---

• 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]

So you are expressly stating that your problematical behavior is not due to any difficulties of language. Noted.

But please explain: why is it that in claiming an instance of a "positive result" you provide a diff to an edit by another editor? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 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]

Hmm, I can't seem to fit that into my schedule. I may be booked for a warmer clime; perhaps see you there? :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 29 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]

Wrap it up

My personal rule is that when one single thread constitutes a full half of the current ANI byte-bulk, then it's time for someone to take stock and close the matter. Anyone willing? EEng 04:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I've already posted a request at AN, but it hasn't been actioned yet. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you have revised your viewpoint, as you mentioned may occur based on the latest responses? isaacl (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You talking to me? Well I don't like the fact that he's gone silent again. But I think we should just go with what we've got. He'll either straighten up and fly right, or he'll be on the express train to indef. Not worth the trouble to try to adjust course now. EEng 00:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wrap it up. Discussion has run its course, and aside from possibly explaining the wheelbarrow thing I think we have heard all we need from DePiep; there are not any hanging questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like we’re done here. As I mentioned above my confidence that this will work is pretty low, but agre with the above comments that it’s time to move on and see how it works out. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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. [59] 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]

Well, Grandpallama, I use Puffin Browser most of the time when I contribute. Its performance is pretty bad so I try to keep my edits and edit summaries short. But, you still don't understand my comments. I didn't mean article takpage comments when I wrote "I change it because I think it's wrong". That's completely different from this topic. Also, I wrote about "other editors" because they did verbally attack each other and violated policies more than one. Still, I am the one who is charged because of "harassment" I made and an editor who clearly deleted sourced info and changed a reference badly, while accusing me with WP:CITEVAR. Sebastian James (talk)

Not a single thing you've written even acknowledges unacceptable behavior, and it certainly doesn't excuse it. You've been brought to the noticeboard over your behavior on WP, and you'd better start explaining your actions, including the ones I'm raising, or I see a block headed your way. Grandpallama (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started to explain them already, but you are the one who doesn't have nonsubjective point of view, and doesn't have full knowledge of this issue. Will you please stop beating about the bush and give place to someone experienced who can solve this problem? Don't be sad if I won't get blocked, be happy with your friend Cognissonance. Bye. Sebastian James (talk)

• 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]

Diff 4 Cognissonance (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:SOCK Cognissonance (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More possible sockpuppetry. Cognissonance (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third count of possible sockpuppetry. Cognissonance (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny, Cognissonance. You haven't found a reasonable accusation, now you're accusing me with other IP users' edits. An administrator can check my IP. I haven't tried to detele VG review since you explained. If I really wanted to delete it, I would definitely do it with this account. Sebastian James (talk)

Edit: I forgot to add that my account has IP block exemption because Wikipedia didn't let me edit before. So, it is impossible that those IPs are mine. Sebastian James (talk)

