Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

BLP violations and edit warring by BigDwiki

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

---

• BigDwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jazz Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite an 8 year tenure on Wikipedia, BigDwiki seems unfamiliar with WP:BLP. This user keeps adding poorly sourced edits to Jazz Jennings to include her deadname, despite WP:BIRTHNAME and past discussion on the article's talk page. The user offers Youtube and voterrecords.com as a source. This is a clear violation of BLP in an area under discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was in the middle of adding a new section here when this one popped up, so I'll respond here. There appears to be an edit war going on at Jazz Jennings. Despite consensus on the talk page, and plenty of sourced contributions, several editors want to continue to revert edits and claim that they are "vandalism". Youtube is indeed a reliable source. The subject of the article plainly states on his/her own Youtube video that "my legal name is Jaren", and thus it was added as a source and added to the article. There seems to be a steady beat of editors adding the subject's real legal name to the article, and then having it reverted as "vandalism" by activist editors that are dead-set on keeping the subject's real name out of the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You can also stop templating me... but I'd love to see this supposed consensus on the article's talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please describe your logic when you have left me three such templates.BigDwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I left 2 warning templates. When I realized you'd been here 8 years, I took it to ANI instead of AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the issue at-hand here rather than go off about "who can template who". Warnings get left; people get templated. It's not a big deal... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If they've stated publicly that their legal name is Jaren, why is that a BLP violation? Natureium (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BIRTHNAME. This is not widely published info. I'm sure you're aware of the issues surrounding deadnames with the whole Chelsea Manning naming issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That's just it. It's not a violation. Both the video on the TLC episode page as well as the Youtube video state it. https://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/i-am-jazz/videos/jazz-and-jeanette-at-dmv BigDwiki (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not. Manning's current and former names are both widely known as they were a public figure before and after transitioning. What's the BLP issue? Natureium (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I don't know if we have a reliable source for the spelling of that name, but in my view the main content problem here is the surname, which has been discussed multiple times without anyone ever providing a good enough source for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC x3) The Wikipedia manual of style does state that someone's name should be listed as the name they are famous under, and a name no longer in use should not be stated in the lead unless the subject was famous under it. The person in question was not famous under their birth name. Thus, if included in the article, it should not be in the lead. After looking in the aricle, BigDwiki seems to want it to be in the lead, when, frankly, much like the Laverne Cox article, it does not belong there. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is in the lead or not is not a concern of mine. As long as it is included in the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You most certainly do not have consensus for such an edit. And I would object any proposals that include "sources" like that mocking book or non-RS like voterrecords. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You are free to object, but I find that you are obviously very biased in this transgener/LGBT topic withj your reverts. You've called criticizm "mocking book", yet consider pro-transgender articles as fact. Also, you're convieniently dodging the Youtube and TLC network sources where the subject clearly and undeniably states that his/her legal name is Jaren.BigDwiki (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge my biases and that this topic is personal to me. Were I an admin, I would still have filed here at ANI because of that "involvement" with the topic. But my reverts don't make me "very biased" and I do not "consider pro-transgender articles as fact". Rather I understand the science behind these topics decently well enough and I am familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules and practices in the topic of trans issues. We do not include Laverne Cox's deadname, even though I think you can sources similar to the TLC clip. Why? Because of BLPPRIVACY, BIRTHNAME, and WP:HARM. Too often editors wish to add deadnames to shame or humiliate trans people, but claim it's for "the record" or "readers' information". The person's birthname in these cases adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

BigDwiki, from looking at the page, you were edit warring to include their dead name right after the person's preferred moniker. This is generally inadvisable, and goes directly against our style guide. Whether or not it was a concern of yours, your inclusion of it there has become a concern. Further, wikipedia does not care about, as you put it "real names"; We care about the name a person became notable under. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've left formal DS alerts on both the BLP and GamerGate cases. If this behaviour continues, I believe it would be topic-ban time. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this "behavior". As far as I see it, adding a properly sourced contribution to an article leads you to the conclusion of "topic ban time"?BigDwiki (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Properly sourced to YouTube? Try indef per CIR. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's way too far. YouTube isn't the best source, but banning someone soley over citing what could be a reliable video is a CIR violation in it's self. —JJB^ers 18:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• On one level I can understand the issue: the MOS sections on birthnames are inconsistent in their intent, and the one being applied here would appear to violate WP:NOTCENSORED, especially considering who the source of the information is. On the other hand, the politics of the matter are clear, and BigDwiki needs to drop the stick and give up. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• As an aside, I just noticed that reference #12 is indeed a youtube video and it is used in the article and has remained there without objection. "In a Q&A video posted to her YouTube channel in July 2014, Jennings stated that she is pansexual, and that she loves people "for their personality", regardless of their sexual orientation or gender status." BigDwiki (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban

• After reviewing the article, it's talk page, and associated sources, and considering the DS at WP:ARBBLP and BigDwiki's apparent intractability on this issue, I'm proposing a Topic Ban from BLPs, with a duration to be determined. I have full protected the article for avery short time until this issue is resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support BigDwiki's use of such phrases as "his/her real name" shows a rather dire misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies on such matters, there was a claim of false consensus, and he seems rather hostile towards any who disagree with him. I'd suggest a ban until such time as he has shown significant improvement in these areas. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per Icarosaurvus above. 68.42.64.71 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)— 68.42.64.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose He edited a single article, was reverted, and took his concerned to AIV and the talk page which was proper. Banning him considering he has been here for eight years without any blocks or violations is a heavy handed move and smells like oppression because he seems to obviously have views That some people would like to suppress. It looks like the only mistake he made was editing the wrong article where people are extremely heated to begin with. 107.77.253.5 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is totally out of line. BigDwiki (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll join the IP-contributor bandwagon. This is an over-reaction right now, and if disruption continues it can be implemented as Discretionary Sanctions. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no BLP violation. Sources support the edit and there is no suggestion the subject objects to its presence here or elsewhere. This is an MOS dispute. We don't topic ban for MOS disputes. Close, and take this discussion to the article's talk page. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

    I think there seems to be some confusion here. The inclusion of the legal first name is a MOS/editorial discretion issue, but the inclusion of the legal surname is a BLP issue—unless better sources can be found, including the surname is a WP:BLPPRIVACY problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose (at this time until I read more arguments here), as no previous sanctions or administrative actions have been attempted or imposed against this user before. The issues are very problematic, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But banning someone should mean that we have tried other methods and actions to correct this behavior and they have not worked, and that a ban is the logical next step necessary to stop the behavior and prevent additional disruption to the project. I think that we should attempt to impose a less-severe action in this situation, and then consider proceeding if the issue continues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • OpposeWeak support for now. I agree with Oshwah. User was disruptive, but too soon for tban. Tban should be a near last resort imho. Edit: updating vote because of this edit. (14:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting how a provocative suggestion like mine can be a useful tactic to stimulate some comment. That said, EvergreenFir, it begs the question as to what you hoped to gain by bringing the issue to ANI in the first place. It's either a run-of-the-mill content dispute, or a serious BLP/DS issue - what is it to be? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: My hope was that an administrator would intervene and stop the disruption should it continue or that the request for such an intervention would stop the disruption, which was the case here. This board is for cases where there's not clear vandalism but there is clear disruption and that administrator intervention may be required. When I filed, it was not clear that the user would stop but it was clear that AIV was not the appropriate forum. My desired outcome was for the disruption to stop and possibly a block if it had continued or a warning if it had stopped. I do not think of topic ban is out of the question especially should the behavior had continued. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There is and was no "disruption". As multiple editors have pointed out here, there isn't even clarity on whether a BLP violation occurred. It is my position that no violation occurred. If a violation occurred, there would not be so many editors saying that there was no violation.BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand how you think there was no violation. Please read this quote from WP:BIRTHNAME.

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out.

Also, I would like to know why you are so interested in including Jenning’s birth name. You’ve not actually stated any reasons why you want to include the name, you’ve only stated that her birth name should be included. I feel like you’re just trying to shame her and don’t want to admit it. EMachine03 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no BLP violation here, just emotionally-charged editors arguing. Natureium (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfect summarization of the situation. BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's a discussion happening on the article talk page. Why don't we take this and put it there instead of here? GMG^talk 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support regrettably - BigDwiki is still showing WP:IDHT type behavior on the talk pages, despite multiple explanation as to why his sources will not work in the article, and worse, fail WP:BLP  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  12:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read further down the discussion that you lent to, you will see where another editor has analyzed the same question that I raised, and then analyze your response, and found that there was no violation. There seems to be the same number of people accusing this of being a violation as there are people saying that it is not a violation. BigDwiki (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not even close to being a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Have we learned nothing from the Manning case? The use of the phrase "his/her real name" appears to indicate an ideological agenda at work. Gamaliel (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

By this same logic, which I’m not saying is accurate, how is it not an idiological agenda to promote something along the lines of “her name”? BigDwiki (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The MOS, reflecting tons of discussion, follows in the footsteps of other mainstream outlets in instructing users to use pronouns and names conforming with that person's gender identity. Repeated refusal to do so is disruptive and tendentious. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It actually states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." in addition to the gender-identity section. "His/her" is certainly neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is talking about generic contexts (the next sentence is "For example, avoid the generic he."), not about referring to individual transgender people. For this issue, the relevant section of the MOS is MOS:GENDERID. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: are you seriously suggesting using "his/her" in reference to a trans girl is remotely appropriate? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that it is neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: so you think it's appropriate? Shall we use it on all articles then? Or perhaps singular they? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• support Whether or not one agrees with the MOS on this (I have my issues, as I stated above), the onus at this point would be to achieve a different consensus instead of doggedly defying what we have now. I also see similar issues with other BLP disputes (e.g. at Sandy Stimpson; see diff) where there are problems about inclusion of material. The arguments show a failure to appreciate the matters involved. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - "his/her real name" is unacceptable verbiage, and to claim that it is "neutral" shows a profound lack of understanding. To protect the encyclopedia, a topic ban seems to be a very sensible measure. --bonadea contributions talk 22:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - It's hard to take a BLP report seriously when the reporter turns around and opposes a BLP topic ban. Also I can sympathize with the users who don't buy the BLP argument. The content is sourced and not really contentious in terms of accuracy. However that doesn't change the fact that disregarding MOS rules so that you can use a article to "deadname" a trans subject is extremely tendentious and certainly demonstrates a highly warped view of "neutrality". A block is not debatable if this behavior continues, or perhaps a TBAN from LGBT BLPs. I would be inclined to discretionarily implement either of these immediately if issues persist. Swarm ♠ 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: please see my explanation above. I came here because of the incident, not for a topic ban. When considering the proposed topic ban, I know my personal views on this topic may cloud my judgement, so I was airing on the side of caution intentionally. However, to be honest, given the user's responses above I am warming up to the idea of a topic ban. They seem to have no inkling as to why their behavior is problematic. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, particularly given the "his/her name" thing above. That BigDwiki thinks that's "neutral" language shows that they either do not possess the understanding of policy needed to edit in this space, or their own opinions are making them unable to edit appropriately here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose a topic ban, but I would have no problem with the outcome being that BigDwiki is given a warning that describing a trans person's birth name as their "real name" is exceptionally offensive, and will incur a block if it happens again, as it would then be a deliberate act (at the moment I'll assume good faith and believe it was done through ignorance, not malice). Fish+Karate 09:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Striking out, see amended comment below Fish+Karate 12:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Gigantic club being wielded in an edit war. Topping banning from that one article would be fine with me as the editing is tendentious. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. There's something fundamentally preposterous about arguing the BLPPRIVACY prevents us from including a statement not only made by the article subject on national television but reposted to her personal youtube channel, which has more than 400,000 subscribers and whose videos may receive millions of pageviews. Both the subject herself, to some degree, and her parents, without equivocation, describe "Jazz Jennings" as a stage name, a pseudonym, not a legal name; as such many of the arguments here about the MOS are clearly inapplicable. Many of the sources used in the article are plainly no better, and sometimes clearly less reliable, than the sources objected to in this discussion. Too many of the arguments here ignore the particulars for this individual, preferring a generalized view that does not take into account important but inconvenient factors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  Again, as I said above, the BLPPRIVACY issue is not the reliably sourced legal given name, but rather the poorly sourced legal surname, which has not been publicly released by the article's subject, at least not in any source which I am aware of. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as OTT and premature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's opinion above matches mine. Jschnur (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reading this ANI and some of the sources too has led me to agree with Oshwah. —JJB^ers 18:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Given BigDwiki has made the BLP-violating edit again ([1]) despite this thread, and has rightly been blocked for 24 hours, it is now clear there is either a fundamental lack of understanding of, or a blissful disregard for, consensus, community editing, and WP:BLP, so I've changed my argument to support a topic ban, and probably a lengthier block should the behaviour continue. Fish+Karate 12:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Fish and karate, your accusation is false and should be struck or withdrawn entirely. Whether BigDwiki's conduct was appropriate or not (and I believe that one edit in two weeks, which definitively resolved the issue of whether the name in question could be reliably sourced, was appropriately bold editing), there is no reasonable argument that it violated WP:BLP. This dispute has already veered far away from legitimate policy concerns, and blithely making false accusations (by an admin, no less!) only exacerbates a bad situation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Maswimelleu

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

Keeps making edits to a rival political party page Pirate Party UK. Some edits were reverted, only to be made again, and reverted. Eventually they gave up as their edits were proven wrong - but they have recently deleted massive amounts of content from the page again. They resurface intermittently, causing a lot of disruption. The page is a shell of what it once was - and is now wildly inconsistent. Drowz0r (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I've mentioned the issue on their talk page and they agreed to leave a tag for others to "fix" the page... but then made edits again themselves anyway.

They also flew off the handle about being called "ignorant" and so on. Others have noticed the same issue and posted on their talk page but they continue to do it. Drowz0r (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll limit my reply here to a simple rebuttal since this is fairly open/shut:

• I've cleaned up the page because it doesn't conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. I invited Drowz0r to make those changes in a manner of his choosing, but he declined to do so, so I did them. I moved the election results to a different page because they violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE in their original form. I also removed irrelevant content concerning minor officers in the party, as they were not notable.
• I have already pushed a number of Pirate party related pages successfully through the articles for deletion process, and repeated mentions of these people in non notable contexts on the Pirate party page have also been deleted. I have thus stripped down the page to mentions that are notable, aren't a conflict of interest, and are backed up by a reliable third party source.
• The page is overwhelmingly reliant on sources that either fleetingly mention the person mentioned, or come from the party itself. Thus there's little way to establish notability of the people or concepts mentioned.
• I have not flown off the handle at any point. Drowz0r has been fairly disrespectful towards me and I have presented him with various options to resolve this issue, he has declined to compromise and disappears for long stretches of time so I continue with constructive edits. The fact that he leaves me insulting messages on my talk pages and then decides not to make any constructive edits to the Pirate Party UK page leaves me to clean it up myself.

