Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998

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

Noticeboard archives


Edit-warring BLPCRIME violations after warnings and a block[edit]

User in question has been indeffed for BLP violations based on a BLPN discussion, but this discussion also shows support for the action. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 9 December 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.

User Greywin was blocked (by me) about a month ago for refusing to engage in a discussion when this page was protected (also by me) and engaging in personal attacks instead. Having returned from the block, they are again disrupting this article's talk page with novel interpretations of our biographies of living persons policy, and edit-warring to restore info (such as this) which many other users have suggested violates the policy, as it is a clear allegation of crime committed by a living person. It appears they are not going to stop this, and so I am suggesting that Greywin be topic-banned from all articles and discussions about crimes committed or alleged to have been committed by living persons (essentially, topic ban from WP:BLPCRIME-related pages). Or just indeffed. But I'd like this to be a community decision rather than just me blocking them again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and posting the compulsory notice on their talk page reminded me that they've been alerted to the discretionary sanctions on BLPs from the last incident. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Considering their edit history, a topic ban on BLP crime and an indef might amount to the same thing. As such I will support either remediation; since both will result in this particular WP:RGW issue being resolved about the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Users are constantly violating WP:TPNO, editing my posts, removing even sourced material covered by highly reputable sources like Frankfurter Allgemeine. This is no joke anymore, this is MASSIVE CENSORSHIP and a violation of basic WP principles like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, freedom of speech and so on. Obviously for reasons of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.--Greywin (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
NON-ADMIN COMMENT As has been repeatedly pointed out to Greywin, undoing violations of our WP:BLP policy is a specified exception to WP:TPNO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no violation of BLP policy. But there is a serious, serious violation of the basic principles which I pointed out.--Greywin (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It's worth noting at this juncture that several of Greywin's edits to this talk page were just revdelled for BLP violations and for copyvio. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
By a small circle of people promoting their common political viewpoint instead of displaying information from WP:RS.--Greywin (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did you just suggest that Primefac is in a WP:CABAL with me and NatGertler? Just want to be clear. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't know what he is. As he didn't write anything and deleted while the discussion is ongoing.--Greywin (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Re "Did you just suggest that Primefac is in a CABAL with me and NatGertler?", There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef per their comment "MASSIVE CENSORSHIP and a violation of basic WP principles like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, freedom of speech and so on". Qualitist (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
For what? For bringing in material from Frankfurter Allgemeine, which is deleted on a talk page and for critizing this? This is absurd.--Greywin (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support t-ban or indef — For what has already been described and comments like this. Rather obvious this editor cannot be neutral in this area and he has thoroughly demonstrated a bad case of WP:IDHT. BLPcrime is already suffering enough from lack of serious consideration, so another editor inflating that issue does not help the project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and the other editors on this topic are neutral? User:Deb for example, hounding me for month, tagging every article by me, if political or not? Or User:Simonm223, who is very obviously acting out of political motivation (according to his user page)? If you would leave it to them to decide what is notable, every article in this topic would have been deleted - as they were placing all of them on AfD. Every article was kept there... But it's ok, settle the score and kill the messenger to get the "balance" or "NPOV" that you want.--Greywin (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've indefinitely blocked Greywin. ANI is not on my watchlist, but BLPN is, and I'd made the choice after reviewing their actions there: they continued to hint at and imply on a public page that someone had committed crimes that they have not been convicted of. That is not acceptable. As the conduct was ongoing and involved a living person, I felt a block was needed immediately to contain the damage to a living human being. If ANI decides for a lower sanction, any admin is free to change it in view of the consensus without further consulting me. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Given the type of articles-in-question, I believe the appropriate phrase might be "Book'em Danno". GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Or "Wiki 'em, Jimbo!" EEng 01:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I support the decision to indef the user. Given the edits and the user's responses here and in other places, it's clear that the disruption would've continued until this was done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

His immediate unblock request and comments above are worrisome. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support indef because I've complained about this user's inability to comprehend NPOV at the relevant noticeboard, but if anything he has got worse. One has to wonder why he doesn't edit at German Wikipedia but instead spends his time here criticising other editors for "not understanding English". Deb (talk) 10:00, 8 December 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.

Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac[edit]

This is not a content dispute resolution forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

A number of editors are consistently reverting additions to the page List of bitcoin forks even for additions that are well sourced. Multiple users have complained on the page that too much content has been removed. The users reverting these additions are not giving anywhere near sufficient reasoning for their reverts. After attempting to discuss the issue, most of the users that are reverting these additions simply aren't discussing the issues at all. Specifically, User:primefac and User:Praxidicae only responded a single time to my discussion specifically about their edits, and their responses completely ignored the problem I had with their edits. Those two users have ignored subsequent requests to comment on which they think aren't reliable and why. User:Retimuko has reverted my edits multiple times, and yet hasn't said a word about it on the discussion I created about this.

User:Ladislav_Mecir has been the only person willing to discuss, however he hasn't been very cooperative. His opinion is that the source I chose are not reliable, but he hasn't given me good reasons he thinks that. He chose to focus on the only one, of 8 sources I have to choose from, that is self-published, and only gave reasons that contradicted wikipedia policy. At first, he claimed that self-published sources can't be used at all. Then once I show him that wikipedia policy accepts self-published sources in certain cases, and that this situation met all the criteria to be accepted, he claims that the source isn't giving information about themselves, when it clearly is. When asked to comment on the other sources, which should all be less contentious since they're not self-published, he completely ignored me. This isn't the behavior of someone that wants to ensure sourced quality content on wikipedia.

Key diffs and timeline

  • Praxidicae was the first to revert one of my edits, and he did not assume good faith when calling the sources I used "refspam" (which they absolutely are not), and inexplicably references WP:WTAF even tho that page is about redlinks and I did not add any redlinks. If he was talking about the external links I added in to the home pages of those coins when he said "refspam" (even tho they weren't being used as references), he should have simply removed the external links and kept in the content.
  • When I reverted his edit, asking him to discuss his content removal on the talk page, Primefac then made some edits:
    1. He first added redlinks to the page.
    2. Then he removed all the content I had added citing "rmv redlinks per convention" when he was the one that added those redlinks in the first place, and made no mention of the reason he removed all that content.
  • After I discussed changes to my edits to address any concerns those editors had, after waiting a week without hearing any further discussion, and having not heard any good reason my sources weren't entirely usable, I added just one currency out of the list of those I had sources for.
  • Then Retimuko reverted my edit still without discussing anything on the talk page, even after I had asked him to discuss.
  • After reverting that, asking again for him to discuss the content he's removing (and him simply not discussing it),
  • Ladislav Mecir made the most recent revert which accuses me of violating the revert sanction. I think this is an absurd charge since I put up content that had been modified and discussed

It seems clear to me that these editors are trying to keep this page on lock down, and are harassing other editors with wikilawyering and stonewalling techniques to get their way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've started a thread to disucss this issue. I've invited the users involved to comment and discuss. I've discussed extensively with the one user willing to have a discussion. I've proposed alternate edits based on the discussion with better and more sources. I've tried (and failed) to gain an understanding of why these users think my edits aren't up to wikipedia standards.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like to get external opinions on whether my edits are up to wikipedia standards or not (and if not, why not), as well as get opinions on whether the conduct of these editors (that are consistently reverting the work of me and others) is appropriate behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresheneesz (talkcontribs) 23:43, 8 December 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.

