text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019

"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."
Please look at Psalm 100, known as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.", present version this, demanding that you (you!) revdel a copyright violation. Nothing happened in several hours.

The psalm is known in the King James Version, Wikisource, as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."

Beginning in January 2018, Yoninah and I have improved coverage of the Psalms. She, knowing Hebrew, their original language, added the Hebrew text with its English translation, "A song for a thanksgiving offering. Shout to the Lord, all the earth.", per - Yesterday, Elizium23 removed that as a copytight violation, with a fat tag for the article and a tag for Yoninah. When I removed the tag for the article, Elizium23 had another tag for me, and the request to revdel that I still see!!

We have now four threads, Yoninah, two on Elizium23 (sorry for the one I started, I had not noticed the other one, and the one Yoninah started has the numbers of all Psalms that have Hebrew text and translation, showing me how many are still missing). and my own.

We need to sort out:
 * 1) Is this translation of a biblical text a copyright violation?
 * 2) Even if yes, does it need a revdel?
 * 3) For the announced investigation: are 5 psalms five cases? (I'd say no.)
 * 4) How can we help our readers to the original language of the psalms and a translation? Leaving them alone with the King James Version - in old-fashioned English - doesn't help help them to understand the original meaning.
 * 5) Can we make a tranlation in Wikisource?
 * 6) Can we request permission from the publisher?
 * 7) Other ideas?
 * 8) How can we spare our readers the lengthy tags in article space? In general, not just here. The discredit the information. One line in article space, the rest on the article talk page should be enough, no?

Not an incident? May be, I am not familiar with ANI. I am most concerned about the tags in articles that are highly visible, and called by many other articles, see Der 100. Psalm. (So far: palms 1, 23, 42, 51 are also tagged) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I, for one, am very confused. If we start with the premises that the bible's original text is not copyrighted, and likewise, the King James Version is in the public domain, then it would seem to me just fine.  Similarly, if one follows the link in the copyright template, the chabad translation is quite different, if more literal.  My hunch is that the tag is simply a bit of a mix-up, but I would be happy to hear others' thoughts.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly you mean by "just fine". The King James Version (KJV) is public domain, yes, but it often represents the original Hebrew badly, and it's also in an old-fashioned English. Just compare the two translations above. Should we inform our readers about that? I'd say yes. How, that is the question. Another example: Psalm 42: KJV has "As the hart panteth after the water brooks." The other translation - now removed - has: "For the conductor, a maskil of the sons of Korah. / As a hart cries longingly for rivulets of water". Note in both cases, that the author credit is missing in the KJV, on top of the language. Also: using KJV only supports a Christian bias. The original is Hebrew and Jewish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ancient biblical texts are in the public domain. Translations, whether they are Jewish or Christian, which were published before 1924 are in the public domain, and there are plenty of them. More recent translations are presumed not to be in the public domain, unless there is good evidence to the contrary. Any distinctive quotation of a specific translation should be attributed to the translator, and should be brief if the translation is copyrighted. Original content published since 1924 and republished on Chabad.org is subject to the crystal clear copyright notice at the bottom of that web page. These are the basic principles that seem pretty clear to me, unless I am missing something. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, the Jewish Publication Society of America Version of the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) was published in 1917, is in the public domain, and is freely available online. It may not reflect the full range of modern scholarship but I would submit that no single translation meets that standard. It is always best to use fully free translations, unless there is a convincing need to quote non-free content instead. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair use of modern religious texts is often quite generous (see, ). However, Chabad is pretty clearly copyrighted. But they seem amenable to letting their work be used in periodicals if you first contact them for permission . Emailing them could clarify the copyright status, the date of the particular translation, and to gain their explicit permission. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless their permission is in the form of a release under a free license, the choices remain fair use or deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how we've handled it here, but the situation with the KJV is unusual: it functionally has perpetual copyright in the UK. See King James Version for details.  Of course, this doesn't affect its standing in other jurisdictions.  Nyttend (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the Jewish Publication Society source, while public domain, is completely unacceptable for a modern-day readership. The language is archaic and anachronistic. The Chabad translation is adequate, although it does not always reflect the classical Jewish commentaries, some of which are cited on the newly revised psalm pages under "Background and themes". It's important to note that the KJV often skips the incipit and starts the psalm with verse 2 of the Hebrew; using the KJV as the English translation would thus omit the translation of many verses. Yoninah (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, first of all, a general apology for skimming too quickly before bed and misunderstanding the issue! I don't think we should be offering our own translations.  Translation, especially from a language like biblical Hebrew, is not a mechanistic and one-to-one affair (hapax legomena, anyone?).  As such, that strikes me as very much WP:OR.  Strictly speaking, no, I don't believe the translation offered was a copyright violation.  At the same time, I think this problem will reoccur and be a headache, and we don't have much choice but to acquiesce.  So we do need, I think, to cite to a usable translation.  And while I will always champion the KJV as part of the history of English, it certainly does not follow the Hebrew particularly closely.  The JPS version, while not ideal as Yoninah notes, might be the best we can do given the current copyright regime.  Its wording can indeed be awkward, but it is (for my money) far less anachronistic than the KJV and much more faithful to the Hebrew text.  Note the translation of verse 1 of Psalm 100: "A Psalm of thanksgiving.  Shout unto the Lord, all the earth."  That's pretty close to the deleted version.  So, for now, I think my position would be "the JPS text until something better comes up."  Just my opinion, of course.  If we DO start translating, I have lots of opinions, beginning with Genesis 1:1!  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Previously responded here, but to answer your questions:
 * 1. If it is a translation that is still in copyright (as Cullen said, published before 1924), is not published with a compatible license, and is not used as fair use (again, we're not lawyers here, but I'd say copying an multiple Psalms isn't fair use), then yes, copyvio.
 * 2. iff 1.
 * 3. *shrug* not my department.
 * 4. WP:COPYLINK, perhaps? I'm seeing plenty of opportunity for holy wars (pun entirely intended) over choice of translation, but if there's a source like Biblegateway which legally hosts copies of the translations you're interested in, you could put that in the external links. I doubt the publisher will give permission given that anything they let us use gets an open license (i.e. anyone can take it off of Wikipedia and use it freely), but I guess you could ask.
 * 5. The revdel tag will go away as soon as an administrator handles it.
 * creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So I don't exactly know where to point to policy here, but I have always taken it as a given that, on Wikipedia, we always refrain from including the full text of any work of significant length. Now, many Psalms are short (this began at Psalm 23, a classic masterpiece weighing in at 6 verses.) But if we consider that there are over 150 Psalms, each with its own separate article, it adds up! My NABRE edition runs 97 pages in normal-sized print. There is no "fair use" involved in scraping every word of every Psalm from Chabad and the JPS without permission. Furthermore, I do not envision JPS granting CC-BY-SA permission to us for the aforementioned every word of every Psalm. Even if they did, I believe it would be beyond Wikipedia's remit to reproduce them here. That is what Wikisource is for! Wikisource is where we publish full-length renditions of freely-licensed works, and we point to Wikisource whenever we need to cite such a work at length. Now, the good editors Yoninah and Gerda Arendt are diligent, WP:GA and WP:FA powerhouses, and they are rightly concerned with top-quality content. How do we have articles on the Psalms without top-quality renditions of them in the original and in Modern English? Well, the same way we have articles on the Simpsons episodes without full-length videos; the same way we have articles on Shakespeare's plays without editors re-enacting them, and so forth. I think Wikipedia's job is to provide plenty of out-of-universe exegesis, context, commentary, history, and reception, and none of that requires the full-text. And if they really want full-text, we have already given them ample public-domain options, and we can just live with the "archaic" (IMHO, poetic and beautiful) language therein. Elizium23 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see sources like Chabad.org being included in the external links. But we really need to tweak the public-domain JPS translation. We cannot write "Yahweh", for instance, which is not accepted by classical Jewish sources or Orthodox Judaism in general ("God" will do just fine). I'd also like to note that the Hebrew text being copied from the Chabad site includes cantillation notes, which are really unnecessary for a straight Hebrew reading. Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm struggling to understand what is happening in this thread, but I'll try and clear the air on the topic of copyright: If a website with an "all rights reserved" notice contains text that is unambiguously in public domain, then that text is in public domain. They can't change the copyright unless they own it. If it's a translation being copy and pasted into the article, and that translation is not in public domain, then it is a copyvio. Whether or not it's editorial appropriate to mass copy the verses into the article, if they are public domain, is up for you article's editors to decide. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Judaica Press English translation is most assuredly not public-domain. That's the whole reason I raised the complaint. English editions are still for sale at JPS' website. I can't rightly object to whatever Hebrew text you wanna include, I wouldn't even know how to determine if it were some kind of copyright-encumbered transcription anyway. Our issue is with the modern English Judaica Press translation, which is clearly marked on the linked Chabad website with a current copyright claim, "all rights reserved". And I am confused about why you say we cannot write "Yahweh" — Wikipedia has a neutral POV, not a Jewish one — out of fairness, the Psalms articles must represent both Jewish and Christian patrimony and not exclude or favor one or the other. So by all means, complement the KJV with a rabbinic translation. But you can't come in and say "Yahweh out!" to the Psalms. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Elizium23--with all due respect, I believe you have what in my business we call "versionitis," that is, a mistake regarding two different versions of the same text. The modern JPS bible (or "NJPS") is most assuredly copyrighted, and no one is arguing it is not.   The 1917 version, sometimes called "Old JPS" or "OJPS" is in the public domain.  If you don't believe me, believe the JPS themselves when they say "The 1917 edition, now in the public domain, is not available from JPS in print form."  They then go on to offer a free download, since it is a public domain document.  As such, there is no problem with using the 1917 version or sourcing to it for Wikipedia purposes, and I think it is a good counterpoint to more floral translations--though, as is often noted, it owes a lot to the RV.  We'll all muddle through this together!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * if you can satisfactorily prove that Chabad.org has reproduced the PD 1917 English translation, and that's the text that Yoninah has included on these articles, then I will gratefully retract alllll of my complaints. But I am not sure you can. Why would Chabad use a 1917 translation, when they have obtained express permission to use a "new and improved" 1980s version as advertising to sell JPS books? Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Right -- I am suggesting we replace it with the 1917 version! It's not ideal from anyone's point of view, but I think fills a void that currently exists.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It already appears to be identical to what's in the King James Version, which is public domain. I can't see the text which was removed, but this, as far as I can tell, is clearly not a copyright violation. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC) This was incorrect, my apologies. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel or not?
What I can't believe is that the revdel tag still sits on Psalm 100. Can an admin please decide NOW if the copyright violation - if accepted - is severe enough to need a revdel, and if yes, do it NOW for all psalms listed by Yoninah, and if no remove that tag (which as far as I know is only on that one psalm? The same translation will still be listed in the external links, among other translations, including the mentioned biblegateway. The tag doen't create trust in our content, imho.

