Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Hhkohh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See User talk:Hhkohh#Delsort: You’re doing it wrong.

In all my years editing here I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an issue come here over deletion sorting. It’s usually fairly routine and any issues are easily corrected, but I can’t seem to get the message across here. This user is apparently scanning through articles and looking not just for the primary topic or topics, but for any mention of anything that might possibly have its own delsort list, and spamming each and every one of them. This led to this discussion being added to 27 delsort lists, which is just obviously wrong to my eye.

I don’t believe I have a policy to point to other than WP:CANVASS. I don’t think that is actually their intent but the effect is the same, posting to many tangential or irelevant pages, and their replies to my comments on this have left me unable to determine if they simply don’t understand my concern or are engaging in WP:IDHT. So here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be uninvolved, as I previously commented about this user posting four RfPP backlog threads in one week. To focus on the current issue, they have been previously reminded by Doomsdayer520 to do deletion sorting "sparingly" on July 6 ([9]), in which they acknowledged before going on to do this less than a week later ([10]), as noted by Beeblebrox. So yes, despite of editing in good faith, there is WP:IDHT going on here. I think it is partially related to the way they communicate in English, and I think it would be helpful to hear input from experienced users like Northamerica1000 in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I must concur with the matter of User:Hhkohh not getting the point. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians for many examples of overactive deletion sorting by this user. I am active at both of those pages and have observed that Hhkohh is putting album AfD's in the Bands delsort, band AfD's in the Albums delsort, and all kinds of other odd delsort decisions. My previous comment that was noticed by User:Alex Shih above came from the presence of AfDs for fictional musicians on TV shows being placed in the Bands delsort. The delsort process is useful in attracting editors to discussions on topics in which they have expertise, but Hhkohh is making it unnecessarily messy for who-knows-what reason. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • @Doomsdayer520: I am sorry to do so. Hhkohh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support a months delsort topic ban - Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular websites they were correct with the first 2 delsorts but that's where it should've stopped, Anyway if after the topicban they continue then they should be blocked for a week but at present I feel blocking would be OTT, A months topic ban would allow them to reread WP:DELSORT and to watch various AFDs so that they can see how it should be done. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Struck in light of the below proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly concerned that they don’t want to understand the issue. Witness this edit, from this morning (now reverted) in which once again they put something not really related to California in the California delsort. Seeing as this is precisely what drew my attention in the first place, and they at least acted like they accepted that it was wrong, I think there may be a deeper problem than just not being fully aware of norms for deletion sorting. (Also, is it normal to be creating RFD logs four or five days in advance?) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you not want to understand something ? I don't get that but then again I guess that could fall into the WP:IDHT territory but I just don't get why one wouldn't want to understand something, Anyway yeah those creations are problematic they don't need to be created that early' ..... Perhaps a CIR block might be best ? ... Dunno ROPE & all that. –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interpret "they don't want to understand" as "they simply don't care". ansh666 20:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh right thanks Ansh666, I took it as they didn't want to I guess learn ?, AH well thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely there that "Carolina" was misread as "California". There are others that are probably not sorted as intended - Mr. Criminal and James P Honey AFDs added to the authors list for example, presumably because they are songwriters, which are categorised as writers, and the authors category redirects to Category:Writers although in deletion sorting there is "authors" but no "writers". Peter James (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at their talk page and other discussions at WT:DELSORT, I'm not sure that Hhkohh has enough proficiency in English to be doing this kind of stuff. They seem to frequently misunderstand suggestions and questions that aren't in simple language. ansh666 21:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I agree with Ansh666. Beeblebrox I just request for other people comment because I cannot understand your saying at that time. I will remove some delsort per Davey2010 suggestion. If I sort into wrong pages next time, please let me know so that we can discuss, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I just misunderstood other people saying, sorry Hhkohh (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox Since bot is down, I just help create RfD log page Hhkohh (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You say you agree with with Ansh666. What they have said is that you don’t seem to understand English very well, and/or that you don’t really care. If you can’t understand English and can’t follow a conversation in English, that’s a serious problem so far as contributing to the English Wikipedia.
• That you couldn’t or wouldn’t understand what I was trying to tell you is exactly the point. If you aren’t able to understand even after my explaining it several times, you shouldn’t be doing the work you are doing.
• So, it follows from that that just saying “let me know when I do it next time” is not an acceptable response as you apparently aren’t able to understand the issue in the least. You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself.
• It seems increasingly apparent that at last part of the issue is a lack of proficiency in English. This is the English language Wikipedia. You have to be able to communicate and understand English to contribute effectively here.

I hate to ever say this to anyone, but you may not be able to contribute effectively here unless and until your English abilities are drastically improved from the current state. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Ok, I will not do delsort unless I am sure Hhkohh (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh, this is not about whether or not you are "sure" or not. Have you not read any of the concerns? I will repeat what Beeblebrox said, "You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself". Alex Shih (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I will not violate WP:CANVASS
2. I will only catch primary topic in WP:DELSORT
3. I will improve my English
4. I will try to understand other people saying