Genre warring[edit]

IP blocked by Laser brain. SemiHypercube 16:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:59, 9 December 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.

IP Block-evading birthdate vandal[edit]

Blocked for six months by Oshwah. Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

Editing from this IP address since 13 October 2018, this IP has progressed from general trolling and vandalism (including reverting his own edits back and forth) to altering and fabricating birth dates. He has been blocked three times already, by RegentsPark, NinjaRobotPirate, and Favonian. NinjaRobotPirate's block rationale was "Block evasion".

Anyway, it's time for the IP to get a 6-month block, so that they do not vandalize vital information.

Also, can people help check that all of his edits have been reverted? It's hard to tell on some of the edits because the vandalism was overlooked and the articles have been edited in the meantime. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've applied a six month block to this user given their long-term disruptive editing and their block history, and I've verified that all recent edits by this IP have been reverted. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:32, 10 December 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.


Reported user has been checkuser blocked as a sock puppet. Nothing else seems to need to be done given the indefinite block, so this can be closed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)
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.

DCsghost is basically a single purpose account devoted to adding flattering content to the article on Ruggero Santilli, a fringe scientist. Despite warnings from Doug Weller and revertes from me and David Eppstein, he continues to edit war flattering content and assert bad faith on the part of the reality-based editors who revert his edits. He shows no sign of accepting Wikipedia processes. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 10 December 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.

Alexandria Poklonskaya[edit]

Blocked, talkpage access revoked, everything's pretty much wrapped up here. Yunshui  15:46, 10 December 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.

Basically all of their edits consist of talk-page trolling on race-related topics. Also the discussion on their talkpage in which they assert that they do not know of the person who has the same name as their username is bizarre in many ways (in particular, it is not clear why they were allowed to edit without a username change). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and request a block to prevent further disruption. --JBL (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I had just reverted their last four edits as grossly offensive and racist. O3000 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I have reviewed their edits and imposed a NOTHERE block. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, how was I able to predict that their unblock request would complain about Jews before they made it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:45, 10 December 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.

Multiple vandalisms by IP user using various addresses from University of Leeds[edit]

IP User,,,,, has been extremely persistent in wishing to introduce nonconstructive edits to EPR paradox. At first, I thought that this person was merely a misguided, but good faith editor. Now it has become apparent that this person is a vandal, with edit comments like "Kindly make proper research before you type. Einstein's name in German is spelled [ Ahlbert Ainshtain ]" with gross misspelling of Einstein's name. Both User:Skysmith and I have been undoing this person's edits, and in the Talk page, User:Spasemunki mentions that he has had previous experience with this IP editor back in October. I had reported this user on WP:AIV and I was advised to bring up this situation here. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

School range block, maybe? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it may have to be. Pranksters like this one can really ruin things for everybody else. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The range among these IPs is, and it is now blocked for two weeks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This IP user has found another IP address to vandalize from:, also belonging to University of Leeds. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Simon Wessely[edit]

This is an article that's on my watchlist because it catalysed my acceptance of an RfA nomination something over a decade ago. It has been under attack for a long time, by a subset of chronic fatigue syndrome patients who utterly reject the possibility of any psychological component to the disease, reject the term CFS, insist on "myalgic encephalomyopathy" (ME), despite the absence of any evidence, as far as our article goes, that it is actually a form of encephalomyopathy, and so on. Basically Wessely tried CBT with patients, apparently had some success, and the "ME" activists cannot accept that because, in their minds, it means the disease is psychosomatic. That is not at all what it means, there are plenty of real diseases where CBT helps, but never mind.

So that's the backstory.

