Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Regarding continues disruptive edits by user:יניב הורון. Based on my recent observations, user repeatedly engages in WP:Edit warring on multiple pages in the past couple of months. Case in point: previously, the article Antisemitism in Ukraine got edit protection in end of March '18 (with me getting a warning from a neutral admin [diff]), however back then we didn't establish a clear WP:Consensus on the talk page regarding the issue at hand (renaming section titles, so they are not misleading/confusing). Now we do have such consensus (every editor that had enough interest, has participated in on the talk page, while user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all), which we have found through dialogue and discussion on the talk page diff. As mentioned above user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all and have begun unilaterally reverting the updates to article's section titles (which were agreed through consensus on the talk page). Given user יניב הורון history of initiating numerous edit:wars over the last two months, his latest edit diff seems like a case of malicious edit warring, where an editor reverts against general consensus and I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future, against general consensus. Piznajko (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been told this already, but that's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, I removed mentioning of vandalizing and changed it to continuous edit warring.--Piznajko (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see talk page consensus for Piznajko's suggestions - I do not see anyone else agreeing to the proposal. As for this report, it seems Minority Report (film)ish, being based on I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future. A prediction which seem to apply to Piznajko as well, as he is the one reverting/edit warring against Yaniv. While Piznajko's predictions on other users seem non-actionable, his self predictions should be. In short, unless Piznajko can present where on the talk page there is consensus for his suggestion, then a boomerang may be in order to prevent self predicted edit warring.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following edit warring report on Mikhail Bulgakov might be illustrative of the self prediction's veracity. this talk page section (and a few above) might be illustrative regarding perception of consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad Icewhiz, I see you're applying the old-as-the-world-itself-playbook rule #1 of discredit the editor-of-interest by referencing an unrelated-discussion-that-did-not-involve-the-user-being-discussed-here, so that the discussion would be about disliked-editor rather than the actual the-subject-of-discussion-editor. Well, if you're playing it that way - that's fine too - it's obvious you're trying to steer the conversation away from user יניב הורון and do a switcheroo, where instead of יניב הורון it would be me would be me who'd neeed to defend his edits. Fine, I'll follow your bait: regarding, you referencing this talk page section the discussion on Mikhail Bulgakov as an illustration of "my perception of consensus" - I never claimed there was consensus on the talk page of that article; we had plently of discussion there, which led to no consensus and all additions proposed by me were removed. Regarding an an edit warring report against me on this same article on Mikhail Bulgakov - it was civilly settled since unlike the editor of interest (e.g., יניב הורון) I actually engage in discussion and try to explain my edits on a talk page to try and find consensus on edits/new content among editors. Lastly, garding your request to show proof of consensus found on the talk page - please read the discussion that I have referenced - it clearly shows consensus that the section titles should be renamed to avoid confusion - see last relevant-to-discussion-about-updating-titles comment by one of the editors engaged in the discusson on the TP - beyond that point discussion went into direction of content, which is beyong the scope of that disucssion (and yes, there was no consensus on the content of the article, but I never claimed there was any consensus on the content of the article, precisely because my proposed changes were specifically about updating section titles to avoid the confusion of the old section titles) ps. it's commendable that you're trying to help your countryman, but there's no need to resort to ill-hidden personal attacks on me in order to achieve that.--Piznajko (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As someone uninvolved in the page - I do not see support for your position. As for Bulgakov (a page I only got involved with due to the RfC) - I would not say the resolution was as amicable as you present - you were clearly acting against consensus (IIRC a 5 vs. 1 situation), repeatedly inserting content that other editors rejected. To your credit, you did drop the stick after the EW report. As for this report - you basically complaining based on your prediction of Yaniv's future editing (on a page where it seems there is no consensus either way.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're pretending unintentionally that you don't see that the consensus was reached on the talk page of Antisemitism in Ukraine on the specific issue of titles headers (which is unlikely given the sheer number of years you've been on Wikipedia and your experience) or you just doing it intentionally for obvious reason.--Piznajko (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User account only a few months old seems extremely familiar with how things work here.. No way newbies are familiar with obscure policies as seen in the wditsummaries.--Moxy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, to be fair, they made some pretty new mistakes with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as editing that and Jewish topics is one of their main areas of interest, it was likely quite the introduction to obscure Wikipedia behavioral policy. I had to block them for 500/30 violations, and NeilN's recent block of them is also for something in the AE area that lends more to inexperience than anything else. Having their TP on my watchlist because of the initial block, I've never really suspected socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

look at the early edit summaries not what we see from new people.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With their first edit[1] they perfectly used a template. On their second day of editing they were aware of policies such as

WP:Sandwich. These while suspicious looking to some are not indications of socking unless they are similar to another user. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It may be suspicious, but do we have any solid evidence to assert with confidence that this user is a sock puppet as what's being implied in these responses here? We should either be filing an SPI if we have this evidence or we should remain focused on the issue at hand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, his edits at the very first days of his registration was odd to me, too. However, I'm not saying he's certainly a "sock puppet", since that needs "solid evidence" as Oshwah said. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the underlying issue here is if יניב הורון is/was edit warring and if action should be taken against the user, or not. The last warning I've seen on the user's talk page for

vandalism and the incorrectly stated warnings left on the user's talk page have been modified since this was pointed out, but that's not fair on יניב הורון. To have such such warnings left incorrectly and then changed to state that these are now edit warring notices, and then given the expectation that this should suffice as a fair warning and action taken upon the user isn't the right way to properly address the problem. As far as I'm concerned, this user hasn't been given a proper and fair warning for edit warring or violation of 3RR recently (which should be provided first, and with a report or escalation to follow if the user continues the behavior despite being given the warning) and taking action upon יניב הורון is not justifiable at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, the statement I made above was not meant to call Piznajko out, scold him in any way, or to make him feel bad over what happened at all. I want to state openly that mistakes are a normal part of learning, gaining experience, and becoming a better editor - they happen. Hell, I still make mistakes, and I've made more than my fair share of them over the years that I've been here. I don't hold the mistakes against him and I know that he'll walk away from this ANI with more experience and understanding because the mistakes happened. Just don't repeat them... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang Proposal for Piznajko

• I would suggest to topic ban Piznajko from subjects related to Jewish history.

1. Piznajko continued edit war on page
   pogroms
   " from two titles on the page ("Pogroms during the Russian Revolution of 1905" and "Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution") and from a legend to a picture ("Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire").
2. He now edit war on page
   pogroms from the lead of the page. Why? He could not explain [13]
   .
3. He also contentiously argued with several contributors on talk page page of article Joseph Brodsky. Why? He makes this comment. So, according to him, "Based on [user G] talk page he is of both Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry, so given that we are talking about Brodsky who was of Russian and Jewish ancestry, I believe [user G] can be viewed as a neutral editor." What? Why it matters to Piznajko so much that the subject of the page was Jewish (Piznajko tried to include negative and undue information about him on the page [14]) and that the WP contributor was Jewish?

I do not think Piznajko should edit such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't see edit warring in either of those articles by Piznajko. I see
   WP:BRD
   and attempts to follow WP:RS.
2. Disagreement is not automatically "contentious." If I understand the comment, Piznajko's suggesting you solicit the opinion of an editor most likely to disagree with him. That's ideal behavior.

I can't tell whether your misinterpretation is unintentional or an attempt at

WP:GAMING but either way it's concerning. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I can be wrong. Maybe Piznajko is simply the case of

WP:Not here. Here is their recent edit history. During a couple of months he follows a pretty bad pattern: coming to page X (there are five such pages already), edit warring and disputing against consensus with multiple contributors, and wasting time of other contributors without being able to actually improve these pages. But OK, let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

After seeing this [15], its clear that in fact it is User:Piznajko who is edit warring on that page, against multiple editors.Tritomex (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he certainly does, but why? He simply

stalks my edits because we had content disagreements on other pages. No one edited this page for a half of a year [16]. This page was in a poor condition. I looked at it and decided to improve [17]

. In a matter of hours Piznajko reverted all my edits here. He never edited this page before. How do I know this is actually a wikistalking, rather than a good faith effort to improve the page? Because

1. Unlike all other contributors, he made absolutely no effort to improve anything on the page. He was only making blind reverts of edits by 4 contributors [18].
2. He was reverting to an obviously terrible version of the page (it had no lead and a section was based on a single source where each paragraph stared from "Yuri Tabak describes the history of antisemitism in Russia as having ...", "Tabak asserts, however...", "Tabak concedes that the ...", "However, Tabak also notes that ..." "Tabak asserts that...")
3. During discussion on article talk page he failed to explain why he wants to revert to such poor version. He only cried "BRD" or posted something that is not understandable.
4. He also followed my edits elsewhere to post a vote opposite to mine. He never edited this subject too. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piznajko is admittedly a relatively inexperienced user. But his POV pushing and edit warring such as in Mikhail Bulgakov [19] are as unsettling as the revert warring to a clearly substandard version in Antisemitism in Russia. A short temporary ban from all Eastern European topics seems to be in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Eastern Europe (or Ukraine related? or at least Ukraine vs. other nationalities) is the problematic topic area. The disruption in Mikhail Bulgakov was on a non-Jewish topic (Bulgakov was (I think) not Jewish) - the issue there were the views of Bulgakov on Ukraine vs. Russia and how much weight to given to modern post-independence Ukrainian views on Bulgakov's views on the matter. As for experience - Piznajko has been edited enwiki since the beginning of 2016 (his 1464 edits are spread out over quite some time) - and he has over 30k edits on a different wiki project.Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both that a short topic ban from EE subjects could be implemented (and Piznajko had received a notification about DS in this area), but this is something on discretion of admins, and I would rather not push it by making an AE report. Maybe just to close this whole thread about user יניב הורו? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody using

WP:RS and ideally would not edit EE topics on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, he is back and makes comments that are not encouraging. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we have a

WP:NOTHERE case here. The user is clearly on a crusade.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, he certainly is. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following edit warring report for 4 reverts (3-4 May) on Antisemitism in the Russian Empire may be relevant to this discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was originally just going to request full page protection at

• March 31
• April 1
• April 23
• April 24

I had started a discussion at

They also made accusations there of

• Eric Enfermero is hardly a neutral voice and has pretty clearly been Wikipedia:Wikistalking me since this exchange on my talk page
• When someone finally stands up to you, you have unsurprisingly resorted to employing low-quality tactics out of personal vendetta (i.e. a low-rent wikistalking harassment campaign) and deliberately trying to sabotage longstanding consensus/compromise.

The edit summary of their most recent revert from April 24 reads: "quit wikistalking and your harassment campaign due to disagreement on another page. consensus reached last november across multiple pages with no incident. Read Wikipedia:WIKISTALK for your own benefit"

At

• 05:40, 23 April
• 23:56, 23 April
• 07:15, 24 April

Their most recent edit summary from April 24 is again combative: "your version is also unsourced. either remove every single unsourced ones on this list or stop using it as a cheap excuse to keep your preferred version." Per

Finally, Certified Gangsta's current behavior appears to be similar to logs from their block history, which includes "Disruptive editing", "Violation of Arbitration case restrictions", 3RR, and "accusing established editors of vandalism".