Hhkohh (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, while this discussion was under way, Hhkohh added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump baby balloon to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Context simply escapes this person. This is political satire, not a story about a Trump baby. I cannot take the above promises at face value because Hhkohh’s replies here and actions during this discussion show no comprehension of the situation. The promises look like they are just parroting the criticisms and show no depth of understanding. I therefore propose a six month ban from adding any deletion discussion to any deletion sorting list in order to give them time to study and understand the issues with their previous understanding of how deletion sorting is done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Concur. I can't tell if the behavior is willful or simply competence related. At this point it doesn't matter. Tiderolls 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. On review of the evidence, I think this is warranted. Hhkohh clearly needs to step away from this activity because it's simply not helping. I see it as more competence-related rather than intentional. Mz7 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for now. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:CIR. Paul August ☎ 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As a fellow DSer, I must confess some of his sortings eluded me. Reading through, I was really hoping this could be resolved sans any formal topic bans, as DelSorting is a broad and imprecise activity, with much subject to whomever is doing it (see the DelSort talk page for discussions), but now I think a formal TB is the only way. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone above - Unfortunately right now they're being more of a hinderance than of help to the AFD process. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support myself Hhkohh (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like all this needs is a close form an uninvolved user... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently upset because I nominated his WP:POLEMIC essay for deletion User:BullRangifer has resorted to personally attacking me and WP:Casting aspersions. First he accused me of nominating the page just for revenge and accuses me of harassment [11] In response, I advised him that he was casting aspersions [12]. He then accuses me of being ignorant [13]. Then threatens me saying that other editors who "objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." [14] The reason I nominated his essay for deletion (besides the policy-based ones I gave) is because I read it and said to myself, this is the type of content that doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia because it is so divisive and counterproductive to the project. There are legitimate problems with this essay. Even BullRangifer realizes there is a problem with this type of material, otherwise he wouldn't have started changing it [15] In making all these allegations about my motives and threatening to have me topic-banned, he is harassing me. And accusing me of revenge editing itself is harassment WP:AOHA. The issue over that he is accusing me of getting revenge for is over, after being made aware of it, I self-reverted part of my edit [16] He got what he wanted, its done, its over, then was no administrative action, and I don't know why he keeps hounding me about it, other then to deflect attention from the obvious problems with his inappropriate essay.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Utterly meritless complaint perhaps brought on by cognitive dissonance arising when delusion-bubble is penetrated by facts. (The MfD at issue is WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump_supporters,_fake_news,_and_unreliable_sources.) EEng 05:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @EEng:Wow, you want to backup that personal attack with any evidence or is your statement just based on your obvious hatred for Donald Trump as evidenced on your userpage?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a waste of time: if you don't see that Trump's a con-artist narcissist then you're impervious to reason. But hope springs eternal so I'll refer you to [17]. EEng 06:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Even BullRangifer realizes there is a problem with this type of material, otherwise he wouldn't have started changing it - Yes, this is what good-faith editors do when presented with new facts or good-faith advice about the propriety of their work - they make changes to ensure the material remains within community guidelines, acknowledging concerns and attempting compromise. That's how Wikipedia should work - editors working together in a fair-minded and factual manner. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who have decided that there are such things as alternative facts (like, a 400-pound guy in his basement hacked the DNC, as opposed to Russian military intelligence agents now under federal indictment; or that climate change is a Soros-ZOG-Sierra Club-National Academy of Sciences conspiracy) and there are a good many editors who have decided to attempt to make Wikipedia reflect these politically-expedient lies peddled by shills, as opposed to, y'know, good, old-fashioned facts presented in reliable sources. It is to these people that this essay is rightly addressed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked at and commented on the deletion request, this feels almost like WP:FORUMSHOP. There was some relatively mild vitriol on both sides, but hardly anything I'd say would warrant bans; no one was told their mother sucks cocks in hell or anything like that. However, the userspace essay does seem like it is headed towards Keep, and the poster seems to be taking the Keep votes personally. While I do not have much of a strong opinion on the essay itself, I do not like to see abuse of Wikipedia policy. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no one was told their mother sucks cocks in hell – Yes, well, we do have some standards. Believe it or not I'm having difficulty imagining the discussion thread that would somehow lead to deployment of that particular outburst. (For those of tender years, but not tender ears, the reference is to [18].) EEng 07:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OMG! Rusf10, the only reason I reworked some of the essay was to avoid further misunderstanding. As far as this meritless forum shopping as one more of your attacks on me, you even distort your series of events to justify it: "The issue over that he is accusing me of getting revenge for is over, after being made aware of it, I self-reverted part of my edit [19] He got what he wanted, its done, its over, then was no administrative action, and I don't know why he keeps hounding me about it,..."

That's utter BS. After you were called out you self-reverted, and I did nothing. I did not hound you. Instead, you then started the MfD as revenge for the fact that Volunteer Marek and I had both called you out, leading to your self-reversion, but you couldn't just leave it there. You had to start harassing me and him by starting the MfD. That's when we responded to your harassment and aspersions. Now you're drowning and wildly casting more meritless aspersions by continuing here as your MfD is losing bigly. We're almost going to get a snow close "keep" there. How ironic. Hark! Do I hear the whistling sound of a boomerang? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all do you even know what forumshopping is? You're the one who escalated this to personal attacks. MfD is a deletion forum, its not for dealing with behavior like yours, that's why I brought this here. You had to start harassing me and him by starting the MfD Unless you and him are the same person (which until this point I assumed that you were not), its inconceivable that bringing the page to MfD somehow constitutes harassment of Volunteer Marek (he hasn't even contributed to that essay). that's when we responded to your harassment and aspersions If you're accusing me of casting aspersions against you, let's see the diffs. Familiarize yourself with WP:AOHA--Rusf10 (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with everything that NorthBySouthBaranof wrote above. The reliability of the sources that we use as references is all-important to the integrity of this encyclopedia. We cannot accept propaganda sources that deliberately and repeatedly spread lies. User essays that convey this message are useful. Those who are offended by these simple facts should simply refrain from trying to cite unreliable sources, and then all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This essay is perfectly reasonable, and as long as you don't have a tendency towards using unreliable sources, it doesn't apply to you. Rusf10I suggest you withdraw your MFD and move on to something positive. Flat Out (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long till Rusf gets blocked? I'd like to take care of this sooner rather than later. --Tarage (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I did not bring this here to debate the essay, that's what the MfD is for. This discussion is about bullrangifer's behavior which everyone seems to be ignoring. How is it appropriate to make threats like It is worth noting that the last two editors who most strongly objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." Their objections were obviously not the only factors leading to their topic bans, but it was part of their bad behavior (and for one it was a MAJOR factor). Not only that br's other behavior is questionable too. Here he is accusing another editor (not me) of a BLP violation because he pointed out that Trump's current immigration policy has similarities to that of the last two presidents. [20]

His own track record on RS is not that great either. He has asserted that the Washington Times is not a reliable source [21] [22], yet I have not been able to find any consensus on that at WP:RSN. He also has asserted multiple times that anything the EPA says can't be used because they are part of the Trump administration and therefore not a reliable source (as in we can't even quote their response) [23] [24] [[25]] Whether or not you like the president, it should be okay to use a government agency's response in an article, it always has been with past presidents regardless of party. Finally his essay asserts that Fox News is unreliable. Time after time people have tried and failed to get Fox News banned, but it has not worked, it is still considered a reliable source. Here's the most recent RFC on the topic [26]--Rusf10 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can an admin go ahead and block USER:EEng#s, posts like this are purely disruptive and not helping anyone.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that at ANI, also known as the "drama boards" for a rather obvious reason, the behavior of all involved editors, including and especially the poster, are subjected to a magnifying glass. Regardless of what you intended to happen here, your behavior, and the area in which this interaction took place, are likely to be discussed. (Further, for not wishing to discuss a thing, you see rather eager to discuss it.) Finally, kindly refrain from editing posts by other users here. It is generally considered the height of bad manners. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely do things like that, but that post was uncalled for.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How was it uncalled for? Trump sexually assaults women and is proud of it. Since the topic came up I thought I'd inject a little humor. Sorry if it's a painful subject for you. EEng 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but following on from the events discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive986#Dream_Focus_repeatedly_insinuating_that_I_have_a_mental_illness,_etc., Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been blocked to stop the ongoing feud with Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Following the latest block, I unblocked DF on the strict condition he does not talk about H88 anywhere on Wikipedia, full stop, but it seems further clarification is wanted. Frankly, at this point I was half-tempted to reblock per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but DF does good work for the encyclopedia, so I am reluctant to go that far at this stage.

