused you on-wiki of grave-dancing," does not line up with what you said [here], so just stop. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

- P.S. I try my best to thank at least one editor per day as this is a volunteer endeavor I find it as one of the few ways editor's have to know that what they are doing is valued.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an extremely unusual use of the WP:THANK function, if that is what you were doing when you thanked me for this edit. I would advise you to give it up and only thank editors for edits that (a) concern you directly or (b) are an unambiguous improvement to the encyclopedia. I can guarantee you that the majority of editors would be creeped out by what you are doing otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Strange how you leave out people I strongly disagree with and have had edit conflicts with before such as Anmccaff, from the many people I have regularly "thanked" for making quality edits to Wikipedia. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Above you wrongly "cherry pick" examples of people I have "thanked" to make suit your piont. I have "thanked" many people, and among them are those I have had issues. If the edit is good, it doesn't matter and I have never use the Thanks function in the way you wrongly suggest.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't say or even imply that all or even most of your "thank"s were made in bad faith. What I said was that your thanking me was clearly in bad faith, and your thanking those two particular editors (and maybe a few others -- I wasn't thorough) looks similar. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait ... you don't appear to have ever thanked either Anmccaff[11] or Qwirkle[12] -- what gives? Why does everything you say make you look more suspicious? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it was this edit [13] that I thanked them for dispite thier rude comments. Anyway, I apologize for thinking your edit was an improvement and I will never thank you again. In fact I would very much like to never think about you again, very soon. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

But there is no record of you having ever used the thank function on the editor who made that edit -- seriously, this is getting more and more creepy... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I remember thinking them and looking back I can thank him for the before and the one after but I can no longer thank them for that post. It may be a problem from when the thank-you function was having problems. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it as an IBAN vio because Hijiri88 is not Darkness Shines.
  C. W. Gilmore, that being said, I was not impressed by you continuing to make a conversation on my talk page about Hijiri88 after I told you the type of environment I try to promote there. If you search through my archives, you will see that I get questions from editors about conflicts they are in, and I do my best to provide neutral advice, with the goal on my end almost always being to deescalate potential conflict without the need for administrative intervention or a noticeboard discussion.
  It is just generally good advice to not talk to engage with people who don't want want you to engage with them, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Given that Hijiri88 says he's asked you to leave him, I'd suggest you respect his wishes, and if you didn't know they were his wishes, you do now. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - I have not and will not post to your page again on this matter. I have said all that I wanted to say in that this is not the first time that this editor has been accusing someone of 'grave dancing'. It is your page and you may do as you please, sorry that all this happened on your TP. 05:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)C. W. Gilmore (talk)

So let's leave the "grave-dancing" distraction aside and address the IBAN violations...

Seriously, do other editors think this is okay? Tony said it was not an IBAN violation, but that was apparently because he interpreted the main problem as being CWG's hounding of me -- but honestly that's not what concerns me here, and that's why I didn't talk about it in my opening comment at all. The problem here is that an editor with a live interaction ban is no longer editing, and the other party to that interaction ban has been violating it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• You say this because you first go over the top with claiming WP:GRAVEDANCING, then later take it back, as you did with first with me and then with Andrew Davidson on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s TP. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggesting that you follow good advice so you do not end up like me with a 'scarlet letter' on your chest, is hard to twist into a IBAN violation any more than being one of the hundreds of people I have THANKED. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @C. W. Gilmore: there was a case on here a couple of months ago, I'll dig out a link when I have time. It was about an IBAN violation by thanking the IBAN'ed user (the thanker was concerned, so came here). Clearly an IBAN violation. But it transpired that he'd sent thanks to editors reverting the other party of the IBAN, which wasn't viewed favourably. Long story short, thanks aren't exempt from IBANs, including thanking people who revert the other guy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't recall go around thanking people for their reverts of anyone I was involved in an IBAN in the past, for I would have been brought to AN/I within minutes given what I was dealing with then. If I did it, that would have been an error that I would try to avoid. What Hijiri 88 has been saying is that people I had dealt with and/or were on my watch list that I "THANKED"; then went on to vote a certain way regarding a site ban. This is hard to imagine, that a 'Thank You' could change votes, but that's the allegation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

* Bellezzasolo from the complaint above: "His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious: the edit for which he thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but he did seem also to be thanking several people involved in the DS site-ban discussion during that general time frame, Bishonen (talk · contribs)[14][15] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[16][17] The thanking of these editors at around the same time as the above mysterious message and the email discussed below might be a good-faith coincidence, and if it's anything like the definitely-not-a-coincidence thanking of me for responding to a message on my talk page about an RSN discussion it probably looks like it." - Hijiri 88 -It is clear that the push is for a connection to made is between "About three months ago I opened an ANI thread..." and my use of Thanks to swing votes. The problem is [| this] is the log that you should be looking at, all of it and not the Cherry Picking Hijiri88 chose to support their point. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

-EEng

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

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

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

Proposal: Vacate the IBAN

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

• Support as proposer. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support conditional suspension Yeah, that works. I honestly don't know why CWG didn't do this earlier rather than attempting off-wiki networking with DS's "enemies". I would prefer that the ban be suspended rather than fully removed, since there was unanimous support for the ban only a few months before what happened with DS (and what happened to DS had nothing to do with CWG). The suspended IBAN would automatically be re-"in force"-ed in the event that DS successfully appeals his site ban, but failing that CWG would be allowed act (within the boundaries of good taste) as though the ban did not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  Support withdrawn, now strong oppose The editor's actions since I wrote the above (which essentially amount to denying he is even subject to an IBAN, something a quick glance at his block log reveals he's done before) have convinced me that lightening his restrictions would be a terrible idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)(edited 11:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC) )

That said, the IDHT demonstrated below (essentially "I don't recognize the IBAN to begin with, so amending/repealing it is meaningless -- I'd violate it anyway") makes me wonder if this is a WP:CIR issue that might need to be addressed with more restrictions, not less. Yes, enforcing an IBAN where one of the parties is not editing anymore is not easy or pleasant, but this kinda feels like we are rewarding disruptive behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not what I said or intended. The IBAN is not in my way and I have no reason to go near the subject, so it matters less than the TBAN which currently block me from doing some much needed edits. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@CWG: So do you acknowledge that you violated the IBAN in the first place by following the Darkness Shines SBAN discussion, thanking me for opening said discussion (you obviously didn't actually mean to thank me for this edit, as that would be completely ridiculous), and emailing me about it? If you are requesting that the IBAN be suspended so that you are not blocked for this previous transgression, which you are now acknowledging and for which you are now apologizing, then that is perfectly acceptable, but denying that you ever violated it is highly inappropriate.