I am requesting that Certified Gangsta cease the move warring, stop re-adding contested text without a citation, and end their combative behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're requesting too little Bagumba. Save a really convincing apologetic reply from Certified Gangsta, this is going to be an indef block by the time this thread closes. L0URDES 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the move and move protected the article. I'd like to know what Certified Gangsta is referring to with "current fairly longstanding version" in this. If it's the version they renamed on March 31st then we have a case of

WP:TE here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Longstanding? Not really. CG has moved an article to his desired name, and was reverted by 3 different users 4 times, since March 2018, based on the logs. I'm holding off judgement until Certified Gangsta comments here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• When the naming issue was discussed at WT:NFL in November, CG claimed that discussing the naming at the WP instead of at each individual article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since potential
    WP:TE was mentioned above and some are also getting into the substance of Certified Gangsta's arguments, their revert edit summaries refer multiple times to an alleged November consensus that supports adding suffixes to bios' article titles, but does anyone see that kind of consensus in the full archive of that Nov discussion?—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I see a consensus favoring names commonly used by sources. That doesn't seem to support CG's assertion a consensus exists.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OWN accusations This might be another common charge from Certified Gangsta. At
  Jamie Collins Sr.. With this move, he accuses the other editor that "you're in violation to WP:OWN, discuss in talkpage before moving again" So the pattern seems to be that someone else must be WP:OWNer if there is conflict (and not them), someone else is responsible to start the discussion and get consensus (not them), and someone else has to source the rest of the article if Certified's one unsourced edit isn't allowed.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• See also,
  Golden Tate III. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, an
    WP:OWN accusation there too. A 2nd editor has now reverted Certified's move.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I'm waiting to hear Certified Gangsta's side of the story, but I realize they don't edit on an everyday basis. L0URDES 00:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give y'all a run-down as to why I am extremely upset about the recent chain of events. Last October, I proposed that
  WP:COMMONNAME policy [20] and tried to gain consensus. 3 users colluded to oppose it and, instead of attacking the merit of my proposal, dredged up my block log from 10 years ago (notice a pattern here?) in order to undermine my credibility, tarnish my record (which I am very proud of btw), and sully my character [21] (note User:Chris troutman
  's extremely uncivil edit summary "get off my lawn"). They also tried to get me to leave Wikipedia altogether. I was very frustrated and decided to take an indefinite leave from the project.

Fast forward to late November, I approached

WP:OWN [23] (IMO it was more gang-patrol than OWN) and User:RexxS, who noticed our conversation on Bish's talkpage [24], was kind enough to step in [25]

.

That was when a funny thing happened. User:Corkythehornetfan, who was so adamantly against the move [26] mere weeks ago, suddenly sang a different tune and supported the move [27]. User:Chris troutman, who had relentlessly hurled insults and made personal attacks against me, didn't even make a peep. And the move was supported overwhelmingly Talk:Jim_Mattis#Requested_move_23_November_2017. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Corky and Chris had opposed the move not due to any genuine policy disagreement, but personal vendetta. Any fair-minded observer would agree with such an assessment. This level of hypocrisy, vitriol, score-setting, and battleground tactics (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground have absolutely no place on Wikipedia.

The present situation so far seems like deja vu. I made a good-faith edit to

List of nicknames used in basketball [28], changing it to a more commonly used nickname [29]. Want source? This article alone [30] called D'Angelo Russell DAR at least NINE times. He was also named DAR here [31] and here [32]. And frankly, I've heard more casual fans use DAR moniker than User:Bagumba

's preferred version.

The crux of the issue is Bagumba clearly feels he

owns this particular page and is free to add/remove any nicknames he likes without consensus and/or sources to back it up. Don't believe me? Check out the history of that page. He was revert-warring with everybody before I even touched that page and selectively mass-removing nicknames he personally doesn't like [33][34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the nicknames on that page are either poorly sourced or unsourced. In his role as the self-appointed arbiter of basketball nicknames, only he has the authority to decide which nicknames can say and which nicknames should go. Did he week consensus on the talkpage before his unilateral changes and mass removals? No. Did he remove every nickname without sources on that page for the sake of consistency? No. Oh, the hypocrisy.

List of nicknames used in basketball). Admin User:Jehochman and admin User:Bishonen are very familiar with this cynical tactics and how User:Ideogram and his allies employed them against me Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Editor_taking_advantage_of_Gangsta's_1RR_restriction_to_taunt_and_harass. During Ideogram's community ban case, Jechoman wrote that, Ideogram targets users who have been in some kind of trouble and are trying to correct themselves. Ideogram baits and trolls his targets until they relapse, and then he seeks to have them banned. This cynical behavior should not be tolerated at Wikipedia [48]

.

Bagumba's current behavior frankly doesn't seem all that different. And now Bagumba and others I had previously unrelated disputes with feel emboldened to dance on my grave [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. [54], just like the Jim Mattis situation all over again. Interestingly enough, not a single one of them bothered to start Wikipedia:Requested moves or seek consensus in the talkpage before moving it to their preferred version. Not a single one of them bothered to follow their own advice. This is frankly an interesting case study. When someone with the knowledge, experience, and passion to improve this encyclopedia in good faith is being treated like shit, it doesn't take a genius figure out why editor retention is such a big issue.

I have no interest in rehashing ancient history from 10 years ago, which frankly caused me a lot of pain and anguish. But given that every time someone gets into a content dispute or policy dispute with me, they try to gain an upper hand by citing my block log (the aforementioned Chris Troutman and now Bagumba), I feel I'm entitled to defend my record. First of all, most my blocks were overturned and some of them were apologies or 1-second block from other admins noting that the block had no merit and did not meet community consensus. User:FT2 was an arbitrator at the time and he correctly noted on my block log that User:Gwen Gale's block was highly questionable (we were rival candidates for ArbCom at the time and she was trying to gain an upper hand by shutting down my insurgent candidacy) and many admonished her for blocking me (she came under fire on AN/I and ultimately lost the election). I have no comment on the 3 ArbCom enforcement blocks other than to note that ArbCom lifted my editing restriction [55] after the aforementioned Ideogram plot was fully exposed and he was community-banned for trolling me. I've considered myself fully rehabilitated since and have a clear conscience.

The User:Kurykh's block was a mistaken 3RR and he corrected it himself as he noted in the block log. The Viridae block, which came during the height of Ideogram's harassment campaign to troll me, came under intense controversy on AN/I because he blocked me for violating the spirit of 3RR, yet didn't block Ideogram who actually violated the letter of 3RR. Great double standard there. Neutral observer User:Bladestorm noted at the time The person who actually reported the "edit war" was, in fact, the same editor who avoided being blocked for literally violating 3RR. Seriously, what sort of message does this say? Ideogram clearly violates 3RR, and isn't blocked. Gangsta doesn't technically violate it, and is blocked, when he's reported by Ideogram. Does nobody else see the inconsistency here? "Do as I say, not as I do"? (For reference, I'm not saying that ideogram should've been blocked either. But it's certainly a double standard, and a disproportionate application of policies; especially for very-much related cases. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Certified.Gangsta. What was his reward for voicing his unbiased two cent on AN/I? He got harassed and stalked by Ideogram Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Separate_Dispute_between_Bladestorm_and_Ideogram. Notice a pattern here?

The

User:David Levy block is now filed under Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars(Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/User_pages#User:Certified.Gangsta) and he came under heavy fire Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing

and ultimately forced to note on my block log that his block did not meet community consensus.

The circumstances of Centrx' vindictive one-second block (aimed solely to assassinate my character) was discussed at-length here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#One_second_blocks (User:User:AuburnPilot noted that it was "harassment/intimidation") and ultimately led to concrete policy changes to prohibit such vindictive abuse Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#Policy_edit.

Almost everyone agreed on AN/I that [56] that Od Mishehu's 1-second dummy entry on my block log was in poor taste.

In short, I've taken a lot of abuse on Wikipedia and I'm sick and tired of being treated this way. It is impossible to edit when I'm being hounded, stalked, harassed, having my name dragged through the mud, my record distorted, my name sullied, and my character assassinated over every minor disagreements. Disagree with me on content and policies all you want, but don't resort to character assassination and personal ad hominem attack by citing blocks from over 10 years ago. To stoop that low frankly just shows your argument has no merit and how desperate you are. It is utterly pathetic. I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever. I would greatly appreciate if someone can nominate

List of nicknames used in basketball for deletion. It is unencyclopedic and frankly should've been AFD/purged 10 years ago, per many past precedents of similar pages, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teen idols of the 2000s. To have a page like this frankly reflects poorly on the project because it serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, extremely subjectively, and poor sourced and researched.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• If I understand this, you justify your behavior because you believe that you have been a victim at
  Devin Hester Sr.)—that you also edited, and even though I left an edit summary explaining why I contested your move, initiated the thread at Talk:Devin_Hester#Sr._suffix for which there is consensus to remove "Sr.", and even after an admin just reverted your move again and move protected the page for 3 months.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Having looked at your block log, I agree that it isn't fair for other editors to be using it against you like that. I do not, however, appreciate being falsely accused of gravedancing. If I have had prior conflicts with you, I do not remember them. As for my decision to revert your moves without going through RM, I believe the onus is on you to go through RM when you are the one seeking to change a long-standing page title. When you make such a change unilaterally, I feel no obligation to go through RM to reverse it.
  Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever." Certified Gangsta, if you're serious about this, then I'll archive this discussion and we all can move on without wasting our time on your explanation. So do confirm (because if you're not retiring, I'll list out the reasons you should be topic-banned). L0URDES 10:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lourdes: your link for "explanation" is objectionable. A long block log doesn't give other users carte blanche for abuse, especially not an administrator such as yourself. Please strike. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC). Adding: I see you handed in your admin flag for "a couple of days" in February and have not yet reclaimed it. Even so. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Sure. I actually expected this to be a bit on the edge. Struck. L0URDES 12:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I was pinged... my actions were not based off of a "personal vendetta". They were solely based off of a) I didn't believe it was the common name at the time (from what I could find) and b) I believed that because he is a high-profiled official that a RM should take place... all of this can be seen in my revert of the page move. I had had no interaction with Certified Gangsta until that moment and have not had any interaction with them since then that I can recall. I have no idea why Certified Gangsta would assume that it was a "personal vendetta" nor do I care, but I can assure everyone here that it wasn't. I am not going to watch this thread so if someone needs/wants me, you'll have to ping me. Corky 18:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I was pinged... I agree with elected non-admin Lourdes. Certified Gansta finds utility in pointing to others to bolster a claim that they're being persecuted, like re-hashing what I said in October of 2017. I gather that I should have continued to argue about Jim/ James Mattis just to look consistent, rather than recognize that a pile of sources and the opinions of editors went the other way. So much for me trying to be a better editor by backing off. Certified Gangsta is the common point in all of these arguments. I'll leave it to admins to determine if Certified Gansta is right and everyone else is wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend closing this thread as no action. Given that CG has now retired, it doesn't seem necessary to take any further action at this time. However if they do come back and resume their behavior, a topic ban discussion might be in order.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the tone in Certified Gangsta's response, I see it more as pouting than having "retired". A topic ban would not be appropriate, as their disruption had not been limited to a niche area. Certified's modus operandi has been to blame everyone but themselves, and cry OWN and Wikistalking just because others disagree. Edit warring over a page move and claiming their bold move is longstanding consensus after only 3 weeks is
    tendentious. This was not an isolated heated moment. I've seen no good faith from them. I see no indication that this 12-year editor understands what they have been doing wrong, nor would behave any differently if allowed to return without an explanation of how they will be different. Asking only that would be preventative and not punitive.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Bagumba: Feel free to propose a sanction below in a sub-thread.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose 1RR edit restriction on Certified Gangsta