I'm not hugely bothered by the page as a whole, but I'm not going to be intimidated from making constructive edits to a page because it's someone's own political party and because they want to set it out in a way that doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards and is considerably longer and more exhaustive than any other page on a minor UK political party. For an example of what I've been doing elsewhere, look at Mebyon Kernow, which is another minor UK political party page that I cleaned up. I've also created pages on minor parties from scratch, such as Mansfield Independent Forum and Canvey Island Independent Party. These much better suit accepted standards of length and quality, and use third party references that refer directly to the matter at hand. I'm collating a list of all UK political parties which is why I sometimes resurface at Pirate Party UK to clean up the page. I have no particular interest in Pirate politics, Mr Elston, or any other figure involved in the group. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth and speedies

RHaworth (talk · contribs) is a long-standing admin who has done a lot of work to clear the persistent backlog at CAT:CSD. However, I have witnessed him making mistakes and talking to newbies in a far too intemperate a manner. I know admins don't have to be perfect, and I'm not always the most civil and polite admin on the block, granted, but I think he's going a bit too far. Some recent examples:

• UK railway station openings / reopenings by year (now at Draft:UK railway station openings / reopenings by year) - deleted A10 as a copy of History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date though the list intended to cover the greater scope of all UK stations. See comment from Andy Dingley.

• Green tomato cars - deleted G11, after challenged by the creator, the response was "learn to provide a link when you talk about a page". After I restored the article, RHaworth sent it to AfD and moved it to Green Tomato Cars without a redirect (causing a problem where I inadvertently created the article again while I was copyediting it, requiring a history merge to fix). The AfD does not have an unanimous "delete" consensus, which is a good general arbiter of whether or not a speedy is appropriate.

• Draft:Divya Agarwal - deleted G4, though no previous deletion discussion had taken place. See comment from Chrissymad where she appears to be complaining about RHaworth calling Oshwah a "pedant".

• Draft:Comedian Nazareth - deleted per G13, hence can be restored on request. RHaworth's reply was "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who a) knows how to create Wikipedia articles and b) has no CoI, thinks your client is notable and writes about him here.", also altering an earlier talk page comment of mine in the process (a minor violation of WP:TPO).

These are all in the last week or so, but if you go onto RHaworth's talk page archives, you can see other examples of him being unhelpful. I appreciate that speedy deletion is necessary for the project - heck, I speedy delete plenty of stuff myself, and admins sometimes differ over what is speedyable. However, I sincerely believe if you delete a page created in good faith, you should be in a position to work with that editor, and not make them increasingly frustrated. I don't seem to be the only one with this opinion; as you might imagine, SoWhy has previously said "With all due respect to RHaworth, I would never agree that a speedy deletion was justified just because he thought so." and this notorious boingboing piece which says "I do not have the capability to write an additional 2 million more articles in my lifetime to save the remaining 2 million stubs from deletionists like RHaworth, the hemovanadin killer whose itchy deletion finger was noted by a commenter in my previous article as directly responsible for that editor's abandoning the project." (the context here is an incorrect G12 deletion on Hemovanadin). Okay, strong opinions there that not everyone will agree with, but this isn't just a personal grudge, more an indication that there is a problem.

To be honest, I'd feel more comfortable if RHaworth had given me a thorough dressing down about how I was being overly aggressive and how his admin actions were correct (I wouldn't agree with it but I would understand why he would say it), but I've had next to no feedback. Things have deteriorated to the point where I don't trust any deletion activity he does as being correct and just revert anything that I feel is wrong. This is a bad situation to be in, as it's one stop short of wheel-warring, but as Andy Dingley put it here, "Go and do some training for WMF / WMUK somewhere. Hear the "I wrote something and then it was deleted immediately with no discussion" stories - it's so often the same admin names that come up, over and over again." So I think the community needs to do something.

Any ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Awaiting a response by RHaworth; it's unlikely discussion will be productive before then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Ritchie for opening this, although I'm not optimistic about much happening as a result (an admin admit they're wrong?). This is a long-standing issue - although even RHaworth's "unorthodox" user_talk: page archiving strategy makes it impossible to search its history.

Just a month or two back though, we had this one on Category:Bandini vehicles: WikiProject Automobiles §Bandini deletions, Criteria for speedy deletion §G6 on "empty" categories? – another one where an invalid CSD nomination, on a clearly contentious issue, was then implemented as deletion without the slightest check or question. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Further on the "bad press" aspect, we get articles like this: "Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance". Boing Boing. 14 February 2017. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There's another recent complaint at User talk:Feminist#'Murica! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• It has been obvious for very many years to anyone who bothers to look that RHaworth is incompetent to judge speedy deletion. He was one of the two or three admins primarily responsible for my giving up editing with a userid a few years ago. One example among many was his speedy deletion of Cheveley Park Stud and the title's salting in response to my questioning of the deletion. It's about time we did something about long-standing admins who get away with such disruption simply because of their length of tenure. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• He does a LOT of CSD so there is bound to be some who find fault occasionally. Every page subjected to CSD has at least the creator believingbit should remain live. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Try actually looking at his record rather than making such general statements. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not an Admin so I can only see so much - but the IP should actually look at my 11 page long record covering only since June 2017 before assuming I don't have a very good idea about every Admin's competence in processing Speedies. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, I do lots of speedies myself; however I think the key issue is effective communication and managing people's expectations. It's why I created essays such as User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios simply because trying to explain WP:G12 (which requires an instant deletion, if valid) to a newbie without them getting the hump is actually quite a difficult task. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If we're going to let publications such as BoingBoing dictate our policies and (worse) ANI-cases against admins, we're definitely on the wrong track. The two articles cited are prime examples of hit-pieces instead of serious press. If BoingBoing doesn't like Wikipedia, I tend to view that as a compliment. As to the matter at hand, I side with Legacypac: you can't make an omelet w/o breaking some eggs, you can't be an admin without stepping on various toes. Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Have you read the Boing Boing piece? Have you read the technical backstory to the hemovanadin CSD? This was a technical failure in sloppy adminship: a clear and unquestioned copyvio change to an article (previously not a copyvio) was reacted to by deletion, rather than reversion. There's just no excuse for that. The Bandini category was deleted for an invalid CSD reason which just isn't applicable to content categories (it's there for housekeeping of maintenance categories only).

AfD is always a battle between inclusionism vs. deletionism. But this isn't AfD, it's CSD - that should be simpler, there's no judgemental wiggle room for inclusion or not. CSD is there (and only there) for the technical reasons and the unambiguous invalid articles. If someone, even the article creator, can make a policy-valid case that an article might be suitable for inclusion, then the CSD fails and it goes to AfD as a minimum. CSD is just not there for arguing inclusionist / deletionist cases. But these deletions are so often technically broken - outside the policies of valid CSD rules. CSD is not about "speedy" deletion, it's about clear, unarguable and uncontestable deletion. If they're arguable, there are other mechanisms. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: I have read both pieces and both, but especially the first, lack any journalistic decency. Both depend more on insinuations than facts. I have gone through the history of hemovanadin and what I see is Wikipedia working as it should. Someone screwed up and it got corrected quickly. I despise all isms and actively dislike people who reduce issues to various isms, since that's a very divisive way dealing with things. If you expect admins to be flawless, you'l be disappointed. No-one (but no-one) on Wikipedia is. Kleuske (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• See my comment in the recent SoWhy thread: RHaworth is on the opposite end of the speedy-deletion spectrum as SoWhy. He will delete a lot of things I wouldn't, but at the same time, most of the things he deletes really should be deleted, and having someone to push the envelope in that direction in terms of quality-control isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've brought an article to DYK after he deleted it (Tallinn Central Library (deletion log under a different title.), and I'll admit that his response to me was a bit gruff, but this was also how it stood when he deleted it. I can't rally blame him for that, even if my approach was different.
  I've noticed a few G12s in the past that I think he should be more careful on (I can't find them now, so this is more of just general feedback than an accusation or diff-able type thing), and I do think that he could be better in his responses to users on his talk page, but at the end of the day, I think he does a lot of good work that is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"I do think that he could be better in his responses to users on his talk page" And Donald Trump could be a bit more conciliatory and tactful over what he says in public. Anyway, that's not the real issue here, which is - if I happen to see a deletion from RHaworth that I disagree with (which seems to be about four a week at the moment), is the community okay with me just restoring it and telling him to go jump? I don't think that's a healthy situation to be in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "most of the things he deletes really should be deleted"

Most isn't good enough. We have policies for a reason, and they're binding on RHaworth too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure that the vast majority of RHaworth's CSDs are correct, but on the other hand if you're going to do a lot of CSD, you really do need to get the basics right, and you do need to communicate reasonably with often unhappy users. The first three examples quoted by Ritchie (the A10 of the railway stations, the G11 of the taxi company, and the G4) were all simply wrong. Whilst calling Oshwah a pedant was unnecessary, the G4 doesn't really matter that much because the article was deletable as G11 (although I note the person is probably notable if someone wrote a proper article), but the other two were not. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "you really do need to get the basics right, and you do need to communicate reasonably with often unhappy users. " Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I can agree with your analysis. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Admins that do a lot of CSD will have the appearance of making more mistakes (believe me, I would know). Relative to other admins, RHaworth has been our most active non-bot admin by an enormous margin since the beginning of 2018. I'm skeptical that RHaworth's ratio of errors to deletes is higher than any other admin. Yes, his communication style could be better, but I'm not seeing any immediate need for sanctions. -FASTILY 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've got a good theory behind that. If you just accept every CSD tag is correct and just hit "delete" indiscriminately regardless of whether it's justified, you can get through a backlog far quicker than if you look at the article and sources, and confirm whether deletion is the correct action. To give you an example, I've just declined two A7s for Nancy Smith (designer) and Monica Rawlins; fixing up the article so it is properly formatted and clearly shows sources (principally to stop somebody else coming along and tagging it them A7 again) took about ten minutes. Hitting the "delete" button on the pair would have taken ten seconds. In that respect, it's no different than the problems I saw at AfC some years back where a few editors "helpfully" cleared the backlog of reviews by declining just about everything. I apologise if it wasn't obvious from the opening statement, but I wasn't particularly looking for sanctions (what form would said sanctions take, for a start?); rather I just wanted an explanation. I certainly haven't got one from his talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Contrary to what many may think, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. Hence the timing of this reply. Yes, Ritchie I think you are being overly aggressive. Apparently I am not allowed to make any mistakes at all. But to look at the examples you quote:

• Green tomato cars. I don't even call this a mistake, simply an example of bold / revert / discuss operating as it should. I found it with a speedy tag, agreed with that tag and made bold to delete it. Ritchie disagreed and reverted my deletion. I initiated an AfD discussion. What's the problem?

• UK railway station openings / reopenings by year. Similar to the above but in this case I have not even bothered to initiate a discussion.

• Draft:Divya Agarwal. A favourite line of mine from Murder in the Cathedral: "the last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason". Certainly giving an inaccurate deletion reason seems to be a treasonable offence on Wikipedia.

• Draft:Comedian Nazareth. The message on my talk page did not explicitly request a restore. Was I expected to restore the work of an obvious CoI merchant voluntrarily? or even advise him of his rights to make such a request?

In short: I defend all my deletions - am I required to be perfect? - if a small fraction of them were "wrong" others have restored them. But Ritchie, feel free to comment if you think I am communicating unreasonably with any unhappy user. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by this response at all, and a candidate at RFA would be pilloried for it. For non-admins, a CSD is not the start of a BRD-style discussion, but the end of one. The CSD guidelines also state Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases, which is the opposite of BOLD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@ RHaworth: I'm not sure you've understood the concern Ritchie333 has raised. It's fine if you make mistakes, we all do. But when other editors ask you for deletion explanations and/or help, could you please make an honest effort to be of assistance? I don't think that's an unreasonable request. -FASTILY 23:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Given the divergence of views on what should be deleted, there will always be disagreements. I tag or delete a lot of CSDs, and not every one of them has been correct. My usual guess is that any experienced person should have a <5% error rate, the best practical human error rate is 1%, and I manage about 2%. Most of my errors are borderline, a few are just stupid. RHaworth and I and most experienced admins almost always agree for speedies--but not quite always. (& I point out that even "most obvious cases" will always have a fuzzy boundary of whether something really is quite that obvious.)

But the real problem here is that it is utter unacceptable to respond "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who a) knows how to create Wikipedia articles and b) has no CoI, thinks your client is notable and writes about him here." , even to people writing blatantly promotional paid biographies. And even worse for autobiographies, it come out as "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone ... thinks you are is notable and writes about you here." (My own wording for that rather common situation is "When you become notable enough that other people write about you in third-party independent reliable sources, then someone will be interested enough to write your biography". The message will be understood equally well.) I cannot imagine ever saying "Kindly have the decency .." on wikipedia even at the peak of frustration, let alone routinely. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he just played too much Bioshock? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--I concur with much of what Ritchie has said.And, my sole experience with him has been pathetic, when post an interesting OTRS conversation, I asked him to refund a non-speediable article, so that it could be AFD'd but he went into a radio-silent-mode and didn't refund it.And, I would appreciate RHaworth, giving us assurances of more-friendly communication.All that being said, I somehat concur with Tony that having sysops at both end of the spectrum is beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 06:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I am a relatively new administrator and am only 126 on the list of those taking admin actions in 2018 (including bots), I am reluctant to criticize the far more experienced #1 human administrator. But I have to agree with Ritchie333 and DGG, among others. Any good faith editor who comes to your talk page deserves a good faith, informative response, rather than something dismissive. Certainly, there may be disagreement about who is truly acting in good faith, but when there is any doubt, please try to err on the side of kindness and helpfulness, RHaworth. That is the Wikipedia way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