---

User:JzG is named in Brian Martin's paper "Persistent bias on Wikipedia: methods and responses," published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review (2017). Martin wrote that "admin JzG (aka Guy) rewrote most of my Wikipedia entry, turning it into an attack on my reputation. In the following months, this negative framing was maintained, primarily by JzG and editor Gongwool." Martin wrote that User:JzG deleted positive material, removing text about his achievements and deleting the list of his works, and added negative material. Notwithstanding his obvious COI, User:JzG on 25 May 2018 began scrubbing mention of Martin's analysis of the edits made to his BLP—and thus mention of User:JzG. The first such removal came at 15:16. Despite a good faith effort by User:Netoholic to reason with User:JzG, the latter continued scrubbing such entries, resuming at 18:06, again at 19:54, another at 21:11, and yet again at 21:29. Since User:JzG has demonstrated his disdain for Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, he should be topic-banned from any edits relating to Brian Martin. KalHolmann (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Off-wiki criticism of on-wiki actions does not make a conflict of interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No No evidence for a conflict of interest. Plenty of evidence for a butt-hurt academic. Kleuske (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No reason to believe this is a COI problem. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No Topic banning an editor because an article's subject names them off-site sets a bad precedent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:BLPCOI: "An editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." I don't think a topic ban is needed, but in accordance with the BLP precautionary spirit it would be best if someone else handled the situation. I mean, it's not exactly the best look for integrity when JzG is creating a thread about an article he is mentioned in, on the fringe theory noticeboard [61]. Also it seems like JzG is unnecessarily personalizing the dispute there, speculating that Netoholic's main motivation appears to be his repeated failure to change articles due to Wikipedia's "ideological bias". I agree that it's problematic that this only came to be after the academic mentioned him in the article; but it also means it's already a multi-step "rivalry". --Pudeo (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No - I see no COI here, and as has been mentioned, TBANning an editor because a subject mentions them off-wiki sets a perverse precedent that could allow subjects to game the system. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No to topic banning re "any mention of Brian Martin", but it would probably be a good idea for Guy to let someone else handle anything relating to this paper by Martin critical of him. EEng 23:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No - It is absurd to suggest that someone outside Wikipedia could determine who should not edit an article about them. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This appears to be in retaliation for WP:AN#KalHolmann. Not saying it is for sure, just that it appears to be. Swarm ♠ 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Also, a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a trout to the filer for rewriting history. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No, obviously, per what I wrote just above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I carried out two constructive edits to the lede, which included softening an opinionated assertion ("Hardy is best known for his work during his first run in the World Wrestling Federation"), putting dates to key events (for some bizarre reason, no year is quoted for anything during the first decade of his career), and the indisputably correct altering of hyphens (used as parentheses) to dashes.[65][66] User:TheKinkdomMan repeatedly reverted my edits with no justification whatsoever, before claiming I did not reference them, even though they were already fully supported by the existing refs. TheKinkdomMan then tried to have Jeff Hardy protected due to my so-called "disruptive editing", which was promptly denied. At this point he saw fit to threaten me with getting my "IP address permanently blocked", which he says would rule out any future editing for myself. This whole charade is wildly inappropriate, especially when I am editing constructively. I very much hope that someone will restore my edits, and sternly warn TheKinkdomMan. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notified TheKinkdomMan of this discussion.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

94.192.38.255 Neither of you have discussed your content dispute on the article talk page. That would be better than escalating as you have done.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm escalating in response to a blatant attack. One user thanked me on my talk for the work I did at Jeff Hardy, yet TheKinkdomMan sees it as grounds for my permanent blocking from Wikipedia. WP:OWN, much? 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you have discussed your content dispute on the article talk page. We don't permanently block IPs. Both of you are edit-warring. Go and discuss. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second diff I gave is absolutely beyond discussion and opinion. It's positively, undeniably, indisputably correct, yet TheKinkdomMan reverted it anyway. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI isn't a venue for content disputes. Go and discuss your content dispute at the talkpage, where you can present your supporting evidence. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think Kinkdom's done for the day.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so. @94, you're accusing TheKinkDomMan of trolling in edit summaries. Please don't do that, he's not. Leave a polite note on the relevant talkpage describing how the existing references might support your edits, and wait for a response. Nobody's been blocked, and the article's not protected. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said possible trolling. On the other hand, Kinkdom openly accused me of "disruptive editing", and told me he'd have me permanently banned on a finger click. But I'm the bad guy. I'm an IP. I get it.