I propose an

• Support I'm all for the 1RR. But frankly Bagumba, I don't think there'll be other editors who'll support this in the light of CG having gone into self-claimed retirement. If there's no consensus for 1RR, you may have to settle for this thread being archived with a note that if CG returns to edit. this discussion may be continued thereon. L0URDES 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Self-claimed retirement" indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nomiator.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think 1RR is appropriate, whether or not the user is actually in retirement. There have been a number of cases where users "retire" during conflict and come back to return to their prior behavior. The idea behind this 1RR restriction is to prevent disruption and imposing it does no harm on the editor if they retire. It will, however, prevent the community from having to deal with rehashing this again in the future. The actions of CG indicate a tendency to create tension. -- Dane ^talk 16:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given that there's no opposition to the 1RR, and there are three established editors including yours truly supporting this restriction, I would request any administrator to close this thread with the possible summary that applies the 1RR restriction but allows Certified Gangsta to immediately reopen this discussion from exactly this juncture if they return and join discussions at ANI. (In other words, if they return to editing but do not wish to re-join discussions here, the 1RR continues to apply without our re-involvement) Lourdes 03:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes still needed on Jweiss11

Concluding statement

Let us start with stating basic facts. We have an acute conflict between two very experienced users. Jweiss11 has over 250k edits, BHG has over 850k edits and is administrator. I have never intersected (as far as I can tell) with Jweiss11 before he opened this thread, I see that he is a prolific content creator with a focus on American football. (My apologies if I missed some important aspects here). BHG is also a content creator, and as an administrator she is performing a lot of community service, I interacted with her in earlier this year concerning mine and her activity related to categories, and the interaction was pleasant and unproblematic. BHG was never blocked; Jweiss11 was blocked once in 2012 for 24h for 3RR. I do not see any signs of long-term problematic behavior demonstrated by either BHG or Jweiss11. We must conclude that both of them are clearly net positive for the English Wikipedia. Even more, they are possibly among the most valuable users of this project.

What we see here is a trainwreck. As often happens, it is an amplified misunderstanding. I have first-hand experience with speedy deletion of categories, and I know policies are tricky and not always obvious there. Not everything can be speedy deleted, things often must be moved to full discussions, but admins working there often just remove the speedies without following up. Usually, if a wikiproject agrees that the category is not needed and they know how to handle it, is is easy to get deleted, but if they do not things may become complicated. Whatever. Anyway, Jweiss11 nominated a category for deletion, BHG did not delete it, there was some exchange, the actions from both sides were suboptimal, and at some point the parties stopped assuming good faith. The thread above started with accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" (which I, not being a native speaker, read as accusation of lying - at least I see how it can be read this way), and then the avalanche started, which did not make anybody good service. Which is not very much surprising, because if you stop assuming good faith, it is natural to see pretty much everything the opponent does as negative, and if you see that the opponent does smth negative it is natural to ask ANI to deal with that.

What can we do with this now? First, it has to stop. I closed the topic in the morning, and I will appreciate if the accusations will not be followed up elsewhere. They do not have any point now - we all know that to get opponent sanctioned one needs to demonstrate a long pattern of substandard behavior, and neither BHG nor Jweiss11 show this pattern. The opponent is just not going to be sanctioned, unless he or she will do smth extraordinarily stupid. I would strongly advise against doing anything extraordinarily stupid, for that part.

In the ideal world, I would like to see Jweiss11 apologizing for the "intellectual dishonesty" accusation, and I would like to see BHG to accept the apology and to admit that her reaction to this accusation was not optimal. Then they could sit together and discuss what to do with the category. In the real world, it is probably not going to happen for a multitude of reasons. I am already happy that Jweiss11 stated that in the future he will not operate with the notion of "intellectual dishonesty". It would probably be good for the sides to stop interacting for a while. Most likely the only topic they reasonably can intersect in is the discussion of categories, and there (unless smth changed after January when I was active there) multiple administrators are active on a daily basis. BHG should just not take any actions on Jweiss11's nominations, and somebody would do it for her. The sky is not going to fall if a nomination gets closed a couple of days later. If the sky is about to fall, BHG can just ask another administrator, there are plenty of them available. Concerning the category from which the whole thing started, if indeed the wikiproject has come to consensus that it is not needed, I would advise to talk to one of the admins working at CfD (not BHG, and ideally somebody not previously involve with these deletion requests) and see what would be the best and easiest route to have the category deleted.

And please remember to assume good faith, at lest until it is not possible any more to assume good faith. If you are interacting with a user who does not have a track record of long-term problematic behavior (which typically should have resulted in blocks, featuring them at ANI, AE and similar pleasant places) and the trainwreck is approaching it is most likely a miscommunication and not a systematic misconduct. At this point, just stop, think about it, try to resolve, and, if needed, ask for assistance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we need to discuss this statement, and definitely not in the way the two threads above developed, but just in case anybody has smth important to say I take it out of the closed thread. Please in any case do not continue mutual accusations. You can accuse me in posting a bad text if you want, I can survive this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for closer

@Ymblanter: thank you for taking the time to close that. It must have taken some time.

However I am surprised that you ask me to admit that her reaction to this accusation was not optimal.

Jweiss11's accusation was false because I had noted that Amherst College#Athletics, which mentions neither "Mammoths" nor "Lord Jeffs". Here is that lined section as it stood then:[62] it does indeed mentions neither "Mammoths" nor "Lord Jeffs". Jweiss11's later comments assume I was referring to the entire page, a misunderstanding which could have been resolved by discussion ... but instead Jweiss11 personalised the discussion (creating busywork &c) culminating in his "intellectually dishonest" attack.

My reaction was to:

1. not respond at the WP:CFDS discussion (see discussion when delisted[63])
2. post on Jweiss11's talk asking for retraction[64] (I received no response and nor did SMcCandlish receive a response to their previous post [65])
3. My next interaction with Jweiss11 was when he pinged me to take admin action[66] which I declined in view of the attack.[67]
4. When Jweiss11 repeated the request I responded at greater length[68]
5. I had no further interaction with Jweiss11 until I closed two CfDs which I did not connect with the incident 6 weeks earlier
6. Jweiss11 did not communicate with me in any way about either close. T he next I heard from him was when he opened the ANI discussion above accusing me of Obstructive, spiteful administration, a claim which he repeated several times in the subsequent discussion along with his claim that my failure to to act on his demands was a clear abuse of admin powers

So please can you clarify how my reaction to this accusation was not optimal?

The only issue I can see is my failure to recognise that the nominator of those discussions was the angrily abusive and demanding editor from an incident 6 weeks earlier. So is my sub-optimal response my failure to maintain a blacklist of angry editors to avoid? Or something else? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I mean you should not have closed the two discussions (if I were you, I would probably also not have realized that this is the same editor, but after it became apparent I would have unclosed the discussion and ask another admin to close it), and also whatever developed into the sexism topic in the previous thread could have been avoided (again, I understand the background, but it was definitely not the best move).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It only became apparent after a barrage of personal abuse at ANI. I would have considered a post-facto request to recuse, but I do not take any such steps in response to personal attack or bullying. I make that v clear on my Editnotice.

I also I note with sadness that your close makes no mention of (let alone criticism of) Jweiss11's failure to respond either to two warnings on his talk page about personal attacks, and again when I pointed it out to him when he pinged me. I am also sad that you make no criticism of Jweiss11's decision to go directly to ANI alleging bad faith instead of discussing with me. And no rebuke either for his repeated insistence — even at ANI — that my failure to to act on his demands was a clear abuse of admin powers. Do you not consider those failings significant?

As to "the sexism topic" ... I did not and do not allege sexism. What I raised was that this was a case of a male editor bullying a woman in a context where male bullying is a systemic problem. There is extensive literature on how women are driven away from en.wp by male bullying (however motivated or whoever it is directed at); in a space where aggression and bullying are unsanctioned women tend not to hang around until it is directed at them. It makes little difference to the person targeted whether or not the aggression is motivated by sexism/misogyny; what matters is the risk of being monstered by an angry male mastodon.

So I am appalled that you entirely avoided any acknowledgement of the systemic problem and choose instead to rebuke me for noting its existence after a discussion was closed without even a summary rebuking the bully. The problem of unsanctioned aggression is one of the factors which causes low participation by women on en.wp, esp on noticeboards. In this case JW's conduct from the outset was at every stage to attack, demand and bully. What does it say about the culture on en.wp that you think it unwise to even try to discuss how this is part of a wider problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, I know you don't see this, but if you are not really alleging that you were harassed because of your gender--and I think given your comments above, a lot of us are having a hard time swallowing that argument, but let's accept that premise for the moment--then your repeatedly returning to discussing the other user's gender becomes even more of a problem, not less of one. Because at that point, you are not raising the issue of his gender for any pragmatic reason, but instead just repeatedly asserting that he is a bully as consequence of his being a man. In other words, a gendered assumption--and honestly, in the way you are wording it, a slur and still very much a violation of

gender discrimination

. How can you not understand that these kinds of comments are not one whit less offensive than if Jweiss had said "She can't help it, she nags--that's what female Wikipedians do. And give me a break, we all know about it." I am fairly sure that you would be (very justifiably) livid, and you can be certain it would provoke a pretty strong reaction from the other editors here, yours truly most assuredly included. Actually, to be frank, if Jweiss had dragged your gender into this particular discussion with stereotypical comments about how various of your negative qualities were typical of your gender, he would blocked by this point, if not sitebanned--I have very little doubt about that.