I think the obvious solution is to propose some sort of formal interaction ban between the pair (not necessarily two-way, if one-way is all that's required let's just do that). As for how "broadly construed" an interaction ban would be, I think those who are more familiar with this dispute than I should bring that up.

I apologise in advance for everyone who has read this thread and is now thinking "aww jeez, not this again"; I really don't want to be any part of this feud and my goal here is essentially to nip all this in the bud right now before one (or both) of these two gets indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No This was shot down last time it was proposed (which was the last -- and first -- time this came up on ANI). It would be far too easy to game. And why would you even bother igniting the dispute again right now? If you think DF's reaction to your unblock was inappropriate, then you should deal with him yourself; if you think your conditional unblock has done its job, then there's no point bringing this up again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, so you unblocked someone with 'strict conditions'. They *straight away* break those conditions, and you arnt going to reblock? If you are not actually going to enforce unblock conditions dont set them in the first place. Can another admin please re-block, it would not be wheel-warring since they have blatantly refused to abide by their unblock conditions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ritchie333: When you unblocked, it was conditional upon "See below conditions. Do not break them or the next block will be longer." I trust your judgment to decide whether the conditions have been broken. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Considering, per this thread [27], that Cullen328 only agreeed with the unblock "as long as Dream Focus accepts your advice without wikilawyering" I would suggest an immediate reblock - say a week for violating unblock conditions. The very first thing they did was to start wikilawyering the edges of what was essentially a one-way iban. After expiration of the block I support a one way iban with Hijiri88. Ibans suck but it is either that or an indefinite block until DF gets a proper clue. I suggest one-way because Hijiri seems to have backed away on their own and the mental health digs in the linked ANI thread showed DF, in my opinion, as the more problematic editor.
  Based on previous behavior I suspect any interaction ban will be quickly broken and/or wikilawyered but it is either that or go straight to an indef block. It might be a nice show of GF if Hijiri88 voluntarily accepted the iban being two-way but DF is the editor at issue and there was no consensus previously to force a two-way iban. Jbh ^Talk 11:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, "some sort of formal interaction ban" doesn't necessarily mean two-way; if a one-way DF -> H88 interaction ban is all that's required, we can do that. As hinted above, I could have indeffed Dream Focus and probably have justified it; I just think getting a final decision on ANI is fairer, and stops a lynch mob of whoever supports Dream Focus turning up at my door. I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I definitly can understand that and I agree that the history of the dispute is long and murky enough that any of the definitive ways of ending it that I can think of are very likely to lead to more than a bit of drama. Dealing with intractable bad behavior from long-standing contributors is always going to be a drama-fest to one extent or another. Regardless, I think at a minimum there is now enough for an indef next time. I do not think anyone here really believes there will not be a 'next time' regardless of ibans or more warnings/admonishments. A straight re-block might be best right now, that and the sure knowledge that the next one is likely to be an indef. Jbh ^Talk 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this which I closed very recently. I do have some (not recent) history with DF so I'm not going to recommend any action although I do think there should be some. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m having trouble understanding what is being asked here. Ritchie333 unblocked with conditions which were immediately broken. I don’t think a mutual IBan is warranted, and I think DF needs to be reblocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• While I proposed an IBAN last time, I'm not sure what use it will be at this point. If sanctions are needed, a block would be the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like another classic example of taking WP:AGF too far. User was unblocked with conditions, user violated conditions, user should be reblocked. Taking it back to ANI to revisit other, lesser sanctions sends a message of "You can get away with bad behavior if you're persistent enough." Grandpallama (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what diff(s) lead up to DF's latest block, but I guess it takes two to tango. Looking at Hijiri88's blocklog, pretty much all of them are for iban failures or battleground/harassment issues. Offer them both the final chance per WP:ROPE and see which one hangs first. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except this isn't one user complaining about another. It's an admin asking what to do when they unblock someone conditionally, and then that user immediately violates the conditions. That's a simple answer that doesn't have anything to do with ibans. Grandpallama (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that now I've had a further look into this ongoing issue - thank you. This thread at Cullen328's talkpage is quite interesting, esp. the final comment to them both. Lets see if either of them take the advice. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) "Do not talk about Hijiri88, at all, in any way". 2) "So can I talk about him like this?" 3) "No, do not talk about him" 4) "But what about when he did this and this and this and this"?

A clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Block DF for a month, give everyone a break, and if he so much as mentions Hijiri88 once, in any way, when the block ends, indefinitely block and let's get back to more productive things. Or, at least, less counter-productive. And I'd be inclined to extend the same warning to Hijiri88, who is not wholly innocent here, and also keeps picking at this festering scab of a relationship. Fish+Karate 13:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And do we have an essay anywhere about how being a good content contributor ought not to give you a free pass to ignore civility and trample over social interaction norms? If not, we need one. Fish+Karate 13:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables explains how the opposite is usually the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators comes to mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yup, perfect summary of the situation. Though I think it's less a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as WP:IHEARDTHATBUTAMCHOSINGTOIGNOREIT. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) They were unblocked per strict conditions... and then 2 hours, 13 minutes later they immediately broke those conditions .... so imho they should be reblocked for it, Could be IBANNED but I feel it would be better with just outright blocking, Both are great editors but if one or the other cannot stop this then I guess we'll have too. –Davey2010^Talk 13:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree fully with my fellow commentators: conditions were imposed; said conditions were broken. A block is entirely justified, and I would support one. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to go with the literal crowd, here. If you unblock with conditions and the editor then immediately breaks those conditions, you re-block for longer. Anything short of that is just an invitation to game the system. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Extended re-block - Dream Focus blatantly violated the conditions of the unblock. Admins should not permit themselves to manipulated by wikilawyering because it just encourages more of the same. A block of between two weeks and a month seems about right. - MrX 🖋 13:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC) Immediately doing the thing that got you blocked after you've been unblocked with the condition you don't do that said thing? That's a paddlin' That's ground for a re-block and for a longer time, with the caveat if it happens again after the block, that's an indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose reblock at this time - A voluntary-but-then-later-not-really-voluntary one-way interaction ban that might be informal but seems more formal with each passing exchange, accompanied by warnings for the other person along with encouragement for the other person not to engage but no reciprocal quasimandatory interaction ban, when the users keep having cause to interact otherwise and the blocked party is worried about being followed around (whether or not that's true and whether or not it's called for) seems like a reasonable scenario to ask for very detailed explanations, context, and what ifs. There needs to be a window of time when people can ask for clarification about their newly imposed sanctions if they don't understand how it applies. "Here is the window of time when you can ask questions about this and then don't bring it up again" seems like it would be reasonable. None of this is to say that I think DR is necessarily in the right in this or related disputes; I just think it's unreasonable to block for asking questions about a sanction shortly after receiving that sanction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with some of this. There's history between these two, neither of them really willing to drop the stick against the other, and DF is asking a fair question in light of this that if Hijiri purposely gets in their face, do they have the ability to discuss that behavior? I do agree it is bordering on Wikilawyering, but I'm not seeing it so much as trying to test the limits - they're asking on the unblocker's page the extent of the conditions knowing past behavior, rather than actually testing outside that venue and complaining after the fact. I do agree DF needs to figure out what they do that causes Hijiri to get on their case and avoid that behavior, but we don't want Hijiri to take advantage of the specific unblock conditions to rub that in DF's face, if we don't have an iban in place. --Masem (t) 14:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the assertion that DF was merely seeking clarification, except DF didn't ask what he/she could or could not do. They asked what Hijiri88 could or could not do. The only use DF could possibly have for that information is either wikilawyering about their unblock conditions or trying to get Hijiri blocked (read: blatantly violating their unblock condition). Alternatively, one could interpret the questions as rhetorical, presuming that DF was merely alerting Ritchie to Hijiri's behavior. Well, in that case, they're directly violating the unblock condition. So if you think it through, DF's questions were either a direct violation of the conditions, or intended to help DF violate the conditions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but asking about what Hijiri can do in this context isn't like asking "is Hijiri allowed to write about X topic" or something otherwise not DF's business; DF is asking about what Hijiri can do in relation to DF and the implications for the iban. I don't think that's unreasonable (to a point -- surely right after it happens we should be tolerant of requests for clarification, even if it seems obvious). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But again, I ask: What would DF do with that knowledge if not go after Hijiri? And as was pointed out in response to DF, they were asking about things Hijiri had already done. So either asking for punitive sanctions to be levelled, or trying to find out if he can get away with asking for punitive sanctions. I'm open to being wrong, because I take WP:AGF seriously, I just don't see any interpretation here that doesn't boil down to "DF is still going after Hijiri." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the purpose of punishing Hijiri88 but for Hijiri88 to stop following Dream Focus[28] and criticising their edits[29] (the "disruptive" edit was a revert of an IP user's edit that had replaced existing terminology with a red link and is what would typically occur without further discussion). It looks like the "plenty of admins" were failing to deal with it effectively[30]. Peter James (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You unblocked, this is your call whether or not they broke the conditions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Dennis Brown. I thought it best that DF agree tof the unblock conditions, and Ritchie333 decided to go ahead without that. I do not disagree with Ritchie's decision but think it best for him to deal with the aftermath, and reblock for an appropriate period of time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment, Dream Focus has not had a chance to log on and have his right of reply in this thread. He is very obviously in a hole (I think we can all agree on that) and he will now either reach for the ladder, or the spade. Whichever he chooses should decide which action we take next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to hear from DF then why did you bring it here? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I should be allowed to post on my own talk page asking for clarification. This all started up yet again when Hijiri88 followed my contributions, as he has admitted to doing in the past, then posted on a talk page about me. User_talk:TonyBallioni#DF_and_"illlegal_Latinos" Five minutes later another editor reverted my revert on the article in question[31], I then started a conversation on the talk page of that article, he then showing up to respond to my post there. I did not engage him at all. I was previously told by Cullen328 at User_talk:Dream_Focus#July_2018 "Ignore them as if they did not exist. If they misbehave in any way, let others deal with it.". So I did report him to that administrator. User_talk:Cullen328#Hijiri_88_violated_your_instructions And now I'm told I can't mention him on any talk page or interact with him, even though he is the one doing that to me, not the other way around. I avoided all interaction with him him and reported him, then I get blocked and sanctioned. And when I ask for clarification, I get told I'm wikilawyering. Why not just do a two way interaction ban already? He has a long history of following my contributions and posting about me on various talk pages. Multiple administrators have in the past suggested he stop doing that, he still refuses to stop. And apparently whenever he does it I am not allowed to even report it? This makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 15:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is a prime example of reaching for a spade - consequently I have blocked DF for a month. I think there's pretty much a majority consensus for that up thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus is continuing to complain about Hijiri88 even after this new escalated block, so I have revoked talk page access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Boki221b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is already indef blocked on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedias, vandalizes articles about medieval Bosnia. Check CentralAuth, this user does the same thing on dewiki, bswiki, hrwiki and enwiki (here). --Munja (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)Yes, I see that out of their 12 edits since they created the account in April, their edits have not been helpful. There hasn't been one post to their user talk page, though, until this ANI notice.

• Tvrtko I of Bosnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pavlović noble family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎
• Pavle Radenović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎
• Borač (fortress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And, I see a total of 25 edits across four languages here. This all seems to have become an issue with the upload of 2 files to commons on July 13, which the user tried to add to the articles.