Today a new user, Rainywednesday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has piled in to add a claim that "In a 1993 meeting with a minister for the disabled Simon Wessely claimed that “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse". That is a pretty nasty piece of writing, and it's sourced to an article in the Independent by someone with zero other articles on their byline. It turns out to be a submitted article by an "ME" activist and not by an Independent staffer. The user provides links to purported minutes of the meeting, I am poring through a looooooong pdf right now, also hosted on the blog of another "ME" activist. I am treating this a BLP issue right now due tot he extensive history of vicious attacks at that article (check the deleted history - Jimbo nuked it at one point). That said, I think it's borderline and more likely to be quote mining than deliberate falsification. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the user says there is "a long history of bigotry surrounding ME/CFS". That is a MASSIVE red flag in this case. The "ME" activists consider the suggestion that psychiatric or psychological interventions might help, to be a bigoted attempt to dismiss their symptoms as "all in the mind". This is not true, of course, and also a red herring: PTSD genuinely is all in the mind but is utterly debilitating, as I found out. If anyone can find the text in this bundle, I'd be grateful. It would help establish whether this is WP:UNDUE quote mining or a legitimate quote. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Wessely’s theories are a good 25 years behind the times, though; we now know CFS/ME is virus-mediated in a similar vein as Guillian-Barre (which, unlike CFS/ME, is more common in men than women and is therefore not considered partly “psychological” in nature). Also, unsurprisingly, his antiquated, now wholly discredited theories have been recently seized upon by the loathsome incel community as ‘proof’ that while men get really sick, women are crazy neurotic malicious liars pretending to be sick to hurt men. Do you really expect the user - or anyone, ever - to believe that there isn’t malice behind these theories? (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Response to Guy from Rainydaywednesday
This is interesting. I raise concern about the history of bigotry surrounding ME/CFS, and that's used to tie me to a bigoted view of the motivations and beliefs of 'activists'. Guy's 'backstory' is so confused and misleading that it will take considerable time to properly pick it apart. It might be best to leave that until after looking at the specifics of this one reversion dispute.
I added this sentence to the section on controversies surrounding Simon Wessely:
"Minutes from a 1993 meeting on CFS with Minister of State for Social Security Nicholas Scott record Wessely claiming that "Benefits can often make patients worse". [1]"
Guy reverted this, saying "Not in source, not independent, usual suspects saying usual thing.". I thought that the "usual suspects saying usual thing" was a bit unpleasant, but I had added in the name of the Minister myself in order to provide a link, so then changed the sentence to make it close to what was in the source:
"In a 1993 meeting with a minister for the disabled Simon Wessely claimed that “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse.”[1]"
The Independent article I was citing states:
"“Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse” claimed psychiatrist Simon Wessely, one of the originators of the biopsychosocial model of ME, in 1993 in a meeting with a minister for the disabled."
Guy reverted this edit, saying that "Still WP:SYN because the source still doesn't say that. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)"
Guy has not explained what it is that he believes the article does not say.
Furthermore, because I care about accuracy, I had already checked the source of this quote, which was the minutes of the meeting written by a Civil Servant, Dr M McGrath Secretary to the Disability Living Allowance Assessment Board. These minutes are available at the UK National Archive, and were released following an FOI request. For anyone wishing to check directly with the UK National Archive, their reference for this file is BN 141/1, but it is not possible to link to this source for a digital copy. A digital copy of this file has been placed on-line here:
It is slightly embarrassing that Guy has said he is "poring through a looooooong pdf right now" and "If anyone can find the text in this bundle, I'd be grateful." When I posted a link to this file I had told him that the quote can be found on page 10 of 235. I had tried to make things easy for him. I think that those minutes appear a couple of times in the bundle, so hopefully he'll find one version or another before too long.
If we put aside the prejudices and stigma that can surround ME/CFS, I thikn it's fair to say that my sentence was accurate and provides some useful information about why Wessely may be seen as a controversial figure.
Just to be clear, and I resent the seeming need to comment on this, I do not have an ideological opposition to psychological research or interventions for ME/CFS, nor do I think that any benefits coming from psychological therapies would indicate that ME/CFS was "all in the mind" (a bizarre phrase to use anyway). I also don't think that these sorts of misguided concerns are what motivates most of those patients who have been speaking critically of poor quality research or misleading claims about the efficacy of CBT or GET. Instead, this seems to be a bigoted straw-man created by those who are unable to understand the true reasons for controversy in this area.
In recent years many academics, including psychiatrists and psychologists, have been speaking out in support of ME/CFS patients raising concern about methodical problems and statistical spin, particularly as it relates to the PACE trial, a piece of research that Simon Wessely described as "a thing of beauty". This has been covered by the New York Times: Sense About Statistics: Science Based Medicine: In a special edition of the Journal of Health Psychology: And so on.
For those pseudo-sceptics who had simply trusted the stigmatising smears and prejudice promoted by authority figures a decade ago I'm sure that this is very confusing. It's obvious that when homeopaths run a nonblinded trial in which participants in one arm are told they are receiving an effective treatment, results for subjective self-report outcomes will not be reliable and those who claim otherwise can be laughed at... but if trials of CBT are criticised for doing the exact same thing, shouldn't that be dismissed as militant anti-psychiatry?
Everyone can see how the poorly founded and exaggerated claims of behavioural interventions altering gay men's sexuality were stigmatising and led to social problems, but if ME/CFS patients raise concerns about similar problems, doesn't that mean that they're assuming mental health problems are not 'real'? Peter Tatchell has commented that "Attempt to stigmatise ME/CFS #PACEtrial campaigners reminds me of when I protested aversion therapy for LGBTs" and "Isaac Marks moved from aversion therapy to a trial of CBT for CFS. Why was he still respected? Lessons not learnt."
I see that Guy has now described Wright's Independent piece (classed as a 'long-read' by them) as "an op-ed by a member of the anti-psychiatry advocacy community". Where has Wright described herself as a member of the anti-psychiatry advocacy community? Is this label applied simply because she is a patient with ME/CFS? Is it acceptable to be dismissive of journalism about an illness because the author suffers from it themselves? I saw that the PACE trial authors had tried to ensure that a patient academic publishing criticism of their work in a peer-reviewed journal was made to declare their diagnosis as a COI. Would such an attitude be seen as acceptable for those suffering from AIDS or depression?
Wright's article includes this paragraph from someone who fell ill with ME/CFS after being engaged in gay rights advocacy: "Adam Lowe, an author and journalist with ME is also demanding accountability. “One of the most common misconceptions about ME patients is that we’re anti-psychiatry and resent all treatments that imply even a partially psychological cause for the illness. This is another myth that needs to be challenged. I’m a strong believer in adequate mental health provision for everyone as are most ME patients."
Guy makes some more confused claims about the controversy over the naming of ME/CFS/SEID. It is of course not the case that a preference for ME requires one to be committed to a particular pathology for ME/CFS. Lots of medical conditions have names stemming from tradition or old ideas. We now know that the flu is not caused by the influence of the moon. The term CFS can cause problems for patients, and many have been unhappy that some researchers chose to promote the use of CFS over ME, but that is no reason to assume that they are idiots.
One reason why patients a troubled by the use of CFS over ME is that it leads to them having reduced legal rights. PACE trial researcher Peter White gave a talk on the PACE trial's results to his employers at Swiss Re insurance, and the legal advantage the 'CFS' diagnosis provides to insurers was explained there: "A final point specific to claims assessment, and a question we’re often asked, is whether CFS would fall within a mental health exclusion, if one applies to a policy. The answer to this lies within the precise exclusion wording. If the policy refers to functional somatic syndromes in addition to mental health, then CFS may fall within the exclusion. If the policy doesn’t refer to functional somatic syndromes as well as mental health then it would be difficult to apply. The point made is that a diagnosis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or ME (a term often used colloquially instead of CFS) is considered a neurological condition according to the arrangement of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes whereas CFS can alternatively be defined as neurasthenia which is in the mental health chapter of ICD10." All three of the PACE trial's primary investigators declared insurance industry COIs, and this was one of the issues covered in Wright's piece.
In 2013 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Social Security Administration announced their intention to ask the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to convene an expert committee to examine the evidence base for ME/CFS. When this report was published in 2015 one of the conclusions they reached was that "The committee agrees that the term “chronic fatigue syndrome” can result in stigmatization and trivialization and should no longer be used as the name of this illness."
Guy describes me as having 'piled in' - does he just mean that I added one sentence to an article? He says of my edit "that is a pretty nasty piece of writing" - in what way is it 'nasty'? More importantly, is it inaccurate?
I've not done much editing on wikipedia, only a few CFS ones, but the experience has not been great. I think I've won out in the debates I've engaged in but it's been tedious and I've often avoided commenting when other people were clearly promoting misleading claims because of this. I'm also going to ignore some of Guy's misleading claims above. I fear that we're already at the point where my attempting to clarify just some of the misconceptions here will be viewed as tldr evidence that I am an unreasonable obsessive.