Anyway, please note that repeatedly making comments like it matters less than the TBAN which currently block me from doing some much needed edits, outside of the context of an appeal of said TBAN, could be taken as TBAN-violations in themselves. No one brought up said TBAN in this discussion (I didn't even know you had a TBAN), so complaining about how inappropriate it is and how it is preventing "much needed edits" to be made looks really bad.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -The TBAN is the one that has tripped me up and I could care less about the IBAN or issues around it as they are in the past and I want to leave them there. Both were caused by the same reason and interactions, in fact I had asked for the IBAN last Oct., but the Adim(s) decided different. The TBAN did nothing and only the IBAN was helpful to me, this is why I have not pushed to have it lifted, I find protection and comfort in it. It is the TBAN that I currently see as a problem. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Whether you care about the IBAN or not, you are not allowed to violate it while it is still in place. If you want to appeal some other TBAN or some such, that's on you, but you violated the IBAN: either the IBAN is suspended (or lifted, or otherwise amended), or you are still subject to it, and if the latter then you are liable to be blocked until you recognize that your previous violations of it were inappropriate and promise not to repeat them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no reason to go anywhere near the IBAN so it currently is not an obsticle, but the TBAN that blocks my ability to edit. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

CWG, you need to stop and try very carefully to understand this: whether or not you care about the IBAN or feel like it restricts your editing, unless something is done about it you are still subject to it, and what you have been doing would be seen by almost everyone as a violation. If you do not accept this, that is a much bigger problem, and it is one that may need to be addressed regardless of whether your IBAN is lifted/suspended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support solely because it's not worth anyone's time to Wikilawyer an IBAN against a blocked user power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Editor has shown no sign of respecting the iban, so why should it be removed just because the other party can't edit. That's like saying a gang member should be released because another gang member he fought with got a life sentence. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And frankly, I also oppose the TBan being removed. Find something else to edit. --Tarage (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, about that TBAN

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

• Before the TBAN was formally put in place, he accepted a temporary PBAN as an unblock condition, and he appears to have violated said condition at least 58 times without immediate consequence.[18][19][20]
• This[21][22] combined with this[23] really makes it look like CWG doesn't understand what "broadly construed" means. Gibson is the founder of the group and is only notable as such, so he really shouldn't be going near the article at all. The reason he was blocked was not simply his using the words "Patriot Prayer" on the talk page, and I'm actually quite astonished he wasn't immediately reblocked after those edits he made immediately after being unblocked.
• I really don't think it's appropriate for him to be complaining about his TBAN in an unrelated ANI discussion as he has done here, here and here.

All of this, combined with the constant IDHT regarding the IBAN (whose suspension/lifting I still support as a practical measure) has made me really think this is a WP:CIR issue -- this user just doesn't seem to "get" that they are subject to these restrictions. What are we going to do?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"what are we going to do?" -(Hijiri88) I'm sure you will continue this retaliation for calling you on your over the top comments about grave dancing until you find something that sticks. This much seems clear. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually my immediate motivation for taking the IBAN violation to ANI now (rather than ArbCom later like I told Alex I would) was your threatening to report me for "false grave dancing allegations" (your emphasis). Lo and behold, I come here and report you for IBAN violations, explicitly saying I don't think the problem is gravedancing, and you repeatedly try to make it about gravedancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• TBAN amended and clarified:

Per the ANI discussion, your topic ban has been amended as follows.

C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Added for context. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my above comment, particularly the third bullet point, was based on the assumption that your ban applied to the talk an WP spaces as well -- are you just adding irrelevant strings of text in the hopes of filibustering the discussion or something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose indef block

CWG was "lucky"[24] to get off with just a TBAN the last time an indef block was presented as a solution. Clearly this user is not interested in abiding by or properly appealing his sanctions, instead just complaining about them in public or openly violating them while pretending they don't even exist. I'm increasingly of the mind that an indef block is the only solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support this should have happened a while ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask, what I have done recently that desires this? It is an honest question regarding my recent actions, thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support You can only receive so many sanctions before a full ban is the only option. Klonniyeah (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And, although this will likely be controversial, support an unblock of DS. Klonniyeah (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

-Pray tell, what do you see in my current actions do I need to be sanctioned for or banned? Sincere question and one I would like a detailed answer so I might alter my future actions, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the above !vote after consulting with DoRD who has CheckUser blocked the account. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Although I agree CWG is a net negative for the project, I cannot really support this without some further evidence. So how about adding some? John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: He's subject to several sanctions, which were initially presented as mildly preferable to an immediate indefinite block, and this thread is littered with comments by him about how he doesn't have to abide by the one that was the original subject of this thread, and complaining about the other one in a manner inappropriate to a discussion that isn't specifically about it. And he's been violating them both on a near-constant basis for months; at this point, he is either incapable of understanding what he is doing wrong, or is deliberately pretending not to understand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If by several you mean one TBAN and one IBAN with someone that has been Indy Banned, then yes; and both rise from the same source that is no longer with us. @John from Idegon:, here is what I know. I have had one issue since January, I made a mistake and mentioned the TBAN on an articles Talking page which I reverted as soon as I became aware of it and as soon as I could. This happened last month and you can see it all on my TP, apart from that, I have no idea and why I asked Klonniyeah for an explanation so I could understand as well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Within the last day, you have complained about the TBAN three separate times, even after being warned, on a forum that had nothing to do with it -- it was not an accident. Last time you were blocked for violating it, you successfully appealed, and then violated it again right after being unblocked. And regardless of whether DS has been "Indy Banned" (tasteful, by the way) you are still subject to the IBAN and must abide by it or be blocked. You have blatantly violated the IBAN on a regular basis and have shown no interest in actually submitting to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You have also stated you brought this AN/I because you thought I was " threatening to report me" so I will take your criticism with a pound of salt. I would be far more interested in critiques of my recent actions from @John from Idegon: that I oft time disagree but at least respect. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, I already suspected you had no respect for me, but it's not generally a good idea to say that as directly as you have. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a direct person without guile so I say, "I look forward to the day when I can say nothing to you at all." These past few days of your vendetta have been more than enough interaction, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Sorry about the above side-show, but have you gotten around to looking at the evidence? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and maybe boomerang, it is odd that ca new account shows up here, votes for a block and asks for an unrelated unblock for another user. I do not know who is is who is socking, but it must be an involved user. Checkbuster does know, and thus I think n this needs to be enacted upon on the sock master.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Also (and I just noticed this now) you were the only editor in the original IBAN discussion who did not even acknowledge the utility of a one-way ban on CWG, which given the very, very strong community bias against one-way IBANs is interesting (most times a one-way ban is brought up it is shot down by immediate and overwhelming opposition). This indicates that you placed more blame than anyone else on DS and less on CWG for whatever problem between them led to the ban (and I honestly have not looked into it that much except to know that it spun out of DS attempting to report CWG for some of the above-listed TBAN-violations -- and he was right, as the ban was strengthened accordingly), even though you later painted this as your not singl[ing DS] out for the IBAN, [but] blam[ing] both of [them]. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