actually, I extend it even to those who may not be in good faith.I'lll give a full explanation the first time round, assuming good faith. If it becomes evidence other, the way to proceed is to still be polite, but firm. We cannot ask someone directly for their identity, but i do say, that I cannot help further unless I know who you represent. If they do not want to acknowledge the coi, that tends to give a conclusion. In particular, I always ask that of anyone who appeals to me privately off wiki. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as how RHaworth's user page states "I have a well-justified reputation for blunt speaking on talk pages. But such pages are not a vicar's tea party. I take my standards from parliamentary language - if a Speaker would allow it then I use it" he is unlikely to start communicating in a friendly manner, whether the users are good-faith or not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As I write, I can see five unanswered posts on RHaworth's talk page from editors wondering why their article was deleted - I would say this is a good opportunity for him to show he can take the above advice on board and put this discussion to bed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Got to love the second discussion on his talkpage where he states "I hate it when I leave messages and people completely ignore them". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ouch. Looks like RHaworth is at about the point where I usually take a Wikibreak :-( Guy (Help!) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Abstractly, there is a pattern on Wikipedia where high output contributors come under the microscope, and plenty of evidence is found on which to crucify them. Here in RHaworth, we have the 2nd most prolific admin in terms of deletions in the history of Wikipedia. In the 4620 days he has been an administrator, he has deleted things 393340 times, or ~85 a day. Even if he is right 99.9% of the time (highly unlikely) he still has a mistake every other week. We can find plenty of evidence to suggest he's making lots of mistakes in speedy deletions. Contrast; if we had an admin that did 1000 deletions and made only 1 mistake (RHaworth's presumed ratio), we'd congratulate them on a job well done. It should be noted that RHaworth is the 6th most active undeleter, with 7272 undeletions, or about two a day. All this said, I consider it highly important than an administrator be responsive to queries about their actions and to do so in a civil manner. This is ensconced in policy at WP:ADMINACCT. I would much rather see an admin engage in less deletions and rapid, civil responses to queries than to see high volume deletions and slow/uncivil responses. The reason we need administrators with such high volume output is due to declining participation in such things. The answer to that is not more deletions with less proper responses, but more proper responses and less deletions so as not to dissuade future highly active editors, and later administrators. We need to foster the community. We can't do that by deleting everything on sight and then not responding as to why. I'm not suggesting RHaworth is doing this, but rather what we need to avoid. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• "I don't even call this a mistake, simply an example of bold / revert / discuss operating as it should." I don't. I call it "Reverting another admin's actions without discussion". Normally, when I see a G11 I disagree with (which isn't often), I'd say something like "hey, I think I can clean this up, do you mind if I restore it?". But with you I see pages of rude or intemperate replies (as other people have mentioned), so I think I'll just get the same if I requested it (as Godric has mentioned), which leads me to not think it's worth the hassle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have found a lot of errors in RHaworth's speedy deletions, and in some cases they clearly delete outside the bounds of what is permitted by the various criteria, see their comment about halfway through this diff. That being said, their error rate is probably about the same as anyone else's, it is just more noticeable given the sheer amount of work they get through. I do wish they'd stick a little closer to the rules though, and that's coming from an unashamed deletionist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
• I think we all need to be careful conflating outright 'errors' with 'my opinion would be different there'. If RHaworth occasionally deletes something that - in a presumably less-reductive view - should not have been deleted because it could have become a 'real' article, then you can ask him to restore it, you can ask another admin to restore it, you can go to WP:RFU, or you can just make the new, better article from scratch, given that the deleted stuff is almost always not of any real encyclopedic value anyway (the topic may be, its treatment at that point was not). It's not like a speedy deletion is a brick wall, and when your article is deleted, even as a new editor, you are clearly pointed towards Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted?. Pillorying is not the solution. Fish+Karate 10:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

But having a an admin with a very terse attitude IS a problem. I guess WP:BITE doesn't apply to Haworth. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Terse!=Bite. Kleuske (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

But, in this case, Bite=Bite. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's your claim. Now back it up. Why this this shitshow still open, BTW? Kleuske (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

From a quick spin through WP:IPHUMAN, "Count yourself lucky I am condescending to talk to an IP address", "I don't talk to IP addresses.", "Consider yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address. .... I wonder if you will ever learn about wikilinks.", "Count yourself very luck that I am replying: no explanation of why you are having to violate my IP address policy; horrible page widening and no link to the deleted article. I am not surprised that your article triggered what has happened: no lede, no link back to the parent and totally unreferenced.".

As for complaints, "have seen your tone in response to many other contributors, and it is obvious that you think highly of your own assessments, even as other administrators disagree. Many of your responses are rather condescending, to the point of being quite rude and unprofessional.", "lso somebody who is a admin should be more nurturing and less condescending.", "I'm not too thrilled that you choose to start this conversation by hurling insults. That's so clearly against WP principles that I'm astonished that you have any kind of administrative capacity." That's from a quick ten minute search on a few terms. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Out of 18.000+ actions? Not a bad score, considering he's only human. I bet you never make mistakes... Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Then we have "There was absolutely no need to e-mail me and the matter is not the slightest bit urgent. If you don't know what has happened, I suggest you learn to read edit histories and logs .... ", "Please learn wikilinks and to not use br" (in response to "Thank you very much for your help" after another admin restored an article speedied by RHaworth), "Do you know the difference between an encyclopedia and a social networking site? Go away to FaceBook.", "Talk about helping lame ducks. If you really cannot find out how to submit a draft, you should not be here.", "Please read this ", "Since you have been foolhardy enough to bring yourself to my attention, I will say: so far you have done nearly an hundred edits none of which are actually contributing to the encyclopedia.", "do it yourself! Learn to use the tools the MediaWiki software provides", "The singular of criteria is criterion. A person who has been on Wikipedia for 10 years and 3 days ought to know to provide a link when they talk about an article.", ""Not through Google" - what an insult to the MediaWiki software which provides all the clues you need. .... In its original form and as amended above by me there are two links, one red one blue. Did it cross your mind to follow the blue link? Have you thought of looking at your contributions history instead of asking Google?", "Get your facts right.", "Don't be ridiculous. I have already told you to put it at draft:Winning Jah (2). Why is that concept so difficult to understand? Please reply." ..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Nice collection of quotes, but I struggle to find anything really uncivil there. Civility does not imply going along with everything, agreeing with anyone,pleasing everybody and never contradict them or point out the fucking obvious. AGF and CIVIL are not suicide pacts. Kleuske (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So you think "This article is shit, fuck off" is an appropriate response to a new user's first article? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Where does he say that? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

He's never said that exactly (the specific wording I used there comes from Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#S), but in my view the wording he did use has the same effect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

But that's really why the thread has got no traction: ~everyone knows that we as a community are—rightly or wrongly—relatively tolerant of brusqueness-to-the-point of incivility, as long as heavy work is being done in the course of it. I also see a lot of people—rightly or wrongly—who don't actually care whether spammers and junkoids do have their pages deleted without a by-your-leave—noobs or not! :D On a lighter note, yes, the Wikispeak page is always worth an outing: doesn't get used enough imho. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"count yourself lucky that I am talking to IP's" and the rest of the diffs are not a 'mistake'. Its called, 'being a massive tool'. A mistake would be 'I did not mean to say/do that'. Not 'I'm going to be completely arrogant and rude in order to deliberately demean you.'. Glad we cleared that up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske:, how many thousand bitey comments do you want to be provided to answer your "now back it up"? Whatever reasonable number you give could certainly be answered from RHaworth's talk page and contribution histories. Try looking for yourself rather than demanding near-impossible feats from others. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

...and despite this ANI thread being open, and explaining to Seraphim System why Association Montessori Internationale doesn't meet the criteria for A7 (despite RHaworth deleting it), and when consensus is moving towards the recreated version being salvageable, he goes and unilaterally moves it to draft without telling anyone. I've got a sore head now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

From my time at AfC, I think User:RHaworth does a lot of valuable work that is a net benefit to the project. Maybe his talk page responses are a bit curt, but it is also not helpful for admins to take an inherently unrealistic and fantastically optimistic approach to the reality of the backlogs at AfC and NPP. Moving this article to draft space was a sound alternative to deletion in this case - in its current condition sourced only to primary sources it would not have passed AfC anyway.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I substantially agree with User:DGG above. To err is human, to be uncivil is not. Unfortunately, WP:CSDs are ripe for adamant SPI's making life miserable for both taggers and deleting admins. A few quite vocal participants in the community expect a perfect score card and are quick to grab the torches and pitchforks. Alas, in human endeavors, perfection isn't possible. In my experience, speedy deletions that are overturned - all with much ballyhoo and sniping - are often deleted through other means and the tendency toward WP:BUREAU marches along. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• I think a convincing case has been made that the CSD errors themselves can probably be overlooked and forgiven. Unusually high volume of reviews = correspondingly high volume of mistakes, and as Hammersoft demonstrated above, even a 99.9% rate of accuracy would yield the appearance of relatively many mistakes being made. In spite of this, a substantial case has been made regarding RHaworth's interpersonal communications. Enough to demonstrate a persistant pattern of seriously problematic behavior. On top of that, in a rare display, there's a strong consensus view that that the community does not find his conduct to be acceptable, and is far beyond the levels of incivility that we normally let slide. In my opinion, RHaworth failing to engage here because he "has a life" is in itself indicative of the problem. @RHaworth: I think, in the interest of WP:ADMINACCT, you should heed the community's view that your conduct in communicating has been below the expected standard from an administrator. Just show us that you accept the criticism and assure us that this is something you can and will work to improve on. I think that's all any of us are looking for here. That said, the consensus in this thread would appear to be tantamount to a community condemnation of your conduct (I'm searching for a less poignant term than "condemnation" but a more accurate one isn't coming to me). I don't think this is something you can get away with just ignoring. Swarm ♠ 22:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Obi2canibe and Wikipedia ethics

An experienced user:Obi2canibe is continuing to bully and trouble wikipedians who edit articles related to Sri Lanka for some years now. He first tried to bully and chase away the editors who were interested in Sri Lankan civil war related articles. His behavior directly and indirectly resulted many Sri Lankan wikipedians to vanish from Wikipedia (Most of them fear to complain considering his very high article/edit count and the destruction he may caused to their work in Wikipedia). Now he has started to trouble even the nicest of Sri Lankan Wikipedians who are not interested to edit Sri Lankan war related articles. A recent comment from an neutral editor is given here (comment i). Could some administrator or a user with special rights look into this matter ? Thanks. RitzAgasti (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

1) I have notified the user; 2) where is your attempt t discuss the issues with the user before coming to ANI?; 3) have you edited under another account before, seeing as your first edits are to ANI?; 4) please provide some links showing examples of the edits you have issues with. GiantSnowman 08:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Many have tried to discuss this with him, but no use (most of them do not edit wikipedia anymore or have reduced the number of contributions). My responsibility is to report this hidden ongoing issue here at ANI and I have given a very recent example of a comment made by a wikipedia admin about it. A recent example for his bahviour is given here [2]. Old example for his behavior is given here (not my self) (many incidents have happened and went unnoticed in between). It is up to the admins to investigate using available tools and take a suitable action or to ignore it as have happened many times before and let him continue on his merry way (easier option is the second one). --RitzAgasti (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RitzAgasti - Umm, no... you have a couple of things incorrect here:

1. The examples you provided here are edits by Obi2canibe that were made in 2009 and 2011 - that's over seven years ago. Aside from that, I don't see any bullying or inappropriate behavior with those edits at all.
2. Your example here, while I agree could perhaps have been worded a bit nicer and to a tone that reads that he's assuming good faith, this discussion seems fine and they seem to be working to correct some incoming link issues... no big deal.
3. You are incorrect with your implications when you state that "it is up to the admins to investigate using available tools and take a suitable action" - it is up to you to provide direct and solid evidence with all of your accusations and statements; so far, you have only given a link to a discussion and three edits made many years back. Your other accusations such as this user causing others to vanish and ongoing bullying and other violations made by this user to other accounts - have come with absolutely no evidence at all. This is not acceptable; accusations are taken seriously here, and making such statements without evidence can be considered uncivil and disruptive, which are grounds for having action taken.
4. You have not answered all of GiantSnowman's questions.

I highly recommend that you resolve the concerns I've expressed or clarify any statements above, as I'm seeing absolutely no weight behind your accusations against Obi2canibe so far... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. While the above post itself is quite shallow and lacks evidence, I would like to weight in on RitzAgasti's claims. I am the founder of Wikimedia Sri Lanka, and an admin here. I have a number of local editors on my watchlist, and RitzAgasti is not wrong. This user has been stealthily taunting a number of editors - mostly those from Sri Lanka. While I do openly agree that Obi2canibe does good work here on Wikipedia, I have a number of diffs and permalinks that show extremely disturbing underlying behaviour of this particular user. Most of which did go unnoticed as most users just don't have the time, patience, or knowledge, to go through our escalation processes.

I will not provide any links to the diffs I mentioned yet, as the issue is currently being discussed with other uninvolved admins. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, I will comment here again.

In summary, commenting in my admin capacity: I would have warned and/or blocked this user if the above linked conversation continued. They very clearly have a problem with Sinhalese people, and very clearly is stealthily taunting such editors on wiki. As a person who is in fact doing everything I can to promote contributions from Sri Lanka, it is very clear to me that this user is doing serious harm to the community, and should not be ignored. Rehman 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Rehman - That's what I said to myself as well - if the user was being belligerent and uncivil to that high of a level on your user talk page, you certainly would have taken some kind of action. Hence I took it as a conversation where the wording he used wasn't great, but also wasn't something I considered an actionable event. I understand your thoughts and feeling about Obi2canibe, but I need diffs and specific examples before I can agree or begin to make judgment here... Let me know how things go :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rehman - just wanted to check in here. Can we move to close this discussion for now, or are there further concerns and diffs that you wish to provide and add to it? Let me know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. After discussing the issue with another admin, I've decided to post the links here in public. I will do so within the next 24hrs (I'm currently at work). Kind regards, Rehman 06:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rehman - No rush; just ping me when you do. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Apologies for the delay in responding. Below are some diffs and/or permalinks mentioned earlier (dates are approximate).

• 2008-11-12 - Created their userpage by calling Sinhalese people "the forces of evil", sometime after removing facts claiming were misinformation on Wikipedia by "Sinhalese nationalists".
• 2013-02-06 - Numerous 'sinhala vs. tamil" conflicts with User:Himesh84. Links on this page branch out to other large convos with other editors. The user disappeared, before/after eventually being blocked due to sockpuppetry following repeated taunting.
• 2015-11-08 - Opposed facts, calling it "Sri Lankan propaganda" and "Sinhalisation of names in Tamil areas". This was my first interaction with this user.
• 2015-12-25 - Refusing to state LTTE terrorist activities as such, and asking the opposing editor to "Leave Wikipedia"
• 2016-01-02 - Against Sinhala pronunciation? Note that this is against WP:COMMONNAME.
• 2016-01-03 - When question the above edit, the user accused me of being a "Sinhalised Tamil speaker". I am neither Sinhalese nor Tamil. This is my 2nd bump-in with this user.
• 2016-02-21 - Open-ended/convos that don't stick to the topic like these are quite common. Especially when it seem to involve editors from Sri Lanka.
• 2016-04-17 - This Sri Lankan user's talkpage is flooded by rude warnings, including one which asks him to leave Wikipedia. The user has vanished.
• 2016-12-14 - Various attempts to delete the article on this notable Sri Lankan figure.
• 2017-01-07 - Edits such as these are all too common. Note that Sinhala is the primary language of Sri Lanka.
• 2017-01-14 - Dispute on who wrote the Sri Lankan National Anthem.
• 2017-07-30 - Public personal attack on my work at the Wikimedia User Group on Meta.
• 2018-04-08 - Then finally, this incident, which made me take a closer look at this user's history.
• 0000-00-00 - Searching venues such as ANI, using keywords, or having a close look at the user's usertalk and article talk contribs, or any other discussion page for that matter, would definitely bring up more concerning results. Note that I haven't checked other Wikimedia projects.

