• 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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], 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: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

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)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Replies to this post are below in #Reply by DePiep. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

@Icewhiz: See my reply below. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: A slew of discussions, all raised by DePiep -- Did I start too many talks? Isn’t that contradicting the OP notion? Or do I misread your post? A (mild) PA -- When I wrote “some other place” that refers to the WP:advice not to escalate a PA in the same thread. There is nothing more to it. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The user in question has an unfortunate history with the block log. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

@J. Johnson: I think this is an incorrect description of that ANI. There was nothing “in lieu of” a voluntary ban. Instead, I can see this as an example of me deescalating & solving. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In precisely what way is "he took a voluntary one-year topic ban ... in lieu of a six-month block" incorrect? Do you dispute that there was not a topic ban? Or that you did not voluntarily accept it? Or that it was not for one year? Or do you deny that there was any possibility of an involuntary block?

The closing admin (Dennis Brown) stated: "The evidence presented herein demonstrate there is a serious problem with DePiep's behavior." And: "Technically, I could block for 6 months here and no one would bat an eye." And concluded: "if you start causing serious problems with this topic, a (long) block will probably result." What you "deescalated" was your liklihood of getting blocked, which I believe was understood by all present to be in the offing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson:. You are misrepresenting that ANI. (again; I pointed this out before). Already in my very first reply there I proposed a voluntary topic ban [11]. Only one full week later the closing admin mentioned what you call a “choice” [12]. I also note there are notes regarding your behaviour. Please stop rewriting this history. Your own wishes, perceptions and interpretations are not the same as facts and closing statements. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I quoted (and highlighted) is from the closing statement. What is questionable here is your interpretation – here – that a "voluntary topic ban" is not a topic ban. In fact, when the closer said (and this also is from the closing statement): "DePiep, I am going to accept your voluntary topic ban (italics added), he characterized your sanction exactly as I have stated: a voluntary TOPIC BAN. The misrepresentation here is entirely yours. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I think you refer to this (first section) discussion. I don’t think that discussion illustrates what this thread is about. In short, you protested that the /sandbox /testcases were broken (not the mainspace template), which I called irrelevant; also, I solved that afterwards and created a follow up thread for future improvements. i.e., constructive editing & discussing. If anything, this actually illustrates my start-a-talk approach we all consider good editing. Note the “I want” sentence. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

@Tryptofish: about the example you mention: there I started follow up sections #Restart and #Proposal (which went live eventually; also note I pinged editors). I can see this as an example of desired talkpage behaviour. I reject the suggestion of WP:NOTHERE, maybe you meant to say something else? - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. For the time being, I am going to comment only in regard to your response to me here. When I made my original comment, I was primarily pointing out that you make positive contributions to WikiProject Pharmacology. I agree with you that #Proposal, which was the outcome of the discussion, was a good outcome. As for #Restart, I'm pretty sure that another editor, Jytdog, started that part of the discussion, not you. What I saw as a problem was your interactions with Doc James, where you said: [13], [14], [15], [16]. It started out as a simple misunderstanding between the two of you, but you unilaterally escalated it to (from last two edit summaries), "thanks for stating that you (Doc James) cannot be trusted" and "three dicks and you're out?". I then tried to intervene, and your response to me: [17], was completely one of deflecting your own responsibility to the other editor. That was bad, and the reason I did not pursue it was that the discussion got back on the right track after the other editors started the "restart". You appeared not to understand it then, and you appear not to understand it now. About my reference to "NOTHERE", I said it "does not" go that far, but you seem to be missing my use of the word "not". Maybe that indicates some language or communications difficulty, but much of what I am seeing indicates a behavioral problem that goes significantly beyond just language comprehension. I'm disappointed, therefore, in your response to me. As I said, I'm commenting for now just on this, but having also read all of your responses, I think I'm seeing a lot of deflection there too. If other editors confirm that hunch, my earlier willingness to cut you some slack will vanish. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish:. You are right, that interaction with Doc James is abject. I wanted to note that I (we) pulled that topic out of the mud into a well-discussed live result. Wrt NOTHERE: indeed you said it did “not go quite so far as ... ”, but introducing the reference point has a meaning and an effect. I object even the mentioning of it, because NOTHERE clearly claims having a dishonest interest in the project. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I want to make it clear that I do not consider you to be "NOTHERE". Full stop. The reason I first used the term was because other editors were seriously considering a site-ban, and I wanted to communicate that it would be too severe. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Thanks Dlohcierekim for this careful post. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• How odd -- since this thread began DePiep has fallen silent. I've never seen that happen before. EEng 12:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

@Zanhe: Below I will reply to my BRD issues. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• i am not able to read and respond, also for the next days. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

Agreed; normally I'd have a little bit of a problem with an admin coming over the top and instituting a different sanction than that which was just agreed to by the community. But given that the conduct here was so egregious that any admin could arguably have indeffed them at any point without likely objection from the community, and given the "out" which Beeblebrox has supplied DePiep with, with regard to returning here to discuss the community's concerns, I can't say as I have much issue with this in the present case. Besides, after Swarm closed their proposal below, I began to second-guess the wisdom of allowing a user to have access to mainspace while otherwise effectively banned, considering how that situation could be gamed. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DePiep has just requested an unblock to address this discussion, so I have undone the close as suggested by the closer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redux

Ok, it looks like this would be an appropriate time to restart this discussion since they are back and able to edit again. I believe this are the points that need to be addressed, but feel free to add on if I’ve missed anything:

• A pattern of becoming extremely defensive and/or refusing to clearly explain themselves when their edits are questioned
• Edit warring
• Responding to good-faith attempts at discussion with personal attacks
• specifcally the “Auschwitz” comments, which several users and admins have commented are reason enough for a block in and of themselves
• The fact that this is a highly experienced user who, despite 10 previous blocks, still doesn’t seem to have managed to learn to behave within minimum expected standards.

Again, feel free to add if I’ve missed anything important. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've summed it up pretty well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would add, in light of his response to my comment of 00:24 9 May, that DePiep seems to be in denial of the circumstances where he accepted his voluntary topic ban, showing that he is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In case it wasn't obvious, I have pulled DePiep's TE right given the current topic ban, and some other reasons I recall from his past.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I too think Beeblebrox sums it up pretty well. I think the edit-warring and gross incivility are easily dealt with; if they recognize the problem, they're on a tight leash (a 1RR restriction may be appropriate), and can be blocked indef if they repeat that behavior; if they don't recognize the problem, we site-ban them here and now until they do. The first problem Beeblobrox describes is trickier to define, and trickier to address. I would there reiterate my proposal to remove them from maintenance areas, defined as any namespace outside articles, article talk pages, user pages, and user talk pages, with an exception for appealing and/or discussing sanctions about themselves. I proposed this below as a temporary remedy, but I believe it's the appropriate long-term step, too. This proposal is, of course, conditional on DePiep recognizing and promising to rectify the other problems with their behavior; otherwise, it is moot, and I would support a ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Vanamonde, the issues have been summed up very well by Beeblebrox. If DePiep cannot explain their edits in the maintenance areas, then they should not be editing in that area, so under any circumstances this proposal should probably sustain. Alex Shih (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Preparing replies, basically to the top thread. - DePiep (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been working continuously on this since (on/offline), but can't get it finished today. Need a rest. - DePiep (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, you may not believe this but I really would like to help you get back to assisting with the project. For that to happen, though, your response here needs to reflect an attempt to understand why everyone (everyone) is upset with you, not an extended defense explaining how you were right all along. EEng 22:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you. I am wrestling with my replies offline for days now. It is tough confrontations, and I must be honest & full out I know. Best of all is the time allowed (fast & short answers won't solve). I hope to post tomorrow, a batch of replies. I too want to join the project. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought... It can be quite traumatic facing up to your own problems, and as DePiep is keeping away from editing until this is resolved, I see no rush. I'd much rather we (DePiep and others) take the time to achieve an amicable solution that gets DePiep back to productive editing, than rush and get a poorer outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, taking some time is good, for me at least, as I can read more carefully &tc. - DePiep (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After blocking DePiep in 2015, I received this email comment from an editor, who shall remain anonymous: In case you wonder how I got involved, I have been working on the immensely complex Module:[redacted] for nearly three years, and DePiep has been active on Template_talk:[redacted] with helpful advice for those asking questions, and by managing the documentation. I have also seen DePiep's useful work in other areas. I fully acknowledge DePiep's problems and I think your block for an extremely pointless edit war on a template was reasonable. DePiep does not speak English fluently and sometimes misunderstands colloquialisms, and finds it hard to follow long and complex sentences (like the ones I write!). DePiep's style is sometimes unhelpful.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by DePiep

• First of all, I want to make my excuses for the edit regarding Icewhiz. That should not have happened in any case. Even worse I did not even self-correct at the time.

• Also, my 3RR breach with [18] in Template:DYKbox was unacceptable, especially since it was about visible content. (For those interested, here is a better development route I started afterwards).

• Also this visible content change should have been done via the talkpage.

• Re me being absent [19]: that was genuine in RL, it was not triggered by this ANI as some admins assumed. In the end the temporary blocks turned out as I too intended: first solve this thread (so the issue is moot). Meanwhile, these days helped me in finding a more relaxed and careful approach to the issues.

• In the top section, below the OP, I have replied to some individual complaints, that IMO are more isolated.

• For completeness, I note the discussions I started: this, [20], this, this; and I contributed to this.

• About my behaviour wrt BOLD, BRD, and talks. This is more subtle, so please bear with me. I write in reply to the three complaints that were made in the OP (now anchored):

Re #OP-1 vague language like "cleanup" and "improvement": As with many other similar template improvements I applied a technical-only edit: [21], [22]. My experience with other templates and WikiProjects is, that these are *not* considered controversial. To me, the wording in an the es like “cleanup” or “move templatedata/category to documentation” is clear enough. Elsewhere I did link to this WP-document for explanation. Sometimes the edit should be self-clarifying I thought: e.g., removing texts like “Interwikis go to the documentation page” is heavily outdated.

I add that in other WikiProjects, I have applied competence including doing bold edits, and building consensus in more difficult template issues (see talks & archives of elem, chem, drug, track). This is not to claim authority, but to point out that the DYK community is different in this. Please understand that this is my background experience, and so I am quite surprised to discover & learn that in WP:DYK the sense is more like “hey, don’t even edit bold here”. Before the DYK talks started, I already had made some 100–150 technical edits to templates & documentation without problems or breaking one, which added to the surprise effect.

I think this difference explains most of my contributions to the talkpages. This is why I kept asking for: “what is broken?”. This also explains why I missed the underlying DYK-community requests to explain more, and to simply not edit at all.

Re #OP-2 Treated all demands for explanation as allegations of bad faith. Maybe you refer to this edit, which indeed is needlessly unfriendly. In that talkpage section I first did answer what I was doing [23]. Then I got this bolded cursing, my reply asking to stay civil, canvassing/meatpuppeting, I asked to stop, ridiculing my English, then this. (BTW I am surprised that no editor here acted upon or even noted the abusive language in this last diff).

All this had happened in that section when Vanamonde93 made a fresh & clear restart with a bullet: [24]. To that I did reply with content [25], and without [26]. Rereading the section I think I did show some willingness to reply, but re Vanamonde93 I missed the deeper question obviously, and that latest diff was not clarifying, and not friendly I admit. Please note that the Vanamonde93 post appeared after the unhelpful language in the first half (diffs given above). At that point, my mood was not open for the constructive approach Vanamonde93 started.