For the next step: If we decide against the Hebrew text in that version, I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text which is anyway always on top of the external links in those palm articles already expanded. Poor readers then can open some windows to study the differences, instead of seeing them at a glance. I can't judge if the older translation of the Hebrew would be of value instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * KJV is public domain. The issue is copyright, and nothing else. Please don't try to cloud the issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I don't understand. KJV is not the question. The question is if the translation of the Hebrew text is such a severe copyright violation - if any - that a revdel is needed. More time passed with the tag saying "Blatant copyright violations" on Psalm 100. If revdel is needed, the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful. If it's not needed and the article wrongly tagged, even more so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Infrogmation was responding to your statement that I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text. The problem that needs to be dealt with here at AN/I is the copyright dispute, nothing more. The question of including the KJV is a content dispute and can be dealt with on the article talk page, or failing that, any of the resources at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.
 * Also, please stop calling things "shameful." Your repeated use of it is getting close to being a personal attack. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If "shameful" is not the correct word for "I feel ashamed for it", please forgive me. English is not my native language. I will have to look up what Infrogmation may mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I say something is "shameful", it means not that I feel ashamed, but that you should feel ashamed. Hence, "the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful" is saying that admin (all of them) should feel ashamed that none of them has gotten to this request yet. I'm glad you explained that's not what you meant–until now, I thought that's what you meant. :-) – Levivich 22:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any question that there's a copyright violation. For example, text in this diff is clearly the same as copyrighted text from this website. In my experience, it can take two or three days for a copyvio-revdel template to be cleared by an admin. As we all know, there aren't enough admin to handle all the admin tasks (nudge, nudge, Gerda, ye with 10yrs and 200k edits). If there are no good, public domain, modern translations of the Psalms from Hebrew into English, someone who is capable should write and publish some... then we can use them in our articles. – Levivich 18:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything you said has been said above, while I said above that my experience with ANI is almost zero. Until this gets resolved one way or the other, I will remove links to Psalm 100 from articles for which I feel responsible. I feel awful sending people to "Blatant copyright violations". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , please don't do that. That's outright disruptive behavior. creffett (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No one should feel responsible for any articles, because none of us are responsible for any articles. – Levivich 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict:)
 * Note to self: Chandos Anthems, Chichester Psalms, Der 100. Psalm, Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt (Mendelssohn), Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt, Service in B-flat major, Op. 10 (Stanford), Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After edit conflict: you can't tell me how to feel. If I write a featured article such as Der 100. Psalm, and it sends to an article with a "Blatant copyright violations"-tag I feel like cheating every reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, ah, don't shoot the messenger here; if you feel that copyvio tags are "shameful" then, as one of the active editors of Psalms articles along with Yoninah, y'all should've considered copyright issues before copying the disputed text into the articles in the first place. The reason the tags are there is because we have to clean up after someone who misappropriated content that never should've been here in the first place. When I added the tags and reported the articles, the wheels were set in motion. Now you're quite impatient and attempting to jump the queue: as has been explained, admins have quite a backlog in all areas, including copyvio reports. Sometimes it takes a week or two for an admin to clean up, revdel, and remove the tags. In the meantime, nobody's gonna die; I am sure our dedicated readers will forgive Psalm 100 for having an ugly tag on it for a week. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by removing links from "your" featured articles. This will all be handled. There are plenty of good options to us going forward. This, too, shall pass. Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was forced to revert who seemed to believe that the Hebrew text was why I filed the complaints. No, folks, I have no problem with the allegedly PD status of the Hebrew text. It's the JPS English translation we're concerned about here. (And I have no reason to suspect that Chabad.org is hosting the 1917 PD JPS translation rather than the 1980s copyrighted one.) Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems highly unlikely to me that an ultra-Orthodox organization like Chabad would host anything from a relatively liberal interdominational group like JPS, no matter the copyright status of the content. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I must apologize; I am not communicating well. As I said above, I don't mean to suggest that chabad is hosting the 1917 text--rather, I am suggesting we replace the chabad quotations with the 1917 text, which, while perhaps not optimal, is decidedly in the public domain.  As for revdel'ing the old versions, I guess I would say better safe than sorry, but that's above my pay grade.  Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't necessarily think we can rely on supposition here. Certain chapters of Chabad have been used as fronts for global political corruption. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the site uses NJPS rather than OJPS, unless they specifically state which one they use. (That said, I've never been a particular fan of using mass revdel simply because some old versions of a wiki article inadvertently had some lyrics/translations that were still under copyright.) Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment: I understand the use of revdel when someone has blatantly copypasted a large swath of original work from a book, article, or website. I do not understand the use of revdel for instances where a translation of an ancient text or an old song, which translation is now found to still be under copyright, was inadvertently used in a wiki article but is now removed. These are good-faith errors that do no real harm to the copyright-holder, being visible only in old versions of text invisible to the public. Heck, revdel was not even available until around mid-2009, and was not in wide use until 2015 or so. I don't think there is any reason to plaster copyvio demands for revdel on things like important Wikipedia articles that had, in good faith, provided English translations of important old material. In my mind it's a waste of administrative time, and serves no real purpose while disrupting and damaging the appearance of valuable and important articles. I propose that we drop this and remove the tag, when a clearly fair-use translation has been established and provided on the article (or at least when the questionable translation has been removed from the article). Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think that revdel is required for text that has been used legally. Perhaps the copyright is not compatible, but it is still legal to have a small piece on Wikipedia. However it is in appropriate because our mission is to have free content, and other commercial uses may not be legal. So that means it just needs to be removed from the current version(s), but that revdel is not actually needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose revdel; support immediate removal of tag; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments just above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

An unrelated issue has come to my attention as a result of this discussion. It looks to me that Jewish Publication Society has been spammed with "references" to various Chabad related websites that have nothing at all to do with JPS. It is now past my bedtime in California. Can other editors remove the spam references/links from that article? Is this a problem on other low visibility Judaism articles? Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: has now completed the revdel, zapping 37 good-faith versions/edits to the article, and making all of those edits invisible to editors. Was this really necessary and useful? Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose of Revdel in these cases is to avoid the text in question being reverted back into the article, compounding the problem. As with all copyright matters, we apply a precautionary principle, meaning we'll err towards removal of the material, which is why I decided to action the tag. That being said, the text in question, as some editors note just above, is minor, and I pondered outright declining the request for quite a bit. The exposure here weighed in favour of redaction, however, in addition to the fact that in practice, the content in question is 100% of the psalm itself, which by the letter of the rules is not acceptable. MLauba (Talk) 08:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's great to see that one article has been cleaned up. That only leaves 32 more articles with infringing text: Psalms 1, 2, 8, 13, 22, 23, 24, 36, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 51, 70, 75, 91, 93, 96, 97, 110, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 138, 139, 147, 149, 150. (I did not tag all of them manually with copyvio because that is a manual and arduous process. I thought it would be enough to tag 5, leaving the door open for a WP:CCI, and report them as-is to WP:Copyright problems. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose revdel on any other articles; support immediate removal of tags on any other articles; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). There is no consensus that revdel is needed for this extremely minor issue, and if no live version contains copyvios, there is no reason to disappear hundreds of edits. I think Elizium23 has lost perspective. Pinging for perspective. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is accusing me of 'defacement' by following procedure, removing blatant copyvios, and adding tags to articles. I deserve an apology, because following Wikipedia policy and procedure to protect you from legal action is the opposite of 'defacement'. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm only sorry I did not remove the defacing tag sooner.
 * This is copyright paranoia, to suppose we will be subject to "legal action" because of the presence of some copied and pasted verses from a Hebrew psalm, in old revisions of an article which a casual reader cannot even see. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you actively and willfully lying now? It is false that the copyrighted text was invisible. It was live, visible, and active before I followed Wikipedia procedure to remove, tag, and report it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Back off. You're just wrong and sometimes you have to have the humility to admit it. Your previous addition of this tag was also on a version without the material. No, I'm not asking for your "apology", just that you tone it down. Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The articles are already listed at WP:CP: that was done on September 16. If there's copyright content, it needs to be removed, and revision deletion is appropriate as well in my opinion. I would revdel such edits; I have done so in the past, lots of times: national anthems, copyright translations of PD songs, stuff like that.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

[Subheader changed by Softlavender - point seems moot now]
There is no proof yet whether the Chabad site or the books they quote from use OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright) translations. So these claims of "blatant copyright violation" are as-yet unfounded/unproven. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed: A quick search from and  (both clearly marked as public domain) shows the phrase is equivalent to the KJV and is in the public domain. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As in all copyvio matters, the point is moot. Unless there is conclusive proof that the material is free for use, the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted, a practice that isn't limited to Wikipedia BTW. The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so. That's explicit in WP:C but also our terms of use. MLauba (Talk) 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you dispute the conclusiveness of this? See and then match it up with the link above, the text is clearly public domain. It's also on wikisource. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , please indicate where in WP:C it is explicit that "the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted ... The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so". Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How are we not on the same page here? This edit contains text that is a word-for-word copy of this page. And that text is different from the PD KJV links posted. So what am I missing? How is it not an obvious copyright violation? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Update: I forgot it's already been revdelled ... nevermind. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  00:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no indication on the Chabad site whether that Hebrew-to-English translation is OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright). The translation itself is not original to Chabad. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same page? No indication? There's a disclaimer at the bottom that says English translation, (c) copyright The Judaica Press, all rights reserved. And another one below that: "© 1993-2019 Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center". – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, then I was misled by what was said far above this subthread, that stated what I stated. I'm going to strike some of my previous comments. Thanks for pointing that out. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies - this is generally a confusing thread. Even though I looked at the original website I think I conflated the issue with the KJV text. Having looked into it, chabad.org is clearly copyrighted and anything we have copied directly from chabad.org should be deleted and revdel'd. We should keep the KJV text or similar translations on the article, and no reason why we can't use chabad.org as a reference if needed. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel done
Revdel was done for Psalm 100 by MLauba, and the tag removed accordingly. Two questions: Is that a good solution? All edits since June 2018 are now a secret for whoever is interested, and the revdel suggests that something criminal took place. Can we solve the concern that nobody should accidently bring that content back in a different manner. How about an edit notice appearing when one of those old versions and describing that unfortunately copyrighted material i part of these version, so they should not be stored? Or would it even be technically possibly to protect those versions from being edited? - I still believe that replacing one translation of a well-known psalm by a slightly different version, which is older but copyrighted, should not involve so much secrecy as revdel over more than a year, in the name of transparency.