I'll say no more about it. Kinkdom gets his WP:WIN on this one. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@94.192.38.255: Wow, not letting that stand. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and there is no "winning". We've told you what you need to do. What you both need to do. You can see how well his antics have worked out. He cannot get anyone blocked with a finger click and neither can you. You were both being disruptive. No one said you were the bad guy. And you can drop the anti IP bias tact as well. You both need to drop the drama and discuss your dispute on the article talk page, and without personal attacks, threats, or other content not directed at the merits of the edits you wish to make. Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 04:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came back only to apologise for the previous comment. I shouldn't have said that. I'm fully checking out of the Jeff Hardy situation now. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is criticizing you for being an IP editor. You are being criticized for failing to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the behavior of TheKinkdomMan needs to be looked at. An extremely significant proportion of his contributions are nothing but unexplained reverts, and I think at the minimum he's in blockable territory for edit warring behavior. In fact, I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my decade of editing here. Communication is required, and failing to communicate is considered to be disruptive editing. Repeatedly reverting good faith edits and then warning the person you're reverting for edit warring is insane. If this isn't tendentious ownership of articles, I'd like to hear an explanation and hard assurances that he's willing to rectify this behavior, or I'm inclined to indef block here. Swarm ♠ 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left the thing by itself I have no reason to argue with anyone that’s why I left the editing alone I was wait for the IP editor to leave a message on my talk page if I’m in violation for reverting then that’s fine I’ll deal with the punishment but the IP wasn’t explaining the edit when I’m not the only one who has reverted the same thing through out time TheKinkdomMan talk 00:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further more I’m not a sock puppet check my IP I’ve never broken any rules or violations on Wikipedia and I wont allow a threatening message on my talk page just cause I don’t answer right away, I left the Jeff Hardy edit alone since the other day if I made a mistake by reverting the IP then I’m sorry they can change it back and I won’t touch it. How ever I won’t tolerate a threatening message and I apologize for reverting so many times I won’t do it again TheKinkdomMan talk 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And lastly first offenders are not subject to block but a warning not to be disruptive again and I will not, I apologize for my mistake and being threatened to be blocked for first offense is wrong so I don’t see why no one gave me a warning instead they option to threaten to block me indefinitely on my talk page TheKinkdomMan talk 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my frustration I’d like to talk to the IP and discuss this on my talk page so neither of us have to be blocked, I understand everyone here has there opinions and a job to do if your a Administrator but let’s skip that and say I made a mistake which I did but I was waiting for the IP to leave a message on my talk page since I use a phone to edit most of the time, I failed to reach out to the IP which makes me look bad which I apologize for and for being disruptive I would like to ax this out wish not to be blocked permanently thank you TheKinkdomMan talk 01:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am apologizing again just so I don’t get blocked and I won’t edit the way I use to, since Swarm pointed it out and seems to be very bias towards me, if you other administrators take a look at my talk page swarm said I would be blocked if I didn’t respond where is that in the rules and I call abuse of power and I don’t think that was right when I’m trying my best to edit, I revert a lot to fight vandalism I don’t think that’s a crime nor against the rules Yes I may have over done it which I deeply apologize for and I will change the way I edit but I don’t think I should be blocked when I realized my mistake and I’m trying to make it right TheKinkdomMan talk 01:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off calm down. You seem like you’re freaking out a little here and you’re kind of all over the place. Take a breath.

• Ok, now look again at what Swarm was saying. You don’t seem to want to discuss this and they were trying to impart to you that it was important and if you ignored this thread you might just be blocked.
• Hope that helps, now let’s get on to the actual issue: that you appear to revert IP users as a matter of course, that you tried to have apage protected because of two IP edits you reverted without a supportable reason, and that you threatened to have an IP blocked for no reason. You say you will change the way you edit but you have offered no specifics. Now would be a good time for you to explain how you would change your behavior.
• There’s no need to fall all over yourself apologizing, what was asked for was that you engage int his discussion, and now you are, so we can try to move forward and resolve this.
• There has been no abuse of power. I wouldn’t go beating that drum right now as it is not helping your case one bit.

Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I advised on my talkpage, you really have to stop with the unexplained revert/undos - use edit summaries to explain why you're reverting, and use talkpages to discuss your edits and, if necessary, your reverts. Please remember that IPs are people too. Swarm's being a little grumpy, and I see no consensus to block at this time, but you do be more communicative, and to spend more of your time adding to the encyclopedia and not reverting. There's a lot less vandal-fighting to do than there used to be, and you might want to redirect your efforts for a while so everybody doesn't end up looking like a vandal to you. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) TheKinkdomMan, it is hardly the "first time" if you have been reverting in the same disruptive fashion and warned accordingly since at least August 2017, where you have acknowledged ([67]) edit warring under any circumstance is wrong. I'll be more straight forward: Do not make another blind revert, and communicate in fuller and more coherent sentences please. Alex Shih (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It won’t happen again as I tried to explain it, by I got a error I will not make that mistake again as I apologize and will change the way I edit, so I ask that I don’t get blocked so I can learn from this mistake I apologize for my wrong doing TheKinkdomMan talk 02:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone who has pointed out to me I’ve been wrong, I’m going to read up more before I make more mistakes I appreciate all of your help, I apologized to much because I thought I was gonna be blocked permanently, I know now that I can’t act like I own every article and I won’t edit disruptily anymore I will learn from my mistakes as I’ve been pointed out I hope I won’t be blocked now or in the in the future as I’d like to continue to edit here, I think I will take some time off from Wikipedia to read more and learn I can only hope that you administrators can forgive me and let me continue to edit. TheKinkdomMan (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Marlenekoenig (talk · contribs)