It could be that Vanamonde93’s text “allegations of bad faith” actually meant to say “as personal attacks” (as Vanamonde93 did in their #Redux text). To this, my reply would be: in multiple occasions my knowledge of English was questioned [27], and even ridiculed [28]. I have never met this complaint before. While this appears to have a base in WP:CIR, it certainly appeared to me as a PA (amid other unhelpful posts aimed at me), hence my replies. I don't think I started out making BF/PA accusations.

Re #OP-3 Refused to acknowledge that … he needs to obtain consensus for them: Correct in general, though above I have noted that sensitivity for (objection to) BOLD/BRD editing in DYK is higher than elsewhere, even with technical edits.

Over all, I think I showed that, apart from problematic edits, also I started multiple threads myself, abided their result, and did reply with meaningfull answers (note the “also”). This is to push back against the atmosphere created that I did not engage in discussions at all. I now know & also admit many other answers were not civil/helpful/acceptable (or not to the point, not clarifying enough). In this situation, BRD should have lead me to stop making bold edits full stop. Then, a talkpage result would lead the way (could be no consensus, that is: nothing to be done).

I see that my initial attitude was that my edits were obvious, correct and self-explaining cleanups; this blinded me for the deeper concerns that were posted (like this opening by EEng, and this one by Vanamonde93). This is not to wipe complaints out, I just want to illustrate that the trespassings were not posted as a first reply or opening post.

How to prevent any future such problems? Clearly, I should take care not get carried away by fanatic editing, introducing blindness for talks and leading to frustrated uncivil replies. More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation. The bonus is that it will lead to a more healthy situation this side of my screen.

WRT WP:DYK, with its complicated processes, bot-support, difficult talks to reach improvements, and this whole experience: I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited.

• - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @DePiep: - First of all, I accept your apology. Could you kindly answer what I did to trigger this? Or was this just a random "thing"? What truly puzzles me was not the particular wording - but the cause for the initial offense (which I assume is something I did?).Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, in your edit [29] I totally missed the "duplicate" cause, so I saw only the removal which astonished me. At that time I had noted that WP:Palestine editing is low at enwiki. - DePiep (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I could understand how that could possibly lead to anger.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DePiep Firstly, I want to thank you for that self-reflection - it can't be an easy thing to do. I don't want to get into too much detail, so I won't reply to specifics above, but I'll just offer a few general observations.

  On the issue of being WP:BOLD and following WP:BRD, what I think I'm mostly seeing in recent interactions is a lack of understanding and poor communication. You didn't really understand why others were rejecting your template changes. But, more importantly, they didn't understand what you were trying to achieve and why. I see some attempts at discussion, but they were rather curt and I have to say I couldn't understand the details. What it needed (and I say this rarely) was more words and less action. It needed a more expansive and detailed explanation of what you were doing, and discussion until everyone understood everything. And stop making any changes until it is clear that everyone understands and there is a consensus. If you continue with further efforts to remake the same changes with modifications for what you think is the problem (but without the necessary understanding and consensus), it only causes frustration. Don't approach it from a feeling of "They need to explain what I did wrong", but more from "How can I help them understand what I'm trying to do?"

  It's not really that BOLD is not allowed, it's that the D part of BRD is by far the most important of those three letters. In areas like frequently used templates and pages with high dependencies, it is even more important that everyone involved should fully understand the implications of any changes, and when those changes are contested you should completely stop and seek consensus. In fact, in areas where there are regular editors with more specific knowledge and experience, it can indeed be wiser to seek consensus first and not be BOLD at all, as you suggest.

  Looking back over some previous interactions that others have raised, I also see times when you appear to have taken reversions or questions of what you are doing too personally and have responded poorly, similarly to what has happened here. That does seem to be a long-term issue, though again I think it's probably due to misunderstandings and/or poor communication. But when any edits you make are challenged, you really do need to engage in discussion and fully explain what you are doing - and it needs to be an explanation that's sufficient for the other editors to understand, not just one that satisfies you. And always, stop, assume good faith, and look at the whole picture again before you respond - it seems it was a failure to do this that led to the IceWhizz thing.

  Anyway, this has turned out to be a lot longer than I'd anticipated, but I hope you will find it of some use. And if you're listening to what people are saying and are taking it in and trying to do something about it (which you appear to be doing), then I don't think there's any need for any sanctions. But please do reflect on this discussion whenever you feel thwarted or frustrated in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, this nicely (and more eloquently) describes my situation. - DePiep (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear more from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to see DePiep apologizing for the worst of the personal attacks, and a site-ban is no longer an option I would consider. But I'm less satisfied with DePiep's replies about BRD. Especially with respect to DYK, he seems to believe that there's some sort of resistance to change anything there, and that his following BRD would have led to no changes at all. This is simply not true. DePiep made certain changes to certain templates and was reverted. His responses (when he went to a talk page at all), as far as I could make out, tended to be "I didn't break anything" or "Why not?" He didn't realize that it was incumbent upon him to answer the question "why?" first. There were similar problems with his talk page proposals; basically, they didn't always explain the problem they were trying to solve, and when folks expressed confusion and/or opposition, DePiep took things personally.

  I'm not sure where to proceed from here: on the one hand I'm worried my proposal above is now too harsh; on the other hand, I'm worried that if we do nothing, we'll be back to where we began very soon. I'd like to hear more suggestions about how to move forward. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:. I’ll try to be more precise: I don’t want to state that “ there's some sort of resistance to change anything there” in the WikiProject DYK community. What I meant is that change discussions in the DYK backoffice are more extensive (diverse opinions) and more complicated (more issues are involved, e.g., bots) compared to other WikiProjects/templates I have worked with extensively. As a consequence, in these other WikiProjects I rarely run into a BRD cycle (I have made bold, minor edits to a 10k template, explain on the talkpage, and no R is made). This is what I call the “surprise” I met in WP:DYK.

My future behaviour then should be: be more sensitive for such requests (like BRD). If I were allowed to edit again, I expect to achieve this for example by not being bold in more unfamiliar projects. Essential to this is, me not dig in myself (instead take distance, start talk first, don’t get triggered by perceived opposition). Also I foresee that this editing process might lead to fewer of my proposals being accepted, which should not be a cause for frustration. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with all of the above. DePuep is here in GF and seems to have plenty to offer, but we need to find some way to help him put the brakes on when need be. EEng 16:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading some of the above I feel it must be said that something that's missing, and which I think is essential for DePiep's future here, is a recognition by him that his English really does have moderate deficiencies, so that he needs to exercise extra caution in interpreting PGs and what others say to him. EEng 21:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation." This is good self-advice from DePiep. I think they tend to get heated and then not assume good faith. The onus is on them to control this. The reality is that they will have little leeway in the future, and they could conceivably improve yet still be villified for one transgression. It's their responsibility to repair their reputation. I don't know if there is any suitable sanction at this point. They should also get their template editing rights restored.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that Vanamonde's assessment of the situation is spot-on. I would like to find a solution that makes it possible for DePiep to stay around, including the ability to continue to work with templates, but I also see a troubling lack of self-awareness with regard to discussion with other editors, resulting in personal attacks, and I am convinced that it would be a mistake to assume that it will not happen again. So I would like to suggest an approach based on WP:ROPE. I don't see a good way to legislate a definable criterion for adequately understanding comments directed at him by other editors. But I think that we might be able to draw something of a bright line with respect to personal attacks (although I acknowledge that the community has not been able to agree on the boundaries of civility). I think that we might be able to draw up an editing restriction that specifies that any future personal attack made by DePiep during discussions of edits that he has made will result either in an escalating series of blocks, or in a site-ban. If we can flesh out that idea, perhaps we can make a formal proposal to that effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case if there are no restrictions, the close here should be clear that there is little to no tolerance for future incivility, allowing for swift action in the future, if needed, without spending too much time rehashing their history and re-collecting diffs.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I also think that this discussion should not be closed until some restrictions have been settled upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba:, @Tryptofish:. [written before I read the lastest proposal, I'll post this anyway:] I understand the setups you describe here. I myself am wondering too about any type of useful restriction etc I could even ask for. Today I only can make promises. Of course, whatever the result now, we know that this ANI by itself is an ultimate warning. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both Bagumba and Tryptofish. For all the concern of how DePiep might be salvaged for the greater glory of the project, he has been an IMMENSE sink of time. Unless someone is inclined to engage in a close, long-term mentoring effort with him he should be put on notice that any bickering or disputation (including here at ANI) will be grounds for a block. Which means that, in any dispute, if his arguments and explanations of why he is right are not accepted he must not persist, and any escalation to ANI is prima facie grounds for a block. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson:. any bickering or disputation (including here at ANI) will be grounds for a block -- are you serious? So any editor can report me here to ignite a autoblock, no reading required? Not even allowed to dispute or disagree? (how should that work for applying BRD BTW?). Editors can step on the admin's chair just like that? -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am serious. See comment at bottom of this section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a good place to reference what I said above about DePiep's English, which I think is a key part of the problem. EEng 22:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a language problem, it's an attitudinal problem. There is a pertinent comment today way at the bottom of all this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DePiep wrote, I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited. I think this is a good idea, and I would like this to be a formal part of the resolution here; the "invitation" should be a consensus of the DYK community on its talk page, not just a random editor. This has been an immense time sink, as noted above, and there was damage done, as edits to several templates that are designed to be transcluded caused unexpected characters to appear where they shouldn't. It's clear that DePiep wasn't sufficiently aware of the many DYK processes to safely edit DYK templates, and I've reverted their template edits there, though I've left the edits to the template documentation pages alone since they're unlikely to have done any harm. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A "civility restriction" is also an option. Per WP:RESTRICTION: The user may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Perhaps a 1-yr editing restriction?—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, I think that a near-consensus is starting to emerge. How about a proposal formulated like this:

1. A topic ban from DYK, that can be subject to review in the event that other editors at DYK would like to have it lifted.
2. A 1-year editing restriction, in which DePiep is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

• How does that sound? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think restoration of TE privs should be contingent on a year's success with the above. It's a right that assumes particularly restrained judgment. EEng 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, that means specifically the Template Editor advanced permissions, but not simply the ability to do edits related to templates. If that's the case, that's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think DePiep should re-apply at PERM if they want TE rights again. Tryptofish's summary of consensus in my opinion is fair (topic ban from DYK/one year civility restriction). Personally I would prefer "indefinite" but "appealable in six months" for the civility restriction so that we don't come back to square one again after one year (somewhat reflecting on the sentiment expressed by Vanamonde and Beeblebrox). I would probably also add a reminder along the lines of "...to stop and discuss before making potentially contentious maintenance edits" or any other statement that summarise what Boing! and others have mentioned here. Alex Shih (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking over it, I think perhaps that both the DYK topic ban and the civility restriction should be "indefinite but appealable in not less than six months". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How about: any complaint made here, that an admin judges to be well-founded, for incivility, personal attacks, edit-warring, or tendentious editing, is grounds for an immediate one-month block, and this sanction to continue until the user has edited for twelve consecutive months without any complaint. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly that sounds a touch confusing, and I'd prefer the relatively straightforward modification suggested by Alex above; both restrictions indefinite, and appealable in six months. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Vanamonde. There will be less likelihood of something going wrong if we stay closer to the typical format for sanctions, and for the application of administrator judgment. I think we are getting to the point where I will make a formal proposal soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the agreeing with the agreement. Can someone recapitulate exactly what's being proposed now? And then (it seems to me for some reason in this particular case) I think it would be useful to hear from DePiep himself that he understands what the proposal, if approved by the community, would be asking him to do, and that he thinks he can abide by it. EEng 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I just noted above re J. Johnson, this is a weird prococedural route for multiple reasons. (I copy): So any editor can report me here to ignite a autoblock, no reading required? Not even allowed to dispute or disagree? (how should that work for applying BRD BTW?). -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am serious. The persistent problem you present is, in large part, continous disputation, and recurring failure to WP:HEAR. (E.g., in part of this multi-part comment of yours you continue to dispute whether your last "voluntary topic ban" was, in effect, a topic ban. You revise history, and then accuse me of misrepresentation.) Do note that, strictly speaking, this is not an autoblock. While any editor could report you here, it would be up to an admin to decide whether there is grounds to block. The point is that we don't have to drag everyone through yet another round of DePiep showing how the rest of us are all wrong.

