Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942

• Jvm21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello! Please, do something with this user. [16]. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The "or else" is an implied threat, and cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion. Please remember to do this yourself the next time you file a request at AN or ANI.

(talk to me)

19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The name-calling (which I won't repeat here, it's in the link) is probably at least as bad as the "or else".

Neutron (talk

) 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corvus tristis. That looks pretty clear cut to me. Everybody needs to keep calm and discuss differences in a civil manner which clearly did not happen here. I have dropped a warning on their talk page. If you have anymore problems of that sort drop me a line on my talk page and I will deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am going to leave this open for a bit in case Jvm21 wants to respond, but I don't see much more to be added to this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jvm21 was previously blocked in September by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus for adding unsourced statements to articles. (An example is described at User talk:Jvm21#Best Foreign Language Film). We should consider taking some admin action this time around if the user will not back off from these threats and personal attacks ("you cybernetic al-Qaeda wannabe. Nobody hijacks my pages and gets away with it"). EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• User-multi error: "Wikiwatcher99" is not a valid project or language code (help).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Chen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Wikiwatcher99, an apparent SPA, is disrupting an AfD for

• notified here [17]

The subject,

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]

• Blocked 10 days to allow the AfD to complete. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

abuse of talk page while blocked

2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501 (talk · contribs): The IP is range blocked but is making disruptive edits to their talk page, User talk:2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501, transcluding pages so causing errors and adding it to project categories (warning – it will take time to load). Can talk page access can be revoked for a range block? I would say protect the page but they can just return to another one.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked for the range. Katie^talk 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:The Quixotic Potato has called another user an extremist [[27]].

I asked him to withdraw the statement [[28]]

His response what to say it was not an insult and I need to make sure of my facts before I falsely accuse someone. [[29]]

As far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong) that a PA is still a PA even if factually accurate.

In addition he is arguing some pretty spurious arguments on the SPLC talk page, and making other comments that boarder on PA's in that they are about the editors and not what they say [[30]].

I think the user is clearly to involved in the topic to be a constructive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note there is a difference between "to" and "too", "border" and "boarder" and "what" and "was". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to address the actual points made is is not a breech of policy?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

breach. I didn't do anything wrong. You can call me a potato because I am a potato. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As you can see he is making no effort to actually explain how his actions are within policy, and is a tendentious editor (at best). I will bow out for a bit and let other editors take over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ehm, I actually did explain why that action is allowed: "You can call me a potato because I am a potato". On my talkpage I wrote: "Saying an extremist is an extremist is not an insult. They are usually quite proud of it, and they dislike those who have a more moderate opinion. I would ask you to check their contribs before falsely accusing me of insulting anyone." (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

five pillars). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please specify which part you mean. Have you checked their contributions before falsely accusing me? Everyone's worldview is controlled by others, but people have to decide who to trust. You act way too quickly; please do some research before posting a comment. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand what "part" of my response needs to be specified or explained further to you. The user's contributions are completely irrelevant. To put things in context: David A responded to a vote comment citing a document (that may or may not be found to be relevant to the discussion) as part of his reasons behind his thoughts. Another editor responded believing such document to be unrelated to the discussion, David A responds with additional comments regarding the document, then you respond to him with this. I'm not suggesting that your response violated Wikipedia's policies on

blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

13:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If you wanna make it through RfA, and handle cases like this, you have to do a lot of reading before you start writing. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah lol you did. Well, rnddude is giving a good example. Slow down. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your response here at all. Reading below, even if you did provide diffs to assert your thoughts regarding David A's contributions... how does that make your response acceptable, or a positive contribution to the discussion at-hand regarding the article? How is this response positively aiming to help the discussion come to a consensus? I made an in-depth thought and response here on my talk page. I believe that it clearly explains this situation and the issue at-large. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've replied on your talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Without getting into the meat of the argument, Quixotic; you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim is pretty clearly an a comment about the contributor and not the content. Hypothetically if you were calling a spade a spade it might be overlooked. The fact is, you weren't. It is quite clear that David A is "passionate" about the issue of Islamic doctine and Islamic extremism, as I am assuming you are about Islamophobia. There is no need to go to such a low level to further your arguments. If you can't posit your case without commenting on others then either your argument is weak or you're not bothering to put up a strong one. RfCs are decided by the weight of the arguments, not the insults. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, check his contribs. I know it is a comment about the contributor, but it is based on their contributions. And as you can see I didn't really bother with that RfC, that is correct. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Diffs Quix, you must provide diffs. You've been brought to AN/I for your actions, if you have any intent of defending your extremism comment you will have to provide evidence that the editor has espoused extremist, bigoted, or otherwise unseemly views that impact on the encyclopaedia. That would make your comment defensible. As it currently stands, you've called an editor bigoted and provided no evidence of such. I don't know where in their contribs to look. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the thread started about another comment, but if you want me to give you some diffs for that one then I will have to do some research. I haven't saved the links I dug up, maybe I should've. There are quite a few examples that illustrate what I mean. Most muslims do not spend a large amount of time trying to post negative information about groups they dislike on Wikipedia. Women, children and the elderly are the majority... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that would at least give me some context to work off of. Though I may not necessarily draw the same conclusions as you do. The PewResearchCentre's study doesn't give any great confidence to Islamic doctrine and Muslim groups who subscribe to it wholly, much like with many other religions. If David has an issue with Muslims then I will have a chat to them about it on their talk page. Many criticisors of Islam forget the distinction between the faith and the person. I once heard it said that your faith is a product of circumstances beyond your control. If you were born in a Hindu family, you'd be a Hindu, a Buddhist family, a Buddhist, a Nordic family in the viking era, Thor, in Ancient Rome, Mars, or in Ancient Egypt, Amun-Ra and Kek. Etc, etc. Attacking the people for their faith is an issue worth addressing, the faith itself is not immune to criticism, nor should it ever be. Think of non-Catholics during the Medieval era for example. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I am a "strong" atheist (or, more precisely, I am a ignostic theological non-cognivist). My parents used to be vaguely christian, I was baptised and we went to church when I was very little, but all three of their kids are atheists, and later they also stopped believing. My opinion about (for example) ISIL is pretty clear. Muslim extremists would kill me if they would get the chance (you can read my userpage, it explains my POV). I believe that all Abrahamic religions are very very similar, and they are all incorrect. Just a bunch of made up stories from people who tried their best to explain natural phenomena. Most of it is basically a revamped version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I am Dutch, so I also do not like nazis. Here in Amsterdam there are many muslims, and unfortunately my country also contains quite a few islamophobes. It is sad that they do not seem to realize that antisemitism and islamophobia are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin. Heck, islamophobes and nazis use the same propaganda techniques. I'll get back to you with some diffs, but that will take a while. The quote you posted below (the one I responded to) is an example, because the context is that we were talking about people that the SPLC listed as anti-muslim extremists. Like I said before "women, children and the elderly are the majority", most of them just wanna live in peace and accusing them of possessing "enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism" is of course a very very extreme point of view that isn't shared by many people outside of the alt-right and far-right. The SPLC also dislikes both antisemites and islamophobes, I think my opinion is quite similar to that of the SPLC. [31] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have heard of Majiid Nawaz but I can't remember where. Unless I am grossly mistaken, he is particularly critical of Islam, but, I don't recall him being anti-Muslim just severely anti-Islam. I'll get back to you on that if I can find where it was I'd heard of him. I'm happy to wait a day or two for you to find what you're looking for as needed. The quote you're referring to was, I think, a poor choice of expression. I do not believe that David had women and children in mind when he said that, but rather the (male) Muslims in the Middle-East and Africa who do - in some areas significantly - hold views that are not in-line with ours. Female circumsion, the death penalty for adultery, etc. But, I'll let you take the time to find the diffs before I exonerate or prosecute anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

On that very same talkpage David wrote that the SPLC is "systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism". If you look at the people on the list then most of them are clearly extremists, e.g. Horowitz said "the American left, whose agendas are definitely to destroy this country", Daniel Pipes is the source of the much-ridiculed claim that there are hundreds of “no-go zones” in Europe where Shariah law prevails and where non-Muslims, including police, are afraid to go, Walid Shoebat believes that all Muslim organizations in America should be the No. 1 enemy et cetera et cetera. I don't think I have to explain that those views are far more extreme than those of most muslims (especially the ones I meet here in Amsterdam). Majiid Nawaz was the only one I didn't know much about [32] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Your statement that David A is more biggoted than your average Muslim. Are you implying that all Muslims are bigoted and that David A is just more of a bigot than the rest of the Muslim population? Either way this sort of comment makes it seem that you bias against Muslims (extremist or otherwise) would be sound cause for a Topic-Ban on the subject. Amortias (T)(C) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