The other psalms
What should we do about the other psalms which host such a translation? The easiest way would be to remove all text, as it was before the expansion. To have only KJV raises the concern of Christian bias for originally Jewish literature. If ANI is no place to discuss that, where else? My talk is open. We could also - perhaps better - use Talk:Psalms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm having trouble following the technical discussion about revdel above, but I'm prepared to remove all the English translation copied from Chabad. Would that be all right?
 * BTW this is going to open up the Psalm pages to all sorts of additions from people's favorite English translations. See what has been busy doing on Psalm 100. ( and I have a long-term goal of streamlining all the Psalm pages, so much of what's going on on Psalm 100 is going to be reverted.) Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Copyrighted texts were removed and revisions hidden. We now have naked text in Hebrew, which needs to be complemented by a decent English translation FROM HEBREW which is not under copyright, with added comments/footnotes if necessary, based on more recent translations. Example: not everybody will know what a "hart" is (Psalm 42). (Same problem in the KJV, btw.) Short phrases can be quoted from recent translations. No time for more, everybody welcome to help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm publically labeled as racist! I demand urgent intervention.
I'm publically labeled as racist in this essay by François Robere "Dealing with racism on Wikipedia", posted to Signpost Submissions

One particular editor repeatedly expressed their beliefs that Jews and Poles had certain historical roles in Eastern Europe - roles that implicate Jews in certain historical crimes, while absolving Poles of the same; beliefs that, according to literature on the subject, are not rooted in reality, but in centuries-old stereotypes and decades of institutional indoctrination; beliefs that, in other words - are racist

Even though it's clear who the author refers to as being a racist editor, I confronted the author for clarification.

They responded that if Signpost tells him that it's too obvious they refer to me, they'll adjust it later.

The article could potentially reach thousands of readers. I'll not tolerate such malicious libel and demand immediate intervention.

François Robere has been already sanctioned for the comparable slander upon me before:

They were warned by Sandstein

Then they were blocked for the above by TonyBallioni:  for this:

I'm upset with this groundless libel beyond belief!! GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ladies, gentlemen, and average Wikipedians, here we see the Streisand effect in action. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I'm not sure where else a complaint like this should go. No comment on the merits. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As for location, I agree; it's the merits that prompted my previous comment. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Even though it's clear who the author refers to" – How is it clear? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not clear, but the OP is determined to make it so. What better place than ANI, the board everyone loves to read to get the latest juicy gossip. Hence, Ian's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I read through this and didn't see your name mentioned. Maybe you are taking this all too seriously. There is no public acknowledgement that you are the editor type the author is talking about. You'll need more direct evidence of slander to prove you have been maligned. "Reading through the lines" is not considered evidence of an infraction in personal attacks. To be blunt, most of us have been called so many terrible things in our time on Wikipedia, it's best to get a thick skin about these things if you want to work here. Once I was called, "the embodiment of the worst that was happening to Wikipedia" and I just said, "Okay, moving on...."

 * Unless it is a very blatant, specific personal attack, it's best to just to not take things personally. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear editors, it's about me. Here is the link to topic ban they are referring to.  There is no other user they were interacting with who received a topic ban in this falsely reported by them circumstances. They also didn't dismiss they are referring to me in their response. They said that if it becomes too apparent, they will remove it later and that the particulars of the case don't matter. Well it matters to me. One more familiar with the topic area will recognize that they referred to me. I’m very concerned with being portrayed as a racist. Please ask them to remove anything that might be connected to me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think anybody would've guessed it was about you if you didn't post this... A few things in this thread raise concern, but they're not things has said. - Frood (talk!) 01:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Harassment from User:RichardWeiss
This guy's started showing up on my talk page, screeching like a howler monkey about a single edit I made to a random IP page. Nine years ago. I don't know who this is, nor do I remotely care. I do, however, have an issue with him throwing his feces all over my nice clean talk page. Could someone do me a solid and put a cork in him? <b style="color: gray;">Half</b><b style="color: black;">Shadow</b> 19:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Okay, let's unpick this.
 * , and
 * Finally,, and,
 * This is silly, and should not have made it to AN/I. All parties involved need to chill, and go back to whatever they normally do here. Yes, should pay better attention to time/dates of edits, and perhaps refamiliarise themselves with WP:SOCKPUPPET and the related policy. However,  should probably stop referring to other people's talk page edits as "feces", and is encouraged to consider the responses they leave on people's talk pages a little more.
 * I have not dug into either editor's history any futher - they've both been around the block for long enough to consider themselves "old hands", and should really, really know better.
 * Seriously, folks - calm down. It's just an encyclopaedia.
 * Trouts all round, methinks. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 20:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not dug into either editor's history any futher - they've both been around the block for long enough to consider themselves "old hands", and should really, really know better.
 * Seriously, folks - calm down. It's just an encyclopaedia.
 * Trouts all round, methinks. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 20:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Trouts all round, methinks. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 20:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Trouts all round, methinks. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 20:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oh dear. Both of you go have a cuppa tea and try to be nice. Not impressed with either editor's behavior here. Killer Chihuahua 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He comes on to my page shrieking about something that happened quite literally a decade ago, like I'm supposed to scratch my chin, say "Oh yes, I remember that!", the camera does the swirly effect thing and then I narrate the event. What dimension is this guy from? <b style="color: gray;">Half</b><b style="color: black;">Shadow</b> 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's try this again. "He came on my page, referencing something I didn't recall. I told him 'I'm not sure what you're referring to, would you please give me a link or a dif?'" and he did, and I said "Oh, that was 10 years ago, did you realize that? Old news. I'm not sure what you're expecting from me now?" and he said "my error, I'm sorry!" and we were done.
 * Also, "shrieking... what dimension is this guy from?" both very snarky. May I suggest you take the time to read WP:CIVIL? Killer Chihuahua 20:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is he was logged out, saw the notice for the first time without the date, and then came to you. That's the most benefiting of the doubt excuse I can make for it. Other edits seem sane. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  20:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is how it looks to me, also. He also seems to be a bit confused about what the suspected sock tag is, and is not. He seems to have taken it very personally. I'm not sure what else HS did or didn't do at the time, but the tag alone is merely suspicion. Killer Chihuahua 20:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Perhaps both move on and get busy building an encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read HalfShadow"s user Page ... the guys has Benn blocked before for not being civil .. Boomerang Jena   (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jena Fi, what are you talking about? His userpage says nothing about blocking or civility or anyone named Benn or Ben.  It hasn't been edited in 2½ years, so it's not a matter of the page being changed after your comment was made.  Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe "benn" is a typo, "been" would make more sense. Blackmane (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant the User talk page . and yes it's Blank .. he deletes everything! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&action=history and look at his Block log. Jena   (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay; I took it as a pot-calling-kettle-black statement ("he got someone else blocked for incivility, and now he's doing it"), and since the userpage didn't say anything of the sort, I was confused. HalfShadow has seven "justified" blocks (thirteen total, minus some that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and some that changed block settings), of which four were related to personal attacks.  Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Are you talking about HalfShadow's block log? He has a fairly extensive log, from 2009 and 2010, with ONE block last month (and FWIW, it was for harassment, but it's completely unrelated to this instance.) Many editors have difficulty learning the behavioral rules here; they come from other areas of the Internet where incivility and outright personal attacks are the usual way of handling even minor disputes. That HS had trouble in 09 and 10 is clear. That he's mended his ways is also clear. He overreacted to this situation, brought it here, was told to calm down and have a cuppa, and so far as I can tell hasn't escalated or pursued it. He's dropped it, and presumably is having the recommended cuppa somewhere calm and peaceful. Not seeing why you'd bring this up. This was over several hours ago. Killer Chihuahua 00:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While you were writing this, I was recounting the blocks and changing my comment. "Thirteen minus bad equals seven" is wrong.  I was planning to change it to eight "justified" blocks (sixteen blocks total, minus three that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and four that changed block settings).  Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And so far as blanking is concerned - I find it annoying myself. Its still perfectly acceptable, and is specifically allowed per user talk page guidelines. We had huge Rfc's about it and everything. You can blank your talk page whenever you like. Killer Chihuahua 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua's said it a good deal better than I could have. I don't like it one bit when people blank their talk pages (it's confusing and makes it hard to follow the history), but unless the page is up for deletion for some crazy reason, there's absolutely no reason that a non-blocked user may not blank his own talk page, so there's no reason to make an actual objection to the practice.  Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This argument has no effect on the issue at hand. Make a separate report if you want to continue this argumentHeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to weigh in and I believe that this is not harassment. The person in question was very respectful, however he may be wrong. Him being wrong is not the point, harassment is not an issue present.HeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Not sure what part of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" this falls into, but a close of this is probably for the best.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the right to reply to this thread, which I just discovered. On New Year's Eve 2010 an ip made 2 comments (the only edits they have made) to a thread about me on this page, here and here. [ then slapped this tag on the ip's user page. All fine so far. However, they made the comment "...unless you can give me compelling evidence as to how this IP's only edits can be to AN/I in a topic concerning SqueakBox" (see . Note that instead of doing what they were required to do at this point, which was to file a sockpuppet check, they put the onus on me and on the ip to prove our innocence. They did not inform me of what they had done so I had no right to reply. I discovered this a few weeks ago while doing routine maintenance. I was User:SqueakBox in 2010, this name was changed by an admin, they aren't separate accounts but the same account and I checked what linked to SqueakBox and discovered this ip page. My discovery had NOTHING to do with me logging out, that would assume this ip address was genuinely linked to me, which it was not. I was in India on that last day in 2010, and have never edited from a German ip in my 16 years here, nor have I been to that country since 1984. So HalfShadow made a wrong assumption and didn't get a sockpuppet check, this was an attack on both myself and on whoever was using the IP at the time, falsely linking us together because HalfShadow could not be bothered to do a sockpuppet check. There is no statute of limitations on past Wikipedia actions and I considered this serious enough to take to HalfShadow. I didn't do so in an aggressive fashion so to my mind HalfShadow has compounded their 2010 attack with a 2019 attack by bring me here for alleged harrassment. The only harrassment which ahs occurred is when HalfShadow slapped his suspicions on page that had nothing to do with me and didn't then bother checking. I have re-opened the thread in order to give myself the right of reply. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't like it if someone incorrectly accused me of socking, so I can understand why you were upset. But I also wouldn't like it if someone rebuked me for something that happened 9 years ago, so I can understand why HalfShadow was upset (although their response was over the top). Your post on their page was a bad idea and their decision to open this thread was unwise. It's time for everyone involved to move on to something else. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A decade-old tag? There is absolutely no reason to be so upset over this. Let it go. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Category moves by Yasminsabri
If anyone has time/inclination (I'm nearly done for the weekend) please can you fix the C&P category moves of ? I've just merged a couple of histories; in both of them the 'new' name was actually correct, it's just their method of C&P was off. User is now blocked. GiantSnowman 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
What can be done about the disruptive editing carried out by User:Wallyfromdilbert? Rather than read the references provided, this person seems to simply revert hundreds of edits a day without actually reading what they're doing. A more reasonable person would add a 'citation needed' or 'verify' type tag, but it appears this person isn't able to actually take the time needed to make WP better. Apeholder (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I only removed two content additions by you for being unsourced: . Both of those additions are not supported by the sources on the pages. They are also not accurate, and so I did not put a citation needed tag. Also, you were supposed to have notified me on my talk page about this ANI report. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly expect both parties to stop issuing each other inappropriate template warnings and start discussing the reason for their edit wars, which seem to be taking place across quite a few articles:     . I'm not sure who has a vendetta with whom, or why, there seems to be some concern with "See Also" sections and a remarkable usage of WP:BRD to justify edit warring at, but no edits to the talk pages of any of these articles, and very little discussion or explanation beyond edit summaries and templated warnings. You clearly both believe that your edits are correct, so please go to the talk page and explain why rather than labeling the other side "disruptive". ST47 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't realize that removing content once from an article was considered edit warring. The only times I reverted a second time were when the wikilinks added to the page were already linked in the main body, which goes against the MOS, which I left a template warning about. All three times I reverted the user's edits a second time, I left a message on their talk page explaining why. What should I have done instead? Also, do you think my template warning about adding a semiprotected template to a nonprotected page was inappropriate? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was inspired to read the ”Wally from Dilbert” article: “Wally is a fictional character from the Dilbert comic strip. He is characterized as an employee so deeply jaded that instead of doing any real work, he spends all his time and effort successfully gaming the system.” A counterexample to that lifestyle would be building content instead of destroying it, seeking sources for unsourced propositions instead of deleting them without tagging or warning. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unattributed copying despite previous warnings
User:Ssolbergj has apparently moved material from Astrium and Airbus Military to Airbus Defence and Space without providing any attribution. This user has been warned previously about the copyright requirements when copying within Wikipedia, and frequently advised about providing edit summaries, but appears to have ignored the warnings. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * These were both articles of poor quality/rarely edited, and i reckoned the content fits better in the common article regarding the current, merged company. Therefor i made a bold redirect. I agree with the point with regard to edit summaries, I apologise. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to provide the attribution, as required by WP:CWW. This is a copyright requirement. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken the creation of Operational headquarters of the European Union on 10:39, 19 September 2019 also has a WP:CWW copy issue ... is something like a user ban on undiscussed merges possible or appropriate? Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote basically 100% of the content of Operational headquarters of the European Union, and the fact that this text had been moved around is not a problem for me, at least - attribution-wise. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Behaviour noted at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018 which was cleaned up but probllematic behavior seems to have continued ... in particular about multiple bold merges/moves in a short period of time.  i may have dragged him a little soon to ANI then but continuation of behaviour perhaps not.  I might try to AGF but difficult to judge if the issue is WP:COMPETENCY or disruptive .... either may might be more helpful if Ssolbergj started to retro-attribute either one work.  Thankyou  Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ssolbergj, an apology is nice but could you read over these suggestions and comment on whether you might start providing attribution? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. See also comment above, in relation to the OHQ article in question. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