The key point for you is that if you can resolve disputes you have on various Talk pages, very well. But: if you can't (or won't), and persist in it enough to annoy other editors, you will be sanctioned. And no, you don't get to dispute about disputes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, someone already did that, a few subthreads down. Let's regroup there. EEng 03:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Editing restrictions

Following the discussion at #Reply by DePiep, above, it looks like there may be an emerging consensus to handle the situation in the following way, so I am presenting a formal proposal:

1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per my comments above; this strikes the right balance between allowing DePiep the freedom to contribute constructively, and minimizing the drain on the community's resources. Vanamonde (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As DePiep has been a perennial problem across a range of topics we should be looking to develop a generic form for future use. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As per EEng, below, I think we'd be fine allowing DePiep to work on DYK nominations, reviews, etc - just not the techie stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I understand this (well-written) proposal, and I think it addresses the issues well. I thank those putting a careful effort in this. (Minor question: am I to stay away from DYK-proposals?). - DePiep (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DePiep: Yes. May I ask why is this unclear? Alex Shih (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All my interactions with WP:DYK were backoffice (that is, templates & processes & WT:DYK). Nominating (the word I should have written) an article for DYK is frontoffice, open for any editor. Hence my question. - DePiep (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • All edits related to DYK. All. Fish+Karate 13:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that would be a mistake. The root of DePiep's problems at DYK was that he was trying to get under the hood when he'd never driven a car (so to speak). I see no problem with him making nominations, and reviewing, and discussing (discussing content issues, that is) at Talk:DYK; but he must stay away from the technical machinery for the duration proposed. BlueMoonset can probably express the distinction crisply for us, in terms of namespaces or classes of pages or something. EEng 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with EEng. I suggest that a namespace-based restriction here would be tricky, but we can add an exception to nominate articles, review nominations, and participate in discussions necessary to resolving his nominations or reviews. Vanamonde (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the wider cast "No, no noms". I asked for clarification, not for relaxation. I suggest stopping this side discussion. - DePiep (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as written. If DePiep is fine with a topic ban from DYK, I see no need to carve out a path for nominating DYKs, something I don't believe they've ever done in all the years they've been editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what I was thinking. In the previous edit, DePiep was asking about "DYK proposals" (they have since clarified), which I naturally thought was referring to the DYK proposals they made in WT:DYK when they were unaware of anything about the DYK process. With that being resolved, I still agree with BlueMoonset; I don't really see the necessity to write an exception for something that they appears to have never done in the past. If DePiep is interested in submitting DYK nominations anytime soon, I suppose it is fine to add the exception suggested by Vanamonde. Alex Shih (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on DePiep's comment just above, I think it's best to leave it as is. The less complicated, the better. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking for a partial relaxation of the restriction, for the purpose of nominations, in six months. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it's just me, but I still think we should sonehow address DePiep's English comprehension difficulties -- maybe something about asking for assistance in understanding others' posts and edit summaries where necessary. EEng 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sort-of tried to cover that in item number 4. Beyond that, it gets difficult to incorporate advice into something like this, where we are trying to write something that is precise enough to be enforceable. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd just like to hear from DeP that he recognizes this is part of the problem. EEng 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have similar concerns, though I'm not sure its the language competency itself that is the problem, per se. In the past, I've made numerous ventures on to other Wikipedias for languages for which I have functional but incomplete command of the grammar. Usually this is for the purpose of tracking down sources, finding content to transwiki, or just educating myself on a topic for which the English Wikipedia has more limited coverage. Once in a blue moon, I have made some trivial edits (maybe even some bold ones), but whenever reverted, I never insisted on my preferred approach, nor got antagonistic with the local editors, because I recognized the potential for mis-comunication and that each Wikipedia has its own editorial policies and community consensus (which are also subject to being misconstrued, no matter how much effort one makes to familiarize themselves, if facility in the language is incomplete).

I don't think that editors from non-English communities should be discouraged from participating (they can often bring knowledge which is less well known in the anglophone sphere), but anybody participating in a Wikipedia project (or in any collaborative scheme, for that matter) for a language which they are not fluent in should be using a liberal application of the precautionary principle. Instead DePiep often seems to come in guns blazing when challenged. So the issue is not so much one of underlying incomplete facility with English, but more one of arrogance and lack of self restraint and perspective in general. They don't seem to pause to consider whether they may have misunderstood the consensus on the matter and whether they are effectively communicating. Needless to say, those are potentially huge problems on a project such as this. That said, those are also the underlying principles to which DePiep has mostly owned up to above, so I would hope that their commitment to slow their approach in general will address these problems. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it's not a language problem, it's this persistent "guns blazing" disputation (and some arrogance) that's the problem. But I doubt how much he has "owned up" to being a problem, as it keeps happening, again and again. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that behavior, not language comprehension, seems to be the biggest factor here. As to owning up to it, these sanctions should be an effective test of how committed they really are. If they can’t stay within them, blocks will be forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I think it's the comprehension gap that often triggers the latent behavioral tendencies, but I give up. EEng 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are right about a comprehension gap triggering some of the behavior, but it's at a deeper level than mere language. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re EEng: I don’t think my level of understanding English is very significant in this. I have participated in huge discussions, sometimes taking over 400 days, and building a positive result that affected dozens of FAs/GAs (recently [30] and longer ago; also here and here). It would be more relevant tot look at my domain knowledge, as in: understanding the topic and the workings of a WikiProject, including editors’ approaches & attitudes. This gives a much better explanation on why I derailed in the WP:DYK. - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and let's hope it helps. EEng 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I would have tightened the wording on the civility provision myself; admins are already empowered to impose blocks and other sanctions for incivility, personal attacks, and refusal to AGF, so clearly what we are talking about is implementing a lower threshold for when DePiep is subject to sanction with regard to bad-faith conduct of this sort, and I'm not sure the wording makes that particularly clear (and using the default standard in this manner debases our baseline community expectations, I fear).

That little caveat aside though, I think these sanctions create sufficient restraint to address the issues raised here to an extent that will allow us to permit DePiep to continue contributing long enough to test their commitment to taking the community's concerns on board. Some of the comments that spurned this thread were truly antagonistic, but it makes a big difference that DePiep is trying and has made efforts at apology. I note also that the party most directly insulted by those comments has themselves chosen not to assume that these comments are representative of DePiep in the whole and has not urged for sanctions; of course the community can still reach their own conclusions about those comments, but that situation does make a difference to my personal analysis. All said, I think we can afford to give DePiep this chance. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the grounds that an editor who has been problematic for this long is best dealt with by the more deliberative process of ArbCom. (I am probably in the minority here, but this is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if ArbCom would be better at this point, but the restrictions proposed here do not preclude that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Cut some slack for a long-standing editor. Was DePiep wrong? Yes. Did he admit to it? Yes. If Wikipedia were only open to perfect editors, we would have no one here. This is an editor with 13 years tenure, 120k+ edits, and many-many productive contributions. His lack block prior to this incident - was almost two years ago - in August 2016. If we keep on treating block logs as a "criminal record" - all we're encouraging is people starting over with clean (or not so clean) starts. DePiep should have communicated better at DYK and elsewhere - and he should have realized the problem earlier - but slapping him with a very punitive punishment (and to a certain extent - this is true regarding the proposal in the section below as well) - is not the way to encourage contribution. Had this been coming to here after a previous recent block/ANI/warning - the DePiep should have acknowledged and acted upon - then it would be a separate matter. Having had a clean record for past 2 years and approx. 40k edits - DePiep should be cut quite a bit of slack. People aren't always at their best - and self-recognition and attempts to correct are much more important tbans/blocks/etc.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made 178k edits on enwiki, 40k of them after August 2016 (and so 138k before). I thank Icewhiz fort he notion of the "criminal record" approach (worse even when the record is read incorrectly -- nigh impossible to correct). - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds very reasonable and I can see how you may have come to such a conclusion. I would, however, offer an incident from January of this year as a more recent example. DePiep decided to “claim” a module at {{Module:Z}}. Not create a template, but rather claim it as their own for future creation. As I imagine you are aware, that is complete nonsense. As I recall there was also a talk thread somewhere where they announced their “claiming” of it. I came very close to blocking them then, but at the last second they backed off and let it go. I let it go as well for basically the reasons you have outlined here. It is now clear to me that this is a pattern from this user, and the sanctions are intended to interrupt that pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see [31] for the discussion (and the third reopening of the closed discussion thread). isaacl (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Beeblebrox told me that this is not the right way to go and deleted the page: WP:SPEEDY. But how or why does this belong in an ANI post? - DePiep (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox illustrates the tricky part in the proposal: he wanted to block me for … creating a page. So in the future the rules proposed here might be invoked by any admin that confuses a discussion with wrong language. That could only be cleaned up in an unblock request, but that is not a good place to discuss of course plus there is the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily. - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly off topic, but I've been wanting to unburden myself: the single-letter template names are a rare and precious resource not to be squandered. The idea of wasting Z on something about chemical elements is appalling, and whoever appropriated {{M}} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil. EEng 13:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not!! I would point out that {{M}}'s previous incarnation was for producing a single character (as several templates still do), which would be more to your point. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it's a matter of principle. Please report to the nearest boiling station for processing. The heat sources are very reliable now and there's usually comparatively little suffering.

The single-character templates should be reserved, ideally, for uses in which reducing clutter in the source text is especially important; a great example is {{r}}. Anyway, we'll miss you, JJ. EEng 04:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EEng: Language? While we are at it, could you reflect on how these edits [32] [33] were helpful or useful? - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your two links are the same diff, and its use lay in its potential to drive home to you that you have real difficulties in English comprehension and expression. If you're going to now start denying that you have such difficulties, as you seem to be doing (in [34] you said I don’t think my level of understanding English is very significant in this) then I'm going to have to rethink my support for the very generous WP:ROPE you've been offered, and I suspect others will as well. What do you mean by Language? in your post just above? What in the world do you mean by there is the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily in the diff I've just linked? EEng 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Beeblebrox, and add this incident from last year. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t believe that all they took away from that incident is “Beeblebrox wanted to block me for creating a page” when it was in fact about “claiming ownership” of a page and making a ridiculous spectacle out of making sure everyin knew of their”claim” even through that’s not a real thing. That they can’t see that does not give me much hope for their future. And the remark about admin wheelbarrows doesn’t help either. I do own a wheelbarrow, a nice two-wheeled heavy-duty one, but I can’t recall ever using it on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support restrictions as proposed - I'm encouraged that DePiep has acknowledged that his behavior has been a problem and hope that he will continue to contribute to the project, but I do think that these restrictions are a reasonable step at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close This Thread and Request that ArbCom Deal with a Problematic Editor

At [35] BernardZ wrote What are you doing just following me?? Anyway thanks for your edit. That Tgeorgescu is just a turd, prejudice and narrow-minded.