????? Please read before commenting. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments like these should get people topic banned from WP:ANI discussions. Anyway, this is boring, I am gonna do something a bit more productive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Amortias you have missed the mark by about a quarter-mile. Quix is clearly calling another editor extremist for referring to the average Muslim as extremist. Or rather they appear to perceive it as such, I disagree with their conclusion but am waiting for diffs. Your jumping in to tell Quix that they are biased against Muslims is unwelcome and unproductive. Please expend more effort into going through the content of the issue before posting your comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The diff here [33] specifically states It is sad that you do not realize that you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim I'm not sure how stating that someone else has far more bigoted views than a group of people can be considered appropriate without anything to back it up. If its poor wording and they meant to say unlike other/the majority/some Muslims you have bigoted views on... then its simply a case of wording being flakey, calling someone extremist or biggoted without evidence is still not helpful. Amortias (T)(C) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Amortias, read the comment to which Quix is responding to; the average Muslim possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism. Context, always important to have context. I by no means defend either comment, neither is of any use to the situation and in that respect I agree with you, but, I still find it not useful to claim someone is biased against a group without a more thorough examination then what is on the face of their words. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

All of which is largely irrelevant, as the question is did The Quixotic Potato break policy, and is he a disruptive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Change to total ban, I think it is obvious the user has a contemptuous attitude towards both the five pillars and users who disagree with him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Case to point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

in. And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently. That is how life on this planet works. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment generally you would be hard pressed to get more than a warning to be less aggressive passed against editor A for calling editor B a bigot straight after editor B makes a bigoted statement. People might quibble that it should have been phrased 'your editing/opinion' rather than 'you'. But its basically semantics in order to comply with wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would. But Dutch people are infamous for being blunt, and we are often perceived as being very rude when we believe we are simply being honest. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, could you next time not call someone a bigot just because you think they are and try and word it so it is not an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, seems like a reasonable request to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: As an uninvolved editor, I started reading this thread and came to the opinion that it should be closed with no action after the first few comments. But the more I read (specifically, of your responses) the more I think some sanctions might be in order, if only to impress upon you the need to work with others here, instead of simply working alongside them. Your insistence upon offering corrections to Slater's comments strikes me as incredibly arrogant and dismissive. Your refusal to provide diffs after being asked by two different admins strikes me as evasive. Your opening of the ANI thread below strikes me as disrespectful to everyone else.

I'm not 'piling on', and I'm not suggesting specific sanctions. My preference is still to see this resolved without sanctions, because in many ways I agree with you. What I'm doing here is simply letting you know what sort of negative effect your responses here are having on someone who approached this thread with a bias in your favor. I'm also advising you to get some diffs and use them to defend yourself, or else apologize and strike the comment.

Tell me all about it.

15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am a complicated person, you might wanna get to know me more before you judge me. But, like I explained before, "if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would" (update: someone has, and I did, see above). I have noticed that it is quite difficult to be as diplomatic as I want to be in a foreign language. Not just in English, I have the same problem in other languages. I have a very large vocabulary in Dutch, and using a foreign language limits the ways in which I can express myself. I mentioned two diffs (1 and 2), but I can find many more if you want me to. I am very very arrogant, I won't deny that, but if you read my userpage then you'll discover that there is also another side to that story. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

...you might wanna get to know me more... You see, that's the point. I don't know you very well, and because we're just two Wikipedians from two different countries, I'm not likely to ever get to know you well. From my point of view (and that of everyone else here), there's absolutely no difference between you behaving arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively, and you appearing to behave arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively due to some language difficulties.

Tell me all about it.

15:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are invited for a cup of tea with a stroopwafel, here in Amsterdam. I wrote: "And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently." then Slatersteven posted a comment that was constructive and I responded with "OK, seems like a reasonable request to me". Respect is overrated, love is far more important. I usually treat those who treat me respectfully quite nicely (if I may say so myself), but I am known to annoy those who treat me in a way I dislike with perceived arrogance and dismissiveness. BTW I am here to fix typos, I strongly dislike typos and I've fixed many thousands of them. Some quotes from my userpage: "This user suffers from Bloaty Head". "This user is aware of the fact that he is a hypocrite". "This user knows that he knows nothing". "I hate my fellow-man because I'm hateful to myself!". So yeah, on the one hand I can be an arrogant prick if I want to, and I enjoy that if I think that it is well deserved, but I am not one-dimensional. And most people treat me far better so I return the favor. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Slatersteven has falsely accused me (which I don't really mind), but then he insulted me by writing that I am "a tendentious editor (at best)". That is a clear personal attack (of course this is slightly sarcastic, calling someone a tendentious editor is kinda comparable to calling someone an extremist). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And now the user launches a tit for tat ANI, about a subject "he does not mind".Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read