There should at least have been a warning about disruptive editing. They are blocked indefinitely on the bs and hr language wikis.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gangadesh721 is a sock of banned editor Nangparbat as per the CU results Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat that came as possible. He is being as disruptive as he can by misrepresenting sources and edit warring[32][33] on many articles for the sake of his ethnic POV. He is WP:NOTHERE. My Lord 05:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Possible" and "is a sock" are two different things. The CU explicitly stated it was "Possible" but did not state it was confirmed.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

Thats very usual with socks of Nangparbat. See [34][35] As a side note, please don't copy paste others signature when you are copying their messages. Though I also avoid copying messages since others are able to read from diffs. ML ^talk 07:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yeah that makes sense now. I just find it strange how penalties can be handed out on a "Possible" as opposed to it being confirmed but that's just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've gone ahead and removed the entire message as per your recommendation and slightly changed my original message. Sorry about that :(

Probably a good idea if any further correspondence is brought to my TP rather than cluttering up this ANI report.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

My account got compromised. I do not know who did it. Could have been anyone. A hacker, a classmate, who knows? The compromiser made two edits. First, he or she created my talk page and spammed it with some random message. Next, he or she stated that hacking was fun on my user page. Fortunately, the compromiser did not edit any actual pages, otherwise I could have been blocked or something. Since I am new here, I do not know what to do. Should I start a new account? Help me please. ShangKing (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The talk page was spammed again, this time logged out, most likely by the same compromiser. I reverted it again. The unregistered IP address (Special:Contributions/120.36.194.35) that performed the spam is mine, but it apparently got compromised. ShangKing (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your account is compromised, it should be blocked. Change your password immediately, otherwise I will have to block if any further vandalism occurs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Sh2ngKing (talk · contribs) as a vandalism only account. Regardless of whether the opening post is genuine (account compromised) or just a troll having a laugh (not here to write an encyclopedia), the next step has to be an indefinite block of ShangKing, which I have now done. Zzuuzz has taken care of the IP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I've informed them that they can try again with a new account, when any problems have been resolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

i would like to report User: My Lord for persistent reverting of my edits and refusal to engage in discussion despite telling me to "take it to the talk page". this user is POV editing and removing edits due to their national and ethnic background and should have their editorial privileges removed in my opinion.

link to edit histories and diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&action=history

[36]

[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Ocean&action=history

[38]

[39]

this user also baselessly accused me of being a socketpuppet and hypocritically accused me of POV editing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_evading_WP:CIR_sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gangadesh721: Have you tried taking it to the talk page? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yup, that was my first action but this user is deliberately avoiding discussion and escalating the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another India-Pakistan terminology dispute. There's edit-warring (on both sides) at this point. I think a structural solution (such as creating WP:WikiProject India Pakistan Collaboration) may be necessary rather than trying to figure out who is at fault in these constant battles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Gangadesh721, you are obviously a sock of Nangparbat as the SPI shows: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat. Even if you are not a sock, your English is very poor. About 4 editors or more have reverted you on Cradle of civilization and also on Indian Ocean where others have reverted you. You are misrepresenting sources for the sake of your nationalism. ML ^talk 20:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

these are completely baseless allegations and it is very apparent what is going on. these liars are branding me a sock puppet and linking me to an IP with i have nothing to do with yet i have seen many offensive and biased edits from these sort of IPs concerning topics that these nationalists have strong viewpoints on. i could just as easily and more reasonably link these users to such IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs)

An SPA account named Ctmv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in what appears to be a campaign of disruption at this article.

In the last week or so, they've added almost 25,000 characters to the talk page in the form of numerous walls of text, one atop the other (see for yourself), all in order to push that we refer to the concept as the "Holy Trinity" in the lede, despite an existing and remaining consensus not to. So far, they've started 8 sections on that page, including such bizarre threads as Who is C.S. Lewis ? and Why is he being spoken of in third person in the article lede?.

As of today, they're edit warring, with 3 reverts as I type this: 1 2 3. Also note that the original edit they're edit warring over is, itself, a manual revert of materials previously added by this editor (here, with a highly deceptive edit summary) and removed (here). Most of the responses they're made at talk to anyone else engaging with them have been insulting and focused on belittling the knowledge of other editors, without any basis whatsoever. This has included questioning my competence without reason and accusing me of "despising" the subject, again without reason.

When I warned them about their edit warring, they "warned me right back" and then edit warred it back onto my talk page.

I'm about at my wit's end with this editor and ready to tell them what I really think of their single-minded focus and utter inability to grasp even the most basic tenets of this project, objectivity or collaboration. So here I am asking an admin to intervene. I think this editor could benefit from an indef block, as their ability to communicate seems to be below the level required of editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean SPI or SPA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the article Trinity is an article about a Christian theology, therefore it is an article about religion. the term Trinity is also officially referred to as Holy Trinity, therefore the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity^[1][2][3]" was added. Not before a lengthy discussion in the section Talk:Trinity#Rename_to_Holy_Trinity saw the establishment of the terms "Blessed Trinity" "Holy Trinity" "Trinity" as of equal meaning but different form, therefore a concensus on something had already been established as per the references.

the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity^[1][2][3]" was introduced with a corresponding (and already used) talk page entry (Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on) with the revision [42]. The users O3000 and User_talk:MjolnirPants have reverted the edit without making use of proper arguments in the aforementioned talk page section. What's more I was received with blatant profanity in the talk section of one of the users [43]. Before, a similar edit had been introduced with several "also referred to as" it was discouraged because they were deemed too many, also the references were pointing to a same religious congregation when the article is multi-confessional, therefore a shrinked to one "also referred to as" statement and rferenced the needed phrase with references from several religious movements so I'm compliant with neutral point of view. The users mentioned seem to be of areligious (namely atheism) as exposed in one of the user's talk page. The article does not contain an atheism view on the subject, and even if it did, the: "Trinity" "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" phrase would be needed as it is the term favored by religious congregations as noted by references in the Talk Page. Please weigh in as the user User_talk:MjolnirPants insists in not using the talk page but the revert button. Thanks. Ctmv (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also had previously added an entry in the informal request for help board [44] that Board I think should be the preferred one since it is only about a "also referred to as" phrase, but since it is content related I also posted the request here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmv (talk • contribs)

This is not the place for content discussion. Also, an editor’s religion or lack thereof is not relevant and I would suggest you avoid mentioning such again, anywhere. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Looks like you added material, then when multiple other users Reverted, you did three reverts within an hour, then you tagged someone else with fewer reverts there than you for editing warring, and then when they removed the notice from their own talk page - which is their right - you reverted his removal, with a little lecture on respect as your comment? And then you come here to report them? I gotta say that the impolite comment you're complaining about does not come across (to these non-admin eyes) as undue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd missed that MP had already weighed in with complaint above. So it shan't count as an Australian throwing-stick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with the two editors above: this noticeboard does not settle content disputes, it deals only with behaviorial problems, and the behaviorial problem here is that you appear to be trying to force your own preferred version of the article into place against the wishes of a number of other editors. It does not appear that you have a WP:consensus on the talk page for your edits, and you are edit warring.