At [36] Macquaire repeated information which was already in the article. I have reverted it at [37]. Then BernardZ has reverted my revert at [38], which is absurd, because such information got repeated twice in the same article.

At [39] BernardZ wrote about sockpuppetry by Macquaire I know him actually, what he is doing is following me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two different people who know each other, they both make the same mistake. Odd, don't you think? And as shown at [40] and [41], they both sign their usernames below their messages, instead of at the end of their messages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is odd is your over-reaction to having your revert reverted by another user. The sequence of events was as follows:

1. 06:27, 18 May 2018 BernardZ made an edit with the edit summary: This is something we did agree too.
2. 07:33, 18 May 2018 your first revert - edit summary: the number is quite small, avoid puffery
3. 10:27, 19 May 2018 Macquaire reverted
4. 10:35, 19 May 2018 your second revert.
5. 10:51, 19 May 2018 BernardZ reverted back with the following edit summary: This was agreed. If you want it out you need to prove that they are not notable and they are notable
6. 11:36, 19 May 2018 your third revert.
7. 11:38, 19 May 2018 you started a discussion on the article talk page.
8. 10:37-12:17 19 May 2018 you posted notices on the other two editor's talk pages accusing them of sockpuppetry and made a posting on WP:ANI.

Maybe you need a wikibreak?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got called "turd, prejudice and narrow-minded" (before making the sockpuppetry accusations). Besides, I was not the first editor who accused the two of sockpuppetry, see [42] by Roscelese. And the edit warring was unusual (absurd): it wasn't edit warring about adding something to the article, it was edit warring about repeating twice the same information in the same article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make a case for sockpuppetry, the place to do it is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The question there is technical - is sockpuppetry going on? and can it be proved?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it can be proved, I will settle for meatpuppetry. I was irritated by repeating the same stuff ad nauseam. Once is enough, why should it be mentioned twice in the same article? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it cannot be proved, then you need to accept good faith. I used to see people editing Wikipedia in their lunch break in the office I worked in. That does not mean that they were meat puppets of each other. As for the content issue, explain your feelings on the article talk page. They sound reasonable - the problem is that the article is repetitive, saying much the same thing in two sections - so it is not unreasonable to want the rebuttal in both of these sections. If the editors discussed this on the article talk page, between you, you might end up improving the article. Both sides have a good point on this one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Macquaire is transparently a sock of BernardZ. I warned him back in 2016 in case that would be enough to stop it, but I haven't kept tabs on him since, and obviously he hasn't stopped. It's a rarely used account that becomes active periodically in order to support BernardZ in disputes; frankly, it seems obvious enough that an admin should be able to do this without process, but if no one else wants to file the SPI, I will. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macquaire is no socket, he is I admit a mate, who tends to follow me on Wikipedia and facebook too. As far as User:Tgeorgescu is concerned it is about time, he did answer the allegations on the page Exodus instead of being prejudice. Note we did have a discusion, we did agree except for him and now he comes here. BernardZ (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "[H]e is I admit a mate": see WP:Meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to bet the adult beverage of your choice that it's WP:SOCK and not WP:MEAT. I looked at some of their contributions and User:Macquaire uses a very similar variety of slightly fractured English to User:BernardZ. But it'll all come out in the wash if User:Roscelese files the SPI. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His English is nothing like mine. BernardZ (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BernardZ: I don't think anyone has agreed on the talk page that we should repeat more or less the same words (difference being puffery) a few lines below their first occurrence. If you want to display good faith, I suggest that you write something like "As stated above, there are some scholars who don't agree to the consensus view" followed by <ref name="sourcename"/> way of using the same sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are the only one that disagrees with this line and now you are on your third wipe so now you must debate BernardZ (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy, a matter of WP:CIR: I have not objected to the line mentioned once, I have objected to the line mentioned twice. Do you have proper reading skills? I have objected to repeating the same stuff. Your line is now still inside the article, albeit without puffery. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• SPI filed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  SPI determined they were unrelated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are basic competence issues here that go beyond concerns about meatpuppetry. A quick glance at BernardZ's most recent edits revealed these [43] [44], where the editor's primary "contribution" was changing the spellings of words from US versions to UK versions on articles with US subjects. This edit [45] looks like vandalism, (which then prompted my check of other recent edits) and this edit [46] changed the wording of a quotation with no apparent regard for the source. Grandpallama (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fronticla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be on something of a mission, removing characterisations from article with one word edit summaries (normally "pov" or some such). Example: removing and warring over "controversial" in the objectively controversial Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Attachment therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), two subjects strongly linked to exploitation of vulnerable people.

The user's talk page shows a long history of similar disputes, with he bee-in-bonnet issue changing over time. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this, too. First at attachment therapy, which was subject to an arbcom case a while back and is the site of a very long-term abuse case (largely downplaying the negative aspects and promoting other aspects of the subject). Fronticla has edit warred to remove "controversial" from the article (4 edits since last month), and likewise just reverted a message I left on their userpage (fine, but indicates he/she doesn't seem inclined to engage on the matter rather than push forward with the same edits). Looking at the contribs, it's important to note that some of the efforts seem helpful in, say, removing blatant promotional language. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting "controversial" right at the beginning of the article creates a negative appearance from the beginning: the controversy can be an important part of our understanding of the subject, but it's not a fundamental component. With the clinic, for example, it's appropriate to put the bit about the focus of criticism in a second paragraph, but "controversial clinic" obviously not being a sub-class of clinics, it has the effect of drawing immediate attention to the dispute — not something we'd do with clinics offering mainstream treatment, for example, but if mainstream clinics are disputing with this one on how properly to treat patients, both sides are involved in the controversy. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "both sides" issue. Attachment therapy is controversial because of the numerous documented cases of harm to vulnerable children, up to and including death. The Association for Psychological Science has no dog in the fight, its members could use attachment therapy of it actually worked, but APS listed it as one of a number of "treatments that have the potential to cause harm to clients". This is pretty common in alternative therapies - proponents are usually financially vested in the treatment, and portray opposition from the mainstream as being commercially motivated rather than, as is actually the case, lack of evidence of benefit. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, many of Fronticla's edits are an improvement. However, Fronticla seems to think certain words and phrases should be banned from Wikipedia, and there's no way to convince this editor otherwise. So, every use of the word/phrase is purged, regardless of any objections. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. Even if there's a section on the controversy. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [47] he removes not only the word controversial (Burzynski is currently under restrictions imposed by the Texas medical Board) but also the fact that antineoplastons are unproven. Actually they are closer to utterly discredited, but unproven is the very least we should say. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editor that communicates only through edit summaries and removes warnings from their talk page without responding (except by edit summary). I've warned them that they need to start working and communicating with others. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And following the above comment was this, which isn't reassuring. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That combines a personal attack with what seems a refusal to discuss. Also see this about Firefly (TV series) which is certainly cult. But I think there may also be a competence issue, perhaps he doesnt understand the word. But this needs to stop. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: you might want to see this discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fronticla, you need communicate. This is a collaborative project. I suggest you respond here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A Simple Human, who previously had the username Rayat before a rename, has failed to report socks of an obvious vandal for multiple times. Including this instance. Their talkpage is filled with messages from the different accounts of sockmaster. A Simple Human explicitly asked a previous sock to insult another user special:diff/808987536 (that insulting issue is 6 months old though). Recently, they have converted enwiki into social network, which can be seen from both of their talkpages, and contrib history. User talk:A Simple Human#Sup, User talk:A Simple Human#Haha, and the most recent one: User talk:A Simple Human#How are you. Their contribution to enwiki is not worth the disruption they are causing. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOLUNTEER, and we have no Article 58-12, so failure to report socks is not wrong. No comment on the rest. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Article 58 might come in handy at ANI. I especially like the Siberian exile. EEng 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they've reverted some webhostesque content. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to mention the same. Here is the full version of that talkpage before the chit-chat was removed. Regarding reporting the socks, if the socks were not harmful, or if the editor didnt know about them being disruptive, i could understand that. But what bothers me is, A Simple Human clearly knew/knows that the sock is disruptive. Also, their request to insult other editor makes me doubt their intentions. That victim later changed their username, and trolled these two perps. After that, the victim hasnt edited. The perps even discussed (in last 48 hours) about "saving each-other", "being supportive for/while coming back after each blow". But most troublesome is the casual discussions about being Nazi, communist, being anti-Jew, anti-Hindu and whatnot. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussions are not on one talkpage, it is little difficult to follow-through. But this edit, and his communication on that talkpage makes me think that he is trying to be a good editor. But given his overall history, i cant be sure. Thats why i brought it here, to get opinions of multiple editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove this lovely persons TPA, but I left my tools at home.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASH edited the userpage of a now-blocked editor in this edit, specifically to add to the autobiography of that editor. Very odd behavior. Nanophosis (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looked through some conversation ASH had with the editor, looks like they're just off-wiki friends. ASH also acknowledged this conversation and the warnings he's gotten about WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, so seems like he's just a good-faith editor who happens to be friends with individuals causing disruption. Nanophosis (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanophosis: yes, i think the same, but their behaviour from past makes ne suspicious. Also, from various socks of the disruptive user, it is clear they first met on wiki, then connected on other platforms. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: I see. I'll keep an eye out on their edits in case anything comes up. Nanophosis (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Simple Human: I see you editing. Do join us here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

There have been disputes over International Art Museum of America. I did not know many of Wikipedia policies until recently. Mr. Ken reverted my edits and invited me to the article talk page, so I did. But after several rounds of discussions, I found Mr. Ken exhibiting ownership of the article and only permitting changes he would like to see.

1. I started a discussion, but another editor NPalgan2 changed the content being discussed before a consensus was reached (NPalgan2 did that immediately after responding to my first post in the article talk page), violating WP:BRD. However, as a rollbacker and the one who is most familiar with Wikipedia policies, Mr. Ken did not revert NPalgan2's edit.

2. Mr. Ken said that any edits I made not supported by reliable secondary sources will be deleted. I pointed out that the statement "an artist who is considered to be a reincarnation of Buddha by his followers" was not supported by any source; no sentence in the LAist article or the other inline citation directly supported the follower claim. But Mr. Ken did nothing with the statement. I think WP:BLP applies here because we are talking about a living person.

3. While the discussion was going on, Mr. Ken said something like "your arguments will not work" quite a few times. I really felt discouraged to discuss my opinions and contribute to Wikipedia. The way he treats people holding different opinions may potentially hurt other newcomers as well.

4. Most recently, Mr. Ken said "I will delete anything you add to the article based on your mistaken understanding of what sources are acceptable on Wikipedia", which was another way of saying that I am not qualified to edit the article. His statement fell into WP:OWN.