And what has been asked of you (keeping fidelity with our civility policies and not speculating about the motivations and qualities of other editors) does not represent a problem for Wikipedia culture with regard to gender inclusion. If you were alleging gender discrimination, the expectation would be that the community should investigate aggressively. And if it didn't take your claims seriously under those circumstances, then there would certainly have been a problem. But you haven't presented any diffs or other evidence to back up you implication of gender harassment, not even circumstantial content. And according to you, you never were making such an accusation, but rather we all just misunderstood you, so there is no cause for you to be discussing the other user's gender in this particular discussion, which would otherwise not be about gender in any way, shape, or form. Similarly, you are completely at liberty to discuss general issues of gender, harassment, and inclusion on this project (what you refer to above as the systemic issues)--there are many contexts where that is not only appropriate, but indeed broadly viewed as essential to improving community equality and accessibility. What you cannot do (if you are not alleging gender discrimination yourself) is repeatedly bring up another editor's gender in a personal dispute and then link that gender to the character flaws you perceive in that other editor. That is offensive. It is discriminatory. It is for these reasons against our behavioural policies. Please stop. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I said is that this issue should not have been developed to the point that it showed up at ANI. I did not on purpose list all the details how it happened and who has done what. These details would only be important if we were talking about sanctions, and here, as I said, sanctions are not going to happen. Therefore we need to concentrate on the big picture and on what we should best do to avoid the repetition in the future. And the big picture is that after a developed misunderstanding and a number of bad moves you both assumed bad faith, and after you both assumed bad faith, we eventually arrived to where we are now.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Thanks for taking this on. I think you summarized a lot of the community's sentiments on both sides. However, it sounds like you are suggesting a sanction of sorts for BrownHairedGirl to avoid any future Jweiss11 CfD nominations. You are entitled to that opinion, but I dont think it should be co-mingled with the close, unless I missed that having been a popular viewpoint. Consider starting a new thread for that topic if you think it should be pursued. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I absolutely do not suggest any sanctions. I am just saying that it would be a good idea if for some time BrownHairedGirl would not deal with Jweiss11's nominations - there are enough other admins who can do that, and nothing good could possibly come out of this interaction in the near future.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. As an admin, BrownHairGirl is already responsible for upholding

WP:INVOLVED. It seems out of place to suggest in a close for her to avoid Jweiss11 CfDs, unless there is consensus that she has been biased with him as an admin, as opoosed to possibly having misjudged a CfD (DRV still pending) Otherwise, I think we can trust her best judgement whether she chooses to close them or not.—Bagumba (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually disagree, but we have another discussion running in parallel in this topic, let us may be first wait until that one ends.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Update

I just closed the related DRV. When I wrote my close, I was aware of this ANI thread, but hadn't actually read through it. Having now read it, it looks like Ymblanter and myself are pretty much on the same page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent Pro Regnum Siciliæ several messages since February but they have ignored all. The messages were about repeatedly creating articles without clear sources, and other editors have also messaged them about adding unverified material to existing articles. This led to an ANI in March, which Pro Regnum Siciliæ did not participate in, and they were given a two-week ban. Unfortunately, Pro Regnum Siciliæ still ignores all messages, won't address the issues and continues to add unverified material to articles, post-block. Please see User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ especially User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ#Sources (again). I think the only way to get Pro Regnum Siciliæ's attention and for htem to address the issues is an indef block, which hopefully would make them communicate. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI thread. He has been conversant before as seen here last Summer but not since. Communication is required so if he doesn't respond within three days, I'd endorse blocking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited anywhere since the 25th; gaps like this seem fairly common so I wouldn't assume it's in any way related to this thread. They seem to be promoting Sicilian identity (for example, [69]) and doing little else. If they're doing that without proper sourcing, and don't reply to questions, the indef will be necessary.

I've indeffed them. Communication is required for collaboration and maybe they will oblige us.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I've recently been brought to the attention of Ujishadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while reviewing a permission ticket on File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg (now deleted). After looking through their upload history, they appear to have uploaded a number of files with no evidence of permission, and the ticket for that one does not show (IMO) they represent the organisation they claim to while uploading files. I think a block to prevent further copyright infringements - as most of their history has been deleted, I'm bringing this here rather than CCI, as I don't think there's sufficient history left to investigate. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef block - Classic IDHT. They were warned in May 2017 by Ad Orientem at User talk:Ujishadow#Warning: Disruptive Editing. They haven't changed their ways. Net negative to the project. If they want editing privileges back, let them go through the unblock process, acknowledge their errors, and actually engage with the community. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A look at their contrib log has satisfied me that this is not a

WP:COPYRIGHT and will not continue to upload non-free files. Failing which, they will be blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think they've been warned more than enough and that it would not be unreasonable to block now and not unblock till they agree to desist from uploading files. As they cannot distinguish what files they must not upload, they should desist entirely. One can have a long and productive Wiki-career w/o uploading files.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your delete on those pictures are unreasonable. They are all the pictures Titan Sports sent to me, only except the one of Shinji Okazaki. I have sent the email for approval to permission email address but you never give me reply. Only except the one I received yesterday regarding the shinji file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This response is not encouraging and I now doubt that you have an adequate understanding of copyright to be uploading files at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For reference - Ticket:2018011510003406. Following reviewing the ticket and history there to date, I'm not happy it is anywhere near close enough to even AGF they understand where the images are from. Mdann52 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Topic Ban

• I propose that Ujishadow be topic banned from uploading files with the understanding that they can appeal the ban in not less than one year. Any appeal must be approved by the community here after Ujishadow makes it clear that he has an adequate understanding of copyright and will not upload non-free files. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The file File:Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg, uploaded today, appears on 27 web pages, many of which are copyrighted. I have deleted that one, but of course that suggests that the others may well not be valid either. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that image was previously deleted, so they simply uploaded it again. It dates back to 2014 on some web-pages, so ... Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a 1 year limit on appealing seems entirely unnecessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic Ban - Based on their responses here, I think a topic ban is an appropriate step to prevent further copyvios. In the event that they ignore the ban and continue, i'd support an indef block as well but only as a last resort to prevent further issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I guess, but what about blocking? Both in this thread and in their actions leading up to it the user has been displaying serious IDHT, so a TBAN will only make the inevitable block slower. Pretending you got images from a certain source and were explicitly authorized by the copyright holder when in fact you took them from somewhere else is the worst. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to blocking on principle, but I view that as the last resort. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Topic ban is not fair at all. I have written to the wiki permission email quite a long time ago but only got the 1st reply yesterday. Those photos are of no problems at all but the supervisors did not start the supervision procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the above discussion, you stated "They are all the pictures Titan Sports sent to me". Why would Titan Sports be sending pictures to you? In all of the images in questions, you've claimed that Titan Sports is the copyright holder. If that is the case, why are you the one sending the email to the permissions address (see above where you state "I have sent the email for approval to permission email address")? -- Whpq (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was sent to the email address firstly through ([email protected]). But you never reply. Now the email address has expired. They now asked me to negotiate with wikipedia for your unreasonable deletion of their copyrighted pictures without any concrete evidence. Regarding Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg. You have no rights to delete as it is firstly produced by Titan Sports. Violation of image copyrights is common in China so it is not surprising that it could appear in other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being asked to negotiate on Titan Sports behalf? Are you being paid? I'm not finding this explanation very credible given that you claimed File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg as from Titan Sports and there was some form of email sent to permissions, but the image is in fact from Getty Images.-- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a review of the lead change by IP's at Taiwan. Got some weasel words and grandioseness with reference spam.--Moxy (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam, Moxy is wrong. No weasel words have been used in the article. Everything is done in good faith and every single piece of information added in the article is backed up by reliable sourced references, please feel free to check the references. Moxy is engaging in unexplained mass deletions of information due to his personal dislike of the information, of which all are indisputably sourced and referenced. Thank you very much! 118.106.145.105 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No weasel words? I would start with "wealthy and properous" (including the mis-spelling). We avoid such adjectives in Wikipedia. And i'm sorry, but "selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent" sounds just plain sick to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The IP is not only adding a bunch of weasel worlds, but also using some less than desirable references (Mirror, Sun) to add to the article. I would expect that an article about a country should have better references. More importantly, the IP is constantly reverting and not attempting to discuss at all.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Oshwah has protected the page. However, I am not sure why Denisarona did this edit. This edit essentially restores the entire content with weasel words and reference spam. Was this edit a mistake?--DreamLinker (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a mistake....informed locking admin.--Moxy (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've appealed to @

π, ν) 07:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oshwah is off line. Would be happy to revert to clean version.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check my work.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, though even a blank page would have been better than Taiwan invested heavily in their infrastructure as well as in the selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent, encouraging the attainment of high levels of university and graduate school level doctoral education, as well as fostering and retaining their superior IQ geniuses to help further develop and improve Taiwan.

π, ν) 07:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yup. And the IP editor argued there were no weasel words. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Dlohcierekim, Taiwan now looks more like an encyclopedia article and less like a glossy 16 page magazine insert produced by a joint venture between a Taipei tourist agency, the Harvard Lampoon and 4Chan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Check my work, further revert.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP hopper has been trying to force much of this superior IQ geniuses text into the opening paragraph of Four Asian Tigers for a long time (e.g. Jun 2017, Feb 2018, Apr 2018), ignoring discussion on the talk page. Kanguole 10:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're back, already requested a semi at

The initial edit stuck around for ~3.5 hours. Need some more eyes on the page I suppose... Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Taiwan page is no different from the South Korea page, the South Korea page also lists all of the achievements of the country.118.200.20.161 (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the IP has pointed out the South Korea article, I noticed that Massyparcer was the one who made South Korea's lead into a mess in the same style as this (unfortunately for a full 4 years till I restored it..) along with his/her socks. Same style but a lot less subtle I suppose.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

As it stands, this user is currently in violation of persistent

Breakdown of the Situation: The situation started with what appeared to merely be a run-of-the-mill content disagreement. I made this correction to the Plot section of

Two days later (today), I finally reverted them on the article with the edit summary "Three days have past and no explanation of the revert has been given other than "I just don't like the edit, alright!" (A clearcut violation of WP:OWN) If you eventually think of one, the Talk Page is waiting. Otherwise, continued reverts, WP:GAMING, or personal attacks will result in immediate WP:ANI." I also left a Dummy Edit for outside observers stating "See the absurd exchange that took place at Talk:Seven (1995 film)#Plot". But, of course, Thewolfchild did not heed this warning and reverted again with the smug edit summary "Yup, your tp posts are as absurd as your edit summaries. still no support for your edit btw.". And here we are. DarkKnight2149 03:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from thewolfchild;

Not sure if an ANI for this is necessary. This editor was pretty hostile from the start at being reverted (once!). There was not much willingness to discuss with all the anger and accusations. As it is, another editor has since agreed with the revert of this users edits. He also reverted my recent edit and I posted a more civil and mature response in an effort to discuss. Had Dk2149 been willing to discuss this in a more collegial manner, I'm sure this could've been resolved. For the record, I am still willing to discuss this on the article talk page, if Dk2149 is willing to be a little calmer with his responses and lay off the needless accusations (eg: I don't see how a single revert can constitute "OWN", especially since I rarely edit there nor do I see where "GAMING" comes in. Lastly, 2RR in 3 days is hardly "edit warring" and Dk2149's assertion that my post to TOJ is due to any warnings is plain wrong. The timelines shoud bear that out. Dk2149 should probably also watch out for boomerangs with his accusations of

Dishonesty such as this is precisely why I broke down the full discussion above. As has been pointed out, simply opposing someone or calling them out on their behaviour does not equate to hostility, nor does it justify being even more hostile in return. Looking at the discussion, it's clear that Thewolfchild didn't like being called out on what he was doing. Him providing no explanation for the revert beyond the vaguest "I didn't like it", changing the subject by deflecting blame after being repeatedly asked for an explanation, repeatedly urging for us to "Wait for other users to comment" when being asked for an explanation (for his revert), misconstruing

WP:OWN

.

"As it is, another user agreed with me" - Two days later, which is exactly what he was holding out for to happen (as shown in the breakdown above). It does not excuse his behaviour and it is no surprise that he is pointing this out.