IP behavior
User:<IP_ADDRESS> has been trying to restore info to Ordnance Factory Board (three times already) first removed by an experienced editor as excessive, unencyclopedic detail, with edit summaries of "stop using socks". The IP has also starting leaving garbage messages on my talk page. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 15:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I was composing this, imposed a 72 hour block. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 16:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc
This user frequently says "FUCK YOU!" On his edit summaries to IP editors whenever they add-in false information. He has also been known to attack other users who disagree with him and his replies on talk pages barely make sense due to the poor grammar he uses, which is odd as his grammar on most of his edit summaries is better. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at his use of fuck in edit summaries, there have been 8 in the last 500 edits. 1 was reverting himself and 1 did not stick as it seems that Benjaminkirsc was wrong to undo. The other 6 appear to be fixing vandalism. I would prefer that we find other ways of expressing anger than by telling IP editors to fuck off. However, I think the community consensus is that telling vandals to fuck off is OK so I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. That said, Benjaminkirsc has a lot of edits with no edit summary at all, which does go against community consensus, and which makes his fuck offs all the more noticeable Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Telling vandals to fuck off is OK" is not my view of the outcome of that RfC at all (I closed that RfC). If there was any consensus at all at that RfC, it is that there are no hard-and-fast rules—there are cases where we should sanction an editor for telling vandals to fuck off, and there are cases where we should let it go with a word of discouragement. If you believe that Benjaminkirsc should be sanctioned for inappropriate edit summaries, then you should not interpret anything in that RfC as prohibiting us from doing so. Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your chiming in here . I will stand by the fact that I am troubled that among his very few edit summaries are so many fuck off statements. I would love to hear from . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at all the times the word fuck appears in his edit summaries, this one in particular, though from May, stood out to me as pretty bad. While it turns out the date change was vandalism from thirteen days earlier (the previous edit to that page before Benjaminkirsc's was eleven days before his, and most of the vandalism had been cleaned up already), it's not at all clear from "got the date wrong" that he even knew it was vandalism and not just a mistake - and besides, that's burying the lede anyway, since that one was insulting to more people than just the vandal. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. If I’m reading that right, it sounds he is accusing the vandal of being a homosexual, which is problematic because it implies that homosexuality is bad / shameful or something that is linked to vandalism. (I’m not saying that necessarily meant it in a bigoted way. But I believe that it’s best to avoid using homophobic, racist, or other prejudiced terms even when criticizing vandals. Perhaps the policy doesn’t back me up on that this. Michepman (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

*Support block - I get the impression they're trolling judging by their editsums as well as their talkpage posts, I'll also add it's one thing telling someone to f off in a huff but it's another to scream "FUCK YOU PERSON WHO GOT THE DATE WRONG! YOU FUCKING FUCKING GAY!" and repeatedly scream "F YOU" to every IP vandal, The quoted editsum IMHO should be a blockable offence. – Davey 2010 Talk 09:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have notified Benjaminkirsc of this report. – bradv  🍁  00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Benjaminkirsc's responses on his talk page show him to be very cooperative and amenable to suggestions. Let's not push the block button before encouraging him once again to change his ways. Swearing, repeatedly, is not acceptable, period. But I'm sure Ben would agree. Let's wait for his response. Thanks, Lourdes 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck as blocking at this point would be punitive, Providing they knock it off I see no reason to block or warm them at this time. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would it be punitive "at this point"? A block may be necessary to stop the incivility. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They've not continued the incivility .... if they'd continued after this thread then blocking would be preventative but as they've not continued it would only be punitive. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, so sorry =((((((, vandals are evil, what do you want me to do, leave or stop this cursing? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's good that you want to keep vandalism off Wikipedia, but you're going about it in the wrong way. You should probably take a look at WP:VANDALISM and at WP:DENY - swearing at vandals and trolls is counterproductive, it often encourages them to do more vandalism because you are giving them exactly what they want - attention.
 * If you would be interested in learning more about best practice in countering vandalism, and if admins commenting on this thread would be happy with this approach, I'd be prepared to take you through the WP:CVUA course - that would explain how and when to revert, how to warn vandals appropriately, and how to deal with various types of tricky situation. However, I find some of your edit summaries noted above deeply troubling, and so I have a couple of caveats to this offer: (a) you commit never to swear at or insult anyone in an edit summary ever again, regardless of what they have done; and (b) you apologise unreservedly for using the word 'gay' in the manner you did above. It's possible that you don't realise this, but using words like that as insults, and therefore implying that there is something wrong with being gay, is outrageously offensive - I have no interest in working with you if you actually hold views like that. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no. One edit [] changed it to 2001, and it's vandal. Another edit [] changed it to 1996, that is even worse vandal, since 1996 those platforms wasn't released then, expect for Windows. Another edit [] that had to do with the caption and also minus one ] to 2010 video games. Caption was like ".miguogh;obou6rf975fovljvkyf4waw4yulihlvsdr0u[98h5438tu6w754689-97r54er7guytf85" and was rude. Also, another edit [], was rude with the dates. Another edit [] was basically wrong with the European date, it said 1994, but it need to say Febuary 23, 1994. But all would be forfeited as needed to change. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see why you are listing these - this discussion is not about whether the reverts were legitimate, it's about your abusive edit summaries. If you are interested in my offer, please indicate that here, and take the necessary steps with regard to me caveats, and we will see whether administrators here would be satisfied with that approach. If you're not interested, feel free to say so and I'll step back and leave you to it. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I highly recommend you take GirthSummit up on their offer. We can always use more people watching for vandalism, but your behavior as-is will get you a block, and that's a loss for all of us. (also: please take a moment to review WP:THREAD to learn how to properly indent your talk page messages) creffett (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh Sorry Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Fuck" is a matter of taste, I wouldn't use it on a project space that's open to all, and if it's too frequent and makes other people uncomfortable, they ought to be considerate enough to tone it down. Using "gay" as an insult is a definite no,no, and should be blockable, unless they make a serious attempt to allay the community's concern starting right now. The reply to GS's offer above reads like an attempt at justification which is not a good sign at all.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 12:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a lesson in the use of the word will help. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 21:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Not OK My take is this should be a clear warning that such edit tags are not OK.  Yes, it can be frustrating to deal with IP vandals but it's best to revert and say nothing else.  While Wikipedia isn't censored, I would like to think most topics/pages are safe for work.  Sure if you visit a page about a sexual act it may have not safe for work pictures and/or words.  I don't expect edit pages of video games to be filled with profanity.  Springee (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * will you commit to no longer telling vandals to fuck off and to more consistently use edit summaries? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm back: notice that I'm basically not cursing many times but the vandals are so evil, I would need to toured them. @All of you talking in this table. I hope vandals don't come anymore, so I hope to not curse anymore. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's not within your contol whether "vandals don't come anymore". It is entirely within your control to not curse or make homophobic posts. Your commitment this far is not convincing. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "I would need to toured them." What is that supposed to mean? We'd all like to see vandalism stop but it won't and you need to stop cursing either way. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , this means they commit crime to Wikipedia. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. In "I would need to toured them." "I" is the subject so obviously there is something you think you need to do. What do you mean by "tour"? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean tortured. That was just a spelling mistake.
 * That's what's wrong with your approach right there. We do not torture vandals, we do not punish vandals, we  ignore vandals. We block their accounts or IP addresses, but only to stop the disruption, not to punish. Shouting and swearing is exactly what they want, so don't do it. Your best bet here is to commit not to swear at anyone in an edit summary again, even if they are vandalising - if you do that, I think most people would be willing to draw a line under this. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then here is the plan: if anyone who I revert is a random vandal I would send one admin to warn or block them.