Does Wikipedia have any policies in place for addressing problems with a culture of prejudice? If so, I think that the way some editors write about ME/CFS needs to be looked at. If not, I think that you're long past the point of needing one.Rainywednesday (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Wright, Nathalie (7 January 2018). "Time for Unrest: Why patients with ME are demanding justice". The Independent. London. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
So you don't have to comb through it, folks - that paragraph from the Indy feature: "The biopsychosocial model, and the assumption that if people who become disabled from conditions like ME adopted the correct attitudes and behaviours they could recover, seems to appeal to politicians looking to cut the costs of disability payments. “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse” claimed psychiatrist Simon Wessely, one of the originators of the biopsychosocial model of ME, in 1993 in a meeting with a minister for the disabled. If giving disability benefits to patients, such as those with ME, may foster a culture of dependency, then cutting these benefits can be presented as a positive intervention. According to a document promoting the biopsychosocial framework circulated by Lord Freud, the former minister for welfare reform, it is important for those with health problems like ME to “recognise that the sick role is temporary, in the expectation of recovery” and that giving disability benefits to such patients, may foster a culture of dependency." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That not is dispute. I take it the issue is whether or not the op-ed in Independent is a reliable source for Wessely having said that. I suspect at least that the report, being activism, is shorn of context. Rainywednesday's repeatedly bombing it into the article lede here strikes me as problematic. [Add: so here's a relevant tweet from Wessely[1] Yes, he wrote these words - but he now says they are too crude ... so putting this front and centre in his bio certainly is problematic.] Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there some reason this is at ANI? It looks like the sort of dispute best discussed elsewhere like at WP:BLP/N. I'm not really sure what sort of administrative attention is required. I appreciate there have been problems in the past, but the editor above seems to be engaging in discussion and there have been sources provided. Whether or not the sources are good enough is something which should be handled via ordinary WP:dispute resolution. If there's some fear of WP:sockpuppetry or something, that's one thing but none seems to have been presented and in any case, it's probably better handled at WP:SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I see Guy appears to have exceeded 3RR. Is the administrative issue whether the editing falls under the BLP exception of WP:3RR or Guy needs to stop? Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a BLP exception specifically due to the history of activist attacks at this article (check the deleted history for some real pearls). As you see above, these people want to right great wrongs - the claim that Wessely's views ib CFS are out of date is telling, since the alleged date of the statement is 1993 and Wessely has not worked in CFS for a long time (his focus now is PTSD). There is a desire to rewrite history. In this case the "source" is an op-ed by an ME activist (Google is a thing, folks), a class of source that has been consistently problematic in that article. Again, check the deleted history, you will see just how bitterly some of these folks hate Wessely. But you have to know the history to see the problem, so I brought it here for more admin eyes. As an aside, the question of whether the claim is true or not is only part of the issue, there's also the possibility of cherry-picking or quote mining. I still haven't found the purported minute of the meeting. The PDF is 235 pages and is not searchable, my Adobe subscription has lapsed so I can't OCR it. The fact that this has not been reported by any source other than this activist seems to me to be the clincher: the article's comment is clearly motivated by personal animus towards Wessely. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Guy, see Wessely's tweet I linked above for the National Archive excerpt. Alexbrn (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Guy says: "I still haven't found the purported minute of the meeting. The PDF is 235 pages and is not searchable, my Adobe subscription has lapsed so I can't OCR it." As I've now repeatedly told you, the quote is on page 10 of that document. How can you find this simple task such a struggle?
Guy says "these people want to right great wrongs" - I'm almost impressed by your continued willingness to use terminology like 'these people'. Don't you think it's ironic to raise concerns of an ideological commitment to righting great wrongs leading to unreasonable editing, considering your own apparent fear of 'these people': "activists unhappy with any possibility that CBT might help with CFS (they utterly reject anything other than a purely physical cause)". Everything I've said can be shown to be accurate, whereas I do not believe that the same can be said of you. I care about accuracy - if that's seen as a bad thing on wikipedia then that is worrying.
Guy says: "The fact that this has not been reported by any source other than this activist seems to me to be the clincher: the article's comment is clearly motivated by personal animus towards Wessely." This is such warped reasoning it's barely comprehensible. If Nathalie Wright was the only person to have taken the time to read the 235 pages of government records Guy is now having such trouble with, and the only person to quote from the minutes of Wessely's meeting with the Minister of State for Social Security, then why would that indicate that the articles' comment is clearly motivated by personal animus towards Wessely? Is it really the case that some at wikipedia have so absorbed ideological opposition to 'original research' that they now think it is evidence of animus for a journalist to engage in such work? Fair journalists would rely only on information already reported by others?
Alxbrn says: "Rainywednesday's repeatedly bombing it into the article lede here strikes me as problematic." My edit was to the second paragraph of section 2.1 of the Wessely article. Why have you described me as "repeatedly bombing it into the article lede"? In our dispute about your attempt to include a stigmatising claim within the lede of the CFS article I raised concern that you were allowing prejudices to affect the editing of wikipedia. Could it be that prejudices led to you making a misleading claim about me?
Alxbrn says: "That not is dispute." Actually, Guy had repeatedly disputed the content of the article, saying things like: "The source inserted by user:Rainywednesday, a single-purpose account, does not contain anything like the content of the edit." If Guy has now changed his mind about this, I have not seen him acknowledge anywhere that he got this wrong.
Alxbrn wrote: "Add: so here's a relevant tweet from Wessely[32] Yes, he wrote these words - but he now says they are too crude ... so putting this front and centre in his bio certainly is problematic." I inserted a sentence about this meeting in the second paragraph of section 2.1, and I included the date of the meeting so people would know it was not something that happened recently. Guy claims that "There is a desire to rewrite history" - but surely it is trying to use someone saying that their earlier claims were 'too crude' as a justification for removing information about these earlier claims from their biography would be an example of rewriting history.Rainywednesday (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Page 10 says, point 7 of 7, "As regards benefits:- it is important to avoid anything that suggests that disability is permanent, progressive or unchanging. Benefits can often make patients worse". However: page 8 has the first three of Wessely's numbered points, then page 9 is the first page of a letter from Aylward, then page 10 has points 4-7, which, in the context of the PDF, is a non-sequitur, followed by page 11 which is the conclusion fo Aylward's letter and one has to assume that pages 8 and 10 belong together. And far from being the dismissive and flippant response as presented by "ME" activist Nathalie Wright, his previous point was "TREATMENT is difficult, extraordinary sensitivity is necessary. Great flexibility is essential in treating these patients, each case is different" and so on. To cherry pick the closing sentence without noting the context that Wessely's clinical work indicated that prolonged inactivity caused adverse physical and psychological consequences, is misleading at best and actually more like opposition research. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Flippant? Your emotional responses are a distraction from what is important, which is accuracy. Wright accurately quoted from the official record of what Wessely said, yet you seem to be trying to present her as having twisted Wessely's words into being dismissive and flippant as an act of 'activism'. Why do you think that those previous points from Wessely's talk do anything to undermine the legitimacy of Wright's work? So far the most stinging criticism you've made of her work is to just repeatedly refer to her an an "ME" activist. Given the growing awareness of the methodological problems underpinning Wessely's research on CFS 'rehabilitation', and particularly the PACE trial he described as a "thing of beauty", the earlier parts of his talk make him look much worse to me:
Do you think that Wessely had some reliable evidence to show that benefits can make CFS patients worse? If so, why hasn't he published it in the 25 years since this meeting?
I'm not sure if you have any real concern about the National Archives file, of if you're just complaining about the way these sorts of documents are often scanned and compiled. If you want to inspect the paper documents themselves you can go to the National Archive.
I note that you've not responded to the points I made, or apologised for the misleading claims you made earlier. Rainywednesday (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have, you just didn't like the response, but I will repeat it here if you like: stop POV-pushing, this is a biography, if you continue adding poorly sourced negative material then you may be blocked from editing or banned from this and related articles. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
This section seemed to be moved to the archives very quickly, and I then could not find it for a while. Now that I have I thought I'd try to simplify matters by taking one point at a time. You reverted my edit of: "In a 1993 meeting with a minister for the disabled Simon Wessely claimed that “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse.” You said that: "Still WP:SYN because the source still doesn't say that." The article said: "“Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse” claimed psychiatrist Simon Wessely, one of the originators of the biopsychosocial model of ME, in 1993 in a meeting with a minister for the disabled."
Which part of my edit do you think is not supported by the source?Rainywednesday (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack on Me by HafizHanif[edit]

