Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


BLP violations and edit warring by BigDwiki[edit]

This discussion has been open for the better part of three weeks, and the only proposed community sanction, a TBAN from BLPs, has failed to garner community support, with a slight majority of respondents opposing it. That is not to say that the opposers feel that BigDwiki's conduct is not problematic, and numerous opposers in fact conceded that it is, but the opposers do feel that the case for classifying this as a clear-cut BLP vio has not been made, and/or that the disruption was not severe enough to warrant a blanket TBAN from all BLPs. I will note that the user has received a block for their conduct on that article, and that the article has been full-protected to prevent continued disruption. I believe this thread has resulted in sufficient admin attention, and going forward this user can be handled discretionarily, and with Discretionary Sanctions, if necessary, without any further discussion. Swarm 04:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 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. 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. (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. —JJBers 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[edit]

  • 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. (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC) (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. (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. (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? GMGtalk 21:01, 28 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. —JJBers 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obi2canibe and Wikipedia ethics[edit]

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);;
And there you have it.User:Oshwah sees no "weight behind your accusations" and therefore no weight exists, your accusations are weightless and YOU need to go to your room and THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE! And just wait until User:GiantSnowman gets home and sees that YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS YET! Don't cry or User:Oshwah will give you something to cry about.

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).

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.
@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)


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)

User:Betty262728's continuous bad behavior[edit]

Vandal account indeffed by Canterbury Tail. Nothing else to see here (non-admin closure) Elassint Hi 04:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This editor has been warned many times for removing material in a couple of articles for no reason. And now restored to blanking my profile page and replacing my talk page with cursing. Hotwiki (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with. Surprised it took this long. Canterbury Tail talk 11:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

E to the Pi times i and policies and guidelines[edit]

E to the Pi times i (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from policy and guideline pages and their talk pages as well as simply discussing changes to them, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. While the original proposal was only to prevent editing the pages directly, there's a significant amount of support for an indefinite block too, and even those opposed to that expect that the it may come to it soon. Given that, I think I can safely interpret the consensus as to read that the entire topic is covered and not just the specific pages as the proposal started off as. Likewise, while the appeal window started off as three months, a later suggestion was to change that to six, and given the other comments in this thread, I'm closing this as can be appealed at WP:AN after six months. —SpacemanSpiff 11:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 (utc) 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)
  • 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[edit]

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: eiπ, 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. –Davey2010Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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 (utc)
    @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 (utc) 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New article mistake[edit]

A simple mistake has been sorted, thanks to Dekimasu. No harm done. Fish+Karate 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just moved the new article Žito from my userspace. I accidentally moved it into userspace. I simply moved it into article space, thinking that it wouldn't be a problem, but apparently there is a user by that name (Žito (talk · contribs)) and their talk page is now at Talk:Žito. I need help to sort this out.--Auric talk 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Dekimasuよ! 11:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but where did the original talkpage for the article go?--Auric talk 11:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
NM, I found it.--Auric talk 11:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It had never left your userspace, because it was blocked by the other user's talk. I've reunited it with the article now. Dekimasuよ! 11:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this.--Auric talk 11:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed some content on BilCat's userpage which I perceived to be homophobic. A series of userboxes state that he is conservative, anti-abortion, and pro-death penalty, which to me is acceptable, given the right to freedom of expression, but I think he crossed the line with a box with an anti-gay marriage message. Sorry if I cause any hassle with this report, as I am new to Wikipedia and have left-wing political views. Levdizd (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd

I've looked at User:BilCat's userboxes, and while there are some/many/all/few/none with which I might or might not agree, I see nothing there which violates Wikipedia policies or which requires administrator action. If you object to any specific userbox, you might want to consider nominating it for deletion at WP:MFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Levdizd: this has been discussed several times - there, there, and there. There's no consensus to delete this, and please don't flare up the great userbox wars again! The userbox in question, as I see it, may not even be homophobic (whether a user can express a homophobic view in a userbox is questionable). A user using that userbox may view marriage as a religious institution, hence between one man and one woman. They may support equal rights for civil partnerships, and oppose civil marriages in all forms, not just homosexual forms (i.e. non-religious heterosexual couples should have civil partnerships, not marriage). Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Levdizd: A user is allowed great latitude in what they may place on their user page. The user box you object to is on over 100 user pages [3] which tends to indicate that it is not considered improper by the editing community to express such an opinion. There are many editors from all over the world who have wide and varied opinions, some of which one is sure to object to.
This is not really a matter for ANI. Also, please note the instructions in the big red notice at the top of the page. You must notify an editor you open a complaint about by placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on their talk page, which you still need to do. Thank you. Jbh Talk 19:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
They did, I checked, it was removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
ooppss … missed that. Jbh Talk 19:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Wrong opinions are opinions -someone (2018) --QEDK () 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I've posted the ANI notice on BilCat. Please note for next time, Levdizd. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC).
He did, but I removed it as read. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks Boing. The userbox is located at User:UBX/onemanonewoman, and is used by many Wikipedians. If it's deleted, that's up to the community. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the userbox is problematic. However I do object to insulting someone by calling them a "snowflake" (edit summary) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked closely at a snowflake? They're beautiful (he says, trying to defuse an unnecessary situation with a little levity). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
In the same spirit, I was thinking of giving BilCat yet another ANI notice...then he gets to keep the match ball ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 19:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, Galobtter, I should not have said that in a pique of anger, and immediately regretted having posted it. I'll try do think more carefully about my responses in the future. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Levdizd (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd

  • Close, please. EEng 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It kind of figures that the complainant is Canadian. I recall Dave Foley saying on a talk show, "We're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • The "complainant" is a new user and very young, Baseball Bugs. Please resist the temptation to make facetious remarks about him. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC).
I just need to pop inside the archive template to contradict myself: Levdizd isn't new nor probably all that young, but is a sock of WikiVandal. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jannaalo : vandalism report[edit]

This user Jannaalo kept moving the page's title about 20 times everyday.Changed the page's name and claiming it is a wrong because he/she knows the artist birth name, but without any evidence supporting his claim. He/she wanted something negatively in purpose. Jannaalo is also deleted lots of the page's value information that other users added in (such as works, year, husband's name). Jannaalo changed artist's husband name to a wrong person, from Johnny to Roy Finch (described in the talk page of article Linh Nga). This user also very annoying, argued with others on the talk page, being disrespectful, then came here to report negatively about them. I think Jannaalo needed to be blocked from editing. [4] (brandonrolland88 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC))

It's been moved three times, not 20, but should still probably be move protected. I don't see any issue with the diff you gave. People are supposed to argue on talk pages. That's what they are for. All that being said, with all the citekill and references that don't lead to anything, coupled with the tone of the article and the WP:OWN attitude we are seeing in this and the other thread about Linh Nga above sure makes this look like UPE. Could an admin please move protect the article? John from Idegon (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Brandonrolland88: You are required to notify Jannaalo when you start a thread about them at ANI. I've done so for you. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Brandonrolland88: Can you provide specific diffs that you think justify a block? I don't see any serious policy violations in Jannaalo's edit history. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


This user does not follow the rules of the Encyclopedia. His edits are destructive. He removes a photograph from Gorge Zorbas's grave, claiming it is a fake, but without any evidence supporting his claim. I have provided sources confirmint the photo is authentic, but he refuses to discuss the issue on the article George Zorbas talk page. Although he was warned on his personal page to stop with these destructive edits, he attacked me on my personal talk page. Such behavior is unacceptable. Jingiby (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • This is a newbie, so I'm gonna cut them some slack. I've left a gentle warning on their talk page, if this continues, feel free to re-report or let me know, and I'll issue a short block. Swarm 17:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It does raise the question, how do we know this is their grave? Have we any sources that support this? Canterbury Tail talk 20:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd guess that these [5][6] should probably be good enough for the moment; anything more should probably be discussed at the article talk. Fut.Perf. 21:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User:TropeWatcher adding antisemitic triple parentheses to articles[edit]

Indeffed by Bbb23 (SN: I didn't know that about triple parentheses either). (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am particularly concerned by this BLP edit adding triple parentheses to multiple names, and this edit to an FA, which has not yet been reverted. I notice he has edited the triple parenthesis article and is clearly aware of their meaning. Looks like a troll to me. TwoTwoHello (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The user has been adding a lot of original research across a variety of US Civil War-related articles, which is also problematic, though not necessarily a subject for ANI. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User has been indef blocked by User:Bbb23. Elassint Hi 19:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Question. I concur what they're doing is disruptive and agree with the block, but for my own edification how is adding triple parentheses anti-semetic? Canterbury Tail talk 20:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, simply read Triple parentheses and you will understand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Huh. Learn something new every day. Amazing the garbage some people will come up with in an attempt to undeservedly make themselves feel better, I don't get it. Thanks for the explanation. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nakulanand adding inappropriate links to articles[edit]

Self closing. Editor was warned and has not edited since the warning. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nakulanand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding an inappropriate link to List of Indian sweets and desserts, here, which I removed, but they readded it here. The link takes you to a business website designed and developed by one Nakul Anand. This user has also promoted their freelance website business at Talk:Web design here. They have also added an inappropriate link to a tutoring website offering exam preparation services for the Indian Administrative Service, here. Blackmane (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You've already warned them. If they persist, they should be blocked. You haven't notified them of this thread as you're required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I was editing late at night and that slipped my mind after I made this post. Will drop it now. Blackmane (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mike dichen[edit]