CheckUser has indicated the above sock is not connected to anyone here and it is just a troll. Hatting this before it spirals out of hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Slatersteven: Umm ... I argued very strongly for banning DS in February, and nothing has changed except that I now know that one of the dozens of editors he ticked off was even worse than him -- why would I create a new account to propose unbanning him? Also (not that you would have any way of knowing this, so I don't blame you), I independently requested User:Yunshui look into the obvious-sock-that-is-obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "I do not know who is is who is socking, but it must be an involved user. Checkbuster does know, and thus I think n this needs to be enacted upon on the sock master.", I think it is clear I am not accusing any one user, this is a request for action against whoever it is. I said that this should boomerang on the sockmaster.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven, it is just some troll, so please stop with the accusations. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven, the request for unblocking may be key to the consideration of the sockmaster, and it may not be a "directly" involved user. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: many of the issues can be traced to autrocious behaviour by Darkness Shines, who has thankfully been community banned. I don't see a reason to indef block Gilmore. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Nothing CWG has done in the last two and a half months can be reasonably blamed on DS -- not the multiple TBAN violations (including right after being unblocked for promising not to violate the TBAN again)[25] nor the IBAN violations (when there's no reason to assume DS has been doing the same)[26] nor any of the shit he pulled on TB's talk page or the ridiculous IDHT side-stepping/filibustering that's gone on on this thread (just Ctrl+F "grave" -- it's in like 3/4 of CWG's posts). To paraphrase Tarage (talk · contribs), you can't let a gang-banger off the hook just because someone in a rival mob is already behind bars -- that doesn't even make sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

My opinion is that the IBAN / TBAN should not have been enacted in the first place. I've interacted with both Darkness and Gilmore at Patriot Prayer. Darkness's contributions created a hostile environment on the Talk page; I eventually un-watched the page after this TP topic by Darkness: Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_4#What the fucking fuck is wrong with this?. I thus missed the ANI where the Darkness was nearly awarded a barnstar (!) for his behaviour. See other topics from PP Talk page: [27].

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

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

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

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

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

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - Enough already! An overwhelming majority of CWG's participation here is to either talk pages or drama boards. The article here they have contributed the most to? They're banned from it, in lieu of an indef. A lengthy block log for IBAN/TBAN vios, which yet again they're trying to weasel their way out of. Strange, stalkerish behaviors as evidenced by this report and by the IBAN history. Repeated pleas from established editors for indefinite or long-term blocks[28][29][30] (always kicked down the road in favor of "last chances"). Ridiculously excessive bludgeoning, argumentative behavior that is abundantly evident here and well-documented in previous threads. Bizarre flattery[31][32][33][34] being sent out after this ANI thread was opened which I can only interpret as an attempt to alter the outcome. And through all the drama I've seen, I've never seen any convincing case made that CWG is even a net positive, much less a particularly valuable editor. He's a drama monger. This isn't normal. Let's just put an end to this already. Swarm ♠ 00:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You missed the Puppy Love sent to Diannaa[35] and the Brownie sent to Deisenbe [36] and other thanks I wanted to get out of the way before being 'Banned', in case that was the decision. However I'm did not do it to sway votes, to be very clear about my intentions. Thank you - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, assuming that I misinterpreted those messages and that there was no ill intent there, I'll reiterate my strong support per the fact that I'm now being pestered (pinged) about it. My point could not be proven more aptly—more of the same "slimey" behavior. Pinging a user to a completely unrelated discussion after they support a proposal to block you comes across as willful harassment, whether it's intended to be or not. And that is the problem with CWG in a nutshell. They engage in sketchy behavior, and the second they get called out on it, they play innocent. It's always a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation, or not their fault. Is it possible that CWG is not willfully malicious? Sure. But it really takes a serious lack of competence to unwillingly come across that way on a regular basis. Swarm ♠ 22:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support- When someone misses being indef blocked by the skin of their teeth, escaping with only a topic ban from the article they have contributed to the most, they really should be on their ultra-ultra-bestest behavior, and that doesn't seem to have been the case with CWG. Their edit counts [37] show that they like to talk more than they like to improve the encyclopedia -- the "free rider" syndrome -- so it's not as if we'd be losing a net positive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CWG and I have interacted on-wiki a total of one time before this. An IBAN is not happening. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