HafizHanif is sending personal attacks on Talk:Muhammad#Alternative_proposal:_Central_figure (diff) and most recently, stated (here) "myopic minds fail to understand", referencing Pinkbeast. I removed their initial attack, only for them to declare me "dead" and restore it (here) - death threats.

Note that in the scope of the discussion, none relate directly to the debated modification to the article. Instead, I am being targeted and harassed for religious reasons and ad hominem (basically, the first two points and possibly the fourth on WP:WIAPA. Please ensure this stops. Thank you, – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 23:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an odd first. The record clearly shows after I cited primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, that particular edit was removed by the person making the accusation. They also called out "personal attack". I understood that accusation meaning I personally attacked the man believed to be a prophet (the article's subject - who has been dead for hundreds of years, thus the mention of a dead man), not the contentious editor. I had previously expressed how Muhammad was, according to his poetry and what contemporaries talked about him, a murderer (the cutting off of heads and fingertips). I think this is an issue of comprehension and a misunderstanding regarding the subject of my comments. Notice also I had ceased corresponding with the edit warring editor after an inability to convince them of their subjective nature regarding the subject matter. As to my response "myopic minds", I am referring to what I previously mentioned regarding editing efforts from unqualified persons and the apparent inability to objectively edit the article. It is a general statement regarding the unsophisticated nature of most Islamic articles. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This does not relate to the specific controversial edits being debated, and you used your interpretation of facts to launch a personal attack (you even said "I personally attacked"). Article talk pages are not soapboxes and I merely responded with the accurate info to diffuse the situation and prevent it from escalating. It is never acceptable to insult the mental states of individuals as any editor out there with a mental disability may feel distraught (disability is listed on WP:WIAPA). – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
So I note two things:
  1. This was not a death threat against User:Batreeq; Batreeq misunderstood the "personally attack a dead person" edit summary.
  2. If User:HafizHanif doesn't stop taking every opportunity to attack Islam all the time while pretending he is only having policy discussions, I will just block him indefinitely, and with very little if any further warning. Multiple editors at that page have told HH to knock it off because he is disrupting discussion. He needs to listen to them if he wants to keep editing here.
Hopefully that's clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, just saw your response - thanks. Can the unrelated/attack comments be purged from the talk page and replaced with {{RPA}} (no, it's not "censorship" but it's not a soapbox for general discussion of the article's subject [as the top notice reads] either, HH)? – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 00:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of removing soapboxing that's interweaved with comments by others. IMHO it causes more confusion than it solves. In particular, it's not good for an "opponent" (for lack of a better word) to do it, that often just escalates things. I'm more interested in preventing future soapboxing. Other admins may disagree, so if others think it should be removed they shouldn't worry about my disagreement, they should do whatever they think best. I'm about to go offline for the evening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Both HH and Batreeq could use a bit of encouragement to stick to the point. What's this screed got to do with the question at hand? Also, Batreeq is engaged in a lengthy exercise in IDHT - it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of commenting editors are perfectly happy with "founder", but they won't knock it off. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries! Was just defusing the attack. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 01:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So my response regarding a linear understanding of prophetic procession was labeled 'soapboxing' and summarily removed. I think this manner of narrow-minded critique is why so many wiki articles are not only poorly written, but poorly managed. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesusforu and Jewish conspiracy in edit summaries[edit]

Reported user is indefinitely blocked and notified. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:22, 10 December 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.

Jesusforu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been previously warned for edit summaries, but now I noticed Pew Research is Established and controlled by American Jewish people, according to your IP address you are a left wing with hatred of Christianity, and You are one person with hatred towards Christians with IP adress of you deleted the most best sources and most recent source to shows my information (the edits themselves might be fine, the problem is with the summaries). If anybody has a good reason why this user should continue editing Wikipedia, please let me know, otherwise I (or someone else) am going to block them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Also doesn't communicate, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Ymblanter, Doug Weller - I just indefinitely blocked this user and left a custom block notice here. FYI - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories should mean blocking them and throwing the key away I'd say. The lack of communication or whatever all seems secondary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter - I guess I could've touched on that a bit more in the user's block notice... please feel free to add to it if you feel that it's necessary; you don't need my blessings or my approval to modify the notice I left. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well..this should cover that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter - Looks good to me! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:35, 9 December 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.

Smocking needs protection[edit]

Article semi-protected. Born2cycle, next time please make this request at WP:RFPP instead. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

Since Trump misspelled "smoking" as "smocking" in a Tweet [2] our Smocking page has become a target for some vandalism. [3] [4] [5]. I request page protection on this page. --В²C 19:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Xaosflux. 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 10 December 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.

Genre warring by 2A00:F41:188C:67E9:8950:6BD5:D4D:69D6[edit]

Blocked for 36 hours by Oshwah. SemiHypercube 02:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

2A00:F41:188C:67E9:8950:6BD5:D4D:69D6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:33, 10 December 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.

Persistent addition of original research, following a block[edit]

Indeffed by Oshwah pending user response.
(non-admin closure)
Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 10 December 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 can take a lovely hiatus, and be assured upon return that this account will still be adding unsourced content to multiple articles, including the species of cartoon animals [6]; [7]; [8]. The latest spate follows multiple warnings, conversations and a one-month block. Requesting mass reversion and a longer block. Thank you, JNW (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the user's block history and their continued problematic edits, I've applied an indefinite block to the account. This way, this user will have to file an unblock appeal and request their account be unblocked before they can continue editing. This is the appropriate next step, as it's clear that the user needs to acknowledge this ongoing problem and how they'll improve their editing before we can let them do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 10 December 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.


I'm not sure what's going on with this editor, who has been on Wikipedia since 2009, but their recent edits are very disruptive:

It seems like they might be not in the best state of mind, based on the comments. I warned them to please stop destroying pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Might this be a compromised account? SemiHypercube 18:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that it's a COI problem since all edited pages are connected with the subject. Skirts89 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I would advocate for a short block, to let the user have an opportunity to get reacquainted with our policies and procedures before such heavy-handed editing continues. Ifnord (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the edits by this user have stopped as of a few hours ago, so I'm going to hold off on taking any administrative action. I left the user a warning here instead. If the disruption continues, I would also support a block in order to prevent further disruption. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved as the user was indefinitely blocked for promotional editing and a username violation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


This very active and valuable user is well known to habitually personalize many discussions, disregarding basic guidelines under WP:TPYES that we should not do so, and for often being aggressive. Something like this is an example where I believe the habit carries this user into behavior which is inappropriate for Wikipedia work. Thus, I feel the user needs a reminder that civil behavior is expected of us all, always, toward each of us, no matter how much we disagree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This and this are the edit summaries that SergeWoodzing called a "personal critique", then again, and again. Even though he acknowledged here to another user that it was the edits that were called unnecessarily pedantic, he still has the need to portray the other user as a bully and himself as the victim. A half of virtually every discussion with SergeWoodzing, be it mine or someone else's, consists of the other user explaining that he or she did not mean to hurt his feelings. I have had it. This behaviour of his has been plainly described as ridiculous whining for complaints like these at ANI before. Others have observed this annoying tendency too, saying: "Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry 'I'm being personally attacked.'" I do not appreciate being pestered by these accusations, and I feel that the user needs yet another reminder that histrionics such as these waste everyone's time. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, this is really a content dispute. FWIW, there's inconsistency among the Swedish consort bios, concerning what to show (Queen of Sweden or Queen consort of Sweden). With the likely accession of a Queen regnant (which will be shown as Queen of Sweden in the pros, I assume), we should likely get the consistency established for the Swedish consorts. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a reoccurring behavioral problem, not a content dispute.