"I don't see how a single revert can constitute "OWN", especially since I rarely edit there nor do I see where "GAMING" comes in." - First of all, he has edited there a lot lately and has been a regular on the Talk Page since January 2016. More dishonesty. Second, he reverted twice immediately when I made the edit, as shown above. Then he did it again after the final warnings on the Talk Page and edit summary, which he clearly saw given he replied to the following dummy edit. It is not the number of reverts that constitutes WP:OWN, but his statements and actions.

"Lastly, 2RR in 3 days is hardly "edit warring" and Dk2149's assertion that my post to TOJ is due to any warnings is plain wrong." You do not have to violate the 3RR in order to edit war. He reverted every single time I made the edit, even two days after he refused to give any sort of explanation for the revert on the Talk Page.

"I take it by this filing Dk2149 is no longer willing to have any discussion?" - We are here due to persistent disruption. The content itself is almost beside the point. Take a look at the thorough Talk Page breakdown above. I opened with a very straightforward explanation of my position, and Thewolfchild had plenty of opportunities to respond in good faith. That didn't happen. DarkKnight2149 04:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the original content dispute is incredibly minor, but the conduct of editors on the talk page could use discussion here. I have no confidence in either editor's ability to de-escalate disputes on their own; there's excessive heat on the talk page from both editors. Arguments over who is applying BRD correctly are almost never useful in any way. If both editors can be talked down from
  π, ν) 04:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Thewolfchild received a warning at AE fairly recently for this type of behavior, as well as multiple talk page warnings. This "filibustering" serves to prolong discussions indefinitely with no effort to cooperate or reach consensus. I've been involved in similar discussions with this individual before and I don't think there is a way to deescalate it without admin involvement. If you ignore the accusations, TWC will continue to bring them up and insist that you respond to them before proceeding.

In this case I don't see any legitimate content dispute. It looks to me like TWC reverted an edit and insisted that DarkKnight gain consensus before reinstating it, without providing a reason other than

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

. This isn't how BRD works, you have to give some sort of actual objection to the content that the other editor can address. I also don't see any incivility from DarkKnight, they simply asked TWC to provide a reason for the revert and explained the relevant policy.

I would also point out that TWC's discussion style tends to draw other editors into very long and off-topic conversations in order to address TWC's concerns and accusations. There are multiple examples of this happening with other editors on the same Talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I'm not going to escalate the situation by replying to any of this, but Thewolfchild doesn't seem to be taking this report very well at all (see: [70], [71], [72], [73]). Even a neutral editor involved with the article said on the Talk Page that they want nothing to do with either side of this (after Thewolfchild gave a lengthy, unsubstantiated rant). I can't say I blame them [the neutral editor], given how this is shaping up. DarkKnight2149 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Proposal: Dual Trouting): Holy mother of lack-of-perspective. I've seen a lot of needlessly antagonistic contests of wills come through this forum over the years, but I genuinely don't know if I've ever seen a discussion go from zero to grudge match (and in record time) over such an utterly trivial difference in content. Frankly, if it were my call alone, I'd be happy to each of these users a pageban from the article in question and hope that a lesson was learned about how far you can stray from collaborative tone and process before you become disruptive to the community. But, knowing what I do about the threshold that has to be met within the current community culture, I suspect that is an unlikely result, especially as I can't recall seeing either one of the parties here before. So I instead offer the alternative of a severe trouting and admonition to behave like adults and try some of the many third-person input/dispute resolution tools available. Along with these more specific comments:

Darkknight2149: Filing this ANI truly does make your position look histrionic. You didn't attempt an

WP:ESSAY

. And one that a significant portions of this community find tedious and irrational, I should inform you--at least in the way it is typically invoked. Regardless, it certainly does not have the effect of codified community consensus, so if you are going to make assertions of violations of policy, especially formal ones on a behavioural forum like this, please be clear as to what exactly is policy and what is not.

Thewolfchild: Look, I certainly think the DarkKnight2149 could have approached this situation with a little more

WP:AGF than they did, but I gotta tell you, looking at the edits and the talk page discussion, I think he's probably right about the underlying content issue (which entangles with behaviour issues); something more was really called for there than you were offering up, in terms of predicating your position on policy--or even just simple rational explanation for why the added content was unacceptable. But frankly, that's just a side issue to me, looking at that talk page. There is a definite and pervasive tone of superiority and patronization in your interactions on that page--not just with regard to Darknight, but other editors as well. Comments like this

are not in any way, shape or form conductive to collaborative work, but are in fact extremely corrosive to efforts to seek consensus in a civil fashion. And I'm quite certain that if you could hear the tone with which your fellow community members receive those kinds of "oh poor dear, you're quite worked up, I do hope you'll feel better" type comments, you'd be quite a bit less satisfied with what you seem to regard as your clever wordplay on that TP. Frankly with some of those comments, you are either actively baiting your opposition or are the type of person who thinks it's socially acceptable to walk around talking to fellow workmates as if they are a parent half-indulgently confronting a (slightly dimn-witted) child. And either of those possibilities is a problem on a collaborative project.

Now, both of you have demonstrated a marked lack of ability to know when to start reigning things in here, so I may very well see my preferred outcome, if you two manage to arms race yourselves into a

WP:BOOMERANG of mutually assured destruction. Or you can go back to the talk page, RfC the matter like you should have from the start (if you really couldn't just hammer out an understanding on this issue, which--and I can't emphasize this point enough--is truly an amazingly trivial difference in content), and then move on. Or better yet, one of you be the bigger person and let it go, given the article hardly stands or falls on this basis of whether or not this one minor clause is allowed to stand in one sentence of the plot summary. Anyway, I feel like we should have a workshift system for any of our numerous articles which involve discussion of Kevin Spacey portraying a face of sociopathy, and maybe you two should go off the clock for a bit. But if you really must engage, please try some community processes and try to avoid directly addressing eachother--or, at the absolute barest minimum, keep discussion focused on the content and the policy, and stay away from comments about eachother's character (or obstinacy, or lack of logic, or mood, or whatever). Argue the point, not the other editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:OWNERSHIP

(as thoroughly outlined above).

And nothing I said was unreasonable or hostile in any, shape, or form (at least, not from my perspective; key examples would be helpful). Calling someone out for their disruption or pointing them to the relevant policies is not incivility. I opened with a clear statement outlining my reasoning for my edit and repeatedly asked for an explanation for the revert, but was instead met with personal attacks,

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

, Wiki-laywering, and Thewolfchild trying to shift the blame to cover up his disruption. Even here, Thewolfchild has blatantly lied (only to be immediately debunked by the proper diffs).

You can't "violate"

WP:OWN. If you are going to revert an edit that minor and demand that it be discussed on the Talk Page, surely you must have a better reason than "Eh, let's just wait for other users to comment". DarkKnight2149 04:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, "Let's see what others have to say" is exactly how policy directs an editor to respond to a situation where they have reached a loggerheads with another contributor. Maybe I agree that the depth of Thewolfchild's explanation of their position here is underwhelming, but if that is truly the case, you should be able to prevail in a consensus discussion of the matter. Not even attempting to avail yourself of efforts to bring in a third party, but instead engaging in tit-for-tat accusations and a slow-moving edit war is where this discussion truly became

WP:OWN attitude. But instead of seeking that consensus, you went nuclear on the situation and brought it here, wasting valuable community time over a trivial content dispute (and yes, it very much is a content dispute, regardless of the fact that you've both developed it into a personal dispute as well), before you even attempted the most basic WP:consensus

processes that policy directs you to utilize in these circumstances.

So you really have three choices here at this point: 1)

WP:BOOMERANG if you can't embrace one of the first two options, because that's where I see this headed if you keep using ANI to drum on the same beats you've been repeating above. Sorry, I kind of get where you are coming from on the underlying dispute here, but this is hardly a one-way street between the two of you and I don't think you want as much attention on this matter here as you think you do. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

So ultimately my advice remains the same: either walk away from a situation which is certainly not worth this vitriol, or (if you feel you cannot do that), bring in outside opinion and avoid directly engaging with TWC. I know this post does not introduce anything new, but I hope it may serve to assure you that your perspective is not being entirely disregarded without an examination of the tone of the previous discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At

Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms what exactly it was that I did wrong? Thanks.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:PROXY. Now a completely new user, Cealicuca claims he was socking, instead of Iovaniorgovan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

May someone close this topic? I have initiated an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:ARBEE though - these articles could usefully be tagged under DS and that might provide heightened awareness. It does strain credulity to believe this is Iovaniorgovan's first account. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Nationalist: • a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others." Would you kindly point out even ONE of my comments which the definition above applies to? And yes, I never used Wiki before this year, this is my first Wiki account ever.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have included Iosif Constantin Drăgan on a short list of "many reputed scholars". Dragan was a nationalist extremist through and through, he is reputed for propagating pseudohistory. And you have attacked Lucian Boia as a "Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party". Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

(Reverting archive by Sigmabot) Could I have some admin eyes on this please? Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit was April 30.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• UA85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has proved they're NOTHERE.. Has been inordinately promotion himself and his businesses. See, Youth Group Limited, and Youth Group Limited, Ahmad Nagar Chattha a well as File:Youth Group Limited.png. Then see the deletion log of Umair Ahmad and see the the ongoing AfD. In addition, they just recreated it under different title IamUmairAhmad. See their talkpage. It is only block that they can understand at this time. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup. I don't think they're NOTHERE, just overly enthusiastic. It's possible they should be blocked for editing disruptively, though... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan - Was just about to close this but upon looking at UA85's contribs their last edit was to remove a draft submission template yesterday[83] - Not sure if a block is warranted but thought I'd let you know incase you think so (or not), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 - I can't tell. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Darlig Gitarist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count
• contribs to William M. Branham

Please consider a topic ban for User:Darlig Gitarist (DG) from William M. Branham topics, or an outright Wikipedia editing ban. This editor has shown a trend of disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a platform for activism over the past six years. He often resorts to intimidation, harassment, and insults; which make objectively editing the William Branham page almost impossible except for the most experienced and confident editors.

Taxee and Darlig Gitarist are the same person; the two user names were merged in 2017. diff

It is important to note that he is a "former member of a Branhamite church” diff who engages in advocacy, mainly manifested through disruptive editing. He is a disruptive editor as defined by Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Examples of disruptive editing. The following shows that this is an ongoing pattern and not an isolated incident. I can provide many more examples if needed.

A disruptive editor: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources:

• November 2014: Another deliberate misrepresentation of an author: “Branham is viewed as a false prophet by most evangelicals” diff. He attempts to attribute this to author Hank Hanegraaff by adding his own opinion right before the reference to Hanegraaff’s book. This cannot be found in the book he references. Again, displays clear bias and willingly deceptive editing.