Again, I want to clearly emphasize that User:Obi2canibe is a dedicated contributor, and I personally admire his work. That being said, his actions against other Sri Lankan contributors is clearly damaging the community, and has a serious domino effect. One new user with a bad experience not only share that experience in RL, but others looking at the offensive talkpage would also multiply that result. If I come across unnecessarily offensive messages (like the Laxapana post on my talkpage) from this user to anyone, I would not hesitate to take the appropriate action.

At the same time, since this discussion is on, I will leave it up to the OP and anyone else involved to decide on what action to take from here on. My best interest is to protect and empower the tiny editor base in Sri Lanka, even if that means blocking Obi2canibe. A topic ban on all Sri Lanka related articles may be something to consider. Rehman 17:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rehman: is clearly involved here and explicitly violating WP:ADMINACCT and WP:INVOLVED with whom he has had content disputes. His threat to ban or block Obi2canibe will be clear violation of this policy.

Further there appears to be a clear case of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT here.

• On 8th April 2018 Obi2canibe asks him fix Dab and Rehman threatens to ban him
• On 10th April 2018 a sock -RitzAgasti comes out from nowhere solely posts in ANI and directly attacks Obi2canibe quoting Rehman in ANI and does not answer questions about previous account.Then Rehman posts in this discussion through he was not notified.Feel someone should open a sock invetigation against Rehman.Clearly fails WP:DUCK here.

None of the differences show any violation of WP:NPA ,WP:3RR or any major policy.Note Obi2canibe has been around since 2008 just as Rehman.

• There is a content dispute on 2017-01-14 - Dispute on who wrote the Sri Lankan National Anthem. Obi2canibe rightly goes to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
• This is content issue over the name which was discussed in the talk page Between Rehman and Obi2canibe both discuss the civily I see nothing wrong from either user
• Obi2canibe nominates to AFD once it is kept nothing wrong there. I couldn't understand why is Rehman saying, 2016-12-14 - Various attempts to delete the article on this notable Sri Lankan figure.
• User:Himesh84 was blocked over 10 times by various admins Here clearly false that he left due to Obi2canibe.Kaytsfan (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kaytsfan: Thanks, you saved me a lot of time in finding evidence to defend myself against some very weak accusations. How on earth did you find out about this discussion?

@RitzAgasti: You are clearly a sockpuppet but whose? Rehman's? Himesh84's? Who are you? Be a man, reveal yourself.

@Rehman: You've spent a lot of time trawling my contributions to find evidence that I'm causing "serious harm to the community" but much of the evidence you've gathered is just content dispute. Disputes are fact of Wikipedia. If you go through any user's contributions, particularly one who has been here for as long as me and edits a contentious subject, then you will find that they have been in disputes. Does that justify a blanket topic ban?

I will for now only respond to one of the diffs you've provided, the very first one (2008-11-12). This is from ten years ago (there's no statute of limitation on Wikipedia!) and is something I regret. I came to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons (to balance my perceived imbalance in Sri Lankan articles) but stayed for the right reasons (to create well sourced articles on a topic that was under represented on Wikipedia). I removed the offending content from my user page but as it remained in its history I was advised by an experienced user to delete the page. I did this later. Now you have abused your admin privileges to dig up deleted content. Not cool.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kaytsfan:, I was not aware of @RitzAgasti: contribution history (i.e. only at ANI). I am more than happy if a sock check is done for the user, if that ensures things go smoothly. That being said, yes I do agree that there is a high chance Ritz is a sock. No new editor drops straight into ANI. Update: Oddly, you too seems to have only recently come out of dormancy and dropped directly into ANI. I've also noticed this edit which is odd, because barnstars are usually posted on the user talkpage. Anyways, I am not interested in digging into this any further. Rehman 04:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe:, with all due respect, it is up to you if you decide to only respond to the easiest diffs. Yes I understand the older permalinks, despite being wrong, can no longer be considered relevant. I've been here as long as you, and I have done stupid things as well. Without beating around the bush, if you could clearly accept that you were unfair/wrong in cases like the Laxapana/Channukam/calling people "Sinhalised"/calling edits "Sri Lankan propaganda"/your personal attack on Meta, and can promise not to take that route again, I am willing to step out of this conversation and let you continue with Ritz, who initially started this conversation. Like I said, my best interest is the health of the community, and looking at most of your work, I'm sure it is yours too. Rehman 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As the user who has initiated this thread,i must admit that i am neither Himesh84 nor Rehman. Also i have not awarded any barnstars to my own account using socks and this account was created solely to secure my account from posssible negative consequences of reporting mighty obi2canibe who has possibly 5 to 10 accounts with several thousands of useful and useless edits. RitzAgasti (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

{reply to|RitzAgasti} "this account was created solely to secure my account from posssible[sic] negative consequences" Not sure that counts as a sock puppet, but it seems to. Per the policy: "Sock puppetry takes various forms: [...] Creating new accounts to avoid detection." There are legit reasons to have multiple accounts; the reason you gave doesn't seem to be one of them. So, think carefully before you go casting aspersions else you be hit with boomerang.Sudden Someone (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rehman: Please note systematic Sinhalisation (article created by @Kanatonian:) is a fact in Sri Lanka and is considered to be the major cause for Sri Lankan Civil War. I don't see anything ulterior why Obi2canibie is objecting when the words are Sinhalised on Wiki articles in Tamil areas.Kaytsfan (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@RitzAgasti: Can you identify those socks of Obi2canibie? Kaytsfan (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rehman: You are backtracking. In your earlier comments you stated that I was clearly doing serious harm to the community and deserved a topic ban. If you truly believed this, you would pursue the matter rather than settling for an apology.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Un-sourced content and refusal to present a source

• Slapnut1207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Slapnut1207 has been editing tens of articles on Roman emperors but failing to present any reliable source. He did this in the article of Zenobia, where he insisted that he is improving the page by deciding which title she held, even though his edits are contradicted by sources within the article (which is featured).

Diff: 1, 2...etc

I asked him not to insert inaccurate information on his talk page User talk:Slapnut1207#Palmyrene empire and I asked him to participate in a discussion on the article's talk page. He reverted and only after I told him that this will be reported did he reply in the talk page... then reverted me again telling me that he did the talke page!.. this time he added a source that does not support his edits as he wants to call Zenobia either Empress of Rome or Empress of Palmyra and his source did not contain an evidence for both!.

I believe this is not a content dispute as he have no reliable sources to back his edits. Hope this can be stopped.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S, I just breached the 3 revert rule. Sorry about this, didnt notice how many reverts I did. I wont go into an edit war with this user but inserting inaccurate info should be stopped if Wikipedia will be considered reliable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to open a thread at WP:RSN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Attar-Aram syria: what exactly is the point of contention here? As an uninvolved reader, the article already contains the information that she was "Empress" (or "Queen") of the "Palmyrene Empire", so Slapnut's edit would appear to be a good faith, superficial change that strictly conveys sourced information already presented in the article, as opposed to the addition of unsourced content. What is the controversial claim being made in their edits, that requires a source? Swarm ♠ 23:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Swarm this link will explain. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: Thanks. I'm not attempting to become involved in the content dispute, merely to have all the context. So, could you provide me with some additional clarification from what I gathered from that discussion? The subject was the monarch of the Palmyrene Empire. Is that incorrect? And she went by the title "Empress" (speaking anachronistically, of course). Is that incorrect? Swarm ♠ 01:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes she claimed the title of Augusta. The thing is, she might have been using it in a new meaning not related to Rome but to a new empire she was building. Thats what many scholars say and thats why it is wring to attach any geographic term with the title of Zenobia cause she might have meant that she was the empress of Rome or the empress of the East....etc.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Inna

Hi there! Recently, User:INNAjm keeps vandalizing Inna by making the picture in the article's infobox very big and changing the singer's name from "Inna" to "INNA". Some of his edit summaries include: "you, please stop vandalism", "wikipedia fo all users, this article or all articles for all users, and watch, small size pic" and "happy cartoon network freaky". He/She even sent me a message, clarifying that "you're monopoly style is bad, INNA Article MONOPOLY for Cartoon network freak, what this". Can someone help? Many thanks! Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have warned both parties here, Cartoon network freak, next time remember to avoid WP:3RR and bring the attention to the talk page of the article in question. Engaging in this type of behavior is unnecessary, and it does not look good on your end when you fail to communicate with the other party in question to resolve the issue. Also, when you bring an issue at AN/I, you must notify the other party(ies) involved in this case so they can defend themselves. Best – jona ✉ 14:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: That's just a new user who's trying to contribute in good faith, and they're allowed to do so. You're expected to work with them. Assuming their intentions are negative is a breach of policy. Labeling their edits vandalism is a breach of policy. Declaring yourself to be the "main contributor" in a content dispute is a breach of policy. Repeatedly reverting is a breach of policy. Failing to articulate specific objections when reverting is a breach of policy. Doing all of these things to a newbie is, you guessed it, a breach of policy. The only difference between your conduct and INNAjm's is that they are a new user, so they have a good excuse for problems with their editing. You have made about the same number of edits as I have, so please, enlighten me: what's your excuse? Swarm ♠ 23:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I think any other comment by me now is superflouous. I'm the one who brought Inna to GA (the result of hard work), so I always look for it to remain in a good shape, undoing poppycock added by some users like in this case. So yeah, I do have an excuse, if you take it that way... Not undoing bad edits just because they're made by a "newbie" does not sound good to me, and, yeah, you don't need to count those policies to me another time. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Ah. So that's what this is. You put in hard work, bringing the article to GA, and you don't want incompetent idiots messing it up. I have to tell you, that's understandable, sympathetic even. But by handling the situation the way you did, you became the bad guy. Understand? Just because you curated a good article does not mean that you can do those things that I called you out on. I understand where you're coming from, but you were in the wrong. I won't hold that against you, because I know it's frustrating having a vested interest screwed around with by random newbies, but please keep those policies and guidelines that I linked in mind going forward. If you abide by them, you might resolve these situations easier, and if it doesn't work, then we can work with you. But if you do all these wrong things, then you really have no standing to bring a complaint to us. Swarm ♠ 05:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I apologize, if it's not too late now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Just keep this in mind. There are other fans who wish to contribute to the article in good faith, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they need, or deserve, to be shut out. You are not required to train them or to babysit them. But simple gestures of good faith collaboration would go a long way. And you can still revert unproductive edits while doing so. Swarm ♠ 07:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive page moves

There have been several requests at WP:RM today to revert new undiscussed page moves performed by User:Gryffindor. Because of this, I have looked further into Gryffindor’s recent edit history, and documented some of what I found at WP:RMTR. There is also evidence of a large number of objections that have been lodged at User talk:Gryffindor; the pattern of editing has continued unabated. Since the start of the year, User:Gryffindor has engaged in the following sorts of behavior related to page moves:

• 1) Undiscussed moves when the title had been established by a previous Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion, such as seen at Talk:Sobieski family from 2014 followed by this.
• 2) Edits specifically designed to prevent reversion of undiscussed moves, such as the repeated removal of the R-from-move template. An example is here. Here is another. Note that there are no edit summaries for the empty edits. This appears to be part of a long-term pattern of performing such empty edits after page moves.
• 3) Note that the move itself shown in example 2 would not normally be out of process as a bold move, but the editor has previously taken part in significant discussions on "House of X" articles and knows that this sort of edit represents a controversial move that should be discussed through WP:RM, as shown in the instructions at WP:RMCM. In fact, administrator User:PBS specifically warned User:Gryffindor against both 2 and 3 in 2017, as can be seen here.
• 4) Re-moving articles after the original bold moves have been reverted, such as here and here (the last of these is from December 2017). The second move sometimes happens much later and is not immediately caught by the editors who objected the first time, so it seems that some of these moves have been successful. For example, the article that was at House of Arenberg from its creation in 2007 to 2017 now remains at Arenberg family with no evidence of move discussions as of April 10:

• 11:41, September 17, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family, restore encyclopedic naming format)
• 09:21, August 24, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg: revert contriversial move)
• 08:22, August 24, 2017‎ Gryffindor (Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family over redirect: non-sovereign family)
• 03:27, March 11, 2017‎ PBS (PBS moved page Arenberg family to House of Arenberg over redirect: rv contriversial move not following the WP:RM)
• 10:38, March 9, 2017‎ Domdeparis (Domdeparis moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family: In English "House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of)

Each of these four actions is strongly deprecated and would normally garner some sort of a warning for the editor who engaged in them. Today, it seems that the moves continued after posts by User:Bermicourt objecting to them; see User talk:Gryffindor#Moving "House of Foo" to "Foo family" and User talk:Gryffindor#Please stop moving "House of" articles without a discussion and consensus!. Gryffindor also edited later in the day, but did not respond to these concerns.

It would be inaccurate to state that this is the first time such problems have arisen surrounding moves by Gryffindor. Being as charitable as possible, there are previous ANI discussions of Gryffindor's unilateral moves from at least 2007, 2010, and 2012. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#Gryffindor out of control (apologies for the section name), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Unilateral page moving against consensus, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#A possible problem with undiscussed moves. There are others I’ve chosen not to include here. Given those discussions and the talk page, it’s clear that Gryffindor knows these moves are out of process and has a long-term tendency to proceed anyway.