Citing 8-year-old arguments isn't helpful. I have learned a lot about civility and WP:TPYES over the years. What I want to know here - indeed need to know - is whether or not the community considers this acceptably civil behavior, such as we all are expected to adhere to. I too can be sarcastic, belligerent and personal in every debate and edit summary, if I choose to be. Nowadays, and for years, I have chosen not to be. I've learned that such behavior is neither allowed (???) nor constructive. Please reply to the issue! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Five years ago you were told at ANI that there is nothing uncivil about commenting on edits, yet here you are again. Obviously you have not learned a lot since then. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

PS In comparison to the reoccurring behavioral issue in this case, the article content is of little of no importance, to me or to this community. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting for an administrator to tell me if this is acceptable behavior, and if the user seems habitually to disregard some basic WP:TPYES guidelines such as not to user-personalize entries on article talk pages. I have never (never) claimed that "commenting on edits" is uncivil. Obviously, the user h-self is going to want to defend h-self (with a few personal slurs thrown in, as usual), but that's not what I'm looking for here. We need administrative guidance on this behavioral issue. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  • It makes no sense to look at one diff in isolation. Looking at that discussion, it seems to me that you are both over-personalizing the issue. I'm sure you both think the other one started it, or the other one is incrementally worse. I have no interest in estimating who is 43% responsible and who is 57% responsible. I wish you'd both dial it back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam, I have provided the rest of the diffs. This and this are the edit summaries that SergeWoodzing called a "personal critique", then again, and again. I called that ridiculous whining. Do you think I was being personal when I described the changes as unnecessarily pedantic in the edit summaries? Do you think that SergeWoodzing's complaints are not ridiculous whining? Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know, I read that thread and this thread. I think your original edit summaries were unnecessarily almost-but-not-quite-too personal in isolation, to which SW then overreacted, to which you overreacted, to which SW overreacted. I assume there is some prior history here as well. There is no bright line personal/not personal dividing line, it's a continuum. In an escalating feedback loop like this, it makes no sense to say "all comments up to this point were ok, all comments after this point weren't". Both of you need to recognize that every time one of you said something snarky, the other one replied with a comment or action that was 50% more snarky. In the end, the important takeaway is that you're both making each other, and other people, marginally less happy to edit with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • There is nothing personal about stating that the newly introduced wording is unnecessarily pedantic. I will not walk on eggshells simply because one user cannot take the most harmless criticism of his work. Experience has shown that he will complain about being abused anyway, be it me or someone else. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing (nothing) in evidence of my behavior during the last few years as being anywhere near the picture painted of "snarky" me here. Some of us try to improve. I think I've done well and I almost never have any trouble with anyone anymore, because I've taken WP:TPYES "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." and other guidelines, experiences and criticism seriously. But is this "And ridiculous whining makes me lose control over my eye muscles" acceptably civil behavior which is supposed to inspire for such improvement, is it a negligible boo-boo which any one of us should be able to fine A-OK? Please reply to that issue, if at all! That's what I keep asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have directly answered that question already; it makes no sense to look at one comment in isolation. Since both of you are convinced that the other editor is 100% at fault, and apparently do not value uninvolved feedback from someone unless they agree that you are 100% innocent, it might be best for the two of you to just continue making each other miserable. At some point, it will start making other editors miserable too, and at that point we can block one or both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I did not seek any intervention, nor do I ever feel miserable on Wikipedia. If I did, I would leave. The histrionics are almost as amusing as they are annoying. I do promise to tone down my response to them to just eyerolling and calmly going on about my beeswax. I am sorry for the time you spent on reading all of this silliness. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary of what I get out of this:

  1. It makes no sense to report a comment like "ridiculous whining makes me lose control over my eye muscles" because it's "one comment in isolation".
  2. I "apparently do not value uninvolved feedback from someone unless they agree that" I am "100% innocent".
  3. I am as guilty as anyone, despite the fact that I try very hard (for years now) to be civil and adhere to WP:TPYES
  4. Without ever having to apologize, we all can be as snide, rude, sarcastic, belligerent and uncivil as we please, as long as we do it as "one comment in isolation".
  5. A comment like "the histrionics are almost as amusing as they are annoying" is OK too.

A sad day for me on Wikipedia, and a sad day for the project, I think. Will file this in my What's The Use? Department and still try to be civil and avoid personalising talk page entries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


OP blocked for a year by Ymblanter. SemiHypercube 18:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

IS doing unjust edits forcing people do break three reverse policy with his companions, you need to pay attention to this page: He is deleteing posts in talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

OP blocked for a year (and only because we do not block IPs indef), legal threats removed from talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone want to revoke talk page access? I am not very good in Serbian, but I guess they write smth about "fucking Albanians".--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Iridescent: Thanks for dealing with the IP editor. Their words in Serbian meant: "I've killed over 100 fucking Albanian terrorists you think I'm kidding". I have seen other similar comments in the past, and the best thing to do is ignoring those people who make such comments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Done. GoldenRing (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter, Iridescent, and GoldenRing:, i just awoke here in the morning on my side of the world and i find multiple IPs making death threats against me. I just took a look at the edit histories of the IP accounts and they have placed similar comments on other respected editors pages. What's the best course of action here (as one does not know if this IP has personal information through goodness knows what means and may actually carry out those threats)?Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess the best is to write to ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Resnjari - We'll look into this matter and take care of it as best as we can. I assume that they're being made on your user talk page? I'll check things there and handle things that I find. In the meantime, it's best that you don't respond to any of those threats and just ignore them completely. However, if you feel threatened or genuinely concerned for your safety due to the threats, you can contact Wikimedia's emergency team by following the directions here. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Resnjari - Are you able to email me the list of IP users that you see were making threats against you? I only see one IP (who is now blocked), and I want to make sure that I locate and take care of all of them. You can email me by clicking here. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 appears to be an open proxy, but in any event I've given it a six-month vacation. geolocates to Trstenik, Serbia, which would tally with the anti-Albanian sentiment, so I assume that's the true user IP. I haven't seen any others. ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Iridescent - Perfect. :-) Resnjari, if the IP users are listed above, don't worry about emailing me. If we're missing any, please let us know. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Oshwah: for deleting those comments from our talk pages. I have been threatened in the past but today's guy was very aggressive and insulting. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah, Iridescent, and Ktrimi991:, in those comments by both IPs there are clear death threats and threats of violence to the people pinged by the first IP and comments left on multiple editors talkpages by the second IP. I read Serbian. Its disappointing it has to come to this with some people out there in the digital space.Resnjari (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I have notified Oshwah about the other comment.Resnjari (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Two years or so ago I was threatened in a similar way because of my "pro-Serbian" edits. Today I was threatened because of my "anti-Serbian" edits. I guess trying to be as neutral as I can is a crime. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Resnjari - Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that people resort to such words in order to push their opposition or to get their point across. Such threats are absolutely against Wikipedia's policies and won't be tolerated; please don't hesitate to let myself or someone else know if you see more threats like this being made and we'll do our best to put a kibosh to it. While such threats should (and are) always taken seriously and as if the user has the intent or the means to carry them out, just know that such threats are some people's method of handling conflict (as low as it sounds). Many are also trolling. :-) That being said, (I'm stating this to everyone in general) all threats of harm should be reported by following the directions here and regardless of whether you're the recipient or the witness of them, or how serious you believe the threats are - report them! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:52, 8 December 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.
Wow that escalated fast... uh, hey guys, I think I came late to the party here but would someone mind sending me by email or something what these death threats, now apparently suppressed, that were directed to me were? --Calthinus (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey @Calthinus:, I just sent you an email with some death threats. As the IPs said, "I would be careful when crossing the street" Face-smile.svg. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I just sent you an email with some death threats – Rather an odd way of putting it. EEng 02:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Maybe we should have a specialized "You've got death threats!" template that especially courteous people can add to the recipient's talk page.
Well, they literally asked for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, they asked only for death threats, not actual death. We don't want anyone going overboard. EEng 11:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: Do not exaggerate things, nobody sent "actual death". If you are not able to understand a friendly joke, do not comment on it. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
If there is anyone here able to understand jokes, it's EEng Face-wink.svgFlyingAce✈hello 15:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've often been told that I find humor in things no one else finds amusing. EEng 19:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Being careful crossing the street is always a good idea. Ktrimi991's post is the funniest thing I've seen on this board in a long time. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to add to your watchlist a number of high-traffic articles on Eastern European politics, they provide such things on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That is less funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The obvious reply to the death threats is a SEAL copypasta.[9] (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic triple parentheses[edit]

Indeffed by Courcelles and community banned below. I'll leave the related edit filter discussion below open. 28bytes (talk)
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.