 * One chance at reform: based on the user's comments above, I genuinely don't think they have the emotional maturity to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, and I don't think they understand what is wrong with their actions. I am willing to give them one more chance, on the condition that they accept GirthSummit's offer for CVU training and proceed to shape up. If they do not show improvement after that, or if they do not accept the offer, then block on WP:CIVILITY and perhaps WP:CIR. We always need new people helping against vandalism, but if they can't do that productively, then they're not worth the trouble. creffett (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Same. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 21:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this drama or what is this? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is me proposing that you be blocked unless you show that you understand what is wrong with your actions so far and take specific actions to improve. I would like for you to become a productive member of the community, but you're going to need to put in some effort and listen to others to get there. creffett (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh god I hope I do learn my lesson. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting strategy to play . On the one hand refusing to cede an inch could get you off with no sanction. On the other hand it could make what would have been a nothing incident into something bigger. Personally I really would hope you would take something away from this thread so you can go back to being what appears to be a mostly productive editor. To that end I'll repeat my ask that you agree to stop telling vandals and others to fuck off in edit summaries (but please do feel free to express the thought in your head) and that you make more consistent use of edit summaries in general. If that's something you can agree to we can all go back to being the productive editors we are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I notice. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I feel like a few issues here have gotten confused:
 * 1) Saying "fuck." The community consensus generally seems to be it's not inherently wrong but it does have plenty of potential for fucking up a conversation.
 * 2) Saying "fuck off." For some reason there's a continual debate about that but that's not actually the issue here.
 * 3) Saying "fuck you." Benjaminkirsc didn't tell a vandal to "fuck off," he said "FUCK U GUYS", "FUCK YOU", "FUCK YOU", "FUCK YOU BOY!" and so on.  This is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and anyone who wants to debate that can go fuck themselves (and good luck calling me out on that without proving my point).
 * The problem is rooted in the thinking that vandals are evil. While they are certainly not operating in good faith, I'd still argue that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL would require us to not put common vandals on the same level as, say, neo-nazi pedophiles.
 * The lesson to learn here is that if something doesn't have "Bot" at the end of its name, there is a human being on the other side. Even if they are a nazi, pedophiles, or even  slaves "employees" of the Church of Scientology and to be banned on sight, we don't need to go yelling "FUCK YOU" at them because that just makes us look bad.  Saying "fuck" is not in and of itself forbidden, it's how you use it.  I second 's thinking that if you promise to stop telling users of any sort to fuck off then we can all go back to business as usual.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Haven't look in detail at the behaviour but I find the use of gay as an insult particularly concerning whether or not fuck was said. Also I agree with others that while vandals can be quite annoying, if you seriously think they should be tortured there's something very wrong with your thinking. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 date changes were wrong and for reason it's not what websites would say and that is vandalism. SNK Playmore was never right for Bandai Namco's games. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Escalating blocks
Should use fuck in his edit summaries to another editor (e.g. Fuck You, Fuck Off, Go the fuck away, or similar) he shall be subject to a series of escalating blocks.
 * Support as proposer. Since Benjaminkirsc seems to not want to voluntarily agree to the ask that and I made of them, and I am sensitive to  point that blocks should be used to stop disruption, this feels like a just outcome. Hopefully no block is ever made because they just stop telling others Fuck You (or similar language) but since they seem determined to not agree voluntarily let's make clear that future violations of Civility will be met with a block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading Benjaminkirsc's responses, which occasionally say sorry but never engage in accepting that his choice of language is his responsibility, and which veer off into blaming the vandals; and reading his talk page which has 4 level 4 warnings. I'm struck by how childish he's acting (not WP:YOUNG or childlike, but full-on WP:IDHT childish), which brings to mind a hazy recollection of 's edit summary on deleting Benjaminkirsc's user page. The time for warnings is past. I'd advocate a 2 week block to show how seriously the community takes WP:CIVIL, and then escalating blocks if the problematic behaviour continues. Cabayi (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as per Barkeep49, To quote User:Ian.thomson "Saying "fuck" is not in and of itself forbidden, it's how you use it" - Given they've been using it the wrong way I see no reason why they continue to use it at all,
 * In some ways I feel somewhat hypercritical supporting this considering I myself tell people to F off occasionally but there's a big difference between saying it occasionally and saying it everyday to various vandals. Anyway support. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Good eye: To quote that I should stop the curse. Maybe tell me to give up cursing would be a good lesson. Tell me to stop cursing and than that can be good for the future Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been told to stop attacking other editors, on your talk page:, , , , , , as well as in this discussion. That is not a proposed future solution - it is something that has already happened. --bonadea contributions talk 19:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hope so. So sorry. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose proposal, block 2 weeks now. Benjaminkirsc's replies in this ection show he's not taking this seriously. Warnings are wasted on him. Cabayi (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand by "block 2 weeks now" Benjaminkirsc (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

2A02:ED0:4295:5700:C074:381F:88D:CD30
This is a stale account; it has made only 2 edits, on 2 September 2019. However, its edits and foul-mouthed edit summaries suggest that it might be worth looking in the range around that IP for similar activity. Narky Blert (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean like this on Sept. 5 as well as calling other editors "Racsists zionists". This editor is fighting a nationalistic battle and has CIR issues as well. Range hardblocked one month.

Proposal to topic ban User:Poveglia from the Teahouse and the Help Desk
For context see this discussion and this discussion. Poveglia has proven to be entirely less than helpful in their contributions to these forums. But they have been patently venomous to anyone who attempts to correct them. In our latest installment, they have decided to edit war after they took it upon themselves to replace an unsourced birth date with a poorly sourced one, complete with templating the regulars and accusing them of abuse, while restoring poorly sourced content about living people.

This is well short of the conduct we expect from those contributing to our helping regime, it is not the type of behavior that we ought to be exposing newcomers to, specifically on the pages we invite them to in order to seek assistance. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to comment if requested, but otherwise I am recusing myself from this discussion. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I should do the same as 331dot. But because not everyone is willing to spend a lot of time researching what actually happened here is a summary: GreenMeansGo and myself had a discussion. GreenMeansGo wasn't happy with the result. Not too long later I'm having an unrelated discussion with different people; and GreenMeansGo shows up and tries and fails to escalate things and then files a silly ANI report. How surprising, what a coincidence! See Gaming the system contains a line about "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." Anyone who takes a look at Help desk will see that I was being helpful while 331dot was not. The weird thing is that anyone can click this link to see what I actually do at those desks; helping people with questions. Poveglia (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The weird thing is that anyone can ... see what I actually do
 * No, the weird thing is, is that you think you were actually being helpful in giving bad advice that contradicts basic Wikipedia standards regarding sourcing, and the worrying thing is your complete confidence in your abilities. --Calton | Talk 23:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Trouts for everyone involved That bickering reflected poorly on everyone. As for actual opinions on what happened, I do think acted rather poorly. They were was overly combative in the helpdesk thread, rather condescending on 's talk page (repeated insinuations that GMG "doesn't know what's going on" rather than actually attempting to discuss), and their hatting of the discussion in the helpdesk thread was unhelpful and aggressive.  was pretty brusque in the helpdesk thread, and both 331dot and  should have stepped back rather than continuing to argue. I recommend trout-slapping for everyone, but I don't see a single instance like this necessitating a TBAN. Warn and move on. creffett (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thought this looked familiar. It's a, aka . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: interaction ban for GreenMeansGo
It is probably time to give GreenMeansGo an interaction ban with me so that he stops trying to do stuff like this. Making it both ways is the same thing, I have no reason to talk to GreenMeansGo, so that is OK with me too. Poveglia (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> and Naming conventions (Korean)
Hi all. From battlefield Sea of Japan naming dispute: I request administrator intervention to block for disruption. This follows two previous blocks. The editor has shown a persistent and intractable disregard of the longstanding compromise guideline Naming conventions (Korean). Virtually all of the editor's contributions are to change the existing geographic names or order of geographic names in favor of reflecting a Korean POV and contrary to the guideline. Following expiration of the last block, this editor has received multiple, progressive user warnings to follow the guideline, with no answer or evidence of interest in complying. --Bsherr (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous blocks, multiple warnings since the last block, and exactly zero responses on any talk page. Blocked for 3 months to match the duration of the last block. ST47 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Only real men edit Wikipedia
This seems to be going a bit over the top. "You're really not good at discussing these things, are you? Nor even at reading what I have actually written. Nor being a real man." Yes, discussions on political subjects can sometimes go off the rails, but this may have teetered a little over the edge. Gender or gender preference is not something relevant to being a Wikipedia editor, surely? This particular editor does not see his comment as a personal attack so perhaps an admin could do some gentle counselling on how to get along with others? --Pete (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This is a discussion that began on MY Talk page when a user who hates my guts (a bit like the person posting above) chose to come to MY Talk page and threaten me with Wikipedia sanctions. It has all happened on MY Talk page after he chose to post there. If he doesn't like what I think and say about him on MY Talk page, he could just go away and stop posting on MY Talk page. Knowing this page is an appalling kangaroo court, I won't be posting here again on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Three things happened here, and they are all wrong:
 * , saying that what was linked is simply a personal attack:You comment on the contributor in a hostile way and clearly associate "not being a real man" with something negative, in direct relation to an editor. That's simply not allowed, and if continued will lead to lengthy or infinite blocks very fast. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as they don't disrupt it.
 * Your talk page is not something you own. You can not do anything you want there. You are not allowed to break policy there. You are not allowed to make personal attacks on your talk page.
 * , the ANI notification suggests bad behaviour I don't want to mention here. That's not civil. It pours oil into the fire.
 * , when you tell someone something is a personal attack, and they disagree, then you should not repeat that aggressively or use it as an ad personam to gain the upper hand in a content debate. You should, however, if you want to insist that it is a personal attack, tell them why it is a personal attack which you have not done instead:Lurking shadow (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes total sense that HiLo48 would be getting irritated after that exchange. You said your bit, he said his, and you find yourself unable to let it go. As the man said dude, srsly, it's his own talk page. If you're not getting the reaction you want from him, stop poking. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the outcome here should be that Pete is asked to go away and do something to improve the encyclopaedia. Roxy, the dog . wooF 10:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop gaming the system, or the boomerang is going to come back around at you. Lupin VII (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I know this has been closed, but I feel it's important to point out that Merphee has again posted in the thread on MY Talk page, about 30 minutes AFTER the closure of this discussion, and the recommendation above that he not do so. I make no further comment on it, and I won't respond there. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I originally closed this discussion recommending both editors leave Hilo alone however Merphee doesn't appear to have got the message so reopening for the community to further review if they need or want too, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 11:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Just saw this here. Sorry my last comment to HiLo48 was in response to him calling me a "gutless wonder". For the record I have not had a chance to respond here now I see this thread. More importantly as my last comment on HiLo48's page, I have no intention of revisiting the discussion with him. I'm actually not fond of being called a "gutless wonder" and accused of not being a real man!! I don't think anyone is here are they?? So yeah. That's all I have to say. Pretty bizarre that Hilo48 can get away with these blatant personal attacks. Merphee (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "More importantly as my last comment on HiLo48's page, I have no intention of revisiting the discussion with him." That's why you went back to their talk page to pester them some more after being told to leave HiLo alone? Stop gaming the system. Lupin VII (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not see this thread here! I have not commented before this. I definitely would have commented here earlier and defended myself if I had seen it. I have not attacked HiLo48 once at his page today despite relentless personal abuse from him. I did not bring this here to ANI. Full stop. However I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to react to being told by HiLo48 they are a gutless wonder and being accused of not being a real man! Merphee (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Having said that I can absolutely and utterly assure you the community that I will NEVER comment on HiLo48's talk page again. Without any doubt. I'm not fond of being personally abused and attacked to be honest. I hope he will stay away from mine too and keep diuscussions about content to the appropriate article talk page. Merphee (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure you didn't. Lupin VII (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an acklnowledgement that they wrote what they shouldn't have written, and that a person's gender is not relevant for them editing Wikipedia, from and
 * No Lupin VII I did not see it earlier. Otherwise I would have commented here and defended myself. Believe me! No. Doubt. About it. Regardless, I never abused HiLo48. What did I actually do today??? Apart from not taking the bait. HiLo48 kept making more and more abusive comments and goading me to come back, when I said I was done! Look at HiLo48's comments within his edits goading me on. Far from HiLo48 saying don't come to my talk page, he kept goadiung me to come back and even discuss other unrelated topics which I refused to do. And yes. I was considering to report him for personal abuse calling me a gutless wonder and accusing me of not being a real man. Read the conversation. It was on his invitation, demanding we continue the discussion on his talk page by abusing and demeaning me and then ridiculing me when I told him I would not, and wanted to keep it content focused on the article talk page instead. The edit history today at User talk:HiLo48 proves I tried to detach from talking with him on his talk page. It also proves I did not take his bait and did not abuse him back when most editors would have!! So exactly what have I done here?? I decided posting it at ANI was not worth it and went out today. I've also assured the community I have absolutely no intention of EVER commenting on his talk page again. what exactly is it that you want from me here? Merphee (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you. My pinging you sure brought you here quickly to respond. Yet, you expect me to believe you completely missed a notification and talk page ANI notice? Lmao. Lupin VII (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a dispute between Merphee & HiLo48? Why was the report made by Skyring? GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This complaint is worded so problematically I have a hard time believing that it's not intentional. The second diff saying he "doesn't see his comment as a personal attack" was made before he even made the personal attack being reported here. "There was no personal attack" referred to the original message, which itself referred to HiLo referring to Merphee's edit as "POV content". Looking at the edits, this is precisely a POV dispute, so calling content biased or slanted is not a personal attack, that's the dispute. You take it to the talk page and hammer out a consensus or a compromise. HiLo's comment is a bit petty, but it's impossible to overlook that it was provoked by what can only be described as protracted trolling on his own talk page. Focusing on incivility is meaningless if it's being provoked by harassment. Merphee needs to leave HiLo the hell alone. ~Swarm~  {sting} 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Yes. My mistake. Not sure how that happened. I've struck it through above. Nevertheless, if HiLo is inviting Merphee to continue a content discussion on his talk page in order that he can make personal attacks in the belief that incivility is permissible there, than that is contributing to the problem. It is akin to suggesting that a discussion "be taken outside". This isn't how we make an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