Straw man argument. I said I don't really mind your false accusation. The subject of this section is your personal attack. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk

) 13:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And not a serious accusation, just taking the piss (by his own admission, he is just using this ANI to mock me) [[34]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked you politely to read

Straw man argument but here you are misrepresenting what I wrote again. I wrote: "if you act like that you will get mocked. That is life." (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk

) 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, here I am again, with yet another disruptive editor in the field of Jewish articles. 79.78.168.63 (talk · contribs) is back disrupting the Hebrew calendar article and talkpage after a half year block. His point of view has been extensively, ad nauseam actually, discussed in a section on the talkpage, and rejected. Nevertheless, today he made an attempt to add his opinion to the article[35] and reopen the talkpage discussion.[36]

In addition, I find it highly suspicious that this editors comes back 1. right now that Rococo1700 was blocked here on WP:ANI for 48 hours 2. is aware of my recent report of Rococ1700 here on WP:ANI as follows from this edit 3. displays the same battleground behavior as Rococo1700, as witnessed from this edit where he says "I will be delighted to meet you at ANI" 4. also edits (and edit wars) Judaism-related articles.

Whether that is a coincidence or not, I think the best course of action is to reinstate the block of this IP. His is a single-purpose account, and the purpose is to be disruptive and push his point of view against consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's probably a coincidence. Their edits don't overlap, but the IP is from a main British ISP, whereas Rococo1700, judging by their editing times, is in the USA. Feel free to start an SPI page if you think they're the same, though. Incidentally, the IP was previously blocked for being a sock of a completely unrelated banned editor, although whether they actually were is another issue. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Not so sure about the unrelated bit. The banned editor in question is known to take great interest in calendar-related articles. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point, really; the banned editor in question is certainly not known for spending 95% of their time on Italian art-related articles, as Rococo1700 does. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me straight. :) Thus encouraged, I have renewed the IP's block for ban-evasion. Favonian (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to have been wrong about Rococo1700, and also with the solution implemented. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

213.123.194.188 (talk · contribs) is continuing the issue on the talkpage. As you can see, he was involved in this issue before, and now suddenly came back after more than a year-long hiatus. I am not sure if this is another sock, but showing up suddenly after more than a year and making no other edits, makes me suspicious. He was previously blocked for sock evasion. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely the same and blocked as such. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of at the end of my rope with

K_arunamon ^Talk 18:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am happy Karunamon brought this discussion to this page. It should be very simple for someone to explain to Karunamon how WP (should) work. (Of course all his claims of "abuse" are outrageous defamation, but whatever.) Here is the issue, someone explain to one of us who is right:

Kay Parker was a porn actress. She was known for one thing, and one thing only: She starred in the original Taboo. If you don't believe me, a simple google search will produce dozens of pages with ACTUAL CLIPS FROM THE MOVIE. The one place you WON'T find this information is . . . wikipedia. Wait, what? The world's encyclopedia doesn't have the most obvious fact about a celebrity? I have for 20 years been a good WP citizen, and whenever I see a mistake or omission I fix the problem in good faith. Lately it has become almost impossible to improve WP because of incidents like this. I added a simple sentence that "Kay Parker is best known for Taboo." Now, if there is a rule that claims on biography pages must be sourced, I am fine with that. It is obviously grossly NOT FOLLOWED, EVEN ON KAY PARKER'S OWN PAGE, but whatever. So what did I do? I provided THREE DIFFERENT CITATIONS TO THIS OBVIOUS FACT, one of the cited pages is ALREADY A SOURCE ON PARKER'S PAGE!!!!! Yes, the information is already available with already cited sources.

And this information has now been deleted multiple times from Parker's page. This kind of abusive editing MUST BE STOPPED. It is destroying the value of wikipedia. If you people won't explain this to this guy, there is no hope for any of you.

(By the way, just to be clear, during this whole charade, I have been trying in good faith simply to add relevant information to Parker's page. This guy is now claiming the reason for deleting the information is my language--that she's "most famous for" taboo. I just want to be clear here, so we are all clear on who is acting in good faith and who is not, I modified that statement the last time I added it so it said "She was in the movie Taboo." THAT WAS ALSO DELETED. (I included citations too.) The biggest thing that has to change here is that the assumption that superusers are being truthful has to stop.

We've discussed this before. "Best known for" is not encyclopedic, or cited. Who's to say that she's not "best known for" some other role? Say she starred in it - fine. Cites prove that. Say she's most well known for it.. there's nothing to support that. K_arunamon ^Talk 22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To Karunamon: "says she starred in it--fine." Yes, exactly, and yet that information is currently not on the Kay Parker page. I added it four or five times. You now admit that it is proper information to have on her page. AND YET THE INFORMATION IS NOT THERE. Because you and others have deleted the information in bad faith multiple times. The page is currently laughably incomplete, and _____I_____, the only one who wants to fix it, have been blocked from fixing it. There is a problem with many of the editors of WP, that is for sure, and I am not it.

At this point I don't even know what you're talking about. Look at the page history, and notice that I made one, and only one edit. All that edit did was delete some invalid userbox syntax, and the opinionated statement you've all but admitted doesn't belong (about "most known for"). I did not remove anything about roles she's starred in wholesale, and at this point, I demand you either link to the edit where I did so, or stop lying about it. Immediately after that revert, and my

talk page signatures. If you want to add sourced information that she starred in Taboo, go for it. That's totally okay, as I've told you in the talk discussions many, many times now. The only reason that discussion ceased is because you told me to stop talking to you. If that information includes unsourced opinions, I will revert it again. "Adding information" and "completeness" are not excuses for violations of the biography of living persons policy. K_arunamon ^Talk

23:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Karumanon, if you haven't been making those edits, what in the world are you talking to me for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.28.103 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You are both discussing article content, and you are disputing its removal. By definition, it's a content dispute and this is not the page for that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz has wrongfully accused me of blanking "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" and is refusing to apologise. All I want is for him to openly acknowledge that I did not blank the page or any part of the page at all. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 19:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI? REALLY??? EEng 19:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the first of Cedric's edits that I saw on that article: kʰä̃nt̚ bi ðat̚ ˈdɪfɪˌkəɫt̚ tʊ weɪtʰ fɔ̝˞ˑ ə̃n əˈfɪʃəɫ əˈnaʊsmə̃nt̚ naʊ, kʰæ̃n ɪt? made 2016-12-18T20:22:03. And here is the second: səˈspɛk̚tʰɪ̆d̚ ˈvæ̃ndəɫlɪzə̆m made 2016-12-23T21:34:03‎. Does any of that make sense?

You have taken "‎Voluntary Disappearance" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais). You're not here. If you are, then we get to address the issues that put you into that discussion: using diacritics in your edit summaries to make them illegible to most native English speakers and attacking anons. As we can see from those two reverts you made, neither have been addressed.

So what exactly would you like me to apologize for Cedric? I didn't accuse you of blanking the Whitecaps article, but rather of removing valid material (duties shared between ... and Scott Rintoul) and attacking an anon. That was your second edit, and the first I reverted. Nothing to apologize for there Cedric. You messed up because you hate anonymous editors Cedric. The warning was level four because you took voluntary disappearance rather than face admin action or community sanction, yet you have not disappeared. I made it clear that your actions are unacceptable Cedric.

At that point I wanted to see how active you had been, so I started digging deeper. That's when I found Cedric's other edits. You've been quite active for someone who has disappeared. If you were in a witness relocation programme, you would be sanctioned for your behaviour Cedric.

No apology is forthcoming from me for warning you for your behaviour and for attacking anons. And for the record, your request should have gone to a different forum, not ANI (as EEng#s' comment alludes to), but since you started the discussion: I would like to suggest a site block in accordance with the earlier ANI discussion. Pinging those involved in the previous discussion: @Hijiri88:, @OpenFuture:, @In ictu oculi: Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You're lucky I just happened across this, as your ping was malformed. By the way, you should not phrase it as "using diacritics in your edit summaries"; "using gibberish edit summaries" would be better, as it seems likely that the bad framing (as though this was a reinvigoration of the old "diacritic wars") was what confused In ictu oculi and others last time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• <Insert cute circumlocution for BOOMERANG.> I'm concerned that OP's userpage suggests he has some kind of special role with WMF. EEng 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support boomerang. Clearly Cedric has undisappeared. As User:Rich Farmbrough (the only one against a block before Cedric disappeared) said in the previous ANI, "this editor is subject to a block at any time they resume this behaviour." Incomprehensible diacritic-filled edit summaries [59], [60], [61], and [62]. Personal attack via Nazi reference [63] Meters (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I need to make something clear:

• Neither of those two summaries were attacks directed towards anyone, registered or not. I admit that I used to have a foul mouth towards IPs, but I had since stopped. All I did in those edits mentioned by Walter Görlitz was suggesting the editor to "wait for an official announcement". So that's yet another wrongful accusation from Walter Görlitz. Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, there can be no peace between the two of us.
• Just because I used a German term does not mean I was referring to anyone as a Nazi, just like the fact that calling someone a "grammar Nazi" does not equal accusing someone of being a member of the
  National Socialist German Workers' Party
  .
• Those aren't
  suprasegmentals
  .