I respect for the number of years that Mr. Ken has involved in Wikipedia, but that is not a reason for feeling superior to other editors and weighing one's opinions more than those of other editors. I would like to request Mr. Ken be banned from editing in the article International Art Museum of America and the article talk page. Nevertheless, I will let administrators decide whether other forms of sanctions are more appropriate. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Beauty is attempting to whitewash the article, claiming that a collection of primary sources counts as a secondary source. He follows in a line of editors with COIs regarding this museum and the cult which owns it. A simple reading of the discussion that Sleepy Beauty initiated at Talk:International Art Museum of America#H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is not a self-claimed Buddha, and an examination of the edits to the article of User:B3May15, User:Yy94040, and User:Kchsieh100 will confirm these claims. None of these editors have Wikipedia at heart, their loyalty belongs to H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III and the cult he is the head of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor involved in the discussion with Sleepy Beauty on the talk page was @NPalgan2:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor also has an interesting comment concerning coatracking here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints of Sleepy Beauty are without merit. This person wants us to state, in Wikipedia's voice, that their California based guru is a reincarnation of Buddha. The absurdity of that attempt is proof that this editor has a deep conflict of interest, and should not be editing any articles about this guru, this art museum, or Buddhism or art, broadly construed. This art museum is a barely notable project of this Buddhist sect, and is barely known in the San Francisco art and tourism communities. If you doubt me, please Google it. This Wikipedia article cannot be allowed to turn into a recruitment brochure for this Buddhist sect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE-- " forms of sanctions are more appropriate", it's possible I'm totally misreading this, but IMHO, the most likely sanction would be a TBAN of SleepyBeuty editing about this so called Bhuddha fella.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it always BMK who gets these loons? --Tarage (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is his destiny.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we keep a destiny log somewhere for the sake of transparency? EEng 11:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add to what's already been said; International Art Museum of America, Yi Yungao and World Peace Prize will probably attract POVpushing again in the future. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN of Sleepy Beauty from the page in question, even though this is one of the most polite ANi filings in a long time. Also can ANi vote a barnstar for Mr. Ken for his efforts here? He might be the real reincarnation of WikiBuddha given how even his opponents recognize his zen like understanding of Wikipolicy while trying to get him sanctioned. Legacypac (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN of Sleepy Beauty from the locus of IAMA, broadly construed.Per Cullen.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:28, 21 May 2018 (UTeautyu's
• support broad.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can support women without referring to them in that demeaning way. EEng 01:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Broad scope. I haven't done a thorough investigation of Sleep Beauty's edits, but the ones I've looked at outside of this subject area seemed OK, and they do not appear to be an SPA, so a topic ban as suggested would appear to be the best course of action. "Broad" in regard to IAMA should include the museum, H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III (Yi Yungao), the sect connected to the museum, and any other projects or organizations connected to the sect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly (maybe), early in my career, I worked on a play called Sleep Beauty off-off-Broadway.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN from IAMA & related articles, broadly construed. Seems to be some sort of persistent advocacy which is not helpful to the project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic bans as suggested. It pains me to support a topic ban for someone who seems so polite and respectful. But we obviously can't state religious beliefs as facts in Wikipedia's voice based solely on religious sources, and I think a persistent failure to understand that means we really don't have any choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Sleepy Beauty doesn't seem to understand and from what I've surmised, they have no intention of understanding with this particular page, either. Could you imagine if the article about Reverend Moon straight up declared that he was the Second Coming of Christ? Also, I'm sorry, BMK, for seeing you unfairly pulled to this noticeboard for following policy ardently. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to administrators: Could an administrator look at all of the recent edits (this month) by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2, and take the appropriate action? Softlavender (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have not said anything since I started this thread. Mr. Ken is well connected in Wikipedia. If everyone wants to sanction me with a topic ban, there is nothing I can do but accept it. Here are some points that I want to say.
  First, I am not an COI. As I have explained, my standing point was not to add anything, but instead what was written earlier shall not be stated in Wikipedia's voice; the statement was just a passing claim in the LAist news article.
  Second, Mr. Ken, it is unfair to label anyone who is against your opinions as COI. I do not literally know anybody else except myself in English Wikipedia. I do not know who the ip user (2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2) is, either. It looked funny when you called him a COI in the first place. The another ip user (2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:403A:2FB7:2915:8DBB) who talked about Wikipedia:Coatrack articles was advocating the removal of information about H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III in IAMA. Do you want to call him a COI as well? I seriously doubt your intention of labeling me and (2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2) as COI was to hide your own COI with H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III.
  Third, NPalgan2 mentioned that the other two articles Yi Yungao and World Peace Prize would probably attract POVpushing again in the future. I am curious what you are concerned about. I looked into your edit history and saw that you have edited those two articles as well; you created Yi Yungao and rewrote the other one considerably.
  On 24 March 2018, you wikified H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III, and changed it later to H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III. But the article Yi Yungao did not exist until 25 March 2018. It looks like your so-called "wikify" was to prepare for something in the future.
  Then you edited World Peace Prize and labeld the prize as a hoax for something happened in Tonga two decades ago. If you read Chinese, here is a news article in 2001 reporting that in a press conference Lester Wolff (the Chief Judge of World Peace Prize Awarding Council) showed a photocopy of a letter of apology written and signed by the Tonga Prime Minister for the erronous report by the Tonga Media.
  You created the article Yi Yungao slandering H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III, casted World Peace Prize in a negative tone, and placed the wikilink His Holiness Dorje Chang Buddha III (or Yi Yungao) whenever possible, in World Peace Prize, Vajradhara, and International Art Museum of America. You have literally edited all the articles that may relate to "H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III". Why do you attack a living person so persistently? I doubet whether you have an COI with the person in that you gain if the person is defamed. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know Yi Yungao (aka "H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III", a title he apparently chose for himself), his museum, or his sect from holes in the ground. I got involved with editing the IAMA article because I took a picture of the exterior of the museum building when I was in San Francisco in 2017. When I looked, I found that the article on the museum (which I had never heard of) was heavily promotional, so I helped to clean it up. Then I noticed new editors restoring or adding promotional information, one of whom admitted they were a volunteer at the museum. When I investigated, it was obvious that editors with conflicts of interest were attempting to skew the article to promote the museum. That's unacceptable.
  If you're not a COI editor, then I apologize for thinking that you were, but given the article's history, and your own WP:IDHT behavior on the talk page, I think it was a reasonable conclusion to come to, and I'm still not at all convinced that it's not true. Now we have this trolling IP editor, who I thought at first was also a COI editor, but now appears to be either someone who harbors ill will towards me or towards Wikipedia in general.
  That's the potted history of my involvement with this article. It has nothing whatsoever to do a COI on my part, and everything in the world to do with preventing Wikipedia from being used as a promotional medium. I plan to keep on editing in that manner, just as I have edited the other 42,419 unique pages I have contributed to. The particular article in question has no special meaning to me - you can choose to believe that, or not, I really don't care. I know that it's true, and I'll warrant that anyone actually familiar with the broad scope of my editing will believe that it is as well. As for you... well, as was said above -- not by me -- your complaints are without merit, and a number of editors have agreed that you should be topic-banned from the IAMA article. Whether a sufficient number will agree remains to be seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my assessment of the previous exchange: BMK shows a remarkable degree of patience and assumption of good faith. On the other hand, Sleepy Beauty's comments at 04:20, 23 May 2018 provide additional strong evidence that this person needs a topic ban on this museum and this sect, and on Buddhism and art, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic ban, with explicit advice to encourage the editor to concentrate on other areas. This editor has created material which has been accepted via AfC, including articles about Chinese cinema. To discourage the editor from making continued contributions in this area would be a loss. Edaham (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Campaign Against Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User ZScarpia is unusually resistant to any attempt to archive out or hat WP:NOTFORUM commentary he posted to Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism a year and a half ago. The article is controversial, and his comments invoke unreliable sources to no obvious purpose, there's no actionable edit request, just copmmentary based on polemic. Example: [64] It's very unusal in my experience for anyone to so determinedly revert archival of talk page commentary. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my comments is to provide links to sources which help to outline positions, including the pro-Palestinian one, which are sceptical about the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Although the linked to sources don't themselves fit the definition of reliable, they cite sources or link to material that does. JzG dashed off a string of justifications for removing my comments on my talkpage, none of which are valid in my opinion, misapplying as they do Wikipedia policy. It's very unusual in my experience of anyone to so determinedly try to remove another editors talkpage comments. My understanding is that, unless talkpage comments are clearly in breach of policy, other editors shouldn't be attempting to do that, especially when asked to desist. My guess is that JzG is targeting my comments because they link to material which offends his political sensibilities rather than for any valid reason.     ←   ZScarpia   16:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments that are clearly off-topic or otherwise violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be removed by other users, per WP:TPO. Besides, the discussions involved here haven't been active in over a year. They're perfect candidates for archival. clpo13_(talk) 17:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the comments are off-topic or otherwise violate WIkipedia policies or guidelines, please explain how. If the length of the talkpage had become such that it was desirable to start archiving older comments, I could understand, but that's not the way it looks to me. And if it was the case, wouldn't the preferred method be to properly set up archiving of the talkpage?     ←   ZScarpia   17:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the material and it seems to be relevant to the article topic and not in breach of the rules. In my opinion, JzG's removal of it is a violation of talk page procedure. Zero^talk 18:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violation of TPO to archive or even delete year-old comments that have never been responded to, and those comments are completely without value: We don't source content to other wikis, and opinion pieces can't be used for claims of fact. They read more like an editor grasping for sources to complain about the article than an editor offering new sources that contradict a reading of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to archive old material that has attracted no discussion. Talkpages aren't meant as shrines for a particular editor's comments, particularly if they've produced no response. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I outlined the purpose of my comments in my first comment; the response they were designed to provoke wasn't a discussion on the talkpage as such, but the reading of an alternative take on the Campaign Against Antisemtism, influencing the content of the article. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for quite a long time (though not very active of late) and I can't recall ever having seen talkpage comments being deleted because they've failed to elicit replies. In fact, in the IP area I'm sure that deleting the comments of your opponents was discouraged.     ←   ZScarpia   22:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC) [Edit Conflict][reply]