Cites unencyclopedic sources:

• October 2014: DG references online articles written by a co-activist to a forum hosted on a San Diego State University server in an attempt to give more weight to the Jim Jones reference he also added diff (More on this below). DG later implies that the referenced material is “ from articles from University of San Diego website.” diff. After contacting the research editor where these articles are hosted, I received this reply to my questions: "Are the articles posted on your website peer-reviewed, vetted, and/or endorsed by San Diego State University?" Editor (No). "Does SDSU have oversight over what is published on your webpage? That does NOT mean that an employee works on editing the site. It means that this is an official University webpage that represents SDSU, not simply a page that is hosted on the University’s server." Editor (No) "Do you represent SDSU in an official capacity? If not, who can I contact with my concerns?" Editor (No. I could refer you to somebody, but I would want to be sure that these email exchanges be part of the record.) This is clearly and attempt to add credibility to the self-published material by saying that they are from San Diego State University when they are not. diff

• August 2012: He added a link to a web site devoted to posting daily anti-Branham blogs (a website commonly referenced by DG). diff

• September 2017: DG blocks another editor’s attempt to add newspaper references to the article “Danpeanuts - one more time - Wikipedia policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”. diff

Yet he doesn't follow his own advice, and here uses a single article to make an exceptional claim that William Branham is connected to yet another infamous character:

• October 2016: DG adds a reference to William Branham to the Paul Schäfer page, with the sole source being a single newspaper article with a two-sentence mention. diff diff Within minutes, he added a link to Paul Schäfer on the William Branham article diff. It was deleted, but he re-added it a few months later. He then added a reference and link to Jim Jones on the Paul Schäfer page diff.. There is no encyclopedic justification to add a Jim Jones link to the Paul Schäfer article other than to satisfy DG’s activist purposes. This is simply employing circular reasoning to attempt to make William Branham "guilty by association".

Is tendentious:

• August 2012: DG’s edit summary states: “reverted a biased edit that moved a pro-Branham website to the top of the list” diff This tit-for-tat reverting is common on his part, but not with other editors on the page. The other editors seem to just give up.

• August 2012: DG adds non-NPOV wording “Branham’s claim is suspect” diff and references the same anti-Branham web site.

• September 2012: DG’s edit summary: “Added link to an ebook that is critical of Branham's ministry” diff. Adding a link simply because it is “critical” does not seem appropriate for a NPOV editor.

• September 2012: DG advocates for “highly critical”, self-published blog material: “Over the past couple of years a number of ebooks and websites have come out that are highly critical of William Branham's ministry, including: A Logical Refutation of William Branham's Message, Believethesign.com, Legend of the Fall, by Peter M. Duyzer, Seek The Truth website. The information and research provided in these sources must be included in this article in order to achieve NPOV status, which I think is presently lacking" diff

Rejects or ignores community input:

• October 2017: DG protested references BEFORE reading them. “I haven't read any of the newspaper reports but I doubt if they will stand up to the scrutiny of more skeptical editors…Did they do background checks to ensure that the people that said they were healed were actually sick to begin with? Did you look for any skeptical articles with respect to Branham?” diff. ( “…I don't think it is appropriate to doubt a source is legitimate without reading it. ” diff

• September 2017: A different editor complains: “Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too…” diff

• September 2017: Another complaint about his non-NPOV when he refused to cooperate with another editor wishing to add material: “From my outside perspective, it appears valid sources are being discounted” diff

• September 2014: DG’s edit summary: “added paragraph on Branham's 1956 meetings with Jim Jones” diff. This is a BIG DEAL because it was added to make William Branham guilty by association. The inappropriate nature of this reference being in this article is best summarized by this opinion given by a respected Wiki editor here, who is at this time attempting to bring the page up to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

• There is, and has been, consensus among editors to remove the Jim Jones reference, but DG reverts any attempts to remove it. Just a few weeks ago another editor tried to remove it as others have. DG reverted it again and said in his edit summary “The majority of editors agreed to keep this paragraph as it is relevant” diff This is not true. There is consensus to remove the reference.

• After another different editor tried to remove it by claiming consensus and it was again reverted, the discussion on the Talk page came under a sockpuppet attack in order to sway the consensus. (see here) DG was questioned by an admin on his Talk page concerning this: “On an unrelated note, quite a few editors who recently commented at Talk:William M. Branham were recently blocked for sockpuppetry, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarynn7/Archive. Do you know anything about that??” diff. DG answered the question in an evasive manner “I am aware of the discussion on the Willianm Branham talk page” diff as he has before when asked about his role as an advocate/COI website editor.

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: manifested in this case by resorting to personal religious attacks to editors DG believes are followers of William Branham

• July 2013: DG removes links to the official William Branham Ministries web site and others, while calling them “cult websites”. diff DG labels disagreeing editors a cult often.

• July 2013: More insults “In this case, followers of the cult of William Branham are trying to avoid the obvious concerns from those outside the cult that the outrageous claims of William Branham are given credibility.” diff

• July 2013: More insults, threats, and intimidation “at the very least, the wild claims of Branham that are perpetuated by members of the cult here on Wikipedia should be eliminated” diff

• May 18, 2015: When other editors disagree with him, he immediately infers that they must be Branham followers “I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are follower of Branham” diff

• July 2013: DG looks up editors outside Wikipedia and uses information for further intimidation. “That you are biased in respect of this article is perfectly clear, given you online comments outside of Wikipedia”.diff

• March 2018: I posted my opinion on the removal of the Jim Jones reference on the Talk page according to COI guidelines, and he harasses me by accusing me of advocating: diff I was in complete compliance, as you can see from the history. He went on to discredit and intimidate me further by saying, “but as an employee of an organization (by your admission above) that exists solely to promote William Branham and believes him to be infallible... ” Note that this is not true, and further, it is an insult to me and my faith to say that I believe any human being is infallible, and he knows it. This is another attempt to mischaracterize anyone as a cult member who challenges him, just as he did with Rev107, Eforsund, and others.

• April 2018: I went to DG’s user talk page, asking him if he is an editor of an anti-Branham web site (which he is). He again refused to answer and instead tries wikilawyering by accusing me of harassing, etc., and went on to stereotype me as he does with many of the other editors.

No other editors (other than socks) on this page have used the word “cult” or resorted to personal insults like DG has. This pattern has persisted since 2012.

Please note that I, DEvans, work for William Branham Ministries. It is my opinion that a well-written, neutral, factual page is a benefit to everyone. I plainly disclosed my COI on my user page and on every edit to the WB Talk page. DG, on the other hand, has neither disclosed his COI nor his position as editor of an anti-Branham activist web site. Please consider a Topic Ban or a complete editing ban based on DG’s advocacy and disruptive editing that has resulted in his misquoting of authors, insults, intimidation, original research (opinions published as fact), and his constant harassment of other editors. This will help secure the integrity of Wikipedia in this issue. DEvans (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am astonished at DEvans accusations above. I think a valid question is whether DEvans is being paid by an NRM to try to influence the content of the article on William Branham?

My "crime" is that I spent a great deal of time on William Branham article and managed to get it qualified as a GA in August 31, 2017 which resulted in it being listed as such. This was the first time I have worked on getting an article GA status. It was resubmitted for good article reassessment in October 10, 2017, which result in its status as a GA being kept. I would ask that you please review the GA article conversations to see whether my actions could be considered inappropriate.

I would also ask @Display name 99: (who did a great job in conducting the GA review) or other longstanding editors such as @Theroadislong: or @Bonadea:, who have also been involved in editing the William Branham page (and whom I do not know other than through their editing on Wikipedia), whether my editing has been tendentious.

Achieving GA status was a great learning exercise for me in what makes a good Wikipedia article (and involved me removing information in the article that I and others had previously added). All references to primary source materials were removed and the entire article was thoroughly referenced to secondary source material in accordance with what I understood to be good Wikipedia practice.

The William Branham article is currently undergoing a peer review with the view to making it a feature article. I have been largely uninvolved in this significant rewrite of the article and am happy to see the article improved.

My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham. I am also interested in NRM's in general. A Wikipedia article on a new religious movement should not be a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but the focus should be to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement.

Please note that there are only 2 references to "incidents" in 2018. With respect to the first, DEvans took no offense at the time. My comment was based on the research I had done as to the beliefs of those that followed William Branham. I also commended him for being transparent. If he had taken offense at the time and corrected me in my statement, I would have apologized for misunderstanding his belief set. But he did not. I am astonished he is now taking exception to it.

With respect to his second reference to 2018, it is my understanding that speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. He decided to try to harass me on the basis that I had a COI. I chose not to respond to his speculations, which is my right. It is not surprising that given the failure of his efforts on that front, he has decided to take a different approach.

I do understand why the word "cult" is offensive to DEvans. However, it is used in some secondary sources on William Branham and the word "cult" still can be found today in the William Branham article, even after it has undergone multiple reviews by experienced editors.

Attention should be made to DEvan's contributions which clearly show that he is only focused on one thing on Wikipedia and that is to influence the content of the article on William Branham (DEvans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would ask why he is making these accusations against me. Is it because he wants to benefit the users of Wikipedia or is it solely because he is being paid to influence the article in a particular direction? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Here's my take on the situation: the Branham article used to be a glowing hagiography, as can be seen in pretty much every version before mid-2014. Darlig Gitarist was one of the main editors working hard to set that situation right, by for instance removing claims in Wikipedia's voice that supernatural events took place in reality, and by adding tons of scholarly sources. I first noticed the article in August 2017 (I have forgotten what brought my attention to it, but maybe a Teahouse post?) ; I had never heard of Branham before, but it became rather obvious rather quickly that this is one of the many articles about various religious persons or organisations that suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way. That is not uncommon, I've seen it in many other articles, but that's why we have NPOV policies in place. Anyway, Darlig G is not the POV warrior here, and the fact that the article was evaluated for GA status and passed after DG's efforts to improve it is indicative of that. I don't know exactly what's been going on there recently. I removed the article in question from my watchlist a couple of months ago because I couldn't take the constant POV pushing and sniping from Branham's followers, but I applaud DG's persistance in maintaining a NPOV stance in the article. There is absolutely no cause for a tban against Darlig Gitarist. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Thank you for your comment. Although I don’t agree with some of your edits/opinions on the WB page, I think you are a NPOV editor, and you have a great history of all kinds of contributions. You certainly have my respect. I also 100% agree with you that some of these pages “suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way.” DG is VERY close to the “faith in question.” In fact, contrary to what DG said above, “My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham”, he is a disgruntled former church member diff. Do you see the pattern of dishonesty? His contribution of what you termed “scholarly sources” is limited to scouring text for any obscure negative comments and adding self-published material as long as it is negative (please read the case). Further, I and at least one other editor, asked him about his role as an editor to an anti-Branham website, and he would not answer the question. diff. I, on the other hand, could have easily chosen to edit the page under another user ID and had a whole lot more impact, but I chose to be honest and divulge my association. As you can see from my history, I’ve only weighed in on the most egregious anti-Branham edits by DG and have done my best to follow the rules to the letter. Please take another look at what I have written above along with the DIFFs. His own words should show you his intentions. Also notice that he did not address any of his actions listed above. His only defense was to try and discredit me. DEvans (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for what's gone on at the article since the GA review, having not kept track of it, but during and before the review I saw nothing particularly wrong with Darlig Gitarist's edits. There was some disruption at the article which did cause me to consider failing the review, but it seemed to me at the time that the blame would go mostly towards other editors using the article to push an agenda. Display name 99 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: Thank you for your comment. No reviewer should be responsible for much more than spot-checking references, so I am in no way questioning your GA review. I believe you did a professional job. However, would you have supported the GA nomination knowing this type of misrepresentation of authors was in the text? diff diff DEvans (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit that you linked to concerning Branham being viewed as God does seem problematic, but having checked the article history from when it was promoted in August 2017 I can see that it was no longer there. I found nothing wrong with the second edit except for the fact that it wasn't sourced. I presume one was eventually added or else I would not have passed the review. Basically, both problems seem to have been corrected by the time I arrived. So yes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have now been 3 responses and no one has addressed any of the facts I presented. DEvans (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Within the past 24 hours,

Anyone here? Falling_Gravity 23:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This started at the end of the #Student unfairly blocked, needs an unblock section above (just in case it's archived while this section is open: diff at closing). In it, Bugs' comments amounted to a false allegation of restoring an edit and incorrectly repeating assertions about the use of non-English sources. As that's part of what seems like a pattern of unhelpful edits, I started this tangential thread afterwards (admittedly, I should've just started a new thread). Since that's well up the page now, I've created a new thread and moved the comments down here. Please undo if this is controversial. To be clear, I don't know that I've provided enough diffs below to formally propose a topic ban, but the idea was floated by others and I think it's worth getting some additional thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-move pings: @

I don't agree with Bugs' sentiment regarding foreign language sources, but I think you are going to far in applying the label 'xenophobic'.

Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Its a matter of policy (

WP:V) that foreign language sources are allowed (although English are preferred where available for the same content). Complaining that something shouldnt be allowed because its not in English (when policy expressly permits this as the editor well knows) comes across as extremely xenophobic. Its deliberately inflammatory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If Bugs does not like that policy, he is free to comment accordingly, just as others are free to disagree with him. I strongly object to such reckless assessments of his motives.

Lepricavark (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: motives, see below. Apart from that: ANI is not the place to disagree with clearly stated policy/guideline. This thread is not about that policy. It is about a block. If someone interjects their own opinion about a policy, stated without qualification, to weigh in on the matter of a block, that's completely inappropriate. As I've said multiple times now, this is more about Bugs' comments at ANI generally, of which this is just the latest egregious example of being not just neutral but counter-productive. In short: he can disagree with the policy all he wants, and even talk about it in discussions about that policy. What he should not be doing is weighing in on a block and the quality of someone's edits in relation to that block with his own opinions that run contrary to policy. He not only did that, but he did it in an offensive way (whether or not it was intentional). Even if we weren't at ANI, it's unacceptable to tell new users that they need to use English sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. My tendency is to play devil's advocate (speaking figuratively, I'm not literally calling Bugs the devil) when I am concerned that an editor is being misunderstood or misrepresented, but I can see the problem in this specific case.

Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Editing from a mobile device, so I'm going to be brief, blunt, and allude to some things I would usally provide links for. This reminds me of the recent KoshVorlon thread, but with one key difference: the "content" at issue is comments on wikipedia pages not content being added to articles. The "death to America comment" part was perhaps unwise, but otherwise the comment and other behavior linked is not contrary to behaviourial policies. We should not be the political corectness police but rather should defend the expression of unpopular beliefs when they are not unreasonable. I cannot support any sanction based on the evidence currently provided. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that Baseball Bugs is a xenophobe or seeks to promote some xenophobic agenda on Wikipedia. However, I stand by my characterization of that statement as a rather textbook xenophobic sentiment. Not only is it a policy-defying assertion that we should not use foreign language sources, but it jumps straight to "Death to all English speakers" as what it might mean (indeed, Bugs obviously doesn't think it says that, but offered that as a hypothetical anyway -- precisely the kind of damaging hyperbolic rhetoric we're accustomed to hearing stand in for more overt xenophobia). But the point of this isn't actually the xenophobia but to highlight the latest example of adding far more heat than light. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the concept of requiring sourcing is "so that others can check your work." Using a foreign language source automatically restricts the checking that can be done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument would prohibit citing paper books and paper journals.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those things could be checked, although it would take more effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other language sources can be checked as well, even though it takes effort. One can learn the language or ask a language speaker.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it takes less effort than that. Google translate works remarkably well nowadays (I've tested it repeatedly on Chinese, a language I know and notoriously difficult to machine-translate). It's still not good enough for composing articles, but for verifying basic information it's quite adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It takes a lot to irritate me on here, Baseball Bugs, but this argument has done the trick. Are you bringing up the same rationale when paywalled journals, dead-tree books, subscription-based magazines, out of print academic books, etc., are used as sources? If not, I suggest you take a closer look at why you're singling out this particular type of source. I, for one, don't particularly like what I see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my comment about TBANing him. I think if you'd want to improve the atmosphere at ANI that would be what I'd do. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, for the record. It would take some time to do a proper dig for diffs, but just in the very recent past there's jumping in after a matter is resolved to comment about how liberal Canadians are, jumping into a thread just to call someone a bigot (and then doubling down), denying an obvious violation because of one-way ibans being "bogus", interrogating an IP, asking for personal information (then again here) (I've seen this one many, many times -- Bugs very much seems to dislike unregistered users, and jumps into discussions to interrogate them or toss in assumptions of bad faith), again commenting on someone's English... and this omits the large number of comments that aren't problematic but don't add anything (e.g. [87] [88] [89] [90]). None of these would be problematic alone, but all of them being just from the last couple months should say something. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is incapable of understanding that non-English sources are acceptable, despite it being repeatedly pointed out that that is long-standing policy, they have no business being here. See WP:Competence is required. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its about high time Bugs be banned from the project. That's a joke, but actually the IP has a point. --Malerooster (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word "here", as well as echoing one of Baseball Bugs's comments, was deliberately ambiguous. It could mean this specific noticeboard, all noticeboards, all of Wikipedia space or the whole project. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs has long been an unhelpful participant at ANi, much like his often thoughtless participation at help desk. I'd support a TBAN from notice boards. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say that his contribution was helpful at anypoint. Until you get to be an admin, using ANI for flaming and such is not a good idea, and actually looking at BB's contributions he seems to be totally unaware of
  WP:NOTAFORUM, so I think Legacypac idea has a merit. Someone who is here just to discuss (flame...?) is not here to build an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I actually like Baseball Bugs and enjoy his remarks sometimes. But far too often, both here at ANI, and at the reference desks, he is prone to spout off with uninformed, speculative and sometimes offensive remarks. Over and over and over again. I do not know what the solution is, but this has been a problem for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotes from his RfA from 9 years ago are still relevant: "His posts at ANI are atrocious"; "I've only seen the user at ANI".."From his actions, he always seemed to me as not assuming good faith, quick to judge in an overly harsh way [doesn't that seem relevant to the just concluding incident..], condoning problematic administrative behavior"; "Has a strong tendency to add fuel to fires"; and so on. His contributions are rarely helpful, and when they are only of the slight kind that can easily be done by anyone; in other times they are offtopic; and in many times too they're hostile and add fuel to fire. (For evidence, see the ANI thread just before and the diffs by Rhododendrites, and anyone who regularly looks at ANI should be able to see that too). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the past five years, his contributions to main space articles have been trivial, and 70% to 80% of his edits are to Wikipedia space. He is basically an opinionated blogger here, not someone who actually improves the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yup, I saw that too. It appears in the past he atleast did contribute something to article space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+Anyone can review his contribution log. He may think Ref desk and AN/i is free wheeling spout off anything like Yahoo Answers, but sadly we can't vote his useless posts to the bottom here and are left with voting him off the board. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In the past five years, his contributions to main space articles have been trivial, and 70% to 80% of his edits are to Wikipedia space." Several Wikipedia editors are barely active any more, but banning them is not part of policy. We are unpaid volunteers, remember? Baseball Bugs did bother to correct formation problems in Mutt and Jeff, and slightly expanded the article on the Messer Street Grounds. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And he can continue to do whatever good work you think he's doing in Article space, since nobody is proposing he be blocked from that: quite the opposite. And if it were simply about the ratio, nobody would give two shits about this: it's the ratio between useful edits and time-wasting ones which is the issue. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban on Baseball Bugs from Wikipedia Space

TBAN from Wikipedia space (except of course if he is the subject of a notice board complaint). That covers the Ref desk and the notice boards mostly and I suppose some other stuff. If he really has a need to work on some wikiproject the closing admin can carve that out. Never seen one of these exact TBANS but this would mean he would have to ***gasp*** work on building an encyclopedia if he wants to stick around, and his chit chat would be confined to content talkpages where users can enforce keeping the topic on how to improve the article.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ehh, let's try this then first, I suppose. (proposed an ANI TBAN above, let's merge it in then) My comment was: "See my and others comments above. Negative for ANI. If someone wants to propose a ban from reference desks/help desk/overall noticeboards too (of which Reference desks make up a staggering 30000 edits or something) feel free to do so, I don't view the reference desks/consider them mostly useless anyhow etc but from the few edits I saw they didn't seem constructive either". Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perpetual pot-stirrer and generator of much heat and little light, about time they switch their focus to writing an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - After a look at his edit count, I’m in. 13K edits to this page alone... is enough, and his ref desk stuff is three times that. Jusdafax (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Student/editors are particularly difficult to gauge as to their intent. I think that is because their "intent" is to fulfill a class requirement, thus there is an indirectness that can be particularly indecipherable. When looking at the edits in the case here, it is hard not to see this as vandalism. A ballet company producing cheese? Since the thirteenth century? Not only involving milk from cows but also crude oil? It is understandable that one would reach the wrong conclusion about edits like that. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is more for being consistently hostile instead of reducing tension and being

WP:BITEy than one incident. Baseball bugs could look at the full editing history and had the context of it being a student in good faith, so him assuming it is vandalism is bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

WP:NOTVAND: ... sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language).—Bagumba (talk

)