Aspensti made two recent edits adding the anti-Semitic triple parentheses to the articles of Kirsten Gillibrand (diff) and David Paterson (diff). I thought the account had perhaps been compromised, because these two edits are the first since July 2017; however, I see that the account has performed similar edits in the past (example). I am not sure what to do with this issue, so I thought it best to bring it up here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Unexcusable. Indef blocked Courcelles (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
non-administrator comment Given the sort of edits being done, I suspect that this is less a case of someone trying to put triple-parens into Wikipedia, and more someone who has a browser extension that adds such parenthesis to every web page (yes, there are such extensions, for sad reasons), and is missing that that is happening in the edit window. So user should be blocked with an explanation until they acknowledge the problem on their talk page and says that it has been fixed (through turning off the extension or editing with a different browser.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Thank you for the quick response!
@NatGertler: Yes, the same thought about the browser extension had occurred to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
If they explain they are using such an extension, AND confirm it has been turned off , any admin has my clearance to unblock, of course. Courcelles (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That does seem to be the case, but good block nonetheless. Adding neo-Nazi symbols into Wikipedia is inexcusable and grounds for immediate indef. The fact it's happening unawares because the user has an antisemitic browser extension installed is not grounds for leniency. We did the same for users changing Trump to Drumpf not too long ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, this is not exactly common knowledge that three brackets is an antisemitic symbol (I did not know this before I saw this thread, and I am supposed to be knowledgeable in this subject). It is too late now, but it might have been a good idea to check that the user is aware of that.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Fairly common knowledge, I'd say. And the fact that the user has such a browser extension means they are highly unlikely ever to be welcome here. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily common knowledge, but I strongly suspect the user knows: what other reason could there be for adding three parens?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant. Maybe it's not common knowledge for everyone, but clearly this user knows what it's about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was calling for them not to be blocked, just that we shouldn't view them with the degree of suspicion about their editing intent that we might view a standard vandal with (although I wouldn't criticize anyone who was now looking at their edits with an eye to the politics of them; such extensions are intended for those with anti-semitic views.) Given that they might not even be aware of what their edits were doing and why, I've added a note to their talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
It all depends on what the User says, in this instance. The User's response is what matters, in this instance. If this was inadvertent, according to the User, their account should be unblocked. Ping Aspensti Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The only explanations I can see are either (a) the editor is deliberately inserting triple parentheses, or (b) the editor is running the Coincidence Detector extension. I can think of no conceivable way in which one could do either by accident. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
According the this Vox article some people are using triple parens in solidarity with those who are being targeted, this is intended to render triple parens useless as a mark of who is jewish. So I don't think that having a browser extension adding triple parens is proof that someone is a bigot. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
That's wrong. The "solidarity" thing was putting triple parentheses around *one's own name* - this anti-Semitic user has a browser extension that puts triple parentheses around explicitly *Jewish* names, as in this edit. This user should be indeffed and never allowed back. Why would we want an editor who subscribes to vile neo-Nazi white supremacist browser extensions? This isn't an accident, this user demonstrated their ideology is incompatible with decent society. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I should have looked at the diffs first, that does look like a Nazi browser extension, Nazis have no place here. Ever. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Their browser extension also replaces instances of "Israel" with (((Our Greatest Ally))) as seen in the Kirsten Gillibrand edit. I can't believe we're talking about ever unblocking this user - they're clearly a neo-Nazi. Nobody uses this vile nonsense unless they're actively engaged in anti-Semitic hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The provisions at WP:MOS would not support triple parentheses (except at the article called Triple parentheses). It is only antisemitic if the User says it's antisemitic. If the User claims its use was inadvertent, then we should accept and unblock. Sorry to repeat myself. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Please explain how it would be "inadvertent" to make tiny minor edits to articles about Democratic politicians while using an anti-Semitic browser extension to pump them full of an anti-Semitic symbol. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nobody has to explain "how". Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying that we should just unblock someone who made a bunch of neo-Nazi anti-Semitic edits over the last year and a half as long as they say "oops sorry I exposed myself as an anti-Semite, I'll be careful to be more subtle next time"? Like, you're saying this is the kind of user we *want* on Wikipedia? Because as far as I'm concerned, Nazis should be no more welcome on this website than child sex advocates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A lot of people do a lot of dumb things, NorthBySouthBaranof. What are triple parentheses? We don't coin new block-able offenses based on punctuation marks. You are essentially arguing that because they used triple parentheses for a year-and-a-half that we should block them now. If punctuation was such a big bug-a-boo why didn't we warn them before now? We don't need to compound dumbness with further dumbness. The notion of using triple parentheses to identify Jews is dumb enough. Do we have to block people for falling prey to all the dumbness embodied in this new thrust to use punctuation to advance ethnic causes? Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The instances where "Israel" was replaced with "(((Our Greatest Ally)))" is pretty solid proof that the triple parentheses were meant to highlight Jews. This is further reinforced by the fact that triple parentheses were only added around common or famous Jewish names. It's not just punctuation, they were using software that exists solely to cast Jews as The Other, a method started and used primarily by Neo-Nazis. Stop enabling them with an argument that amounts to "I didn't know that so maybe it's not true." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The countermeasure to that is not to block. The countermeasure is to allow the User to speak, but this time using proper language. You are arguing that this is not only punctuation but it is only punctuation. You are saying that I am "enabling them" but I am enabling them to participate constructively in this project. It is only a punctuation mark that is separating them from being blocked and editing constructively. I am glad that I am standing for "enabling them" to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively in the future. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not drinking your Flavor-aid until you can provide a meaning for the triple parentheses within the context used besides the antisemitic one. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I am completely accepting of the findings at our article Triple parentheses. But the User should not be blocked for something so arcane and without warning and if they make a simple statement that they didn't intend anything antisemitic and that it happened inadvertently and that they won't be using triple parentheses again. The issue is resolved at that point. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bus stop Even if the changes were made by accident, ultimately that would be because the person uses anti-Semitic software. I don't remember who said it originally, but again we need WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 17:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's not the only instance where Israel was replaced with "(((Our Greatest Ally)))." They have been using the antisemitic browser plug in for two and a half years: [10] [11]. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing how this could be an accident either unless this plugin downloads, installs and runs itself; the fact that they have this plugin at all is indictment enough. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to say that Aspensti was asked not to do this on their talk page last year, with a link to our article on triple parenthesis, and a note that it might be their browser doing it automatically. Hard to believe that they didn't know it was problematic. GirthSummit (blether) 18:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Well, that pretty much rules out the only mitigating factor I could think of: Unknowingly doing it while (on occasion) using a compromised shared computer. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 22:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I find what is being said by users like Bus stop a bit bizarre here. The user is clearly aware (or even if we go hardcore AGF, must have become aware) of what the meaning of the triple parentheses are. Thus -- it's clearly an intentionally provocative behavior. WP:NOTHERE, block him while it's easy, before he learns to push Nazi POVs more subtly.--Calthinus (talk) 20:06, 8 December 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.