Old, inactive discussions are often archived, though not on every talk page, and there's no hard and fast rule saying when they should or shouldn't be (see WP:ARCHIVE). JzG created Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism/Archive_1 when he removed those discussions, although he didn't put an archive box on the main talk page that would link to that page, which I'll do now. clpo13_(talk) 22:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the archive link.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the normal reason for starting archival be to shorten the length of the talkpage? If shortening the talkpage had been JzG's intention, wouldn't he have removed the older comments first? There are two, both started by me, one of which, incidentally, hasn't elicited any replies, the other which has, but only because part of it was deleted/vandalised. And why was he so determined to delete those two comments, using a number of not very convinving pretexts, ignoring my objections (I had hoped to add to the comments as other material became available) and failing to add a link to the archive he'd created?     ←   ZScarpia   06:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldn't the normal reason for starting archival be to shorten the length of the talkpage?" No, that would not be the case. Article talk page are archived in order to remove completed discussions, out-of-date commentary, or NOTAFORUM material which crowds the page and makes it more difficult for editors to focus on the page's purpose, which is to discuss potential changes to the article.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the archiving of the material originally archived by Guy, per the clear consensus in this discussion that doing so was within normal Wikipedia procedures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is very much within reasonable discretion to archive talk page comments that are between one and two years old, have not generated any replies, and are not suggesting or discussing changes to the article. A talk page is not an indefinite repository of external links. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clpo13's addition of the Archive link makes the removal less like a deletion and transforms it into something I can easily live with. At least I can easily access the links myself now and they don't have garish WP:NOTAFORUM signs pasted all over them. Hopefully the number of editors who found my comments useful outweighs the number who thought they were making the talkpage less readable. JzG should feel free to archive my earlier comments too. That would at least make it look more like his motive was cleaning up the talkpage.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated ridiculous "proposals" at WP:VPR. English-challenged. Repeated missing punctuation at end of sentence. Repeated failure to sign. If this is not a sock of the Saturday-indeffed Milchsnuck I'll eat your hat, but in any case the behavior is identical to that that earned Milchsnuck an indefinite block. Milchsnuck requested adminship 2 months after Government Man asked WP:Teahouse how they could become an admin.[65] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• SPI is thataway --> but they already know about it, privately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. As I indicated, the Milchsnuck experience suggested that NOTHERE was enough in these circumstances, so I hoped to avoid the buro. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, the accounts are  Unrelated. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should there be a Wipedian High Council: Holy Karmafist, Batman!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor!?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please good very good idea for Wikipedia. Elect for me to be Mr. Wikipedia Chancellor. I am great job for Wikipedia. I will have Emergency Powers for cabal. Elect today to rule admin corpse. Natureium (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would require approval from Bishzilla.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Perhaps if you let me be Supreme Chancellor, I could have prevented him from creating pointless articles. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is a multiple-IP editor with a history of disruptive editing and personal attacks at World's largest palace going back to at least March who apparently refuses to discuss their changes despite reverts by many other editors. Here are some diffs that I could find, in order:

1. 13 March 2018: no source, wrong section to put the statement in;
2. 14 March 2018, then followed by [66], [67], [68]: idem, when some patrollers reverted their edits;
3. 14 March 2018: unsourced, incoherent;
4. 1 April 2018, [69], [70], [71], [72] (in this one they put the same unsourced incoherent statement in multiple places in the article): Idem, repetitively putting this back in as the patrollers reverted these changes;
5. 1 April 2018: Profanity ("STOP DUMD EDITWAR FUC**** IDIOTS") as the IP editor removed excess copies of their statement;
6. 1 April 2018: Insulting HaeB ("stop editwar dumb idiot and study historie, look all other palaces in the list then u can sse too... or blind and dumb?") when this user reverted the edit and asked to cite sources;
7. 7 April 2018, 9 April 2018, 9 April 2018 (unexplained content removal), 9 April 2018 (idem, reverting a patroller's revert), 9 April 2018 (putting the incoherent statement back in and profanity in the edit summary), 9 April 2018, 11 April 2018, 13 April 2018, 21 May 2018;
8. 22 May 2018: here the IP editor is claiming that the Forbidden City palace is in Bandar Seri Bagawan, contrary to the Imperial Palace wikilink immediately before his edit, and the Guiness World Records source immediately after. Say what?

At this point I, unaware of this prior history, came in from the recent-edits stream and tried the usual process of putting warning templates on the user's page: first warning, multiple IPs warning. At this point, the IP editor reverted the warnings on their talk page and put the nonsense back in with a personal attack ("u can see here too dumbass").

After this, I hoped they would be open to a discussion and tried to go through the problems with each change on the IP editor's talk page, then reverted the nonsense with an edit summary clearly pointing to the talk page. However, this IP editor shortly reverted my revert with a personal attack ("stop war dumb russian").

Would it be possible to do something about this? Thank you. Ivgnyl (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last IP edit was vandalism- reverted/warned. I semi-protected the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what has riled them up, but Wingwraith entered into Talk:Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 harassing numerous users. I have seen the discussions regarding Wingwraith's behavior here and here. I do not believe that they have improved their behavior at all and in fact, I think that not facing discipline has only reinforced their poor behavior.

Regarding the article Venezuelan presidential election, 2018, which is fairly contentious, Wingwraith entered calling edits "fucking dumbshit" and harassing users. The user then removed sourced information from the article because it was from TeleSUR (Venezuelan state-run media). I responded to Wingwraith's edits in the talk page telling them to stop with the harrassment and then politely explained that I would find better sources than TeleSUR, knowing it is a potentially biased source.

I proceeded to replace each source individually so I could show Wingwraith that progress was being made and TeleSUR sources were being removed (see: [1], [2], [3]). I thought that the dispute was done. However, Wingwraith reappeared laughing off the call to end harrassment, saying "There is no harassment, just because you happened to like the garbage that the OP posted with doesn't make what I did harassment". He then described me as "pro-Maduro" twice in condescending edits,[4][5] later performing dubious edits such as removing sourced material and vandalizing the coding of sources (The Independent → The Indeptelendent, in reference to TeleSUR).

After witnessing this rude behavior that has not been remedied through dialogue in countless cases, I recommend a possible topic ban regarding communist/socialist topics as I see the user has a poor history regarding these types of articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of his casting aspirations by claiming editors are pro/anti whatever. Considering that TIAYN was just blocked, and Wingwraith's behavior has not improved, I'm going to suggest a topic ban from political articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Until he can calm down the rhetoric I think this is sadly required. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: I haven't been harassing you or anybody on that talkpage, you know it and it is disingenuous for you to say that. This kind of edit which that user (has made across multiple articles) is just ridiculous, hence why I used that kind of language to attack not the user but the argument by that user. There is no reason why any editor should make that kind of statement (as an opening statement no less) and there is no reason why any editor who objects to that kind of statement should just take it lying down. My description of you as pro-Maduro was not a slur, it was based on your editing record for that article, where you've predominantly inserted positive material into the article using highly problematic sources, and your reverts upon my informing you of WP:PUS did not go anywhere near removing all of the material that was sourced to telesur but did not include views of the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia. I stopped my reverting of your revert after the intervention by Jamez42 and have been collaborating with that user on the talkpage ever since which makes this report by you all the more ludicrous. Of course I'm also ready to collaborate with you (our problems won't ever get resolved otherwise) but it doesn't seem like you want to do that with this administrative filing. Wingwraith (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater:I had a closer look at your editing history and I take the pro-Maduro description back as it seems like you are a more impartial editor than I thought - I'll admit it at least you're a more impartial than me. That said can you please fix this telesur issue because it really just degrades the quality of the article. Wingwraith (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspirations is a bad thing to do here Wing. You need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Wingwraith (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: I think you meant to say WP:Casting aspersions? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fail at spelling. Don't think that was worth a ping. --Tarage (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from articles related to abortion. I have just issued a one-time warning. Numerous recent edits violate the topic ban: [73], [74], [75], [76] are unambiguously related to abortion. This restriction should be understood as being broadly construed, but in this case even a narrow construction shows this to be in the scope of your topic ban.

Any further edits in this area should result in an immediate block. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to pertinent discussion-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to now have this ban overturned, as usual, it was orchestrated by a member of this encyclopedia apparently well known to the community for following a particular copy-and-paste, "get other editors banned" strategy, in the exact farcical manner that I experienced. Indeed with respect to Jytdog, who I had initially considered was a neutral party. Instead I by chance stumbled across a revealing comment left by User:Andy Dingley on the Sustainable energy talk page. "| Then feel free to simply go away(Jytdog). It is not all about you. Yet again you are taking another invented content dispute with an editor and turning it into another round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show. You are not Batman. It is not all about you. Before long you will (inevitably so - we've all seen your behaviour before) move this to ANI with a variety of wild accusations, then probably create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberttherambler, because harassment by fatuous SPI is another of your favourites."

If this ban instigated by jytdog, is not seen for what it is and overturned, I do not see a future with the project. As to remind you, there was never a case of 3R. Or edit warring. We always took it to the talk page, indeed that was the charge in essence, a distaste for - my writing replies on talk pages and then waiting for other editors to get back to me-. That however is not a bannable justification. Moreover some independent editors who looked at my edits both then in the initial ANI and now, also disagree with this unjustified ban. Despite, I might add, not being at home that weekend to have the opportunity to reply on the initial ANI. Which as you can imagine, was less than a "rewarding" surprise on returning home.

Indeed, with respect to why I got banned. I believe Guy you even thanked me for talking to Mark Z. Jacobson at my usual length, on his talk page, when he was engaging in a lawsuit and a BLP. So even on matters such as these, I do not change when I searched to try to find a WP:NEUTRAL wording acceptable to both a BLP and to readers. However I hope this is not a case of it serving your/the projects interests in that case yet in other cases "BAN"? I've picked up the unfortunately clear impression, that I am thanked for hashing things out on talk pages, but when not serving particular admin politics, I get banned from the topic. It is from this and other observations. That I have developed a deep sentiment of hypocrisy here. Indeed no one ever notified me as to the apparently well known MO of User:Jytdog in how they have, for years, gone around and created an apparent television series of a "variety of wild accusations", that they then "move this to ANI". So why exactly is this prolonged "round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show" continuing?

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The support for your topic ban was near-unanimous, and those who supported it are hardly just the usual suspects. If you want your ban overturned, the way to do so is to appeal it (probably at WP:AN) on the basis that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, not by simply violating it repeatedly. Your having violated it repeatedly essentially reduces your chances of having the ban overturned now to zero, I would guess. GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you see yourself as a victim and also that you see me as some kind of kind of crazy person. I empathize with you being very passionate on this issue; I have some things I can get very fierce about, too. But you need to be aware that this is part of your character and self-manage it. You failed to do that on the abortion stuff and became disruptive, so the community took action to protect itself -- and you. I hope you gain some self-insight and are able to be resilient and find a way to stay. You do make many good edits in fields where you are not overly passionate. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add, that since we are now in the very intense run-up to the Ireland abortion referendum your internal pressure gauge has probably exploded. That must be very difficult. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I cannot find where the original topic ban was recorded. Was it logged? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boundarylayer: Please stop violating the topic ban. If you can edit non disruptively for 6 months, starting now, you might be able to appeal the ban then. One does not violate a topic ban and then seek to have it overturned when one is caught violating said topic ban.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to propose an indefinite block of Boundarylayer. The link between their edits on the 36th Amendment referendum and the problematic edits on Death of Savita Halappanavar and related topics are so crystal-clear that they cannot be any good-faith misunderstanding. Boundarylayer's statement here makes it equally clear that they have no intention to abide by their restrictions or to respect other editors in any process. They clearly cannot edit collaboratively or constructively. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've been warned, they haven't edited on the topic since the warning. An indef at this point would be premature. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an indef block is more than we need. Boundarylayer will kindly stop violating their TBAN before a block becomes needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Violated it Repeatedly"? Can you clarify where? Unless you're talking about something else. I made one stream of edits on the "8th amendment" article and I left it at that. Edits that I didn't consider to be really even under the remit of "Broadly construed?" Considering this farcical "ban" was over the articles PPROM and Savita Halappanavar, not anything political on Irish voting or a referendum but on medical evidence. No one got into a discussion once I made these recent amendment edits, I was busy writing, editing and getting the article Terufumi Sasaki through the creation process, in the last few days, if you actually care to look at what I was primarily doing instead of creating more of your quaint little fantasies about "pressure gauges"...Jytdog? In fact my last edit there, I left a talk page comment. Any polls conducted on just female voters? to build the article to reflect actual factual information.