How about an IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC) @Slatersteven: Another last final chance? And an IBAN from whom? Yeah, I'd like him off my back, but he's literally only been harassing me for three days; he's been flouting the will of the community for months, so banning him from interacting with me would solve nothing. And given how he's responded to his other IBAN and TBAN, there's no reason whatsoever to think he'd even abide by a third ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Maybe I am missing something, but he is not forbidden form talking about his TBAN (is he) or from appealing any bans? So the only grounds for wrong doing would be to either violates his TBAN on multiple occasions (and this ANI is not about that, and he has been sanctioned for that), or a violations of his IBAN (do off wiki e-mails count?). In fact your report seems to be more to do with CWG being creepy then any blatant violation of his IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC) He is banned from going on, and on, and on about his TBAN in unrelated contexts, yes, especially when said comments involve complaining about how it "did nothing" and how it "block [him] from doing some much needed edits" (given how narrow the TBAN is, it's obvious he's complaining about the present state of that particular article). As for IBANs: off-wiki e-mails don't generally count, but the IBAN was meant to prohibit him from following DS's activities, which it repeatedly failed to do. Publicly "thanking" other editors for disputing with DS, as he did, is definitely forbidden as well. If you try to place more IBANs to protect more users from his harassment, we have no reason to believe he won't just continue creepily following them, emailing editors who conflict with them (some of whom, unfortunately, will no doubt play ball) and trying to skirt the boundaries of the ban by "thanking" those editors publicly but maintaining plausible deniability by making sure those thanks are only for "benign" edits, then gaming the system by denying that there was anything out-of-the-ordinary in thanking them for edits he would have no reason to thank them for. All in all, there really doesn't seem to be any solution other than a block. Same rationale, ironically, as the DS discussion: How does stepping down to a lighter sanction than last time change things? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Odd how those thanks were months ago, and it is your assumption about what they are for (they may well be, but it is still an assumption). If this was clear cut I would support, it is not, if you had filed because of harassment I would have been sympathetic. What you did was to complain (in effect) about harassment of you, then bring up unrelated old material. Hence the suggestion of an IBAN (with you).Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC) No, I know absolutely what the thank I received was for, and he even clarified in an email, saying that he admired both me and another user he had never interacted with but who had just come off pushing for DS's ban. It's my assumption what the others were for, but the difference is between him definitely violating the IBAN several times and him definitely violating the IBAN several times and possibly also violating it a few more times. The "old material" is from the first of two times CWG interacted with me: I could have reported him at that time, but decided to wait to see if he tried anything again -- he did, so I reported him. And even in terms of time, it's not old enough that CWG didn't himself see fit to report me for it on TB's talk page. Anyway, I said at the top of this thread that I wanted nothing more to do with this: I can understand CWG's trying to make it all about me ("retaliation", to use his word), but this is also the second time you've tried to make it about me, the first being a bogus accusation of sockpuppetry. You still have not even provided a rationale for your opposing the block beyond your claim that I or someone else CWG doesn't like was socking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Using AN/I as retaliation

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

---

It appears that Hijiri 88 brought this case in direct relationship to my reporting of claims of "Grave Dancing" being used in a false and exaggerated manner:

Actually my immediate motivation for taking the IBAN violation to ANI now (rather than ArbCom later like I told Alex I would) was your threatening to report me for "false grave dancing allegations" (your emphasis). Lo and behold, I come here and report you for IBAN violations, explicitly saying I don't think the problem is gravedancing, and you repeatedly try to make it about gravedancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I reported the continued exaggerated use to TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) on the 3rd of May and all the related discussions are [here] and [here]. When [this] was posted about me in Feburary, I ignored it; however when Hijiri 88 made reference to Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) saying, “…with virtually the whole text of your comment being grave-dancing…” on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s Talk Page, I reported that these types of unfounded claims where not new for Hijiri88. Since those comments were first made by Hijiri88; Hijiri88 backtracked to say of me, "“I'm less comfortable referring to it as WP:GRAVEDANCE than I might have been a few days ago,…” and “Maybe "gravedancing" was a poor choice of words.” of Andrew Davidson. As Hijiri88 has shown by back-peddling on the original statements, they were not accurate and my reporting of this to TonyBallioni was the reason for this AN/I. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

User:DePiep and DYK

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

I hate to come here, but DePiep's actions leave me with little option. DePiep has, over the past weeks, made a series of edits and/or suggestions on the technical side of DYK: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], and several others.

These changes are made in good faith. However, when reverted or otherwise questioned about them, DePiep has responded with startling amounts of off-topic bellicosity, and very little genuine explanation. Thus, we've had there have been edit-wars on multiple pages here, and here. We've also had There have also been a number of discussions with a poor heat to light ratio: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47].

In all of these situations, DePiep has repeatedly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support TBAN on "Celts", broadly construed I'm sorry, but an editor whose user page includes that many dog whistles and red (blue and white) flags clearly identifying them as a British nationalist (ironic, given the etymology of "British") attempting to empty and mass-speedy cats related to Celtic topics including Category:Celtic nations (a closed category that has otherwise been stable for years) strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. They are bordering on being an "ethnicity and race" SPA judging by their top-edited pages[48] and their most edited pages outside their own userspace are Syndicalism (where his main contribution was to promote the popular rightist meme that "fascism was a left-wing movement that came from socialism") and Talk:Black supremacy (where their main goal seems to be to emphasize "See! Blacks are racist too!"). I just can't see how allowing this editor to continue to behave as they have been is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Category:Argentine people of Celtic descent

Category:Brazilian people of Celtic descent

Category:Filipino people of Celtic descent

Category:Indonesian people of Celtic descent

Category:Israeli people of Celtic descent

Category:Japanese people of Celtic descent

Category:Mexican people of Celtic descent

Category:Pakistani people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Manx descent

Category:Israeli people of Scottish descent

Category:American people of Faroese descent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jessicapin's disruption