Community ban proposal[edit]

Community ban enacted.
(And since we apparently have to do this now: proposal initiated at 12:09 12/8 EST, snow-closed at 18:30 12/8 EST (6 hours 21 minutes duration); snow closure reverted at 4:10 12/9 EST, re-closed by me now at 1:40 12/10 EST (21 hours 30 minutes duration) for a total of 27 hours 51 minutes, which satisfies the 24-hour community ban discussion requirement that seems to have replaced our previous policy.)
28bytes (talk) 06:40, 10 December 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.

Based on the evidence of using an anti-Semitic browser extension to make edits inserting anti-Semitic symbols into Jewish-related articles spanning, as User:Ian.thomson has noted, more than two and a half years, I believe this user is not someone we want back on Wikipedia in any fashion. I am proposing a community ban on User:Aspensti for using the encyclopedia as a platform for neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Nazis get the fuck out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose although in this case indefinite should mean infinite, not undefined, and nobody should even think of lifting the block. On a check through the last few years of edits, we're only talking five problem edits at my count out of 1500; I don't see any benefit in converting the block to a ban just for the sake of it, and doing so would in my opinion devalue the intention behind bans as a signifier that an editor is particularly problematic. Note that WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS, being cited above as justification, is a personal essay in userspace, not policy, guideline, or anything remotely official. ‑ Iridescent 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
(For what it's worth, when I linked WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS earlier, I didn't even realize there was a page there, thought it was just a red-link someone thought should exist. It wasn't intended as a rational for a CBAN, which I haven't commented on, just as an endorsement of its title, although its content looks helpful too. In terms of a CBAN, I think it's a bit sad that there isn't a rule that nazis are all considered banned automatically, but don't see why I shouldn't support this. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 18:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC))
If the blocking admin hadn't said If they explain they are using such an extension, AND confirm it has been turned off , any admin has my clearance to unblock, this proposal wouldn't be necessary. Anyone who would intentionally use such an extension for any reason is not someone we want editing the encyclopedia. Nobody downloads that extension unless they're a devoted anti-Semite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support About the only thing I can think of that's at all innocent is some misunderstanding of wikimarkup, e.g. isn't {{{1}}} the wikicode for the first string passed to a template? Even then, though, this isn't being done to a template... I mean, I suppose he could have been lied to, or have been using a roommate's computer, or something, but that's for him to argue, not us. Ban. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 18:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is vandalism by any other name. Unlike some people I'm not afraid to denounce Nazis. I'm also disturbed by User:Bus stop's repeated excuses for this behavior. Maybe Bus stop should get a censure. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment I find Bus Stop's reasoning to be unpersuasive, but I fail to see how a censure is needed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support based on what is written above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. AGK ■ 18:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, and Bus stop needs to think a bit more about the behaviour that they're trying to defend. Res ipsa loquitur applies here with respect to Aspensti. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There are 2016 and 2017. talk page notices about the user's use of triple parentheses with links to the wikiarticle. Meters (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Fuck this guy.--Jorm (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasoning of Iridescent; as a personal opinion, there's no chance of the character ever being realistically unblocked (unless a wandering admin has forgotton what the view out of a Hotel Arbcom window looks like); but a racing certainty of WP:CREEP. I also agree with Jorm's reasoning, if not their !vote :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (non-administrator comment) There really aren't very fine people on both sides. I saw the issue from last year, but I did not look back far enough to realize this was spanning 3 years, with the appropriate warnings. It's hard to image the editor in question is ever going to make useful contributions to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I hadn't seen that the User had been warned before. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This editor ignored two previous warnings and yet continued to add neo-Nazi garbage to the enyclopedia. What they did to former Congressman Steve Israel's name is especially appalling. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't need anyone who dumps anti-semitic code into articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Warned before, still doing it. Somebody who runs this sort of script is a Nazi. If it happened once, perhaps they were editing from a public computer, AGF and all. In response to above mentions of the self-identification/solidarity movement, that does not involve running a script that changes names. This is how that's done ->> (((Bellezzasolo))) Discuss 19:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: might as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - was warned twice with a link to our article on what they mean, and count me as one of those who didn't know this was common knowledge. If this browser extension doesn't have the ability to disable it on certain websites, like many extensions do, then they should have absolutely known this was going to cause serious problems here. Shame on them. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support clearly WP:NOTHERE, so why should they be here?--Calthinus (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - No excuse shall be given to an apparent, and quite possible deliberate use of a Neo-Nazi Chrome extension while editing Wikipedia, considering the timespan and multiple warnings. We don't need to have someone screaming insidious joy while inserting fashy trash here. Give Nazis no platform. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • weak/conditional support. The more I read here, the more there is to explain, but when you get right down to it, the evidence here boils down to use of unusual punctuation and I'm somewhat reluctant to see a community ban placed on this basis. I'd really like to hear from Aspensti (who hasn't edited since this discussion began) before this is enacted. GoldenRing (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong unconditional support - No conceivable excuse for this behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - They were warned in July 2017 not to do this. Their continued use of this abhorrent Nazi signal makes their intent quite clear. - MrX 🖋 21:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd support this even if they hadn't already been warned about it and continued, because this is about the integrity of Wikipedia and the necessity of zero tolerance for this kind of thing. But they had been warned so there's not even a possible mitigating circumstance. --bonadea contributions talk 21:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - And this grotesque behaviour has been noted for 2 years? Sorry, but zero tolerance for the oldest pathological hatred in the book. Simon Adler (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Floq: I hope you can guarantee us that if any soft-hearted (or weak-minded) admin was to unblock this editor in the future, you'd be right there with us in asking ArbCom for an immediate de-sysopping for overturning a de facto community ban. That's really the only reason to go through with this, to ensure that any unblock has to be run by the community first, and cannot be undertaken on the responsibility of a single administrator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: I understand your motivations, but you cannot unilaterally deny the community the right to decide on a formal ban. I have, therefore, reopened this discussion. When it is closed, it needs to be closed as a formal ban discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per most of the above, how is this still a discussion? The Moose 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Because someone just reopened it ‑ Iridescent 09:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It needs to be open for long enough to qualify as a formal community ban and to be closed as such. At WP:CBAN it says "Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members" (emphasis in original). Floquenbeam closed it at 23:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC), less than 6.5 hours after the ban was proposed, and I reopened it at 09:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC). I reckon that means it needs to stay open for around another 17.5 hours, at least, to qualify as an acceptable community ban. Please, folks, let's not have another (well-meaning) fuck-up like we just had at AN - and just stick to the rules! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Boing! said Zebedee. The user is already indef'd; there's no reason that we should feel rushed about this or that we have to close and implement the proposed sanction right now. Let the discussion remain open (set the starting time to when discussion was re-opened so that we're certain that the discussion duration requirement is followed), comply with all of the requirements necessary, and everything will be okay. There's no doubt that the disruptive edits by this user were grossly and egregiously hostile, in direct violation of our policies and core principles, and added with the intention of targeting and expressing open hatred; they're a perfect example of edits and behaviors that have absolutely positively no place here and that we should not stand for. But we need to relax... it's over now, it won't continue from this user any further if things remained at the status quo, and the discussion will close when the right time comes... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the user has already received two previous warnings about it.--Staberinde (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - when I had made my previous comments, I missed that there were earlier Talk page warnings made. (!admin !vote, if that matters.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support I am surprised that there is any opposition to this. This use of triple parentheses is a well-known antisemitic practice.[12][13][14] There have been several previous discussions about this, and we even have an article. There is no innocent explanation of this practice, and no excuse; and regular visitors to this page should be aware of this. Any editor acting in this offensive and racist manner should be permanently banned; we don't need them.