POV accusations
They(HiLo48 and Merphee) accuse each other to push a POV:. Please provide evidence via WP:DIFFLINKs, and .Lurking shadow (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful. We do not need these users to expand on their accusations of POV-pushing. This is politics. Of course everyone has a POV. What's not helpful is making accusations to begin with. They need to focus on content, and keep the content neutral relative to the sources, as decided upon by dispute resolution and consensus. ~Swarm~  {sting} 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I echo Swarm's comments. Differences of opinion are fine. If one editor sees the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a hot-bed of leftist propaganda, and the other sees it as drifting dangerously close to fascism, that's fine. We have a NPOV policy and Wikipedia is a success story in balancing different points of view to produce a useful resource.

 * What is not okay is the use of personal abuse. I don't care if it is on a user talk page or not. We give each other latitutde on talk pages to pursue matters and conversations that would be inappropriate on an article talk page. Humour, or observations about hobbies and interests. Or - as we see here - tangential discussions to article content. But a user talk page is not an invitation to "take it outside" and hurl abuse at each other. Civility remains an important plank of Wikipedia. I don't care if one editor doesn't see it as a personal attack. If the other party feels attacked, then it is, and raising it for admin attention is appropriate.

 * I reverted one of Merphee's edits on the ABC article. The article described Andrew Bolt as a conservative commentator, and that is exactly what Bolt's BLP article says he is. Trying to present Bolt as middle of the road by removing the "conservative" label, as Merphee did, is misleading. I then looked at the article talk page to find that the POV difference had gone over the edge, and that HiLo was going well beyond civil intercourse. Does it matter one little bit if an editor is a "real man"? Or has any other sort of physical characteristic? It is monstrous to suggest that physical appearance or capacity determines fitness to edit here. --Pete (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by their block log, continued false accusations, and gaming of the system it's quite clear. Merphee is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a constructive manner. Lupin VII (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Gaming of the system?? False accusations?? Are you kidding. What are you talking abou tupin VII. Are you talking about HiLo48 or me? As for block history I have been blocked once! For 48 hours. That's it and it was for much less than HiLo48 calling me a "gutless wonder" and not being a real man for NOT wanting to discuss anything but content. In fact, it was because of this type of goading and abuse from HiLo48 in the past that I got caught up in the back forth incivility. HiLo48 was very nearly banned for that style of editing. I follow policy and have improved many articles. Only ytesterday during this dramna I also edited the Liberal Party of Australia article and made thiis edit . How is this edit POV or not constructive to the project?? I think that so many editors get caught up with political labels it is ridiculous and have suggested we have consistency between articles. My suggestion on that article well before it was brought over to ANI shows NPOV. I'm here for the right reason and another editor agreed wholeheartedly. Merphee (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This isn't about you, Merphee. Nor is it about HiLo. I'm starting to feel like you two maybe enjoy calling each other names. But please, not on Wikipedia. Is it so much to ask that we work politely together, even if we have massive ideological differences? We have all sorts of procedures to keep things rolling along. Calling out someone based on their behaviour here is one thing. But doing it on their gender or other physical attributes is low and brings the whole project into disrepute. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How about everyone log off from Wikipedia for 24-48 hours and just chill? So many disputes are in the heat of the moment. Best to move on and let this complaint just go into the ANI archive. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we just IBAN these two and be done with the playground level bickering? Blackmane (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't fix the underlying problem, Blackmane. That's a bandaid. HiLo can't help what he is. He does what he thinks is right and when people take a different approach, he gets frustrated and lashes out in whatever way he can. Like a lot of our best editors. They plug away at their own interests, often for extraordinary amounts of time and effort, for zero pay. Merphee I don't know about.

 * The real problem is that good productive editors get upset and leave the program. Some turn against it. You've been here a long time. You've seen it time and again.

 * Look at WP:CIVILITY. One of our Five Pillars. Now you tell me how that squares with one editor abusing another on gender grounds, and a senior editor condoning this. Civility isn't optional. It applies everywhere and everytime:"Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

 * This isn't about HiLo or Merphee or low-level shit and slapping a bandaid on it. It's about the community attitude that it's fine to ignore one of the fundamental planks of our community and to condone abuse based on physical appearance and behaviour. This particular incident - and I don't think any action is required here because I get the feeling these two like throwing rocks at each other - isn't important, but the discussion needs to continue, and I'd like guidance as to where to go next.

 * I've been watching Wikipedia for nearly fifteen years, and I must admit I've had my moments. We've found ways around just about every problem, but we can't seem to fix being rude to each other. If it's something that can't be fixed, we should stop lying to ourselves and dump it as a pillar. The unofficial attitude seems to be that some editors can be arseholes to other editors, and get away with it. People make excuses for them. Can we either codify this, or should we just accept that Wikipedia is a jungle, and if you stick around, you're going to get abused?