Therefore, if I go down, Walter Görlitz needs to go down, too, for refusing to apologise for repeated wrongful accusations.

P.S. For future reference, anyone who does not fight back fiercely against wrongful accusations had lost the faith in the system. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 22:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a very large difference between calling someone a "grammar Nazi", and calling someone "Herr Reichkommissar" as you did. Meters (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, there can be no peace -- Can you spell WP:ḆÁŤȚĻĘĞŘỖŪŃĐ? EEng 23:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Okay. I rephrase that: Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, we will be unable to work with each other. My apologies for causing confusions. Also, if you want me to withdraw the "Herr Reichkommissar" part, I do that too. My intended reference was East Germany, not Nazi Germany. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 23:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not the sort of system that you would be well advised to have faith in. It is designed primarily to keep the encyclopaedia running, not to mete out justice either for or against you.

The fact is that these types of edit summaries are scarcely readable - to the extent that using them is disruptive.

I do not want to see you blocked, but nor do I want to see this disruption continue. I suggest you stop using disruptive edit summaries, then you will have a much better chance of being treated as a colleague.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: We'll have a deal. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 23:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for political statements, so could you please remove "Hates TPP" from your signature? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps Cedric could also explain why we should believe that his or her reference to Reichskommissar was a reference to East Germany rather than to Nazi Germany when apparently East Germany never used the term? Meters (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Kaiser Wilhelm had them too so I guess it's OK. Near miss, though. EEng 00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the

Second Reich. Still has nothing to do with East Germany though, which was Cedric's explanation, and the vast majority of people will naturally associate "Reichkommisar" with the much-more-recent Third Reich, so I don't think it's a "miss" at all. I think Cedric got caught dead-to-rights throwing a Nazi-related reference at WG and his "explanation" was a lame attempt to wiggle out of it, just as his "explanation" that his edit summaries were "suprasegmentals" and not diacritics, was totally beside the point, which is that he was deliberately crafting his edit summaries so that no one (or at least very few people) could understand them. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 02:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. Fine. I admit it. I thought it was referring to the likes of Commissars from other Communist countries before I actually read the article and I admit that I shouldn't use that term now that I realise its Nazi reference. And If I get blocked for a definite period of time for this particular offence, then so be it. But it's only natural for a person to fight back again wrongful accusations like "attacking an anon" — Frankly, if "suspected vandalism" (key word: suspected) counts as an

personal attack, I wouldn't know what doesn't count. So if WG refuse to apologise for his wrongful accusations, nobody should have faith in this system afterwards, since it's become little more than a popularity contest. Cédric

03:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Baloney. I don't know you, and I don't know Walter Gorlitz, so "popularity" has nothing to do with anything. Staying within the boundaries of acceptable behavior is what's on the line here, and that is why you're getting this pushback, which you keep making worse with each statement you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, Thank you for removing "Hates TPP" from your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support BOOMERANG as well. I was much more accommodating nine months ago when Cedric was making some useful edits and the editor's edit summaries were somewhat legible. Both of those have deteriorated. Couple the editor's stance against anons, and I can't support anything other than a block. My preference would be indefinite own talk page privileges left intact so that an appeal can be made, something along the lines of a Wikipedia:Standard offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Please indent this as needed. The diacritics-y stuff in edit summaries is IPA. kʰä̃nt̚ bi ðat̚ ˈdɪfɪˌkəɫt̚ tʊ weɪtʰ fɔ̝˞ˑ ə̃n əˈfɪʃəɫ əˈnaʊsmə̃nt̚ naʊ, kʰæ̃n ɪt? = "can't be that difficult to wait for an official announcement now, can it?"; səˈspɛk̚tʰɪ̆d̚ ˈvæ̃ndəɫlɪzə̆m = "suspected vandalism". Gotta run, tofu turkey time. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)