Jessicapin (talk · contribs) showed up out of the blue last month at Talk:Clitoris. There, she ranted about what she perceived as inaccuracies in the Clitoris article. I addressed her claims at Talk:Clitoris#Responses to Jessicapin's comments (permalink here) by arguing with reliable medical, anatomy and sexology sources. I and others told her that per the WP:Verifiability policy, we can only go by what the literature states and with WP:Due weight. Jessicapin called the WP:Verifiability a terrible policy and went on about how we can't trust the literature on clitoral anatomy because it's all wrong. Yet she insisted that we go by Vincent Di Marino's research and Claire Yang's research (who are already cited in the article, mind you). She also insisted that we go by her word on things. She said that she is correcting the experts. She has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, especially against me. Examples of her personal attacks include here, where she stated, "I realize you, Flyer22, probably do not come into contact with many real clits", here, where she stated, "DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO GENITAL MUTILATIONS THAT ARE ON PAR WITH YOU GETTING THE HEAD OF YOUR DICK AMPUTATED? IF SO, YOU'RE A FUCKING ASSHOLE", and here, where she asked, "Do you have a brain capable of basic critical thinking skills?" Others tried to talk to her and calm her down, and it seemed to work briefly. But just yesterday, she started up again, and said, "GO LOOK AT YOUR OWN CLITS! Yo, if have a clit, simply look down, pull back the hood and observe it is not more than 1 cm long unless you are a freak." Here, she asked, "Can you read!?" She also stated, "My dad, a plastic surgeon, asked if you had ever seen a real clitoris before. I told him you are a woman. So he asked if you knew what a centimeter is. This is, quite frankly, hilarious." With this edit, she created a section titled "Can someone notify me when Flyer22 retires from Wikipedia?", and stated, "Until then, this page will be hopelessly poorly written and inaccurate. This is sad considering just how important it is for women to get correct information about their anatomy." Here, in response to me following a source's use of the word "healthy," she said, "I'm surprised the PC police have not asked for your head." And here she's gone on another rant about me, as if going by what the literature states with due weight is evil. Here (now deleted), she wrote an article about one of the editors here. It was about how geeky dudes are supposedly preventing accurate female anatomy from being disseminated on Wikipedia. Not sure if she's written an article about me yet, but I don't care.

I've understood were Jessicapin is coming from at times. The Clitoris article itself notes inaccuracies regarding clitoral anatomy due to gender inequality. But there's nothing that can be done about the clitoral anatomy literature sometimes contradicting itself, except for presenting more than one report when it's WP:Due weight. I have explained things well enough to Jessicapin enough times. As seen here, she was stuck on her claim that the frenulum is not part of the clitoris. But when I presented her with a passage from the Di Marino source she was touting, along with my own argument, she changed her tune on that particular matter. The point is that, contrary to her claim, there are not many errors in the article. There are some sources disagreeing with one another and Jessicapin disagreeing with what reliable anatomy and medical sources state, and then saying that we can't trust any of the literature on the clitoris. She also keeps changing my and others' comments, and her own in ways that take others' out of context, even though I've warned her not to do that. I've tried and tried to engage this editor in a respectful manner and by explaining the rules to her, but she keeps being hostile, with all sorts of jabs, and keeps insisting on going by her personal viewpoint of things while asserting that reliable sources are wrong. With this edit summary at the the Clitoral hood reduction article, I can now see that part of what is driving her is a surgical complication that happened to her. She says, "risks rarely discussed but this happened to me, experts say common, clearly possible based on anatomy. I can provide expert testimony from physicians websites if I need to. otherwise, I was going to publish a case study of myself with a doctor. but I don't think this should be necessary. it is important people know this can happen." She cannot be allowed to simply go by her own experiences, thoughts, and what a few sources state. She cannot be allowed to remove things she doesn't like. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The diffs you give (for example the fucking asshole diff) originate from the IP. Is there any evidence this IP is identical with Jessicapin (in which case they probably need to be blocked on the spot for incivility. personal attacks, and WP:CIR)?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I found this, pinging @Oshwah: for comment--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the IP self-identifies as Jessicapin here (in the last paragraph, responding to a question about JP's possible COI) and here (the "LOL NO IT ISN'T" comment). --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But this is clearly a personal attack after the final warning (and they of course do not agree with the warning), so I am afraid a short-term block accompanied by further explanation of Wikipedia policies is the only option left.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Ymblanter. I know that people are sensitive about tying IPs to accounts, but I see no reason to doubt that Jessicapin is that IP. It's why she has repeatedly tried to hide the matter, as seen here when she altered Oshwah's post, here when she altered mine about not engaging in personal attacks, and here, where I reverted her tampering with not only my comments, but hers as well...including as the IP. What reason would she have to mess with the IP's insults (unless we are to believe she was just being nice by removing personal attacks)? She continued "discussion" with me as that IP and later signed back in. And she hasn't been able to stop the personal attacks while signed in either. She is quite difficult to reason with. The only time I seemed to get through to her is at Talk:Clitoris#The frenulum is not part of the clitoris any more than the labia minora are part of the clitoris. At that point, she seemed cordial, despite the beginning of the section stating that I have "poor reading comprehension," and I noted this cordial attitude in my edit summary. Before that point, SilkTork tried to reason with her at Talk:Clitoris#Yes Silk, you got it. And, as you know, he left this warning on her talk page after she continued to engage in personal attacks and be disruptive. I don't know what else to do since I've already tried explaining matters to her and being patient with her since she's a newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the only question is whether we should go straight for indef, or block short-term first with the hope that they, as a relatively new editor, can learn something. I agree with Johnuniq that the messianic approach is not what we should welcome here, and I do not understand whether they have any expert knowledge. If not, they are clearly net negative and should be blocked indef. If yes, may by someone wants to try to explain smth to them for the last time.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• The personal attacks might be avoided in the future but a diff above shows a problem that cannot be corrected, namely that Jessicapin is here to tell the world about a risk. That is very understandable because there are many cases where cosmetic surgery has caused great harm in many areas, but that approach is incompatible with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• I have indef blocked, ostensibly because of the personal attacks, and I've tried to explain in my block message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you mean "ostensibly". Paul August ☎ 20:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I don't! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BarceloniUK

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

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

Person attempting to log into TedEdwards's account

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

---

What sort of person on Wikipedia, if any, would be able to determine the location of someone attempting to log into my account, and if it is possible to find the location of this person, could someone do that for me. I just want to see if it's someone I know possibly. TedEdwards 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There's been a major attack going on this week - it's more likely to be a complete stranger. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account. Natureium (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. It's just I've been on Wikibreak for a while, and I was getting these emails, so I just wanted to make sure everything was OK. TedEdwards 20:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Internet archive bot abuse

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

---

As you can see SheriffIsInTown and Saqib are abusing internet archive bot. They are increasing edit counts using this bot. The concern is serious, they have been massively increasing article size with no real benefit, hence creating nuisance for users on mobile devices. Pinging @NeilN:, @Vanamonde93:, @Dennis Brown:, @Ivanvector: for better input on this overkilling habit.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@ರಾಹುಲ್: You've provided no diffs that show the perceived problem or where this has been previously discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See [49], [50] [51]. Like the problem, diffs are also massive.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Archiving dead references is desirable, see WP:LINKROT. Would SheriffIsInTown or Saqib like to join me in pondering why an eight-minute-old account's first edit is a frivolous ANI request naming them but pinging a bunch of administrators who are active at SPI? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been editing by IP and i created account to reverse them but preferred seeking opinions. Why will one rescue massive number of sources when they are not dead and adding them to article thus increasing article loading time. How it is frivolous? How it can be justified [52], rescuing tons of sources which are not dead at all. They can be rescued to save them from linkroit but it is not necessary to add archives to articles.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see the issue. They're adding archive links to protect against reference linkrot. This is, as far as I'm aware, in no way considered disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in some ways it can be. For example, it makes you go to the archived link instead of the live one, which might have had corrections since it was posted. You can, of course, click on the "archived from" link, but the general assumption is that that link is dead, which is why it was archived in the first place -- except not. It adds significant length to the reference. If you have four columns on a desktop, it would go quickly, but one column on a phone, not so much.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I am doing this out of an honest appetite to improve Wikipedia otherwise nobody have time to do this. If someone is worried about someone's edit count. I invite them to join us in benefitting Wikipedia by doing the same. I have taken long breaks when needed and am not worried about edit counts, that is a petty thing to say and think about an editor. I will request admins to please block this few minutes old account for filing this frivolous report, this is someone who is trying to just find excuses to get me blocked. Also, if you can find the master for this sock, it would greatly benefit the project. Admins know there are many editors against whom I have filed SPIs and they are deep down hurt because of that plus all those content disputes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not frivolous nor I am trying to get you blocked. I have no personal grudge against you. If this task was necessary, a bot can do this job on full site. It affects user experience on mobile devices.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sympathetic to this argument at all. Adding 14K to Duffy (singer) adds a fraction of a second load time on a dead-slow 1 Mbit connection and the mobile site collapses every section, including References, by default. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since we're talking about it, I have noticed that some editors (not the two named here specifically) add archive links to even very recent sources. I assumed this was sort of a way of permalinking the citation in case it does move or its content changes, but after I think about it I'm not sure that's good practice if the original source is still live. What if the source publishes a retraction after the archive date? I'm just thinking out loud, perhaps this would be better discussed elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see a problem here at all. And the concern about "They are increasing edit counts using this bot" seems to suggest Wikipedia values large edit counts... which it does not.

@SarekOfVulcan: That could be a concern, but because they set deadurl=no, the first link is the live page, not the archived one. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why I was pinged, and I don't see the issue, either. Yes, it inflates edit-count, but so what? Anyone judging another editor purely be edit-count deserves to be misled by the raw number. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you for opinion. You said right but I think it is not true in all cases e.g. like calls against me to be blocked. This issue is important, @MelanieN: raised it here [53].--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah, missed that, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not concerned about download time and don’t care about edit counts. I do have a concern over articles with large numbers of cites as all the extra non-text bytes can be very annoying when editing the articles. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've used IABot just twice this month. This report is amusing. --Saqib (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Providing my reason for using IABot for the eyes of my edit-count-worried buddy. I use reFill to fix references but it leaves some of them, IABot is taking care of those thus effectively fixing the page. We all try to contribute in our own way and I am doing it in my way. If my edit-count-worried friend can convince all editors to not leave bare urls in articles then I will not have any need to do this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as NOTHERE. The probability is the account is a sock, but I can find no conclusive evidence supporting that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No comment on most of this discussion, but adding an archive link at the time of adding the citation in the first place is a good idea. I assumed this was sort of a way of permalinking the citation in case it does move or its content changes, but after I think about it I'm not sure that's good practice if the original source is still live. What if the source publishes a retraction after the archive date? It's a good idea to produce a permalink (as long as the archive is fine, linkrot won't matter), and the whole point of providing a citation date is to provide a sense of what the page looked like when you cited it. Changes to cited pages are problematic; if a page says "A and B" and you cite it to say "A and B", and then later it gets changed to "A", the casual observer will wrongly think that you faked the citation, i.e. you've added a hoax. Conversely, if it says "A" and you cite it to say "A", and later it gets changed to "A and B", the user who changes the text to "A and B", without changing the citation, has created a hoax because the source didn't say that. Provide a permalink, and these problems go away. They're not always useful (e.g. a citation to a scanned text on Google Books), but for most webpages they are. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of reFill

• The OP's concerns might be suspect, but there may be a genuine issue lurking nearby. When they use the reFill tool, SheriffIsInTown seem to be adding to the citation the current date as an |accessdate= parameter. Such an action implies that they have 1) checked that the link is live, and 2) inspected the text at the link and made sure its current version supports the part of the text that cites it. Given the speed of their editing, I'm finding it hard to imagine they do these checks: for example, how can they have checked the 14 citations that they expanded at this article in the interval of one (+/-1) minute since their previous, unrelated, edit [54]? This issue was raised by another editor last month, see User talk:SheriffIsInTown#reFill and accessdate. – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe I am doing a good work and that is why I am doing it. I think my work should be appreciated instead of criticized. It requires a lot of time investment, I have experience with this tool and as of now have fixed thousands of pages which looked quite messy before that. reFill does not fix the links if it cannot access them so there is no question of it adding an accessdate to something which is not there. That's where comes in IABot. Instead of blanket criticizing, please point out any errors you find out. You will only find 0.00001 percent if you found any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ReFill() will fetch whatever it finds at the url, even if the original webpage has moved. One such case, where you used reFill() to add accessdates to something that wasn't there, was pointed out in the discussion I've linked to above. – Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then, if you aren't checking the bare links you expand, then you're essentially working like a bot. Given the scale of the task, if it were appropriate to do these edits in such a manner, a bot would have already been created and there would be no need for you to expend your time on it. But this is not an appropriate task for a bot, and neither is it for a user acting like one, see WP:MEATBOT. – Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You do not have any experience with reFill, you do not know what it fetches and what not. This is one problematic edit out of many thousands of good edits you are pointing out, anyone can make such a mistake. Your comment suggests that bare links should be left in the articles and neither a user nor a bot should fill them which is not a constructive comment. We have these tools to assist us with such tasks and I have capacity to do so and I am doing it. Also, I see from above comments that most admins did not see it much of a big issue. I am not going to leave bare links in the articles just because of some folks who are worried about edit counts and will keep working towards improving Wikipedia. ANIs like this cannot deter me from contributing. I will do whatever I can to keep contributing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ReFill has an option to not add accessdates, which I leave on by default, since I'm not necessarily going to visit all the links I fill in.--Auric talk 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