 * Yes, I know that we IAR, but I don't think that's what was intended when that was set up. --Pete (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems these two editors have been battling for months about subjective descriptions of how some newspaper fits precisely into a subjective and unimportant left-right political continuum. How lame! I have to agree with Pete/Skyring here. I have not studied Merphee's conduct in detail and that editor really ought to be cautious. But I want to give a very specific warning to : If it ever comes to my attention that you have called another editor a "gutless wonder" or any comparable personal attack, or impugn or malign another editor as not a real man or allude to "manhood" in the context of qualifications to edit or debate with you, I will block you myself for a very long time. That is deeply sexist, reprehensible, beyond the pale, and utterly unacceptable here. Am I clear? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, this edit and this edit are concerning(refusal to communicate on ANI, no mention that their behaviour was wrong). I'll message them that there are still things that they should answer here - like the question if they now understand why insisting on others to be "real men" was bad.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen - I had long stopped battling Merphee. I reverted what I saw as inappropriate, unexplained edits on an article, as I would do no matter who it was from. He came to my Talk page with threats. I defended myself. Sure, I may have also mocked him a little (it's very easy and very tempting), but I also tried to deflect the conversation onto a different path entirely. (My personal and unusual views of left and right in the media - I'm happy to put my biases on the line in public.) But he wouldn't play. He persisted in attacking and hectoring me (still all on my Talk page). I got sick of it. I got angry. OK, I'm not supposed to be rude to another editor, even when provoked on my own Talk page, but really, am I not allowed to show some emotion in response to persistent, uninvited badgering like that? Note that in response to my reverting of his edits, he simply reverted (Edit warring?). He did use better Edit summaries. (Several of his earlier edits had NO Edit summaries.) Some time later he added something to that article's talk page, as I had suggested. My efforts led to better editing. So yeah, I know I shouldn't be rude, and I'll try not to in future, but seriously... HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no but acceptable when talking about that personal attacks are not acceptable. HiLo48 refuses to explicitely acknowledge that everyone, not just those percieved to be "a real man", can edit Wikipedia, and they are not seeing why this is so bad. They make at most weak apologies immediately followed by ".... but the other editor". They don't seem to have grasped the seriousness of the situation.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, I know what I did was wrong, but has anyone ever come uninvited to your Talk page and repeatedly attacked you? And it's actually not true to say that everyone can edit Wikipedia. We stop people doing so for a number of reasons. And yes, I know extreme masculinity isn't one of the criteria. What, precisely, do you want from me here? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am so sick of HiLo48's personal abuse, constant demeaning and belittling of me and many other editors. HiLo48 just said in his comment directly above "I defended myself. Sure, I may have also mocked him a little (it's very easy and very tempting). How is this not belittling? What is an editor to do with this abuse? Seriously admins, what is any editor supposed to do with that? I didn't take his bait and then the abuse kept going and getting more intense. Culminating in toxic comments about my gender, accusing me of not being a real man and calling me a gutless wonder? HiLo48 has a very long history of constant demeaning abuse toward all other editors who disagree with him. I feel Wikipedia in 2019 should not tolerate disgusting comments about what a real man shou;ld be! This is pure filth and I want it to stop. I am a real man! Thanks very much HiLo48! The edit history from yesterday at User talk:HiLo48 shows me being dragged into a discussion about anything but content. I kept trying to leave it. I did not go there to threaten him. I went there to tell him not to falsely accuse me of POV as I considered it abusive. HiLo48's inline comments goading me and accusing me of not being a real man simply because I refused to discuss anything but content and not take the bait. I kept asking him to instead comment on the article talk page but he didn't. In the end I completely ignored him. To which he then called me a gutless wonder! I mean what is a real man supposed to be in 2019 HiLo48? Fight you? And if I back away I’m accused of not being a real man! He has said it to me on a number of occasions before, so it's nothing new for him and he has said it to others too I'm sure and his deeply ingrained beliefs about men and women. What does this abuse imply more broadly?  Why is it tolerated here on Wikipedia? HiLo48 continues to make a joke of it and implies it won't stop. I don't think he even understands how truly f'ed up saying that actually is in modern times. Merphee (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This time, I'm not biting. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , what I want from you is primarily to drop the "extreme" in your last post to me. And never post like this again. If that's the way you think, keep it aside it when editing Wikipedia or it will probably be determined that you are one of the people you talk about in your last post - those who cannot edit Wikipedia anymore.
 * (same user)And do NOT mock people. Do NOT give in into that temptation. It's against our policies. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you continue to do that you'll end up with a siteban, eventually.
 * This is for both of you: When you feel attacked, raise it on the talk page of the editor, politely. If the behaviour you don't like continues or the editor dismisses the concern without a valid reason, post a report here, politely. This will cause the minimum of inconvenience to you and having only one editor behaving badly makes the road to a solution much clearer, and the solution will at least not be bad for you.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not mocking anyone. However I will completely abide by all of that advice and genuinely apologise to the community for my part in this mess and wasting everyone's time. I will also never post anything on Hilo48's talk page again and will keep away from him wherever possible. Merphee (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely misread something. I am very sorry about that. You were indeed not mocking anyone.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that Lurking shadow. I appreciate it. Regardless, my apology to the community for my part in this remains. Merphee (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 many of us let our emotions show sometimes and even something that in other circumstances would cross the line may be ignored because of what lead up to it. But I agree with Cullen328, talking about someone not being a "real man" is way too over the line to just ignore so if it's repeated a long block is quite reasonable. BTW, if someone is bothering you on your talk page and your getting sick of it, your best solution is probably to ask them to leave at least for a few days. It's generally accepted that if someone asks another editor to stay away from their talk page, they should respect that barring reasonable exceptions like essential notices and of course that this isn't misused to avoid scrutiny. I don't care to know the details of the dispute, but I see no reason why it couldn't be resolved in the relevant article talk pages so I don't see that there was any harm in making the request in this case. Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Abusive user
UCaetano (talk) has initiated in Edit-Warring and threatening various users, including myself and others. He/She/They has attempted to censor an article by removing previous information and engaging in antagonistic behavior towards users who properly cited various information. I have requested that the page. I requested the following on the Teahouse page:

Greetings, while I have exercised good faith to the best of my abilities, it appears that the page is under attack. User User talk:UCaetano engaged in Edit-Warring by removing a revision that brought back a controversial and well-documented (across several mediums) fact that DC_Comics 's well known Batman: A Death in the Family story arc involved a plot point where the Joker_(character) gasses the UN Assembly on behalf of Iran, as its ambassador. Various sources have stated that this was done during peak strain between the US and Iran. It led to the creation of the fictional nation-state Qurac as a replacement for Iran in future prints. This fact (undeniable as comic prints of it have been scanned, DC staff interviewed, etc) was in earlier versions of "Anti-Iranian Sentiment". User AntiRacistZwei (who brought this to my attention) had brought back the information and clarified various tid-bits in the article. Soon after, UCaetano began an edit war and accused AntiRacistZwei of "Weasel talk" (eventhough the given sources were already a part of the article), and after several edits (including my own to fix grammar), accused myself of "Edit-Warring". I initially had chosen to engage peacefully and to de-escalate, explaining my relation to Anti-Racist-Zwei and our aim to clean up/verify the article. The user ignored the message and soon after, undid the entire edit. I once again looked at UCaetano's page to contact them, however, I noticed something alarming on their Talk page and it appears that this individual has vandalized other pages then threatened to report users for "Edit-Warring". User talk:Tim.thelion brought this up with UCaetano on May 2018 on their talk page, which resulted in UCaetano claiming that UCaetano had reported Tim and that Tim the Lion should avoid "edit warring", eventhough UCaetano was being questioned by Tim on possibly-hostile Re-visionary behavior (IE, Vandalism)."

I have documented the user's page as well, as I investigated. It appears that the user has been doing this for a while. Please helpRodianreader (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * , please explain how has brought this to [your] attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * To be honest, they mentioned it during class. We are currently attending "Studies on Human Genocide" at a University in California. I do not regularly speak with Antiracistzwei, though I can confirm that they are either a History major or in the History department. They seem to be of Middle Eastern descent and have spoken in a language I cannot discern. I myself and another classmate have been monitoring this situation and it appears that UCaetano has been rude towards new users (and dishonest about engagement). They undid an entire edit, claimed "weasel talk", then claimed that I myself was "Edit-Warring" while I had fixed grammar. Lastly, the edits made were clarifications and one addition (the inclusion of a Comic book that was well documented and previously on the page, as it was hateful towards Iranians during high-tensions between Iran and the US). UCaetano appears to be abusing the report system as well as disregarding "good faith". I hope the answer sufficed, as I am a graduate student with a minor in writing. I specialize in grammatical corrections and have made several edits on other articles before, cleaning up sentences and the sort. Rodianreader (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment, where no discussion has taken place since May. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of things since you seem fairly new to Wikipedia.
 * A content dispute like the one you seem to be having is supposed to be resolved on the article's talk page per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nobody, not even you yourself, has attempted to do this. ANI is not really intended to resolve these kinds of disputes. Moreover, it doesn't really matter how long ago content was added to an article as explained in WP:CONTENTAGE; when someone removes it (unless it's clearly a case of WP:VANDAL), then it's considered to be contentious. At that point, the burden generally rests upon those wanting to re-add the content to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to do on the relevant article's talk page. Any attempt to "force" the content into the article without doing this is likely going to be seen as edit warring no matter how right the person trying to re-add the content believes they are.
 * When you discuss the behavior of another editor at ANI, you're required to notify them of that you have done so as explained at the very top of this page. You don't seem to have notified UCaetano of this discussion yet; so, please do so asap. Please don't just post a general message like "you've been reported"; use Template:ANI notice instead.
 * If you're going to accuse another editor of doing something improper that warrants administrator intervention, you're going to need to provide WP:DIFFs to the edits or behavior which you feel needs to be reviewed. Unsupported accusations against another editor might be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS, and you shouldn't expect administrators to go digging through page histories to find "evidence" of unacceptable behavior.
 * You should read WP:BOOMERANG and Wikipedia:ANI advice because there's no immunity for reporters at ANI; in other words. administrators are likely going to take a close look at your edits and behavior as well which is why you shouldn't really appear to be inserting yourself into discussions (some which are over a year old and for all intents and purposes finished) between UCaetano and other editors on his talk page by adding comments like this, this, and this or really be making comments like this on the user talk pages of other editors. There may be problems with the behavior of this editor, but that's for the Community, not you, to decide and your constant posting on UCaetano's talk page (including posting links to screenshots of his contribution history that you or someone else uploaded to imgur.com) has a good chance of being seen as harassment per WP:HARRASS.
 * My suggestion to you, now that you've started this ANI, is to simply stay away from UCaetano, stay off his user talk page and stop posting about him on the user talk pages of others because none of those things are going to convince administrators that UCaetano's behavior is a problem, but it might make them think that your behavior is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

and have been checkuser-blocked. This section can be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wassily Kandinsky
This page is under attack by a team(?) of vandals: User:Rodriguehsdiu User:甘锦上 User:Boscohuang IP:<IP_ADDRESS> ...apparently all SPA/vandal only. Perhaps the page needs temporary protection, and user blocks? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much, . Back in 1969 when I had just turned 17, I took the money I had earned as a restaurant dishwasher and flew from Detroit to New York where I saw Broadway plays starring James Earl Jones and Woody Allen, and then went to the Guggenheim Museum where I saw an exhibit of Wassily Kandinsky's work which is seared into my mind 50 years later. I simply cannot understand why somebody would take the time and effort to vandalize an article about a Russian abstract painter who died in 1944. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that Kandinsky gets a passing reference in a Monty Python episode - the one where Picasso paints whilst riding a bicycle - I've no clue myself.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting Sourced information under a false edit summary
recommended the book Icebreaker then all of a sudden they deleted the Sourced information on the page for Icebreaker.

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union&diff=916481834&oldid=916481666
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013

This is the comment by  that made my file this case  the Statement is under the TheTimesAreAChanging case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging
 * MVBW claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. That is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit.
 * Second, that MVBW's statement is false: the content he removed was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the removed fragment was added by me in 2009.
 * By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=295243443&oldid=286578651

And this is another comment by  that made it seem like  POV pushing to me,

 * MVBW actions here on content (Icebreaker by Suvorov) described in academic literature as "overarching conspiracy theories" (source: Slavic Review) merits very close scrutiny from a WP:PROFRINGE perspective Adding - Icebreaker transfers responsibility for World War II from Hitler to Stalin

Statement is under the TheTimesAreAChanging case https:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

 * This is again mostly incoherent. I recommend removing it, but I won't do it again. There is a huge whiff of incompetence here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I made it shorter to Fix that Jack90s15 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shorter incoherent is better than longer incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am trying you can make it out this one moreJack90s15 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Jack90s15 has been previously discussed on the ANI. The debated issue was WP:CIR. I agree that the issue is most probably WP:CIR, although I can not exclude that Jack90s15 does in on purpose to create disruption, or that he simply does not care. I have no objections to speedy closing this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * From the other ANI discussion that was brought up one comment said I improved the other said I do a good job at fighting vandalism, and one said I needed some extra help and that I was trying my best.

 * I have been continuously fighting vandalism and removing edits that consists of people blanking entire pages and sock puppets.
 * I helped an article make good article status and worked with a group of editors on it.
 * I know I'm not a perfect editor with a golden record but I have made up for my mistakes.
 * It's concerning a editor that is on the platform all of a sudden Starts removing academic sourced information under a false pretense that was a put by a reliable user.

 * Jack90s15 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I have indeffed Jack for a combination of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:DE. The last straw was this report he filed at SPI, which I have closed as retaliatory.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to read this. Looking over the previous discussion of User:Jack90s15 at ANI, I see that various people have conceded that he was a "net positive" at some articles they were working on, and I likewise thought that his conduct was OK at Soviet Union and Talk:Soviet Union.  But, what do I know about how the rules are enforced around here.  If there is further discussion, I will pay attention to it.  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that user did intentional spamming, on a borderline of vandalism. For example he copy-pasted the same unreadable and poorly formatted text article here, then repeated it on the same page again, again, and finally posted very same text here, on the ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see why this guy could be vexing to have a talk page discussion with. Going back to Talk:Soviet Union, I see he didn't copy over that exact passage, but he copied over some lengthy passage by Paul Siebert from some other talk page, etc.

 * I don't mean to defend this behavior, but it is paradoxical to see WP:NOTHERE describing a guy with barnstars and whatnot on his user page. Well, life hits us with paradoxes sometimes.

 * Would a topic ban or some such be appropriate? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After interacting with that user, I think this block was completely appropriate. In addition to being completely unable to conduct civil discussions (he was unable or unwilling to understand any arguments by others), the user was engaged in ridiculous WP:BATTLE, such as this ANI thread and SPI report. He had a unique combination of WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced defamatory claims about South African security services
A number of similar IP addresses have been making some unsourced and controversial claims in various articles about companies and individuals, apparently accusing them of being part of some kind of corrupt conspiracy involving South African security services. See for example: This came to my attention after I reverted one of the additions above, and the IP reached out on my talk page saying that this was ruining their life. My initial response was to advise them to find some sources to support their assertion, but then I dug a bit deeper and found the extent of what they'd been doing. I've reverted what I've found, but I am not an expert at searching contributions of IP ranges, and there may be more stuff like the above from other IPs that I haven't found, so bringing it here for wider attention. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 11:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * <IP_ADDRESS> this, this, this and others
 * <IP_ADDRESS> this, this and this
 * <IP_ADDRESS> this this and this.

 * Did you tell them about WP:RGW?Lurking shadow (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * No, I've had no further discussion with them since I saw the extent of what they'd been doing. Sorry if I haven't been clear - I'm not here to complain about their behaviour, I'm here because I don't know enough about IP ranges to be certain whether I've caught all of their additions, or indeed whether they're still adding content like this. Any assistance from an IP range wizard would be welcome. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the range Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>/16 for 48 hours due to the surprisingly large amount of vandalism. Though it is unclear how a single individual could hop so rapidly. I didn't notice any smaller range that would do the job. After the block expires, if the person continues to add strange claims about the South African security services, maybe semiprotection could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks EdJohnston - I'll take a look through the contributions within that range and see whether there's anything else about this that needs to go. I'll obviously page protection in mind if they continue to target the same articles. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

CodeInconnu
User:CodeInconnu has shown a chronic pattern of edit-warring and intractable behavioral issues, frequently personalizing content disputes and casting those with whom they disagree as lacking in intelligence.

Immediately after registering on en.wiki, CodeInconnu began edit warring on the 2017 Barcelona attacks. You can read through the massive wall of text here, but CodeInconnu's first few posts already showed an unnecessary level of antagonism: Their editing in this area pulled the first of their EW warnings and ended with an ANI case where CodeInconnu lobbed PAs at a number of users. CodeInconnu moved on to Citizens (Spanish political party) (you can read the massive walls of text starting here). There was significant incivility from a variety of editors, but CodeInconnu continues to stand out. Excerpts: When CodeInconnu filed a request at DRN, it was closed as incomprehensible and with a civility warning, which earned these ugly responses
 * "opinion pieces carry the authority of the writer, not the paper": wrong (after being told that an opinion piece published in The Guardian is not the same as a Guardian editorial)
 * The only intelligent thing you've said among all of your hogwash is
 * By the way, shits and fucks are usually given, not cared [about]. Merriam Webster. You're welcome.
 * My "rant" may be incomprehensible to you (how surprising) but it won't be to the people reading it when they decide whether or not to block you, which you seem to be begging for with your puerile ad-hominem gibberish. . . We've all had tantrums on Wiki over the months and even years, nobody is perfect, but intelligent people learn from them. Maybe you'd feel more at home in the Spanish wiki. )
 * This might not fit in your black-and-white narrative, but nothing does really, which is why you sound so clueless.
 * I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. Are you sure you think things over before writing them down?
 * Like I told you in the change log, if you have references to other things you should add it to. Otherwise just stop being a nuisance. You're not in the Spanish wikipedia now.

At Talk:Tabarnia, behavior became so bad (and off-topic) it was hatted by another editor. CodeInconnu has since moved to primarily editing film plots and has racked up a number of warnings and reminders to observe both BRD and MOSFILM    (largely ignored, other than the FILMPLOT length guideline) while still picking up civility warnings. CodeInconnu's most recent edit warring was at Jair Bolsonaro in June 2019, where their insistence on adding the category "Racism in Brazil" to Bolsonaro's page had them ignoring BRD when they were reverted, instead playing chicken with 3RR and insulting users on their own pages; CodeInconnu never once posted on the Jair Bolsonaro talkpage.

My first encounter with CodeInconnu was after a fairly routine reversion, where CodeInconnu responded on the talkpage by opening a discussion in which they exhibited resistance to BRD and took an unprovoked swipe at my intelligence. The discussion basically devolved from that point; they also tried to re-insert the disputed content while the discussion was ongoing. Once they began boasting about intellect (Not sure who you think you're talking to (or who you're used to deal with) but I have a 3-digit IQ and I've watched this film several times, thank you very much), I disengaged. I later thanked another user on their talkpage for an earlier effort to intervene, where CodeInconnu showed up and attempted to continue.

There's a clear overall pattern of incivility when challenged and an unwillingness to engage collaboratively. I think they're entirely capable of being constructive (this apparent effort at shit-stirring notwithstanding ), but at the very least, they need a formal warning from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This is why Grandpallama didn't reply to anything else for days: he was busy compiling all the negative bits of my entire Wiki history. Fortunately for me, I don't have that much free time available so I can't pay attention to Grandpallama or to the very dishonest way in which he tried to curry favour in User:Nardog's page (copying carefully chosen incomplete interchanges to try to paint me as problematic, etc). An individual who threatens he'll take things to ANI at the next (perceived) slight, then takes it to ANI anyway just because the other user he was trying to woo did not see him as any less toxic than myself and erased all comments to their talk page, is a person who cannot make a constructive contribution to this encyclopedia. The mere fsct he turned me into his own private project during these days is indicative of a very unsound behaviour and I'll be sure to trigger a HOUNDING here if this behaviour persists. Grandpallama, I may have a temper but I'm essentially a reasonable guy. You, on the other hand, need help. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Coming in hot with additional personal attacks and an accusation of hounding is not going to convince anyone at ANI that you don't have a civility problem. I warned you future personal attacks would result in ANI, and you chose to double down and continue. My (admittedly unsolicited) advice to you is that you consider addressing the diffs that have been provided; this is not about a conflict between you and me, but about an ongoing pattern of behavior, of which our encounter was only a small, and recent, part. By the way--making claims about what I did or didn't do, such as accusing me of selective quoting at someone's page to curry favor, without diffs is also a personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're a bit confused about a number of things, but especially the boundaries of what constitutes a personal attack. The selective quoting, the snowflake behaviour and the unctuous flattery of a third party is there to see by anyone who understands how to browse diffs in page histories. And I repeat what I told you earlier: you don't get to tell me what to do. I don't even think you're an admin and you're very right; your advice is completely unsolicited. Get over your obsession about me because it's not doing you any good, and the worst thing that could happen to me is being blocked from a place that is neither a central part of my time nor my source of monthly salary. Big deal. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * ps/ In fact, many of the things I've written that you label as personal attacks or insults barely qualify as oblique criticism. Like I said, you can't even distinguish between the two. Not only is your ANI section ill-intentioned, it is basically mendacious. ANI should be used as a resolution centre, not as a passive-aggressive weapon. This is the classical behaviour of pulling the headmistress' skirt in a school playground while pointing at someone else saying "missus, missus, he's been bad to me". CodeInconnu (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * With your 3-digit IQ you should know that the right word is classic. (Classical would be — I don’t know — doing it in Wagnerian garb maybe.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * English is my third language and occasionally I make mistakes. You haven't exactly made a valid point here. CodeInconnu (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or your 3-digit IQ doesn't enable you to see it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're trying to assist Grandpallama in making their point that I'm a confrontational user, but what looks like a good idea in your head might be not so out in the open (it's a process called epistemological oxidation). It rather looks as though you're trying to earn an ANI section yourself instead. Quoting what you said to another user days ago, I mean this in all sincerity.,, You do good work for the project, and I hope that will continue. But you have to accept that there are things you don’t understand, and let them go. Please. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh. I’ve been unable to find anything on “epistemological oxidation” (though I did find something on oxidation epistemology). My point, since you apparently haven’t got it yet, is that if you really must brag about your intelligence you should take extra care to review before saving for a while. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh-huh. I'm sure Grandpallama loves the service you're doing to his cause by acting like this so do keep it coming. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: two-thirds of humanity have a three-digit IQ which, you know, means you're perfectly average. Grandpallama (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * It's pretty understandable that anyone brought to ANI is going to be angry and upset, but as of yet, not a single diff has been provided for the accusations CodeInconnu has thrown around. Not a single explanation or accounting has been provided for the diffs I presented in the initial filing. And there still doesn't seem to be a recognition that this is about a broader pattern of behavior, or even that anything is wrong with that behavior. I came recommending a formal warning, but this seems like we have edged into block territory. Grandpallama (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * It would be good to see some kind of recognition from you that your behavior, per the examples given above, could be more polite, and less condescending. Paul August ☎ 15:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully admit so and I regret those past episodes. As I said earlier, I do have a temper. Having said that, I don't believe giving a compact list of all my past sins the way it's been done here by a single user (who was uninvolved in the earlier episodes he has listed, and has tacitly erected himself as an ad-hoc arbiter on whether or not I deserve to be blocked) is a behaviour