Most recently [70], [71] and [72] after being temporarily blocked. The user wants their bio removed, and other than that has no interest in collaboration with the project. Requesting a longer block and possible disabling of ability to edit own talk page. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather we not. The user is justifiably frustrated. I am going to walk away from the computer for a bit, but they should get a chance for the OTRS and AFD cycles to kick in (and not be poked by escalating sanctions). Sadads (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale is appreciated, but I don't think the user has the least interest in appreciating policies here. I walked away for a bit, and returned to find her frustration manifested in snide personal attacks. Unless there's indication that she doesn't own the bio and is willing to collaborate, I think it's becoming more appropriate to take further action. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article about her is at AfD. I told her to contact OTRS, which handles real life frustration by subjects of articles.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37: We don't treat someone with real life concerns about an article as a vandal. We refer them to OTRS and the relevant WP:BLP sections. Concur with Sadads on not making a bad situation even worse.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Dlohcierekim and Sadads. For my part, I neither cut much slack for someone who demands their bio be removed without a compelling rationale (malice, libel, etc), nor who intentionally ignores policy for over five years with the sole purpose of determining what is written about them, and whether it's written at all. Was there a credible claim re: real life concerns? I wasn't aware that any specific content was at issue; if it had been, we could remove it. Then there's the disparagement of other editors. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are a bit difficult. A number of people have tried to help. Will see how it goes from here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetically, I'm the subject of a Wiki bio, much of which was written perhaps five or more years ago. If I quite suddenly and persistently blanked it, claiming it was out of date, and then attacked editors who tried to explain policy to me, I'd expect to be blocked indefinitely. And I'd have earned the sanction. I do appreciate the assistance of multiple editors on this. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are often quite brutal to the subjects of articles. This is not how we are to approach them according to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads I was just wondering of pinging an WMF admin to expedite this sort of resolution was something we ever did or should do.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

general note-- I'll be off line when the block expires, if things re-escalate.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a permanent block would be in order for someone who says they don't want to be here. I'll do it myself if there's a further problem. Deb (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think we have already reached the stage where the deletion discussion could be speedily closed. Deb (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fire appears to have gone out. No need at present for more fire retardant. If someone who has not opined at the AfD could shovel the ashes . . . .-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done and SALTED. Swarm ♠ 21:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

There has been an ongoing, slow-motion edit war at the article for Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, in which sourced material has been removed and reinserted about a DuPont facility in the borough that has been the frequent topic of detailed coverage in The Record, including the preview that was included in the article.See this edit, which removes sourced content about a history of industrial pollution in the borough, including an edit summary warning that "Hamtechperson - expect a call from the Borough Attorney". I'm not sure that this is the textbook definition of a legal threat, but it would be darn close. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alansohn: Notified editor of your complaint here. Placed warning and request to retract here. Jbh ^Talk 22:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borough Attorney? I do hope Trenton, New Jersey is involved. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Trenton is nowhere close to Pompton Lakes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I will sue you in a court of law in Pompton Lakes!" Does have a nice ring to it... -- printf( (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What will that poor attorney do when they discover that Wikipedia does not have a phone number? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to jump into something that I'm getting to this late, but I do want to point out that y'all went from a report to a template warning on the user's talk notifying them of this discussion to a block being applied - without the user being given the opportunity to come here to explain themselves or remedy their transgression - in a span of about thirty minutes. That would seem to be a bit quick on the trigger, wouldn't you think? Strikerforce^Talk 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first thing they did was reach for the legal bullying club, I'd say that 30 minutes wasn't fast enough. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Strikerforce: Not particularly. If it's a clear-cut violation of NLT, the user can explain themselves and retract the threat in their unblock request. There's no need to keep an ANI thread open - it's fairly easy to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Has attempted to publish many promotional articles about himself (see notices on his talk page), and has also injected self-promotional spam into articles and documentations in the Module namespace. Has no other significant contributions, and the COI is obvious. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. Evidence:[75][76][77][78][79] -- Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]