I would advise you to stop edit warring immediately, and go back to the talk page and try to convince the other editors of the article that your version is to be preferred. If they agree, then you have a consensus and you can add the material. If they don't, they you cannot. It's fairly cut-and-dried. If you continue to edit war, there's every probability that you'll be reported on the edit warring noticeboard and will be blocked from editing for a time. I'm certain you would prefer that not to happen, so please return to the talk page and discuss, preferably without posting extremely long blocks of text which are difficult to read and comprehend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was used(Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on). the other editors refuse to use it, in favor of the revert button. no arguments used by the other users. check for yourself, as you undid over something that was referenced on the talk page prior to its introduction on the article page, and not challenged there but with a revert button, that's behavioral. Ctmv (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted seven comments on that page directed at you: six of which you have responded directly to. Every editor here is able to look at the history and current state of that page and see that you are lying through your teeth about me "refusing" to use it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctmv, this is simply not true. Other editors did engage in discussion. You failed to attain consensus and attempted, repeatedly, to force your additions. O3000 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctmv After 7 years [45]] it’s probably time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page entry [46] introduced prior to the article edit [47] has not been adressed thus far. but the revert button was used. As per the other discussions it was agreed that several terms exist with the same meaning, and that references have to come from different religious movements, which was the case with the phrase: "also referred to as the Holy Trinity^[1][2][3]" which is complaint with previous discussion and with WP policies. there's a talk page to challenge that with arguments, if arguments is what you decide to use for discussion. My request here is for the edit of the July 17, 2018 ONLY, do not merge my request with yours, you are complaining about talk pages carried out other days, I'm requesting weighin in about the reversions carried out on edits performed on July 17, 2018 with new relevant talk having been added. Ctmv (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPants came here with a behavioral problem, you want comments about a content dispute. Once more this board does not adjudicate content disputes, it only deals with behavioral problems, so please focus on explaining why you should not be sanctioned for your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we can add this and this to the list of diffs evincing a lack of competence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to agree with Ctmv on the content dispute, but their comments here are problematic to the point of WP:CIR. The Holy Trinity is not to be confused with my beloved trinity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to their assertions, if you check the talk page, their arguments have been addressed. There's even an html comment on the article, right in the first sentence that reads <!-- DO ''NOT'' ADD THE WORD "HOLY" --> that's been there since at least 2013. I'm not going to argue content here, so I'll leave it at that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power-tilde, loved the Keats quote. All I care about here is process, not content. Process is more important than “truth”. Toward that end, thanks to Theroadislong’s comment about seven years as an SPA, and the comments by the editor here, WP:CIR is an obvious concern. In any case, this is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not at all surprised that Power~enwiki would play devils advocate here... again... for no reason... --Tarage (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a plausible argument that Holy Trinity is an alternate title for the article Trinity, which should be mentioned in the lead. Simply because a contributor has competence issues doesn't mean they can't be correct on the merits of some of their complaints. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a plausible argument that you had no business injecting here. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: There is, indeed an argument to be made, and it may even be a compelling one. That being said, the argument starts with the presumption that the existing consensus should be discarded. Also, Tarage raises a good point: This is not the place to discuss content. I would be happy to discuss the naming issue with you at the talk page. I would ask, however, that you wait until this issue is resolved before we start that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctmv is, quite clearly, a Single Purpose Account. When I checked a few hours ago, they had 124 edits over 7 years, and 50% (exactly 62) of those were to Trinity and Talk:Trinity, while an additional 23% (29 edits) were to Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit in Christianity and Talk:Holy Spirit in Christianity. Add an edit to Jesus here and another to Yahweh there, and we have the clear picture of a tightly-focused SPA.

Being a SPA is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be if the SPA is one with a specific point of view, and that is the case with Ctmv. They are here to make sure that the articles they're focused on strictly adhere to the doctrines of specific religions. This is abundantly clear from their discussions on Talk:Trinity, where everything is measured against Ctmv's understanding of what those doctrines say on that subject. The fact that other editors persist in pointing out to Ctmv that our articles are not vehicles for the dissemination of any particular religion's doctrine, but must instead present information about the totality of their subject matter clearly means nothing to Ctmv, because it is the doctrine, and the doctrine alone that they care about.

This is when being a SPA editor is bad for Wikipedia, when the SPA is not only tightly focused on a single subject, but they also hold to a strict POV about it, and will fight incessantly to make sure that the article reflects that point of view. POV SPA's are a danger to the encyclopedia, because they look like they're contributing in a worthwhile way, but, in fact, they are skewing our articles away from neutrality.

It is my opinion that, since Ctmv has not changed their behavior in 7 (intermittent) years of editing, and their editing is inconsistent with the needs and purposes of our encyclopedia, that Ctmv should not be allowed to edit here any more. Therefore I propose... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please count this as a !vote for a topic ban if there is no consensus for an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Editor very clearly does not understand what Wikipedia is for, and seems incapable of getting it. --Tarage (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative A topic ban on Christianity, broadly construed. I do not object to an indefinite block if that is the consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Beyond My Ken and Tarage. (Non-administrator comment)–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) It may look like it, but this wasn't a quick vote where I just agreed. I read the comments here, on the talk page, and the user's edits on other pages. I just don't have anything new to add to what has been said... and don't want to pile on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - note although I haven't participated much, I've read through the various discussions more or less as they were taking place. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Possibly foolish of me, but I will support a TBan from Christianity broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a pile on. Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia. They should be given another chance to work a bit more collaboratively. An indefinite block shouldn’t be the first step. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia. I just want to highlight this comment. I just want to point out that someone on ANI actually suggested with a straight face that an editor who's obsessive to the point of disruption, who can't be bothered to conform to WP norms and practices, who posts walls of text and then declares that they have the consensus to do whatever they want because no-one responded within an hour, is "good" for this project. Think about that, folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I have suggested any of this. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two entries up !!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: I literally just quoted you, less than an inch away from where you said it on most monitors, and you're suggesting I'm lying (or possibly mistaken?) about what you said? You know that's not going to work, right? Literally everyone here can see right through that. It's less effective than hiding behind a flag pole and loudly yelling "I'm not here!"

Or maybe you can start arguing that this editor hasn't been at all disruptive, is clearly not an SPA, has never posted a wall of text, and hasn't declared that they get consensus if no-one responds... Please do that, instead. I could use a good laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure let me be a bit more direct. You are absolutely lying if you claim I suggested any of what you wrote, with the exception of the quote regarding the editor’s passion. I certainly agree that the behavior you mention is not ideal, but I do not believe an indefinite block is the first step for this editor. This is a classic ANI pile on, with an indef block looking likely. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waitasecond, so you agree that this editor's behavior is "not ideal" but at the same time, believe that their passion (the very thing that causes said behavior) is good for this project? And you don't see the contradiction in that? Or (more likely, IMHO) you just couldn't be bothered to read this thread, and just spouted off your opinion here thinking you'd be the "voice of reason"? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you think it is so necessary to twist my words and warp what I say. This editor is passionate about Wikipedia, which is a good thing. This editor has issues following the established procedures, which is a bad thing. Your comments on the talk page were of the same nature as here - somewhat belittling and assuming bad faith. I’m of the view that editors shouldn’t be immediately indefinitely blocked upon misbehaving, but offered chances at improving. Why not start with a topic ban? If you respond again please do not try to infer some ill motive in my comments. I’ve read everything and my voice has no more reason than anyone else’s. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've not twisted or warped anything you said. All I did was explicitly add on the context in which you said it. I described what this editor's passion had resulted in and put that right next to your claim that their passion was good for the project. If you don't like that this reflected badly upon you, then tough cookies. You decided to show up to a thread in which an editor's passion has resulted in significant disruption in order to praise that editor's passion. You later even admitted (twice now) that they've been disruptive. Yet you're going to stand by what you said, and accuse me of dishonesty for having the gall to quote you.

As for being blocked immediately: This has been happening on and off for seven years, Mr Ernie, and for something like a week even if you only consider the time I've been interacting with them. If you consider that "immediately" then you have a very warped sense of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your perspective. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of this thread, the only thing that Ctmv is passionate about is getting their POV in. This sort of thing is not good for the project. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Clearly not here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. The edit warring, IDHT, POV-push, trying to disqualify editors on the basis of religion... none of this is conducive to our goals. If not blocked, a topic ban seems in order. None of these need to be permanent, of course -- sometimes new users misunderstand how this place works. If they show they understand sufficiently, then some leeway/rope could be in order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I understand being passionate about a subject. I understand you want to make the project better on that subject. However you get to the point that you begin to exclude other editors, and push ONLY your viewpoint, that's when it becomes disruptive. The editor does not want to work collaboratively, and as such a block is justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As per Rhododendrites, et al. Editor apparently knows the “truth” and can’t be bothered with attaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• TBAN There are three behavioral issues which I see here. 1) Comments about fellow editors which arguably cross the line to personal attacks; 2) A complete failure to drop-the-stick and understand that their view is not the only view; 3) Edit warring. All of these seems to be limited in scope to Trinity and in time to the events which brought us here. I do not think these are bad enough to jump straight to an indef -- we seem to be jumping straight to indefs more and more often.
  In this case I would support a narrowly focused topic ban on the Trinity which, because of how seldome they edit, should be indefinite. Since they are an SPA this may end up being a de facto ban on editing but it leaves open the door to contribute in other areas where, hopefully, their evident strong beliefs may motivate constructive contribution rather than continued disruption. In short, a single episode of disruption on a topic of one's strongly held and central/defining beliefs does not necessarily mean it is not possible to be constructive in less personally sensitive areas. If, when given the chance, they can not find an area of interest where they can subordinate dogma to Wikipedia's content and behavioral requirements then an indefinite block can be made. Jbh ^Talk 18:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with an indef TBan on all religion broadly construed. You mentioned three problem areas. The fourth is an apparent discomfort with areligious editors editing religious articles; and the logic used indicates a possible problem with non-Christians editing these articles. That’s like saying you can’t edit Harry Potter if you’re not a wizard. As you say, that would probably amount to a de facto block. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a broader TBAN. Jbh ^Talk 18:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'd also be satisfied with a TBAN. I would prefer an indef block because I only see three possible outcomes to a TBAN: CTmv stops editing entirely; Ctmv repeatedly violates their topic ban and gets indeffed; or Ctmv starts behaving the same exact way in some other subject and gets indeffed. (FWIW, I think the first one is the most likely outcome.) So from where I sit, we might as well save ourselves the possibility of having to deal with more drama and block now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN per Jbhunley. I'd pick "theology and religion, broadly construed" as the topic area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN, as above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson and Doug Weller: Would you support a topic ban on religion in place of an indef? I'm asking because I think either one would accomplish the job, and I believe it'll be easier to convince editors who !voted to indef to support a topic ban than to convince editors who !voted to topic ban to support an indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am not confident that it will result in the desired outcome, but it's worth a try.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also pessimistic, but I've said above I will. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ctmv has shown no interest is any other subject than the one a topic ban would cover, it would either be a de facto indef block, or Ctmv would find something else to edit, hopefully something in which he or she is not so invested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN per above. If that goes south, then an indef is in order. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tban for theology and religion, broadly construed, per Power Enwiki. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block largely because I don't hold much faith that this sort of of behaviour won't move to a different area of articles. Support topic ban as second choice. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN on religion (broadly construed) in the first instance. Block if they fail to abide by it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is not an accusation, but it looks like Ctmv may also be editing logged off, possibly accidentally. Simliar times, positions, animus toward areligious editors: [48]. Also another IP earlier from the same country: [49] [50] O3000 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the case, but Ctmv isn't trying to obfuscate their identity as the IP or pretend to be two people so I'm pretty sure these are just more gaffes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m sure it’s accidental. I only mention it as one may wish to include these edits as a part of the edit history. For example, this edit from a third, similar IP indicating a problem with those that don’t share their religious beliefs. [51] from this interaction timeline on another article [52] O3000 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN Yes, one of those 3 thing will probably happen, but ROPE and all. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to get some discussion on this. A user going by User:Redalert3fan which was created yesterday undid one of my comments on a talk page, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAIS_Airlines&type=revision&diff=850760424&oldid=850364621 . It seems to me that this account was only made to discredit my points on Talk:AIS Airlines or made it seem that I retracted my statements. The change they made also seems rather more on the "promotional" side so this might be someone working for AIS. Any comments on this? Redalert2fan (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked that account as an obvious attempt to impersonate you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, It seems that the talk page keeps getting vandalized by other possible sock accounts and IP's. Not sure if its the place for discussion here but I also filled a request at WP:RFP. If not consider this mater closed :) Redalert2fan (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 46.227.72.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Psl85 made this unblock request stating he wants to be unblocked because "he wants to see the abuse log". Clearly, he was trolling, so can anyone revoke talk page access? I've already rolled back his request. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins shouldn't decline (or revert) unblock requests. I would prefer we kept talk page access open for now, at least. I generally dislike revoking talk page for lengthy range blocks unless there's been lots of disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a backlog and requests submitted up to 13 days ago have still not been reviewed despite being ordinary blocks not requiring checkuser. Requests that are obviously trolling can be reverted but I don't think this one was. It has now been reviewed by an adminstrator who declined it as "Not an unblock request" which is incorrect according to Template:User access levels. Peter James (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for Llywelyn2000 to accuse wikipedia, and hence wikipedia editors, of ethnic cleansing. At present, the style guidelines are ethnically cleansing both nationalities out of history, accusing us of ethnically cleansing Basque and Catalan people. Seems to me to be an unacceptable breach of WP:AGF against users who disagree with them. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see at the top of this page where it says This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems? EEng 08:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to agree with EEng on this one. Accusing other users if not Wikipedia itself of ethnic cleansing (Pretty serious accusation) is by no means acceptable in my opinion and thus makes it urgent. AryaTargaryen (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

Urgent because if it's not dealt with right away the consequences will be ... what? The most severe possible result here is a template warning – the OP could have done that himself. Imagine if every such offense was brought to this board! Mountain out of a molehill. Let it go. EEng 09:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain - molehill. From context its obvious they are not accusing editors of ethnic cleansing in say, the way the Bosnian Serbs did, he is stating his opinion that the MOS is being wielded as a bludgeon which is having the effect of removing an ethnic group's identity from ENWP. And I think every long-term editor who reads this board has seen that actually happen by POV-driven editors on articles related to ethnic groups. Its not even an uncommon occurance! And there is only an extent to which I am willing to AGF when it comes to the Catalan issue given the recent editing by some pro-Spanish unity editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've got to agree with EEng here. If raising a question about a bias in the MOS on the MOS talk page is a problem for this board, then Wikipedia is broken beyond repair. If you disagree with him, tell him so. As long as he is not accusing a specific editor (or editors) of some misbehavior without providing evidence of it, he's not doing anything wrong. I really don't understand how you could think being critical of Wikipedia could possibly be a behavior issue. John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All action is at WP:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open.

I created this, and someone put it in mainspace. An AFD was opened (improperly [53]), and now I'm being called all sorts of names for calmly presenting fact-based reasons why the (first draft) article I created shouldn't be deleted. I'm attacked and my arguments are straw-manned, misquoted or, at best, ignored (I guess I could consider that to be acceptance), though clearly based on policy and guidelines:

Intimidation: [54]: Either my message was perfectly fine, or it came close to canvassing. It can't be both; RK is demanding doublethink, an intimation tactic. I had already asked that RKs personal attacks and condescension stop - with my first post to the page. Now I'm afraid to include the AfD in a list of open content discussions, that is notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access, Wikipedia:WikiProject Open, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/News and the like, and/or notify OA folks such as <nowiki>[[User:Mattsenate|Matt Senate]], [[User:Maximilianklein|Max Klein]], [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]]</nowiki> and the like. I don't know if it's canvassing, but the many notifications that have been done are very strange, given that there are STILL no Open Access -related notifications at all; it appears all the ones I mention have NOT been done. I shouldn't be intimidated for making the notification the nom should have done ~5 days ago. Or told what to do ("you'll have to show that...", etc).

I pointed out that RK (with [55]) was quoting me out of context, in what seems to me to be an a GREAT/obvious example of willful blindness, and RK doesn't deny it. Specifically: I pointed out that the nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace*", and RK chose NOT to do so repeatedly. Instead RK insisted on advancing and defending the absurd, willfully blind argument that I was wrong to say User:Nstru should be notified of this discussion - because, I kid you not - somehow (according to their God, I guess?) moving a page definitely does not involve creation! Sorry, but refusing to to even see my statement that nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace"*, as a reasonable statement is blatant evidence of wilful blindness, especially when it's used to attack me: [56] after following me around. At least in terms of his contributions on said page, Randykitty seems to be here mainly to be bossy and intimidate, which is anathema to improving the encyclopedia.
*(that is, who moved it from draft space)

Please consider the following actions:

1. Notify appropriate projects, give the notified adequate time to respond, and then provide a clearly policy-based close, identifying the more and less compelling arguments on all sides.
2. apply pressure toward having the intimidation cease and discussion be restricted to responsive discussion of article content and relevant guidelines and policy.
3. urge folks to follow Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, specifically what I quoted from it.
4. If the claim that "WP:NJOURNAL is what is generally being used to decide the notability of journals" is true, make it a guideline.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to shoot yourself in the foot: Be wrong and come to ANI whining about how you aren't wrong, thus bringing more attention to the fact that you are wrong. Sorry bucko, your article is going to get deleted because it isn't even remotely notable. And now you've got folks like me aware of it where I wouldn't have been if you hadn't come here. Magnificent backfire. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about what I'm complaining about. Don't acknowledge or talk about Randykitty's intimidation or bossiness. Emulate it. Claim that I've done something wrong without identifying it. Maybe I should put this comment before yours, Tarage, because that's what you've done. Read my post, the AFD, understood and weighed the evidence, and composed replied, all in 8 minutes? Wow. Hard to believe. Very. I don't see any evidence that you did so; please present some. I'm open to constructive criticism.

I am wrong sometimes - I just corrected myself because I was (slightly) wrong - in the very discussion referenced. What do you do when you're wrong, Tarage? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume any good faith. Considering nearly all of your edits have been hostile... I'm not at all surprised. You'll be blocked soon. --Tarage (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I predict a good old application of WP:BOOMERANG will happen here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you refactor your comments after you post them I will delete them. Stop doing that. --Tarage (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also stop voting more than once. You get one vote. Not two. Not twenty. ONE. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]