I have nothing against User:Gryffindor, do not have an opinion about the titling of the "House of X" articles, and have had few interactions with Gryffindor in the past. I also attempt to avoid drama. But this needs to be handled somehow, is creating more work and stress for many editors, and I am under the impression that previous complaints have resulted in no action because Gryffindor either temporarily avoided this sort of behavior or did not respond to questions about it. I therefore think it is appropriate that there be a discussion here to gauge community consensus on how to prevent the sort of disruption I have documented here from continuing to happen in the future, up to and including placing limits on the ability of Gryffindor to perform undiscussed moves. Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The WP:RMTR thread is reproduced below:

Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the answer to this is fairly simple. All of the "House of..." moves should be reverted, and Gryffindor warned to only go through the RM process to move these, otherwise sanctions may be applied. Note: not all of Gryffindor's moves appear to be wrong; the "X (noble family)" -> "X family" ones appear to be logical. Also colour me seriously unimpressed that Gryffindor is an admin who has previously appeared at ANI for doing exactly the same thing over other's objections. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• (EC) I do not mean to imply that all (or any) of the moves is wrong aside from being deliberately out of process. However, as mentioned above, Gryffindor has been warned in the past on this specific point, and has continued: see [3], [4] and elsewhere on the talk page, so I believe that at a minimum the conditions for and scope of any sanctions should be made explicit. Dekimasuよ! 09:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems that repeated warnings over a very long time have been pretty ineffective. How about a ban on any page-move-related edit or admin action? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• This certainly looks like a deja vu. I remmeber I had to warn Gryffindor off for exactly the same kind of misconduct (using admin tools for controversial moves against consensus, plus using the dirty trick of redirect-scorching) back in 2007; see here and here. I never crossed path with him since, but if he has continued the same pattern over all these years, that's pretty bad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gryffindor has replied to the WP:RMTR thread here, and I responded here. Another editor since asked that discussion not continue at WP:RMTR, so I have removed the thread. In the reply, Gryffindor wrote that "I think you are confusing edits from an editor that you disagree with, and activities as a sysop. See this editing guideline WP:BB for further information. Concerning the discussion you mentioned earlier on "House of X", feel free to comment in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of." This misinterprets my objections to the moves; I responded with "If this is directed at me, please rest assured that I do not particularly disagree with the edits themselves (I have no opinion on the titling of these articles) and I am not primarily concerned with whether or not these are admin activities. The moves would be problematic whether performed by an admin or not, because they are being performed without discussion despite being known to be disputed by other editors." To expand upon this, the reply shows that Gryffindor is aware of ongoing disagreement with respect to the titles of these pages, but is pursuing the moves as "being bold." This is already advised against by WP:RMCM; at the same time, Gryffindor been short-circuiting the WP:BRD process that is necessary for the proper application of WP:BB by preventing reversion and repeating the "bold" moves after reversion without engaging in WP:RM discussion. Gryffindor has also posted new replies to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of stating editorial reasons for the moves, but has not there touched upon any rationale for the process by which they have been carried out. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence in Gryffindor as an admin

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

---

Gryffindor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was promoted in 2006 and apart from a couple of block actions in 2006, has used his administrator rights primarily in the service of his campaign of undiscussed moves, usually deleting pages to make way for these moves. As evidenced above, many all of these moves have ended up being reverted over the years or have had concerns raised that have gone unanswered. WP:Communication is required, and this user has not answered direct messages on his talk page, has not responded here, and ignored discussions on other pages that he was surely notified of that were concerned about his moves. Its my opinion that his abilities as an admin will only lead to further conflicts with very little benefit to the project. I suspect that his ability to delete pages to perform moves gives him the impression that he can do so without following the consensus process. Removing that ability will surely force him to begin interacting with the project again. Failure to do this will likely result in him going silent for some time, and then returning again to the same pattern. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's a bit early for this. Page moves against consensus are only kind of abuse of tools, and they are tools that we also give to non-admins. Also, this thread has been open less than 24 hours and Gryffindor should be given a reasonable chance to respond. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gryffindor has actually used admin tools to move some of the pages, as in some cases the targets were not simply redirects. I can't see an example where's he's edit-warred over one of those, though, and he hasn't used the tools since concerns were raised on his talkpage (although he has carried on moving pages and not replied to the concerns). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Having said that, Gryffindor hasn't used admin tools at all apart from in page moves for a very long time. He hasn't blocked anyone since 2006 and has only made one protection that wasn't page-move related since 2007 as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's my point - he became an admin in 2006, has used his admin rights for almost NO tangible benefit to the project, and in fact only uses them in pursuit of his undiscussed page moves. We have to weigh the costs and benefits here - This user would probably not even be able to retain "page mover" rights based on his actions (WP:PMRR), so why are we letting him keep the keys to the kingdom? --Netoholic @ 02:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• ArbCom is the only body that can desysop. I'd also be hesitant to see a case request here. I'm also probably more cautious on moves than most (since I work the RM desk semi-regularly), and I don't see this as needing the committee. I'd suggest just a community reminder to use the RM process. If they kept not using it, then we'd have an issue. While the community can issue sanctions against administrators short of a desysop, it would likely result in an inevitable ArbCom case (high-profile disputes amongst administrators being within ArbCom's explicit remit), and I don't see this at that level yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • After seeing this has come up in the past and the lack of response here, it appears a case may be necessary. @Gryffindor: if I may be so bold as to suggest that it might just make sense to take a trip over to WP:BN, link to this discussion, and say you resign and won't seek resysop without an RfA? That would save the community a fair amount of drama and time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) What Tony said. See also: WP:DESYSOP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Ivanvector; I'm not opposed to this procedurally as it would simply lead to an ARBCOM case. A TBAN on moving pages other than through the RM process might be a better idea if action is necessary. Regardless, more discussion (and an opportunity for Gryffindor to respond) is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

* Oppose desysop as I don't think we're at that level ... they're not exactly communicative which is an issue however they've not exactly abused their tools, However I would support a topic ban from all page moves - If they want an article moved they know where to go. –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Arbcom - My apologies I thought this was a one off but apparently not[5][6] - All admins should know move-warring isn't on and they should obviously discuss instead of reverting/moving, Their response below is pretty bad .... I would support taking this to Arbcom or the appropriate venue. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Gryffindor's other contributions and cannot offer much of an opinion on whether his admin credentials should be revoked. I'm sure he's done fine work elsewhere, which makes the nitpicky and easily fixed nature of this complaint all the more frustrating. I do believe that Gryffindor should immediately stop making any moves, should not make moves on Wikimedia Commons, and if he refuses, should have his admin (and page-mover) credentials revoked for this reason. It's a silly and minor thing, but his persistent refusal to engage in the WP:RM process and flagrant "gaming the system" by poisoning the resulting redirect so his moves can't easily be reverted does not speak to a spirit of collaboration. He has an opinion on article titling, that's great, file a requested move like anyone else and don't use technical tricks to force the impetus on others to clean up his mess. Even when he has been reverted, it's unreliable anyway, because he's repeatedly moved the same article before, and simply waits a year to see if people have stopped paying attention. This is conduct unbecoming of any editor, admin or not. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to Support removal of admin privileges. Gryffindor's responses, both here and in the thread at the Royalty Wikiproject, show he is wholly oblivious to the concerns being raised here. If he can't be bothered to address legitimate concerns about communication and moving style, acting as if this is only a content dispute where he imperiously sets the article titling rules himself, then I have no confidence in him as an admin. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I know ARBCOM is the only venue that can desysop, but I support it. We have far too much of a gap between standards of new admins and old admins, and I think both reducing new admin standard and increase current admin standard (which'll help with the former) is the way to go. His behaviour is far below of that you'd expect from any admin, and has extended over years. Consistent poor judgement (move-warring etc), and repeated failure to communicate and respond to concerns per WP:ADMINACCT is what I'd say as the rationale. If he was a page mover, he'd have been stripped of the right for even a very small fraction of the moves like the ones he does. I think probably the only reason there isn't a problem elsewhere is because he doesn't use his tools much outside of perhaps deleting pages in page moves (his deletion log of <1000 entries is 90% related to page moves) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I support a vote of no confidence. Communication is required, especially from admins. It's also baffling that they have not responded here, despite continuing to edit after they were alerted to this discussion. @Gryffindor: please let us have your views on the comments here. If Gryffindor continues to ignore the discussion on this board, we may want to consider moving it to WP:RFAR, the venue that can desysop. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC).
• I also support this, since Gryffindor has clearly felt it beneath him to respond here, despite having edited since. That's seriously sub-par for an admin. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment has anyone actually checked to see if the sources in the pages that Gryffindor has moved support the article name house of? I'll give you one exemple House of Soterius von Sachsenheim I checked out the sources and not a single one of them uses "house of". The main opposition to the blanket moves of non ruling families from House of to family was because that went against WP:COMMONNAME. this does not need any kind of concensus if the sources support that the common name is not House of. Common name states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." There are several authorative source that points towards House of being commonly used for ruling dynasties notably a royal one an important family, especially a royal one House of is used for an individual royal house, that is, a ruling family of a monarchy these 2 sources suggest that at least for the Cambridge dictionry and the Library of Congress calling a noble family that wasn't a royal family could be considered ambiguous. If there are few or no sources that use this term I cannot see how these page moves are in any way contradictory to Common name. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure many of his moves are correct (and for example, House_of_Schwarzburg has sources calling it exactly that). But whether his moves are right or not is irrelevant here. The point is that if you're making mass BOLD moves and other people are disputing them, you need a consensus - via RM or talkpage - to make that move stick. For the examples where Gryffindor is correct, then a Requested Move should be no problem. Given that similar problems stretch back over ten years as pointed out above, there is clearly an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you are talking about Heraldica.org this is a hobby blog written by an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and not a recognised authority on the subject I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• And what are the arguments opposing the moves? No one has suggested that the moves go against policy because the policy that should be considered is WP:COMMONNAME and I don't believe that this has been brought up when addressing the different articles. If there are no sources attesting to this article title does one have to go through RM? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• (ECx2) To concur with Black Kite, I'll reiterate that this is a question of conduct rather than content, and the current discussion does not preclude the moves (which Domdeparis has previously stated his support of) from taking place. I also note that Wikipedia:Article titles makes frequent reference to the importance of consensus in determining titles, including in the sections labeled WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no need to be discussing individual sources here. The question you raised last–"what are the arguments opposing the moves?"–is what is to be discussed in a move request before moving the pages again. Dekimasuよ! 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment @Domdeparis: I'm afraid the situation has moved on from the pagemoves themselves; what's happening at the moment is very much in the realm of WP:ADMINACCT. Specifically, their lack (total) of communication. Incidentally, if anyone thinks this is a one-off, I draw your attention to this discusion on G's own talkpage—from August last year—about exactly the same issue, and in which—again—they did not take part, even with a colleague. They were still doing the same thing in November—and again ignored the request to slow down and discuss. Communication is probably the fundamental requirement of an admin—per WP:VOLUNTEER, they can do as much or as little anywher here they choose: but no-one gets a free pass on ignoring the concerns of the community. Regarding the content dispute itself, incidentally, as someone pointed out above, an editor disagreeing with a move is an indication that is likely to be contentious: per WP:RM/CM: if someone could reasonably disagree with the move, then the discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. Again, this is something that an admin of their tenure should be fully conversant of, especially in regard to the fact that it is such a significant portion of their editing. Which is another illustration of the same behaviour: that of ignoring concerns and refusing discussion. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment when there are no sources that attest to the article title being as it could one really be called reasonable when opposing the move? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

AN/I not the place to discuss content, unfortunately. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have responded in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. I will also comment here in this section if this is required. Gryffindor (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: I'd like to know why it took you so long to respond here? Paul August ☎ 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support a vote of no confidence. To be honest, I have had little confidence in Gryffindor as an admin since October 2014 when this CCI was opened (how many other admins do we have with an open CCI?). The undiscussed moves appear to have been happening for many years (this one in 2010 was made after a (very mild) objection on his/her talk-page). Page moves can be made without discussion if, and only if, they are uncontroversial or could reasonably be believed to be so. Boldly moving a page is OK, but making moves without discussion after you've been made aware that others are opposed to them is a misuse of the function; if often repeated, it is at best WP:DISRUPTIVE. It is absolutely not acceptable behaviour for an admin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support the OP's vote, and the resultant move to RFAR. I was, per my remark above, probably just going to comment; but Paul August's question made we wonder. The communication problem, it appears, is actually far worse than it appeared. Notwithstanding Wellington et al.'s advice, the figures are not good. For example, Gryffindor has made 102 edits to own talk page since 2005 (half of which are just archivings)—and has not replied to anyone since July last year. Likewise, off their own page, the list of their last fifty edits to others' talk pages also takes us back nine months. This is poor communication from anyone, but particularly from an editor in possession of advanced permissions who has been granted those permissions by the community on the expectation that they will be accountable to the community. So, I am forced to support this measure. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  @User:Serial Number 54129 Just because an editor does not comment on their talk page does not mean that they are not communicating. Gryffindor replies in the same style that I do. On the talk page of the person who comments on my talk page page. see here). If you look at last August (2017) you will see the exchange between Gryffindor and myself which I edited into the start of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of showing it as a split conversation -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, PBS, I know (to clarify: Yes, I agree). The problem, as I see it, is that G. doesn't—on his or others' talk pages. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I also support a vote of no confidence from reviewing the above and strongly suggest an Abcom case to deal with this matter. Jusdafax (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion on Gryffindor as an admin as Gryffindor has not blatantly used admin tools in his/her move wars. If for example Gryffindor had used admin tools rather than a second edit to lock page moves then I would voice an opinion. However I think that theses most recent moves, given the history of this issue, coupled with the additional evidence of the contributor copyright investigation shows a lack of judgement. @user:Moonriddengirl and user:Wizardman has Gryffindor carried out a "proper re-edit on them" (17 October 2014) that Gryffindor stated (s)he would do to fix the copyright issues? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban from moves

Proposing an indefinite topic ban on moving pages

• Support I don't see how a "community reminder" will help where numerous complaints from experienced editors haven't - he still hasn't acknowledged any issue. Per his response here, he still doesn't seem to understand that his moves are disruptive, and WP:BOLD isn't applicable to potentially controversial page moves nor is it a justification to repeatedly move-war etc etc. Nor is it a justification for editing the redirect to make reverting back impossible except for admins and page movers.