still anyhow relisting afd

hi. user is still anyhow relishing afd. 7 days should pass before any afd relisting. can someone stress to him or not. The warning seems not working. [55][56] user involved:Kirbanzo Quek157 (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see [59] Quek157 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC) and this for reference of warnings[60]Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Reopened per [61]. Good also for others to respond. --Quek157 (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• Just an example how articles are rescued from deletion is [62]. And to be clear, !Vote = to vote (with proper rationale rather than just WP:GNG, I had to make it clear) --Quek157 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, Natureium, Legacypac, Ansh666, and 78.26: Just checking per [63] anyone have anything else to add to this. The entire discussion shouldn't have started at all. My account was started in 2007, and this is 2018, per 78.26, really this is in my 11 years I had taken anyone here also and asking for a ban and not warning. Congratulations also. It is a very bewildering case where a new editor with mere 3 months of experience do such things - and at Afd. Since the entire discussion is on non admin relisting / closing of Afd, we started this on the 8 May. I will end this discussion on 14 May if there is nothing else anyone to add as an non admin closure of this ANI. Please add if there is any. I have one point to add though Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine, this relisting is fair. There is simply no consensus yet and this CAM / Medicine based topic needs further discussion IMO. I will not say delete yet but it is really leaning somewhat there, I have just glanced through the topic and way too much terms and here and there. We should end this WP:DEADHORSE soon, and I really hope another thread should not need to start. So far today Afds seems okay. --Quek157 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

(This is to Kirbanzo only not for Admins / other contributors / not WP:CANVASS meant)[64] do see my explanation of what is not meeting WP:GNG. As this will help greatly in your argument. I am not prejudicing the result of the Afd though but I don't wish to make this any longer by copy and pasting the long winded prose there. --Quek157 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Roger Troutman promotion IPs

Some person from Denver, Colorado, has been promoting Roger Troutman, the deceased leader of Zapp (band), in articles related to Zapp or Troutman. The activity includes pushing up the importance of Roger Troutman at the expense of his brothers, especially Larry and Terry. None of the changes are based on published references. Apparently, this person is Troutman's grandchild, who is a self-published musician, and is promoting himself as "Roger's Legacy".[65][66][67]

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

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

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

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

HouseOfChange editor should be banned.

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

I'm not 100% certain about the exact process that needs to be followed here. But this HouseOfChange editor has multiple biographical articles on watch, which they use to suppress valid, correctly sourced information about controversies these figures have been involved in. Their excuse is always that "Wikipedia doesn't allow information about controversies" and that essentially, Wikipedia pages should look like polished biographical resumés more than a collection of facts about individuals and groups. I'm not aware of all the rules here, but I am dead certain you'd have some rules aimed at preventing this kind of memory hole style censorship.

You cannot have an accurate encyclopaedia if you allow editors to remove inconvenient facts. Check their history on the Neera Tanden page, where multiple editors have brought up the fact that controversies aren't covered, check Al Giordano, all of my edits have been factually based and correctly referenced, there's no excuse to continue removing them except for suppression of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezau (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

New editor causing problems by inserting POV? Check. Accusations of censorship? Check. Not using the talk page? Check. Calling out an established editor wanting them banned? Check. Multiple warnings on their own talk page? Check. Oh, and special bonus round, a warning from an admin! @EdJohnston: want to share your thoughts? --Tarage (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You did notify @HouseOfChange: of this as required, yes? Don't worry, I did it for you. --Masem (t) 06:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: My personal opinion is that Aheezau is not the same person as PerfectlyIrrational. The latter seems to attack Trump and his supporters, while Aheezau seems to be re-fighting the 2016 Democratic primaries against previous allies of Hillary Clinton. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Aheezau: Holding the sock issue in abeyance as that will be determined elsewhere, I see that OP has found the way here very quickly. I see that other fronds of WP:DR have not been utilized. OP has not sought discussion despite calls to adhere to WP:BRD. Has jumped at once to sanctions for those with whom they are in disagreement. My inclination is to block OP as OP has already received DS notices, is clearly disruptive, and gives the appearance of nothere. Any sanction levied here will not be against HouseOfChange.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Masem and others for notifying and speaking up for me. Anyone who looks at talk pages for Joy-Ann_Reid or Lawrence_M._Krauss can see that I try to reach consensus on controversial material. Aheezau and an IP who agrees with him are double-teaming me at Al Giordano and WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Al_Giordano to add sexual harassment allegations sourced to a HuffPo article by a freelancer who has feuded with Giordano in the past. My understanding of WP:BLP is that if even one more RS takes up that topic, it will go into the Giordano article, but certainly not using the draft proposed by Aheezau[68].HouseOfChange (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed, in this 2016 hit piece against Giordano by the same HuffPo freelancer above that Neera Tanden is also on his bad side, considered part of the "headass" region, which a link from the article informs me consists of people supporting Hillary Clinton. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Feels like we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

re-fighting the 2016 Democratic primaries-""We have met the enemy, and he is us" -democrtic party, 2016-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I love Pogo! Oh no, that article has multiple issues? To cruel to send me here, my real life needs some time, you know. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

DanaUllman

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
• Indefinite topic ban [69]
• User talk:DanaUllman contains discussion of the scope of this ban, DanaUllman is well aware that it applies everywhere.

DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted.

He was blocked for two weeks on March 24, 2018 for violating his topic ban. He then advocated homeopathy again at [70], promoting his idiosyncratic view that homeopathy is "nanopharmacology", and with [71] he retreads his long-standing fringe argument that a small and badly conducted study in a journal unrelated to medicine somehow provides a plausible framework for homeopathy.