This is not an error in syntax. Bus stop (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is she editing dishonestly.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has next to nothing to do with a student editor - that was just the latest incident. 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - He's earned it. Swarm ♠ 07:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A complete Wikipedia-space ban would also cover stuff like
  WP:DYK etc. If you want to ban him from noticeboards, it's probably best to tighten that one up a bit. Black Kite (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, this is intended to keep him off Ref Desk, site policy discussions and similar as well. We don't need him at XfD throwing around nonsense off topic comments either, and him banned from just notice boards, that is a likely place he would go. He is always free to appeal for a carve out for some limited purpose if his editig takes him to an area he needs Wikipedia space. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bugs is clearly a menace at ANI so in principle I am tempted to support. However, this proposal risks driving Bugs into articles where his opposition to non-English-language sources could wreak havoc. Is that a risk worth taking? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest a full site ban then? If that happens I hope we can quickly ban him completely, though I wouldn't oppose a site ban now..Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A site ban sounds harsh. I just wanted to note the risk of displacement. I don't have a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is that possibility certainly. Site ban is probably harsh; I do hope that removing him from ANI and the references desks leads to constructive editing in article space. I think we should keep aware and watch if problems as you say continue and then a site ban would be appropriate Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN from ANI and Ref Desk. I oppose a permanent or unappealable TBAN. I think the TBAN should be restricted to 6 months or a year, or be appealable at six months. Bugs's month edit counts were well-balanced back in mid-2011 [91], but since then he has enexorably become a
  a well-functioning member of the Wikipedia community before returning to ANI and the ref desks. I'm sorry it's come to this but one could see this coming several years ago. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC); edited 09:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I mean every TBAN is appealable and this would be to. I'm not one to prevent appeals anyhow; but he'd definitely have to show how he has become less bitey etc, and I don't have any hope since it has been the case for 10 years or something. Even when his edit ratios were balanced, there were still problems with his ANI edits, atleast from the comments on his RfA Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - he doesn't add anything to discussions. GiantSnowman 08:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Disturbed by his nonsense assertion that we should limit ourselves to English language sources as a disruptive attempt to change the encyclopedia focus and my own experience is that she or he is argumentative or disruptive for the sake of it here at ANI. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~80 mainspace edits this year? None at all for the last two months? A pattern that stretches back eight years? No thanks; editors have been found to be WP:NOTHERE, and treated accordingly, for less. Or more, depending on how you look at it. When he can show six months of productive editing in other namespaces, then we can revisit. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a topic ban from ANI, initially for a fixed period of time - six months maybe. The year counts section of this link is telling - [92]. Baseball Bugs has made 1,295 edits to article space in the last 6 years; in the same period he's made 22,289 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Bugs has made 13,079 edits to AN/I alone, and a very small proportion of those have been useful. An enforced break from AN/I would do him good, and everyone else good. He's made tens of thousands of edits to the reference desks, I leave it to people who can bear to look at the reference desks to decide whether he should be barred from there or not. Fish+Karate 09:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bugs has a lot to say here and elsewhere in WP space. They say things oft-times that I disagree with. Their take on the non-English language sources issue is a case in point, but I suggest it does come from a real problem where non-English sources at times are used in lieu of available English sources as a way of subtly pushing non-neutral POVs. I think Bugs may well be going at it a bit hard with their insistence of English language sources and certainly at times they lack tact in the way they state their case. However, it is precisely because I do not agree with them, as I suspect neither do the majority of us here, that I believe it is inappropriate to seek to silence them by issuing him a TBAN from WP space. If we seek to silence opposition then we risk becoming an echo chamber. This is not healthy for the project. I suggest instead of a topic ban, Baseball Bugs be "officially" warned that further incivility or PAs will result in a block. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is to dislike non-english sources, it is another to help BITE a newbie about it on a forum we should try to keep friendly, however it may not be or that be difficult. This student is hardly pushing a POV with using a foreign language source. This isn't as much about silencing opposition as about improving the atmosphere at ANI. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't as much about silencing opposition as about improving the atmosphere at ANI." yes, kill the witch! Sorry, not convinced, it looks a lot more to me like stacks on the mill. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yes please! Has anyone bothered to find the last ANI discussion quite a long time ago when this was proposed. My distant recollection is that a sanction was escaped by a promise to voluntarily withdraw. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One month voluntary ANI topic ban (2012).2014, no consensus for reference desk topicban. 2008 warning about civility at ANI·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. Per my comments above, I was unsure about this. Then Bugs appeared on my talk page where he a) complained that I had implied that he would engage in sockpuppetry (I hadn't); b) demonstrated no understanding of what he himself wrote about foreign-language sources. Discussion here[93]
  That combination of prolixity and lack of comprehension is a nuisance which project space doesn't need. The fact that it comes in the middle of a ban discussion when he knows he is under scrutiny gives me no reason to believe that he is likely to reform. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that I would go on some sort of crusade against non-English sources is astonishingly bad faith on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean this as kindly as I can, but you're not exactly a poster child for assuming good faith yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Extraordinary. Bugs thinks it is bad faith to assume that he means what he says, and would therefore follow through on that principle. The alternative interpretation is that it was all just hot air and he didn't really mean it ... which only reinforces the case for a ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Like Cullen328, above, I quite like Baseball Bugs - probably through familiarity going back some years. But I have to say, Bugs' comments here at ANI seem to be turning more and more into just disruptive background noise these days, and the latest were so far off-policy that I'd really only expect them from a newcomer. The ideal solution would be for Bugs to understand the problems and make a commitment to toning things down, because I really wouldn't like to see a ban being necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my lost post on ANI. Banning myself. Block me if I come back here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should count as a support vote, and I think that means we can move to close this discussion enacting the topic ban, under the conditions Baseball Bugs has specified.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if it applies to main WP-space as a whole rather than just ANI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As shown above, the problem extends way beyond AN/I. And this last-second “sweat-promise” in the face of consensus is another sign of that. Formal remedial action is called for, I believe. Jusdafax (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.
  WP:NOTAFORUM. Of course he can ask for appeal after a few months or such, if he can show that he can actually contribute to building the encyclopedia first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. This posting pretty much seals the deal, as it's either basic
  reading comprehension problem or bad faith. Neither is helpful. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - What Boing! said. I'd rather see Bugs change how he interacts here and on other noticeboards, but if a TBan is inevitable, it should be written in way that allows him to make relevant reports to AIV, AN3, etc. rather than as a blanket WP-space ban. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose such a broad topic ban. Bugs is mostly harmless; at the reference desk he does often contribute useful references on word etymology and other things (though there as elsewhere he can get a bit off topic and chatty). If he's being disruptive in specific areas, a more tailored ban may be more useful, but I can't support something as broad for him. --Jayron32 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Baseball Bugs is fairly active at the RD, I have left a notification there of this proposal. [94]. I'd like to remind any participants that as this is a discussion, they're support and oppose it in parts if they feel that it the best solution. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whilst BB's comments were unhelpful and offensive I am not sure that they are banable, unless they are part of a pattern (are they?). He does need to be warned that his attitude towards non English sources if wrong, and offensive. If however this is part of a pattern, blockSlatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There IS precedent for banning time-wasting editors from Wikipedia, especially when their time-wasting is wrong, ill-informed, or disruptive. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because I don't agree with Wikipedia witch-hunts and I find it ironic that a user such as Legacypac, who is frequently offensive, overly abrasive/insulting, and continually skirts the bounds of policy on civility and NPA is the proposer of this draconian ban. Issue a stern warning as a last chance to Bugs and watch closely for further problems. If such behavior from him rears its head within six months, bring him here again and then we can talk the ban proposed here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the previous 1 month (voluntary) ANI ban and the thread there serve as enough of a warning? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, words have consequences: please don't use the term "witch hunt" loosely. Many people don't know this, but it has a very specific meaning and a set of connotations that is frequently highly inappropriate. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies:. Guess what? I'm considerably older than you (which means I've been around the proverbial block more often) and I have the same level of education as you (and more of it). Moral: don't condescend. All that said, I'm quite aware of how words have consequences as well as the colloquial and precise meaning of the term "witch-hunt". I also know when I see a portrayal of Abigail Williams and Giles Corey occuring in AN/I (I'll allow you to figure out who's who). Good day to you, young man. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, asking sincerely here: did you just respond to perceived condescension with condescension? AlexEng^(TALK) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SIG. Many thanks, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"we are all very much the same" That's certainly the theory. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't use a discussion about another editor as a forum to continue your long term trolling of me. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QED. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Winkelvi remember this advice you received the other day about pitching in where your services aren't needed? For someone with such a long block log, you would think avoiding the drama--and starting it--would be things to avoid. I sadly will not be surprised when your name is back on one of these threads.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And for what, exactly, does your crystal ball tell you I will be brought here for? Never mind. You don't have a crystal ball. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial Support - Very little of the above thread relates to comments outside of noticeboards, and this seems like an overreach without a close examination (with diffs, etc.) of, say, his WikiProject edits, his TfD comments, etc. (I don't know if there are any off-hand, and that's part of the problem here -- he has more then 100k edits, which makes such a broad ban difficult to gauge without proper discussion). The other thing is that I know that I've been part of at least one discussion about banning him from the ref desks in the past (which I would've supported -- Bugs and I got off to a very bad start on the refdesks when my very first interaction with anybody there was this thread back in 2013, where Bugs responded to a question about literary criticism by straight up insulting the concept the person asked about and offering no substance at all). I don't remember the specifics of that thread(s) but I know there was not consensus to do so, and I'm fairly certain there have been multiple other proposals to do so that have failed. Thus while I don't disagree necessarily, I feel like it's inappropriate to include the refdesks here, since this didn't start out with any discussion of his contributions to the refdesks. In short, this is an overreach. Very little of the discussion leading to this had anything to do with Wikipediaspace outside of noticeboards. Support ban on noticeboards, Abstain on the rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a WP-wide TBAN is too broad in scope. If there is a consensus that Bugs is not contributing usefully at ANI then an ANI TBAN would be an appropriate sanction. But a TBAN from all of Wikipedia space looks like an over-reaction to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as too broad. I'd support a ban from noticeboards, but stuff like XfD should still be available. Also, very amused by the amount of pots and kettles in this thread... ansh666 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I can't speak for Bug's behavior at admin talk boards, but he treats the reference desk as nothing more than a social club. He responds to many questions with non-contributing replies but sometimes goes a week or more without actually contributing a reference. He seems to live for asking unnecessary clarifying questions, even though he has no intention of providing a reference regardless to how his followup is answered. ApLundell (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This proposal is just too broad, how has Bugs earned a topic ban for areas outside here? I would support a short TBAN from
  WP:ANI too much bites you in the behind after awhile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Too broad. The entire Wikipedia space? Really? A modest break from AN/I may be called for--possibly Bugs recognizes it--but that'a about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I paid close attention to the thread referenced in the original post. The input from Baseball Bugs was disruptive throughout the discussion. If disruption extends to other parts of wikipedia space (as noted by other users, re: refdesk), then I agree with the substance of the TBAN as proposed. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if every time someone were to get on the wrong side of "consensus" that person would be expelled from Wiki space, we'd be in worse shape than we are. I think that all make mistakes, some own up to them, and others need more guidance not bans. I have no reason to doubt Bugs' good faith and it seems he has owned up to mis-citations in the thread above. Move on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 3:28 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Oppose - far too broad. If Bugs is disruptive here and at the ref desk, we should be talking about a ban from here and the ref desk. Had that been proposed I'm not sure whether or not I would support it. From what's been presented here so far I'm leaning towards not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too broad. If one of his articles were taken to AfD, he would be prevented from defending it. I doubt that is the intent here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A vast overreach for an editor whose positions are generally not vituperative nor objectionable. This precedent is, IMO, dangerous entirely, and any closer should note the potential for abuse of such bans. Collect (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support temporary ban from ANI and RefDesks, strong oppose to removal from all WP spaces: Sadly, this is a long time coming. I do believe Bugs' contributions are by and large good-faith in nature, but he's shown a marked refusal to contemplate the many, many concerns voiced by fellow community members regarding the limitations and proper purpose of certain work spaces, particularly as regards
  WP:NOTAFORUM
  (and these problems are much more pronounced at the reference desks). Unfortunately, I think a removal from those spaces for a time is the only strategy that stands a chance of stimulating a reform of habits that have long been disruptive to particular spaces. However, removing Bugs from all WP spaces is clearly overkill; if we were to do this, we might as well just give him a temporary siteban, because any and every editor who works consistently on this project is likely to have need to access community processes at some WP space or another, from time to time, and depriving them of that access while allowing them to continue to contribute is a recipe for disaster. (Indeed it has the potential to even let problem editors game their restrictions to avoid proper process in many circumstances). Further, the issues with Bugs' behaviour which we are trying to address here are not likely to arise in most WP spaces, even with his proclivity for taking discussion into random and inappropriate directions.