Indefinite, because this has been an issue for 10 years per threads linked by Future Perfect at Sunrise (see this and this links provided, and the ANI from 2007 linked above), and I think he needs to come and appeal with an explanation of his understanding of when to use the RM process and how he'll do better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Minimal necessity. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't agree. Moving articles of a category to an established format makes sense so that there is order. However if this is seen as disruptive by a majority of users involved, then I will desist obviously, as I have done so in the past. I have received many thanks from other users for taking the initiative and moving articles. And there are cases where this can be met with criticism, that is true as well. Gryffindor (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are responding with in talking about categories. What I and people want to minimally know is: do you understand WP:RMCM, specifically that any any controversial or potentially controversial move should be taken to WP:RM? In this specific case you'd nominate the pages en masse, and if the consensus is there, the moves will be done in a week or two. As far as I can see, your desistment doesn't seem to last, considering the recurrence of these ANI threads, and of move-warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Striking that first bit, see you are talking about WP:CONSISTENCY within a category - which is an argument to make in a WP:RM, but not a reason to unilaterally mass move pages Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, not one person's "system" so that "there is order." You're not the boss, your comment on the Royalty talk page was just that - a comment, not an actual statement of Wikipedia policy. Which means cleaning up your own mess and reverting your undiscussed moves yourself rather than making others do it for you. You can achieve all of what you are currently doing if you simply file Requested Moves at a reasonable (not breakneck) pace. Where you have a point, people will support your move and it'll be moved; where you can't find consensus, it won't be. The end. Everyone will be happy. SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above - Enough is enough. –Davey2010^Talk 17:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per comments above, also support extending this restriction to Commons as well (example: [7]) (EDIT: [8] , better link). SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We don't have the authority to impose a topic ban on another project.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Based on the link, I assume he meant "Categories", not "Commons". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: / @Bbb23:: Nah, I meant Commons - wrong link above, sorry, I edited in the correct one. And I realize that we may have to jump through some more hoops to get it done on Commons, but I believe it should be done (although a voluntary handing over the bit would work too). SnowFire (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Inexperienced WC user

-EEng

• We here don't have to jump through any hoops; but if there are any experienced WC users and / or admins watching, then they will doubtless do what they see fit... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Having raised this issue back in August last year on user talk:Gryffindor and having initiated a centralised discussion that showed clearly that there is no consensus for the mass moves that Gryffindor had made to "House of" articels, and is still attempting to make without recourse to the use of WP:RM. Such moves without scrutiny of sources using the RM process are disruptive and need to be stopped. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, at a minimum, and also that this topic ban be extended such that he may not close any WP:RM move requests, and that this ban may be extended to include submission of WP:RMs if he ends up trying to flood that page with requests. -- Netoholic @ 01:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support the former, I don't see how the latter would work, if that indeed happens we can discuss something along the line of a topic ban from moves Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits were done in WP:GOODFAITH. I am trying to help the project, not hurt it. My goal was and is to bring order to naming formats of articles where I thought it makes sense. Since this is mentioned, in the discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of, in the category of German families I saw that four to five different naming formats existed. Yet no steps were taken as far as I could see to address that situation and therefore I thought it would be best if I take the initiative. But I understand that this can be seen as controversial. I have also been thanked on a number of occasions for taking the initiative and moving articles. So I apologize if this has come across as an abuse of the tools or has the appearance of improper use. I understand that a number of users are upset, and I am handing in my resignation. I wish you continued success in your edits to make this project better. Gryffindor (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban; sufficient unto the day, etc. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Gryffindor has voluntarily resigned adminship, and permanently it seems; I think a topic ban is no longer needed at this point. Their approach to page moving were inappropriate back in 2007, and far more inappropriate today; but they were done in reasonable good faith, and their grave errors in failure to understand the proper page moving process have been sufficiently pointed out in this discussion, and I must say a recurrance is quite unlikely. Alex Shih (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  @user:Alex Shih I fail to see how you justify opposing this ban as it has nothing to do with whether Gryffindor is or is not an administrator as administrator tools have nothing to do with this issue, and I would like you to explain your opposition in more detail so that we can try to reach a consensus. To make good faith bold moves and then have it reverted is acceptable behaviour. However making bold moves and having them reverted and making them again breaches WP:RMUM and is clearly an act of bad faith. First move by Gryffindor "13:22, 24 August 2017 Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family" After the conversation on 24 August 2017 (see collapse box below) Gryffindor made a bad faith move "16:41, 17 September 2017 Gryffindor moved page House of Arenberg to Arenberg family" specifically against WP:RMUM which says "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves."

Split talk page conversations August 2017

User talk:Gryffindor Talk:PBS Do not move articles that start "House of" without using an WP:RM as such move are often controversial see a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of -- PBS (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Also do not edit the resultant redirect, like for some of the recent moves that you made because to do so stops an editor easily reverting you moves and so such edits are disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC) the term "House of" in English as a general rule only applies to ruling and sovereign dynasties, not some noble family. Otherwise any family could call themselves "House of" and where would we end with that? Thank you for your understanding. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Whether or not "House of" is correct or incorrect is not something to be decided by a rule. It is something to be decided by consensus on the talk page, and if a move is to be made then use WP:RM. It is much more complicated for continental European families as everyone and his dog held sovereign rights over their territory at one time or another before the founding of the modern national states. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) I respectfully disagree, see WP:BOLD. Within the Holy Roman Empire by law no one was sovereign except the emperor himself. The same applies to Kings of England, France, etc. and their dynasties. Therefore we have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley"? Giving everyone (including their dog as you said) a "House of" format is out of bounds and needs to be corrected. Gryffindor (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC) I am not proposing anything. I am not claiming right of wrong. I am suggesting that instead of moving hundreds of articles because you "know" that that are incorrectly named that you get consensus for the moves. How do yo know that the rule you are enforcing is correct in all cases? -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Lets look at an example. Here is a link a source of one of the pages you moved House of Arenberg. Why did you move it? -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC) He ors she, claims that he wants to change everything like the English model of nobility, in my vieuw, not correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Can we please keep the conversation on your talk page, Gryffindor? thank you--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Again, if these are families that were not ruling, hereditary dynasties of a sovereign and independent country, they are not a "House of", as opposed to the Windsors, Romanovs, Medici, Bourbons, etc. I already gave the example with the Wellesley family. On what basis are you arguing in favour of using it? Gryffindor (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Saw your first comment so there was no need to reiterate with "Again, if these are families that were not ruling...", what is the source that you draw this conclusion and let's look at the practical example I have given with House of Arenberg and the use of the term by the Arenberg Foundation. What is you source that says this usage is incorrect? -- PBS (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Best to just cut this one off at the pass. Jtrainor (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

E to the Pi times i and policies and guidelines

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

---

I came very close to blocking this user myself for disruptive editing, as I consider reversion of a major change to the notability policy that took place without discussion to be administrative in nature, but I thought I'd take it here to get more admins to look at it. Just looking through their last contributions, they have been through at least four major policy and guideline pages messing with the wording (if you look through their contributions WP:N, WP:ADMIN, WP:DEL, and Wikipedia:Bot policy all show copyedits that were reverted in the last 3 days). I reverted them on WP:N and warned them that further "copyedits" to major policy documents could lead to a block.

Following that, they reverted me claiming it wasn't disruptive and that I wasn't assuming good faith, and then started a section on the talk page claiming that they weren't going to edit war, after the had already been reverted and warned by another user not to make the edit (which on a significant document such as WP:N, certainly goes against the intent of the edit warring policy).

As I said, I think I'd be justified in a block and view my initial revert as administrative in nature, so thus not INVOLVED, but since it did involve content changes to a policy, I would prefer to get feedback here or let another administrator review. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked deeply into this, but edit warring over a policy page is absolutely not acceptable, and I have issued a short block for that. Anyone else is welcome to adjust my action as they see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have offered to lift the block if User:E to the Pi times i agrees to not edit anywhere other than this ANI report until it is resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The thing that gets me is that most of the policy edits seem to be off just so: the ones I reverted at WP:ADMIN and WP:CSD, but also others, such as PERM/TE and Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained. Not sure what to make of it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that they are trying to copyedit/simplify, but they seem to be missing the point that for all of these documents, the core wording is usually the way it is for a reason, and that in simplifying the wording, they are, in fact, changing the meaning. In the notability example, they removed Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. While you could argue that the edits they made kept the meaning, that line is one of the most significant lines in the notability guideline. I wasn't thinking anything like an indef block (I was actually thinking 31 hours like Boing!'s edit warring block), but the issue is that by making these simplification edits with minimal experience, they are actually impacting the policies and guidelines and wasting other editor's time reverting and getting into the discussions for things that really aren't a priority. Now that they're blocked and have been unblocked to only edit ANI, the immediate disruption has stopped, but I'm not sure how to deal with it longterm other than "don't do this", which I already tried with a warning. ​TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So why is it that e to the pi times i is always a negative one?... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been waiting for weeks for the opportunity to use that, I turn my back for 10 seconds and you steal it. EEng 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Unblocked as per conditions agreed at user talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• This user and their alternative account have been trouble from the outset. Unless they completely change their stripes (unlikely) or leave Wikipedia (more unlikely), they are going to be indeffed at some point. We're putting off the (almost) inevitable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Bbb.2604:2000:E016:A700:FCF6:5A0A:A1B0:A425 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's a common pitfall for new-ish editors delving into project space for the first time to encounter our bewildering word salads of policies and guidelines, and in the spirit of WP:BOLD that's encouraged everywhere else they try to simplify based on their own understanding. Most are cooperative enough to back off when they start getting in trouble, though. I propose a topic ban from directly editing any page tagged as a policy or guideline, but simultaneously encourage the user to participate in discussions on these topics. When they gain some understanding of the complex discussions that back up changes to these pages (we somewhat recently spent 22,000 words on exactly how to define a legal threat), they could apply to have the tban lifted some time in the future, and in the meantime they will still be able to contribute to a part of the project that interests them via discussion with other editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Would it be useful to add to WP:BOLD a mention that it's not appropriate on policy pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, that's a damn good idea, I'm heading over to BOLD now to make that unilateral change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is already a fair amount of discussion on these issues at WP:PG. Not the clearest discussion, but discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• There's a section at Wikipedia:Be bold#Non-article namespaces; it could be strengthened to further discourage unilateral edits to policy pages. It's a difficult balance, though: it's pretty hard to get comments on minor grammatical changes or other housekeeping edits, so requiring a consensus discussion for everything can lead to stagnation. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would say that routine housekeeping corrections like that really aren't BOLD at all, so there shouldn't be a problem with making the change and commenting in the edit summary that it's not an attempt to change the policy. If someone thinks it is inappropriate, they can revert and discuss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course they are not intentionally doing so, but the problem statement to which you responded was good-faith editors inadvertently changing intent or emphasis. Even with experienced editors it's easy for a change to be seen in different lights by different people. A change, revert, discuss cycle may still be the best approach in this scenario. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with bold edits to policy pages when someone is trying to update documentation as to what current practice is (as I'm sure isaacl is aware, I do this myself more than most, but I'm also typically fine being reverted). I think the issue here (that has thankfully been resolved for the time being) was that we have a relatively inexperienced editor who was going about making what they viewed as clarity changes across some of our most visible and significant policy pages. As Ivanvector points out, this is relatively normal for newish users, but they normally take the hint after the first one or two reverts that it might be better to tread lightly. Now that Boing!'s initial block and unblock seems to have calmed the immediate situation here, I'd be fine with E to the Pi times i voluntarily agreeing not to directly edit policy and guideline pages until they have more experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Not to be antagonistic, but I just want to clarify: I am not at this moment agreeing to the clamp of "more experience"; I am simply ensuring (for both myself and the community) that I will avoid further contention by not editing until this discussion is completely resolved. I have a great interest in discussing this further, before falling into the restrictions of "I need to learn more about Wikipedia's community norms and come back later". E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if editors engage in productive discussion, then all is good. So I'm not certain if Beyond My Ken's suggestion is the way to go, at least for now. I appreciate it's kind of annoying when a whole slew of well-meaning but less-than-proficient writers try to copy edit a policy, triggering a lot of discussion. But with English Wikipedia's current decision-making tradition, it's tricky to try to limit this. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I appreciate the irony. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: and @Everyone else: I would like to put this issue on hold for the moment. As part of that, I will only make talk page edits until this discussion is resolved. While thinking through some of the edits and rereading comments, I realized my interpretation was (and will presently continue to be) impaired by sleep deprivation. This realization is what compels me to voluntarily avoid editing the forward-facing space for the time being. I only request that I can edit the talk space because I'd like up to tie some loose threads that I left hanging.

Amory's response partly opened my eyes to this when they said "most of the policy edits seem to be off just so". When I just now reviewed my recent edits and their reverts, it seems obvious to me that this sleep deprivation has affected my recent edits. This is not to excuse my sub-par editing: I take full responsibility for my edits to the encyclopedia, but I think the sample of the last few days is not representative of my overall competence in project-space editing. I request this community allow me the courtesy of coming back later with an open mind and an honest evaluation of my previous edits. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion

Per Ivanvector above, and the latest response, I'll just put the discussion here: E to the Pi times i (talk · contribs · count) is indefinitely topic banned from directly editing policy and guideline pages. They may appeal this topic ban at WP:AN after 3 months.

• Support per my thoughts above: I think this is a good faith user, but I don't think they grasp how their edits are disruptive, and looking through their past contributions after Bbb23's comment, I'm not buying the sleep deprivation excuse. They were doing this same thing almost two weeks ago at the WP:SOCK page with their alt, and after Bbb23 reverted them, they restored their own edit which was also a minor tweak that had a policy impact. This was eventually undone again by another experienced user. While I get they are good faith, this is clearly either a competence or arrogance thing where they can't seem to understand that when they are being reverted by functionaries and admins on policy pages, they need to slow down. A topic ban that is appealable after 3 months does the trick and forces them to slow down, while allowing them to have discussions as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I'm also support indef, largely per Bbb23, but also because of this response which is them basically saying they decided to violate their unblock conditions because they didn't think the original block was fair to begin with. That displays an attitude where they think they know better than everyone else on the encyclopedia, and as Bbb23 pointed out above, means that we're only delaying the inevitable at this point. They'd find a new area to be disruptive in, and likely would fight tooth and nail for every opinion they had even if the entire community was telling them it was wrong. No need to delay it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't do this now. I want to discuss this further, without you pulling your basket of edits which I do not currently have the capacity to individually address currently. I understood and acknowledged the disruption of my edits, and I will continue to acknowledge that. Regarding the other two bot edits, those reverts were a different matter entirely, and the reverts were made solely on the basis of the account that made them. The quality of those edits was strongly outweighed by the account that made them. Those edits are both currently standing, and one of them was supported by multiple community members. If that's your example of incompetence in policy editing, I find it a poorly chosen one. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Before we whack 'im with the topic-ban sledgehammer let's try this: e^iπ, you need to cool it for a few months (at least) with the WP:PG editing, and do more bread-and-butter article editing. That's where you learn how the project "really works" and why our PGs are the way they are. Can you just do that, please, and in the meantime if you see something you think really needs fixing on a PG, raise it on the talk page? EEng 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would actually be my preferred option as well (and what I tried to propose above), but which to me seemed like they rejected. That was why I took Ivanvector's proposal and made it formal. The ideal here is that we don't have sanctions and we have what you are suggesting. If they don't agree to that, however, a TBAN does the same thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not outright reject that option; I simply indicated that it wasn't my current inclination.