In this diff [72] he asks for help undeleting Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but immediately veers into characteristic apologia for homeopathy itself: Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals (NOTE: I certainly admit that there are also "negative" trials too...but as in ALL areas of medicine and science, there are studies with positive and negative results.. His comments when challenged include: My contribution did not mention "homeopathy" and it seems that the British Medical Journal is not a fringe source, nor is the President of the British Medical Association a fringe person. He simply does not seem to understand the problem, even after all these years.

His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. I think he should be banned outright. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support community ban. If his last article edit was to add a section "Significant Support from Esteemed Individuals", then he clearly still has either no idea of how, or no willingness, to write neutrally even after all these years. And the comment "Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals" is a clear breach of his topic ban. Generally looking at his contributions, I see only the promotion of homeopathy (and related fringe things) and the promotion of himself - and really nothing else. If the promotion of his own support for homeopathy is the only thing he's here for, then the topic ban is effectively a site ban anyway, and I think it would be clearer (and with no boundaries to push) if we formalize it. Should there ever be anything else he wants to do here, he can always appeal - in just the same way a topic ban can be appealed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that I see he was editing in defence of his own biography, which was fine, but it was not fine to engage in a tangential argument about homeopathy during that discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Purely as an aside, I've just read about that "Langmuir" paper by Chikramane et al, and it's been a long time since I've seen such genuinely head-shaking incompetence. It says quite a lot about an editor who thinks it's valid science. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose One edit since 2008 in mainspace? Seems we can do better than get too upset with the person, as otherwise we open the gates to banning all whom we think are "whacko" from the start. I suggest we use bans for those whose edits are causing problems with the actual project. Sorry. Collect (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty open to banning all "whacko"s, assuming that TBANs do not stop the whackery, and that by whackos it is meant those who cannot contribute as they do not believe in reality. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As a general note, we shouldn't only consider mainspace edits when determining whether or not an editor is a useful contributor. Wasting the time of other editors on talk pages and in project space – especially in the absence of meaningful or beneficial mainspace contributions, and while repeatedly testing or violating the bounds of a long-standing topic ban – is certainly sanctionable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue is the constant violations of the topic ban, the relevance of the single mainspace edit is that he brings no value to offset the tban violations and self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support CBAN waste of time to deal with continual TBAN vios and their comments - it doesn't appear he wants to contribute outside of promoting homeopathy and thus there is no benefit to him being here; If he does wish to contribute other than promoting homeopathy he can appeal this ban if it is enacted Galobtter (pingó mió)
• O.K., Support CBAN Noting that the last edit mentioned above was not supported by a ref meeting WP:MEDRS. If the user wishes to contribute meaningfully, rather than as has been mentioned, he can let us know. This promotionalism and COI rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - per Guy Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBan - Per above. --Tarage (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBan. Wasting editors' time and patience is a big deal. Those are our most precious assets. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
• Support CBAN per everyone above - They're only here to promote themselves or do a bit of POV pushing, "Time sink" would be an understatement to describe this user, Net negative to the project. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Per WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. I note with interest that, having read through the (incredibly confusingly formatted) 2009 ANI, I can find no place where there was firm consensus expressed for a topic ban--there definitely wasn't a formal close, though a slight majority did favour a ban. In any event, DanaUllman must have themselves believed that there was a ban in place, given that they disappeared immediately after being apparently removed from their favourite topic area. So the SPA-oriented thinking and the attitude needed to return to an area they understood the community wished them to stay away from remain compelling factors for me, regardless of the formalities. "Alternative medicine" is a contentious enough topic area as is without our failing to enforce lines drawn for those who come to advocate for a very specific outlook, rather than to improve the project broadly. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing - User: Uiscfd

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

---

Uiscfd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User Uiscfd is violating Wikipedia's guidelines by editing disruptly. On multiple articles such as United States men's national ice hockey team, United States men's national baseball team, United States men's national basketball team, United States men's national soccer team, and many more articles. This user is making multiple small edits that are changing articles, and are changing graphics. This is very disruptive and are causing many people to disagree with this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTbook365 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@ANTbook365: please notify user of this discussion per instrutions at the top.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) @ANTbook365: It might be best if you would discuss with the user first. I see nothing about this on their talk page.(notifying)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Intellectual dark web

Intellectual dark web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page Intellectual dark web was recently re-created following additional coverage after a recent New York Times piece. It's clear that it will be a disaster area for quite some time. Can uninvolved admins please place the page on their watchlists, and possibly place it under discretionary sanctions if any apply? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The re-creator of the page has begun edit warring to restore BLP vios. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

well damn. Looks like a 1rr and insta block for blp situation, but I'm lousy at DS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course that's not what I did. I assumed good faith on your BOLD edits but reverted them because I thought they were unwarranted. I then went to your talk page and made a suggestion and tried opening a dialogue. Then before starting a conversation, you reverted my completely legitimate reversion of your BOLD edit. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Having trouble understanding the BLP concern. Did not see anything defamatory.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A whole lot of content saying specific people were part of the "intellectual dark web," without reliable sourcing to support it. Nothing earth-shattering, but BLP vios nonetheless. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And a user whose name starts "IDW". And whose first actions were creating this article in a sandbox. I hear the sound of quacking. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No person can be totally objective about oneself, so I don't even try... I'm a big fan of these folks and have never tried concealing it! -- IDW5605 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know what a conflict of interest is? --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a conflict of interest because I am not pushing an agenda, I wasn't the one who opted to recreate the article. I was perfectly content with the AfD discussion. But every editor edits articles they have knowledge or interest in, that's human nature. I also said I am not objective about my self, not that I am not objective about the content of the article. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

IDW5605 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for sock-puppetry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to hear from @Spartaz: as to why he rejected an AFD whole cloth, starting this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Because of additional coverage after a recent New York Times piece. The discussion on the talk page should provide enough explanation. (Note: I filed the original AfD after an attempt to redirect to Eric Weinstein was declined, and felt the reversion at this time was reasonable) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering how absolutely gutted the article is, and how people on the talk page were calling for waiting till the 17th, I don't see consensus for this unilateral change. I'd like to hear from Spartaz. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of voiding an AfD. The thing to do is to leave it be and recreate the article and take your chances on a G4 or another AfD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)