Indeed in my last month of editing. If you really want to go "broadly construed". I've penned the entirety of the -Atomic bombings#Birth defect investigations a section, as broadly construed as "abortion" should be, is this medical information also a "violating" of my ban and should it be removed too? Moreover, I also added a small study in Chernobyl abortion requests recently. Though I take it, you all like that information. However the way you have all responded, it is clear that it is only when I add any factual information into what the political editor-User:Bastun, what they prefer to class as "broadly construed"? Only when I take it is anything got to do with jeopardizing their George Soros hero? That's the only difference in theme, they pretty well admit as much here this change all of a sudden, to enforce a ban down to doing "edits on the main article on the imminent Irish election". The main article? that's not abortion the actual "main article"? For someone with a topic ban on "abortion" then? The "main article is the election" that is how they view my ban. As a political tool. So only now then I find myself here at an Admin noticeboard over this farcical ban. Why now exactly? I think it pretty obvious what my "ban" genuinely is truly about and specificallly who and what it was always intended for. Which is anything Bastun doesn't like. A pretty cozy affair they have.

So exactly where do you want "broadly construed" to end? So I can know not to "violate" this farcical ban again? Can I have clarity? Indeed This User:Bastun seems to have a bit of a history of also hounding others editor, as like jytdog, claiming others are socks. It seems all preceived "opponents" are targeted and the truth a casualty. Two editors, 2 independent editors now, don't think this other user is a sock. Yet, look here they're indefinitely blocked, all thanks to user:Bastun. leftwinguy92.

Since my "ban" began. You will find that I have not edited the PROM article, after adding the 2017 Cochrane medical review(which is still there by the way, this is the farcical part that shows through. My last edit on the very article that would then follow with an onslaught of wild accusations and "ban", my last edit which suddenly I was banned without any opportunity to say a word before it was enshrined in wikilaw. The last edit I made for allegedly being "distruptive", not a single editor has removed nor challenged my last edit on the "direct broadly construed" topic, that I was allegedly distrupting? That is why this ban is a transparent farce.

Is anyone else being to see how transparent this is? Or is it really just me?

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be pretty much you. I haven't seen so much blaming of others in quite a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't also make a weird post on my talk page recently that completely misrepresented Savita's husband, Praveen? And you didn't make a series of edits regarding funding of Amnesty Ireland (who are campaigning for a Yes vote)? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - yes, leftwinguy93 was found to be a sock by a checkuser... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That user is not a sock. You falsely accused them of being a sock of one account. The checkuser didn't find any evidence of that but presumedly found the same IP of some entirely different user. They're now blocked as per your direction however.

On Oct 20 you wrote "You might let me know when and where this RfC is taking place, so I and all the other people operating accounts for Mr Soros can turn up."

I never even knew who "Soros" was in Oct 2017, you were accusing me of being American and a whole load of wild things, I even asked in Oct 20, as you can read "who is Soros, and how are they relevant"? I think I know why now. The story broke in Dec 2017 that some fellow named George Soros was actually attempting to influence and pay for campaigns. After that news broke, you've both been censoring , who you actually admited, is your paymasters name, out of the Amnesty International Ireland page. In just the 1st page of edit history, three other editors have added his name and you 2 have consistently removed it. You've both been at the downplay game, the political spin-doctor game. The paid editing game. Your actions, "jokes" and even this ban...I know who you are and what this is about now.

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors may also be interested in this Conflict of Interest thread... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban

Per the above and [77], I propose a one-way IBAN betwefen Boundarylayer and Bastun: Boundarylayer to be prohibited from interacting with or commenting on Bastun other than in the context of formal dispute resolution processes, including arbitration but not including noticeboatd threads. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've blocked Boundarylayer for 48 hours for filing the SPI, which I've also deleted. @JzG: For the sake of procedural niceties, please clarify that you are proposing that a one-way I-ban be imposed against Boundarylayer for interactions with Bastun. I've also changed this to the usual non-numbered style rather than RfA style. Otherwise, it's difficult to leave standalone comments like this one. Hope you don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree on all counts. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although I think an indef is coming here rather quickly. all aboard the noticeboat! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Please could someone take a look at the recent edits of Francis Schonken (talk · contribs). He is nominally implementing the outcome of Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site/Archive_1#RfC:_revert_back_to_non-Wikidata_version? - however he is doing so in a way that repeatedly pings me to let me know my edits have been undone (more than 20 in the last 2 days, probably >100 over the last few months), and recently his edit summaries are using all sorts of different (and often invalid) reasons rather than just pointing to the RfC outcome. Attempts to discuss this with him aren't going anywhere, so I'd appreciate third-party input into this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gall. I have spend many hours reverting the mess Mike Peel left behind after his ill thought out mass implementation of the Wikidata version of the WHS infobox, and Francis Schonken has continued this when I mostly gave up. Mike Peel on the other hand has done nothing to correct his errors and help in the cleanup, all he did was resurrect his Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata version. When I corrected the use of the template in articles, I went through the history to find the last version before Mike Peel had changed the infobox, and took the old code. Francis Schonken does this by using a revert, which pings Mike Peel. Tough luck, as it is actually a revert + update that is being done. "He is nominally implementing the outcome" = he is actually implementing it, and undoing your damage. Your "attempts to discuss this" seem to consist of one post to his talk page[78], where he replied that he had replied at the template talk page[79]. Sure enough, Francis Schonken has replied there[80], and you have not answered this or made another comment on their user talk page.

A single comment on someone's talk page, then ignoring the reply that you get for nearly a month, and then coming here to complain about legitimate actions from another user undoing your mess, is basically asking "please, hand me a boomerang-shaped trout". Fram (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fram told me "I think we can handle this without more help from you", so I walked away from that template talk page, and would continue staying away aside from the repeated pings. There has also been related discussion between myself and Francis at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Suggestion:_WP:CHALLENGE in the last few days. Mike Peel (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you still felt the need to repeatedly revert Francis Schonken to reinsert your own RfC-deprecated version of the infobox[81][82][83]. Fram (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note how none of those mentioned the RfC - see my initial comment here. Mike Peel (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if they don't mention the RfC, you are free to reinsert your own deprecated template you have walked away from? That same deprecated template where you have, as far as I know, not cleaned up one instance of it being used? Fram (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You knew exactly why Francis made the change, and you knew the template was deprecated before you re-inserted it. Quit the disingenuity and respect community consensus -- or look to the community to form a new one. Don't edit disruptively. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the original point of the thread, are the notifications really necessary when making the edits? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic. FS is reverting an edit and adjusting the content then saving. This will ping the editor who made the edit originally. You could hit edit and change it manually but if its only a minor change its easier and more efficient the way FS is doing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such notifications are opt-in, so not necessarily automatic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to grab this opportunity to encourage everyone to go to Preferences > Notifications and uncheck Edit revert. Then you don't get those jarring red flags sending your blood pressure up. It's made my editing life far happier. Of course you still see any changes on your watchlist, but somehow that's a calmer way to experience them. EEng 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second EEng's insight. I unchecked it a while ago and haven't been tempted to revert back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have my babies EEng. (this should teach me to actually look at preferences more often). Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm having Arbcom cut off your Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster. I have to credit Tryptofish with calling attention to this, and it's a shame there hasn't been more uptake project wide. Seriously, Tfish, what do you think about a Signpost article about it? I really think that every editor who unchecks the revert-notification "feature" represents a step along the path to universal Wiki-peace.

Another thing we could try -- and I really think this might be successful -- would be to lobby to make "unchecked" the default for new users. EEng 22:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (but you don't have to have my babies). Everyone should read WP:RNO, which is what EEng is talking about. I honestly don't care much about the Signpost. I think the default setting has kept changing from on to off and back over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's good to know, and I've disabled that now. I thought that the notifications could also be avoided by removing the username from the edit summary. The use of random reasons in the edit summary seem to be decreasing, with more along the lines of "per <rfc link>", which is better - @Francis Schonken: please just stick with that edit summary from now on. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to know there's a technical solution for the pinging. The edit summaries are not exclusively written for you, of course. Sometimes they are misunderstood. I try to make them correct, understandable, succinct, etc. That's content (not behaviour), so less suitable to be discussed on this noticeboard. As indicated above, a discussion about precisely this content was open before this was brought here (i.e., WP:RSN#Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE). For clarity, that discussion is still active. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: during my work with the WHS infobox I encountered this edit to the pyramid infobox. Was that discussed before implementing? I mean, there's no obligation to discuss, but was it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember this happening before, an IP changing nationalities or countries of origin without discussion or explanation. In the last couple of days I've seen 92.4.231.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 79.71.238.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 92.3.102.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) doing this and it's ringing bells. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And has now admitted editing while blocked Sorry but my old account shingling is temporarily blocked if you want to unblock it I will then make useful edits.. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:TU-nor noticed the same problem and has filed it at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334. Since the IPs are already blocked by User:Alex Shih there may not be anything more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to remember the name for future reference! DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shingling334 saying they'll make "useful edits" if we unblock them is pretty disingenuous, considering they've done nothing but vandalize for years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it 79.75.244.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A troll is harassing me at Wikipedia, Commons, Mediawiki, etc. The original IP, 207.10.104.58, was globally locked by a steward, but now there's a new one, 65.155.17.196 — and there will no doubt always be new ones. I tried to get my mediawiki userpages, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen etc, protected, but obviously posted to the wrong help page at Mediawiki, and nothing happened. I don't know my way around there. Could somebody who does please try to get my pages semiprotected there? Preferably indefinitely. Also my Commons pages, unless they already are — I can't tell, but the attacks seem to have stopped there. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

User:Tegel seems to have globally blocked it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that's not the point, Tony. After the first IP had been globally locked, another one turned up very soon. The world is full of open proxies, so I would appreciate having my pages protected. If it can be arranged. Anybody know a mediawiki admin, or is their system totally different? As I said, I tried to find an admin and failed. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I projected your user and user talk page for a month. In the future you can use mw:Project:Current issues or the #mediawiki channel on freenode to get the attention of an admin. Legoktm (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Legoktm. I'll try to remember. Having userpages at Mediawiki is purely a bother, I've no use for them, and they're nothing but vandal magnets. There is not the slightest risk that an IP or throwaway account would have a legitimate errand there, so would you consider protecting them indefinitely, please? Or a year, at least. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Done, though I could just delete your MediawikiWiki user page and let your Meta one would show instead, I could then salt the MW one, if you like, Bishonen? Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also semi'ed your Commons user page. Courcelles (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Thanks, that's great. Deleting and salting the mediawiki userpage would be even better, but the meta page that shows through will also need protection, won't it, and the meta talk? (Compare their histories; they've seen some action.) Also, my Commons talk? I wish I hadn't created so many pages; though I guess if I hadn't, there's still nothing to stop the vandals from creating them. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Courcelles:? Or would anybody else with those permissions like to take care of the missing bits, so I don't have to come back and bug everybody again next week? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think all done. Mediawikiwiki deleted and salted, Meta user page semi-protected. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A weight off my mind, Courcelles. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Commons contributions

Livioandronico is indef blocked on Commons (block discussion December 2017). This was due to long running incivility, personal attacks and dishonesty towards other users at the Featured Picture forum. His final edits there include this personal attack "do you have to lie to live".

• In December 2017 he asks another Commons user to nominate photos at FPC on his behalf.
• A few minutes later he posts to my user page "I repeat.....do you have to lie to live? I don't use NR. I hope you are a liar as I think ... otherwise there is something more serious!".
• In March 2018 I removed that post from my talk page.
• On 22 May 2018 Livioandronico restores his personal attack post to my talk page archive.
• On 23 May 2018 I reverted it.
• On 24 May 2018 Livioandronico restores his personal attack post to my talk page archive.

I have not, as far as I can recall, had any interaction with Livioandronico on Wikipedia. There is no reason for him to use Wikipedia to continue making personal attacks that got him the indef block on Commons. I personally avoid making multiple reverts, so would appreciate if an Admin remove his attack post from User talk:Colin/Archive 11 and protect the archive. Suggest user is also blocked on Wikipedia too. -- Colin°^Talk 21:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was already reverted when i got there. I went ahead and fully protected it. Feel free to revert if that was wrong. I guess the next thing is to admonish Livioandronico2013. Perhaps an apology will obviate the need for formal sanctions.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a ping for @De728631 since they are the blocking admin on Commons. Suggest a one-week block here of Livioandronico2013 for personal attacks, based on the enwiki diffs above. Agree that IF he apologizes the block would not be necessary. The header of this report says the user is 'evading indef block on Commons' though that's not technically true since this is a different project. Still, if we are expecting different behavior here that would be optimistic. (Check out his comments in the Commons block discussion). EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I don't know what the technical term for it is, but the personal attacks left on my talk page are nothing to do with Wikipedia, but spill-over from his issues on Commons. They are using Wikipedia to attack me since they can't any longer do so on Commons. Evading their Commons block by attacking a Commons user on Wikipedia instead. Livioandronico doesn't edit very often, and has no current FP nominations here, so a week block is unlikely to be to of any effect. Wrt Wikipedia behaviour, I see that in January he edit warred over the lead photo he had uploaded and inserted to Empress Elisabeth of Austria. I haven't looked any further back than that. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History21st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been nothing but trouble from the moment they started editing (their short editing history speaks for itself). I don't know whether they have difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works or whether they are doing it on purpose, but what is certain is that they're making near impossible to improve articles by constantly restoring original research and deleting reliably sourced content. The various warnings on their page were simply ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that they're NOTHERE; what I do see is you leaving nothing but templated warnings and uninsightful boilerplate edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies I left a perfectly justifiable warning on the 17th of this month, and another one today. What else am I supposed to do, let them remove sourced content? There is nothing wrong with the edit summaries, after all, I'm removing anything that shouldn't be there (either because it failed verification or it's OR). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could talk to them. With sentences. If you want us to hand out a NOTHERE block you'll have to do better then go "just look at their history", and if you want us to take you seriously it would help if you'd done more than leave nothing but templated warnings and uninsightful boilerplate edit summaries--at the risk of repeating myself, of course. No need to ping me anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm always concerned by editors who edit-war about the ethnicity or nationality of historical figures, as History21st is doing at Abd al-Mu'min. I don't see this as WP:NOTHERE; rather a situation where a new editor needs to be advised to use the talk page to resolve content issues such as whether this person's birthplace was ruled by the Almoravids or the Hammadids at the time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were trying, on Talk:Abd al-Mu'min--but no one responded. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Actually, History21st did post on that talk page multiple times. M.Bitton (talk · contribs) (and also Aṭlas (talk · contribs)) are the ones who need to be advised to reply there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Power~enwiki: Out of interest, how would you deal with this? Would you restore it to what the RS say, "discuss it" or simply leave it? If a statement fails verification and you remove it (as you should), what kind of edit summary would you leave? M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure I agree with this edit. I'm going to revert but if you have a source for it please come to the talk page and we can hash it out." See? It's not hard to be civil. You should try it some time. --Tarage (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Andalusia is in Spain, they're not contradictory, and the Samso (2007) reference describes him as "Andalusian". I'd be more concerned about "Residence: Caliphate" in the infobox, which makes little sense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly you're in the wrong here. You make an edit, it gets reverted, and then instead of going to the talk page you edit war. I'm not impressed. --Tarage (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... looking at yours and their edits, at least they went to the talk page to TRY to reason with you. Meanwhile you decided the best way to solve this issue was to leave them warnings and then come here? Boomerang. If anyone isn't here to create an encyclopedia it's you. Close this down before you end up blocked and use the talk page instead of throwing a temper tantrum. --Tarage (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is a few days late, but Dan56 has been engaged in disruptive editing for quite a while now. First he opens a petty RfC over something we'd been arguing about and does so without even notifying me. Then we get into a needlessly lengthy discussion that went pretty much nowhere about a minor edit I made ([84]; I mistakenly thought it would go somewhere), and he does things like this:

• Accuses me of "misrepresenting publications/sources" ([85])
• Says things like this ([86]) when I say we should wait for more input because it isn't going anywhere
• Accuses me of not giving guidelines ([87]) when I clearly did ([88])
• Accuses me of having an agenda ([89])
• Claims not to understand what I'm saying when I've made my position perfectly clear and additionally implies that the whole thing makes no sense ([90], [91]; my position: [92], [93]; note the "0_0" at the end of his first comment)
• Opens a petty RfC about it and words it in an entirely non-neutral way
• Refuses to give up on it four months later and then claims there have been no attempts made to address his concerns ([94])
• Makes questionable assertions at best ([95])
• Says things that simply aren't true ([96]; see [97], [98], and [99])
• Plays dumb ([100], [101])
• Accuses me of saying things that aren't entirely relevant ([102])

Especially in light of his past behavior (see this and this), if this isn't an attempt to exhaust my patience and discourage other editors from engaging in discussion with him, I don't know what is. Someone please do something about it. Esszet (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the first point, while the RFC was exceedingly small, he may have thought it was necessary to gain consensus as you had been repeatedly edit warring to keep an instance of bad grammar in the article. Fish+Karate 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize we were edit warring (to an extent), but what? Bad grammar? I don't know what you're talking about, and you don't need RfC's for bad grammar anyway. Esszet (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that? See here and here for examples of the sentence without the verb (as well as lots of others). Esszet (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the fact that the |all_writing= parameter in {{album ratings}} yields "All tracks written by…" Esszet (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

Ever since "diff 1" the editor has shown zero WP:GOODFAITH by repeatedly calling me a "troll" (despite my history with the article) and, after being warned of disruptive editing based on WP:CITEVAR upon everything else and deleting it out of spite, the editor is one edit away from breaking the three-revert rule. Cognissonance (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, the editor removing a low-score review for a high-score review stands out as WP:POV. Cognissonance (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian James's talk is a history of warnings over edit warring and inappropriate edit summaries. Plus a few about personal attacks. There doesn't ever seem to have been any response to them other than deletion with dismissive and sarcastic edit summaries. It also looks like the user's predilection for removing comments he doesn't like includes other editors' posts on article talkpages. [103] Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user deleted the sourced info for reception, also changed the references, such as Metacritic like this.

Also, Grandpallama, I don't change it because I dislike it, I change it because I think it's wrong. They never explain the problem in comments. I have seen two editors swearing at each other with their edit summaries, nothing happened to them... Sebastian James (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting someone's article talkpage comments because you think they're "wrong" is completely, unambiguously not acceptable. Actually, pinging IUpdateRottenTomatoes since that's the user whose comments you arbitrarily deleted. As far as what you've seen "other editors" do, it's you whose conduct is being considered here. Grandpallama (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cognissonance, I have not examined this dispute, but I'll make one point that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages (we take that as a sign that they have read them). So it was wrong to do this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JustinJohnsonBagPack looks much like AkshayKadamSwag, who was indeffed for copyvios a month ago. Could someone block him? He keeps uploading non-free file duplicates as his own work. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was quick. The problem is that I tried to clean up after his licensing mess and I just made it bigger by F5ing the original files. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The drama started last night. It has now gone from silly to chilling to deeply disturbing (for me, at least) because it's being perpetrated by an administrator. Andrevan began at the talk page of Factchecker atyourservice with this [104]. It then morphed into this [105] at AN. Next, it went then to Andrevan's talk page with several admins asking him to stop here [106]. And now, what seemed at first like an April Fool's joke became a threat (here: [107]) to out an editor, MONGO, (here [108]) if he doesn't declare a WP:COI that no one, other than Andrevan, feels exists. Anyone else see the whole affair as a problem that needs to be solved, and immediately? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I will not be outing any editors on-wiki, and that's not a threat. Andrevan@ 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this response indicate you plan to do it off-Wiki? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an outing threat. That is a statement that they do not intend to out someone. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

🙄 Winkelvi, does your response indicate that you know about something I might OUT? I believe the recommended way to handle sensitive COIs is to do via private email between privileged users with oversight/checkuser/ArbCom etc. Andrevan@ 20:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you are correct. That said, did you look at all the diffs/links, though, TonyBallioni? The tone of his comment and his exact words at my talk page, as well as his stated plans everywhere else in regard to this situation, did seem as if he intends/intended to out not just MONGO, but me as well. Even if I weren't involved, I would see this as a threat to out and a big, big problem. His comments just above mine here also have a chilling feel to them, as if I am hiding something and his suspicions that I and MONGO are Russian spies attempting to infiltrate Wikipedia are correct - which, I think he feels justifies what he's said and what he's been doing since last night. This is a problem. At least it sure seems like it to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks thou doth protest much Winkelvi. I won't be OUTing anyone. I'm sorry if I offended you, although I don't think I specifically mentioned you at all. Andrevan@ 20:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when an admin behaves as you have in the last 24 hours (and gets so much attention from other admins because of it), there's reason for the community to be concerned and protest. Loudly. And yes, you did mention me. Plus, you're posting about on my talkpage for crying out loud. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came to your talk page because you and MONGO were having a discussion in which you considered the possibility of my account being compromised. It's not, I implied there may be evidence about MONGO that is sensitive which I didn't share, and you told me to stop beating the dead horse. Perhaps I am not the one beating the horse? I don't recall naming you in any of my posts. Andrevan@ 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I read all the links you provided. None of them are outing threats, even if they may otherwise be behavior that I would not expect from an admin or bureaucrat. Outing is a very serious accusation, and I don't see it here. This looks to be your standard AP2 mess with an added dose of Russian conspiracies. Andrevan has clarified the do not intend to violate the outing policy. If you have other concerns about their behavior in this subject area, WP:AE (or WP:ARC if you want to start the now presumed inevitable AP3 case with the Russian agent issue being raised by an admin/crat as the situation showing a new case is needed) would be your best recourses. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong concerns about Andrevan from witnessing just one day of edits, but possibility of outing someone isn't one of them. It's more of a lack of any semblance of judgement. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but hopefully my actions will make more sense in time. For now, I'm on a cooldown from any major disputes per the advice of many many admins. Andrevan@ 20:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read everything and I don't see a real threat about outing. I did, however, read a stupid, out-of-nowhere contemplation about if Trump-supporting editors are working for Russia. I haven't seen too much of a battleground, aside from excessive nominations for deletion surrounding pages about Trump scandals and even those are becoming less frequent as the Mueller investigation continues. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideological bias on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Wikipedia. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him to be less flattering than Gongwool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left it (Gongwool turned out to be a sockpuppet, imagine that). He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.