If however, there is an urgency or desire to mop this issue away and be done with it, I will obviously agree to the softer voluntary recommendation (with the intent to abide by it or otherwise face consequences). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think the community should postpone dealing with an issue when it's been brought to their attention, it reads to me like an attempt to improve your chances of not being sanctioned by putting some distance between the complaint and the action to correct the behavior. Anyway, I agree with EEng and TonyBallioni that a voluntary standdown from editing policy pages is a good idea, but if you change your mind and choose not to accept that, then I support the proposal for a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support voluntary withdrawal from editing the WP:PG area, but if that is not accepted then I support a community topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Update to Support topic ban but Oppose indef block at this point. We should be taking the minimum action needed to prevent the disruption of policy and guideline pages, and a topic ban should be sufficient for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - we've already had the "please slow down" discussion, the time for the user to voluntarily withdraw was when numerous very experienced editors suggested that they should. We're only here because they did not. I think we're all talking about the same thing anyway: when e proposes, "I will obviously agree to the softer voluntary recommendation (with the intent to abide by it or otherwise face consequences)", they are describing how a topic ban works anyway. I've no opinion on an appeal window, I find them distasteful and dysfunctional. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Addendum: oppose extended block. Violating unblock terms within hours of being unblocked is unwise, but the new, slightly longer block is the right way to address that. Escalating that to indef is very premature. But also, I'm opposed to accepting any voluntary restriction, as the user has shown unwillingness to comply with even simple restrictions (or else CIR-level incompetence). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @E to the Pi times i: Assuming those who support imposing a ban are willing, you could state you will accept a logged three month voluntary restriction on editing PaGs. The restriction will be formally recorded at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary by an administrator. If you violate the restriction it will be treated just as if you had violated a community imposed restriction. The upside for you though is that you avoid having the community force an editing ban on you and generate a bit of goodwill by recognizing that you are not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia to edit its policies and guidelines. It will avoid a drawn out thread here and prevent missteps which can sometimes lead to harsher sanctions.
  If you accept make a statement below to that effect. My suggestion is that once you do so you not comment further unless asked a direct question. My past observations here are that in this kind of situation the more an editor says beyond 'I see how I messed up. This is how I will assure the community I will not repeat the mistake', the more likely it is matters will snowball into a bad outcome. Jbh ^Talk 12:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Strike. The snowball started with the re-block and this is not a convincing response which borders on IDHT 02:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  User:E to the Pi times i is currently blocked for 48 hours for breaching the terms of their unblock and so can not currently post here. I suggest keeping an eye on their talk page for any responses there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have watch listed their talk page. Being unable to keep one's word for even a few hours does not bode well. Jbh ^Talk 14:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. Move appeal window out to six months. Violating unblock conditions shows an extreme lack of either care or attention. Tiderolls 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum. I would not oppose indefinite block. I was hoping that an explanation would be offered to assuage concerns. Explanations can be made in an unblock request as well. Tiderolls 18:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban - This editor was unblocked on the basis of they edit ANI only however they continued to edit everything else (hence their reblock)..... If they can screw up something so simple as Unblock terms then they'll screw this 6month tban up easy!, They don't need to edit policy and guideline pages when we have over 5 million articles here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Indef block as per their response here (which is them replying to a post on their talkpage unrelated to their block and this discussion) - The fact they haven't addressed anything speaks volumes for me - You can't go around edit warring, breaking your unblock conditions and then not make any sort of comment on it ....... I don't expect an apology but I expect more than just silence, In short I feel this editor will end up being more of a timesink than of help - Everyone has a poor start here (myself very much included) but you adapt and change .... You don't just brush it under the carpet and say nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, and TBAN on return - This editor, according to their own admission, needs a break from the project, and can't be trusted to do anything at this time (I note their current 48-hour block). Indefinite is not infinite; even in a week or two an admin should be able to unblock. Some version of the TBAN should be imposed after an unblock, I'm not sure which. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support sanctions. First choice: indefinite block. I don't trust the user, and I don't think they are an asset to the project. They have an oh-so-civil, slippery, passive-aggressive attitude - a sense of entitlement that is not conducive to collaborative, constructive editing. Second choice: indefinite topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, or failing that, this topic ban. There is so much WP:IDHT going on here it boggles the mind, and I'm really unimpressed with the inability to follow unblock conditions for even a few hours. Courcelles (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block - Considering their behavior after the comment I posted above, I no longer trust this editor to keep a voluntary topic ban, and, in fact, no longer feel that a topic ban is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Forgot to add my usual caveat: if there's no consensus for an indef block, then count this as support for an indef topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban at least, and I think indef block isn't a bad idea. Their latest comments indicate to me that they still either don't understand or don't care about the rules and customs of editing that got them into trouble in the first place. ansh666 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef tban on PaGs block w/ 6 month review. I think we have been experiencing 'sanction inflation' here at ANI. Particularly with respect to handing out indef blocks. I think it more likely than not that this editor will end up indefed since they can't stick to a simple unblock condition. At this point though I do not think an indef block is appropriate. They have only been editing heavily for two months, they seem to have a good faith desire to contribute, and from what has been reported here they have not done anything irredeemable. They should be given a chance to demonstrate they can learn from these errors. Jbh ^Talk 02:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: strike. see below 02:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  After this comment I do not think this editor is a fit for a collaborative project. Jbh ^Talk 02:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef ban and Support indef topic ban. Above, Ivanvector wrote It's a common pitfall for new-ish editors delving into project space for the first time to encounter our bewildering word salads of policies and guidelines, and in the spirit of WP:BOLD that's encouraged everywhere else they try to simplify based on their own understanding. But based on this and this, my impression is of someone who has parachuted in, decided that he knows how things work better than the editors here with years of experience, and is going to rework things in his own image. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite topic ban. Works for me, Tony outlined it nicely. Edits seem at least made in good faith, but comments here have not done them any favors. To clarify a bit, I kind of expect this will end up as an indef block per Bbb23, but if they can actually stick to the program we'll be better off for it. Slippery is the right way to put it, disingenuous would be another; as I vaguely suggested above, something is just off. Still, blocking is easy if it comes to it, and there are plenty of eyes on P&G pages. Have we seen evidence of problems elsewhere? Extracting them from the problem pages would work if they stick to it. ~ Amory (u • t • c)

  @Amorymeltzer: it is unclear what you are supporting. The headlined proposal is a three month topic ban but the discussion has moved on to indef topic bans and/or an indef block. Since you cite Tony I assume you mean indef block but it is best not to assume such things. Would you please clarify the intent of your Support? Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 18:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  So done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. I'm less sure about an indefinite block, although edit warring on a policy/guideline page and blatantly violating unblock conditions are very good grounds for a block of some kind (48 hours is a bit generous for the latter). I don't see any particular evidence here of disruptive behaviour outside policy and guideline pages and disputes arising from them. These aren't great places for many kinds of editor, especially new ones. This user has made about 1500 edits, almost all this year, and if they can be kept away from the area which is causing the trouble then we may well get a constructive contributor. I would definitely urge E to the Pi times i to stay away from policies and guidelines entirely (including the talk pages) and advise that any further disruptive behaviour is likely to result in a ban. Hut 8.5 19:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on pages under DS:Eastern Europe

The concerned pages being Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Jan Grabowski (historian)

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

Repeatedly removing the protected template ([9][10]), despite warnings by multiple users on talk page ([11]), and despite the fact there is no valid reason one could want to remove it.

Refusal to participate in talk page discussion (despite multiple reverts on the article in the last two days, last interventions on the talk page date to the 8th and 7th April and are either mostly unrelated to the edit warring, ([12]), or simple WP:PAs which do not seek to build consensus ([13])).

Reinstating ([14]) material which has been superseeded by talk page consensus.

Generally unfriendly/non-collaborative behaviour on talk page/in edit summaries, ex. (Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_3#Another_false_edit_summary, Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_2#You_can't_be_serious)

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

Reinstating disputed material and going against talk page consensus, ([15])

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeating the same (inaccurate) statement multiple times (also, at multiple places), once, twice, thrice, even four times.

• François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• All of the above

Long-term edit warring on the first of the above mentioned pages, and the ensuing discussions on the talk page seem to be of a rather toxic kind.

I am unsure if all three are aware of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, but this is clearly a case where there is an extended dispute and users do not seem inclined to participate in a calmer talk page discussion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors given ANI notice on talk page (as far as possible). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the protected template was an accident which I meant to remedy but then got busy. I've put it back. As for the rest of this complaint, it's of the ye ol' "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" . The claims by the IP are false or spurious (false claims of consensus, false description of edits, etc.). And anyway, how does a brand new IP know about DS in this topic area or have all this knowledge about Wikipedia policies. WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, despite the above claim, the IP did not notify me and I just noticed this myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It also appears that this posting is mostly motivated by the IP being annoyed by the fact they can't jump in to edit war because the page has been semi'd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't have notified you because your talk page is protected. Stop the WP:PA. If you think I'm a sock, WP:SPI is the place to go (and then you'd need a stronger agreement than just "he agrees with somebody else") 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the IP contributor does have a significant edit history under that address. If they are a long-term editor, they should know that no editor is subject to more frivolous ANI/ANEW reports than Volunteer Marek. As Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is semi-protected and the editors cited in this report don't agree with each other, I think that allowing normal editing to proceed and/or referring this to WP:DRN is all that is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

My error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, the editing of the IP 198.xxx -- which geolocates to Montreal -- goes back to 12:04 1 January 2018, exactly 4 seconds into the new year in that time zone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 17:04 - 5 hours = 12:04, which is noon, midnight would be 00:04. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) You are correct, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment a long-term edit warring[16] by François Robere and consistent reinstalling opposed material[17] against talk page consensus[18] by François Robere is the only case that I find feasible on this record.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: — 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F819:1151:10F3:7BC6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - first edit, directly here, appears to be linked to other IPs which edited target pages. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • The IP editor has identified as User:GizzyCatBella [19], and should be added to the list of warring users.
  • I support now, as I have before, placing some sort of restriction on the entire page. Personal sanctions may also be due in some cases.
  • I did not reinstate disputed material despite talk page consensus, and I've only restored material after exhaustive discussion [20][21][22][23][24]. I never deleted objectionable material that was well sourced [25][26], nor did I push my POV against the consensus [27][28]. I've assumed good faith and tried to stay civil for as long as possible despite frequent hostile behaviors by others [29][30][31][32]. Two users in particular - Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella have developed a penchant for reverting my edits; sometimes en masse, usually without discussion, and often regardless of what the sources actually say [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] (and they've done the same with others [44][45][46]). Their continuous disregard for sources and discussion meant that at some point I started adding quotes to every single source I thought they'll challenge (this section, for example, is extremely well sourced, but was quickly reverted along with several other changes [47]); and instead of asking them for clarifications on the talk page - which they'll ignore - I started asking directly in the article using tags [48][49][50][51] (which they then removed [52][53][54]). Finally, seeing as many of their changes were going unnoticed by the other editors - lost in the general "flux" of edits (~30/day) - I started reviewing their changes on the talk page, highlighting where they were pushing a POV or not following RS [55][56][57][58].

I've done my best to discuss, persuade, source, consult other users and involve the general Wiki community, but seeing as there's no way to force a "warring" editor to concede or even discuss an issue, it's just as well this was referred here. Good luck to all of us! François Robere (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Important note to the evaluating administrator - Please consider examining also Icewhiz who is consistently edit warring on both articles. As an example, I'm showing just few of the recent cases completed by the user in question ( the latest revert is as current as today)[59][60][61][62] There are plenty more examples straightforward to spot, please take a peak at edit history on both articles. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Besides the article talk page (where this is discussed in a number of sections), please see - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba where this addition sourced to wpolityce (a Polish internet portal) coverage of the Polish ambassador's to Switzerland's remarks (in Wikipedia's voice for WWII/Holocaust history!) is discussed. Besides the RS issue, there are also BLP issues to say a notable historian is mistaken or erroneous in Wikipedia's voice (based on an ambassador's Facebook post), OR issues, and NPOV issues. The content added about Grabowski is a shocking BLP and NPOV violation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  Also relevant - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP has self identified GizzyCatBella ‎(after someone bothered to ask on one of the IP's talk pages).Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit difficult to ask when it changes so often (as might be seen in the SPI) - François I believe did ask however (not via the changing IP TP - edit summaries or on article talk). Filing ANI [63] or AN/EW[64] shouldn't be done without identifying one's self. Nor should one reply at ANI - [65] " Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why." in response to a query on one's identity, without disclosing said identity.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I was able to ask them (and get a response), now in all the tooing and throwing I might have missed where any other users asked them if they were GizzyCatBella. Perhaps you could provide the diff?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

François asked them to identify and got to talk - here. In any event - filing at AN/EW and AN/I, and then replying this way to a SPA tag - is not cool as a logged out IP (without at least saying who you are). Nor is making massive reversions to an article you were previously editing, or commenting on the talk page (without identifying one's self) on topic areas you previously discussed logged in.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? Also I am having trouble finding where not logging in forbids you from participating in certain activities.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The onus is not on other editors to ask about sockpuppets - and connecting the dots on this edit warring IP was not so simple. As for policy posting to ANI and ANEW as a sock is a clear WP:BADSOCK "Editing project space" violation (and note that they were asked here - and did not disclose, rather responding how this is a dynamic IP). Editing the talk page of a page you have been engaged in would be a "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" violation as would be the 2 major revert a day (on 6 days of editing) on the mainspace page (previously edited via the account) in terms of "Circumventing policies" (all the more so given the edit warring report against Francois by the IP on the same page!), And of course WP:SCRUTINY. Note that the SPI report was not a secret - I place it here after the IP reported me as an IP to ANI. Francois placed it at the edit warring report by the IP - AN/EW diff with sockpuppet report - the IP chose to respond only after you told them it was in their best interests to do so and after stronger behavioral evidence was produced at the SPI.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, an edit summery? Is that really good enough? It isn't, but as IP editors don't have talk pages it had to suffice. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Unrelated to the whole dispute thing, but actually, what IPs don't have is user pages, they do have talk pages (otherwise, tell me what this page is). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's magic, and I'll deny ever being there. It wasn't me.