Indeffed by Boing! said Zebedee. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All the uploads from User:Mike dichen seems to be copyright violations. Please review user's contributions. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Some examples from today:
and the list goes on. Nearly all of user's uploads appear to be copyvios. The files can be dealth with through CSD/FFD, but this is becoming disruptive. If the uploader can comment here (or at their talk page) and agree to stop with this, perhaps we can all go back to doing whatever we were doing before.Ajpolino (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some blatant copyright violations there, with clearly implausible claims of copyright ownership. I've blocked indefinitely, and will examine their uploads with a view to deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    All deleted, and I've notified Commons admins as there are more over there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Wikipedia has a bewildering array of noticeboards, and it's not surprising a new user might think it's a good idea to post an identical query on several of them. But it's actually quite strongly frowned on, Jannaalo, because it wastes other people's time and spreads the discussion over several pages. You have been given a very detailed and helpful answer by Nick Moyes at the Teahouse, and therefore I'm closing this now. If you have further questions, please post them below Nick's reply at the Teahouse. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do I do about Congdungngonhanh making personal attacks on me [7] (Jannaalo (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC))

You could start by answering the questions raised by the user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You're supposed to notify the other editor when you start a thread about them. I've done it for you this time. I'm not seeing any personal attack there. Suggest you discuss the issues raised, asking for outside opinion if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I have just answered the identical question from the user at the Teahouse (see here). Only on completing my reply did I spot they'd also raised it at ANI, too. I advised I could see no personal attack against them, just an element of mounting frustration from other editors for repeatedly not acting on requests not to make certain renaming edits and page moves, which I believe resulted in an article being given move protection. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I sense forum shopping here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's going on?[edit]

Sock gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparently a sock puppet investigation is ongoing for my account. After I reported BilCat for his homophobic userbox, he contacted Home Lander to start an investigation. I read the article on sockpuppetry, and it has something to do with using multiple accounts. This is the only account I've ever had, so what's happening? Is BilCat just upset that I reported him? If it makes a difference, I just moved into a rented house about 2 weeks ago, and my landlord supplies the WiFi, so that might affect my IP. Can someone please help me? Levdizd (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

All of my edits are being reverted by Home Lander, with no explanation as to why. Levdizd (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd
You know full well what's going on. And also, you failed to notify me of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Home Lander, I was in the process of notifying you when you posted this. Please explain why you are reverting my edits. They were all good faith and fully sourced. I thought you weren't supposed to "bite the newcomers"? Levdizd (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd

───────────────────────── For those watching, this user is clearly a sock of WikiVandal, and reversions of their edits are justified under Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. Home Lander (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears the alleged 9th grader has been caught Calgary-Flames-red-handed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I've applied the CU boomerang. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) User:There'sNoTime said that the confirmed WV accounts were stale and no CU could be performed, but User:Zzuuzz said it was confirmed "per behaviour and CU". Not that I doubt the sockpuppetiness of the account, but what gives? Was Zzuuzz's comment just a misprint? Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Sometimes one has to and can look a bit deeper. I would suggest neither of us was wrong, but that I could persuade any CU that I was right. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── For the record, I had contacted Home Lander hours before Levdizd made his homophobic claim against me, and solely based on his edits to articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed deletion of an article[edit]

All AN/I deals with is behavior. Bbb23 has warned Adrian816 about their behavior, and Huon did nothing wrong in nominating the article for deletion. Discussion on the AfD will determine whether keeping, deleting or merging is the preferred course of action, so there's nothing left in this AN/I to be dealt with, unless further misbehavior breaks out.(non-admin closure) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please review whether the administrator of wikipedia who posted this "article for deletion" proposal acted within guidelines, when wikipedia's own policies suggest merging articles is preferential instead. I feel that this proposal for deletion of one of the articles on Wikipedia that does not criticise the Salvation Army does not raise my confidence in the ability of wikipedia admins to always act in a neutral way. Here's the proposed deletion: The encounters I've had with wikipedia admins has certainly discouraged me from considering your organisation in a good light. Adrian816 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing for it seems to be solely from the Salvation Army itself, which is insufficient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The total content in that article based on reliable third-party sources is zero. Thus there's nothing to merge. It might be possible to write something about the Soldier's Covenant based on the sources editors other than Adrian816 have brought in the deletion discussion (personally I still don't see that the sources suffice to establish independent notability; it's possible to disagree on that), but nothing of the current content is worthy of keeping without rewriting it from scratch based on independent sources. Since Adrian816 is well aware of WP:NPA, they should be rather careful about casting aspersions without evidence as they do above and here. Huon (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that information is linkable from Salvation Army, there's no need for a separate article unless there's some notable external coverage of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've warned Adrian on his Talk page about his conduct, i.e., personal attacks, at the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by Razorblade76[edit]

Razorblade76 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Catfish Jim, per WP:NLT. Fish+Karate 13:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user Razorblade76 has been blocked on Italian Wikipedia and he's repeately escaping the block creating new accounts. After ranting on his Italian user page, he copy-pasted the speech on his user page on adding some legal threats.

Please see what to do. --Horcrux92 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. In the page above, he also added his phone number (which is a sensitive data), that we rev-delete on

Blocked for legal threats. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow. Over at it.wp they take drama to operatic new heights undreamt of here. We have much to learn from them. EEng 11:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quack quack[edit]