(but also, if you've a dynamic IP that changes 1-2 times a day, then that's useless too) François Robere (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How to answer this without being sarcastic?Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, feel free. François Robere (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It is an article that has provoked strong reactions and edit warring form a number of editors. I am not sure that sanctions against all the involved edds (and it should be all or none, as I am not sure any of them are any ore innocent of POV edit warring). Rather some form of editing restriction on the page (such as no edits to article space, unless agreement is reached on talk pages) applied to all editors.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Fully protected Collaboration in German-occupied Poland for a week, and removed the disputed section. (I personally have no opinion regarding whether that section should remain in the article.) Use this time to come to a consensus on the scope of the article, and whether or not the disputed content should be included in it. In the future, when there is a dispute about newly-added content, discuss it and come to a consensus rather than edit warring. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note to the evaluating administrator from Poeticbent. The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland as it stands, with one-week page protection, is an absolute horror of intentionally misrepresented facts, deleted references found inconvenient by the POV pushers, and preposterous accusations in a campaign of Holocaust-related hate mongering, lies, and slander. — François Robere (who made 139 edits to this page) and Icewhiz are a WP:TAG TEAM coordinating their actions in several pages in the area of WP:ARBEE case final binding. Their edits are made usually minutes apart from each other especially in relation to World War II collaboration recently. The problem with WP:ARBEE is that it has not been updated for years, and nobody gives a flying finger for what it says. Considering the sheer volume of edit warring, POV pushing, and bad faith, it would probably take several days to prepare a new case, with a new list of participants, going well beyond the limited scope of this one report. Nothing is going to get resolved otherwise. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We are an awfully ineffective tag team seeing that my interaction with Francois has been limited to 10 edits in one article (on different content), and 1 (3 consecutive) edits on another. I have supported his efforts to introduce solid academic sourcing to the topic area on the talk page. Some other editors might want to examine their POV editing in Holocaust related victim blaming - which has been commented on externally to Wikipedia Wikipedia Continues the Crime and the Silence of Polish Participation in the Murder of Jews, Jewish Press referring to this version of the page. Interestingly - the Polish Wikipedia is more balanced than the English Wikipedia on much of this content - and the problem on enwiki is quite wide.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz edits are so toxic and so full of thinly-veiled lies that no discussion is ever going to resolve anything. – Revelations about erroneous research at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are being replaced by him with accolades for the researcher. Why? Because there's a campaign going on elsewhere. Do you see what I mean? Poeticbent talk 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - using an internet portal's coverage of a diplomat's facebook is quite a shocking source for ww2 history and BLP content.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Poetic, your comments aren't exactly savoury either [66]. Second, your suggestion of "tag teaming" is idiotic. Third, GizzyCatBella made 160 edits and Nihil novi 152, and you don't seem to hold a grudge them. Fourth, if you want to argue "NPOV" you'd better have the sources to show it. Fifth, if you want to argue about "Jan Grabowski's accolades", I'd start not with some Polish ambassador or another, but with this list of "who's who" in WWII, Holocaust and Jewish studies. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent Of course it's the WP:WRONGVERSION. I personally also think there is content which should be removed too. The only way to get to it is to get on the talk page and let cool heads (and reliable sources) prevail. However, so far this has been frustrated because of a revert cycle on the article and because of everybody being rather uncompromising (if not outright hostile) on the talk page.

Strongly support proposal by Slatersteven, I would also (either alternatively or additionally) propose 1RR 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest setting the article back to its Creation, and forbid any editing there without consensus. Only when (and if) consensus is achieved can an edit be made.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly support the proposal by Slatersteven. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, protecting the article is one thing, but then making edits through protection User:Scottywong? Even if you're correct in your edit summary (and I don't think you are), that's a straight up abuse of administrative tools.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

wp:brd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Poeticbent talk 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with an administrator putting a page under full protection then reverting to their own preferred version (and this isn't a "vandalism" issue, but rather a content dispute)? User:Scottywong please explain your actions here. Or self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Process Edit, Get Reverted, Discus. What happened Edit, Get Reverted, Revert back Get Reverted, Discus, Revert back. What the admin did was to set the page back to where it would have been if proper procedure had been followed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a question of BRD. This is a question of an administrator - @Scottywong:, I'm pinging you for the THIRD TIME, please respond - abusing his administrative tools by fully protecting the page then making edits to restore his preferred version through protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(and no, he didn't "set page back to where it would have been". In case, that wasn't his call to make, once he protected the page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly, I suggest you go and read the protection policy, in particular the part starting at WP:PREFER. Admins have discretion to protect a version other than the current one, because the current version contains policy-violating content or because protecting the most recent version "rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision." GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Before you go lecturing others about policy and instructing them to read it, you might want to actually read it yourself. Here's what it says:

"administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people." - this wasn't vandalism, defamation, or poor quality coverage of BLP. It was a straight up content dispute.

Then it says "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". User:Scottwong, who still hasn't bothered to reply, made edits which were controversial AFTER he used his admin tools to protect the page. That's a pretty clear cut abuse of admin tools. Admins have no right to get WP:INVOLVED in content disputes AND to simultaneously use their admin tools to enforce their own preferred version. This has been standard practice on Wikipedia for years, if not decades. Seeing as how you've consistently displayed a staggeringly profound ignorance of Wikipedia policy in the past (as evidenced by the fact that every time you make a comment at WP:AE, no other admins agree with you), your position here is unsurprising.

Finally, the way you phrase your comment - "Before you scream "admin abuse" too loudly" - is obnoxious and disingenuous. I'm not screaming anything and it's shitty of you to try to portray my comment in that way. I am simply pointing out, as is my right, and correctly, that the admin in question abused his tools. Which he did. So unless you think that ANY criticism of admins is always "screaming" then you need to quiet down and keep your mouth closed. Last thing we need is one incompetent admin protecting another incompetent admin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Care to tone down the personal attacks? I quoted the piece of the policy between those two quotes that you conveniently skipped over - how about interacting with it instead of just ignoring the policy that doesn't suit you? GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How about you don't describe my comments as "screaming"? And you're the one who actually "skipped over" the relevant parts of the policy and cherry picked the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify an admin making controversial content edits through full page protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment. But you know, cheery pick the part which maybe, kind of, sort of, with a big ol' stretch and some help from creative interpretation can be used to justify... what exactly? Are comments on content personal attacks now? Not last I checked. GoldenRing (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"It seems you missed the word "before" in my comment." - oh yes, that makes all the difference and makes your incivility ok. Riiggght.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the pot calls the kettle black. If you want to be able to cry incivility, you need to tone down your response to disagreement. At any rate, since it's now been explained to you repeatedly that policy allows what Scotty did, perhaps you might withdraw some of the above personal attacks? Both on him and me. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Already mentioned above, WP:WRONGVERSION is clearly what has happened here... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No, "wrong version" would've been if Scottywong had protected a... well, wrong version. This is different. He protected the page then went back and made controversial edits himself. It would've been one thing if he had protected a particular version which I don't happen to agree with. But here he is taking sides in a content dispute which means he's not WP:UNINVOLVED and as such has no business using his admin tools (which includes protecting the page).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that topic bans may be the only solution to some of the battleground mentality here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

In regards to whether this diff by Scottwong to remove a contentious section is valid, consider that the section has, for sourcing: 1) a CN tag , 2) a Tripod.com user-generated content site as a reference, and 3) a site that is tagged as having failed verification this month. Add that it is clearly is controversial, and its removal by Scottwong as the protecting admin, as outlined in WP:PREFER, seems fully appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact as, whether the protecting admin acted correctly or not in regards to policy, arguing over it doesn't really solve the underlying issue about the dispute on those pages (which are a problem of WP:BATTLEGROUND and won't go away even if all currently involved editors were blocked and never came back - they'd simply be replaced by new people arguing over it). I doubt the issue can be decisively resolved, but if people stop arguing about each other that would help. That of course is a lot to ask of some people so we should go ahead with the WP:1RR (which would help enforce the usual "if somebody disagrees and reverts your removal/addition, discuss immediately") and stricter consensus requirements. The solution could be the same as on other "heavily politicized" topics, for example the American Politics AE:

Extended content

What do you think of this proposal? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR would do the article good. The "consensus required" bit, would take it no where - just allow stonewalling.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And now in real time (from this). François Robere (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Moylesy98

It is with a heavy heart that I have to bring the actions of an editor to ANI. Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor that works on British railway related articles. The problem is, he often adds material that is unreferenced. Often in an effort to add up-to-date information to articles. After several complaints/warnings, I blocked Moylesy98 for three days earlier this month. The block was appealed and upheld as valid. I had hoped that having served the block, he would at last get that information added to Wikipedia articles needs to be backed up with a source. However, Moylesy98 has just carried on as before. The latest example being this unreferenced addition to a Featured Article, which I reverted.

I really don't want to lose an otherwise productive editor from the project, but something needs to be done. Therefore I propose a formal restriction on Moylsey98, similar to a TBAN:-

"Moylsey98 is prohibited from adding any new material to any Wikipedia article/list that is not backed up by a reliable source".

Editing against the restriction to result in escalating blocks. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Moylsey 98 has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a formal restriction of this sort is a complete waste of time. It would be nice if @Moylesy98: can comment here as to their editing patterns; if they don't, this may call for an indef block. I have little patience for contributors on train-related articles who are unwilling to list their sources even after multiple direct exhortations to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Power~enwiki Everyone is already prohibited from adding any new material to any Wikipedia article/list that is not backed up by a reliable source; if what is meant is that the subject should be explicitly required to provide inline citations with all their edits ... well, that might be good, but the restriction would need to say that. Otherwise, it could easily just mean providing an author's name and year in an edit summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  @Hijiri88:, that is what is meant, an explicit requirement to provide a reference to a reliable source with every edit that add to an article or list. I have a few reasons in mind as to why Moylsey98 is not doing so, but I want to keep them to myself for the moment. Let's see what the editor in question has to say for himself. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case then I'm neutral on the proposal, but I do think it would need to be reworded to make that clear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment a reference has been provided in a recent edit by Moylesy: [67]. I'm not at all qualified to comment on the obvious follow-up question of whether these references are to reliable data sources, or unverified user-generated content. Regarding the communication issue: Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) appears to have never edited a page in the Wikipedia: or Talk: namespaces, though they've occasionally interacted on User talk: pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - at face value, we're already in escalating block territory, so the unusual additional step of imposing a non-negotiable editing restriction seems pretty lenient, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the view that it may be a waste of time. That being said, the fact that you come here "with a heavy heart" to propose something that I view as being lenient tells me that you feel this editor is a net positive to the project and deserves to have the additional rope extended. I'm willing to trust your judgment in that regard. Swarm ♠ 02:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Permanent vandalism by user Orczar

Hi, the above user (a former Pole) tries permanently to falsify Polish history according the new Polish law to protect and defend the good name of Poland. This is the affected page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland Can someone stop this vandalism? The members of the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) were despite of their name NOT soldiers but simple partisans. In most of their actions they did violate the Geneve conventions eg. did murder not only unarmed and peaceful German settlers what caused in revange often dead Poles, but also Poles in German duties or German soldiers on streets. In all those cases they did not wear Polish uniform but did were camouflaged as civilists. And of course they didn´t wear a official sign visible already at distance so that one can recognise that they were enemies. And neither did they carry their weapons openly. They also didn´t wear rank insignia, even not their commanders as proofen in many photos. Instead they did wear GERMAN uniforms and weapons! All those violations are making them unlawful combatants, in simple words partisans. Please stop this user and his vandalism! Thanks in advance. Sorry when this is the wrong place for my request but I´m only a newbie here. Austrianbird (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Tough verty often unlawful combatants as they didn´t wore uniforms is borderline incoherent. I've reverted your addition, and advise you to not edit-war. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Austrianbird seems to make a habit of adding original research to Wikipedia articles: see [68][69][70][71][72] and so on. 86.150.123.30 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes and the edits they're currently edit warring over are the definition of Original Research. Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ashbourne1

User Ashbourne1 has consistently been vandalizing articles on Wikipedia or introducing false narratives in topics related to Turkish or Turkic peoples (such Azerbaijanis). User is introducing ethnic bias and prejudice in his edits, quite a few clearly being vandalizing trollish behavior as well which disrupts the overall environment at Wikipedia.

He's vandalized and reverted the names of the city of Istanbul to Constantinople on a couple articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Muhtar_Pasha&diff=836051630&oldid=822783307 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Bogoridi&diff=833160867&oldid=802446359 when Constantinople was changed to Istanbul in 1453...

He removed a forward link involving Turkic rulers for this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuman_bay_II&diff=836055080&oldid=813045789

Removed Robert Hossein's Azerbaijani heritage from this article (calling it a ploy from Azerbaijani nationalists, which is clearly false) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Hossein&diff=831519237&oldid=831248849

Removed the ethnic heritage of the Iranian Schindler, who was an ethnic Azerbaijani - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdol_Hossein_Sardari&diff=836220590&oldid=832381432

Removed Category:Israeli emigrants to the United States for this Azerbaijani-Jewish author (from Israel) here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zecharia_Sitchin&diff=828915449&oldid=827085356

Vandalized the name of Israel, and changed it to Palestine here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margot_Frank&diff=830969470&oldid=830770524

Added Westboro Baptist Church in this article before quickly reverted for false positive - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faithful_Word_Baptist_Church&diff=835098672&oldid=833017156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNutt (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I question how malicious this user really is, because it's clear you're assuming bad faith and have your own agenda. You also did not notify the user that they have been reported here, which is required. Elassint ^Hi 02:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Elassint is certainly correct that you are required to report him. As to Elassint's argument that you have your own agenda .. that seems odd, because Elassint just criticized you as assuming bad faith for assuming the other editor had their own agenda?? All that said, a number of the edits you point to seem quite inappropriate, and well beyond facially good faith revisions - this does seem to deserve closer attention by some admins. 2604:2000:E016:A700:7943:2675:5B48:2161 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Long term abuse from a customer from Rogers Communications Canada

• Previous ANI
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Rogers Toronto Date/EngVar Vanda
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Range block possibility?

• 2607:fea8:235f:f5fe::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
  • ‎2607:fea8:235f:f5fe:757f:5e4:28:513c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
  • 2607:FEA8:235F:F5FE:5871:A9AD:4B2D:D4B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 2607:fea8:235f:f5fe:7019:4aec:fe26:dee1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The ip user was banned for English variant vandal, removal of the Chinese word 有限 (limited) from Chinese limited company (mostly airline) and other behaviour as 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 (talk · contribs · 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 WHOIS). End up the range block is ineffective, as the ip was able to escape the block by using some ip that outside the block but still under the same ISP (2607:fea8::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ), such as this vandal 2607:FEA8:235F:FA28:F05A:9C30:9EE1:4CD5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in December and some other ip in October (2607:FEA8:235F:FE82:E1F7:8329:234C:374E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) Nevertheless the old ip were stale and the range block was expired.

The now relevant vandal was those edit at least from the range 2607:fea8:235f:f5fe::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), which i am not a native English language user, so i can't list out all vandal, but here is the sample:

• Haggis, a food that had Scottish origin, was vandalised by ‎2607:fea8:235f:f5fe:757f:5e4:28:513c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) by changing to American spelling of word. (Special:Diff/836335228)
• Removal of "Limited" in China Southern Airlines by 2607:FEA8:235F:F5FE:5871:A9AD:4B2D:D4B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Special:Diff/836290958)
• Removal of "Limited" and adding hoax name to Cathy Pacific by 2607:fea8:235f:f5fe:7019:4aec:fe26:dee1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Special:Diff/832065897)
  • Ditto but in Air China (Special:Diff/832065732)

Since 2607:fea8:235f:f5fe::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) cover the most recent month vandal, it seem it is the range that had the least collateral damage. Matthew_hk tc 07:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

2607:fea8:235f:f5fe::/64 shouldn't have any collateral damage at all, so I've blocked it again, for three months this time. No prejudice to any other admin blocking the larger range, but I'm not bold enough for that. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC).

Note: I meant to say I've blocked it, not that I've blocked it again; the previously blocked range was 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 (see the difference?). Perhaps that should be blocked as well — I'm not sure. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC).