Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980

User:31.154.71.87 and Israel-related edits.

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

---

(Originally posted at the NPOV noticeboard, [1], was told to bring this here.) This IP, which can be traced to Israel, might not be adhering to NPOV, at least it seems to me. All these edits take place in the last month. 90% of their edits have been on Israel related pages. User unironically cites NPOV in many edit summaries but respective edits themselves are misleading or disruptive. I have left messages on the user's talk page, but there has been no response, and editing pattern is continuing. I should note it is notjust myself who has reverted these edits. Also User:Cakerzing,

1. Unrecognized city status: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knesset&diff=prev&oldid=830972380&diffmode=source. User claims that the correct information is not NPOV, removes it, also saying it's "unecessary." East Jerusalem has never been recognised as part of Israel in the international community at large (they annexed it in 1980).

2. Inaccurate edit and misleading summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Nativity&diff=prev&oldid=831948510&diffmode=source. User says "per NPOV, better leave this empty." This is a blatantly misleading edit. Not only is the Church of the Nativity commonly known to be in Palestine, but the cited link to the UNESCO.org page even says "Palestine" as it's location.

3. Removing "Palestine" / replacing it with "Israel." Here in these next 7 edits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_al-Hassan&diff=prev&oldid=832261745&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmond_Bonan&diff=prev&oldid=832261774&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yehoram_Gaon&diff=prev&oldid=832261790&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shlomo_Aronson&diff=prev&oldid=832261927&diffmode=sourceedits , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._B._Yehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=832261945&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yaakov_Ades&diff=prev&oldid=832261959&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moshe_Safdie&diff=prev&oldid=832261977&diffmode=source ) the user removes "Palestine" from the infoboxes of articles, or other sections, even though it is historically appropriate. "Palestine" is replaced with "Israel" in many instances, even though the State of Israel did not come into being until 1948. User offers no edit summaries for any of the edits.

4. Addition of weasel word (WP:ALLEGED): In these two edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=prev&oldid=832807663&diffmode=source & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=832813508&oldid=832810111&diffmode=source , User continually adds "alleged," a commonly used WP:weasel word to the sentence: Prior to that, Ireland had refused to establish relations due to Israel's <<alleged>> violations of UN Resolutions. This is common knowledge. Israel has a long history of ignoring the UN and many times has been condemned for violating resolutions. R9tgokunks ✡ 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck finding a valid source for "common knowledge". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel R9tgokunks ✡ 19:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first few edits in section 3, IP was correct in removing the links, but went to an incorrect version the other way. The correct version would be Mandatory Palestine, per practice on birth places in former countries. However, I AGF for those edits, as linking to "Palestinian Territories" is a position that can be seen as denying the existence of Israel, wheras Israel is correct, if they were born today. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

False. All three edits are not correct. I feel like you're trying to gold dig for something positive out of clearly disruptive edits. That's like saying, "hey, they blanked the whole article... but at least they removed the inaccuracies!" It's just not a supportive argument and not an encylcopedic way of editing. The first completely leaves it blank without an edit summary, which can be construed as possible vandalism by some people. The second and third both add "Israel", which is historically innaccurate. Israel didn't exist before 1948. R9tgokunks ✡ 19:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: It's not just the first 3, it's at least 5. No, Israel isn't perfect, but it's better than Palestinian Territories, which cna be reasonably construed as FRINGE. Also, removal in some cases is appropriate- there was a lot of discussion about this on Natalie Portman. It doesn't look to me like a case warranting ANI, more a content dispute (and yes, NPOVN moved you here, but that's because of the format as a behavioural complaint). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm adding an addendum to this per the editor named also being involved in prior edits. The editor has been WP:Wikihounding me around Wikipedia, following my edits pertaining to reverting the anon IP on John Hagee, Ireland-Israel relations, and the NPOV noticeboard. The prior two articles have also been subject to edits by the named anon IP, which makes me believe there should be a Checkuser on this.

User came to seemingly support the edits of the IP, which were clearly disruptive. User also takes part in The addition of "alleged" (see WP:ALLEGED), which is extremely unencyclopedic. Not only is it against WP policy, but it is common knowledge that Israel has a history of violating UN resolutions.

User also lies about my edits saying here, Placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories?! That was in one of your edits. . Blatantly FALSE. That was a different user. User:Cakerzing.

The user seemingly implicitly supports the IPs bias ([2]) with "the IP was correcting an error (not perfectly)]" This is whitewashing of the issue, especially taking into account the edits, of which, this user deleted the information and did not indicate why.

This all culminates when the user then proceeds to leave a vague threat and warning on my talk page saying I violated 1RR in lieu of sanctions on the article Ireland-Israel relations. The problem is... there are no sanctions on the article. If there were discretionary sanctions on the article, it would be noted somewhere on the page during the edit process. I felt this was a step too far.

As an aside, I would suggest Checkuser on this to see if the IP and the user are the same. They both frequent articles pertaining to Jewish history or Israel. I would be curious to see if the reason the user supports the disruptive IP is due to them being one in the same. R9tgokunks ✡ 19:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A WP:Discretionary Sanctions notification is not a "vague threat and warning", nor is pointing out that you violated 1RR and should revert so that you won't be subject to an admin sanctioning you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of R9tgokunks' tendency towards BATTLEFIELD behavior is available here, and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User: Beyond My Ken, there are no sanctions on the Ireland-Israel relations. That is part of my point. I'd say it is. Especially since the user has followed my edits around wikipedia, much like yourself. R9tgokunks ✡ 19:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You opened a complaint here at AN/I, I watch AN/I, hence I saw your complaint. I have no idea what you've been doing since the last time you opened a complaint (two, actually) at AN/I, because I don't follow you around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Officially the DS apply, but are only enforcable with an edit notice. Hence notifying you was completely fine, although asking for a self-revert was completely unenforcable. Relevant ARBCOM notice ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks:, your statement here about "basic historical ignorance" is quite unfortunate as you're the one who got it wrong. Mandatory Palestine is the correct birthplace for all the people being discussed. I'd suggest calming down and doing something constructive with your editing rather than arguing at various noticeboards and talk pages. As far as I can see, the IP's edits have been largely reverted or corrected. Number 57 20:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is misleading. I don't think you read the comments there fully. I was refering to Israel violating UN resolutions, and the other users trying to minimize that, not the border situation. It is well documented. A simple Google search will suffice for that. Also, that's not totally true. the IP has continued to edit similarly, past my messages, mainly by adding the weasel word back to the Ireland-Israel relations article, which I was refering to when I said "historical ignorance. R9tgokunks ✡ 20:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP should not be making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, period. I've warned them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang - R9tgokunks support of placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories is untenable and a WP:CIR issue (particularly when repeated multiple times and refusing to acknowledge the problem with such an attribution). He has also reported me in the struck out portion above and failed to notify me properly. Not only that he has violated 1rr on an ARBPIA related edit [3][4] (the UN resolutions in question are related to the Israeli-Arab conflict) and after being alerted to sanctions and asked, in a friendly manner to self revert, filled my talk page with personal attacks and accusations in [5] (and 10 subsequent modifications). His accusations of hounding, based on interaction on NPOV/n which I have watchlisted and 2 articles (which I think were in the NPOV board post) are simply odd. Note that after the long discussion above he still has not self reverted the alleged 1rr vio.Icewhiz (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Addendum, I do apologize for mistaking another user with R9tgokunks in referring to one pf the edits he posted on npov/n. That was a mistake on my part (however, it was not my intention to lie as per written on my TP). I struck out my mistaken stmt where it was made upon being notified that I was "lying".Icewhiz (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please note that Icewhiz has filed a complaint at AE concerning R9tgokunks, here. Therefore, this thread, which has had no contributions for 4 days, can probably be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Bulk revert needed

Between approx 23:15 yesterday and 12:20 today, UTC, today, User:Rathfelder removed the |country= from a great number of instances of {{Infobox law enforcement agency}} on articles about police forces; like this example, apparently because they do not like the way the template categorises articles. In many cases, this leave the displayed text like (same example) "in the country of England, [[|UK]]", "State of Alabama, [[|US]]" or "State of Victoria, [[]]". I have asked them to urgently revert these edits, and they have refused, claiming that "If the article is in an appropriate category it doesn't seem terribly important to have the country in the infobox". This is despite there clearly being consensus to include |country= in articles.

Please can someone use their mop to mass-revert (or roll-back) the relevant edits, and thus fix the text displayed in the affected articles. Note that I am not seeking any action against Rathfelder, provided the edits are not repeated; and the further 500 they hint at do not take place without prior consensus. (The template has over 1,600 transclusions and most would seem to be affected)) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In all fairness that template is ridiculous. The amount of automated categorization and automated text assembly going on makes it a complete nightmare of a template. Most of that garbage should be stripped out. A better solution than mass rollback here would be to fix the template so it doesn't add unnecessary text building and poorly judged categorization which would solve the problem. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Once the template is mended - I think ideally by removing all its automated categorisation - I would be quite happy for my edits to be reverted. But as it stands it makes proper categorisation of law enforcement articles impossible. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur, I've had dangerous run ins with that infobox before myself, took me hours to figure out why some articles were inaccurately categorized. Canterbury Tail talk 18:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Diffs? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't do it. I spent ages trying to figure out why some articles were being incorrectly categorised in the Category:Non-government law enforcement agencies. Eventually I reached out to Necrothesp who spotted the issues down in an included template of Template:Infobox law enforcement agency/autocat diff. It's a ridiculously complex mess of inclusions and autopopulation that is often as wrong as it is right and makes assumptions that are undocumented. In my case apparently if you didn't enter anything for the ‘Legal personality’ it added it to the Non-government law enforcement agency category. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's suppose that this template is "ridiculous". However it's also there, and it's in use across 1500 articles. So what the hell is anyone doing making a change like this, which breaks its use, and then refusing to rollback themselves? If _you_ break it, the onus is on _you_ to fix it. If that involves a bulk revert of your changes, then so be it. Why wasn't (at the very least) this bulk change stopped after a handful of edits, when it became obvious that it was breaking things? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the infobox that's broken in the first place. If it wasn't so poorly designed then the edits wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. There have been calls in the past (from me, for a start) for it to be fixed, to which no response was forthcoming. I can entirely understand why someone would want to ditch this appalling thing. Frankly, I think the onus is on the people who designed the infobox to fix it when it clearly doesn't work properly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So fix the infobox first. But don't make bulk changes to the parameters to that infobox, knowing that this will then break articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• This template breaks things too. I am attempting to categorise articles and it prevents that. It's badly designed. Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you should revert your changes, then we can fix the infobox to not do the categorization and autotext. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Canterbury Tail and others. It is terribly designed and very, very hard to fix unless you're an absolute infobox whizz. All automatic categorisation should be stripped out of it, which would for a start stop articles being added to general cats as well as more specific cats (e.g. no articles should be directly in the top-level Category:Law enforcement agencies, yet this template has currently stuck nearly 500 articles in there). In general, automatic categorisation is an awful idea. We are perfectly capable of categorising articles ourselves without needing an infobox to do it for us and putting articles in incorrect categories or multiple unnecessary categories. Let editors do their own categorisation and stop this obsession with templates. They frequently don't work properly and not being able to edit categories is incredibly frustrating. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the disputed edits affect content displayed visibly on the page, which is a more serious concern than categories not being editable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it now? As I said, maybe if this was sorted out (or just maybe, if it hadn't been implemented in the first place) then all the problems would be solved! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A problem with infoboxes? I'm running away before we start another RFC. --Tarage (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I dont see why it is a big problem that the country where the agency is situated is not displayed in the infobox. I do think it is a big problem that the article does not appear in the categories relating to geography. By the time people reach the article they already know what country it is in. It is a big problem that infoboxes create categories that cannot be editted. Can we fix that first please? Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"I dont see why" - Ignorance is not an excuse.

I'm continually surprised by how WP, which relies on what is largely "software", always appears to have so few experienced coders involved with it, expressing the knowledge that is just everyday basic working practice for anyone working around halfway-competent software.

• If you break it, you rollback the change which caused that, and then wonder what to do next. You don't argue over this. People who don't rollback their own mess lose their privilege to make further changes.
• You don't understand all of it. No-one does. So you don't say things like, "It works for me" or "I don't see the problem".

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a textbook case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Rathfelder's edits need to be reverted, and preferably he should do it himself. THEN he can discuss how to fix the Infobox on it's talk page; this is not the place for that discussion. WaggersTALK 11:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• That is a libellous statement. I am trying to categorise articles about organisations. This box prevents that. I dont see why preserving it should take precedence. I have no idea how to fix infoboxes, nor was it all clear what this box did. As it clearly does not do what it should do I dont see why I have to revert my damage limitation - though if it is still necessary when the problem is fixed I am happy to do so. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

An article missing a category is a lesser evil than displaying things like in the country of England, [[|UK]] in the InfoBox - that's far more noticeable to readers. As such, your edits are disruptive and need to be reverted. The problems with the InfoBox are unlikely to be resolved quickly and we can't leave that many articles displaying gibberish to our readers for whatever amount of time that's going to take. WaggersTALK 15:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• That is your opinion. I think that damage is purely cosmetic. Who is responsible for the broken infobox - and for neglecting the damage it was doing over what appears to be a prolonged period? Rathfelder (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists for the readers. A 'purely cosmetic' problems effects the readers and needs to be reverted until it can be fixed. If you want to categorize things that is a great thing and will ultimately result in an improvement but you need to figure out a process and do the prep work so those changes do not effect the readability of the articles. Jbh ^Talk 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Categorisation also affects the readers, even if it is less obvious, because it stops people finding the article in the first place. I'm afraid this infobox gives no clue as to its workings and I have no idea where it came from, who it belongs to or how it can be mended. The description it provides is both misleading and not in accordance with the principles of categorisation. There have been repeated complaints about it over the past four years but they do not appear to have been dealt with. It is certainly not the policy that categorisation is a trivial problem that can be ignored as you seem to imply by what you say and by your actions - or lack of them. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Autocategorizing inforboxes are a major maintenance headache. This needs to stop. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Then work to change/remove that function without effecting the end-user readability of the articles. Categorization is great but errors there are much less apparent to the typical user of Wikipedia than screwed up text on the page. I would think don't screw up the article must be priority one in any maintenance task. There is always a way to do things properly, it may take more planning and work, but there is a way. In this case I would suggest working with concerned parties to re-write the template and then planning a non-disruptive roll out. Much like any other maintenance task on q high availability platform. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am afraid I have no idea who the concerned parties are - but given the repeated complaints about this infobox over several years they dont seem to be very concerned. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Despite all the hot air above, there seems to be no good reason why this request has not been enacted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, the hardheadedness I'm seeing here is astounding. @Rathfelder: I honestly can't believe that an editor of your tenure is going around casually breaking links, and you actually claim that there is nothing wrong with causing damage if said damage is "purely cosmetic". That's bizarre. If you can't fix one problem without creating another, you should be asking for help, not implementing half-baked "fixes" on your own that cause visible cosmetic damage. You should not be breaking links for any reason. There's no excuse to justify that, but especially categorization. I mean, really? You're willing to cause cosmetic damage to articles for the sake of your categorization work? This is low-priority stuff, and no, the overwhelming majority of readers are not concerned with or affected by imperfect categorization. Implementing broken links that casual editors do not know how to fix is disruptive. It comes across as very incompetent, and, given the skill of editors who know what they're doing in the template space, it seems completely unnecessary. You may not "see why preserving it should take precedence", but I can tell you why—because it is literally a matter of policy. @Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure MassRollback is actually an admin function—I think it's actually a script that any Rollbacker can use. However it would summarily rollback every possible edit in Rathfelder's contributions. I think it needs to be repaired manually. I also think that Rathfelder should do absolutely anything they can to help repair the damage. I don't care what needs to be done, the notion that the broken links can stand like it's no big deal is unacceptable. Swarm ♠ 20:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am quite happy to go back and repair the damage if someone will take responsibility for mending the infobox, which has clearly been broken for several years and has been the subject of repeated complaints. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems like an example of the infobox/tail wagging the dog. Paul August ☎ 22:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Template editor needed

Pinging (members of WP:WPINFOBOX) @SMcCandlish, Thumperward, Northamerica1000, Rehman, and Montanabw: can any of you figure out how to remove the automatic categorization functions from {{Infobox law enforcement agency}}? Swarm ♠ 01:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. Working on it. Rehman 02:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that this template is a mess. It was written in 2008 (hence understandable), but has only 127 edits since (!!!). I will try working on removing only the autocat feature for now, but I strongly suggest we redo the entire template (I'd be happy to write the code). I've written most of the code for {{Infobox dam}}, {{Infobox power station}}, and {{Infobox river}}. If we can agree to simplify to something like those, I will be glad to help.

As a start, if someone familiar with the infobox current uses can list all the required parameters (including removing unnecessary ones, adding new ones, and tweaking any existing names), we can get on it right away. Rehman 02:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Rehman, you're a saint. @Pigsonthewing: are you familiar enough to offer any feedback on this? If not we can probably consult the relevant Wikiproject. Swarm ♠ 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I think most of us who work on categorisation would be happier if infoboxes did not do automatic categorisation. Or perhaps if they could just populate the categories when first applied, but leave them in a condition where they can be editted? Categories develop over time. Rathfelder (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. A quick question, if auto-categorization is removed, do we have any plan of manually adding the missing categories? Since many articles will then be without most/all categories they are currently in... Rehman 09:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm quite happy to tackle that, as I caused the fuss in the first place. Rathfelder (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey all. Just want to update that I've been working on a complete code rewrite at {{Infobox law enforcement agency/sandbox}}. Due to the complex template-within-template-within-template nature of this infobox, removing just the auto-categorisations is just as tedious as doing a code-rewrite. And simplifying the code is very important so as to enable future editors to edit the template without much hassle, as well as being able to support wikidata in the future.

If anyone is interested in lending a hand, feel free to join me at the sandbox. My current task is to have all the code simplified into one template page, without the use of subpages. (To test the same, switching from {{Infobox law enforcement agency to {{Infobox law enforcement agency/sandbox in any article shouldn't cause any glitches, apart from minor design differences). Further changes such as adding/modifying/removing parameters can be done afterwards. Cheers, Rehman 14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Best regards, Rehman 14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated BLP violations at Sabrina Schloss

Advice, please. I've twice removed an unsourced date of birth from Sabrina Schloss, and it has twice been restored by Makro. I thought of asking for page protection to prevent a recurrence, but full protection seems excessive and I don't think anything else would work. I'm also not prepared to edit-war with the user.

Background: I nominated the page for deletion, and have also removed various other inappropriate stuff from it. I've since been accused of copyright violation, vandalism and (with Chris troutman) of bullying. I've left Makro two warnings against disruptive editing. The unsourced birth-date is also in User:Makro/sandbox2; I've removed it on Wikidata, where it was sourced to English Wikipedia (that's a problem in itself). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The article I nominated by the user was a violation of copyright. It was a clear copy paste. Since I reported it I have received abuse and bully tactics from both of the above mentioned users. They have gone on to indiscriminately nominate multiple articles I have created. I feel bullied by them and have received no help from Wiki when reported. I followed advice and added new sources to verify information which they ignored.Makro (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Where from, and with which edit exactly, Makro? I have now actually checked the edits made to that page after my own, and I'm pretty confident that there's no copyvio; but if you have convincing evidence otherwise, please present it. About Sabrina Schloss, exactly which independent reliable source did you add to support her date of birth? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

JustlettersandnumbersThe entire page was a copy paste from another website. One which you are not the owner of. In regards to the Sabrina Schloss article I said I added a reliable source. One from the BFI.Makro (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Makro needs a block per WP:CIR. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I've left them two messages asking them to clarify whether they would do this again and they have deleted them without replying. If someone else wants to block them I have no objection. I probably won't. They've had their warning though; if anything else like this happens it should be an instant block. --John (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

They came to my talk asking about dealing with harassment. Also at WP:AfC requesting to join the project. A little hand holding may be in order. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that hand-holding is what's needed, Legacypac. The user seems quite determined to show that he/she is WP:NOTHERE – now edit-warring with an admin at Lukas Gage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Or he's learning how to CSD. It is a COI page but not overly promotional so tag and leave is fine. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just asked[6] Administrator John (read his response above me in this thread) to review this afd that Makro just started and to read my response[7] to something Makro wrote there....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nov3rd17

Please take a look at the talk page for the article Carles Puigdemont. There, User:Nov3rd17 misuses Wikipedia talk pages to express his personal opinion without any relations to the article. He uses Wikipedia talk pages as his personal blog. Since this appears to be the first time he does something like this, you probably wonder why I am writing this to the noticeboard instead of talking to this user directly. However, this user is known in the German Wikipedia for exactly this behavior, he has been told to stop this multiple times. He didn't listen. He has even been banned multiple times. It's currently his third ban lasting two weeks because he doesn't listen. In his point of view, the admins in the german Wikipedia are part of an "authoritarianism" and he is not bound by any rules. Administrators in the German Wikipedia suggested that he is trolling and called this his "very last chance" before he will be banned indefinitely. Please take a look at his block log in German Wikipedia. E.g. "POV-Pushing und Diskussionsseitenmissbrauch" translates to "Pushing personal opinion and abusing talk pages" and "Wiederholte Verstöße gegen die Richtlinien für Diskussionsseiten" translates to "Repeated violations of rules for talk pages". Here in the English Wikipedia, he actually has been banned because of violating 1RR and again, he does not accept the decision and is challenging the legitimacy of the decision by a well respected administrator. Also here in the English Wikipedia, some well respected authors have describen his bevahior as "He was only fighting with me for the joy of it". This puts it in a nutshell.

I am asking you to take a look at this user as he will probably continue with postings like this one if you don't take action. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TheRandomIP. The red warning text at the top of this page and the yellow box at the top of the edit window informs you that you are required to inform anyone that you report here. Since you did not do so, I have done it for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:HHRIA123

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

---

I have messaged this user ten times over several weeks - no response, see User talk:HHRIA123#Sources and communication. They have been repeatedly creating unreferenced articles and won't address the issue or communicate. I have pointed out that communication is a matter of policy, as outlined at the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE, and explained in detail in the essay, WP:Communication is required. I have also emphasised the importance of WP:V, but with no response I have run out of other options. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaboration. If the material is unsourced it can of course be removed, or the article taken to AfD. But if the material is encyclopedic and accurate far better to source it, to best build the encyclopedia.

If on the other hand the material they have added is all rubbish, then the account can be immediately indeffed as a vandalism only account. That seems unlikely, and we assume good faith.

I looked at 1997-98 Croatian First A League, the article you most recently cited as unreferenced on the user's talk page. (I even made a little copyedit there.) It's stubby and I haven't looked at the others but it occurs to me that perhaps all ten of the articles at Category:Croatian First A League seasons should be merged. That's assuming it's accurate and that sources do exist (but they don't need to be online or in English).

But the point here at AN/I is simply, is admin intervention the best next step? I think there are better alternatives at this stage. Perhaps for a start, ask the contributor where they are getting the information, and offer to help them write the appropriate refs. Writing references can be daunting, and newbies often assume that their local newspaper is not a reliable source just because it's not online, or not available outside their immediate area. Reassure them on this and the results might be a lot better. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa, I have asked the contributor where they got their information, but I have had no response to my messages. If someone won't communicate, it is impossible for me to help them on this. Ten messages over several weeks seems sufficient attempt to resolve this another way. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have been patient. Could I have a diff of your best offer to help?

As a volunteer organisation, we have little opportunity to force people to do things they don't want to do. I'm assuming that this contributor wants to build the encyclopedia in this area, and is adding material that could be sourced and would be useful content if someone were to do that, and I'm looking for a way to achieve this.

If there's no prospect of sourcing the material, then it should be deleted. Perhaps we are already there. I'm not convinced of that, but that's not an ANI matter in any case.

If the material is disruptively recreated, then yes, it becomes an ANI matter, unfortunately. Andrewa (talk)

Collaboration and communication is necessary. Otherwise, blocks are. As simple as that. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I would not oppose a block, there's no doubt IMO that it's justified by policy and it wouldn't be the first one for this rather problematic user. Mainly, I'm explaining why I'm not ready to do it myself. Either way I'll eventually try to communicate with this user myself but want to word it carefully. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Jvfmgnlllj

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

---

I have sent Jvfmgnlllj ten messages over four months. All I have received in reply was one message on my talk page: 'I can not find any sources, I do not know how to edit. Can you please fix it or find it by yourself.' Yet they have continued to edit regularly during this time. I have repeatedly directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. I have been contacting them about creating unreferenced articles. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Same advice as above I think.

In fact even more so. They've asked for help. The best outcome for Wikipedia is we find it for them, unless they are nothere, and we don't have a case for that yet. Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa, I offered them help, but they have not responded to subsequent messages, although they know how to post on my talk page and are continuing to edit. I have been trying to help them on this for four months, but have got nowhere. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, see above. I see this diff as an offer by yourself to help along exactly the right lines, that's the sort of diff I was after above. This user has a checkered history, with some good contributions and some previous blocks. They don't seem active on any other language Wikipedia.

But this does seem the better of the two on which to work, based on their reply which you quote above (thank you, diff would have been even better). They don't seem to understand what we mean by sources. As you say, they are getting this material from somewhere. That's probably all we need. And if we can solve this one, it may provide the example we need to solve the problem with #User:HHRIA123 above too.

There are some subtleties in the sources policy and guidelines that these users can't be expected to know. Sports results would be verifiable from local newspapers. While refs are highly desirable they're only essential if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BURDEN which you cite and which is policy). I wouldn't consider sports results likely to be challenged and I very much doubt the contributor thought that. But you've challenged it. And there's no burden on you to provide your reasons, but I'd consider it constructive for you to do so, and only polite.

So I'd caution against escalating this by simply removing the material. You have the right to do so. But is it really the best way forward? Perhaps we should continue this discussion away from ANI, and I'm happy to do so. Andrewa (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just one example of a constructive edit by the user concerned. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat from User:Jnewby1956

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

---

User Jnewby1956 has made a legal threat [8]. reddogsix (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Done (i.e. blocked). Swarm ♠ 22:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation from SPA

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

---

Sarah061 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to understand the copyright violation notice placed on her talk page two weeks ago, and instead the editor elected to reference the copyright violation as its source in a recent edit. Clearly a WP:SPA. I can't decide if this a case of WP:NOTHERE or if we need someone to explain Wikipedia's copyright policy more clearly. Input from admins would be beneficial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've given as short and blunt an explanation as I can manage within the site's policies. If there's further copyvios, then a block is definitely in order. I'm not quite ready to say "WP:NOTHERE" yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Fast. Efficient. Fair. Thanks. Feel free to close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

HostBot

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place for posting about that, but HostBot has restarted and is delivering broken teahouse invitation templates. Could somebody do something about it? L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The bot's operator is active and appears to be taking care of that. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Please delete User:E-artexte (spam)

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

---

Edit filter means IPs cannot tag this. Anybody care to do the honours? -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.202 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Beeblebrox:! -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.202 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

New editor using article talk page to reach out to other people and also to discuss another article

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

---

At Talk:Nation of Islam#Do not delete my comments until you take action on lies. and Talk:Nation of Islam#For REAL members of the Nation Of Islam Afrodizifunk3 (talk · contribs) is misusing the talk page. I've deleted his edits twice and tried to explain on his talk page but he clearly doesn't not understand what I'm saying. 18:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this reply to me on his talk page that demonstrates the problem: "Why are you editing a Black American page regarding the Nation of Islam? Are you Black America." Doug Weller talk 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else getting a significant WP:NOTHERE vibe? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Im not sure how to use this page but@ mr weller

I am informing them correctly of whats happening on wikipedia regarding their musical culture. The acid jazz page is a lie it's total disinformation. When I asked you what have you done about it you refused to answer my question and just deleted my comment proving that you have an agenda. If you were a real editor you would want to look into it. You don't. In taking no action you have proven yourself to be suspect. Just like those on the acid jazz page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrodizifunk3 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit illustrates the WP:NOTHERE nature of the OP. MarnetteD|Talk 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Afrodizifunk3: If you want to leave a message for Doug Weller (instead of everyone who pays the slightest attention to administrative matters), you can do so at his user talk page: User talk:Doug Weller. Also, we don't restrict editing of articles by race. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

AND also one of the major reasons I went to the NOI page is that it seems no editors that I ve seen so far can be trusted. This person is one of them. Why don’t you look into the fake editors on the acid Jazz talk page for example. He informs me that this is an encyclopedia. Then does nothing when informed about a page of lies saying he knows nothing about jazz. This is what an administrators are like on Wikipedia. And you expect us to donate to this website? II will be going to the Nation Of Islam.If you like I will start up a campaign to get African Americans to Boycott wikipedia including all the rappers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrodizifunk3 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Afrodizifunk3: just so you know WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:MoldyOne Vandalism

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

---

User:MoldyOne appears to be a vandalism only account. The only (6) edits that this user has made has been to the List of ArmaLite rifles where he continues to claim that ArmaLite AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MoldyOne. Despite being repeatedly told otherwise. Apparently, he believes that the article titled "List of ArmaLite rifles" is somehow referring to the Colt AR-15.--RAF910 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

that is because it is a Semi Automatic Rifle, it has no selector switch and only fires one round per trigger pull, to say otherwise makes it a Assault Rifle with multiple fire modes and Illegal to own by Federal law — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoldyOne (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to point out it is not Vandalism to state that all AR-15 rifles are the same, it doesnt matter what manufacturer makes it, they are all the same, i have also added links to show that it is the same rifle and the rifle they are referring to was redesgnated M-16. this can easily be fixed by putting in a note that there is a difference between the AR-15 and the M-16 which is a Assault Rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoldyOne (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

39.42.159.51 is not following WP:NPOV

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

---

I reverted several edits from this IP because they were not following a neutral point of view. This IP is constantly adding their own analysis to articles and I think a block should be warranted here for this disruption. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

From the top of this page: Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. Fish+Karate 10:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Actually, the IP is now blocked for 48 hours. However, if you look through all the contributions from this IP, they all break WP:NPOV. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Fish+Karate 12:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm being called a Nazi (in not-so-subtle code)

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

---

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly insinuating that I am a Nazi based on my username including the number "88" (a reference to the year of my birth, whose potential, fairly obscure, neo-Nazi associations I wasn't aware of until after I adopted it -- it's only come up twice before, but I still have to explain it on my user page anyway because of how apparently inflammatory it is). It started when he referred to me as "Hijari88", and I asked him not to; he then said that he would call me "88" instead.[9][10]

This was clearly not an accidental coincidence, as he just happened to make an edit to a page about neo-Nazis a half-hour later.[11] He also indicated that he was aware of a tongue-in-cheek discussion about number-symbolism I was having elsewhere.[12][13]

Anyway, I asked him either to explain how his new nickname for me was not meant to accuse me of being a fascist or to retract and apologize,[14] and he refused,[15] instead doubling down and calling me "Hachi-ju-hachi" (Japanese for "eighty-eight") three more times in a row.[16]

Could someone please explain to him how outrageous it is to compare other users to Nazis, and perhaps block him if he continues to ignore the repeated warnings?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly (and to state the obvious) his name is Hijiri88. It's part of his name.

I had mistakenly called him "Hijari" in a previous comment and he complained, so I suggested that I just call him 88. Again, this might be stating the obvious but I had assumed that if he chose "88" as part of his name, then he wouldn't mind be called "88" - the same as if someone addresses me as "420", I'm certainly not about to take offence.

Yes, I did call him "Hachi-ju-hachi" - which translates to 88 in Japanese - my full comment was "Hachi-ju-hachi kun wa san ju sai desu ka? Dakara namai wa hachi-ju-hachi?" which means "Mr 88 are you 30 years old? Therefore your name is 88" - due to someone being born in 1988 being 30 years old.

So obviously, I'm not calling him a Nazi - I'm asking him if his name refers to his age, in response to him claiming that I called him a Nazi based on the use of "88"

To be blunt, I (like most sane people) dislike Nazis and if I were under the impression that he was a Nazi, I wouldn't address the issue with veiled and ambiguous terms, I would just call him a Nazi.

This is all a non-issue, but it might be in part due to my poor use of Japanese, I may have made errors in my Japanese grammar which resulted in a misunderstanding, but that's something that a far better speaker or Japanese would have to confirm. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) No, I explicitly demanded an explanation of you before you wrote that romanized Japanese remark, and I even explicitly said directly above it that if you didn't own up and retract it you should be reported on ANI, so how it could be a non-issue spinning out of a comment you made after that escapes me.

Are you going to acknowledge how grossly inappropriate your comments (which were clearly meant to get me to stop telling you you can't violate BLP by insinuating that a Japanese musical group are best-known for a 2015 blackface incident) were, or at least apologize for the misunderstanding (if that is what it was) and promise to be more careful in the future, or not?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As silly as this all is, I'll confirm that SC420 was apparently asking about Hijiri's birth year:「八十八くんは三十歳ですか? だから名前は八十八?」 I hate not being able to fall asleep. No comment on intent though. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Spacecowboy420 makes absurd edits like this and has a good ability to troll those who resist, as shown in the diffs posted by Hijiri 88 above. Unfortunately there is no policy against making absurd edits so it will have to battled out at each article. However, trolling is blockable and Spacecowboy420 needs to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: There's BLP. He has been blocked before for trying to reinsert counter-consensus content in violation of ArbCom sanctions on that topic area, and is doing the exact same thing on the Momoiro Clover page. And he's apparently logging out to create the illusion of not being the only editor who shares his POV: the mysterious IP that has been helping him is in the same range as the one that both NSH001 and Edward321 reported as being him back in December. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Saw this pop-up since I am watching the article for a different discussion, and thought I might as well take the liberty to comment since Hijiri gave me the same honour above. In my personal opinion, having a look at the discussion, it appears that Spacecowboy was unintentionally spelling Hijiri wrong and due to his tone this was inferred to be an intentional slight. This put the two users on completely different footings, with Hijiri heading down the Nazi track due to some unfortunate past experiences while Spacecowboy was just trying to figure out what Hijiri wanted to be called and ended up painting himself into a strange corner. If I could make a suggestion, it would be that the two agree that things have gotten strangely off-track, that feelings have been hurt, and that they both need to do better to understand each other, and then get back to the issue that they were originally discussing. As for the whole socky, IP thing, I'll leave that to more experienced users than I. That's just my two cents guys, happy editing! - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to correct a small point about the second sentence of the above, I didn't take "Hijari" as an intentional slight. A bunch of good-faith editors have misspelled my username and I usually respond by laughing it off. The problem here is that whether or not "Hijari" was an intentional slight (and I don't think it was), responding to my request that he spell the "Hijiri" part of my name correctly by picking an entirely separate part of my username that could be taken out of context to associate me with Nazism, in a dispute where he was already making me and others feel very uncomfortable about supposedly white-washing/downplaying a super-serious and noteworthy blackface incident in the BLP in question, was clearly meant as bad-faith trolling. And there's also this that happened before the whole thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"And he's apparently logging out to create the illusion of not being the only editor who shares his POV" don't make silly sock claims about everyone who disagrees with you. WP:ASPERSIONS might be relevant in this situation. Or, just ask me "Do you have sock accounts?" and I will be happy to answer.

But you're right. There have been sock puppet reports concerning me. Sock puppet reports that were all closed because I'm not using sock puppets or sock IPs.

If you still think I'm using sock puppets, then please file an SPI.

You're right again. (kinda) there is dispute over the Momoiro Clover article. That article is now locked and we can discuss the issue there.

Most importantly, this ANI report is to discuss your name and my use of it, not closed SPIs or protected articles.

And no, there is no attempt to troll - merely calling someone "88" due to their name containing "88" is not trolling. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: No one's accusing you of having sock accounts. The portion of my comment that you quote even explicitly says that the problem is logging out to create the illusion of being multiple people. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I knew 88 (number) meant Good Fortune in Chinese and in BC we consider it a very good number. Chinese far out number Nazis around here though. Legacypac (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a very good Chinese number her too; mixed meat fried rice I think :) Mmmm. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

174.238.1.106

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

---

Please check https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.238.1.106. This user is clearly posting remarks based on racism on my talk page.U1Quattro (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've moved to this to the bottom and here is a link to make it easier to check on the edits 174.238.1.106 (talk · contribs) MarnetteD|Talk 14:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Inexcusable personal attack, short block issued. Please feel free to ping me should similar behaviour continue after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Jack Sebastian

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

---

For months now I have been verbally abused and harassed by this user across several different articles. It all came to a head again today when they made a bold edit to an article I watch which I reverted, and then refused to follow WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO and allow the article to remain in its original form while we discussed it. They also went to my talk page and threatened to have me blocked if I did not restore the article to their preferred version within an hour, while over at the article's talk page they decided it would be a good time to talk like this to me rather than have a discussion about the issue. I decided to come here when he threatened me.

This is not the first time this user has insisted on an article remaining as their preferred version after making bold edits, for example I restored this article to the status quo while a discussion took place last September, and it was reverted within 20 minutes without explanation. Or here, where I made an edit based on talk page consensus and was reverted again; another user got involved, and they were reverted because Jack Sebastian wouldn't accept a version of the article that he did not 100% approve of. Here he tried to use BRD against me when he was the first one to make a bold edit, as was pointed out in the next edit by another user.

The discussions that did take place at Talk:The Gifted (TV series) made it worse, as can be seen at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)/Archive 1, particularly throughout the "Fan Bingbing as Blink" discussion where the user continuously accused several editors, but mostly me, of racism which the majority of editors thought was completely unfounded. I could understand if he just misunderstood something I said, but after having it explained and cleared up by several people he continued to insist on labeling us racist as a way to continue his argument. He also made up other things to try and discredit me and my arguments, such as saying I was only motivated by a "fanboy crush" rather than trying to seriously improve the article. Rubbing salt in this wound, in the "Sentinel Services subsection" further down the user implied that my knowledge of English must be lesser than his because of my nationality, which I took offence to but he showed no remorse. It was also in that discussion that he decided that I don't know what I am doing because I am "a fairly new writer" (which is not true) and that this makes him superior to me. Throughout these discussions, the editor consistently uses language that I consider to be inappropriate, and it is often directed at me.

The issues at The Gifted led to administrator action previously: Jack Sebastien reported me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive351#User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Protected) for my behaviour in response to his, which led to the page being protected and Jack Sebastian's aggressive behaviour calming down for a bit, but it did not take long for him to get going again. The next time, Jack was reported by another user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Jack Sebastian's edit-warring, personal attacks and hounding/stalking. That led to an IBAN between those two editors, but did not stop the way Jack treats me or his behaviour around Wikipedia. I know that I don't help myself sometimes with continuing to revert one or two more times before discussing, but that is always with the intention of stabilizing the article before sorting out the issue at the talk page, not enforcing my will on everyone else.

Dealing with all of this for months wore me down, and led to me leaving Wikipedia for a significant period of time over the holiday break. I thought this was all behind me, but now I have been thrown right back into it. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy it, and because there is a small group of articles that I am invested in and put a lot of work into. I have a good working relationship with most of the editors that regular work on those articles, and enjoy making it part of my day. But whenever Jack Sebastian shows up, I know that I am going to be treated with contempt, sworn at, and reverted without good reason, including in the face of things like BRD and STATUSQUO which help everybody get along better and make the right decisions. I'm just sick of the aggression and threats, but have decided that I am not going to run away this time. I don't know what the best cause of action is here, I just don't want to see him get away scot-free while others like me stop doing what we love to accommodate him. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not familiar with either editor here. Threats violate WP:CIVIL. Jack Sebastian has a previous history of light-weight blocks for edit warring. Light-weight, in the fact that the longest one (1 week) was lifted after only a few hours on a promise not to edit war again. He later got blocked again for edit warring. This is a pattern. Maybe it's time to consider some stronger restrictions here. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting (read: offensive) how Adamston seems to have take to heart the saying, "A good defense is a good offense." After all, I asked him to self-revert after reverting three times in very quick succession (1, 2, 3). I went to his page to let him know that a) Edit-warring is a stupid way to build consensus, and b) that our EW blocking policy isn't an electric fence - you can get blocked for less than three edits if you are using it incorrectly to force your POV on others. Clearly, his take-away from that discussion was to report me before I could report him.

I gave him an hour to self-revert and use the discussion page instead. Because of our previous interactions, he knows full well that I meant what I said, and so thus decided to post about my "behavior" instead: this complaint is cynical attempt to muddy the waters of the AN:3R complaint that was coming. This is what Adam does; he's done it before at least twice. And yeah, he was called out on a racist edit, suggesting that all Asians ewre essentially interchangeable. Uncool doesn't even begin to fill that gap of AGF, deepened by the fact that not only did the user fail to apologize for it, but claims still that they were utterly innocent.

Despite this not being the place for content issues, I'd point out that my revert simply asked for sources that supported a statement (knowing that any in support were likely outlier opinions). After the revert, I initiated discussion, not Adamston. He replied once and then reverted again. As per his usual behavior.

Lastly @Maile66:, I'd point out that up until 7 months ago, I had not been blocked in 4 years. Maybe that shouldn't serve as a "pattern" of my behavior. While it is absolutely true that I do not suffer edit-warriors with anything resembling grace, I never call anyone on their bullshit unless they were absolutely deserving of it. So I respectfully submit that you are being subjected to some passive aggressive dancing by Adamstom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

These editors were both involved in an ANI thread recently, with archives at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Jack_Sebastian's_edit-warring,_personal_attacks_and_hounding/stalking. While I'd prefer that the editors involved could agree to disagree in a civil manner, that appears to be unlikely, and I don't plan on commenting as to the disciplinary sanctions necessary on any of the involved parties. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are linking the wrong AN/I threat, power-enwiki. I think you meant to link to an AN/3R: oopsie. I guess it might seem Machiavellian to point out that Adamstom's typical behavior of walking right up to the 3RR electric fence is pretty much his thing. He does it all the time, and others have commented on it s well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The one I link contains (in its voluminousness) a proposal of an IBAN between "Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97", and the history there will be of interest to ANI participants. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, you are right; Adamstom did have a small part to play in that. And it looks like you were part of it, too. Interesting that you would just "happen" to stop by, whenever Adamstom ends up in the thick of things. Hmmm. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I comment on many ANI threads, for reasons yet to be determined. I'm not sure whether I was on your side or AlexTheWhovian's in that thread, though I suspect I was on the side of "can't you all get along or else let's TBAN the lot of you to save some time". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dude, first you misrepresent the previous AN/I as being about Adamstom and I, and then pretend that you were nothing but a hapless passerby. Do you really need someone to point out your apparent lack of integrity here, and post your less-than-neutral remarks from that page and elsewhere? Come on, son; don't piss on our legs and tell us its raining. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you want me to support some kind of ban for you (when it inevitably comes up; I don't have the slightest idea why you should be banned from anything right now, other than your aspersions)? You're campaigning pretty hard for it. Just because I remember your ANI history better than you do doesn't make me biased against you, unless you ask me to be biased against you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, but you're the one who added a fairly prejudicial link, intimating that it has everything to do with this discussion. I'll point out that Adamstom was the one who started reverting here, and didn't stop until he came up to the electric fence. I initiated dialogue. I even warned the other user to self-revert and participate more fully in discussion. Their respnse? Report me to AN/I. The way I see it, I have a small but dedicated group of ego-driven editors who OWN articles and engage in petty edit-wars. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've had the missfortune of being on the receiving end of Jack Sabastian's abuse. He's a Grade A douce who has been warned to knock it off on my talk where he opins of my editing while banning me from his talk. Lots of people are banned from his talk it seems. Anyone is welcome to use my talk page to work themselves into trouble. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It's spelled "douche", as in harsh douche-canoe. It's nice to know that my adoring fanclub takes time out of their "edits" to come and say hi. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

After chastising Jack Sebastian repeatedly, I'm now going to (roughly) defend him. Many of the diffs here are stale. Talk:The Gifted (TV series) hasn't been edited since January. The content dispute/edit war at The New Mutants (film) and its talk page makes neither of you look good, but it's not a blockable offense just yet. Deal with it at WP:3O or WP:DRN, unless you both feel a mutual block is the best solution. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I raised this issue because of Jack's general behaviour and patterns of harrassment, not the specific editing issues in the diffs provided. Those can be discussed in more appropriate places such as the respective article talk pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The content area of "new/upcoming films/TV shows" isn't that large; if you can't work together one (or both) of you is going to end up with a TBAN which will make you avoid that area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about being able to work together, I have no problem working with Jack when he treats me appropriately. But those moments are fleeting, and it always goes straight back to the swearing and the personal attacks at my talk page, and now threatening me is the next step. I don't want to stop editing these articles again, which is why I came here instead of taking another Wikibreak like I did last time. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally find it difficult to edit collaboratively when you prefer to edit-war instad of talk: that is pretty much the sum total of my issue with you, Adamstom. Well, that, and your assumption that my salty language is directed at you. It is not about you; its the way I talk. When I ask you to revert, it isn't becaus ei am threatening to go all Verbal Fisticuffs™ on you, but because your (imo) OWNy behavior is corrosive to collaborative editing. I absolutely despise editors who discuss via edit summary instead of, you know, actually discussing.

When reverted, go to the talk page, and stay there until you find a solution; don't throw acronyms, use reasoned discussion. Do that, and 98% of our problems vanish like a fart in the wind (well, that and not make ill-advised comments about race). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• To avoid this turning into an even greater wall of text I suggest that Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97 stop the back-and-forth and pretend that, here, they have a limited IBAN and may not post any comment about one another without supporting diffs. This will make it more likely for them to get issues addressed. I generally dislike IBANs but, unless you two can demonstrate some minimal ability to discuss things politely and concisely, I think, based on behavior here and at the linked ANI, that is the way to go. Jbh ^Talk 12:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't like I go looking for the user. I just do my Editing Thang in a fairly limited scope of articles,a and didn't participate in edit-warring. It may seem like a minor distinction, but an important one. It isn't unreasonable to expect discussion in place of edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Not this again!? I have found the OP, adamstom.97, to be a very uncooperative editor, who frequently auto-reverts edits without attempting to discuss first (putting the "status quo" as determined arbitrarily by him above reasoned arguments for changes), expresses a poor understanding of our content policies (particular NOR and V) and behaves in an extremely uncivil manner to anyone who disagrees with him. Jack Sebastian, on the other hand, has a good grasp on policy (even if I don't agree with him a lot of the time) only behaves in a questionable manner when repeatedly pushed and goaded. To the best of my knowledge, the conflict between the two began when adamstom.97 made a remark that could very easily be read as at the very least racially insensitive, and when Jack pointed this out Adam became extremely defensive, insisting multiple times over e course of several months that he "is not a racist", without once considering that perhaps his style of rhetoric could be easily misinterpreted and perhaps he should reform. I have thought for a long time that something would eventually need to be done about adamstom.97's behaviour, but a mutual IBAN with one of the editors whom he has targeted is definitely not the solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I must complement Mr. Sebastian for teaching me a lot about citing sources when I was a new redlink user, I have to say that he can often go way overboard when it comes to deciding what does and doesn't need to be cited in articles and this isn't even the most extreme example (And keep in mind that this is coming from me, someone who is rather strict in enforcing WP:CS and WP:RS myself). You can see our many lengthy debates on Talk Pages related to Gotham (TV series), because in all comic-based movie and TV series articles (such as Amygdala (comics)), he has insisted that every character has to have a reliable source attached to it directly stating that they are the same character from the source material. In his mind, you need a source to directly state that the Batman in Batman Begins is the same Batman from the Batman comic books. I can understand if there was some actual ambiguity as to whether or not a character is the same as a comic character (for instance, a character named John Doe in a DC movie is not an automatic reference to Copperhead), but some things are just common sense. We don't need a source to tell us that Robocop in Robocop 2 is the same character from the original film, now do we? Jack Sebastian is also quick to edit war and can sometimes jump the gun when it comes to threatening WP:ANI. I know that he was warned a long while back by an administrator to beware the BOOMERANG after filing such a report and his heated arguments with users such as AlexTheWhovian (Update - iBAN in progress between the users DarkKnight2149 06:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)) at one point extended to one of them insulting his child, before the conversation poored over to my Talk Page after I intervened. DarkKnight2149 05:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: You may not be aware, but Jack Sebastian and an editor you pinged in the above comment are subject to a two-way interaction ban.[17][18] If the editor you pinged were to comment here, he would likely be blocked, and if Jack replied to you he would run the risk of being accused of skirting the boundaries of the ban, and while I don't doubt that it was a good-faith mistake on your part, it might be a good idea to blank or strike the last sentence of your comment to avoid giving the appearance of trying to bait Jack into violating his IBAN. I looked into the dispute between the users in question back in December, and while there was certainly mudslinging on both sides I found Jack to be generally the less aggressive of the two, so he should not be expected to stand by while something he supposedly said about another editor's child (!?) is relitigated on ANI months after he agreed not to interact with that editor again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I was aware of their many conflicts (a couple of which I tried to derail as a neutral party), but not the iBAN. I have delinked his name and crossed out the mentioning. DarkKnight2149 06:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, you make excellent points in a combative and confrontational fashion. I suggest that you make your excellent points in a friendly, collaborative fashion instead. Try it. That approach works wonders. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I agree with you in general, but I'm really not sure that that approach "works wonders" in the specific topic area of "films and television based on American superhero comics". I've taken it quite a few times (every time I've bothered venturing into that minefield), and met with either so much IDHT and "consensus" (among the same 2-4 editors every time) that I walked away in frustration without accomplishing anything or the same editors jumping out the gate with guns blazing and walked away immediately in disgust. The one exception is when suggestions are made while the articles in question are under GA review. Every time I've seen the problem show up on ANI, the editors at fault filibustered the discussion with massive walls of text. If more admin eyes were watching the articles and their talk pages (or if the community didn't tacitly support the idea that GAISASHIELD) that might force into place a situation where the normal civil cooperative approach worked wonders as it normally does elsewhere on the project, but... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes even solutions proposed during a GA review are dismissed with "it's not OR; it's taken from the primary source", even though "the primary source" is an original combination of mutually contradictory throw-away lines in the film and its direct prequel, and completely different information gleaned from the source material from which the two films were loosely adapted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Potential solution: I'm not taking anyone's side here, but I think a reasonable resolution to this discussion (and a way to end it without blocking anyone) would be a temporary TBAN for Jack Sebastian from Marvel-related film and television articles. This wouldn't be punitive nor a declaration that either user is THE one to blame (or that either one is in the right), but here's my reasoning:

1. Most of the major articles and disputes that Sebastian has been involved in that I have observed have mostly been from comic-related TV and film articles (especially Marvel adaptations), or they have been with users that mainly edit such articles like Adamstom, the iBANNED AlexTheWhovian (Do NOT reply, for your sake; no one has accused you of anything here), Favre1fan93, ETC. The problem with a simple iBAN is that Sebastian has done this with multiple users over time, and it could cause frustrations if Sebastian were to edit an article that Adamstom would normally edit first. Sebastian also seems to edit a wider range of topics than these users do. This would not be a full-on WP:COMICS ban, just a temporary Marvel TV and film ban. Articles pertaining to Marvel Comics, comics, or comic-adapations in general would still be completely on the table. DarkKnight2149 22:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: But Adamstom.97 and co. are the ones behaving disruptively and violating our content policies on those articles, not Jack Sebastian; TBANning the latter would only make the problem worse as then they would be motivated to request TBANs for everyone who points out that they are wrong on the policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Respectfully, it doesn't matter who started it and this isn't about the content itself. Not only have I not seen Adamstom and the others violate anything myself (though I would be 100% open to looking at any diffs sent my way), but there really isn't an excuse for getting into constant battles and being uncivil with other users. Nearly all of these battles have started at these article and with users that edit such articles, and Sebastian has a larger editing range than just Marvel TV/film. Given that the others have contributed moreso to most of these articles, and that Sebastian has been quick to edit war and initiate disagreement in a confrontational manner, it would be far more reasonable (in my opinion) to ban him from these articles than every other editor he has come into contact with. He has also been warned in the past by administrators about using ANI threats as a more of a sword than a shield from disruptive behaviour. The TBAN that I suggested wouldn't be anything substantial (perhaps merely a month or so, depending on what administrators see fit) and would only include Marvel TV and film articles and absolutely nothing else. ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, it deals with incidents of incivility and disruption. With the constant Sebastian/Whovian wars, the situation was settled with a mutual interaction ban. But if Sebastian is continuing to initiate or participate in fights with other users even after, this seems like a viable option. DarkKnight2149 23:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: You need only read any of the articles he works on to see SYNTH, inappropriate use of dated/unreliable sources and other problems rampant, and if you try to fix them you will be met outrageous incivility like this. When one raises a legitimate concern that presenting the Chinese reaction to a film as the one represented by racist internet trolls is inappropriate, he randomly makes it about "liberal vs. conservative".[19] Nearly all of these battles have started at these article and with users that edit such articles, and Sebastian has a larger editing range than just Marvel TV/film. Given that the others have contributed moreso to most of these articles, and that Sebastian has been quick to edit war and initiate disagreement in a confrontational manner, it would be far more reasonable (in my opinion) to ban him from these articles than every other editor he has come into contact with. You should read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; certain editors in an echo chamber have been forcing out the opinions of the wider project, writing articles based on their own poor sourcing standards, pushing them through GAN (which, I can attest as the nominator of a bunch of GAs myself, is not a very scrutinizing process -- most of my reviewers have not even been able to read the sources, but didn't even bring that up), and then using the GA status of the articles to auto-revert edits they don't like. ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, it deals with incidents of incivility and disruption. Actually, ANI doesn't deal with content disputes when all there is is a good-faith content dispute; it deals with edit-warring, violation of content policies and the like all the time, and in fact TBANs are hardly ever placed solely for "incivility" without even looking at the content, as this would be a very bad precedent. And you don't seem to have understood the circumstances that led to the IBAN you have now brought up for the third time (again, this is looking increasingly like baiting) -- it was an unfortunate compromise to get the filibustering to stop, and I know because I was the one who spearheaded it, and it actually spun out of the same Adamstom/Jack dispute as this, which Adam initiated by making a comment that anyone who lives in Asia would very likely interpret as racist, and then ragging on Jack for months with the "I'm not a racist" non-response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sorry if the parenthetical "baiting" bit looks like an assumption of bad faith, but I was the one who convinced Jack to take the voluntary mutual IBAN because I saw him as being harassed, and bringing up another editor's voluntary mutual IBANs as "precedent" for further one-way sanctions is a pretty low-blow. I've had it done to me in the past, and I don't see why Jack should have to put up with it, especially when he is unable to defend himself as this discussion is not about the user with whom he is IBANned. If you do not stop bringing it up having now been warned, I think a one-way sanction of some sort should be put in place for you. Again, you admitted that you didn't even know about the IBAN until yesterday, and you clearly haven't read through the long discussion that led to it in the mean time, as you are saying you have not seen any of the diffs that were presented there, as you said above I [have] not seen Adamstom and the others violate anything myself (though I would be 100% open to looking at any diffs sent my way). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Did you just threaten me? Because it sounds to me that you are using ANI more to promote your WikiProject goals and your issues against Adamstom than anything else. I have known Sebastian a lot longer than I have known you, and you may recall that he was one of the users that you accused me of canvassing. If you begin WP:SANCTIONGAMING again, I will be more than happy to take you to the Arbitration Committee, because I still have evidence on you collated from the last incident and it's pretty damning (along with the four other users that assisted you). We're not going to have a repeat of the last incident. If you don't like what I have to say, I suggest that you do not reply to me at all. The last thing we need our past dispute being dragged into the middle of this.

"And you don't seem to have understood the circumstances that led to the IBAN you have now brought up for the third time" - Actually, I am well aware of the heated wars and personal attacks that went on for months between Alex and Sebastian. Not only have I observed several of these instances but, as previously pointed out, they at one point spilled over onto my Talk Page when I calmly intervened. I have also personally observed the behaviour I named from him, such as him being quick to edit war, quick to threaten ANI, making unreasonable demands when it comes to citing sources (some of which I have named above) in an overtly confrontational manner, him constantly getting into fights with other users, and multiple users on this thread have pointed out very similar behaviour. Not only that but, in the diffs you just showed me, Adam is clearly peeved but I would hardly call them uncivil enough to warrant sanctions. In fact, I'd say your assumption of WP:BADFAITH is easily more disruptive than Adam's words in those diffs, which you probably put forth to spark another dispute in hopes of inviting Drmies to help you drive me out of the discussion (and, trust me, there will be no dispute between us here; either you ignore what I have to say, we reply to each other civilly, or it's off to ArbCom the moment you attempt something). I'm not taking the bait.

I'm not using the IBAN as a precedent for anything. I'm using Jack Sebastian's past behaviour as precedent for this. And reading the comments of other users on this post, including administrators, it's clear that I'm not the only one who has observed this behaviour from him for the past few years. Show me some genuinely undeniable disruptive and uncivil behaviour from Adamstom, and maybe I will drop my proposal. But even then, getting into constant fights with people who edit a very specific topic (in this case, Marvel TV/film) definitely warrants the question of a TBAN. Whereas you are more concerned about content differences, I am more concerned about genuine disruption. DarkKnight2149 01:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're the one who brought up Alex three times in a row, twice after I told you not to. The fact is that the IBan between the two was mutual and voluntary on both editors' parts, so trying to bring it up as a precedent for a further one-way sanction is inappropriate, and putting Jack in a position where he is unable to respond to your comments because they relate to an unrelated sanction that he subjected himself to but he is unable to discuss without potentially getting blocked is at the very best highly inappropriate, and is looking increasingly like deliberate WP:SANCTIONGAMING. (Might as well ping User:Black Kite to back up my assertion that the Alex/Jack IBAN was voluntary and mutual, and so should not be used as a precedent for "Jack is a bad boy who should be further sanctioned"; I've seen Alex engage in some pretty disruptive behaviour since the ban, but it never occurred to me to randomly throw Jack's name into the discussion and present it as though Alex had been sanctioned for his incivility.) Given that you are only allowed post here because a gracious and merciful admin decided to overrule consensus for a TBAN of unspecified (i.e., indefinite) length (an appeal of which would have required you to acknowledge some degree of wrongdoing rather simply waiting it out and then pretending nothing had happened) with one with a fixed term, you are really playing with fire making partisan, one-sided proposals while ignoring the diffs of disruption on the part of the other side. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I did not read most of DK's long post above beyond the edit summary and the first sentence, and was not aware that he'd already pinged Drmies -- ironically with the claim that Drmies is some kind of shill for me, even though he's blocked me more than anyone else and ... some other stuff that I'm really not happy talking about. If anything, the fact that I was not the first to invoke DK's previous sanctions in the relevant topic area demonstrates that I am not the one holding a grudge here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you are not the boss of me. Second, by continuing to state "The fact is that the IBan between the two was mutual and voluntary on both editors' parts, so trying to bring it up as a precedent for a further one-way sanction is inappropriate" demonstrates that you clearly didn't read half of what I said. I also never implied that Sebastian is the only person in the wrong in all of this. Until you can be more appropriate, I'm afraid I have said all I have to say to you. I know what you are attempting and my warning is final. If you expect me to argue with you here or dive into the past, we most certainly won't be doing so here. I won't be surprised if this little encounter of ours doesn't get hatted off by someone who is probably wondering what the heck we're even talking about. Such a threat and assumption of bad faith was clearly very deliberate, inappropriate and, given our history, biased - "And you don't seem to have understood the circumstances that led to the IBAN you have now brought up for the third time (again, this is looking increasingly like baiting)... If you do not stop bringing it up having now been warned, I think a one-way sanction of some sort should be put in place for you." DarkKnight2149 02:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I read your first several comments from start to finish before replying, but the last was mostly a response to your edit summary and opening sentence; I have no further desire to read your off-topic attacks on me. You cannot invoke a mutual, voluntary IBAN as evidence for further one-way sanctions (I know this from experience -- I've been the subject of three mutual, voluntary IBANs in the past, and two of them have been used in attempts to get further sanctions on me in unrelated disputes). And you definitely did propose a one-way sanction for Jack, regardless of whether you implied that Sebastian is the only person in the wrong in all of this (something I never accused you of implying). Please stop lashing out at me for politely telling you to stop, like you have just done above (and on my talk page); it can almost be guaranteed that it will not end well for you, even if I myself would much rather this whole thread were closed as a trainwreck and everyone went their separate ways with no sanctions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh. Jack, I don't even remember what we were once in a dispute about, but you really need to chill out man. I wish you would take some advice and agree to do so, and show a little personal perspective on the issue. GMG^talk 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If we had a dispute, GreenMeansGo it must have either been so long ago or something so small that I don't recall, either.

It's totally true that I could probably be a lot less snippy with others when dissent arises. I utterly despise OWN-y behavior, and do see a lot of that in comic-book related articles. When editing there, I am - 9 times out of 10 - tagging uncited material (as an aside, DK made a snarky comment about how I'd ask for a citation of Batman Beyond to the Batman; that isn't true, but it does bear pointing out that the Batman depicted in BB is not the Batman from the comic books). Entertainment-related articles very often get crufty with fan forum stuff, so they need the extra attention.

Since I don't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia, I focus on putting out the little fires and making the little course corrections that I can. DK opined that I am always the edit-warrior here is at best missing recent history as well as the point: I am almost always the one who initiates discussion, or suggests widening the loop via RfC when problems cannot get sorted out between two editors.

While I have interests outside comic book and comic book film- and tv-adaptations, I enjoy cleaning those up. I am not interested in a topic ban that removes half of my reason for editing.

I am not blameless in this; I have admitted that I am 'God's Little Unfinished Art Project', and often have trouble suffering unpleasant people. But I will make more of an effort to do so. If they get to out of hand, I will just widen the observational loop so that others can weigh in on what I think is poopy-head behavior. No more calling anyone a "harsh douche-canoe" unless a consensus opinion emerges that they are indeed such.

Does that solve the problem? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I said Batman Begins and not Beyond, and the comment wasn't intended to be snarky as much as it was to point out that you can be a bit too extreme at times when it comes to citing sources. However, with that aside, everything else you said does sound somewhat understandable and my only concern here is the edit warring, incivility, ETC, which has also been mutual at times and not 100% just you. I am willing to drop my proposal on the terms that you make more of an effort to be less confrontational and try to deal with the incivility of others better. When you return insults and whatnot, administrators will see it as equally disruptive, even if you didn't start it. DarkKnight2149 05:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, I can't speak for Hijiri88, but do feel obligated to apologise that our little encounter interrupted this discussion, especially considering that this discussion is about avoiding confrontations. DarkKnight2149 05:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the irony wasn't lost on me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't commented here in a bit since it seemed to be going off-topic and I was busy with some real world stuff. To keep this simple, this is not about any particular content issues. Jack and I can sort those out fine ourselves, even if it may take a while. This section is simply about some of Jack's specific behaviour. I don't volunteer my time to improving this Wikipedia just to be sworn at, accused of racism and be subjected to racist comments by the same person, or to be threatened on my own talk page. Regardless of who is being more stubborn and borderline-disruptive (I believe that Jack and I are pretty even on that one given I like to revert first, start a discussion if it is still a problem later, and Jack likes to keep his personal version of an article first and change it if new consensus is formed against him, neither of which seem to be ideal), this behaviour is not okay and I would like him to at least be warned about talking to other editors or threatening them moving forward. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: @Jack Sebastian: This discussion has become barren in terms of activity. If you can both agree to try to be non-confrontational in your disagreements, then I don't see any reason for this to continue or for anyone to be sanctioned. Right now, separate users on this page have accused both sides of disruptive activity but if you can show that this sort of thing won't be happening again or on a continued basis, I imagine administrators wouldn't have any issue with closing this discussion without sanctions. DarkKnight2149 19:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down now. Hopefully we can move forward without further issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Things certainly are calm when everyone else just chooses to ignore adamstom.97's continued refusal to focus on content or engage in civil discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Dammit. I thought this had just about wrapped. At any rate, I would encourage the next commentor to instill an Arbitrary Break. This probably isn't ending until an administrator intervenes. DarkKnight2149 21:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri's problem

The discussion that our friend Hijiri88 has brought up is about a small disagreement that we have had over at Jessica Jones (season 2). In typical Hijiri fashion, it has to be a big deal and involve random personal comments and references to completely different discussions, rather than allowing us to just discuss the issue at hand. Either way, there is no edit warring or anything going on there, so I'm not sure why it had to be brought up here. I've started a new subsection per Darkknight2149's suggestion, but I hope the discussion can be wrapped up shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see anything blatantly disruptive in the diff that Hijiri provided. It just appeared to be you asking him to stay on topic and not make personal comments, which is a reasonable request. If it has nothing to do with the incivility or edit warring between you and Sebastian, then it honestly didn't need to be brought up (at least, not here). ANI is for reports of incidents of genuine disruptive behaviour, not for:

• Content disagreements
• To help specific users achieve their desired result in a discussion or civil dispute
• To neutralise or fan the flames against users you disagree with, or to help further one's WikiProject goals.

Frankly, if the incivility between you and Sebastian is over, we might as well close this before there's more stirring of the pot. DarkKnight2149 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Violation of IBAN by Alansohn

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

---

It has only been about a week and a half since an IBAN was enacted against Alansohn here. I have kept up my end of the agreement and not nominated any article for deletion which Alansohn has made a significant contribution to. However, Alansohn has violated his IBAN in reply to an AfD discussion that I started in this edit In the ANI discussion it was specifically proposed that "This would specifically mean no participation in AfDs started by Rusf10". As is usual, Alansohn does not follow the rules and the ban needs to be enforced.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin Sharif for reference. Responding to and arguing directly against the nomination by Rusf10 (linking WP:POLITICIAN etc) is exactly the drama the imposed sanctions were intended to avoid. Do we need to vote or can an admin impose a sanction without a vote? Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot take administrative action here because I am involved as a participant in the AfD. However, this appears to me to be a clearcut violation of the IBAN. Can an uninvolved administrator take a closer look? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless the IBAN is two-way, it's unfair. It's bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The IBAN has a matching TBAN Baseball Bugs. It's hardly bogus and is easy to follow. Alansohn has zero edits [20] to the page nominated to AfD and zero reason to be on that page. Rusf10 is 100% in the clear here on his restriction. I'd be all over Rusf10 too if he was flaunting his TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacy I have to strongly disagree with you saying Alansohn has zero reason to be there. How can you ignore his long history of involvement with New Jersey articles. If anything related to NJ is up for deletion, you have to expect Alan might take part in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what excuse Alan uses for being there, the IBAN was clear. It's his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior of New Jersey that started this problem anyway, no one should be enforcing his claim of ownership.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I struck the comment but I would not object to an admin taking some action to push the point home. Alansohn had to have the IBAN placed by the community as opposed to Rusf10 simply agreeing to his. Also, as I remember the last ANI, he has done nothing to accept that he has been part of the problem and must work to be part of the solution. Since there is really only one way to get a recalcitrant editor's attention it is probably time to start the whole 'escalating blocks' game. Jbh ^Talk 00:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• No matter what excuse someone can create for Alansohn, the community came to a clear agreement on an I-ban (Alan)/T-ban (Rus) combo. Rus agreed to his conditions, but Alan never accepted that he was part of the problem, and this blatant violation tells me he did not hear the community the first time. A block is the obvious result.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Then Rusf should be blocked for the same length of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • That makes no sense, Bugs, unless you have detected something that none of the rest of us have. Rusf may be a determined deletionist, but they have not violated an IBAN or a TBAN. It appears that Alansohn has. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It appears that the OP is fishing for violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The case for blocking Baseball Bugs for CIR based on his comments here is much stronger than for blocking Rusf10 who was going about his own business until Alansohn came around to challenge his AfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The OP didn't need to cast their line that far then if "fishing" is how you are describing it. Alan committed a blatant violation, and I question your motive to outright ignore it. For somehow who wanted to be an admin, this is not something you should be blind to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've asked on Alansohn's talk if he can justify that edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

He claims User_talk:Alansohn#Interaction_ban_with_user:Rusf10 there was no violation even though his conduct at Rusf10 AfDs is the primary reason for the IBAN and there was very specific discussion on the IBAN that this would prevent him from commenting on Risf10 AfDs. Evidently he has no intention of leaving Rusf10 AfDs alone. Either he needs a block to drive the point home or we need to clarify the IBAN scope to include all AfDs by Rusf10. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Obvious topic ban violation and gaming going on. Blocked 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Good block- this was quite obviously an attempt to WP:GAME the interaction ban. Reyk _YO! 09:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Are local councillors the new schools? Alansohn managed to override WP:NOTDIR for schools, I sincerely hope the same is not happening for local councillors, because that would be a potential BLP nightmare due to the fallacy of misleading vividness and the small amount of coverage most councillors get outside of moments of passing controversy. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Alansohn's repeated insistence on overriding consensus and adding directorial trivia in NJ school articles and localities has resulted in many conflicts. Up to now he has been able to bully, harass, and wikilawyer away responsible editors away from New Jersey school articles. He does a lot of good work, but there are costs to allowing this behavior, many thanks to those who have responded to it here. Again, he does MUCH good work, but his hard-headed ownership has caused New Jersey articles to be out of step with other areas of the encyclopedia. Hopefully he will see there are limits, and that there is power in cooperating with others. Thanks, keep up the good work! Jacona (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate removal of NPP rights

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

---

Hello. I have been doing NPP for a number of years - not with extensive frequency, since real life prevents me from being on Wikipedia on a daily basis. My NPP rights were removed by Kudpung after one of his friends complained about my removal of an inappropriate G11 tag that he placedUser talk:And Adoil Descended#Note. Kudpung is claiming there is a "use it or lose it" rule for NPP editors if editors fail to meet X-number of edits in a X-specific frame, but no such rule exists. In view that no such "use it or lose it" rule for NPP exists and that an NPP admin is on record stating the G11 tag was inappropriately placed, I would appreciate the restoration of my NPP rights. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• ADDs archived their talkpage - For historical purposes Kudpungs note etc is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:And_Adoil_Descended&diff=833765251&oldid=833761225#Note, –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure that Kudpung erred. There may be more involved than at first glance.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Wikipedia rule that clearly and specifically states that NPP reviewers must perform X-number of edits in an X-specific time frame. That's a very simple request. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

More concerned with your removal of a G11 tag on a clearly G11 article. In my opinion, your judgment may be lacking. Your misread of Tony's note-- the reference here since removed-- as well. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

<ec>And then there is your participation and arguments at the related AfD. As I said. There is more here that needs looking at before we restore that which you have lost.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• @And Adoil Descended:^{Replying to this version, before AAD refactored their original message} I'm afraid that's irrelevant. Permissions, however advanced, are granted in order that they aid the encyclopaedia. If one does not use them, one does not need them; and when one makes edits that call one's competency to use them into question, one should expect them to be revoked. Your case, I'm afraid, is fundamentally undermined by the fact that, although you say that TB agreed with your removal of the G11 tag, in fact he said precisely the opposite: "I would have G11'd it," meaning, he would have deleted the page per the tag. Combined other behavioural factors—your accusing editors of being "friends" pejoratively, criticising their spelling and calling them immature, and that they're "out for revenge"—I think Kudpung was well within community norms in revoking your flag. I think you'll find a general consensus that if one is bringing those particular qualities to new page reviewing, then the encyclopaedia is probably better off you not doing so. IMHO, of course.—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, removing my flag after one allegedly wobbly edit after years of my doing NPP without issue? And, for the second time, please provide a link to the Wikipedia rule that clearly and specifically states that NPP reviewers must perform X-number of edits in an X-specific time frame. That's is not irrelevant. For a site that is burdened with policies and guidelines, clearly there has to be a specific rule on which editors are allowed to perform NPP duties and which cannot. If there is no such rule, then it is obvious this site is governed by capricious behavior. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not really; it's governed by people making bold edits under implicit community oversight. That's the process we see in operation now: Kudpung was bold in removing your flag, and the community consensus will doubtles be that he was cortect in doing so. Happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• With regards to New Page Patrol, I found this our page for the New Page Reviewers:

Guidelines for revocation

The user right can be revoked for violating any of the above conduct standards and for other misconduct. Additionally, it can be revoked at any time by an administrator without any process or prior notice in any of the following circumstances:

• The editor has demonstrated a pattern of performing obviously controversial reviews without first determining consensus.
• The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in new users being offended or discouraged.
• The editor has used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes.
• The editor has performed any blatant vandalism (not limited to page reviewer vandalism).
• The editor has failed to report to an administrator after noticing unauthorized use of their account or otherwise neglected account security practices.
• The editor has been inactive for 12 months or more.
• The editor has accepted or solicited payment in return for reviews.

Additionally, the right may be removed immediately at the self-request of the editor. Appeals of revocation should be made in the first instance to the revoking administrator, failing which, a further appeal can be made at the Administrators' noticeboard (not ANI).

Frankly, this is the first time I've heard about a "use it or loose it" criteria for anything other than admin tools, so I doubt very much so that there is a such a mandate. I see nothing mentioned at Wikipedia:User access levels suggesting any of the user rights on site have such a limitation, and unless someone can produce evidence that there is a time limit for editors to use additionally granted user rights before they can be unilaterally rescinded I'd say restore and then obtain community consensus for a removal. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

One other little thought on this brain train: Typically, those who complain the loudest about being or not being able to do something are the one doing the most harm, so even if there is no clear consensus for a use it or lose it position there may still be consensus for disarming and confiscating privileges if the community thinks it isn't worth the grief they have to put up with when dealing with someone who has the privileges. Food for thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Highly appropriate revocation.Mostly per Dloh and SN54129, who has highlighted the core of the issue, quite succinctly.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And, Adoil has not done a single review, after getting the flag, as brilliantly displayed at the concerned log.So, all in all, this's much ado about nothing.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time, and let's try get a specific answer to my request and not sarcastic commentary on my personality or vain attempts to change the subject: Please provide a link to the specific Wikipedia rule that clearly states NPP reviewers must make X-amount of edits in an X-specific time frame. If no such rule exists, then the revocation of my NPP reviewer status based on the quantity of editing I produced over the past 12 months was inappropriate - it is not a case of WP:BOLD, but an example of an admin making up his own rules as he goes along, which is not what one should tolerate in a group encyclopedia publishing endeavor. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And as for my new page patrol history, I've been doing this for years without incident: [21] And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I see lots of redlinked patrolled pages so without an associated TW CSD log or Detetion tag log that brings up some concerns. You have made zero use of the Page Curration Tool. NPP is not just marking pages patrolled, it is insuring those pages meet Wikipedia's minimum inclusion criteria. I see no evidence that that is what you are doing when you 'patrol' a page. Maybe you are doing everything manually but that means it is very hard to review your patrolling performance. If you are able to continue NPP please use the tools provided or, at a minimum, enable CSD logging so your actions may be more easily reviewed. Forgot to make it clear. I support the removal of +reviewer based on this Jbh ^Talk 14:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC) last edited: 14:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Admins are human and can err. Just as Adoil (not too politely) pointed out a typo, Winged Blades of Godric had pointed out an error I made. I corrected it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung Please provide the link to the Wikipedia rule that specifically states the rights of a NPP reviewer can be revoked unless that reviewer produces X-amount of edits in an X-specific time frame. If there is no "use it or lose it" rule related to this function of NPP reviewing, then please restore the rights that you inappropriately (and "none too politely") revoked concerning after a single edit. Admins may be "human and can err," but that is no excuse for making up your rules because you don't like something. Thank you. 13:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like User:And Adoil Descended is no longer listening; repeating the same mantra over and over =/= discussion, and you have now been told multiple times by multiple editors what the myriad issues are, yet in all your responses you have not addressed them. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like User:Serial Number 54129 is no longer listening, nor has he been able to produce a link to a "use it or lose it" rule regarding NPP reviews. You cannot just make up your own rules and then get snippy if someone complains that chaos is replacing policy. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Caveat: Uninvolved, and I have not reviewed the specifics of this case.) And Adoil Descended: A piece of advice - the path you're currently on in this discussion, repeating demands, wikilawyering, behavior bordering on BLUDGEONING, mocking other editor's remarks, etc. is not one that's liable to end up in a good result for you. It will not help you regain your NPP right, and is far more likely to convince an admin that you need an enforced time-out, i.e. a block. I'd suggest that you take a deep breath, let this issue die, and move on to do something else constructive for the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• You had the NPR flag removed due to making a bad call; the fact that it has been pointed out that you never use it anyway (for accuracy, your last fifty pages patrolled goes back to...January 20167) is merely detail. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this is moving towards a bigger problem for the OP, IMO. There is no indication of any attempt to discuss this with Kudpung (if I'm wrong, diffs please), the first step indicated in the policy. Instead, there are plenty of apersions and IDHT to go around. I have the NPP flag, I don't use it much and no one has indicated that I'm going to lose it if I don't use it more. Pretty obviously, the issue is how you used it, not how much you used it. It would probably be better for the OP to internalize what's been said here and move on, rather than continuing to rail. John from Idegon (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, my time is being wasted. No one can produce a link to a clearly specified "use it or lose it" rule regarding NPP rights, which was the basis of my request for help. And, quite frankly, removing the flag based on a single edit was capricious and mean-spirited and far outside the established NPP rules. I was under the impression that this website operated by a clear set of rules and policies. My bad. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@SerialNumber54129, January 2017, you mean? Personally, I completely disagree with the removal of the right, it's not in line with the reasons for removal quoted above. Nobody has pointed out any incorrect use of the tool, so why remove it? Even if the user only occasionally makes use of the right, every little helps (and saying having users who only rarely use it screws up your statistics is just... what??). The right was basically removed on the basis of one action (removing a CSD G11 tag) which was arguable correct anyway (given that the AfD garnered keep votes). Subsequent to that people who desperately want that article deleted (and no call on my part if that is the right decision or not, I haven't examined the article closely) have started making up all sorts of reasons ("rhetoric", "NEVER used the right... okay, only used it 50 times in the last two years.... oh okay, in the last year I mean" wait... isn't that rhetoric too?) but the initial removal is highly questionable, and given that nobody has actually pointed out the user misusing the right (apart from wildly guessing based on some redlinks in the patrol log) I can't really understand any justification for them not keeping the right. That said, I agree somewhat that the way the user is going about raising this issue is far from ideal - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; well spotted, and I've changed it. No, not rhetoric at all, by any definition of the word. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just seems that using words like "never" with regard to the usage of the right, and in the same sentence having to clarify that when you say "never" you actually mean "rarely", comes a cross as a little rhetorical. The way I see it, even if they only rarely patrol, if those patrols are correct, then that's a net positive for the project. It's not like we have a limited number of NPP flags we can hand out - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The specific incident aside, I think it's problematic for a user whose opinion of this is "no problem with the referencing" to have NPR. I think Kudpung made a good call. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• While I have never been a fan of unilateral removal of user rights unless in extreme situations, this is certainly within the administrator's discretion; for relevant revocation criteria, see WP:NPR #Guidelines for revocation. Given diffs provided above, this is a case where a largely inactive user made a grossly bad call, and continues to insist that they are correct despite of comments from several other experienced editors (including the administrator that they have apparently "misunderstood" and misquoted). This is a not a editor that clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control, therefore I endorse the removal of NPR flag. This thread should be closed. Alex Shih (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Kudpung has hit the nail on the head and I'll repeat it here: "What's so important in having a user right if one has no intention of using it? "[22] - WP:NPR does clearly state and I quote " to have made at least 500 uncontested edits to mainspace articles" .... And Adoil Descended you haven't even hit 100 edits since 2012 and as noted above you don't even use the NPR tool so the millionaire dollar question is Why on earth are you making all of this fuss over something you don't use ? ....

I'll also add Kudpung is a fair and firm editor who for me at least makes the best judgements - Sure I don't agree with every call they've made but I'd certainly say I've agreed with 99% of the judgements and actions they've made ..... and again I agree with their judgement and actions here ..... If you don't use the damn right why care over it being revoked ?

Grow up, Accept the user right revocation and move on, All this dramah is just childish especially when it's over something so trivial. –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

For an example of a new article cleaned up by Adoil, see [23]. There are many changes that need be made or at least tagged if he were patrolling this article. I agree with the removal of the right. We don't need articles half-patrolled. Natureium (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, looking at what they've done today, Jovan Simić already exists on srwiki, and the difference between the two seems to be on the level of a few words at best, not to mention having an obviously copyrighted watermarked permission-less image on Commons linked to in the text. So that's been cleaned up, rather than simply tagging as non-English. Looking at Anthony Vos, whew boy. If that ain't G11 then it's by virtue of having enough sheer content that, like rearranging word magnets on a fridge (while removing 90% of the article) you might be able to come up with something approaching neutrality. Anthony had made a drastic decision to leave all current business for what it was, and to discover where his horizons were as a manager. Good for Anthony. I hope it works out for him, but it's still completely unsourced without even an external link, and should probably have gone BLPPROD before it went AfD, even if you are generous with your interpretation of G11. GMG^talk 17:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And Adoil Descended Hi. WP:NPR clearly state "to have made at least 500 uncontested edits to mainspace articles." At WP:PERM, i have seen requests being rejected of users who have made a lot if edits (more than 20-30-40,000) but not recently. The denying admin (including Kudpung) responds something similar to this: "a lot of policies have changes since you edited actively. Kindly come back after 2-3 months after demonstrating good understanding of the policies." I think the same logic can be applied for revocation as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• In case the person posing the question still hasn't got it, the policy supporting the removal of this right is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The principle that is more important than any precise wording of the policy or guideline about granting a user right is that nobody who has shown that they don't have the necessary competence should keep or be granted any such right. I have had at least one serious disagreement with Kudpung in the past, but in this case he is obviously acting correctly in the best interests of building this encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Query And Adoil Descended, did you partake in the AfD's under discussion below at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_issues_at_AfD? If so, could you please discuss your reasoning?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• This smacks of either trolling or harassment, but in any case is rather unsavoury, and doesn't bode well for ADD's ultimate takeaway from this. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled across this discussion, and followed it up some, even though I'm not involved in the article or the NPP issue. Looking at the discussion above, I don't have the patience to sift through everything to develop an opinion on whether And Adoil Descended should lose his NPP rights. However, I do think that he was correct in removing a Speedy Deletion tag from an article that was already at AfD. The original nominator stated that he didn't think it qualified for G11. Since the article wasn't a BLP or Copyvio, there's little harm in allowing it to stay up for the course of the AfD - during the AfD, there's a big banner on top which makes it clear the article may not be reliable. Short-circuiting the process is a greater harm than allowing a crappy article to exist for two or three more days, and AAD was correct to remove the G11. Again, I don't have an opinion on whether removing his NPP rights is the correct decision or not. Argyriou (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is not short-circuiting the process. That's clearly an appropriate G11 tagging. AfD's do sometimes close as "speedy deletion".--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Further sluggish thought. The short-circuiting occurred when they detagged the article. It would have been better, and less disruptive, to allow an admin to decide whether they would accept or decline the G11. Had I seen it before the WP:COI keeps (those who have worked on an article often disagree w/ deletion) I'd have deleted it as G11.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Taking a position on whether Billy Graham's death was a "profound loss"

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

---

In principle, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity is for all Wikipedians. However, they are planning to publish a newsletter proclaiming that the death of Billy Graham was "a profound loss". Not everyone would necessarily agree with that. Maintaining this is obviously not in the best interest of having a pluralistic community project. So, what say ye? Shall we vet our Christian WikiProject's communications? un [24]

@Lionelt: who claims it's a-okay.

jps (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think Billy Graham was a dangerous influence on the White House and a pernicious influence in general. He was antisemitic and an anti-gay bigot. But I suppose it's possible to be all those things and also a Christian who would be missed.... by other Christians. Will the Wikiproject be presenting all views? NPOV sort of dictates that it should. - Nunh-huh 01:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that he would be missed by most Christians, their vast majority are either Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or mainline Protestant, so to them he was either a heretic or a fanatic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, of course Billy Graham tried to stop JFK from becoming president because he was Catholic, but for much of his "ministry" Graham was committed to helping Catholics "become" Christian :). - Nunh-huh 01:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me be the first to point our that ANI is: the wrong venue. Second, I have added a Byline, so no longer is there a question of whether it is the Wikiproject's voice. It's attributed as my opinion.– Lionel^(talk) 01:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Who appointed you the newsletter writer to push out your POV to the entire WikiProject? Was there some sort of election that made you in charge of disseminating this? jps (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Billy Graham was a con-artist. He got rich & influential, by brain washing others. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Someone close this. GMG^talk 01:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • How would you have them close this? It looks to me like we may need to shut down the newsletter. That seems administrator-level appropriate. jps (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The way the section header is phrased, it implies Graham was a Wikipedian or something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Arguably, one could read that interpretation in the wording of the current newsletter as well. If you want to rename the section, go ahead. jps (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

jps, the discussion is here. Why don't you join us.– Lionel^(talk) 01:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my attempt to fix the problem, Lionel. That discussion says nothing about the problem. jps (talk)

Since I am unaware of any evidence that Graham was an active Wikipedia editor, then his unsurprising death at 99 cannot possibly be any kind of loss for Wikipedia. On the other hand, the death of anyone is likely to be a profound loss to some people. So, if this is a signed opinion piece in a topical newsletter, and is intended to communicate Graham's importance in the history of a certain strand of American Christianity, I do not see any problem with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Profound loss to a certain strand of American Christianity" would be at least pluralistic. See if you can get that edit to stick, though. jps (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in editing a Christian oriented newsletter since I am Jewish. My interest is in calming down a dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Lionel's comment that at this stage, this is a matter for Talk page discussion, and support Majora's close. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• @ජපස and Lionelt: Please resolve this dispute on the disputed content's talk page. Alternatively, we have an requests-for-comment / village pump process for handling general concerns on policies (and/or lack thereof) related to the content of newsletter/outreach mass-messages from Wikiprojects. ANI is typically for relatively urgent issues requiring the attention of administrators—not content disputes. --slakr^{\ talk /} 01:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As the other user is attempting to get this newsletter out essentially as soon as possible, how do you suggest this proceed? Is there another venue that can call attention to a time-sensitive matter like this as quickly? Close if you must, but I honestly don't know where else to turn. jps (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  @ජපස: As far as I can tell, it's an opt-in newsletter, so most likely the people who will be receiving it aren't entirely inexperienced with a slight religious slant from their fellow subscribers, so it doesn't strike me as an emergency that must be resolved immediately—I could be wrong. If this were an unsolicited mass-message sent to the entire user base, I'd be more concerned, but I'd simply recommend people take a breath and resolve the content dispute issues before sending the message, if possible. Wikiprojects are in no way official organizations and they don't speak with the voice of Wikipedia/Wikimedia or unilaterally dictate to the community. The main admin-level concerns are likely with meeting Wikipedia:Mass_message_senders#Guidance_for_use and Wikipedia:Canvassing, but NPOV isn't really something we require talk-page discussions or mass messages to adhere to (yet?), but in my opinion, the Right™ thing to do would be for those involved to see that at least some people disagree with the content and that gaining consensus first is ideally the best course of action to avoid ill sentiment and possibly-avoidable arguments, but the choice is really more how one wants one's short-term actions to be perceived in the long run. --slakr^\ talk / 01:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well it appears that you've made exactly one edit to WikiProject Christianity ever, which happened after this discussion began. So my main question is whether we should have a boomerang discussion regarding opening this thread, and then reverting to keep it open in order to prove a point about at WikiProject you have absolutely nothing to do with. GMG^talk 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT? Is your argument? Why? jps (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Like slakr, I'm not sure what administrators can do to respond to this. Whether or not the newsletter should continue or be "shut down" is not something that an administrator can just decide by fiat – get a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, instead. Similarly, that talk page could also be used to discuss the style/content/presentation of the newsletter moving forward. Accordingly, I would also suggest that this be closed with a recommendation to continue the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a newsletter. It's not a wikipedia article. It's. A. News. Letter. This isn't even remotely the right place for this. Please spend your time improving articles. --Tarage (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for reopening this, but unlike some commentators above I find that jps' complaint has merit. Also, I don't see there's a legitimate content discussion to be had here; it's a straightforward matter of enforcing policy. To that end, I have removed the offending bit from the newsletter draft, and I'm fully prepared to use admin tools if necessary to keep it out.

"The death of XY was a huge loss", where XY is a controversial political/religious figure, is a contentious political statement of opinion. A WikiProject newsletter is a means of mass-crossposting messages across user talk pages. We do not use mass postings on user talkpages to promote contentious ideological messages. It's immaterial whether it's done by an individual user via mass copying, or through the vehicle of a project newsletter. It's also immaterial whether the opinion is attributed to the wikiproject as a whole or to an individual author's byline. It's even immaterial whether the message actually matches a consensus opinion of the wikiproject's membership, or of the majority of the intended recipients. Political messages of opinion unrelated to our common goal of writing an encyclopedia are simply a no-go, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

C'mon. When I go to a funeral or wake and the eulogist says "X was a good man", and I know full well that the guy was a bastard, I don't jump up and rant about how X once stole my pocket watch, I just sit quietly and hold my peace. Such statements are pro-forma social niceties, not in-depth analyses of the dead person's character. I see the statement about Billy Graham in the same light -- not really worth making a fuss over. Me, I didn't much like him, but he wasn't the devil incarnate either. He -- or rather the statement about him by co-religionists -- is simply not worth the agida. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTAFUNERAL? Wikipedia projectspace isn't a great place for eulogizing a controversial public figure based only on the opinions of editors. WikiProjects are for improving articles, not eulogizing their controversial subjects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just one word for you, and then I'll back out of this ridiculous food fight: analogy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Your lack of respect for the opinions of other editors, as well as your threat to use your admin tools to enforce your own involved action, is an unwelcome escalation of this situation. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Further note: I have reverted Fut.Perf.'s removal. Such a unilateral attempt to impose one admin's wishes on everyone else without discussion cannot be tolerated. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed again. I still regard this as a straightforward administrative matter of enforcing policy, not a content dispute, so I won't feel any qualms about "involvement" if I should have to protect the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And now that you've violated 3RR, we'll see if anyone is willing to hold you accountable. Lepricavark (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall having provided any links, but I do stand corrected about the policy. Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Was just using the EW noticeboard template. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty involved protection though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fut.Perf., I think you need to take a second and consider whether that was the wisest course of action. GMG^talk 19:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if was the "wisest" course of action; it clearly was the right action though. As clear and unambiguous a case of enforcing policy as preventing a copyright violation or an NFC breach. There simply cannot be a legitimate disagreement among good-faith Wikipedians whether it is legitimate to spam hundreds of user talkpages with political messages of opinion. It simply isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You should've asked another admin to protect. One admin deciding what is NPOV and protecting that version is not good. NPOV applies to encyclopedic content and certainly hasn't applied to stuff like the Signpost. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I find this attitude to be highly alarming. You don't get to determine whether other people can legitimately disagree with you. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, why was this admin protected? That's a pretty extreme response to a disagreement. I think this is a completely inappropriate action for an involved admin to take. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Even though I tend to regard televangelism as the most insidious way Satan has crept into the Church yet, this really does strike me as a content dispute that should be resolved with reliable sourcing. Yes, NPOV is policy and sure (for the sake of argument and because I don't feel like reading every line right now) I'll not argue against applying it to newsletters. But it's a content policy that doesn't have carte blanche to override procedural policies in the way BLP does. I understand where Future Perfect at Sunrise is coming from but have to disagree with his actions, even they're the same moves I'd be making if I was the only editor involved here. As such, it was completely inappropriate for him to protect the page.

That said, this content dispute is verging on an edit war (and will certainly become one if the page is unprotected) so I'm not unprotecting the page (I would not have objected to anyone else protecting the page). But I'd like to see discussion on the newsletter's talk page with sources for and against "great loss" weighed to decide how they should be summarized. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

? It's projectspace, but even if it were articlespace, what sort of sourcing discussion could possibly result in an article that says, in Wikipedia's voice, that someone's dying was a "profound loss"? At best it would be attributed, directly or collectively. Regardless, that a particular positive statement about a controversial figure might be appropriate for an article when accompanied by proper sourcing doesn't mean it's an appropriate use of projectspace any more than it would be appropriate to have a newsletter go out with an offhand comment that said "bigot Billy Graham died" because several sources called him a bigot (in case it's not clear to anyone -- I'm not advocating we do this -- just trying to pose the opposite). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I endorse FP's actions. He said he was acting administratively, so I don't see how full protection makes him involved. More importantly, the project should not use Wikipedia resources to express opinions about controversial figures. They can report on things that affect their project, including the death of Bill Graham and the blurb posted to ITN, but they can't characterize Graham's legacy. It may not be in an article, but it's out of line, nonetheless.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He said he was acting administratively, so all is fine? No. He is involved because he said that he is opposed to the edit someone made, reverted them when they redid it, and then full-protected the page so no one could change anything to a way he doesn't like it. Natureium (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Fut. Perf's action here. There are plenty of Christians who find the homophobic, antisemitic and misogynist views espoused by Graham to be abhorrent, and there's a fairly strong view among mainstream Christians that Graham, as a figurehead for Southern fundamentalism, was antithetical to Gospel values. I would not say that in a newsletter, and we shouldn't say the opposite either. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• The reason why this is a bad idea: If its allowed to use WP resources to circulate what is a thinly disguised pro-Graham editorial, then equally any editor should be able to circulate the 'No he was a horrible person' (see the nixon tapes) counterpoint in return. And that way lies madness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)xMany Would anyone care to explain how this can be anything but FPaS throwing their mop out the window? Jbh ^Talk 19:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is now a personal agenda. Natureium (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• April Fool's is over. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• I would also endorse FPaS's protection here. While protecting after editing may not have been the wisest course of action it certainly is the correct one (IAR would certainly apply if necessary). I am willing to reprotect the page myself, if the "you were involved, so you can't do that", should get to that level. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Are we at that point? Where it's fine to protect a page on your preferred version when you're involved in an edit war over a content dispute? Whether you agree with one version of the newsletter or not is immaterial to whether WP:INVOLVED exists.

And anyway, I dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity that all us grand ole folks are deciding how they should run their project for them, ...and also partly because that's where this discussion should have taken place from the begging because it's their newsletter. GMG^talk 20:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Where is anyone saying that Billy Graham's death is a profound loss to Wikipedia??? Was he an active member of the WMF? I would doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This should probably have been titled Taking a position on whether the death of Billy Graham was a "profound loss". Natureium (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am think Future's actions are problematic, given what we otherwise allow to pass on talk page discussions. For example, just the discussion of Graham at ITN (see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2018) has opinions about the person themselves (not the appropriate of RD/Blurb relative to criteria) which I doubt anyone would ask for admin action. We have editors routinely disparaging Trump which no admin would lift a broom at. If this difference here is a Wikiproject opinion versus a single editor's opinion, that seems extremely imbalanced. I do think the language used in the newsletter could be made more explicit ("We at this Wikiproject consider this a profound loss") but it's definitely not a WP's own wiki voice that BLP/NPOV/NOT#SOAPBOX tells us to avoid. Unless we are going to start taking action on people that grandstand certain people, or ridicule them without focusing on the necessary content matters, I don't think this is major issue, and don't agree that Future's unilateral action was proper here. --Masem (t) 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of individual editors grandstanding about political topics versus a Wikiproject doing so; the issue is that it was going to be mass-posted, across hundreds of user talkpages. You are of course right, if somebody makes some offhand political remark in the course of some talkpage discussion, we don't "lift a broom" at them. But if somebody were spamming "I hate Trump" across hundreds of talkpages, do you seriously doubt they'd be blocked immediately? Spamming "I hate X" and spamming "Y was great" across talkpages is exactly the same thing; it doesn't matter at all whether it's a Wikiproject doing it or some individual. In any case, I've lifted the protection now, for the moment, in light of Kelapstick's graceful offer to take over the protection if needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • There is a difference of how we treat statements that generally are taken as positive or favorable (someone's death being a profound loss), compared to those that are negative, and that's what I think is important to remember. As noted, there's more tactful ways of noting Graham's death being impactful, but at the end of the day, as long as it is clear the language is coming from an individual or a wikiproject, positive statements regarding BLP should not be treated as "bad". I fully agree that a Wikiproject including insulting comments directed at a BLP in a newsletter absolutely need to be stopped, but its hard to argue for relatively positive ones that are clearly in a Wikiproject or editor's voice and not WP itself. --Masem (t) 20:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
      • ^^^ This. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• I find myself disagreeing with some other editors I greatly respect when I say that I very strongly disagree with FPaS's protection. I do agree with their goals, and pretty strongly at that--a neutral statement of "Billy Graham died" is much better than "The death of Billy Graham was a profound loss"--but that doesn't excuse edit-warring, much less using the admin tools to win the war. I'll spare everyone the condescending wikilinks to policy, but NPOV, regardless of whether it applies outside of article space, is not one of the explicit exemptions to the rules on edit warring, and obviously edit-warring can happen without breaching 3RR. Interpreting NPOV is the act of a content editor, and as such, doing it makes one involved in the all-caps sense. Repeatedly insisting on it through reversion is edit-warring, and protecting it with admin tools is a breach of that all-caps involved. IAR doesn't enter into it, and I can't care how much I agree with the interpretation or the action; "but I was right" has never been an excuse to edit war, to the extent that it has its own line in the lede of the edit warring policy. This was a bad edit-war and a worse protection, imo. and I feeeeeeeeeeel like i've been here before Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a fucking newsletter. Are you serious? This is WAY beyond okay. Are we really going to have to start a fucking Arbcom case over something as stupid and trivial as this? Unlock it, let editors work it out, and for god's sake stop doing stupid things. --Tarage (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I find FPaS's actions problematic as in 'ArbCom problematic'. I do not give two shits about Billy Graham but FPaS re-opened a closed thread and then proceeded like a bull in a china shop. He edit warred, threatened to use his admin tools, full protected a page to win the edit war; refused to cite an clear policy for this being purely administrative and refused to reverse the protection when asked. Simply claiming that the statement that '"Billy Graham's death was a profound loss" is political does not pass the bullshit test. Funny enough, on a page dedicated to Christian editors, someone saying that a death, any death, is a profound loss is not on its face a political statement. Some people just think that a death is a profound loss. Hell the whole statement was ""The death of Billy Graham on February 21 was a profound loss. For the Wikipedia reaction see this discussion. Graham received a blurb."" Yup, that is some pretty damned political speech right there and changing it to ""Billy Graham dies..."" is not a clear cut administrative action. Jbh ^Talk 21:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with the above 2 editors about this being a serious matter, reaching the level of ArbCom. I couldn't care less if Billy Graham was a giant snowman. It's not about the topic, it's about the inappropriate use of admin tools. Natureium (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase my original comment above, Fut.Perf., do you want to undo your protection because you protected a page you were edit warring on, or should I start drafting a request for arbitration? Those are the options. There is very little nuance here. It's a yes or no question. GMG^talk 21:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• I seriously suggest you guys calm down and take several steps back. Whether you agree or disagree with Fut.Perf.'s protection, I don't see how this can possibly be interpreted as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Just because simple expressions of opinion are generally not strictly enforced, that does not change the fact that the dissemination of advocacy of certain viewpoints or the expression of personal opinion on talk pages is explicitly prohibited as a matter of policy. Enforcement of this policy via the unilateral removal of any personal opinion is a legitimate action that is specifically allowed by the talk page guidelines and would not render one "involved" if acting as an administrator enforcing policy. Having to employ full protection as an additional enforcement measure is a discretionary supplement to this enforcement action that is compliant with protection policy. Put the pitchforks away and if you want to appeal this take it to the appropriate forum. The "admin abuse" accusation isn't going to stick at ArbCom. Swarm ♠ 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia newsletter and including statements that will alienate a significant number of its target audience is clearly uncool. WP:BRD should apply, but someone preferred to try to crowbar their personal sentiments into the newsletter. It is a silly dispute, but there is a point of principle, which is that we should not give any impression of officially endorsing divisive figures. WP:TROUTs all round. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Guy. I'm a Billy Graham fan, but calling his death a "profound loss" is inappropriate here, because there may be editors who are participants of WP Christianity who are not even Christians, much less Evangelical Protestants. Therefore, a WikiProject should not be making such sweeping statements of opinion. It would have been a fair statement to say "a profound loss to many Evangelical Protestant Christians and others who admired him." 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Page has been unprotected for now. Given Tarage's unhelpful edit summary when they reverted, it may not stay that way. However, can we re-close this and move discussion to where it belongs? Please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It was unhelpful when they edit warred and protected their edit war. That's vandalism and you know it. I'm not going to be polite about abuse of admin powers. --Tarage (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Shocking, my edit was reverted and then it was protected again. What a fucking farce. This entire issue has been a series of failings one after another. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm done. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it's reprotected again. Now I would recommend starting a discussion on the talk page, and come to some sort of consensus, as this isn't the place to do it. Looking forward to the impending ArbCom case. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because you knew it was divisive, you did not engage in any attempt at discussion (I just made the first edit tot he talk page), and you falsely accused Fut.Perf. of vandalism. Which was a dick move. What did you expect? No, scratch that: you knew exactly what to expect. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

When we have experienced administrators arguing that it's perfectly fine to protect a page you are openly edit warring on, I for one simply assume we've lost all semblance of sense, and I have no idea what to expect. GMG^talk 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I will hold off on filing for things to calm down a bit. But I see this as a "bright line" issue of an administrator using their tools to enforce their personal political/social/religious opinion on a group of editors. I do not see resolution here that falls short of FPaS saying they fucked up. Forced apologies are pointless but acknowledgement of error is, per Wikipedia norms, required. The draft case request is at User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Red pad 06. I am generally not supportive of cases going after an admin's mop but this whole episode was wrong. deeply and profoundly wrong. I do not care if Graham was the biggest piece of shite in the world, it is just as likely that the newsletter editors were expressing a genuine feeling of grief. FPaS actions were petty, small minded and generally shitty and all of this is fine. What is not fine is using tools entrusted to him by the community to enforce that pettiness. Jbh ^Talk 21:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support "profound loss" wording: This discussion is getting very long, so I'll comment like this. Neither WikiProject Christinity and its newsletter are mainspace pages, so Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines don't necessarily apply. I remember this discussion I started 1 1/2 years ago where I learned that even blatant opinion is allowed in the Wikipedia namespace pages. Thus, the WikiProject's members should be able to decide their own wording and POV for their newsletter, and if other people don't like what they decide, they don't have to subscribe (after all, the newsletter is for those who wish to subscribe). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for jps

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

---

You may not recognize jps since they've had a name change about every time they've found themselves in hot water, which is often, since they have a block log as long as my arm, but today only, they've been bludgeoning Talk:Ark Encounter, which needed to be full protected after they spent half the day reverting, including a fair bit of sideline disparagement at this thread, crying BLP, and frivolous warnings, which were later rebuffed at BLPN. And now the show up at ANI to complain about a newsletter for a WikiProject they've never been involved with, and have made no prior attempt to resolve, and revert a close of their own frivolous thread.

Propose topic ban from religion, broadly construed, which may be appealed in six months. I would suggest a block, but apparently those don't work. GMG^talk 01:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you follow me here? jps (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This page is on enough people's watchlists that that question is really only reasonable with "new" users. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose. But he doesn't seem to be posting here very much. It feels a bit raw since he has been rather snarky with me at Ark Encounter. I don't have a problem with the user, but why single me out? What's the deal? jps (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter? Your behavior is abhorrent and having looked at your block log myself... yeah... you are a net negative to the project. I suppose in a way I was doing you a favor by closing the above. My mistake. --Tarage (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you be reopening the discussion then? Do you really think you made a mistake? jps (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer, and someone who's been following this all day. GMG^talk 02:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Naturally. Net negative all day. --Tarage (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, I thought you said we shouldn't continue editing this section. Do you disagree with your own close now? jps (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that you are a menace and that a topic ban is light considering how much damage you do to the project. Wikilawyer your way out of that statement. --Tarage (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that I should be banned from Wikipedia? jps (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think is the most damaging thing I've done to the project? Can you be specific? jps (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff I was talking about below, when I said "Stop being a dick". I don't know what you're intending, but I can tell you that you sound terrible condescending and superior. Cut it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support just look at the templating and threats User_talk:Legacypac#April_2018 today. He abused Rollback at Ark Encounter against me and accused me of vandalism right after I passed a 100,000 edits. No interest in producing neutral content. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think my article-space work speaks for itself. If you don't like my contributions to articlespace, please let me know why. jps (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose jps can often be 'raw' but I do not see evidence here that religion in general is a particular issue. Maybe a case could be made for fringe or pseudoscience being problem areas but clear and convincing evidence would need to be presented that he is a net negative in that area. Jbh ^Talk 02:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Can not really say 'often'. Just that I have seen heated or 'less than considered' behavior enough times for it to stick in my memory but not so much that I think 'problem editor' when someone brings him up. 02:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support: fortunately the above incident with the news letter is my first encounter with jps. To my knowledge--I haven't reviewed all of their names. That said the overall behavior of this editor is disturbing. They are uncivil and abuse our polices to push their own POV. Their long block log reflects how often they get caught. It doesn't show the many times this editor gets away with gaming the system or harassing other editors as jps did here User_talk:1990'sguy#April_2018 (@1990'sguy:). Experienced editors will ignore this kind of extortion. But what about new editors? They will certainly be intimidated. jps has started a discussion about Ark Encounter at several noticeboards in an attempt to forum shop. jps is wasting an inordinate amount of editor time at these noticeboards. This has to end.– Lionel^(talk) 03:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: He usually brings Wikipedia articles in conformity with WP:PAGs, so I would not support a topic ban (I mean he really improves our articles). His problem is bad behavior (temper), and I think a 48 hours block would make that clear to him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:Special:Log/block&page=User:ජපස shows three "last chances", an Indef site ban and a history of an AE on a closely related topic. I'd also support another indef. Not worth the trouble. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I would support a 48 hours block on each occasion he displays bad temper. Discretionary sanctions are already stipulated for pseudoscience topics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Sigh. I'm afraid I'm with Legacypac. It is a shame because I believe Tgeorgescu and even jps himself about substantive contributions--I personally agreed with the issue he raised that kicked this all off, just not the venue or approach to it--but WP:CIR applies as much to working constructively with others as it does to any other aspect of encyclopedia-building. The fact that his response here seems unaware--after 10 years at the rodeo!--that that bit also matters makes me think things aren't going to get better (ETA: to wit, one hour later); and beyond this specific case, in general I think we have a problem letting disruption go on far too long at the expense of who knows how many good editors driven off the site. (That may well be how this editor got the impression article contributions are all that matters here.) A decade is long enough; I support indef. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, with caveats. To jps, I don't put much stock in the "supports" by partisan editors from the other side, but the fact that you're getting pushback elsewhere is something that you need to take on board. Remember that the burden of maintaining scientific integrity doesn't fall solely on your shoulders. Just bring things to attention in the appropriate venue -- in a calm, measured voice -- and let others take action. Yeah, sometimes no one else will act. That's OK -- you've been around here long enough to know that Wikipedia is going to suck from time to time. But if you take the long view it eventually works out. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I have had at least one other encounter with jps, and his behavior makes him a net negative, as User:Tarage has stated. He engages in intimidation, harassment, and personal attacks, and his behvior overall is nasty and unconstructive. He hasn't changed a bit since the last time I interacted with him nearly two years ago, and I think a topic ban is appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - If I were to support a topic ban for jps, it would be against changing usernames -- c'mon, man, lay off, it makes you look incredibly guilty. Pick a name and stick with it. As for the newsletter thing, my advice would be: stop being a dick. A newsletter from a Wikipedia Christianity WikiProject doesn't represent Wikipedia, it represents Wikipedian Christians, so leave it to them to decide if it's representing them accurately or not. Now, if they start ragging on Jews or Muslims or Pagans or Buddhists or atheists or agnostics, that would be a different matter, and you would have a beef, but as long as it's being ecumenical, and they're not being overtly objectionable, or using their newsletter to proselytize, leave them be. On the rest of this stuff, you'd be well advised to take a look at what's being said about your behavior, and internalize it and try your best to change. In the meantime, pick out your new permanent name (try JPS on for size). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Objection. WP:X most certainly does not represent "Wikipedian Christians", only a certain segment. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Objection sustained. The point stands with the appropriate substitutions, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support and let this be a lesson to all that if you come across an issue that concerns you, particularly one in which you are not directly involved, you should make reasonable attempts to resolve the matter at the appropriate venue instead of immediately rushing to ANI. The sky was not falling. Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: For all his flaws, Billy Graham was a saint compared to his namesake son. Beyond that, I concur with BMK's comments above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I don't have time to investigate this in full detail, but the immediate problem is resolved by the full protection of Ark Encounter. A quick glance at jps's last six months of edit history shows plenty of WP:FRINGE-related edits but no issues, and several of the votes here are from editors I'd consider INVOLVED on this matter. I would advise jps to remember that on Wikipedia, moderation in the pursuit of justice is a virtue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ark Encounter has been fully protected in the most non-neutral of recent forms - exactly where the unpronounceable user edit warred and bullied his way to get it. That it is fully protected is another reason to support this topic ban to cool down the. Discussion and allow normal editing. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Xtians ganging up on a rationalist. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I hadn't figured you as a bigot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Me? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't figured you in need of a dictionary, Baseball Bugs. --Calton | Talk 06:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Bigoted against religious people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, well, OK. Is the OP a bigot too? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There are rationalist Christians, Roxy. Choose your words more carefully. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seriously? --Calton | Talk 06:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is a serious discussion. If you are going to participate, you should provide an actual rationale for your position. Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. jps needs to cool off, I don't agree he is a "net negative" but a needs a reminder to behave in a collegiate and moderate way. Someone above mentioned a 48 hour block, I'd support that (I know, I know. His block log looks like Eeng's TP but close inspection reveals not all of the blocks were good). Jschnur (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jschnur above me. JPS needs to be less mean. Not sure that (another) block is the remedy, but it's worth a try.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem here is not how jps handles article topics concerning religion. Based on edit history, his/her focus for the last few months is on fringe topics such as UFO incidents, junk science (cold fusion), and pseudoscience topics. (And I kept wondering why his/her edits constantly appear on my watchlist.) The problem is that jps keeps resorting to personal threats instead of actually discussing. Which is not something resolved by a topic ban. On a sidenote, I have had previous interactions with User:1990'sguy, who jps accused of vandalism. While I personally disagree with the user's stated views on various subjects, I have never seen him either make POV-pushes on articles or add uncited material to anything. Dimadick (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems like overkill. Getting worked up about a Wikiproject's newsletter, though, is ludicrous - this doesn't affect any articles, and people are allowed to express their views if it doesn't do so, and stays civil. We aren't the Thought Police. So I would suggest jps needs to perhaps moderate his approach. Fish+Karate 08:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The question asked is fully valid and raises a concern of possible SOAPBOXing even if it is on a Wikiproject talk page. They may be right or wrong about it, but it is a fair question and asking for a topic ban or block because of asking a question (even if the manner is a bit harsh) is no grounds for either. --Masem (t) 14:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be fair Masem, the proposal was in response to an entire day of bludgeoning related to religion, edit warring, and disparaging other editors, which happened to culminate in the above (IMO) obviously inappropriate thread, which in context, looks an awful like like just continued religious themed bludgeoning.

At any rate, there's pretty clearly no consensus in support, and we'll probably just save time overall if someone closes this promptly. GMG^talk 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Even with the other behavior, jps is asking and considering appropriate issues given the topic area falls within FRINGE. They made a judgement call on the BLP issue related to Nye and were wrong when others commented, and appeared to self-revert. That's completely reasonable behavior consistent with how we handle BLP (remove problems first, ask questions later). Nothing here seems like a topic ban or blockable offense. A cautious to be less hot-headed, certainly. --Masem (t) 15:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Suffice to say that I consider things like this to be a pretty stellar example of tendentious bludgeoning, and not at all excused by topic area. Obviously I'm in the minority. GMG^talk 15:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Jps is rather intense in his engagement with pseudoscience and advocates thereof. The issue with Ark Encounter isn't necessarily related to the religious content but to the way editors had repeatedly removed descriptions that label it pseudoscientific (i.e. I would expect the same from him if it were crystal healing, phrenology, or time cube). When it comes to fringe content, jps is usually right in at least the general thrust of his arguments. IMO if there is an issue that comes up, it is that due to his interests he winds up engaging with the most frustrating sorts of civil POV pushers and winds up getting wrapped up with users themselves, beyond the content. The comment that led to BLPN was obnoxious, but I don't agree that it needed to come to BLPN. The subject of this thread is indeed a little concerning, but there's probably a better place to bring additional eyeballs to it than ANI. In any event, a topic ban on religion completely misses the mark. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Block for jps

Since even some of his supporters think a block is a better idea, I propose a block. Length to be deturmined by the closing admin's review of the comments if this passes.

• Support a month long block based on the range of his attacks against good faith editors, abuse of rollbacker, other problems noted and the failure of past blocks to curtail this bad behaviour. He threatened me with a block at least twice today - live by the sword and die by the sword. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I think you need to step away from ANI for a while. This attitude is not going to help, at all. Fish+Karate 10:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

How are we going to stop the edit warring and attacks from this user? Some think his behavior is just fine? Please be part of a solution not a block to a solution. Legacypac (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support it's ridiculous that the above sanction isn't going to pass, but something needs to be done. Lepricavark (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - User has self requested a six month block. Lets go do something else with our time rather than argue here. GMG^talk 14:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - obvious 'punishment' block for a disagreement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seriously? You failed to get traction for a topic ban so now you want a Vote For Blocking instead? Guy (Help!) 14:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obviously not. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Arbitration case request filed

Arbitration case request filed at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Misuse of mop Jbh ^Talk 16:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Urgent edit needed to template:no

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

---

This edit request needs to be answered, because its affecting over 4,000 pages with transclusions. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done by BethNaught. Amortias (T)(C) 23:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Arjayay

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

---

Repeated restoration of cited content removed without explanation: here, and here. Refused to discuss the changes on the talk page thread I opened here: Talk:Sergei_Rachmaninoff#Recent_changes. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your first diff is an edit by Arjayay and it is worth noting that you are the one removing cited content. The other editors are restoring it. Perhaps a WP:CIR situation. MarnetteD|Talk 15:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Different user, my apologies. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The complaint is about "Repeated restoration of cited content removed without explanation" - Yes - the IP really is complaining that, when they (The IP) repeatedly removed cited content, without any explanation, other editors restored it. - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest closing with a barnstar to Arjayay. GMG^talk 16:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seconded! MarnetteD|Talk 16:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Arjayay also refused to WP:AGF with this edit summary, and with the templates left on my talk page. I was simply restoring the version minus the cited content, which had been removed without explanation. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is rather a common reaction when you are walking on a thin ice. Capitals00 (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

	The ANI Barnstar
	For doing something so uncontroversially productive, someone dragged you to ANI for it. GMGtalk 16:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The OP did this edit, modifying Arjayay's edit to make it appear as if Arjayay said that to him. I've reverted the edit, and left the OP a {{uw-tpv4}} warning, as they already received a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning. I think the OP/IP is on the last straw at this point, and any further shenanigans will result in a block. However, they also haven't edited for nearly an hour now, so this may be dormant now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for that, which is obviously unacceptable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:GiantSnowman

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

---

I wish to report GiantSnowman, I feel he often doesn't give the respect due to other editors and every so often fails to follow standard wiki ettiequte. I am going through Ray Wilkins article looking for citations on the internet to help build the article and make it work better, however GiantSnowman comes along and starts removing mass of content without giving other editors a chance to fix things. There is a lack of ettiequte, he fails to point out what points require citation, he doesn't give any time due for other editors to come along and fix content. Alas the article in question is about a footballer who died to day, and not only does it seem destructive to the article it feels very disrespectful to a footballer who just died. I find on occasions his actions unbecoming of an admin. Govvy (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed a great deal of content about a recently deceased person which was unsourced and full of POV. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP all still apply. You have made no attempt to source any of the content you re-added - whereas I have made a start. That is how you build an article, not by adding unsourced content and then finding sources at a later date. That is basic stuff. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. GiantSnowman 15:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't add what I had done, due to edit conflicts because you removed all the content on I was editing to add citations too, I've gone and lost my hour or so's work, you are so disruptive at times. I really don't think you have any respect at times for me, very unbecoming of an admin. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If there was an edit conflict, your 'version' remains and you could copy the sourcing over. It's not hard to quickly add basic sources. GiantSnowman 15:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, it's been over half-an-hour and you have added precisely zero references to the article... GiantSnowman 16:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

While what was removed by GiantSnowman certainly needs sourcing (it's been nominated for main page posting as a Recent Death/ITN), none of the material removes appears to be overtly contentious even when taking BLP into consideration to require its removal; it all seems like stuff that can be sourced readily if editors are given time to search news archives. Most of what was removed had been in the article for a while (1yr+) so BURDEN really doesn't apply. GiantSnowman is technically correct that the removal of unsourced material is proper, but given that there's now a flurry of activity due to his death, there's some leniency here that one should give when they know people are working to improve the sourcing. If GS did this a month ago, it would be less of a problem. --Masem (t) 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that just because the material has been there for a long time it has some kind of leeway - if anything, that is worse! GiantSnowman 15:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying you were wrong to initially remove the unsourced content, even if it is non-controversial. However with an edit message like [25] from Govvy restoring the material, this is the point where you assume good faith and that the editor will be working to improve the article in the next day or so. It would be different if someone came by to challenge the removals a week or more later and wasn't attempting to fix. --Masem (t) 20:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Govvy - You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG, You also may want to withdraw this and go to the talkpage to discuss your changes instead of adding a huge chunk of unsourced and disputed content. Go read WP:EDIT WARRING, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:BRD whilst you're at it. –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: ? I never added any new content, I was working what was already on the page finding those citations, rewriting the English a bit. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am with Masem on this. When a page is being submitted at ITN/RD, the increase in activity is expected and sometimes more patience are required. The removal of unsourced contents were certainly done properly, but I think in this particular situation it would have been more helpful to put {{cn}} instead if there weren't any blatant BLP violations. Alex Shih (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• So unsourced wording like "Wilkins and his family settled quickly in Italy [...] Such was his enjoyment of his time at Rangers, and the fans' love for him, Wilkins was reduced to tears after his final game with the club [...] he joined Queens Park Rangers, after his family decided that a decade away from home was long enough" is acceptable, is it? GiantSnowman 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, it's not--but managerial statistics and such, you're not really obligated to remove that (though I appreciate you got rid of a bunch of those stupid flags). Anyway, we're way too early for ANI. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going to leave the article alone instead of I having edit conflicts, it doesn't help that the content I was working on was removed like that, it didn't help to pay the respect to Wilkins, it doesn't help just to loose me as an editor to help work on it. I just want GiantSnowman to understand his actions can be disruptive and he needs to review his process when working on wikipedia. This isn't about the removal of content on just one article, this is about the process he goes about editing wikipedia, having the respect to request citation here and there before effectively removing entire parts of an article. P.S I don't know if admin User:John was helping out, but he slapped with with a final warning instead of a lower value warning first. It would be nicer if admins would bring conversation before slapping penalties. Govvy (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Since no-one has edited this since my earlier close, ~16 hours ago, I suspect that that equates to some degree of an endorsement for it. In any case, it certainly indicates that comunity interest in this content dispute has dissipated; a (re)close would probably be appropriate at this juncture. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I am a little sorry that I did not see this thread before it closed as there is a systemic issue here that warrants discussion, regarding how we deal with undisputed (sometimes indisputable) material in an article that is then nominated for a time-sensitive part of the main page. I won't try to revive the closed thread at this stage, but I expect it will come up again soon enough. Govvy might have done better here than to personalize his concern as a conduct issue, but he is not the only editor to have encountered this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand this close; "Etiquette & content dispute Not (currently) appropriate for an ANI resolution" - since when are these issues "not appropriate" for ANI? And a "non-admin" close? Isn't Lourdes an admin? (I could swear I just saw her pass RfA about a month ago). If NYBrad feels this report warrants further discussion, then perhaps he should re-open it? tVVc 11:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I was curious about that because I didn't think you could have a non-admin close in ANI. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? @both: It's extremely common. And ANI is rarely if ever a suitable venue for content disputes. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This was never meant to be about content dispute, this was meant to be about letting others edit and improve whats on an article before removing it, following procedures likes requesting {{cn}} before removing content. How is an editor suppose to get a citation for content that isn't there. Not every editor will go straight to the history of an article and review what has been removed. What GiantSnowman did was remove big chucks out before other editors can come in and review the content to fix it up. This is way beyond etiquette in the time frame provided to get the article up to standard for Recent Death/ITN. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced and wrong information on articles

• 178.2.72.68 (talk · contribs)

The editor is likely to the same as 92.216.255.190 (talk · contribs), and he or she kept adding unsourced and/or wrong information in various articles. For example in Loulan Kingdom, it is clear that what the editor had written was about Kingdom of Khotan, not Loulan (apparently the editor was under the mistaken belief that Loulan is Li county referred to in Tibetan sources, nevertheless kept adding the same information even when made aware of that it is wrong) [26] [27][28][29], while in Qiemo County, the editor kept adding unsourced information, and when removed, keep re-adding the same unsourced content with a more content (sometimes that may not be relevant) copied from other pages, [30] [31] [32] [33]. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Range block Request

Many of the IP addresses beginning with 82.132 have been used to evade many previous blocks, by the blocked user named 10alatham. This shows a list of all the socks that Mattythewhite has identified today. A range block or two would help prevent the trolling by 10alatham. Also Mattythewhite has no experience in range blocks, only individual IP and user blocks. Iggy (Swan) 20:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ealbayrak

I would like to request assistance from an admin regarding the Saba Mahmood page where User:Ealbayrak, like User:Smahmoodealbayrak, has been engaging in an edit war. Reasons for adding new, unsubstantiated has relied on unsupported and unsourced information as well as attacks on what the user claims are the students of the scholar in the page. User:Ealbayrak has (twice) reverted 3 times within a 24-hour period, the consequences for which require an admin. The edit war issue was flagged on the user's talk page, but the user continued to revert. Thank you for your attention to this user and page. Politikundtheorie (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to have been a single constructive edit for the last month, just a lot of edit warring from multiple parties both confirmed/extended confirmed and new accounts. I've applied full protection for 3 days to prevent further edit-warring and to encourage discussion on the talk page. Amortias (T)(C) 20:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I just blocked Ealbayrak for 24 hours for continuing to edit war after the 3RR violation. The protection was going to be my next step, but Amortias beat me to it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I should note that Politikundtheorie's hands are not clean here. They have violated 3RR on this article themselves and really should have been blocked on March 13th for their edits. And even still I note no discussion on the talk page about this issue, which is an edit warring content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Incivility and failure to communicate

Alexf blocked 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:AD51:B4EE:9659:A29C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), then acceded to a personal attack-laden unblock request, then directed us here when it was questioned. There's persistent issues coming from this IP. Please take a close look at their talk page history and you will see me over days persistently try and draw their attention to various policies.

Example breaches;

• one two three four Uncivil edit warring
• ignoring invitation to comment on disputed content (they still haven't commented)
• one, two, three Incivility against LovelyGirl7 who is apparently, like me, a sockpuppet (this seems to be their default response to anyone they disagree with)
• one, two, three example unexplained reverts of other users acting in good faith
• one, two breathtakingly uncivil
• one, two, socking accusations again based on a content dispute (to give credit where due, although this IP gave no evidence, at least they were proven correct in the end)
• falsely accusing me of being FreedomJoe, which is rich considering I reported Joe to ANI and challenged their position.

This is very, very long now so I will wrap it up there, go back to editing, and let the wiki do (or not do) as it sees fit. I have found it very frustrating to edit around this user, in contrast to my interactions with other users I've come across through general editing, including those I disagreed with. This IP is quite something. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Alexf blocked ..." = a FLAT OUT LIE! - that admin reversed that block because ... to be clear there is a sockpuppet (the editor above) who EACH AND EVERY DAY changes his ip address to avoid getting an indefinite block for edit warring and bias pushing - these are all the most recent addresses

89.240.143.247
92.10.182.248
2.28.13.202
92.10.177.190
92.10.188.218
92.10.184.187

and I could give you A THOUSAND MORE!

to see that they are all the same sock look at this:

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2.28.13.202
https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/92.10.182.248
https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/89.240.143.247

his history follows the exact same pattern to GAME THE SYSTEM - when he has warred for a few days with anyone AND HE CANNOT GET HIS WAY, he will run and cry to an admin about how THE OTHER GUY is so bad

please look into it, I am certain he is a user who is permanently banned and socking to hide his behavior!--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:AD51:B4EE:9659:A29C (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This is very old ground, a personal attack, and the concept that any effort is being made to hide my identity is laughable. Jbhunley told me on this very board that, unfortunately, my IP cannot be stabilised. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

everything this fast ip address rotating sock tells you is a sham he is counting on you not looking into it.--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:AD51:B4EE:9659:A29C (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"falsely accusing me of being FreedomJoe" = AGAIN A FLAT OUT LIE - I have never accused this sock of which ever permanently banned user he actually is!--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:AD51:B4EE:9659:A29C (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

and to be clear I don't need to be civil to a sockpuppet - by wiki's own rules sockpuppets of banned users are to be reverted WITH OR WITHOUT COMMENT - in fact, it is literally a violation of wiki rules NOT TO REVERT THEM WHEN FOUND since not to do so = acquiescence = assisting a sock which is also a violation of wiki's rules--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:AD51:B4EE:9659:A29C (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I said that if your ISP had very short DHCP lease times that it is likely your IP would change if you were not connected when it renewed. That your address is hopping between networks is a bit odd though. Are you using a mobile? I also said that it would be a good idea to add a consistent tag (like BobTheIP or IP92.10 or whatever) for continuity of identity. Affirmatively identifying yourself is particularly important since your address is hopping between networks ie not simply 92.10.x.x. Anyway, at this point it seems to be causing enough problems that I would suggest just registering an account and using it. If not I would say you need to add an identification tag to your signature all the time as a show of good faith. Jbh ^Talk 15:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't fully understand that but I follow it enough to know it's weird. With the exception of the first IP I edited from, these are all my home network. Regarding adding a wee sig, I was unable to reply to you because it was archived, but my response is that it's a good idea, I'm just unsure how to go about it if that makes sense. Like... Should I leave an explanation somewhere, or just start doing it, or...? Thanks. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Create an account and sign in. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Creating an account is the best way to go but if you do not want to just add -- NickName editing as ~~~~ instead of just ~~~~ at the end of each post. Again, I really encourage you to create an account if you are going to be editing much. There are not really any downsides and it will save you and the project a lot of hassle. Jbh ^Talk 16:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I just like the idea of my edits standing purely on their own merits if I'm honest. Anyways, thank you, if it's alright with you I'm gonna go with you idea of BobTheIP since it's essentially a random choice and makes clear I don't use an account. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. Hello BobTheIP. Jbh ^Talk 23:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Howdy, Jbhunley! Good to be here. Well, not here, but it's good to be here. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

For all the rest of us know, you both might be the same individual & this is all a April fool's joke. You both should create accounts & register in. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• That is possible. And to clear up the IP6's misstatement, you must be civil to ALL persons, IP, sock, everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

How, exactly, would I get ahold of an IP that geolocates to Arizona and simultaneously be editing from Scotland? 89.240.143.247 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Create an account & register in. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@89.240.143.247: That IP calling me a sockpuppet is fake news. I don’t have relations. —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Side issue

I have no opinion about the rights or wrongs of any of these particular editors' editing, but I must point out that "Create an account & register in" is an unacceptable response. One of the few non-negotiable policies mandated by the Wikipedia Foundation, the owner of this web site, is that registration is not required. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Entirely separate from the issue of this section, but I feel a response is necessary to this point. Account creation not required for editing, but is required if you want continuity of identity. If you want to lay claim to past actions, you need to establish an identity. An IP is not an identity (and indeed, also provides less privacy than an account). Tarl N. (discuss) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Create an account & register in" does not violate any WMF policy in letter or spirit, since it's merely a suggestion based on experience, and not a demand. No IP who has received the advice "Create an account & register in" is going to be forced to stop editing if they chose to ignore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) The problem with not registering is, as Tarl says, a lack of continuity. The earliest edit under that IP is from over ten years ago. We have no way to know if it's the same guy who's editing under it today. Or even if it's the same guy who edited under it yesterday. Typically, IP's who get belligerent about not registering are hiding something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Statements like that neatly demonstrate the reasons for not registering: In my view, the only way to judge an edit is by looking at it. Using an IP to edit removes any preconceived notions about quality and leaves the edit to stand or fall on its own merits. The more I get told being an IP makes me a bad person, the less I feel like creating an account. I don't want to join the registered editor crew if this is the way they view IPs. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Frankly, your theorizing goes completely against my 12+ years of experience here. Because more vandalism comes from IPs then from accounts, I tend to scrutinize IP edits more than account edits, and I think that's reasonable, given the available empirical evidence, and the fact that strings of more-or-less random numbers do not register in the human brain the same way a name does, so I don't see your IP number as an identity. You're going to say that's unfair, and it is, but, hey, life is unfair: Donald Trump's in the White House and I'll never be President. If you want your edits to be taken a face value, open an account, and establish a reputation for good editing. (There are other things you can do as well, but I'm not going to mention them, per WP:BEANS.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "If you want your edits to be taken a face value[...] and establish a reputation for good editing." That isn't face value, that's an assumption the edits will be good because previous edits of mine were good. I welcome eyeballs on my edits. I welcome them not being held against the name of an editor in good standing. They are judged purely on their own merits in that way. FWIW, I was neutral about getting an account at first, but every time I get told being an IP must mean I'm bad news, I feel less and less like I want to register. It feels like some editors have a "Registered vs IP" mindset and all that does is convince me registering would be a bad idea. I don't want any part of a club that values certain edits not on their merits but on who made them. Actually, I considered just leaving WP entirely (again), but I've enjoyed the actual editing. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC) If you don't want to sign up, that's your choice. Nobody can force you to do so. But you or any other unregistered editor, will have to deal with the different treatment you'll get from time to time, compared to registered editors. That's the nature of the place. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC) As a word of advice, nothing turns me off signing up more than being hounded to do so, especially when coupled with wild accusations that not doing so is somehow evidence of wrongdoing. The irony is that had I been approached with a friendly suggestion to join up, especially if that was accompanied by an offer to be around for questions etc (goodness knows I keep having things I need to look up and try to figure out), early on I probably would have. But the approaches made to me have been belittling, and make me balk at the idea of being seen like a registered editor if that is the way registered editors behave. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC) There's no way we can know that the edits made even just in this paragraph are all by the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Can't y'all just drop it?! If 89.240... does not want to sign up, that is entirely their choice. If you want to ban editors from editing as IPs, go start an RFC or something. All this hounding is starting to generate more heat than light; in the meantime, the behavior by IP 2600... remains unaddressed. –FlyingAce✈hello 02:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The final sentence fragment above by FlyingAce needs to appear outside the hatting: "in the meantime, the behavior by IP 2600... remains unaddressed". I would also state that because the response was hatted, the three times stated instruction in the imperative mood by GoodDay to "create an account & register in", which makes it clearly a demand and not a suggestion, should also be hatted here. It's pretty obvious that 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:AD51:B4EE:9659:A29C has a case to answer here that has not been answered and is not being addressed because of irrelevent commments about 89.240.143.247's unregistered status. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The latest edits continue incivility, and are now imo straight-up stalking me. one, two, three, four. How long must this continue unaddressed? The breaches of WP:WAR, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:REVEXP, and WP:Communication is required are flagrant. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.29.149 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP edit war at Jon Paul Fiorentino

Hi all. This page could use some eyeballs with way more experience than me. The page history shows a slow but persistent IP edit war, with the word libel being thrown around an awful lot. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.29.149 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've notified all the editors in the last two weeks or so, not sure if I should go back further? Since more historic editors can be reasonably inferred to have stopped. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.29.149 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring IPs from Irvine

Another Irvine IP showed up today for genre warring: Special:Contributions/2600:8802:1301:5900:3183:BC15:FED0:E82B. The IP is part of a range, Special:Contributions/2600:8802:1301:5900:0:0:0:0/52, which has been dedicated to genre warring for the last two months. Can we get a rangeblock on this person? Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

OfficialNasLuke

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

---

OfficialNasLuke (talk · contribs)

The Adele fan has reappeared (see previous discussion), and now he's got a user account. Can someone take a look? This is Paul (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up to say that 105.153.38.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has undertook similar activity on Drunk in Love in recent days. This is Paul (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Calling for a global ban on CJ 4DPLEX GLOBAL

CJ 4D Plex is the company behind the 4DX format. An account named CJ 4DPLEX GLOBAL edited 4DX article at the English Wikipedia for many times, and equivalent articles in other projects. I believe this is against WP:COI (and similar rules in other Wikimedia projects). You may want to look at luxo:CJ 4DPLEX GLOBAL to get the idea. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 06:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since 2015. Nightfury 14:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Since they have been active editing on other language Wikipedias as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I have soft-blocked the account as a violation of the username policy, left a COI note for them on their talk page, and left a {{connected contributor}} tag on the page they've edited. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Help!!

I have been dealing with a sock puppet from the same person at IP addresses 76.92.195.32 and 97.91.152.132 on the article Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball. I reached yesterday on User talk:76.92.195.32. I've been battling this same person for about a week now, it started with 97.91.152.132, I warned against the unconstructive edits on that talk page, then they started using the other IP I've mentioned. After reaching out to that talkpage they switched to the other one. Also, they are introducing a factual error claiming the NCAA tournament began seeding teams in 1977 when it actually began in 1978. If the page won't get protected both IP's need blocked. To prevent myself from being blocked for an edit war, I will leave the IP's version on the article for the time being. The IP even has decided to give me an unwarranted warning.--Rockchalk717 23:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would still like some assistance regarding this issue if it's not too much ask.--Rockchalk717 04:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: The IP has used the article talk page, you haven't? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, correct, I had to initiate the article talk page. In addition to false sock puppet claims, now it appears there are warnings on other IP pages used by other people due to Rockchalk717's, umm, "zeal." Case in point, I've consistently noted that seeding for "all" teams (as used today, not the experimental "Q" and "L" split seeding of 1978) started in 1979. So why is Rockchalk717 saying "1977" when the edit history clearly shows that's not the case? The amount of edits and time spent by him coupled with his high-handed approach (false claims, demeanor in edit comments, trying lump together separate IP's together as sock puppets trying to block them simply because they view things differently and he is in the minority) is not encouraging. I did mirror his rather ridiculous warning back to Rockchalk717. I can't match his free time, am of no mood to waste mine "arguing with a pig" as the saying goes, and am just trying to improve a reference as my history shows. 76.92.195.32 (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

CoopDEtat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) issued a legal threat. See here. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

To note that the user in question attempted to remove this AN/I report. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Note from CoopDEtat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : This isn't a legal threat. I made InfoWars aware of a potential violation of law that involves their company. Whoever added the footnotes used fake news sources to wrongfully accuse a company of false-doings. I'm giving Wikipedia a heads up as it's a great tool that shouldn't be tampered with by users with political motives.

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

St James's Palace

65.93.143.228 (talk · contribs) has broken image links, broken urls and removed the terminal s from the palace's name, despite being asked not to do so and me pointing out on their talk page that the official name includes the s and it's supposed to have an s on the end. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives and the Official website.

Even though the edits are clearly unhelpful, it isn't clear to me that it counts as "obvious vandalism" under point 3 of Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions, so I can't correct it myself. Could someone here please help out? Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually I blocked for 3RR, then unblocked again. They haven't violated. Perhaps it should be a disruptive block but my block for 3RR was actually wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I've re-blocked for disruptive editing. I believe this is fine, but I couldn't leave the 3RR block for non-violation technically. If anyone wishes to challenge the block, feel free. Canterbury Tail talk 15:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected POINT

• A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past few weeks, a particular user, using IPs as well, has been engaging in some disruptive behaviour with fellow editors. This user, named A. Katechis Mpourtoulis, in general, has being engaging particularly on some serious POINT, all of them regarding the greece-macedonia controversy. Without any consensus, or previous discussions, he has been doing some incorrect and unadvised edittings, as you can see in his editing history, like, for instance, putting the term "greek" in every article that involves "Macedonia". He has been instructed by me and other users to stop this behaviour but he didn't and even deleted all warnings in his talk page. That might be just some case of disruptive editing, until he resorted to name calling, by calling me a 'slav' (didn't even know that was an insult), and at another occasion, questioned the integrity of a user based on where he was supposedly from.

Clearely is noticeable that he has an agenda and is using wikipeida to promote it and defend it (evident case of WP:ADVOCACY). He is ignoring warning from multiple users, engaging in disruptive editing, and POINT, using other IPs for vandalism, name calling and disrespecting users in general who either disagrees with him or wants to discuss the content of the articles first. He has been warned multiple times and even has been accused of sock puppetry, but chose to ignore everything and everyone. I was instructed to bring this case here, so here it is. Coltsfan (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've notified him of the existence of discretionary sanctions on Balkan topics. --15:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, what about the insults and the disruptive editing? is that bound to continue? plus, he has cleared his talk page and even removed the message i left him notifying him about this discussion. I think this can be interpreted as a sign of bad faith. Coltsfan (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Coltsfan clearing a message on a usertalk page is considered an acknowledgement that it has been read. It doesn't need to stay visible. They've been notified that discretionary sanctions can be applied for disruptive editing - the ball's in their court now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

IP

124.106.140.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism but clearly states they are using their name in the edit, please remove the edit from history of page for user's protection, see: 1 Waddie96 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Moved from AVI as probably more appropriate here.

 Not done Garden variety disruption, does not need revdel. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AkshayKadamSwag

AkshayKadamSwag (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted logos and tagging them as 'self-made' with CC/GFDL licensing. Many of these have been duplicates of images already on WP. I have asked them to stop, but there appears to be a CIR/IDHT issue. Could some action be taken please? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Concur. He was given two warnings by you (For others; see warnings, one on March 26, and the second on March 30. Both of these went unheeded, and he continues to upload non-free images claiming them as his own work. @AkshayKadamSwag: please join this discussion. Continuing to edit elsewhere without responding here will not helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• They're blocked until they explain themselves using their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Rajrajh

Rajrajh had many warnings now,[34] still he is edit warring on Ho people, by gaming WP:3RR,[[35][36][37][38][39][40] and never participating on talk page.[41] Capitals00 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If Rajrajh does not respond here then a topic ban may be needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixon Now POV-pushing at Doug Ford Jr.

Doug Ford Jr. is a polarizing Canadian politician who was recently elected leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Since then, his article has drawn a lot of attention among those who want to minimize and those who want to maximize unflattering information about him.

One of the most active of the "maximizers" has been User:Nixon Now. They have been editwarring over the inclusion or presentation of certain information, in particular (a) allegations that Ford was once a hashish dealer, and (b) allegedly antisemitic remarks Ford has made.

With regard to the hashish dealing, there is an open RfC (Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report) in which a strong consensus has emerged that something about the allegations should be included, but it must be made clear that no charges have been laid and Ford continues to deny the allegations. Nixon Now has made numerous attempts to highlight the allegations beyond the consensus of the RfC and in violation of WP:BLP, including:

• placing it prominently in the "Early life" section, where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation. This was removed several times [42][43]
• highlighting the one-paragraph incident via a subsection header in violation of the spirit of the RfC consensus and WP:WEIGHT—this numerous times after being reverted: [44][45][46][47]

  In response to concerns that NN had split the "Municipal politics" section into far too many short, one-paragraph subsections, NN split the "Allegations of hashish dealing in the 1980s" into two paragraphs at an arbitrary point to give the section the appearance of more substance.

• Nixon Now opened Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading, which as of now is unanimous (minus Nixon Now themself) against having a subsection header, yet Nixon Now continues to battle against consensus to keep the subsection header in place—WP:BLP calls for disputed edits to reach a consensus before they can be included, not the reverse.

With regard to alleged antisemitic comments—they are about a particular quote Ford made in response to allegations that his brother, Rob Ford, had used a number of racist epithets (for Jews and other ethnicities). I has been questioned whether the quote—especially when quoted at length—even belongs in the article or whether it is simply WP:COATRACKing anything to make Ford look bad. Nixon Now has responded to concerns that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Antisemitic comment by brother by expanding the text there, and again has editwarred to keep it in: [48][49][50][51]. Again, WP:BLP calls for disputed edits to reach a consensus before they can be included, not the reverse.

More editwarring:

• removing text in which a political rival, Jagmeet Singh, made positive comments about Ford: [52][53][54][55].

to keep in a bit about a John Oliver comment: [56] [57][58]

Nixon Now is also prolific on the talk page, but not in a cooperative spirit—refusing to acknowledge consensus and casting aspersions on those they disagree with—going as far as to insuate I've been sockpuppetting/meatpuppetting (offering no sort of evidence) and making false accusations that I've been "blocked a total of six times for personal attacks" (which he downgraded to "five times", which is still a lie). They make several accusations of other editors attempting to "bury" information by not highlighting or positioning it as Nixon Now would have it; "beating a dead horse" to concince opponents to stop discussing; and a lot of WP:IDHT posturing about there being "no consensus" for including/excluding information, when the consensus is clear but not worded in a specific way. There's little in the way of "discussion" coming from Nixon Now—mostly stonewalling, WP:IDHT, and insinuations against those whom they disagree with.

Nixon Now has tried to FUD their way out of an editwarring report I filed with the following comment: "You've consistently edited against consensus, pushing your own POV, and been obstructive and rude in your comments, continually engaged in personal attacks, and been uncivil even to the point of swearing."—notice there are no diffs or any other sort of evidence for any of this except the fact that I said "fucking" in exasperation when he accused me of having opposed in an RfC I actually supported. Notice they can't even spell out what POV I'm supposedly pushing (am I pro-Ford? anti-Ford? or is NPOV itself my insidious agenda?).

Nixon Now employs these muddy-the-water tactics throught these discussions, which, combined with the editwarring, make progress impossible. You'll see these tactics on display in their response to this report.

I'm at wit's end. Nixon Now shows no respect for collaboration or consensus and has taken WP:OWNership over the Doug Ford Jr. article to push a predominantly negative view of the subject. When even as clear a consensus as what has been arrived at at Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading doesn't stop NN from editwarring to keep that header, how can this be dealt with? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I had totally forgotten about this edit, in which Nixon Now actually restored a description of Ford as a "former drug dealer" in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 article, so that his description read:

"Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, who is currently seeking the PC nomination in Etobicoke North for the upcoming June 2018 Provincial election."

This is about as serious a breach of WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT as you can get. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It was sourced and several other editors supported inclusion. Consensus was against it so it was removed so frankly the history of that article disproved your OWN claims. If it was the breach you suggest you a) wouldn't have forgotten about it b) wouldn't fail to bring it up for more than two months. Nixon Now (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"It was sourced"—and there we have it, folks. If it's sourced, then screw WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT—but only if it fits NN's POV (NN's been removing plenty of sourced material that doesn't fit their POV). This is the problem we have to do with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You are parsing the first three words of my comment and ignoring the rest of it, the part that refuted your claim of OWN or even POV-pushing. That's fairly typical of your arguments. In fact, whether or not to include reference to Ford's past drug dealing was such a non-dispute that it wasnt even raised at Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 by you, me or anyone else so your sudden outrage, two months later, while full of high school theatrics, is unconvincing. Nixon Now (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

REPLY Please see Talk: Doug Ford Jr. in which the consensus is against CT on several matters he raises above such as the antisemitism issue and the John Oliver issue. It is instructive that despite the specious claim of POV pushing, CT does not actually quote the passages in question from the article which he is claiming are POV. They are all neutrally worded, well-sourced and have been in the article for years until early this year when Doug Ford announced his candidacy for the PC Party of Ontario, after which some editors, including banned editor User:Soulspinr and various socks and IPs attempted to remove the material.

CT neglects to state that there has been a lot of editing of the article over the past few months by IPs and socks and suspected socks of banned user User:Soulspinr and that this is a factor in occasional edit warring. He also omits the fact that a number of the reversions in areas he's complaining about have been carried out by other editors (see the edit history of Doug Ford Jr..) He is misrepresenting the history of the article by implying it's a consensus of editors against me when in fact he has usually been in the minority and the edits restoring neutrally worded sourced material has been carried out by a large number of editors against one or two people attempting to censor this article on a public figure.

In addition to the talk page discussion, and the edit warring notice board, CT is also participating vigorously at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Doug_Ford_Jr.;_anti_semitic_comment_by_Subject's_brother and opened this complaint at ANI. User:Curly Turkey is engaging in WP:FORUMSHOPping. Nixon Now (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As he alluded to, CT does have a long history of being blocked for incivility. I believe the temperment that led to those blocks has played a negative role in his recent exchanges and had exacerbated the situation. Nixon Now (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice the lack of diffs or other forms of substantiation, and notice how virtually nothing he has written has contradicted any of the evidence I've provided, but only deflected from it. Expect more of the same, folks. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I work. If I have time I'll add diffs tonight but honestly I think it's better if people just read the talk page, the BlP discussion, and look over the past few weeks of article edits in context. Nixon Now (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note to admins: I was trying to track down where that bit about Jagmeet Singh had been removed by myself some time before this present incident. Admins can view it here; it is revdeleted for being copied from the source, and the IP that added it in January was a sock of Soulspinr who some of you might know better as Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. This new close paraphrase from the same source by another IP in Toronto with the same attention span and area of focus is very likely the same user, but I consider myself WP:INVOLVED here.

As for the antisemitic slur incident, it's really a content dispute and should be settled on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector: most of the reverts were of legitimate editors, often of material currently under discussion—and how does this demonstrate good faith on NN's part? How can we have a legitimate discusion with someone who would make an edit like that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, IP now blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This complaint flows out of a 3RR complaint CT filed against me. As I suspected User:Katy Park, the reversion of whose edits User:Curly Turkey objected to, has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet. I expect the IP who was reverted will soon be confirmed as a sockpuppet as well. Nixon Now (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This complaint does not flow out of a 3RR complaint, though the editwarring is a part of the larger WP:OWNership issue, and a great many of the reverts are of legitimate editors such as myself and Nocturnalnow. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• • The IP on the 3RR edit warring report has now also been confirmed as a sock[59]. While CurlyTurkey dismissed my justification as "FUD" my suspicions about socking have now been confirmed. Nixon Now (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that User:Curly Turkey has the edit history to back up what he is saying, and here is an example of what he is talking about. I also agree 100% with Nixon Now's suggestion above that, although time consuming, for sure, it's better if people just read the talk page and look over the past few weeks of article edits in context. I believe that NixonNow, who has spent a lot of time editing this Blp, truly believes strongly that he is within policy and that the various negative content belongs in the Blp in a substantive way in order to correctly represent the entirety of the Subject's life, however, putting in a negative heading with no consensus and then quickly setting uo a Rfc and claiming the Rfc keeps that heading in there for 30 days, (its been a week so far), even though the RFC is 9-1, the 1 being NixonNow, against using the heading, seems to me to be a bit overbearing (full disclosure, I also have a history of being too pushy). Ivanvector has done a great job of "herding cats" at the Blp and fortunately, NixonNow cooperates fully with Ivan as far as I can tell, but otoh, its entirely up to Ivan when/if he wants to step in as he did constructively at the time of the edit I refer to above. The Blp itself is pretty good, imo, in fact not long afo I was suggesting it might be FA material (shows my shortcoming in things like FA selection, apparently). NixonNow is reaaaaaly stubborn, but so am I so I have lots of empathy and relate well to his determination to do what he thinks id best for the Blp. But the thing with the heading was not cool, even if not meant to be such an "OWN" type move. I think Ivan can work with NixonNow to fix these matters and that maybe an actual mentorship type arrangement can be informally set up between them, if they both are willing, that would be the ideal solution, in my opinion. Win, win for all the editors and the Blp. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Other editors have also reverted attempts to remove the subheadings while the RFC is underway.[60] Singling me out for doing this or claiming it's somehow aberrant to do so is specious. Nixon Now (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Numerous editors (User:Nocturnal Now, and myself before the RfC) have removed the subheadings because opposition to them is literally unanimous. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey's belligerent attitude to editors can be seen here[61] where in short order, in separate comments, he tells an editor "The flying fuck is this shit?", "You admitted to it yourself. Now fuck off" and "just fuck off with the trolling horseshit". Nixon Now (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Otoh, he has been very gentle and respectful when dealing with you or me, you must admit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, he's sworn at me too[62], refused to AGF, and has been shopping around specious complaints. If that's "gentle" I feel sorry for the editors he's harsh with. Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I swear a lot, but that is neither actionable nor relevant to your persistent POV-pushing or WP:OWNership of the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your swearing is abusive and a violation of Wikipedia:Civility and it is actionable so govern yourself accordingly. Nixon Now (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"abusive"? Here's the complete quote: Nixon Now: "a passage you'd like to remove"—what the fuck is this?! I voted include in the fucking RfC!!!. If "swearing is abusive and a violation of Wikipedia:Civility", then here's your chance to have me blocked: fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck. NeilN, Ivanvector: please block me now if this is true. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

CurlyTurkey falsely claims that I placed the Ford drug dealing allegations "prominently in the "Early life" section,] where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation." In fact, the allegation had been there for years, see for example[63] I simply restored it when POV editors, most of whom have been banned, attempted to censor the material from the article since around January 2018 when Ford re-entered politics. I have said this several times yet CT persists in repeating the myth that I am the author of the drug allegation passage. Nixon Now (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

CT also resents my saying that removing subheadings would be effectively burying the allegations in a large wall of text when WP policy prefers the use of section headings. As I said on the talk page:

I said it appears to be buried because that is the effect. Whether or not that is your intention is irrelevant. I'm not speaking of your motives, simply of the outcome. I was mistaken in assuming you had previously opposed inclusion of the drug material in the article and I apologise for that.[64]

Note as well that I apologized for assuming CT had earlier opposed inclusion of the drug allegations at all. He has yet to apologise to me for any of his personal attacks or incorrect allegations. Nixon Now (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for. My only allegations—that you a pushing a POV, will editwar to support your POV, and are stonewalling discussion—all stand. I haven't seen you retract any of your other allegations against me—that I'm pushing some unnamed POV, that I'm some sock/meatpuppet of Katy, that I've personally attacked you, that I've been "obstructive", etc. But what really matters is your WP:OWNership of the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps best we lock up the page till they all figure out what to do.....I see will still have reverts all over.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moxy: perhaps, but only after the removal of disputed material first, per WP:BLP.
  • Then it should be locked to the state it was back in January prior to the descent of a sockpuppet army - save for later sections on Ford winning the leadership etc. Nixon Now (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It should absolutely not be locked under a "Nixon Now-approved" version—it should be locked under a version in which disputed material has first been removed until consensu to add it back is formed on the talk page, per WP:BLP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • semi-protection until the June 7 election would remove the socks and IP editors from the mix and allow legitimate discussion and editing to continue. Pending revisions has failed to stop sockpuppet editing. Nixon Now (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Semiprotection might help defend the article against socking, but the issues are not limited to socks. Most of the editors are legitimate, and you're reverting them, too—against clear talk page consensus, and on a WP:BLP no less. On top of that is your POV-pushing, which is the subject of this report. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly not back to January, there is a lot of great non-disputed content over the past 2 months covering the Leadership race and new content about the upcoming Ontario general election, 2018, so please leave the Provincial politics section as it is today and we can add more via admin. requests. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Right—far too much legitimate material has been aded since Ford's election as party leader to revert the entire article, and we would have to be careful anything reverted to didn't violate WP:BLP or any of the consensuses reached already on the talk page. Reverting would cause far, far more problems than it could solve.
      But we still have NN's WP:OWNership issues to deal with. Regardless of any other issues, progress won't be made until we do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • So, I'd say remove all disputed content and go to either full or semi-protection until, as Nixon Now says, the election is over, at least. In terms of NN lets just all cool down for awhile and I think we can eventually all get along just fine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
        • There is a consensus for keeping the drug dealing allegations. Would you remove that? There appears to be consensus for the response to antisemitic comments? Would you remove that? It looks like you're trying to achieve here what you've failed to achieve through RFC, BLP discussion page, and talk page discussion. Nixon Now (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I'd have all of it removed until their respective RfCs closed, and then have someone other than Nixon Now add the information in that has officially achieved consensus. NN's "Doug Ford is a former drug dealer" edit and intransigence over the subsectioning (etc) show that they cannot be trusted with sensitive material. Proposed wordings for the drug dealing allegations, etc, should be proposed on the Talk Page first, so they aren't open to "creative interpretation" by POV-pushers claiming to be working under "consensus". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
            • So you would overturn consensus until some point in the future and impose your preferred version in the mean time. At least now we know the motivation for this ANI. This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Your ANI is an abuse of process. Nixon Now (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
              • And here you are accusing me of pushing some POV again, and yet still can't name that POV. Am I pro-Ford? Anti-Ford? Your very accusation is gibberish. Meanwhile, you continue to defend "Doug Ford is a businessman and former drug dealer ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
                • CT did not say he would impose his version, more along the lines of an uninvolved person coming up with the right content and Ivanvector is perfect for that, if he's willing, imo, even if he's had some involvement. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
                  • I'd be fine with that, along with a WP:0RR restriction on Nixon Now in light of their continued defence of "Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If the best User:Curly Turkey can do is try to make a mountain out of a more than two month old molehill of an edit in an entirely different article which was also done by other experienced editors before and after and which did not even raise a mention on the article's talk page - and rather than a "dispute" the disagreement was resolved amicably within the article by removing the reference (contrary to CT's claims that I violate WP:OWN) - then he really is straining hard. It looks like of the dozens of people who edit Doug Ford Jr. there are precisely two people who care about this ANI, Curly Turkey and his editing partner User:Nocturnalnow and even Nocturnalnow lacks commitment to this ANI saying " lets just all cool down for awhile and I think we can eventually all get along just fine." CT has been blowing a lot of smoke here but there's not even a flicker of actual fire. He has yet to actually specify any non-neutral wording in the Doug Ford Jr. article that he can attribute to me, the best he can do is point to another article entirely (where, in retrospect, WP voice should not have been used, rather "alleged by the Globe and Mail" should have been). Nixon Now (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Um ... scroll up and there's that mountain of diffs. A clear pattern of behaviour over several months that demonstrates bad faith and WP:OWNership issues that have brought the article to a standstill at your "preferred version", including that subsection heading for which there is a literal unanimous consensus against—and the fact that you continue to defend that "two-month-old edit" in light of the past several months' behaviour makes that edit very relevant to your unceasing behaviour here and now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean like the diff where Nocturnalnow "closed" an RFC and implemented an assessment of it even though he's an involved editor and is not allowed to close RFCs that he is involved with and didn't start? Your diffs are cherrypicked and out of context and I suggest you see my earlier responses. Nixon Now (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree this thread is more heat than light, and really nothing has been presented which warrants having been brought here in the first place. It's a content dispute, and for the most part it has been discussed remarkably civilly within the article's talk page (remarkably so because of the polarizing nature of the subject and the persistence of sockpuppets). Nixon Now has not been a disruptive influence on this article, notwithstanding the fact that they have reverted a persistent banned editor several times, reverts which are permitted by WP:3RRNO and WP:BANREVERT. Of the diffs Curly Turkey provided at ANEW, all but one were reverting this banned editor. There really is nothing here or on the talk page to justify Curly Turkey's persistent accusations of POV battling by Nixon Now; NN has pushed suggested some bold POV edits, but not to the extent of being unacceptably undue or obvious BLP vios, and when challenged he has joined discussion every single time, often starting the discussion. See for example:

• #Positioning of hashish report
• #Referencing Subject as a "drug dealer" or "dealing drugs"
• #Antisemitic comment by brother

There's surely nothing that justifies Nixon Now being referred to as "pushing a very anti-Ford agenda" or any of his edits as "a desperate attempt to smear the Fords". Perhaps Nixon Now should consider not reverting the banned editor when that editor returns to disrupt the article: although they are explicitly permitted to do so by policy there are several admins watching the article now. And perhaps Curly Turkey should consider discussing the article's content rather than repeatedly casting aspersions about other editors' motivations and running to admin noticeboards whenever someone doesn't agree with their opinion.

If admins are going to do anything here, I suggest full protection to enforce discussion, which has been overwhelmingly productive in moving this article past its long-running stalemates. Distracting the productive discussions with these sideshows is not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you have to be joking. How do you justify "Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..."? How do you justify that every edit NN has pushed has put Ford in a bad light, while every edit he insists on keeping out puts him in a positive light? How do you justify NN's insistence that edits under discussion that NN supports be kept in the article until discussion closes, but edits that NN opposes be kept in until discussion closes? What of WP:BLP, which mandates challenged material be kept out when challenged?

I agree—full page protection is what is needed to enforce discussion and keep certain editors from forcing their version of "the truth" on the article. The disputed material needs to be removed first, per WP:BLP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view, and I suspect that of millions of people in Ontario across the political spectrum it is factual to say Ford is a former drug dealer given the credibility of the Globe and Mail report and I have always held that position when discussing the matter on the Doug Ford talk page. Am I insisting that the Doug Ford page state that? No, I'm not. Contrary to your claims I am not trying to impose my view on the article. I recognize that it is preferable not to put that in Wikipedia's "voice" and to state that these are allegations made in a Globe and Mail investigative report. However, if you want to ban anyone who thinks or says Ford is a former drug dealer from editing the article then you should also ban everyone who says he wasn't. Good luck with that. 23:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector: do you agree that this comment accurately reflects how I've characterized NN? Do you believe that "Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..." was NN honestly trying to be NPOV? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is a credible source, so yes. But others disagree and I've engaged in discussion and compromised. What you seem to think is a (two month old) smoking gun actually disproves your case precisely because I haven't insisted on that wording and have compromised in the two months since that edit. Thank you for bringing it up. Nixon Now (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So this is official—you defend that edit. This is why your editing needs to be restricted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you only ever seem to read the first four words of anything I say. Read my entire comment rather than parsing out the parts you don't like.Nixon Now (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That you violate WP:BLP and then "allow" others to clean up your POV-pushing mess? Yes, that's what this whole report is about. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You've failed to convince a single person of that, despite repeating the same thing over and over again, with the possible exception of Nocturnalnow (and even he seems less and less sure the more you talk). Have you actually listened to what anyone else here has said or do you stop reading after the fourth or fifth word? Have you considered that you might possibly be wrong or do you insist that you are always right and everyone else is wrong? Nixon Now (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We have yet to have a single non-involved party examine the evidence, and more than one commenter agrees we need page protection to enforce discussion. Nobody suggests it needs to be protected from me, and nobody suggests the socks should engage in discussion (their talk-page comments have been struck). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow can speak for himself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I was one of those calling for full protection. You've twisted the call to mean something else - and you've been twisting and parsing things consistently so that's not a surprise. And Nocturnalnow has spoken, evidently you haven't read his comments in their entirety either. Nixon Now (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor suggests the article be locked. You throw a fit that it shouldn't be locked in its current state because somehow that's my version but now you claim the editor wanted it locked to protect it from me? Incredible. Nixon Now (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be locked and all material currently under discussion needs to be removed per WP:BLP until consensus to keep it has been reached. That includes material I support inclusion of. If you're not pushing a POV, you should have no issue with that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming 2:1 consensus to include the drug allegation material and yet you're arguing for removing the material while the article is indefinitely locked - likely until after the election. And you claim not to have a political agenda? Nixon Now (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And I was a vigorous supporter of its inclusion. What's my agenda? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But now you're saying any material "under discussion" should be removed. That would include the drug allegations since they are "under discussion" in an RFC. Nixon Now (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That's right—so stop dodging like a coward: tell everyone what my "agenda" is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So that would mean that despite a 2:1 consensus for inclusion the drug allegations would disappear from the article, probably until after the June 7 elections or at least for much of the campaign, if your proposal was implemented. I don't think I have to tell anyone what your agenda is. You've just revealed it yourself. Nixon Now (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfCs run 30 days, and Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report—(which I explicitly supported)—has been open since 12 March. Again—you keep dodging—what's my agenda? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Except that earlier in this discussion you said that after the RFCs close, wording should be proposed on the Talk page and then agreed upon until entering the article - a process which could easily be dragged out for 8 weeks, until after the election by dedicated political partisans. Your solution fits a partisan political agenda despite your protests to the contrary. Nixon Now (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You're still pushing this shit? You've convinced literally nobody that I have any sort of political agenda—which you still can't even name. Meanwhile you've even managed to state your own bias again Ford. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Could we get an uninvolved party to comment here?

Could we get someone who's not already involved in the talk page discussions to take a look at this stuff? That's in large part the point of bringing it to ANI in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Am I summarizing things correctly here? A newspaper published unsubstantiated allegations based on interviews with anonymous sources that the BLP subject sold hashish in the 1980s. The BLP subject denies the allegations, and there have been no criminal charges and no convictions. If that is reasonably accurate, then I believe that BLP policy requires that we keep this news gossip out of this BLP. Let the newspaper publish it but not Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid you're missing several crucial elements such as WP:WELLKNOWN. Please see the RFC at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report for a thorough discussion of the issue. Nixon Now (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328: That's the subject of the RfC open at Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report, not this ANI report. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, this looks like a total mess and no one is going to want to touch it. It isn't clear what either of you want done, or what the right course of action would be. What is preferred over waiting for the RFC process to establish consensus on the points of dispute? Is anyone making edits contrary to a clear consensus? Prodego ^talk 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best course would be for an uninvolved admin to close the two active RFCs at Talk:Doug Ford Jr. and interpret the results. Nixon Now (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 - can you do one (or both) of these? I cannot immediately, but within 24 hours I can get to it. Prodego ^talk 02:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, I have to smile at your immediate bafflement that such info is in the Blp at all. I took the anonymous allegations of hashish dealing (no charges or arrest, ever) completely out of the Blp when I first noticed it 2 months ago and it stayed out until a few weeks ago, but now we have several editors, including at least one admin.,Ivanvector who want the allegations in the BLP. Imo, this is a no-brainer direct conflict with the spirit of Blp policy, but others feel that Blp policy demands its inclusion. There have been Blp Noticeboard discussions and Rfcs galore, with several admins, like you, at various times, seeing the blatant inappropriateness that I do, but none stick with the issue long enough to get things settled. Now the absurdity, imo, has extended to fighting over allowing a headline for the alleged hashish dealing, with an RFC sentiment 8-2 against yet the heading remains in the article for 30 days as demanded by the initiator of the RFC. Cullen328, please take some bold action here, if you can. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nocturnalnow but your comments are highly misleading. It's false to say the drug allegations "stayed out until a few weeks ago". In fact, they were in the article for years, since 2013[65] and were still in the article as late as December 2017[66], and only disappeared in January around the time Ford announced his candidacy for the PC Party leadership and were kept out due to edit-warring by a now banned editor and their sockpuppets. To suggest, as you do above, that these allegations are a recent addition to the article is simply false. You are also cherrypicking policy and are completely ignoring WP:WELLKNOWN which is a component of BLP. Nixon Now (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Prodego: What I'd like to see done is something to ensure Nixon Now

• adheres to WP:BLP, so:
  • no edits like this, and
  • challenged material is removed from BLPs until consensus to re-add is achieved
• adheres to WP:CONSENSUS
• ceases from editwarring (not just strictly WP:3RR, which is too easy to game).

Between now and the June election (and quite likely beyond), this BLP will be very active, and the polarizing nature of the subject means there will be POV pushers left and right (probably peaking in the month leading up to the election). The page itself should probably be locked down, which looks like where things are headed already. All disputed material that has not yet reached consensus for inclusion should be removed until their respective RfCs have closed—the article should not be protected at one POV's "preferred version", which is what will happen if it is locked down right now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Curly Turkey has an unhealthy fixation with me. While we're engaging in fantasy wish lists it would be helpful if he were placed on a strict civility patrol as well as banned from the article and banned from Wikipedia for 48 hours the next time he uses rude language (ie swearing) in a discussion. Or we could ask people to focus on the article rather than personalities and have uninvolved admins weigh in on the remaining content disputes. Nixon Now (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mmm. That's very good advice, which you should follow yourself. Fish+Karate 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to and despite there being a number of editors with conflicting views, CT is the only editor I've had a serious problem with apart from the User:Soulspinr sockpuppets. If he focussed on the article rather than me we'd all be much more productive and able to resolve disputes amicably.Nixon Now (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

People don't seem to be buying your act, NN, and you have yet to provide us with a single diff demonstrating I've disrupted anything or pushed any sort of POV. This ANI is not about personalities, but about your disruptive behaviour—which is what ANI deals with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I refer admins to comments made by admin User:Ivanvector and other editors in the main discussion above the break, particularly this one[67]. If I require a defence to CT's specious complaint, I will rely entirely on what Ivanvector has said and see no reason to add anything further. If CT brings up a two month old edit to an entirely different article (as he does below) please see this response[68]. These two diffs are all that need to be said. Nixon Now (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's only one editor here on any kind of crusade, and if editors like Curly Turkey would focus half the energy on building articles and contributing civilly to talk page discussions as they apparently do finding battles to fight, we would have a much better encyclopedia. Don't ping me five more times, I'm done commenting here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ivanvector has yet to comment on [this WP:BLP violation or how your keeping disputed under-discussion material in the article doesn't violate WP:BLP. He also hasn't backed up any of your accusations against me. Another admin, Masem, has commented on certain editors' desires to include negative material (in particular, the antisemitism material) in this BLP in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NPOV—material you have fought to keep in the text even while it is under discussion (it's still there now, and the discussion hasn't closed). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Again Ivan refuses to comment on these BLP violations. Why? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, this is my last comment, then I have work to do and won't be back on today. Since roughly late December when Mr. Ford became a news item again, in general there have been two main approaches to editing this article:

1. The typical BRD approach, which has occasionally pushed the limits of BLP in both directions, followed by at times heated but generally civil discussion;
2. Screaming BLP! BLP! Revert! Revert! any time anybody makes any edit with any kind of POV skew, no matter how minor nor how far in the past, or even on different articles entirely.

One of these approaches has led to several constructive discussions and building out of article content, and has resolved some long-standing issues with the article. One of these approaches is plainly obstructive, and has led, repeatedly, to article progress being undone.

To answer Curly Turkey's repeated insistence that I comment on one particular edit: it was one edit on a different but related article which occurred more than two months ago, which was restored once when a sockpuppet removed it, and then reworked to be compliant with BLP and NPOV. It was not a case, as Curly Turkey repeatedly insists, of a POV-warring editor repeatedly inserting false and derogatory information about a living person; this situation is much more complicated than that black-and-white thinking. The fact is, in 2013 a major Canadian newspaper (Canada's largest by circulation, not some tabloid or gossip rag) published a report (not a column or opinion piece) which stated that Doug Ford dealt hashish in the 1980s, and repeated this statement in 2018. Coverage of Ford in other publications then and now regularly mentions this information. It's not much a stretch to thus say "Doug Ford is a former drug dealer" - it is not BLP compliant when you take all of the facts of the matter into consideration (he denies it, no criminal charges were laid), but it is not on the level of out of the blue saying "Doug Ford is a Russian puppet" or "Doug Ford killed a guy", or whatever other drive-by vandalism politicians' bios are regularly subject to. Nixon Now has offered edits like these for discussion, has offered their viewpoint sometimes insistently but has always respected consensus when it emerges, including with this one edit from two months ago. This is exactly how BLP and BRD are supposed to interact. Some of these things belong in the article and some don't - we don't get to NPOV without bringing these things up and talking about them. There is no constructive purpose today for demanding sanctions over one isolated edit from two months ago, except in trying to browbeat your opponents with policy instead of participating in consensus-seeking activities.

In the time since the edit for which Curly Turkey seeks sanctions against Nixon Now, particular probably-BLP-violating edits from many editors have spawned discussions on the article's talk page and have made significant progress to resolve:

• whether to include the Globe & Mail investigative report, how much of it, and where it should be placed in the article if so;
• how much detail to include regarding one campaign event;
• whether to include the G&M report again, and whether the prose suggested that the subject expressing intent to take legal action but not doing so implied guilt by association in Wikipedia's voice;
• a still-ongoing RfC on major aspects of inclusion of the G&M report;
• whether mentioning the subject's brother (not the one who was Mayor of Toronto) in the G&M allegations section violated WP:BLPCRIME;
• whether the subject's political position should be described as "populist";
• where to place the G&M allegations, despite the RfC on the topic still being open and active;
• the subject's middle name, which turned out to be based on a flawed source;
• whether to include subsection headings for various paragraphs within a long section covering the subject's political career;
• whether to include supposedly anti-Semitic comments made by the subject and his brother, along with discussion of this incident on a leading American late-night comedy show;
• a discussion on whether certain municipal activities which occurred while the subject was a municipal councillor should be attributed to him;
• a discussion of coverage of an episode of a local public television show on which the subject was featured.

In my admittedly biased opinion, this is remarkable progress for a BLP on a divisive politician during a campaign. Nixon Now has participated in most of these discussions, while Curly Turkey has mostly just tried to filibuster and start separate parallel side-discussions at other noticeboards, like this one. It's curious to me that Curly Turkey demands sanctions for this but is utterly silent on edits like this or this. What does WP:NPOV even mean if you can't use it to get your editorial adversaries blocked, right?

Anyway, I'm intending to ignore whatever else happens in this thread and encourage everyone else to do the same, particularly administrators, and participate at Talk:Doug Ford Jr. instead if you want to contribute. Leave a message on my talk page if something requires my urgent attention. I'm off to fight with Great Plains' confusing inventory costing layers database now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector wonders why I haven't kicked up a fuss about two edits that are no longer in the article, versus edits that Nixon Now has editwarred to keep in the article (and are still there now)? What is this even supposed to imply? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

Hi all. In an attempt to impose some order on the article, I've gone ahead and removed pending changes, extended the semi-protection for three months, and implemented a 1RR restriction on the article. Also, since I haven't seen it addressed specifically, this is contentious label and if I see anything like that again, Nixon Now, you're going to be topic banned from the subject area without further notice. Regarding the content issue, there are two RfCs and a BLPN thread which need to be formally closed before that can be resolved. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Detektyw_z_Wilna

Had real difficulties(not only me) with disruptive behaviour of this user. Texts with references to reliable sources like OECD, windeurope.org and other were removed multiple times(2-3) with pejorative and insufficient arguments "dubiuos", "flat out wrong", etc. thus violating BOLD in BRD (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) maliciously. It makes collecting facts difficult if they deleted instantly without discussing or corrections. As I explored the history of this user, most of the job he/she was done - guarding/reverting edits or deletion the sentences he/she likes most and removing facts which are verifiable but are not pleasing to him/her. Absent or very minimal discussion. Very little of new content was added by this user. The final result is poor and disruptive - editors waisting time reverting deleted and needlessly editing well sourced content.

Examples of deleting-restoring edits with reliable sources:
832058869
832183760
832072047 edit 5)
832418917
832492931 edit 2) - completely rewritten
832493177 completely rewritten introducing factual errros
832654342
Information about roads A1,A2,E67 - with the claim "Wikipedia is not yellowpages or adverting source" was removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=832497939&oldid=832493177

Detektyw z Wilna removed a sentence tertiary education percentage with reliable sources(OECD), claiming the facts are dubious, forcefully misediting another sentence about Gazprom monopoly, and, due to poor understanding of the subject leaving factual errors - "all of Lithuania’s gas supply is provided by an LNG terminal" which was never stated before. While "The terminal is able to meet the Lithuania's demand 100 percent..in the future" was stated in original source. But I decided to pass on this, since its hopeless to start reverting/editing game again. It were vain 2-3 reverts/misedits already before. 832493177
After some misedits/reverts the fact from OECD about tertiary education percentage in Lithuania was finally allowed to be in the text..
One might think - maybe there are very strict quality requirements are being pushed through by Detektyw_z_Wilna ? But the content which is defended by the abovementioned user has weak sources, having no direct support of the facts, neglecting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view principles and difficult to verify for a non-Lithuanian reader are blatantly defended. 832059097 "Law and crime" as it was in 831095300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: I currently lack of time to follow his every step, but I have noticed tendency that he is mostly (or all the time) inserting negative information about Lithuania (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing). Moreover, as you have already mentioned - he defends such negative information very aggressively. I cannot confirm it yet, however he more and more reminds me one of the Russian Troll Factory employee. Some of the examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=816385880 (only problems about the Lithuanian education), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invest_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=817685742 (suggestion to remove "Invest in Lithuania" article). His main troll duty currently seems to be corruption in Lithuania and he is mostly boasting it in his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=828076611, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=810927608 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=810940795 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=810947028. I am against censorship, however a person who constantly adds only negative information about his home country really raises doubts about his nationality and his possible Black propaganda tasks. -- Pofka (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: I made a small research on this user contributions via Detektyw z Wilna Contributions it reveals very interesting picture:

1. ~90% of the added content of this user is on page Corruption in Lithuania. It has serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problems, speaking the least. I would suggest to add a warning regarding the poor sources and NPOV Balance on it.
2. Attempt to delete Lithuanian governmental non-profit (like Invest Lithuania, Lithuanian Development Agency) and Lithuanian Free Market Institute organizations from Wikipedia. How to properly do AfD?
3. Almost all activity on Lithuania page is closely watching deleting/misedit of contributions of others, reverting and edit warring and fiercely protecting the Corruption and Crime sections.
   -- Ke an (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply from the accused

1. Most of the content in this "report" does not even attempt to honestly deal with the situation, but rather focuses on character assassinations – "troll", "black propaganda", "inherit bias" and so on. It does not seem wise to rebut and continue down this slippery slope.
2. I would like to point out that I attempted to honestly deal with the situation and applied to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard before this report to "incident noticeboard".
3. Most of the edits which in the list above are identified as "disruptive", have concrete and detailed reasons listed in the edit summary. This example is particularly telling (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=832493177&oldid=832492931). Attempt to correct souce missrepresentation (from a source that is inaccessible for most people) plus a very detailed and thorough edit explanation is identified as "disruptive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detektyw z Wilna (talk • contribs) 08:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Yes, most of my edits have been about Lithuania. Exactly the same is true of both of the editors (Ke and and Pofka) who are accusing me.
5. I could have reused most of this text and made nearly identical report on both Ke an and Pofka. Just because you made an appeal first, does not mean that you are factually correct.
6. My edits have clear and extensive edit summaries and I only guard against censorship. Instead of multiple misrepresentations, wouldn't it at least be honest to mention that (a) most of your edits were never reverted nor altered (b) I allowed all edits as soon as they were factually accurate and (c) I improved some of your phrasings (grammar/spelling/word order/choice of words)?
7. My edits are factually accurate, encyclopaedic and relevant. Furthermore, I do my best to not extrapolate or misrepresent.
8. Claims that I am non-cooperative are not factually accurate – I strive to have clear and extensive edit summary to my every edit. I have also replied where a reply was needed. Sometimes, it was the other party that discontinued the discussion but I never threw around accusations of "non cooperation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Detektyw_z_Wilna#Korupcija_Lietuvoje)

Now let's deal with specific accusations:

1. "Texts with references to reliable sources ... were removed multiple times" & "removing facts which are verifiable but are not pleasing to him/her" – every removal had an explanation in the edit summary. Text were removed primarily for contradictions to official EU statistics.
2. "most of the job he/she was done - guarding/reverting edits" – reverting what appeared to be needless censorship. I do not object to removal or changes. My issue is needless censorship.
3. "But I decided to pass on this, since its hopeless to start reverting/editing game again" – I reverted only the edits that seemed factually incorrect. Most of your edits I never reverted nor altered, so this crying foul behaviour is misdirected.
4. "OECD about tertiary education percentage in Lithuania was finally allowed to be in the text." – allowed as soon as it appeared factually accurate. I also improved on the initially awkward phrasing.
5. "abovementioned [Detektyw_z_Wilna] user has weak sources, having no direct support of the fact" – a claim that is false or completely unsubstantiated at the very least.
6. "[Detektyw_z_Wilna] neglecting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view principles" – a claim that is false or completely unsubstantiated at the very least.
7. "difficult to verify for a non-Lithuanian reader" – sometimes Lithuanian sources are used because (a) English sources are not available (b) Lithuanian sources are accurately represented on Wikipedia (c) Wikipedia does not ban or discourage non-English sources.
8. "he defends such negative information very aggressively" – for the thirty-eleventh time, I defend when it appears to be censorship.
9. "I cannot confirm it yet, however he [...] Russian Troll Factory employee." – beautiful, just beautiful. Almost Reductio ad Hitlerum level of arguments.
10. "A person who constantly adds only negative information about his home country" – I add relevant, encyclopaedic and factually accurate information which otherwise would have not been added because of the "we need to look good on Wikipedia" marketing-style approach.
11. "It has serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problems, speaking the least." – One of many unsubstantiated attacks. Feel free to improve the article.

Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I think I provided quite enough diffs with proves about disruptive behaviour. Just another very characteristic issue - user Detektyw_z_Wilna uses quite often - "I allowed". Do we deal with some dictatorship or authority here? Edit waring diffs show quite limited understanding of ethics and knowledge -- Ke an (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

English is not my native language, sorry for unfortunate phrasing. It was unintentional and I try to not do it again. As for "proving disruptive behavior", show two edits that prove "disruptiveness". You allege that there are many examples, but let's start with two. Pick your best examples. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is questionable if edits which Ke an identified as "disruptive" are actually disruptive. Here is one example – Ke an thought that this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=832072047&oldid=832059097) was disruptive. However, Mr. Ke an seems to willingly ignore that there were 7 concrete and detailed reasons for the edit, all named in the edit summary. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: @Ke an:. Detektyw, I deleted your section about corruption because it is too minor for a country-level page and other FA/GA articles of countries have this crime (along with others) integrated to other sections (Law or Law enforcement). Your claims about "looking good" is a slander and I will not further discuss it because I have integrated information about corruption from your paragraph and did not tried to avoid this problematic area of Lithuania. You immediately restored it without listening what I have done and why I have done it because it is possibly your task to boast this problematic field above other crimes in Lithuania. My accusation that you are from the Troll Factory is because you have vastly used proxy previously in the Corruption in Lithuania page. Why would a normal person do that and try to hide his true identity in such peaceful website as Wikipedia? I have checked these IP addresses locations who were inserting information to the Corruption in Lithuania page and they are from many distant countries. This information was later added by you to Lithuania and is based on Lithuanian language sources, so it is really easy to understand that you was inserting information to this page by using at least three different IP addresses and your registered account Detektyw z Wilna. Here is the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812717853&oldid=812699338 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812699338&oldid=812699072 (both were added by 82.221.111.11 who is located in Reykjavik, Iceland, so is it cold there?), next: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812724333&oldid=812719269 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812724624&oldid=812724333 (both were added by 66.212.31.138 who is located in Los Angeles, United States, so is it hot there?), then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812732001&oldid=812724624 (added by 37.0.124.86 who is located in Moscow, Russia, so hello my dear Russian communist friend?). Caught your red tail? All these edits are based on Lithuanian sources and are very similar or are improving, expanding previously added edits by these distant IP adresses (more of them can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&offset=20171129101647&action=history&tagfilter=). By the way, your comparison with Hitler was priceless (ordinary slang used by the Troll Factory zombies, wanna call me fascist?). Banning of this proxy troll and protection of Corruption in Lithuania page from not registered users is a must. -- Pofka (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: (1) Slander? Please check what the word means. (2) My self-imposed task is to prevent censorship. (3) Troll factory accusations and other longshots (ignoring the problematic projection, unsubstantiated accusations and irrelevance) are a slippery slope (4) I agree that Corruption in Lithuania should be semi-protected. (5) I never made any comparison to Hitler. You seem to be intentionally misrepresenting my reductio argument Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Will not discuss anymore with a red proxy troll because it is pointless. These IP adresses is a proof that you are a proxy troll from Moscow. Your days are counted here. Прощай мой друг! -- Pofka (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

WTF is going on? Let's wait for external mediation. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is illegal here, my friend from Moscow. ;-) -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: You provided edits done by 3 IP addresses. One of the three IPs I do recognise. The other two, I do not. Your accusations about Moscow, trolls or sockpuppetry are false and a textbook definition of character assassination. Desperate measures in lack of arguments? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Let me guess... It must be the 37.0.124.86: Moscow, Russia? ;-) Many as you call "characters" were just assassinated all across Europe and are flying to Moscow with their "diplomatic" secret agents identities torned. ;-) -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It is amazing how difficult you find to stay on the actual case. Please note that I have never accused you of various unsubstantiated things. With your logic, I would have accused you for "working for Lithuanian ministry of Economy" which does various country promotion campaigns and has even founded organisations dedicated to that purpose (www.lithuania.travel, vilnius-tourism.lt, www.govilnius.lt). Back to the topic, while I admire your patriotism and energy, censorship will have to be reverted. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Lithuanian ministry of Economy does not have a Proxy Troll Factory. Russia? Well... Internet Research Agency, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/world/europe/russia-troll-factory.html (Moscow). How much of your wage you will lose because of me? Hurts, isn't it? -- Pofka (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka and Detektyw z Wilna: Detektyw z Wilna is also demonstrates what is defined as Wikipedia:Ownership of content. This user also flooded the Talk:Lithuania page, not only this one. -- Ke an (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this entire sentence is empty and unsubstantiated accusations. Both Ke an (34 edits) and Pofka (36) have far more edits on the aforementioned talk page than me (23). (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lithuania). Of course, spreading false claims hasn't stopped Ke an before, so why bother now? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are these statements NPOV? this user asked if some statements that "are backed by reliable sources" (without providing those sources) would be sufficiently NPOV for a "legal paragraph of a country article on Wikipedia". (which country? who knows!) I had to drag this information out of this user. I was assuming good faith, but in light of this discussion I am questioning that now. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Unfortunately Detektyw z Wilna doesn't demonstrate a good will. Rather a misuse of Wikipedia principles and conflict-solving tools(they are flooded with meaningless micro accusations and are difficult to read now). It looks like a professional trolling to me. -- Ke an (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:Good that you bring that up here, but all sources were provided as soon as you asked for them. I initially did not see why it was necessary to provide sources for a generic question. However, you got them as soon as you asked for them. Same goes for country name. So implication that something was "hidden" isn't correct, is it? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Nobody with good faith hides under multiple proxies when adding information about (now definitely) foreign country. "I don't recognise these IPs" was all he said when he got caught with indisputable evidence (just check these links which I posted before and decide by yourself if it was written by the same person at almost the same time in US/Iceland/Russia, haha). I posted about this there to inform about this situation, which is critical and requires punishment. -- Pofka (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Critique and attack me all you like, but at least do it honestly without misrepresenting my quotes (don't know), making up stuff (hides under multiple proxies) or twisting the facts (at almost the same time) to suit your message. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Okey, lets make it without paraphrasing instead of "I don't know" you said "I do not recognise". Edited. End of feed for the troll from me, because you are simply speaking in the same manner as Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who also does not listen to other people arguments and only shouts that everybody are enemies/russophobics. -- Pofka (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Asking without providing those sources right away is already strange. After I asked, you added the sources but still did not provide a link to the article. Yes, I had to drag the information out of you. @Pofka: It would probably help if you could organize/compact all the information here. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: All the needed information about his proxy usage is already here. See mine post from "08:53, 3 April 2018" and pay attention how aggresively he runs from this topic using absurd arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: With all due respect, your bar for "dragging out" seems pretty low. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: You throw some weak unsubstantiated accusation on me, so there is nothing to reply to, not that I am "running away". Speaking of which, there are plenty of other IP edits on that article. Why have you ignored them? Back to the topic, length and effort this tiny dispute is now consuming is ridiculous. See my suggested solution. What do you think?

Initial censorship issue

Multiple relevant, accurate and well-referenced claims have been aggressively censored from Lithuania. Here are four examples of sentences which are now removed:

1. Around half of Lithuanians believe that corruption is prevalent in the judicial system
2. National surveys have revealed that around half of Lithuanians would neglect to report corruption due to beliefs that corrupt individuals would not be punished
3. A 2016 corruption survey by STT found that majority of Lithuanian population perceives that corruption levels have increased in the past 1 year and past 5 year periods. However, according to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade.
4. In surveys of Lithuanian business people, corruption is highlighted as the primary issue prohibiting economic development and international competitiveness.

This initially became a dispute and led to disorganised discussions on the talk page and some edit warring. The issue of censorship has now been successfully rebranded by Ke an and Pofka to alleged "misbehaviour by Detektyw z Wilna [me]". It later escalated to unsubstantiated but very confident claims that I work at at "Moscow troll factory". Regardless, the initial censorship problem has been hidden.

Therefore, this separate section is created in order (a) to highlight and (b) get external input on the initial censorship issue.

Ping @Ke an: and ping @Pofka: // Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

All these sentences added by you using various proxies still exists in Corruption in Lithuania without any censorship and there is no need to spread lies that something was censored, but I guess that's how propaganda works in the most corrupted state in Europe. Does it, troll boy? Better explain how you are constantly travelling around the world, haha. -- Pofka (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Resorting to personal attacks to avoid discussing the primary issue at hand? Again? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Wikipedia:DNFT. For the normal people, here is comprehensive explanation what was done by myself in this Lithuania's section (copied from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Lithuania#Corruption): "Corruption covers only three articles in the Criminal Code of Lithuania: 225, 226, 227 (http://www.infolex.lt/portal/start_ta.asp?act=doc&fr=pop&doc=66150) out of 330 articles. So comprehensive analysis about each crime genre would result in about 100 separate sections. This would definitely be too detailed for a country-level page. In my opinion, such comprehensive analysis of each crime genre may only be discussed in a separate newly created article Crime in Lithuania (other countries has this one, f. e., Crime in the United States). I have rewritten this section and integrated two important sentences about corruption from the Detektyw z Wilna "Corruption" section to the newly created "Lithuania#Law enforcement and crime" section, which was based on the "United States#Law enforcement and crime" section (named as a Good Article). These sentences are: "According to a European Union Anti-Corruption Report, Lithuania had the highest proportion of citizens - 29 percent, who have been asked or expected to pay bribes in the preceding 12 months of any EU country, with 95% of citizens considering corruption to be widespread and a major problem.[176] Though, according to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade.". Also, part of the information from the old section was split to the newly created "Lithuania#Law" section, which is based on the "Germany#Law" section (named as a Featured Article). Highlighting of problematic fields and boasting it over other less problematic fields (f. e., contrabanda, which in 2017 decreased by 27.2% from the 2016 numbers) in a separate extensive section in a country's article qualifies more as a Black propaganda for me than a censorship. In conclusion, I think two sentences about corruption, together with other popular crimes in Lithuania, is enough and comprehensive analysis should be done only in a newly created Crime in Lithuania article sections (similar to "Crime in the United States#Homicide" and "Crime in the United States#Gun violence").". -- Pofka (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested solution

• There are two issues here – (a) my alleged misconduct and (b) content on corruption on Lithuania-related articles. For obvious reasons, I should not be making decision on (a). I do think that it's a desperate attempt to revert attention, but again – my opinion should not count here.
• However, I have a suggestion for (b) – @Ke an, Pofka, and Alexis Jazz: and whoever else thinks that content "is biased" should attempt to improve the article. And probably best without any involvement from me. In a few weeks or so, I will open a paragraph on the talk page with concrete suggestions (if there will be any) if I perceive that any important content is missing.
• What do you think? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DNFT until incident about his proxy usage is solved here. -- Pofka (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

DNFT is a baseless accusation which you insist on repeating. It is one of two issues. While I fully consent to "DNFT investigation" or any actions (a) might require, that's still one of two issues. What about issue (b)? Or do you feel uncomfortable discussing with factual arguments? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is too slow and too time consuming. Feel free to decide without me or at least with limited involvement from me. And while you are attacking me left and right, at least keep the attacks honest, without misrepresentations, made up stuff and fact-twisting. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Detektyw z Wilna's absurd attempt to hide this investigation

No more related discussion with the proxy usage accusation. -- Pofka (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:@Doug Weller: Interesting fact. Detektyw z Wilna just deleted mine post to (you) Wikipedia administrator Doug Weller in my own talk page (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pofka&diff=834019007&oldid=834018391), so the Russian proxy troll attack is real here and requires actions. Edit: he deleted this sentence again later (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pofka&diff=834020259&oldid=834019841). Pain for the proxy usage idenfication can definitely be felt from his actions. -- Pofka (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller and Pofka: Pofka, with all due respect, you are once again misrepresenting my actions/quotes and twisting or making up stuff to fit your agenda. Of course, that has not stopped you before, so why bother now? Check the link you yourself have provided. I only edited some minor spelling mistakes without any changes to the content. There were no, not a single change to the content. There was no sentence deletion ffs. Which sentence? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC) My mistake here, but your edits in mine private conversation are not welcome. This section can be removed. His absurd arguments all day got me exhausted. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC) If we are now calling intentional misrepresentations "my mistake", we should not that it was not your first, second or third "my mistake" of this kind. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I visited your talk page to see if I could find examples of intentional misrepresentation of my texts or actions. Did I find them? Yes. But I did no edits, not even rebuttals. Just edited some spelling mistakes. But ok, I will leave spelling mistakes as they are. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Can't believe I am still feeding troll. Enough for today. Your proxy usage will be investigated anyway. -- Pofka (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Isn't it interesting that I have been catching your intentional misrepresentations of my texts or actions all day and get called a troll as a result? It's your trolling, but I am the troll? While your Wiki history and contributions are admirable, your behaviour towards me is strange to say the least. I welcome any and all investigations into my alleged proxy usage. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This Dispute Is Old and Tired

It has been 48 hours since anyone posted about this dispute. I couldn't figure out at DRN what the issue was, and I still can't, because the posts are too long, difficult to read. I suggest that this thread either be closed with a warning to both (all?) parties, the better option. However, if it is still necessary to adjudicate any conduct issues, I notice that Lithuania is in Eastern Europe, both as usually defined, and as defined in twentieth-century history as that part of Europe that was occupied by the Soviet Union and was therefore the battleground of the Cold War. If a remedy is needed, take this dispute to Arbitration Enforcement. Otherwise, close it. I am willing to try to mediate at DRN if there are no conduct issues and if everyone is concise, but I know that long posts make the poster feel better even if they don't communicate. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Boxinglive

• livesportsforyou.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Below are some of his edits. It involves inserting an illegal website. I want him blocked. Boxinglive is a new account that has no talk page.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=834438965&oldid=834438640

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=834436859&oldid=834436607

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Boxinglive

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile mundo (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Boom, and gone. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Canterbury Tail. We are busy today trying to edit a busy 2018 Masters page, and we don't need the spammers to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you folks please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~)? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)'

They're already creating new accounts and re-adding. I think we need to blacklist livesportsforyou.com urgently. Canterbury Tail talk 19:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the blacklist discussion could be taken to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: @Jéské Couriano: Blacklisting is a last resort if other methods have failed. Blocking works unless it becomes a whack-a-mole game. I have just semi-protected the 2018 Masters Tournament article for 1 month. Hopefully that will take care of the problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I forgot to sign my post, sorry about that. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blacklisted the stuff. A couple of minutes after a first block a new editor appears, and they seem to target more articles. The MO reminds me of an older spammer of similar material. There is only one solution with that level of persistence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It turns out that they had even put that stuff on the main Masters page also, seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=834440811&oldid=834440401 Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonicfanboy074

This user, despite being warned multiple times, is repeatedly adding content without citing their sources (see their talk page for the warnings). Me and an admin have asked why they are doing this behavior, and they continue to add unsourced things while being reverted for it. -- 1989 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonicfanboy apparently has a habit of ignoring warnings via the users talk page and continues to be disruptive despite receiving warnings from multiple editors. The user has only been editing since June 2017. After seeing his contributions, I don’t see any real benefit the user can provide for Wiki. Just another case of WP:NOTHERE. An indef. block will solve everything. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I've applied a 36 hour block to this user for the repeated addition of unreferenced content to articles. I don't want to indefinitely block this user yet, as I'm hoping that this block is what's needed to set them straight. If it doesn't and the behavior continues after the block expires, I'll definitely be more open to an indefinite block - but we should at least try to set the user straight first if we can. Any admin is welcome to extend the block to an indefinite duration without my approval if they feel that this is more appropriate - just ping or message me and let me know that you did so, and that'll be fine. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bstanard98 - Disruptive editing/vandalism continues

• Bstanard98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article impacted: Kings Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Example diffs:

• Most recent vandalism after final warning: diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6
• diff7
• diff8

Talk page discussion attempt: Talk:Kings Dominion#Ownership, name etc

A recent ANI discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#User:Bstanard98.

Despite warnings on their talk page and attempts to discuss at the article talk page, the vandalism has persisted. It's important to point out that this is not a content dispute. This is one editor opposing several by injecting obviously incorrect information into the article over and over again. Furthermore, edit summaries like this one show that they are clearly aware of the disruption they're causing. I originally posted this to AIV until I realized this only occurs once a week or so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is labeling the user's edits as vandalism. My guess is it's a kid, but, regardless, the user is incompetent. They created their account in July 2017 but didn't start using it until late February of this year. They have 29 edits, all to the same article. I believe their only edit summary is the one pointed out by GoneIn60. They don't talk. Their disruptive edits are wasting the community's time. I've blocked them as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

From the user talk messages, it looks like it was labeled as disruptive behavior in the beginning. Thanks for assessing and taking action. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

IP possibly being used by topic banned user to get round ban

Following on from here, it is believed that IP 192.160.216.52 is being used by Unscintillating who was topic banned two months ago from XfD-related discussions. The SPI report has been opened by Eggishorn with suitable evidence. Could I ask for assistance from an uninvolved admin/SPI clerk please, the sooner the better please, owing to the volatility of the IP. Thanks all. IP, RoySmith (who commented on the SPI) and Eggishorn have been informed Nightfury 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Get for real, User:Nightfury. You ought to be blocked for making personal attacks according to the SPI edit notice. You have no evidence because there is no evidence. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You know what, Mr. Bugs, I don't know what you're talking about. I am not afraid, instead I'm angry that these two users think it's reasonable to make serious accusations of sockpuppetry without any evidence at all when they know that no one will run a checkuser and all I did was disagree with them on some AfDs. Hey, listen, though. What if I create an account, verify that it's mine by making pre-agreed edits, and then you all run a checkuser on that account? Is that ever done? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• You keep saying "do a checkuser", as if that's the magic bullet. If you know the Unscintillating account never made edits from that IP, demanding it proves nothing. This is why having an account is better. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Having an account is better because then one doesn't get treated like dirt by accountholders. There's no other benefit that I can see. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry you're not able to see the other benefits. Maybe you can go read about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving yet another example of what I'm talking about. Do you think you could get away with your nonsense editing from an IP? Why don't you check your privilege? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were incapable of finding the essay about the benefits on your own. Here is the link: WP:TBRACW. Now you can go read it. My restating something that is already stated well is simply unnecessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Are you actually an Angelino, or are you using an open proxy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• False dichotomy, Mr. Bugs. Angelenos are people from Los Angeles. Obviously I'm from Whittier. It's a whole different place. And I'm not editing from a proxy. I'm actually logged on to the network here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced these two are the same person. There's similarities, but if we assumed every belligerent inclusionist wikilawyer was a sock of the same person we'd be at SPI continually. If the IP and Unscintillating are the same person they've adopted a more directly aggressive style of arguing. I think it's likely that Unscintillating was someone's sock and I have a sneaky suspicion of who that sockmaster is but my feeling is these two are not related. Reyk _YO! 18:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess. I'm not an inclusionist, though, and I'm not belligerent. Sure, I only support "keep" positions, but I'm highly selective about which AfDs I comment on. I don't comment on the vast majority of them because there's no viable arguments in favor of keeping. It's really not inclusionism. And I only seem belligerent to some small group of editors who can't bear to be challenged by an IP editor and who, for instance, think it's somehow a strike against me that I understand WP policies. It's not. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahmedadan1951

Edit warring, unsourced information and images, unintelligible additions to articles. The latter may be due to a lack of understanding of the English language. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:State seal of Lower Shebelle.jpg--Auric talk 13:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is getting annoying. He also killed of some sources. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

May be a sockpuppet of Loliban. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

Serial IP vandal (see here) edits to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom article (see [69], [70]) reverted. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated to ensure I did not overreach or overreact to genuine edits. The edits seemed suspicious and didn't pass my smell test but .... Thanks. Quis separabit? 16:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm really looking at it incorrectly, the IP edits appear to be correct. See here I think the wording should be improved. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie Oh, yes -- I had already added that (see here). I just meant the IP (with a very checkered talk page)'s edits in general. Thanks, Quis separabit? 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see anything terrible about the IP's edits on that article. Your "warning" on the IP's Talk page, though, isn't very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Help needed on Academi article

• Academi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isn't asking for action from this noticeboard, it's more a question of finding out where to go next, hopefully some admins here know the answer.

An editor has posted on Talk:Academi a request to divorce the page from the company's antecedents as Blackwater. The editor is doing the right thing with respect to WP:COI (although I'll suggest on their talk page that they follow WP:DISCLOSE, but that's essentially a paperwork issue). It looks like it's coming down as an official request from the company, although I have not followed through by contacting anyone in their corporate management. I know when I'm way out of my depth. Can someone here point me to what should be done about this request?

I don't know if there are admins experience in this type of request, or this has to go to Wikimedia lawyers, our what has to happen. I do believe that simply blindly removing all reference to Blackwater in that article would be incorrect, but I'm certainly willing to be educated by someone who understands WikiPolicies better than I do. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think this gets handled like any other edit request. Editors need to investigate the company's concerns and respond appropriately on the talk page. I'm planning on working on it myself. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're willing to take this on, more power to you - and thanks. I'm just unwilling to get tangled up in a power struggle with Academi's lawyers. I guess that closes this issue as far as ANI is concerned. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nov3rd17 uses talk pages as a live feed

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

---

User:Nov3rd17 uses talk pages like this as a live feed where he starts posting news articles that came out just now without connecting them to an improvement for the article. Sometimes, he already writes a post before he has finished reading everything, then he updates his posting gradually. See versions history. That's WP:RECENTISM on steroids! He sees talk pages as his personal live blog where he can post every news article that came out just now. I don't think that article talk pages are meant to be used in this way and consider this as an abuse of talk pages. I asked this user nicely to build a connection to an improvement for the article or to move his post to Wikipedia:Reference_desk but he refuses to do either, instead he continues to post more and more news articles. Help! We need an experienced editor or administrator to stop this. Note that this user has been suspicious in the past for similar reasons, see here. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To me it seems it just puts sources that can be used by editors for discussion. It seems a very good use of talk pages, if you ask me, and I see no evidence of abuse of this logic. Of course if it was a constant flood it'd be different, but I only see few, germane examples. What they did on de.wiki is irrelevant- every wiki has their own rules and quirks. --cyclopia^speak! 22:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

He changes the content of his posting constantly once a new article is released (and sometimes replaces the old content), that's why it looks sparse, but it's a flood of edits. His initial post (before I intervened) was a factual question unrelated to anything in the article. Therefore you can assume that the purpose of his postings are indeed to initiate a discussion about the article's subject but not the article itself. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

TheRandomIP - When you say, "once a new article is released" - I assume that you mean when a new "reference" or "source" is added? I also don't understand exactly where in Wikipedia's talk page guidelines you're referring to when you say here and here to Nov3rd17 that their use of the article's talk page is not in compliance and that removing it is justified. Can you explain and show me where you're talking about so I can make sure I didn't miss anything? These questions seem perfectly legitimate and "on topic" to me, and I'm quite certain that these questions are what talk pages are for... Please let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, we have fundamentally different viewpoints of what talk pages should be used for and the english Wikipedia seems to be a lot more liberal in that concern. I don't think that every new news article that came out should immediately be posted to the talk page. Imagine if we did that in all articles like in the article about Kim Kardashian and someone would keep a live feed about news articles where she somehow was mentioned. That's not really "collecting sources" as everyone who reads the news once in a while will stumble across those articles. It would be a valuable contribution if those news articles were forgotten or hard to find, but that was not the case here.
I don't think one should be allowed to just start a discussion about the article's subject when there is not a single sentence like "I would like to change..." or "... should be added" or similar in the discussion. But ok, if you think otherwise and one can just start a discussion about everything that's somehow related to the article's subject, if one is allowed to use the talk page as a live feed, then the user I reported is just right here. He loves to discuss the article's subject and to tell everyone the latest news and his feelings about the article's subject. You are like chalk and cheese then. I will go back to the german Wikipedia then where we actually want to keep Wikipedia focused on relevant discussions that are unambiguously directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. (fun fact: that's in part the first sentences of WP:DISCUSSION, so you should have that goal, too). --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Oshwah here. English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia are quite different. In any case, posting links to new potential sources and summarizing them is fine. The "I would like to change..." or "... should be added" or similar that you feel is needed is implied - it's basically "here are some sources, perhaps someone can use them to add to the article". I don't see how that's not, as you say, relevant discussions that are unambiguously directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. ansh666 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

TheRandomIP - By the way, I want you to know that you've done nothing wrong and I don't want you to feel that you're "in trouble" for being incorrect or making mistakes here. You legitimately thought talk pages worked the same way here as a sister Wikipedia project - mistakes happen, they're no big deal, we don't hold legitimate accidents or mistakes against anyone (so long as they understand and don't carelessly repeat them of course lol), and they're a normal part of learning - especially with the sheer amount of guidelines and policies we have here (and that differ from project-to-project or even different languages of the same project... haha). If you don't mind, could you please respond and follow-up with your messages to Nov3rd17 on that talk page and just apologize, let the editor know that you checked and found out that what they were doing is in-fact fine, and offer to help them out if they need it? I just don't want that user to think that they're doing something wrong or that they're in trouble for something when in fact they're not... Do that for me, and we can consider this discussion closed and no harm done :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. The user in question expanded his live feed even further, so either he has read this discussion and your reaction already or he doesn't care what's allowed anyway. In either way, there is nothing what I can do anymore. (In the first case, my message to Nov3rd17 would be redundant. In the latter, Nov3rd17 would not have taken my comment seriously in the first place, so why apologize then?) This discussion can be closed, yes. --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Rwbest

Rwbest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits only in one narrow topic area. Following a recent dispute on Mark Z. Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he edit-warred against four other editors to include a statement-as-fact which is in reality only an opinion of Jacobson sourced solely to Jacobson, I issued a 3RR warning. His response was: I'm only trying to improve the lead of Mark Z. Jacobson which is ridiculous unbalanced, a caricature of Jacobson. But my attempts are severely hindered by reverts by others. Consensus with these others is not likely as long as they prefer the existing lead. I find your message on my talk page intimidating and I won't stop my attempts. I don't think I need to explain the problem there.

I reviewed his edit history. I conclude that he has a serious problem with WP:OWN. Examples:

(change visibility) 18:03, February 22, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 827033530 by The Banner (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 10:47, February 22, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 826902385 by The Banner (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 13:06, February 21, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (OR has been adequately addressed in 2016.) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 11:13, February 20, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 826665973 by The Banner (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 08:52, February 20, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Stop this nonsense.) (Tag: Undo)

Five reverts of an {{or}} tag because Rwbest disputes the possibility that Rwbest's edits might be a novel synthesis. It seems to me very likely that Rwbest is active in this field, considers himself to be an expert, may indeeed actually be an expert, but has failed to understand the critical differences between Wikipedia and academic publishing.

In November 2017 he reverted the same tag seven times in a week (some intervening edits removed):

(change visibility) 09:44, November 15, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 810148432 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 13:37, November 13, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (→‎Trend: adequate sources, see talk page.)
(change visibility) 11:01, November 10, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809618977 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 08:49, November 10, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809475511 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 09:42, November 9, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809309032 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 08:58, November 8, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809232931 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 10:44, November 7, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809002411 by The Banner (talk))

I think a 1RR restriction is in order: his edit history contains many lengthy series of edit wars. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/171.248.246.158

Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/171.248.246.158 Clear usage of Wikipedia for marketing purposes. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure they need help: diff. Do I see socks editing the article now? Maybe we have to up the protection level? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that this has been going on for months, using different IP addresses. Alex Shih has blocked the IP range 171.248.240.0/21 for six months. Since this long-term disruptive editing also suggests a likelihood of a return to disruption on the article when the protection ends, I have set protection to three months. (Previously MelanieN had protected it for a week, and when that failed to stop the problem Dirk Beetstra had re-protected it for a month.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson. SPI was filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. If similar disruption returns then a edit filter (perhaps Beetstra could help) should probably be requested as this has been going on for a long while now. Alex Shih (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih and Beetstra: Each time I look at this I find there is more to it than I had previously seen. Alex's link to the SPI was very helpful, because that page, and even more so its archive, show that this is a major problem, with numerous accounts and IP addresses used, so that an IP range block is clearly nowhere near enough. Kim Mai 13 is a sockpuppet which evaded semiprotection of the article by the standard trick of ten trivial edits to the account's own talk page before moving on to the article. If more of that happens then we may have to use extended confirmed protection, but as far as I know that is so far the only sockpuppet to have evaded semiprotection, and that one was blocked after three edits to the article, so unless there is more that I haven't seen then moving the protection up to extended confirmed is not yet justified. One to keep an eye on, with the option of further action if and when it becomes apparent that it is necessary, I think. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that they also have a history of pissing of multiple editors with the same spammy message to talkpages, asking for help to edit said article. And to AbuseFilter-scan every edit to user-talkpages for addition of that question (throttled as to avoid false positives) ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Yes. When I wrote my comments above I was thinking mainly of the editing to the article, not the talk page spamming, and although I had seen Alex's suggestion of an edit filter I hadn't given it any thought, but now I have. Edit filters should always be very much a last resort, of course, but in this case it seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to cut down the overhead from checking irrelevant edits to a very small amount. The first step the filter should take, it seems to me, is to immediately drop any edits that don't link to Maureen Wroblewitz, which at one stroke would rule out something like 99.9999% of edits. Then it could be cut down further by checking for other features of the editing, such as being on user talk pages, asking for help, and so on. In fact my bet is that it would cause less of an overhead than a good many of the existing edit filters, since linking to Maureen Wroblewitz is such an extremely narrow limitation on edits. Perhaps you know far more about edit filters than I do, in which case I would be interested in reading anything you can say in answer to my comments, and perhaps putting me right if I am totally wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Special:AbuseFilter/910, set to detect only for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Beetstra, Special:Contributions/27.75.249.89 is the latest disruption. Looks like they are trying to get around the filter, any thoughts? Alex Shih (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Block needed

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

---

Please block Dkoller1769 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this call for violence against Wikipedia editors, and WP:NOTHERE. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 11:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Indef block for that outburst. I've left talk page access enabled, but I would not bet against that situation changing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Can someone please deal with a still-open SPI about me?

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

---

Good morning, WP!

Over a week ago, this SPI was started by Eggishorn: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating falsely accusing me of evading a topic ban from AfD. Roughly at the same time Nightfury opened this ANI discussion which was closed without action seemingly because no one believed the accusations.

At this point no one objective supports the accusations against me in the SPI either, but meanwhile it lingers on unresolved and many editors are citing its existence in unrelated AfDs in order to discount my comments. If someone could settle the SPI perhaps it would help stop this unreasonable well-poisoning behavior. Here are examples:

• [71] "<small> {{A note}} [[User:192.160.216.52]] has an ongoing SPI [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Unscintillating|here]] accused of avoiding a [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#XfD_Topic_ban_proposal|topic ban on all deletion discussions]]. It might be appropriate to disregard his/her vote. </small>" Waddie96

• [72] "'''Note''' The IP address is suspected of socking and an investigatio is under way at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating]]. --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 14:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)"

• [73] "'''Note''' The IP address is suspected of socking and an investigatio is under way at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating]]. --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 14:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)"

• [74] "'''Note for closing admin''' -- The IP address is suspected of socking and an investigatio is under way at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating]]. Furthermore, it is obvious from the discussion that there's a clear consensus to topic ban the reported users. --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 14:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)"

It's not reasonable to leave this SPI dangling like this to be used as well-poison at AfD by all these editors. Thanks. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifications: [75], [76], [77], [78]. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you really an Angelino, or are you using a proxy server? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bugs, as I told you the last time you raised this exceedingly irrelevant question, "Angeleno" is a demonym for people from Los Angeles. Whittier is not Los Angeles. Furthermore, I am not using a proxy server. It seems unlikely that an IP address wholly owned by a university could be used as a proxy, doesn't it? But even if it were true, so what? I haven't broken any rules and yet there's this unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable SPI dangling there for every unscrupulous AfD editor with no subtantive arguments to use in their fallacious innuendo-based arguments against my positions at AfD. It's not reasonable, and by focusing on irrelevancies you're not helping matters. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Perfection10125 and article Fatus Fee

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

---

The article Fatus Fee has been created and deleted five times now, starting in 2015 (see log). Twice this has been as a result of a deletion discussion (first, second). Prior to today, the last time it was deleted it was salted for a year due to being repeatedly recreated. The second AfD closed today. In that AfD, I recommended the article be salted again. The AfD was closed as delete, but was not salted (I am not calling out the closing admin on this as making some error; just noting it wasn't salted). Less than an hour after the AfD was closed and the article was deleted, User:Perfection10125, who had created the most recent edition before the 2nd AfD, recreated the article yet again.

I'm recommending that the article Fatus Fee be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4, salted, and warning be placed with User:Perfection10125 about recreating articles that have been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. User:Perfection10125 has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Help Needed

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

---

I always gets blocked after creating wikipedia account and editing few article as a Sockpuppet. I even don’t know the peoples from whom i’m being sock-puppet. Can anyone help me to create a new account from which wont be a sockpuppetly blocked in future? Is there any help like this? Imma wiki lover person & knows some knowledges about wiki too. If some admin can help me out than i will be grateful to them or some account Creators. 110.44.115.235 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to appeal your block you should probably do it on your main account that is blocked. Just a thought... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And if your main account is blocked, you'll need to go to WP:UTRS to file an unblock request there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I filed for unblock i have not enough knowledge about UTRS i read the guidelines and submit it pointing out my view but admin declined it. I think he asked me something else my account is user:Iampython please take a look on the issue and help out its been 4 months since i get blocked. 110.44.115.235 (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please brothers and sisters i need your help. Help me out to unblock my account User:Iampython i had never known other sock-puppet accounts in my life. 110.44.115.235 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE copyvio recreator

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

---

Wdmarket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA that repeatedly recreated Egils Straume, leading to a salt. Has now created Egils straume to bypass the restriction. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:NOTHERE applies, but the multiple recreations of copyright violations are not good. Courcelles has blocked indef as promotional. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for now, until they promise to stop creating copyright violations. Courcelles (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Systematic copyright violation

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

---

Two apparently related users/or one person ISLS Students (talk · contribs) and ISLS Students2 (talk · contribs) are coordinating systematic copyright violation and creating inappropriate pages in rapid succession. Can Admins do the needful? –Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:180.190.66.43

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

---

A IP named "180.190.66.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)" has added misinformation/false information into CBS/Fox Video.

Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CBS%2FFox_Video&type=revision&diff=835474958&oldid=835408195

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CBS/Fox_Video&diff=next&oldid=835478245

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CBS/Fox_Video&diff=next&oldid=835515415

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CBS/Fox_Video&diff=next&oldid=835518749

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CBS/Fox_Video&diff=next&oldid=835534764

This IP has done is trying to claims that Disney now own it but it false information. This IP has done it 5 times!

Other diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andi_Mack&diff=next&oldid=835480382

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andi_Mack&diff=next&oldid=835518879

Someone has reported to AIV but they asked to take it to this noticeboard.

Given the misinformation of the CBS/Fox Video page and the disruptive editing on Andi Mack, any admins will be willing to block this IP? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D1AA:6B7B:FE31:F56 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, please close it. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D1AA:6B7B:FE31:F56 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE

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

---

Hosseinhezami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Mainly here to promote himself. Several autobiographies have already been deleted, but IDHT seems to apply. Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 12:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Quack quack

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

---

• Moraun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Levytitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• University College London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moraun is engaged in a lame edit war to "correct" a figure in the article on University College London, to a value that everyone else says is wrong. While blocked Moraun was for edit warring, a "brand new" editor popped up to make the same edit with the summary restoring article to correct version. I blocked per WP:DUCK. I suspect Moraun is either WP:NOTHERE or not competent. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See also Richardmountfourd321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

With respect, the new editor was not me. If you would like to verify the difference in IP address, please feel free to do so.

Moraun (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Senor Cuete casting aspersions

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

---

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

Senor Cuete has been involved in a dispute at Johnny Winter over what to include in the discography. Since he performed two reverts while discussion was underway at Talk:Johnny Winter, I thought it prudent to issue him the standard edit warring notice in the event he needed to be reported to AN/3.

During the course of discussions, Senor Cuete has twice insinuated or accused Ojorojo and I of being sockpuppets, evidently since we agreed on certain points in the dispute, or since we both type spaces after colons (even though Ojorojo doesn't do this). Two days ago, I requested that Senor Cuete retract the accusation and directed him to WP:ASPERSIONS. He indicated his intention of filing an SPI yesterday, but he has edited since then and hasn't done so.

I should note that I have twice conjectured that we are dealing with a language barrier here, owing to Senor Cuete's consistent misreading of text and his poor command of English, which he takes as a personal attack.

I request that the sockpuppet accusation be retracted/removed from the article Talk page, and that Senor Cuete be appropriately directed about the seriousness of casting aspersions while trying to win arguments. Ojorojo in particular is trying to have these articles assessed for Featured status in the future and doesn't deserve to have his reputation besmirched with this nonsense. --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the unsubstantiated accusations at Talk:Johnny_Winter#Unauthorized/gray_market_compilations. For a longtime user, the poor editing behaviour and the textbook example of refusal to get the point demonstrated in their participation of the discussions is by no means acceptable. I will issue a warning at the user talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Laser brain and Alex Shih for bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If you read the talk page in question and the logs you will see that User talk:Ojorojo reverted well-cited material. I reverted him and started a discussion on the Talk page. He again removed the material, without explanation, and without discussing it on the talk page. At this point Laser brain accused ME of edit warring. Another user, mudwater reverted Ojorojo and after this third revert, he and Lazerbrain were forced to discuss the issue on the talk page. In the ensuing discussion both Ojorojo and Lazerbrain made personal attacks against me, accusing me of illiteracy using exactly the same insult - "English is your second language". This is a classic case that one sees all to often on Wikipedia. Editors that engage in all kinds of misbehavior while accusing the other editor of it and citing various Wikipedia policies to prove that the OTHER editor is doing it. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for one week after their latest string of edits basically doubled down on the disruptive editing behaviour without withdrawing the aspersions as requested by the original poster. Another administrator please feel free to review this block. Alex Shih (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User WeWuzPhoenicians

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

---

WeWuzPhoenicians is actively edit warring : [79], [80] and it seems that this user is the blocked IP 151.236.179.140. Please note that this IP was blocked 4 days ago and that the account WeWuzPhoenicians is 4 days old and edits in the same way than the IP. Could please an admin check this ?---Wikaviani (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be reported at WP:SPI for suspected socks, not here. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. What would be better ?---Wikaviani (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked WeWuzPhoenicians for disruptive editing. If an SPI investigation comes back positive, the block can be extended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is a SPI investigation opened about him or should i proceed ?---Wikaviani (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani, please file a report there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Qifahs17

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

---

Qifahs has only been editing for only three months. During this time, they have created many unreferenced articles, but it is understandable that a new user might not know the importance of WP:V. I have sent eleven messages over weeks, pointing out that WP:Communication is required and that the articles need sources. Qifahs does know how to respond to messages, but has ignored all of mine, not replying or addressing the issue. I've brought this here in the hope that this new user will communicate here as part of a wider conversation, and to emphasise to them the importance of adding sources and communicating. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I recognise this username, I am pretty sure when this was created after User:Shafiqabu got banned and I am sure it's the same person. I did message one admin about it believing this was a ban evasion, can't remember which admin know. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: For the record I had a look and I mentioned my concern to Mer-c about this being the same person. Govvy (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

For reference: User talk:MER-C/archives/40#User:Shafiqabu.

> 15:26, 24 December 2017 MER-C (talk | contribs | block) blocked Shafiqabu (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations) (unblock | change block)

> 11:51, 25 December 2017 User account Qifahs17 (talk | contribs | block) was created

I was wrong for letting this slide. I didn't find any more copyright violations, though. Indeffed as a sock. MER-C 12:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Bot mass reversion needed on ~100 articles

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

---

This set of edits appears to have systematically broken image thumbnails for about a hundred election articles – could someone mass-revert and investigate? Thanks. Mélencron (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

+1 - The bot is removing deprecated syntax however it is indeed breaking images as can be seen here - Why were the infoboxes not updated or atleast checked first ? ...... Not all infoboxes use that layout the bot's changed too, I would suggest blocking the bot until the owner can fix it all. –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the bots talkpage which should stop the bot from continuing to run the task. If that doesn't stop it for now the bot has the standard please block if required message on its pages so a block could quite happily be used if required. Amortias (T)(C) 22:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, I'll backcheck {{Infobox election}} templates edited (there weren't many iirc).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks, Not having the first idea about bots I probably shouldn't of complained, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

|map_size= is used by the template, but is being handled in an unexpected way; will investigate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed |map= & |map_image= are not strict aliases and are used in slightly different ways. The fix is to simply use |map_image= where |map= was used. Will back-check the 66 pages and fix going forward.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mélencron, I don't recall you messaging me nor the bot about this issue. ANI is the last resort, not the first. Second, can you provide example edit(s) which were a problem?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

While you might be technically correct, I think bringing this here or 2 AN is pretty understandable. A malfunctioning bot has the potential to do a lot of damage and so it's understandable to try to get the attention of administrators straight away. Who knows how long it might be before you see a message on your talk page? In this case, I don't think the choice of venue implies any wrongdoing on your part. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. This board is for incidents that require administrator attention; a malfunctioning bot is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be brought here, rather than most of the other nonsense, and it doesn't mean the bot owner is 'in trouble'. It's now fixed, so problem solved. Fish+Karate 09:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with GoldenRing and Fish and karate in that coming straight to ANI to report concerns regarding bots and possible issues with their edits is absolutely fine to do so that quick action can be taken if something is indeed going very wrong. That being said, I also understand Tom.Reding's frustration in that, as the bot owner, an ANI notification regarding this discussion would have been appreciated. Nobody did anything wrong here and I of course agree that the creation of an ANI discussion itself shouldn't implicate wrongdoing - it's the the discussion, evidence presented, and the resulting facts found that may determine such (I'm speaking in general, not specifically about this particular discussion). I'll just add that when creating a discussion about concerns with a bot, it's courteous and a good idea in general to notify the bot's "owner" or the editor listed as the bot's manager so they can participate. After all, they are the people who can truly resolve any issues that are found (disabling or blocking the bot aside) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A malfunctioning bot has the potential to do a lot of damage - so having the bot edit for a extra half hour between this original post and the notification on bot talk, which automatically stops the bot, is a good idea? I'm not sure what you're defending, poor policy and/or decisions?

It's now fixed, so problem solved. - the same result would have occurred on bot talk.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tom.Reding - Whilst I understand your frustration no one really thinks "Oh I'll message the bot owner first" .... Bot issues are usually always bought here so that emergency blocks or stops can be done to stop any further damage, If the bot breaked one image then all for one knows it could've broke thousands or atleast hundreds, But anyway thanks for fixing the issues, –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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

ResilientWiki is NOTHERE

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

---

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

User is spamming external links (e.g., [81]) and making personal attacks (e.g., [82]). Seems to be related to the electronic harassment issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly inclined to banninate as a spammer, but there are no edits since the last warning, I think, so let's wait and see if the penny drops. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  I saw your comment, but when I went to try to hold fire I managed to set Twinkle into motion instead of closing it. Yeah, waiting a bit isn't a big deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoryWeagant. I think this is the same person. ~ GB fan 15:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that wixsite.com cold be safely added to the global blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. It would avoid any potential socking to add that sub-domain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

this person is claiming false reports against me making false accusations also, Removing my legitimate edits that I was told I could make by another wiki Admin that went over it. This person must be having a personal effect to the relation in the page I edited. Just added some necessary exgte3rnal links properly the way Wiki asks to be done. The links were relevant and crucial to the specific page to have listed, It would just make no sense for it not to have these specific external links. This person that's editing is being dishonest and making completely false reports and accusations based off of absolutely nothing other then I said he is a liar about my edits which is 100% true. and then right after that now he adds me to this blacklist reports me in the forum on here and then tries to blacklist Wix.com which is a well established and well known platform for website creation. I need support from other admins to investiagte that are not corrupt & dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResilientWiki (talk • contribs)

ResilientWiki, you have repeatedly tried to insert an external link to an unreliable website into an article, Electronic harassment. This is wrong for two reasons. We do not add external links into the body of an article, and we do not allow unreliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As for Wix.com, it is a platform for hosting personally written websites, which lack professional editorial control and are therefore not reliable sources. Please stop this behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Time for a ban. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As of today they are still trying to insert a url to a personal web page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And I think this all caps rant makes the case for a block. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible issues at AfD

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

---

I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, but it looks problematic to me. I noticed this when looking at the issue above regarding User:And Adoil Descended. The AfD referred to (where AAD removed a perfectly good G11 speedy) is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Tech Mela, and whilst it looks like it is heading for a Delete, now has a number of WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes. Looking further, a number of those editors have done the same at other AfDs, spamming "It's notable" at multiple Pakistan-related AfDs - some examples are

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suhai Aziz Talpur (this one was closed as a NAC Keep by User:And Adoil Descended and looks particularly dubious)

Users involved;

• JogiAsad (talk · contribs)
• Arif80s (talk · contribs)
• Spasage (talk · contribs)
• مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs)

There doesn't appear to me any on-wiki canvassing, but it does look suspicious, especially when you look at the contribs of some of those editors. What do others think? Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

if its not canvassing, and there is no proof of canvassing, then its derogatory using words suspicious and canvassing. Disappointed much with such words are being used here.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 20:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It does look very suspicious and almost coordinated to me also. Pinging Mar4d for requesting some potential insight. Alex Shih (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--Some of these users are active on Sindhi Wikipedia (two are sysops) and....... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment -- Anybody please help me understand the issue clearly.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment-How fine is this !vote.I mean, why we don't just dole out XFD-topic bans?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk about having entrenched wrong ideas about what constitutes stub eligibility - [83],[84],[85],[86]. Can we haz that topic ban as an actual possibility please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Check article Kakakhel (tribe) which you posted above as an example. User:Saqib voted to keep it, check this [87]. Then, this goes for him as well ".. having entrenched wrong ideas ..", a quote by you. --Spasage (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Spasage's AfD nomination in retaliation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehseen Fawad. --Saqib (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whilst, I mentioned the possibility, I would prefer to let him off with a warning to increase his understanding of our guidelines.

But, I'm highly confused that how someone with such an apparently poor idea about notability and RS, can constructively patrol new pages, (from the few examples I"ve seen).

And, that points to the fact that he might be intentionally harassing Saqib by spamming his nominations (as Saqib's example brilliantly hightlights), which is umm......~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not in business of harassing anyone. I gave my opinion. About Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tehseen_Fawad, he is creating very small articles, almost one liner articles with no possibility of expansion, which was bothering me. --Spasage (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for bringing this here. I was working and only got a glimpse. Is my impression correct that they were involved in editing said articles? My impression was one of overlap. Have not looked closely.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps promospam is acceptable on Sindhi W? Winged's "fine" dif above clearly illustrates the disconnect betweeen their !votes and views here on spam and notability. I guess there, Wikipedia is a business directory and that existence is sufficient. @مھتاب احم:, I think this encompasses the problem is a nutshell-- that y'all see promospam as acceptable. And I have to say And Adoil Descended's advocacy for at least one of these articles (have not been back through the AfD's) is what drew my attention to the problems.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• CommentThanks for inviting me here. I am being accused of something, I would like to hear apology if you can not prove something. I recently got active on delete page for articles around Pakistan. And after reading comments above, I am really disappointed. Comments and words like "suspicions","suspicious and almost coordinated", "XFD-topic bans", "constitutes stub eligibility", "Spasage's AfD nomination in retaliation", "off with a warning ", "here on spam and notability", According to rules, if you have issue, which are stated on top of this page, you should have comments my talk page. On the deletion request, if I voted to keep something, you have right to reject it or voice your concern. There is a user who is saying, I have no idea of stub. What I understand from above discussion, is that there are few people who can speak, and rest can not. If they talk they are accused of coordinating. If there is a coordination, please prove it. Your idea of coordination seems like, if few people are working on similar articles, it is coordination. In above discussion started for 3 articles ,and one is added later. Out of original three, I only commented on 2 to keep it. I did not vote on Suhai Aziz Talpur. I have issue with editors who put up articles for deletions, without doing any search on the net to make sure that there is difference in badly written article and article which has notability issues. There are many articles on wikipedia which are based on one or two sources. So, number of sources is not an issue, since there are few topics which do not get a lot of attention from every news paper or similar places. Bigger issue is if source is unreliable or paid content. That should not be involved. In 3 examples which are quoted above, all of them have atleast one source which can be considered reliable, rest can support. Proving a source is reliable or not can be discussed on their deletion talk pages. As things go, majority vote wins. I do not have issue if I have minority vote. From above discussion, I only understand one thing, which is not to comment on deletion discussion, because we disagree with you. Which is wrong at every level. I am not arguing with anyone, I am just putting my vote in some of the articles. Others are arguing with me. So, not sure how I am aggressor. For coordination, I just want to state again, that I am not coordinating with anyother user.--Spasage (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spasage:--There is no inalienable right to free-speech over here.Rest can speak, provided they display a minimal competence.Secondly, AFDs are not poll(s).And, please mandtaorily read the edit-notice and the linked policies, that is so-prominently visible at every AfD edit-window.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionally, number of sources is not an issue, since there are few topics which do not get a lot of attention from every news paper or similar place flies in the face of GNG and/or most SNG(s), in the areas you have choosen to work upon, which is miles away from being a victim of systemic-bias.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So, in your opinion there is no place of single source articles? Go and see my comments, I used reference to vote, see my history. This is for all the users who are adding articles for deletion. Do research before putting articles for deletion. It is easy to put article for deletion and it takes a lot of time on discussion. We can save a lot of time, if editor spend some time and see if it is reliable or not. I see lack of judgment in many deletion requests.--Spasage (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User User:Winged Blades of Godric added article Allah Dino Khawaja for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination). With comments "... Trivial mentions in sources and no significant position held, (which by-default equates to notability)...". I do not know what to make of it. He also goes by AD Khawaja. He is top most officer of second largest Police force in Pakistan. His article is using thenews.com.pk, tribune.com.pk, www.dawn.com, www.geo.tv and many other news paper. He received very large attention. His case went all the way to court because of politics behind his appointments. And this article is up for deletion. Not sure what to make of it. If I put these comments, I will be banned. Another article is for deletion Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder). He is covered in images.dawn.com and tribune.com.pk, both are leading news papers in Pakistan, not spammy. He is Mr. Pakistan which is highest level of body building competition you can win in Pakistan. In deletion text this is written "Won some local competitions.Not even professionally recognized.Most of sources are spammy". "won some local competitions ", he is Mr. Pakistan. Since, there is proposal for banning me, so not sure what to make of it. --Spasage (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination) and Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) both of these AFDs articles have one & more than one reliable sources and both articles subjects are notable, I wonder how its passing the criteria of deletion?. Some neutral Admin should go through the refernces will offcourse find reliable sources and notability. Rest in details is described by the Spasage, is it not a biased nomination, despite of some reliable sources?. Other nominations AFDs are also being contradiction and biased nominations. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for yiur kindness to notifying me here. If there any proof of canvassing?, then it should be proved here. Using such words of Promospam, canvassing, suspicious are derogatory for the volunteer Wikipedian. If some users have voted for Keep on one or more AFDs then is it a spam? How its a spam? And what are proofs blamming for Spam, promospam? What are proofs for canvassing?. If a users thinks any AFD meets atleast one reliable source and place a vote of keep, then its right of a user to be given fair chance for participating.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 20:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose

1) that And Adoil Descended (talk · contribs), JogiAsad (talk · contribs), Arif80s (talk · contribs), Spasage (talk · contribs) and مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs) be topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD") because of ignorance of the English Wikipedia's notability policies, compounded by an unwillingness to learn and bludgeoning of AfD discussions. See the AfD's that Black Kite links to as examples at the top of this thread. The bans can be appealed on WP:AN or WP:ANI when the users can show greater understanding of our notability policies, to the community's satisfaction, in, say, not less than three months.

2) and that the new page reviewer right be removed from Spasage (talk · contribs), per Winged Blades of Godric's concern above, until such time as they can show greater understanding of our notability policies to the satisfaction of an uninvolved admin, to whom they may appeal in not less than three months. Pinging User:Callanecc, who granted the right, in case they would like to comment.

Please discuss below. It's probably best, for clarity, to address my two proposals separately. Of course, if you wish, also address all five users separately. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

(I messed up the signing, so I'm re-pinging Callanecc. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC).)

• Support both. To clarify my position, I also endorse NPP removal from And Adoil Descended (talk · contribs). --Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support XfD topic bans based on ignorance/bludgeoning combo. Not sure about the NPP removal - from my random sampling, Spasage actually generally does an okay job there, which is surprising considering their ideas about notability (this might be what Winged Blades of Godric meant above?). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. Although since the new page reviewer right is being removed per community consensus, Spasage will have to gain community consensus for restoring this user right. Capitals00 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Update: Support both, but for a period of 1 year. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support all per my previous remarks, just writ large, as it were. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. —MBL ^talk 17:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment before making decision, consider my record of comments on deletion and record of page I have reviewed. Page review has long history. --Spasage (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per the salient comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, both proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. A timed ban would also be OK (1 year expiry). They mean well, I think, but this is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To develop my reasoning a bit: Yes, it is disruptive from lack of understanding rather than malice, but the end result is negative for the encyclopedia. See for instance this AfD !vote by JogiAsad posted after their post below, which shows that they still don't understand "trivial coverage" versus significant coverage despite the discussion here. Spasage seems to believe that it is a good idea to save poorly referenced articles as stubs, per this and this. Again, I'm sure this is good-faith, but it's still disruptive. I provided a diff for And Adoil Descended's editing in my post above, and there are other relevant diffs in that discussion. The other two users seem to be a little less disruptive, but AfD !votes such as this (from Arif80s) and this make me think that a tban that can be appealed after some set period of time (I'm not that concerned with the length), where the users show in their appeals that they have grasped the fundamentals of verifiability and notability, would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Disappointed with such a nomination (Topic ban) without sound proofs of Canvassing, Spams, Promospams allegations; I request worthy Admins (Sysop) and conflict resolvers to have neutral judgement of this nomination. I have not canvassed, forced any user to vote on my articles AFDs, and there is no proof mentioned of the allegations mentioned above by the nominators; I was just trying to contest my articles AFDs,and rest participant users who voted on AFDs have tried to conveyed their vote, because they have found the reliable sources on the articles. And is it not suspicious that probably having the biased intention the one user often and randomly proposing my articles for deletion? However those article have atleast one or more than one reliable sources. I am really much disappointed with such nominations and ban. If a article has poor references/reliable sources then anyone can edit, expand, improve the content and references of articles.! If the articles are being nominated in such targetted speedily deletion without going through the refernces and improving it, I think Wikipedia will lost dedicated, enthusiast volunteer contributors. Rest is upon the Admins and mediators to ask them for proofs of the allegations raised here. bytheway I'm really much disappointed with such happenings here on Wikipedia (the sum of all human knowledge) which I think is under control of some lobbying, biased nominators.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support--To prevent messes like this AFD, where 2 of the subjects participated, with their usual nonsense, thus generating a sheer volume of bovine excrement, which negated the prospect of the proper policy-based close.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with no opinion on the other editor. Natureium (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support to both editors. Like others have said a topic ban will help to stop messing around with XfD discussions, as well of the removal the new page reviewer right to one editor. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D1AA:6B7B:FE31:F56 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Detailed (7,000 bytes / 7000 characters) exposition of Spasarge's position. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment This is very interesting what User:Winged Blades of Godric is talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrduPoint. See the stats Keep votes: 8 (Tahir mq, امین اکبر, Arif80s, Ma'az, Hindustanilanguage, Mar4d, Samee, Störm) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric) and the list of people who you want to ban are: Adoil Descended, JogiAsad, Arif80s, Spasagea nd مھتاب احمد In the list, I found only Arif80s, I did not find anyone else. I was not part of it. If you go in detail of this AFD, Arif80s only voted once. There were only two votes against it and they were Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric. Here are more details on AFDs. Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memon Abdul Ghafoor Keep votes: 1 (JogiAsad) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business incubators in Pakistan Delete votes: 2 (Ajf773, Saqib) Request put by Winged Blades of Godric - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) Keep votes: 2 (JogiAsad, Spasage) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Winged Blades of Godric - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination) Keep votes: 3 (86.17.222.157, JogiAsad, Spasage) Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ismail Shah Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 3 (Winged Blades of Godric, Saqib, Narky Blert) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Umber Lodhi Delete votes: 1 (Saqib) Speedy Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehrooz Waseem Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 3 (Saqib, Bonadea, Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JW Forland Pakistan Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 4 (Winged Blades of Godric, D4iNa4, Saqib, Ma'az) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi Keep votes: 6 (Saqib, 31.173.188.190, Spasage, Atlantic306, مھتاب احمد, Arif80s) Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi Keep votes: 5 (Saqib, 31.173.188.190, Arif80s, Spasage, مھتاب احمد) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haroon Janjua Keep votes: 3 (Ma'az, Spasage, Legacypac) Delete votes: 3 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric, Störm) In above 12 AFDs, Spasage 8 keep votes, Saqib voted for delete 11, Winged Blades of Godric voted for delete 10. and 9 times both Saqib and Winged Blades of Godric voted on delete. Arif80s only 3 times Keep. Adoil Descended did not even voted. JogiAsad voted keep 3 times. مھتاب احمد 2 keep. Arif80s & Spasage 2 keeps, مھتاب احمد and Spasage 2 keeps, JogiAsad and Spasage 2 keep votes. This is what stats says. Here is my voting record for full disclosure: Keep Dana Meadows, Kaghan ‎ - result keep, Saqib also voted keep Kakakhel (tribe) - result keep, Saqib also voted keep Amb Jogi ‎ Iqbal Jogi ‎ Haroon Janjua ‎ Ismail Shah ‎ Mehrooz Waseem Daily The Patriot JW Forland Pakistan ‎ Allah Dino Khawaja Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) ‎ Delete Samoon Ahmad,MD Lal Salam (party) ARY Digital Tower intially I was accused of coordination, I dont see any coordination with anyone in delete or keep vote. For some of the articles above, if result is delete, I am ok with it. In cases where I voted yes, I provided reference. --Spasage (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) @Spasage: I am not exactly sure what your point is with this comment. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Point is most of what I and few other people are accused off is untrue and exaggerated to make it so look bad. Here is very interesting timeline: My first AFD comment was on Amb Jogi ‎ on 28 March. Between 28 and 31st March, I voted on 5 AFDs, 2 were AFD resulted in keep (Dana Meadows, Kaghan ‎, Kakakhel (tribe)), Saqib voted Keep in both and 3 are still in discussion. When case against me was building, some editors mention my vote on Dana Meadows, Kaghan ‎, Kakakhel (tribe) as disruptive. On 31st march, Saqib ask for help from [User_talk:Winged_Blades_of_Godric#AfDs] on three articles Amb Jogi, Iqbal Jogi and Google Tech Mela. Google Meal is deleted, I did not even vote on it. IP user 31.173.188.190 pointed out Canvassing between User:Winged Blades of Godric and Saqib at [88] and [89] I did vote on Amb Jogi and Iqbal Jogi. On 2nd April I was accussed of coordinating with someother users. If you see above, my pattern of voting does not match with anyone else and no coordination was done on Amb Jogi ‎ and Iqbal Jogi. In case of Iqbal Jogi, User:Winged Blades of Godric says he is on the edge between delete and keep. And very interesting comments were made by User:Aziz Kingrani.User:Winged Blades of Godric on the edge but I am disruptive. In case of Amb Jogi, User:Atlantic306 raised some very good points and he is not nominated ones who are coordinating, he made first comment on 30 March. After this 2nd April, few examples were taken out and presented as example of disruptive behaviour. All those AFD discussions are still open and editors are commenting on it. So, even if you remove me and other people who are recommended for ban and coordination, there are other people who are against delete and in few cases, are very vocal. Saying same thing which is considered as disruptive in my case. In all the places where I voted, my vote is not alone, there are more vocal editors supporting it. I am lone voice in Ismail Shah, Mehrooz Waseem and Daily The Patriot. In all cases, I gave my reasong with reference and ok with results. Anyone can be on wrong side of majority vote. It must have happened to editors here. People can have different opinion, which may contradicts other. This is whole reason for discussion. But painting it like this is something else. This look more like punishment and ganging up, then anything else. Kind of comments people have written above are so distrubing and upsetting. It is written above that I am harrassing, user User:Winged Blades of Godric writting aggressive comments like " .. some sort of bot, which generates a strong keep or keep or delete ..", in [90] , [91] [92]. Saqib and User:Winged Blades of Godric are also corrdinating in this [93], which is considered "ok", but for the people who never even worked before have to give explainations. They are given pass what every they say/do. According to voting pattern, Saqib and User:Winged Blades of Godric are corrdinating in their votes, not anyone else. In Pakistan AFD, there are many articles which are up for deletion. Why, only places where user User:Winged Blades of Godric and Saqib are involved, there is tension and aggression. See discussion which are happening at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beacon_askari_school_system, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/M.E_Foundation_Secondary_School and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TES_Public_School_(2nd_nomination) for example. Why there is open discussion happening there and not AFDs where they are invovled.--Spasage (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• TL/DR, sorry. It may be slightly unfair, but if you are not able to produce a one-paragraph executive summary of the above, I fear there's hardly anyone who will go to the trouble to dig for the point in there. To clarify the basic issue, it is contended that your lack of understanding of notability guidelines, combined with a readiness to ride that very lack hard in AfD discussions, makes you a net negative in deletion-related venues. Competence problems, fundamentally. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• This thread has been inactive for a while. Will somebody closs it before it gets archivedvplease? —usernamekiran(talk) 02:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:.

@Black Kite: fixing the above unsigned ping by Saqib. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD note

I have relisted the following

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi
  • although I suspect the AfDs will both be deleted and re-listed when this is closed. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User 198.254.254.12 and the Alliance Party of Ontario

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

---

• User 198.254.254.12 has repeatedly changed the information on the Alliance Party of Ontario page to reflect their agenda, requesting that party members be interviewed, posting on the Alliance talk page that the entry is "fake news", and indicated on my talk page that I am "simply a propagandist who must defend their lies in their editing as you have made" (see User talk:HamOntPoliFiend for reference). Not sure what to do about this. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @HamOntPoliFiend: The IP was blocked for three months by Bbb23. I have blocked the registered editor for 24 hours for edit warring and warned them about COI and copyvios. I have also revdeleted the copyvios. Please report back if there is any further disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:83.136.45.154

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

---

This IP has made a [[REDACTED - Oshwah] racist personal attack] against User:Oshwah -- Pi (Talk to me!)

It's an IP hopper that's been trolling at me all day - it's been blocked :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I just spotted another page that I believe is a linked IP, possibly included in a range block,(I don't fully understand IP ranges):User_talk:83.136.45.40. (See the edited warning from Oshwah) I see that the other comment was suppressed, and perhaps this should be too. -- Pi (Talk to me!) 02:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Zapped. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Misuse of administrative tools by Fram

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

---

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

---

Administrators are expected to be impartial and to lead by example. They have certain powers that other editors lack and one of these is the ability to delete pages. Fram has been using this power in a targeted way while being WP:INVOLVED with the creator of the pages being deleted.

(Personal attack removed) Recently Elisa.rolle has been such an editor. Some of the 700 articles created by Elisa.rolle contain copyright violations, and in her defence Elisa has stated that she thought the sources she had copied were in the public domain. On 31 January 2018, Fram blocked Elisa indefinitely. Fram is therefore INVOLVED with regard to Elisa.rolle. On 12 March 2018, Elisa was unblocked by TonyBallioni, with the agreement of Fram.

During February and March, Fram started to go through articles created by Elisa systematically, speedily deleting more than thirty of them, all for G12 infringements. Fram did not at any time delete part of the text of an article and perform a rev-del, despite G12 being defined as being restricted to unambiguous copyright infringements “where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving”.

When, as a new page patroller, I find an article that I think should be speedily deleted under G12, I nominate it for deletion, notify the creator and await the final decision of an admin. But that is not how Fram does it. Fram acts unilaterally, the article is simply deleted with no notification to the creator. On 9 March 2018, Fram deleted six of Elisa’s articles under G12 in the space of 28 minutes. These six articles would be permanently gone from Wikipedia had not Megalibrarygirl restored two of them on 18 March with the edit summary (Not seeing the unambiguous copyright infringement). Another was restored by Victuallers on 12 March with the removal of some text followed by a rev-del. So that’s a failure rate of 50% by Fram on 9 March, without even considering whether the other three articles really warranted deletion. (Misuse of tools and abuse of power)

Several of Fram’s deletions under G12 were in relation to articles translated from other language Wikipedias which lacked attribution. The policy here states “nor is a mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion.” Fram apparently thinks differently, and the articles Torcuato Benjumeda, Max Landsberg and Christian Ludwig von Kaphengst were speedily deleted, a use of G12 that TonyBallioni stated made him “cringe” [94]. Afterwards, I provided Fram with a list of sixteen articles in the English Wikipedia which had been translated from other language Wikipedias without attribution, expecting Fram to be non-partisan and delete them, but [95] Fram declined to take any action. (Misuse of tools and abuse of power)

The systematic deletion of an editor’s creative work is very demoralizing, and Elisa-rolle retired from Wikipedia. A similar course of action occurred in 2016 when Fram forced the retiral of another “targeted” editor. Nvvchar was criticised and humiliated at DYK by Fram for inaccuracies in his articles, and stated that he would no longer submit the articles to DYK. At this point, Fram started demoting Nvvchar’s GAs, unilaterally removing the GA status from them without an appropriate review process or any reference to the good article criteria. When three GAs had been demoted in quick succession, Nvvchar announced his retirement. At this point Fram ceased demoting Nvvchar’s GAs, with sixty or so remaining. The only other time when Fram seems to have demoted GAs was in connection with another “targeted” editor. (Abuse of power)

Fram seldom does revision deletions, but when he does, they are pretty incompetent. Three of the last four he has done are Ramoche Temple (changed visibility of 44 versions but not all the necessary ones, and left the copvio in place), Iris Pavey Gilmore (visibility of 2 revisions changed when it should have been 6) and New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps (the present version, restored by Fram, is a flagrant copyright violation). So, a 75% failure rate here. As well as this, Fram is not concerned with the consequences of his actions. DYK hooks are pulled from the main page [96] and GAs demoted with a complete disregard for how the actions make more work for other editors.[97] {Incompetence and failure to lead by example)

So, I am accusing Fram of incompetence, the misuse of administrative tools and abuse of power. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have deleted the most egregious of your personal attacks on Fram (as it was completely withut evidence), and unless you can provide actual evidence that Fram "targets" other editors, I'd suggest you remove some of those parts as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Cwmhiraeth: your statement "On 31 January 2018, Fram blocked Elisa indefinitely. Fram is therefore INVOLVED with regard to Elisa.rolle. " is wrong. Taking administrative action against a user does not make that administrator INVOLVED. ("an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role … is not involved") All the misconduct you claim which stems from your misunderstanding of this basic premise of INVOLVED is therefore not prohibited. Jbh ^Talk 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Add: "Fram declined to take any action. (Misuse of tools and abuse of power)" — No user with advanced permissions can be required to use them in a given instance. This is basic stuff. Also, in all of the "targeting" claims, did the GA meet the criteria for de-listing? If so, finding a patch of things to be done or following up on an editor who is making errors is basic to the maintenance of Wikipedia. Looks like what you are claiming is an "abuse of power" is you thinking Fram is being a jerk. Whether that is so or not is immaterial. Acting like a jerk is not "abuse of power" unless the person is, you know… using their power to be a jerk. From this and the other responses here you may want to seriously consider either reformulating your case to include actual instances of abuse of tools or withdraw it. The selective misquoting mentioned by Black Kite tells me this could rapidly go down hill for you if you continue without solid evidence to back up your claims. Jbh ^Talk 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• My unblock had nothing to do with the validity of the initial block but was explicitly a last chance. The article that was G12’d (where I “cringed” over an attribution-failure G12, but also endorsed using it at the DRV) contained content from print sources that was a close paraphrase. I don’t want to get too involved with this, but wanted to comment on the two things involving me. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I was about to mention this. Cwmhiraeth has selectively quoted you - the full sentence was "I typically cringe when we G12 something for lack of edit summary attribution, but it is within the norm". Also, the diff about pulling DYK hooks is over 18 months old and links to a conversation where other editors agreed with Fram's actions. The following link (about demoting GAs) leads to a completely polite conversation about it. The section about Nvvchar doesn't have a single diff. Cwmhiraeth, if you're going to post screeds like this, you actually need really good diffs confirming each point. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: It is very difficult to provide evidence of motive because only the person doing an action knows why they are doing it. With regards to Nvvchar,

• Kadmat Island was promoted GA at 10:54, 31 August 2016 and delisted by Fram at 12:36, 31 August 2016
• Kaunakes was promoted at 10:32, 30 August 2016‎ and delisted by Fram at 13:37, 31 August 2016
• Sacred Jackfruit Tree was promoted at 06:22, 1 August 2016 and delisted by Fram at 08:21, 1 September 2016.
• Nvvchar archived his talk page at 10:02, 1 September 2016‎ and announced his retirement at 11:54, 1 September 2016‎. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but you can't ascribe motive without evidence. As for those GAs, Fram explained why he de-listed all three on the talkpage and having read them I'd have to agree with him - all three articles contained factual errors. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth, I would suggest you of all people do not want to open up a discussion about competence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• While there are long-standing complaints about Fram which may or may not be justified, I don't see anything new here that justifies any possible action at ANI. Deleting articles WP:G12 from an author they blocked for copyright infringement is not WP:INVOLVED; both are purely administrative actions, and removing the offending copyright violations is a necessity. I see no reason to care about diffs from 2016 here. I'd advise Cwmhiraeth specifically not to pursue another ARBCOM case against Fram. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would also suggest that Cwmhiraeth move on from this matter. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• As you all know, there was a declined Arbcom case involving Fram recently, where he said he would dial back the aggressiveness a bit, and so far I think he's stuck to his end of the bargain. The G12s are within administrator discretion; I have restored a few (while copyediting all the copyright violations out) and worked with Elisa on them - for example, the recent appearance of Laura Barney Harding at DYK. This is what we should be aiming to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• I think this entire complaint stems from an incorrect assumption: that because Fram blocked Elisa.rolle, Fram is therefore INVOLVED with her. But my understanding of WP:INVOLVED is:

  [A]n administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor...

  therefore Fram was not forbidden to act in an administrative capacity in regard to Elissa.rolle or her edits.
  Further, to look at it from the other direction, Elissa.rolle has been posting copyvios both here and on Commons ever since she showed up, and her excuse is always that she didn't realize they weren't in the public domain. In my opinion, it is the cumulative behavior of Elissa.rolle that needs to be examined, with an eye towards an indefinite ban for continued deliberate posting of copyright violations, not the behavior of Fram, who may be rough around the edges, but in this case is in the right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• This is (again) not the correct venue for this report, and nothing is going to come of it other than commiserating and bickering at best. ANI is not an alternative venue for reports of administrative misconduct. GMG^talk 00:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

• In view of the fact that this thread has been closed prematurely, with many of the concerns I have raised remaining unaddressed, I would like to suggest that Fram submits themselves to an RfA, a reappraisal which will demonstrate whether they still have the confidence of the community. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Closing down debate will not end it. The fact that individually each of these actions can be justified does not remove the case that has been laid out here of victimisation. You can never "know" someones motives, but they can be surmised. The arguments that are presented here are not trivial and putting a lid on them will only work for a time. Lots of long standing admins do not inspire witness editors to feeling that we are witnessing bullying and injustice. I do hope that we won't see this argument represented as a diff in a later discussion. Victuallers (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• With such a nebulous list of claims going back years, not a single diff showing an actual misuse of admin tools, and a number of refutations from respected editors (including ones who are not known as turners of blind eyes when it comes to admin actions), there was no chance of any sanctions coming from this. There are better things to be doing with our time this fine Sunday, and I will reclose this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  Just to expand on my close reason a little... If anyone believes an admin should be stripped of their tools, it is long established that ArbCom is the only body able to do it. I disagree with that myself, and I support the existence of a community desysop procedure - but we don't have that, and this noticeboard can only work within current policy and consensus. I see Cwmhiraeth has tried that before and it was rejected, so the only thing I can suggest is that a far tighter request with actual diffs of actual abuse would be needed, not the vague rehashing of old allegations from years ago. If Cwmhiraeth wishes to ask Fram to undertake a voluntary new RfA, Fram's talk page would seem to be the appropriate place to request that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Anonymous user carrying out disruptive edits over a period of months on different IPs

I'd like some help with an IP user who has been carrying out disruptive edits over a period of at least 5 months on at least 3 IPs. Two blocks and numerous warnings have all been ignored. The user does not appear to have deliberately switched IPs or attempted to conceal their identity (hence my not opening an SPI) and the number of innocuous edits suggests that the user is incapable of being a constructive contributor rather than choosing not to be one (hence me not going to AIV). But he/she/it is very persistent.

The IPs are: 185.176.244.75 (active since March), 185.176.244.69 (February-March), 185.176.244.73 (November-January - blocked twice). All of the edits have been to professional wrestling articles and many use a nonsensical stream of words in the edit summary ([98]), [99], [100] - one example from each IP).

The recent disruptive edits have taken the form of adding completely made-up information ([101], [102], [103]), editing external links so they no longer go to a valid URL ([104], [105], [106]) and deleting cited information for no apparent reason ([107], [108], [109], [110]) - all examples taken from the active IP's activities in the last seven days. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The user in question appears to have just started anew under a completely different IP - 2600:100D:B129:C126:7012:AB30:21A9:7002 - first three edits (all with usual edit summary) have been to incorrectly alter links so they don't link to anything ([111] [112]) and add made-up crap [113]. Changing IPs within an hour of me filing an ANI report seems awfully convenient. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• IPs 185.176.244 are coming from Norway, most likely a public computer such as a library or some school computer. The final IP is a personal device, a phone or a touchscreen pad. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help checking some pages for copyvio, botched class assignment?

I stumbled across a nexus of copyvio in userspace... a Checkuser by zzuuzz turned up 200 more suspect pages. The full list is at Special:Permanentlink/835269863#Copyvios_in_userspace:_class_assignment?. Not all of these pages are copyvio, but the ones that are are very blatant. Your help and flamethrowers are very much appreciated.

I don't think these accounts are socks, but more likely a botched class assignment (geez, this brings back bad memories). Hopefully the deletions will get the message across, but I'm not particularly optimistic. MER-C 17:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• why don't we just nuke the whole thing - just looking through: duplicate of existing article; again, just ugh useless junk, almost entirely copyvio; copyvio; junk that is somehow copyvio; copyvio - That sample of 5 pages is 80% copyvio and 100% junk. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd back nuking it all. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Me three.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • No objections from me. I have a couple of additional observations - these edits are all definitely related, made on the same day by multiple people from the same place. What I didn't mention earlier is that there were 381 accounts, many of which haven't yet edited. I'll have to review them again in a few days. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I've deleted about 20 of these, none of them had any redeeming value. Nuking is fine with me. MER-C 19:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I've checked out five at random, and got 2 copyvios, 2 duplicates of existing articles, and 1 that consisted of a single line. My opinion: "Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• I have been through the lot and deleted most as copyright infringement. If someone wants to go and notify the creating users about the deletions please do so. (As I will not bother) I don't expect that we will get any articles at all from this, even though a very few are trying to write original text. Perhaps several of these students will learn some wikimarkup skills. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletions not working

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

---

Just a heads up that deletion is not working at the moment - see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unable to delete anything. (Thought I'd mention it here too as this gets a lot more views.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it is back up after a break of about forty minutes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC).

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

Retired editor is a sock master?

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

---

Recently, I have been reverting a number of edits to 2018 in Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for WP:NOTNEWS, as seen in the edit history. Today, Chinese Wikipedia administrator Outlookxp stated on my talk page that edits made to that page are sock puppets of Jessechi. The accused editor has retired from English Wikipedia, and I am unsure if it is appropriate to report them directly to SPI or which account to notify. If an editor with more experience here is willing to determine where best to place {{ANI-notice}}, please do so. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice is unnecessary. Jessechi is a prolific sock-puppeteer on Chinese Wikipedia, see LTA page (in Chinese). I have semi-protected 2018 in Taiwan to see if it will stop non-autoconfirmed socks from editing the page, and have blocked A8756 accordingly as their editing pattern alone is destructive. Alex Shih (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih does similar administrative action need to be taken against the other accounts listed on my talk page to prevent Jessechi from using them? Vycl1994 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vycl1994: I will respond at your talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

BrillLyle

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

---

Brill Lyle has just been blocked for three days on Wikidata after I and others complained about her behaviour - "Stalking and Harassment" - there. One of the other's complaints was "BrillLyle has a history of using the deletion process as a tool of harassment".

It's therefore hard to see how Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 7#Andy Mabbett is not an act of retaliation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I am just completely bewildered and shocked that a redirect like this exists. I inadvertently stumbled upon it when I was looking at the very long block log you have here and on Wikidata. Beyond the current situation with me and others that you have, I think anyone looking at this redirect would have to say that it has no place on Wikipedia. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

So far, the only editor other than you and Andy who has !voted, said the redirect should be kept.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a circumstantial case that it's retaliatory, but I accept BrillLyle's statement of making the RfD nomination in good faith. From a quick glance, Mabbett may be more notable as a Wikipedia editor than as part of that publication. I do recommend BrillLyle refrain from further comment on the proposal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I will say the same here as I said at the MfD:

  So long as we have an article on the publication the redirect is good. I do, however, question the notability of the publication. I see several sources but, on first inspection, none look like they could be called independent, third party reliable sources. I am also am concerned that, while there are four publishers all of the positions in the infobox read Andy Mabbett et. al.. Seeing a Wikipedia editor's name five times in ~160 word article, of which the same editor is a major contributor raises some red flags to me. When that same editor is listed as an author on 8 of the articles 14 sources those flags turn to flashing lights and blaring klaxons. I'd AfD it but I do not have the resources for a good WP:BEFORE or the patience to perform one right now.

  I am actually surprised BrillLyle did not nominate the target article along with the redirect. Jbh ^Talk 18:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty unimpressed by Brill Lyle's conduct in this context. It's not something I'd block for, especially not an experienced editor with a clean block log, but I do think it's is an obvious and egregious importation of external conflicts into Wikipedia and a misuse of RFD. It's unacceptable as such, and I have warned Brill Lyle. No prejudice to any other admin action. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC).

• As a data point, this is not the first example of poor conduct on BrillLyle's part. She recently nominated for deletion an article I created (the article was kept) in what appeared to me to be retaliation for her article being deleted. She and I have clashed at a few articles because I've found problems with citations she's added to articles (in particular, citations which do not support the text; the text may or may not be true but the citation she added doesn't support it which is an insidious V problem). Examples at Shore Fire Media [114] [115][116] and Ann Powers ([117][118]. (To be clear, I found the problems at Shore fire media and went to Ann Powers to see if there were problems there; I declared that I'd done this to be transparent. This may have been a mistake... but if I'd said nothing, I don't know if the situation would have gone any better). I have made every effort to be respectful and polite and collaborative and BrillLyle responded very aggressively, telling me that [I am] a menace and should be stopped[119], and that [I am] over-editing and over-working this page[120] and that [I] continue to be a menace. {I] delete, that's all [I] do. And [I] don't understand basic things. [I] again show [I] don't know what [I am] doing when it comes to citations.[121] and was just generally nasty. I suspect that this type of OR/V problem exists on other articles BrillLyle has expanded (I found some in her article that had been recently deleted, which may have been part of the reason for the AfD retaliation) but have hesitated to look into them because of the aforementioned conduct. Ca2james (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrillLyle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle's harassment continues: [122]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

continuing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• In good faith I have cleaned up and significantly improved The Amazing Pudding article, an article that is a redirect to Andy Mabbett, and honestly an article that he should not have started and should not be editing, due to the fact that it is clearly (at least in my opinion) a conflict of interest. Whether or not the publication was still being published or not. But despite these facts, I took the time and energy to fix some of the concerns of puffery and fancrufting I think were apparent in the The Amazing Pudding article. Instead of having a modicum of decency and appreciating this work, Andy is choosing here to see this as an attack on him. This is a clear display of an inability to be collaborative and collegial. It is a display of pownership too. This reaction and behavior on Andy's part in starting this ANI as well as his continued linking to other attacks on me, and then presenting himself as the beleaguered one seems to be oddly atonal. Like Dolly says, get off the cross, we need the wood. I am a huge music fan so improving and adding citations to support notability to this article was a continuation of my interests and ongoing effort to improve and to add content to Wikipedia. That is the through-line to my editing experience on Wikipedia. Andy misunderstands this and more importantly misrepresents this. It is inaccurate and lacking fact. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • At this point @BrillLyle: should withdraw from further edits to articles related to Andy until the open AfD is closed and this thread is archived. If she does not, I will have to make a proposal that would force her to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would agree. And continuing to edit The Amazing Pudding then asking if Andy should be editing there [123] is provocative and seems disingenuous. The best way forward is to stop editing articles Andy is editing until this is cleared up which will protect everyone's reputation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

Further to User:Ca2james's point about WP:V above, BillLyle has recently added to The Amazing Pudding "Mabbett used much of his work in The Amazing Pudding as the starting point and basis for three books on Pink Floyd" This is pure supposition; false; and is not said in any of the works to which BL has cited it. Valid references were removed in [124], leaving facts either uncited or cited to works which do not support the statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Journalist Stuart Maconie wrote a six page feature on The Amazing Pudding in the April 1993 issue of Q." is also false; and not said in the work to which it is cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Andy, it was actually in one of the reviews of your work. I was only trying to be helpful. I know I improved the entry and made sure notability was established. If you continue to see this as a personal attack, it's your problem. It is clear you have a vested interest in this article. Your citations were bellybutton facing and concerning, which is why the article is better with them removed. I will stop adding content and improving the entry, as I can't win here. I don't have a dirty agenda. It's too bad you see that in everyone. It is not what is happening here. I give up. There's no way to make you happy here, obviously. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was going off what you and others discussed about the Q article. Again, just trying to be helpful. If it's wrong, then fix it. Honestly, if you have all of the materials in your possession, you should scan them and ask a neutral third-party editor to add them to support the article. I firmly believe that since this was a publication where money was exchanged and you were directly involved, it is not appropriate for you to edit the entry yourself. At minimum, put the edit request with full citations on the Talk page and an editor can do it for you. But I think it's clear you should not be editing the article. It's a COI, full stop.
• And thanks for being so uncollegial and uncollaborative here. I was trying to be nice and support this article you created. I find your responses here and elsewhere to be proof positive that you are only interested in fighting and having conflict. I was trying in good faith to collegially and collaboratively improve Wikipedia. You are assuming bad faith here where it didn't exist. I'm done now. Good luck with everything. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing those were some of the types of errors I saw: ones where BrillLyle had added text that wasn't supported by the cites already there and ones where new cites were added that didn't support the text she'd also added. She's said something about curating citations (I can find the diff if need be) and how she could help me with that so I don't think she sees citations as part of WP:V. She's also said that personal conversations with BLP subjects are suitable sources (again I can find the diff) so I'm not sure she understands WP:RS. I'd tried to work with BrillLyle on these issues but that went nowhere and was deeply unpleasant. She does a lot of work on BLPs so an approach that doesn't jibe with community norms (what she calls Wiki:Rulez) could affect a LOT of articles. Ca2james (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Break

• Hey, BrillLyle, since you're so collegial and collaborative, and so knowledgeable about mental illness [125], can you recommend how I should respond to something like this [126]? EEng 3:47 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• Considering the diff and link that EEng posted above this, I'm wondering how BrillLyle knows that many of the editors who "coalition" to revert her edits are "mentally ill", and how they are "typically white men"? This seems like a massive example of assuming bad faith, perhaps not enough to be sanctioned for in and of itself, but certainly enough for an administrator to give her a final warning to AGF or be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ugh. Not acceptable in any sense. Arkon (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seriously? The gender gap on Wikipedia is real. I am a woman and use my real name, am transparent about who I am when I edit. I have attended Wikimedia- and WikiCite-sponsored events and have been public about who I am, including my user name. I have experienced problems editing on En Wikipedia as well as in the community at large because I am a woman. To not acknowledge this is not factually accurate about my experience on the projects. From what I have experienced at the hands of a few editors, yes, I think there is some unchecked mental illness going on in terms of behavior. That is allowed by the community. It is something that I think the WMF should address actively, as the community does not seem to be equipped. And finally, to claim that there is no group think and coalitions of editors roaming these boards is just a lot of malarky. I think it's actually illustrating itself here in this ANI, an ANI that is highly vindictive and retaliatory -- initiated by an editor who himself has proven issues getting along with people. As I have been counseled elsewhere, if the editors on these boards want to get rid of me as an editor -- and I am a solid editor who contributes content regularly -- then you will do that, and you will be successful. But I would ask you all to consider why I am such a threat, and why there is this need to try and shut me down. I love editing Wikipedia and Wikidata. I would like to do that and not focus on situations like this, if possible. But it is also clear that there is little support for justice here, that a group of editors can gang up on individuals and make this community so hostile that out of self-preservation they end up leaving. Editor retention is really poor now. I want to be able to stay but there are limits as to how much of these personal attacks -- and let's be clear, this is a personal attack on me by someone who doesn't like me -- one person can stand. It is affecting my health, it is unfair, and there is way too much expressed glee by the people attacking me. I would ask for some semblance of care when evaluating what is going on here. This has been an orchestrated personal attack on me as an editor. Is that okay with you all? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that there's a gender gap on Wikipdia, because there's a gender gap in pretty much anything which has to do with the Internet or computers (one which is slowly narrowing), but there being a gender gap here is absolutely no excuse for you to assume that "white men" are out to get you, or that they are "mentally ill."
  I would remind you that in another age, a woman such as yourself would have had any behaviorial quirks explained away by any number of supposedly female-only conditions, such as lack of intelligence, or having "the vapors", or, indeed, being "hysterical", a condition which was linked to having a uterus (Greek: hystera). Those supposed explanations are not acceptable now, nor should they be, and your comments quoted above -- and your comments about this AN/I being motivated by anything but a desire to see Wikipedia policy be properly enforced -- are not acceptable on Wikipedia either.
  The only vindictiveness and retaliation -- behaviors forbidden from people of all genders -- I see here is coming from you, and it is simply not going to be ignored because you decided to play the "gender bias" card.
  So, here's the deal: I don't know you from Adam's off-ox, so there's no way you can shrug this off as a personal vendetta. I believe that the Wikipedia community needs to see from you an explicit statement that you will stop harassing Andy Mabbett - for that is what you are doing -- and that you will do as you are required to do by policy and assume good faith of other editors and groups of editors unless you have and present specific evidence (not rhetoric) that shows misbehavior on their part.
  If we don't see such a statement from you within a few days, and all we get is continued rhetorical overkill and insulting remarks showing that you are committed to assuming bad faith, then I will make here a formal proposal that you be community banned from Wikipedia, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. This is serious stuff you're playing around with, and you're not going to get out of it simply by slinging words around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Beyond My Ken. I did not know this.
• As requested, an explicit statement:
  • "I will stop harassing Andy Mabbett."
  • "I will stop harassing Michael Mandiberg."
  • "I will stop ad hominem attacks on Art+Feminism."
  • "I will stop discussing my experience with Wikimedia NYC and its leadership."
  • "I will Assume Good Faith of other editors and groups of editors."
• -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

BLP violations and edit warring by BigDwiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposing topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose as OTT and premature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's opinion above matches mine. Jschnur (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reading this ANI and some of the sources too has led me to agree with Oshwah. —JJB^ers 18:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Given BigDwiki has made the BLP-violating edit again ([127]) despite this thread, and has rightly been blocked for 24 hours, it is now clear there is either a fundamental lack of understanding of, or a blissful disregard for, consensus, community editing, and WP:BLP, so I've changed my argument to support a topic ban, and probably a lengthier block should the behaviour continue. Fish+Karate 12:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Fish and karate, your accusation is false and should be struck or withdrawn entirely. Whether BigDwiki's conduct was appropriate or not (and I believe that one edit in two weeks, which definitively resolved the issue of whether the name in question could be reliably sourced, was appropriately bold editing), there is no reasonable argument that it violated WP:BLP. This dispute has already veered far away from legitimate policy concerns, and blithely making false accusations (by an admin, no less!) only exacerbates a bad situation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the First time that I have ever attempted to edit on Wiki...

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

---

Dealt with.

I made a substantial addition to a page, after posting my addition, I re-read through it, and made a few minor alterations to what I'd written, spelling, typos etc. So 3-5 edits showed up relatively close together. No one did anything to my edit. Then I noticed a side topic at the bottom of the page, and decided to contribute to that as well. This particular topic seems to have a Hot Button Issue for a particular Administrator. It was deleted BEFORE I even posted it! Along with my original lengthy edit of the original topic! In the History, I saw that It was claimed to have been removed for VANDALISM, which it WAS NOT! It was also claimed to have been NON-Productive, which is Also inaccurate. The "Administrator" sent me *****3***** Templated Warnings in quick succession or simultaneously, to I think attempt to create a reason to BLOCK me. I attempted to find a way to use the pre made templates, to express to the entity, that they were "Hasty", "Biting" the Newbie, as well as Erroneously Labeling my work/ contribution as "Vandalism". However there does not appear to be a clear way for me to use the templates or to send them as messages to other editors. There also was no clear way to communicate on the "Administrator's" Talk Page. I did not touch the entity's Hot button topic, but reverted my original contribution back again, which was immediately deleted ANEW, with a new Template Warning. While the Hot Button Topic Edit (That was deleted Prior to, or AS I was posting it, before it ever posted) was originally in the history as having been deleted, It NO LONGER IS. NOR is that edit/ Contribution LISTED on MY page, under MY List of contributions as ever having existed. Completely wiped out of existence. It does NOT qualify as something in need of SPEEDY REVISION! My original Contribution IS COMPLETELY VERIFIABLE! I fully intended to come back and cite more sources, after getting the bulk of the information up. My contribution the the "Administrator's" Hot Button Topic, does have some verifiable content (I cited a Supreme Court Judgment) However, I acknowledge that it was Not written in Encyclopedic format, but more like a Response. The Administrator However GROSSLY abused their Privaleges, And while very few people are likely to have ever seen my post on that topic on that page, The entity's ABJECT FEAR of ANYONE SEEING the CONTENT/ INFORMATION that I Posted/ Shared, has fueled a desire in me to put it on Billboards, and News Sources around the GLOBE!!!!! Or Print it and hand deliver it door to door or on street corners!!!!! The Administrator's RASH Censorship of solid content, regarding what the entity viewed as an "opposing" point of view, or threat to their own World View, will likely make their Fears become a Reality! At anyrate, this individual ought to lose "Administrator" Status, for the abuse of the tools at their disposal. They may yet still contribute useful content, However ought not be able to so Rashly or Speedily, REMOVE ALL TRACES of others' work, or contributions, or Harrass or Misslabel,or Attack, what they were actually doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.252.136.133 (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I only had to look at the above and one of your edits to see that you are clearly here to promote an agenda in opposition to the actions of US state child welfare agencies, through airing grievances about them. Wikipedia is the wrong forum for you to do that. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Article ownership at Eldred Lee

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

---

Using multiple accounts, some of which have been blocked, users claiming to be Mr. Lee has edit warred to delete content. It's entirely possible that some of that content can indeed be removed, but this has become disruptive. According to this edit [128], a colleague created the article, and is taking orders from Mr. Lee. 2601:188:180:11F0:1581:EFC0:30C5:ED97 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How is this person notable? The current version of the article (which reads more like a CV) is mostly based on primary sources (like his CV). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Filing an AFD. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Does marrying a 23 year old when you're 62 contribute to notability? [129] Natureium (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

See also: Streisand effect Natureium (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Lee wants the article deleted. This is my fault. He has sent an email to Wikipedia volunteers already regarding this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thayer2017 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:G7 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• In this edit and this edit Thayer2017 removed other editors comments from the help desk DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Right about the AfD, which ought to please the subject. The article's creator has made a mess this evening. 2601:188:180:11F0:1581:EFC0:30C5:ED97 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

A question

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

---

These admins got a little too logged out, if you ask me.

-EEng

See also: Dad joke.

-Natureium (talk)

See also: Your mother wears army boots.

-EEng

Recently, an IP editor User:200.30.250.136 who I reverted the edits of on the page Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, and left a warning sent me this note:

Löschen Sie meine Inhalte nicht, wenn Sie nicht wissen, dass dies wahllos zu einer Blockierung führen kann, denn heute erhalten Sie nur eine Warnung.

wikipedia admin

Translated into English:

Do not delete my content if you do not know that this can lead to random blocking, because today you only get one warning.

Wikipedia Admin

I reverted this edit to my talk page, and I am a bit confused about this, as to whether or not I should be alarmed. I took it here just in case it is somebody just messing around trying to get me riled up. If I have gone to the wrong place, just tell me, and I will take it elsewhere. Otherwise, just tell me what to do. UnsungKing123 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@UnsungKing123: nothing to worry about at all, a bad faith warning message. Your revert was of vandalism, you'd even be exempt from WP:3RR if they started fighting over the edit. An IP editor that knows the Wikipedia space (in particular blocking policy) may well be a long term vandal (or just lost). However, based on the warning message, they likely saw that you were a fairly new editor and thought they could give a shot at intimidating you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Thanks for the heads up. I was rather worried for a moment, thinking that it could possibly be an admin (in logged-out form). But I'm happy that there is nothing to worry about. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone says they're an admin in logged-out form, they're lying, so don't worry about it. Natureium (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:JCGDIMAIWAT

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

---

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

JCGDIMAIWAT has been editing since 2010 and in October received a 31-hour block for persistent addition of unverified material. Unfortunately, that's the same topic I've been sending this editor messages on, creating unref articles. They continue to edit but won't reply to the several messages I have sent over a period of weeks (see User talk:JCGDIMAIWAT). I have pointed out that it is policy to communicate etc. but have not got anywhere. They appear to have never edited their talk page in more than 8 years of editing. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at JCGDIMAIWAT's contributions made over the last seven days, I see that (s)he has added content mostly to film-related articles and BLPs. I also see edits without references to BLP articles where they should be provided (1, 2, 3, 4). I'm going to wait on action and let other editors weigh in on this discussion first, as well as give JCGDIMAIWAT a fair opportunity to respond here (I know this user has never communicated on talk pages or with other editors before, but it's the right thing to do regardless). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

JCGDIMAIWAT, you've continued to edit, you need to join in the discussion here. This discussion is just trying to find a solution to this problem, but you are risking a block by refusing to comment. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked JCGDIMAIWAT for one week for continuing to add unreferenced content and for failing to communicate during important discussions involving the problematic editing behavior. Since this user was last notified and repeatedly talked to, they've continued to ignore the warnings and I found this edit among this user's most recent changes and since this ANI has been open for a few days. I don't like being the person to have to do this, but I feel that enough chances were given, the user has repeatedly engaged in problematic editing, and it will only continue unless further action is taken. Sigh... unfortunately, a block is the logical next step in this situation, as all other methods of trying to reach the user have been exhausted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Harassment and edit warring

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

---

Can someone please have a word with User:134.154.56.223 (who also appears to be User:128.218.43.125)? After reporting him or her at WP:ANEW for edit warring at Emory University, he or she began harassing me on my own Talk page. Please convince him or her to stop. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've protected your talk page while this gets dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ElKevbo - It looks like NeilN asked the user yesterday here to stop their behavior on your user talk page. MelanieN has temporarily semi-protected your talk page, and the article in dispute has been semi-protected as well. Let's see how things go from here; if the user (or any other user) begins or continues to harass you on your user talk page, file another report here or let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! This editor is continuing to edit aggressively across several articles using multiple IP addresses but the harassment has stopped and he or she has begun to use Talk pages so that's progress. ElKevbo (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ElKevbo - If the harassment or incivility returns, report it here or message me on my talk page and let me know - I'll be happy to make sure it's taken care of and that it stops. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Block evasion via VPN

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

---

Superfx1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evaded a 24 hour block[130] via VPN (Free MS-SSTP VPN vpn885338432.opengw.net:995[131]) with an IP address 125.199.131.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Superfx1234 created a blatant sock Katarnoneo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and reverted to IP's edit[132].―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, please start an investigation at WP:SPI. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand VPN? It is not solved by WP:SPI. It is already clear Superfx1234 evaded the block.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please post technical evidence at WP:WPOP. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you have already posted at WP:WPOP. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Rajrajh

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

---

Note: Thread was unarchived because of continued disruption.

Rajrajh had many warnings now,[133] still he is edit warring on Ho people, by gaming WP:3RR,[134][135][136][137][138][139] and never participating on talk page.[140] Capitals00 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If Rajrajh does not respond here then a topic ban may be needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If @Rajrajh: is going to be topic banned then edit warring [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149] on Munda people should be mentioned too, no discussion on talk page as well.[150] He is evidently aware that editors have to discuss their edits[151] but he prefers not to.

He is now edit warring over removing CSD tag from Ho revolt[152][153] an article he created himself. His talkpage comment also shows[154] he is not willing to understand copyright violations. Capitals00 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Filling out paperwork for a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

And after they were notified, they did this edit. Should we give them the one chance in case they didn't see the talk notification or is this a direct snub against the sanction? Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They were busy working on another copyright violation while this was going on. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack on page

The user User:GSS-1987 & User:Winged Blades of Godric are personally attacking the page called Prakash Neupane by removing the references link like Huffpost , Khasokhas Weekly & other Nepali National Newspaper sources by saying unreliable source. They cannot remove references like this Huffpost is not unreliable source. The article was accept from Draft by seeking review of Wikipedia PROJECT Nepal . I request administrator to take a look on these things. 27.34.20.152 (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, for the blue-link(s).I got one more article to dispatch to AFD.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

All sorts of cross-spamming.For interested editors, this is the piece I removed, which was supposedly contributed by Khasokhas.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• THere's a large sock farm, mostly IP socks that operate on this and other similar articles. One can see a similar IP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've sent the non-notable journalist/publisher of Khasokhas Weekly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishor Panthi (2nd nomination) and note the page was previously deleted. There is a long zerm persistent effort to promote non-notable connected subjects here. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mansukhsurin

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

Mansukhsurin has been repeatedly warned about adding unverified material to Wikipedia, including creating wholly unreferenced articles, but won't respond. At User talk:Mansukhsurin you can see my numerous messages to them, plus other messages and warnings on the same topic. Mansukhsurin has been editing for a couple of years but has never responded to a talk page message or even (from what I can see) left an edit summary. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boleyn: You forgot to notify them; I've just done so. Not that I expect them to come running here to explain themselves.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mansukhsurin, you've continued to edit, can you please respond? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be that a block is the only way to gain their attention.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Also he has created a user page by attempting to copy User:Titodutta's page, thereby giving the false impression (probably unintentionally) that he is an administrator.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring project talk page posts at Wikiproject Medicine

I posted a neutrally worded notice of an RfC on Wikiproject Medicine, as recommended by the guideline WP:RFC. [155]. RexxS has been trying to remove it, exhibited WP:OWN behavior, and insulting edit summaries [156], [157]. Gun control is directly relevant to public health, and I can provide AMA statements to that effect if asked, they're already posted in the relevant discussion thread. Here's the obligatory "fuck off" [158]. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder though, why does RexxS go to such lengths to prevent word about an RfC from getting out? What purpose does edit warring it off a page serve, other than make it harder to gauge community consensus in a content dispute? If it's "disruptive" to post it there, what point does all the arguing about it serve? Nobody is making RexxS participate in the RfC. Obviously RexxS has some underlying political issues and needs a topic ban from gun control, to prevent him from continuing to edit other peoples' posts. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Response

Geogene posted a notice to WT:WikiProject Medicine: "An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre." [159]

Ozzie10aaaa, a member of WPMED, removed it withe edit summary "wrong wikiproject" [160]

Geogene restored the notice with edit summary "Disagree. Shootings and gun control policy are a public health issue" [161]

He then posted further on the WPMED talk page, attempting to justify his edit-warring the notice back in.

I told him quite firmly that the issue is not in scope for WPMED but did not remove the notice at that point. not in scope here [162]

Since then he's harangued me on my talk page and on WT:WPMED #RfC notice insisting on his right to decide what notifications are posted at WT:WPMED, despite being told by Natureium that Geogene was "trying to shoehorn in an issue that has nothing to do with WP:MED". [163]

Eventually I removed the RfC notice and warned him that "The purpose of this talk page is discuss improvements to WP:WikiProject Medicine. The question of "whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre" is so far removed from that purpose that your persistence in trying to force your unwelcome notice down the members' throats is very clearly tendentious editing."

Geogene subsequently restored the notice for a third time.

Geogene is not a member of WPMED, and he has been told very clearly by three editors, all of whom are members of WPMED, that his issue is not in scope for WPMED, nor is it wanted on the talk page. Yet he has tendentiously insisted that members of a WikiProject have no right to manage their project's talkpage, and edit-warred against members of the WikiProject to force his view.

I'd like to seen action (1) to ban him from posting further at WT:WikiProject Medicine; (2) to confirm to him that the members of a WikiProject can to manage their talk page in line with WP:TPG; and (3) to confirm that WP:TALKCENT: "Notices may be placed on related pages as needed; for example, a relevant WikiProject page" does not give him the right to override the wishes of a WikiProject's membership in deciding what topics are relevant to their project. --RexxS (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is "being shoved down anyone's throat", and that's a weird way to respond to a neutral RfC that tells me RexxS probably has some issues here. RexxS is free not to participate in the RfC if he chooses, but he does not have the right to decide that for the Project as a whole. There is no consensus that the RfC is off-topic, at least not the point of justifying removal. Two other editors posted there appearing to disagree with RexxS. Even if it were, the aggression shown by RexxS is far beyond reasonable for the context. They have a serious off-wiki problem with gun control, and it is causing them to act out disruptively.

Further, RexxS does not own Project Medicine. He cannot dictate who can post there, or what is or is not on topic. There is no agreement as to whether the RfC is on topic or not. This ownership behavior is further evidence of disruption.

And finally, Projects are not private clubs. It is irrelevant whether I am a "member" there or not. The statements above where he says I don't have membership card are further evidence of how RexxS doesn't understand the scope and purpose of Projects. He is not competent to delete posts that he doesn't like. Geogene (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Project aren't private clubs, on the other hand participants of the projects are ultimately the ones who deal with stuff relating to the wikiproject and therefore the best ones to decide what is and isn't in the scope of the wikiproject. If all participants of a wikiproject are saying something isn't in scope and someone else who doesn't is saying it is; it's only logical that we will side with those who will actually deal (or not deal) with whatever it is as part of the wikiproject, rather than the person who isn't going to deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

All it takes to "join" a Wikiproject is to post four tildes on the page. You don't have the right to exclude relevant notices because somebody hasn't. As to whether it's topical, I trust the AMA on that more than I trust you. Geogene (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• The problem here is actually one of WP:CANVASSING, I think.
  Whenever I open an RfC, I am careful to post neutrally-worded pointers to the discussion on the talk page of every WikiProject listed on the article's talk page, whether or not, in my personal opinion, that WikiProject has any relevance to the subject in question -- but only to those WikiProjects. (I also note that I have done so in the RfC.) I do that to avoid any claim of impropriety or canvassing.
  However, in this case, the RfC was on Talk:Colt AR-15, and the only WikiProjects which have claimed that article as within their purview are MILHIST and Firearms. By posting on a WikiProject which does not claim the article as part of their project, Geogene was canvassing for votes from the members of a WikiProject they thought might be sympathetic to their side of the debate. If we allowed this to happen regularly, there would be nothing to stop every RfC from being publicized on every WikiProject the RfC initiator feels would be helpful to their cause: in this case, perhaps WikiProject Liberalism, WikiProject Terrorism, or WikiProject Civil Rights Movement.
  No, the best and fairest course is to post only on the WikiProjects listed, or else to forbid pointers altogether if they're going to be abused in this way. (And just as an aside: I'm an extremely strong advocate for very strict gun control and strongly favor outlawing the AR-15 and other assault-type rifles. This has nothing to do with that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I do expect that WikiProject Medicine would be more favorable to my view, just as I expect that WikiProject Firearms, where I posted an identical notice, would be more hostile to my view. That's not canvass, as I understand it, but I may not understand it correctly. The point of an RfC is to pull editors from outside the usual orbit of firearms enthusiasts. A cohort that represents the community at large. Geogene (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand it correctly. Not only must the pointer be neutral, but who is notified must also not be biased. For instance, if an article is AfD'd for a second time, it's reasonable to notify the editors who participated in the previous AfD, but only if all the editors are notified, not simply the ones who !voted to "delete". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The removal of the post was improper (especially repeated removals); it should have been left alone. The RfC clearly related to a medical/public health topic; the Port Arthur shooting and the gun laws that followed have been recently discussed in articles in, for example, the Journal of the American Medical Association and a position statement from the Australian Medical Association. More eyes on the topic from those interested in medicine or public health can only be a good thing. Neutrality^talk 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Needless to say, Colt AR-15 does not have a WikiProject Medicine (which many rather surprizing articles do). This is normally the prima facie evidence for what is in the project's scope and what is not. It is relevant that there is currently another gun control issue on MEDRS talk, where Rexxx seems ready to accept this is in scope (rather more than me, for example). I can't see the removal was improper. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ Johnbod and (obviously) RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I can only agree that considering Colt AR-15 as part of WP:WikiProject Medicine is stretching credibility/canvassing beyond the bounds of reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not, for the same reason that Wikiproject Medicine is listed on Talk:Traffic_collision: the medical profession considers guns and gun violence, like traffic accidents, to be public health matters. EEng 14:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine is not the medical profession. We are a group of editors trying to improve medical content on Wikipedia, and whether or not the Port Arthur shooting is mentioned on the Colt article is a matter of no bearing whatsoever to that aim.

To make it clear: I have no axe to grind on gun politics; I did not even object to the original RfC notice being posted; but I did object strongly to the re-posting of the notice after it had been removed by a very active and respected member of the WikiProject. For Geogene to replace it for a third time is worthy of sanction, if only to prevent future time-sinks like this. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to define what is or is not medical, and this time sink is being created by you, who insists on arguing and edit warring over it. If you hadn't kept removing the notice, we wouldn't be having this debate. This is your fault. Geogene (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hyperbole. My single removal can't be described as "kept removing the notice" by any reasonable person. Unlike your posting of the notice three times. You need to understand what edit warring is. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If you think someone's using inappropriate judgment in advertising an RfC, go tell them that on their talkpage and maybe mention it in the RfC itself. But editwarring to un-notify is silly. You can't unring the bell and it's petty to try to do so. EEng 16:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The inappropriate judgement was not in the original posting; that was a simple mistake. The real problem was the subsequent edit-warring after another editor had removed the notice. Edit-warring to notify is even sillier, and you shouldn't be encouraging it. It just rewards bad behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If there was no inappropriate judgment in posting it, then it was certainly inappropriate to remove it. That aside, there are very few times that it's OK to remove another's talk posts (WP:TPO), even if misguided or ill-considered, and this sure ain't one. You should have let it lie and maybe taken it up with the poster, or if the problem is chronic, got some third-party help in guiding the poster for the future. Again, it's silly to try to unring the bell. EEng 19:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, as a possible outcome of this discussion, Colt AR-15 should be added to the list of pages of interest to Project Medicine. As has been noted, there is already similar content there. Geogene (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it. Since Jimbo Wales did not die and leave Geogene RexxS in charge, he doesn't own the page. If he doesn't like the notice, he could avert his eyes. --Calton | Talk 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

While this statement is technically true, I believe you have the party usernames backwards. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was going to post the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Crap. I'm sorry about that. I have no idea how I did that. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That's it. You're off the execution team. EEng 04:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And, RexxS has now edit warred it out again. This has to be very near a bright line violation. [164]. I'm telling you, there's something there they have a problem with, and it goes beyond any good faith interest in procedure. Geogene (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

When I've removed it as many times as you've added it (that's THREE times in your case), you'll be in a position to talk about the "bright line" that you were already at yesterday. What is it going to take to convince you that edit-warring isn't the way to solve disputes? The notice has been removed by three different members of WPMED. When will you get the message? we don't reward edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I found the behaviour by RexxS on the Wikiproject Talk page to be downright insulting. Sample edit summaries include:

• Persistant little bugger isn't he
• hooray - you've worked out the bit about "on topic"
• Utter nonsense etc.

Comments directed at Georgene elsewhere were of similar caliber, such as here: "Now stop trolling here, and get back under your bridge." permalink. Granted, this was on RexxS's own Talk page, but still. I would not expect such a tone directed at an established, apparently good-faith contributor.

Apart from incivility, I noticed similar WP:OWN behaviour from RexxS at Talk:Gun violence in the United States#Contested projects a few weeks ago, when another user attempted to tag the page as falling under the scope of WP:Medicine project (permalink). The comments from RexxS included: "WikiProjects decide their own scope"; "It is not sufficient for a topic to be related to medicine for it to fall in the scope of WikiProject Medicine". The discussion ultimately resulted in the page being tagged.

I found it odd that RexxS would object to tagging a clearly-related page, so their opposision to the RfC notice, to the point of insults and edit warring seems to be part of a pattern. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Geogene: and others. There is a fundamental error in your position here. If you understand that, you'll realize that everything else here is tilting at windmills. The Colt AR-15 and a massacre are not biomedical topics and should not be dealt with at the Wiki project medical page. The shoes I wear influence my health so does the car I drive. In fact pretty much anything a human being does impacts health. However, the MEDRS page and project are devoted to content that is, and I know I'm repeating myself, strictly biomedical in nature. Your RfC was closed as being at the wrong NB. Just take it somewhere else. Do you see that if editors do not delineate clearly what is biomedical and what isn't the MEDRS NB could be inundated with any and every topic because like I said, everything we as human beings do can be seen as and stretched to relate to our health/lives. Nor is ignoring that an RfC is posted on a wrong notice board how Wikipedia works. What works is for editors with interests and experience in certain areas to help regulate what happens in those areas. This is a volunteer project. If we didn't all get involved the place would fall apart right after it became clogged up and then bogged down with the inappropriate. Rexx is a long time, highly-respected, MEDRS editor who is known for fairness and neutrality. I don't always have to agree with him to know that any other agenda here than to help make this part of WP run as efficiently as possible is a grave error in judgement, and tells me you don't know the history of the editor you are dealing with. Please rethink your position and take your concerns to the right NB. Wiki project medicine isn't it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

I understand that your experiences may have been different, but nothing on that page or on this noticeboard shows Rexx as worthy of being "highly respected" or even capable of fairness or neutrality. What I see here is a partisan POV warrior who has a serious problem with gun control. Geogene (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are making assumptions based on the fact that someone disagrees with you. I've read through most if not all of the posts on this issue. You are refusing to see how the Wikipedia community deals with MEDRS. While you may have a personal and perhaps legitimate position, that position is not shared by the people who have worked in this area, and probably with the community as a whole. And you are ignoring what I wrote above. This reminds me of people who insist on picking wild flowers in protected areas. "I can pick them; its just a few," while ignoring that fact that if everyone picked a few there would be nothing left. If everyone brought what they personally "thought" is medical related the medical project notice board, the MEDRS notice board could not function. This is a collaborative project not one owned by everyone with an opinion. I've had arguments with Rexx; what I know is that he's honest and tries to be fair and kind whether I agree or not. If he's not in this case you might look to yourself. It can be hard to back down from a position but there is dignity in that too.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

You're here to defend your friend, not give an opinion based on the evidence. Geogene (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing evidence with opinion and you are not understanding how collaboration works. As long as that is the case there's not much more, I at least, can say. You are pushing on a very big rock when you try to redefine what the MEDRS NB is and what it handles. Its frustrating for those who work here all the time. You are refusing to take your case some where else where it could legitimately be dealt with. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: To continue the analogy of "picking wild flowers", if you are caught doing this, a Park Service ranger <redacted> may fine or even arrest you, but they will now shower you with insults. We should expect better from a "long time, highly-respected" editor, rather than bullying and insults for daring to post to their project while, gasp, not being a member. Please explain how you consider edit summaries such as "Persistant little bugger isn't he" to be acceptable on the MEDRS page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you strike comments <redacted> - such inflammatory comments do nothing to resolve the situation and only make coming to a mutually agreeable consensus less likely. Behaviour like this can only drive editors away, possibly permanently, to the disadvantage of the encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Redacted upon request. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that my posts had to do with trying to explain the "bottom line" in this issue. I am also suggesting that my long time experience with an editor points to an underlying history of behaviour. If you want to start discussing who said what in this specific case, well then we have to place everyone in context and deal with all editors. I don't care about doing that; people get frustrated that's all I have say about both here. As for wildflowers; where I came from you can be fined and maybe even arrested for picking endangered plants. My analogy though stops at one is too many when there are lots of people saying its ok for me. Shooting someone in the head leans towards hyperbole, non? The RfC was closed; most of us would toddle off and find another notice board where we could get feedback. We can't force an RfC; this is a collaborative community whether we like it or not.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

• I think this is a pretty obvious example of canvassing. Especially since Geogene said he expected WP:MED to be sympathetic to his point of view. Even if gun violence in the contect of medicine is relevant to WP:MED, an individual weapon obviously is not. Natureium (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• "I think this is a pretty obvious example of canvassing" What are you referring to? Add: I cannot speak for anyone else here but I have not discussed this with anyone nor has anyone asked for my input on this. I started watching this yesterday and did not intend to comment for fear of adding fuel to the proverbial fire, but as someone who has connections to the MEDRS page and comments here every now and then I finally decided to add a comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

• fwiw I considered the removal of the RfC notice kind of.. i don't know....rude, and in my view it cast WPMED in a poor light. If people want to editors active at WP:MED to made aware of something, that is the place to do it. People are free to ignore it if they wish. There is an obvious public health connection with gun violence (our article about the agreement that is the subject of the RfC (National Firearms Agreement) cites for example PMID 17170183 from the Journal of Injury Prevention , as well as others, which analyze the effects of the agreement and subsequent laws on deaths from guns.) It isn't CANVASS because the notice itself was neutral, and Geogene also posted at FIREARMS and the article on the port arthur incident itself, per their contribs from that time.

This happened when I wasn't looking and I wish that Ozzie10aaaa, RexxS, and Natureium hadn't done this, and I ask you all to reverse yourselves so this can go away. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think you're wrong about it not being canvassing. When an editor admits that he posted somewhere specifically because he thought that the editors there would be more likely to agree with their position, that is canvassing, by definition. The purpose of neutral pointers is to get more participants involved in a discussion, not to get more participants of a particular kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything left to "reverse". The RFC note is still at WT:MED, neatly boxed up by the ever-practical soupvector to stop people talking about whether it belonged there.

For those that don't follow WT:MED every day,[1] we just had a big discussion about this a couple of weeks ago. The group doesn't care about individual brands or models of firearms. The group does care about big-picture public health subjects, such as Gun violence (now re-re-tagged for WPMED over the objections of a non-participant who thought that we shouldn't care). The RFC in question is about whether to place a link about an event in the article about a particular brand and model of firearm. In other words, the RFC is about exactly what we said a few weeks ago that we didn't care about. Short of every editor reading All The Pages every day, there's no way that anyone would have known about this, but the end result is the same: It's out of scope for this group, even though it's connected, at one or two removes, to things that we would support. It therefore doesn't surprise or distress me that an editor who didn't know about that discussion might leave a note, or that an editor who did know about that decision removed it. This kind of thing happens, and it shouldn't have turned into this mess, but I think everyone's done now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] If you don't, then you're missing out.

As much as I'd like to take credit for neatly boxing that particular puddle of poo, it was the wise Natureium who deserves that credit. — soupvector (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• As a participant of the Council.....it's very disappointing to see the harsh response an editor new to the project got. Does not look inviting for new people interested in the project. --Moxy (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What council? And he isn't a new editor. Natureium (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User WeWuzPhoenicians

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

---

Hi, WeWuzPhoenicians is engaged in multiple edit wars. This user has been blocked temporarily but as soon as the block expired, he came back and is actually going on with his disruptive edits and accuses other contributors like me or Dimadick of "vandalism". Please have a look and note that WeWuzPhoenicians and IP 151.236.179.140 are suspected socks (they edit in the same way in numerous articles and a SPI is opened). Some evidences of edit warring : [165], [166]. I have helped him and found a source for one of his edits : [167]. I also proposed to help him finding reliables sources, but this was declined. He also erased all the discussions and warnings in his talk page : [168]. I have not reverted his edit here : [169] where he replaces Assyrian with Arab without providing any verifiable relable source (however, the article does not contain a source for the Assyrian claim either, but this is not a legit reason for replacing an unsourced claim with another unsourced claim), i think it's better that an admin deals with this case. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to note that the name "WeWuzX" is possibly related to the meme "We Wuz Kangz", a racist meme that is popular right now based on the latest Assassins Creed game. Probably a troll. --Tarage (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Just another Kang" from their user page. Yep. Troll. Good block. --Tarage (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

See how much I miss out on by not playing video games? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Legacypac accusations of bad faith, COI while editing DS firearms articles

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

---

Legacypac has made a number of uncivil accusations towards me relating to edits primarily on the talk pages of firearms articles. While I'm sure we don't hold the same views on the subject I do not appreciate accusations that my edits, ore more often my talk page comments are "whitewashing". Repeated accusations of WP:POVPUSH, accusations of whitewashing, and not very sutle accusations of COI are not condusive to WP:CIVIL editing (examples below).

I have tried to reach out to Legacypac to address these issues on the editor's talk page. Initially here [[170]] and after additional instances incivility here [[171]]

Several associated with the article 2018 NRA boycott that related to a request to remove material that I felt was WP:SYN. Consensus on the article page and a NORN thread supported removal. Accusations were made on both locations and at myself and a second editor.

• March 13, "I'm tiring of your pro-NRA advocacy User:Springee. This is an area under discretionary sanctions." [[172]]
• March 13, Similar comment directed at another editor "A review of [User]'s recnet contributions show NRA whitewashing. I remind this user that this topic is under discretionary sanctions. " [[173]] Note edit summary
• March 14, "Anyone reviewing edit histories can see which editors are whitewashing and even the big name media is picking up on the effort of these editors. " [[174]]
• March 17, from the NORN discussion related to this material, "These two editors are the ones arguing to remove it. In fact Springee has a history of trying to downplay anything negative about the NRA. The RS are noticing. [links to external media]" [[175]]

Non-firearms article:

• March 18, "Stop trying to whitewash this page", [[176]]

Noticeboard comments:

• March 26, "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort? [Link to blog post by blocked editor Lightbreather]" [[177]], Archived discussion [[178]]

Smith and Wesson article:

• April 2, "You will not whitewash the page completely", [[179]], upon a talk page[[180]] request this one was removed. [[181]]
• April 2, "Wow you are narrowly focused on reasons to exclude a good source where the headline names S&W. Here is another [removed ref] but I'm sure there is something wrong with this source too" [[182]]

AfD discussion page:

• April 2, "Pretty POV of Springee - when will you stop advocating against any transparency around the NRA's activities?" [[183]] Per a talk page comment I requested this comment be removed. [[184]]

Talk page implication of COI:

• April 2, "Are you in anyway employed by a gun manufacturer or the NRA? Just wondering?" [[185]] A quick search of my edit history shows no firearms edits at all prior to Aug 2016 and until late last year only limited involvement.

Several times Legacypac has linked to a few external media articles that started with an article in The Verge about Ar-15 edits on Wikipedia. I discussed the very questionable articles here [[186]]. I think it is uncivil to use questionable articles as a way to impugn the actions of other editors.

I'm not requesting sanctions, only that the accusations etc stop. Springee (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see some specific edits that the two of you are arguing about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Springee states that he or she is asking "only that the accusations etc stop", so let's consider accusations that have been made. (1) Springee has a history of wanting the removal of negative information relating to gun supporters in the United States. Legacypac regards that as editing to support a point of view, and uses the word "whitewashing" to describe it. Legacypac has a perfect right to hold that view, and it is not reasonable to attempt to suppress his or her right to express the opinion. (2) Legacypac has asked whether Springee has a conflict of interest, and received an unequivocal answer "no". Having received that answer, Legacypac must now drop the matter, and not suggest that Springee has a conflict of interest again unless and until there is clear evidence that Springee in fact does have one. Persisting in repeatedly making such an accusation without substantiation is both a failure to assume good faith and a violation of Wikipedia's policy on harassment. (3) Springee needs to be careful about making accusations against Legacypac. For example, Springee has linked to this talk page section, referring to it as "additional instances incivility", but while Legacypac firmly expressed critical views of Springee's editing, he or she did do perfectly civilly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is is really a legit question? Springee has a 10 year edit history, editing more than firearms articles. It should be obviousl that there was not a "paid editor" issue. The COI "question" was not called for. And the term "whitewashing" is being used in a manner that suggests collusion or nefarious motives. The technical use of the word may not be wrong, but the implication is clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I had closed this section, but on representation from Springee I am reopening it, to allow Legacypac a chance to respond. There is also a question of whether "whitewashing" is, as I took it, simply a term describing repeated removal of content supporting a particular position by someone who clearly disagrees with that position, or something more reprehensible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you JamesBWatson. Your close was fine I asked the other editor once if they had a COI and they said no, which I take them at their word for. When I used the term whitewashing (just like other editors do [187]) I refer to removing any negative information about a subject from the page directly, and indirectly by attacking the critical Reliable Sources used, weight, relevance and so on on the talkpages/RS notice board etc of any material that the NRA would not want on the page. At issue are facts like:

1. some guns are commonly and in legislation called assault rifles [188] [189]
2. there is significant backlash against the NRA because of their response to recent mass shootings including the 2018 NRA boycott [190], and somewhere he deleted a link I placed to this article from I recall the NRA page.
3. that the NRA has been suggesting boycotts of opponents for years [191], which he sees as irrelevant to the current boycotts and NRA response and that
4. Smith & Wesson changed their name to American Outdoor Brands Corporation [192] [193] to blunt criticism.

Examples and supplied links are just some I was able to quickly gather from memory. None of them illustrate the talkpage POV pushing.

(By the way the American Outdoor Brands Corporation and Smith & Wesson pages cover the exact same company under two names. The page incorrectly identifies S&W as a subsidiary of itself. Further Smith & Wesson is basically G11 material - a glowing advertisement and product catalog with subpages for each gun they make.)

There are multiple editors whitewashing gun topics and mainstream media has noticed:

Anyway as I said, this editor has been editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI). I reviewed some recent contributions after they filed this report and there appears to be some recent moderation in their POV pushing. I'll not claim all the credit for pushing them in the direction of NPOV but I hope that trend continues. Hope that clears things up. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, there is a difference between saying the edit is a problem and saying I'm POV pushing. I think the same argument could be made about your edits but I haven't because I would like to keep things civil, hence reaching out to you twice. You accuse me of POV push but lets review the example where you lodged most of the accusations. "That edit is whitewashing" is about the edit. "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort?" is about the motives of the editor and not civil.

In reply to your numbered points.

1. You didn't note that there were a number of edits related to what to call the rifles and that a talk page discussion said that they shouldn't be called "assault rifles" (start of back and forth[[194]]). Additionally the source for the claim didn't use the term "assault rifle" so the change is completely appropriate per contentious wp:label [[195]]. I believe sticking to what the source says and avoiding contentious labels is good practice.

2. This was early on in the existence of the article and I wasn't the only one who was concerned that the article was more like a cry for action against companies rather than a neutral description of events (which were still unfolding). The edit was BOLD and reverted and I moved it to the talk page. You may not agree but that doesn't justify personal attacks.

3. This edit suggests you were tone deaf to policy. You felt the information was relevant but could find no RSs linking material from 2014 to the 2018 Boycott. Rather than discuss policy the first thing you did was attack @Miguel Escopeta: and myself. You continued the attacks on the NORN discussion. In the end you were the sole editor who felt the material was supported by policy. If you are the only one supporting inclusion maybe the issue isn't POV push but policy. I'm not saying you were wrong for opposing removal but that opposition didn't need to include attacking other editors.

4. OK, bring that up as a RfC or such. That doesn't justify attacking me for pointing out that the edits being added were using sources that didn't support the claims being made. The originating editor was previously blocked for sock editing and edit warring (and is currently topic blocked for these edits) so it's understandable that myself and others weren't quick to embrace the material. If you had opened up a talk page discussion asking how we can get the material in I think you would find I was supportive in general but not of the exact text and I wasn't interested in helping an editor who had accused me of being a S&W employee etc.

Your reposed a series of poor quality opinion articles based on one published by the Verge. The author of the Verge article contacted me 24 hr prior to publication, asked a vague question that made the tone of the article clear. I didn't reply. Earlier in this ANI I posted a link my take on the article and the gross errors the author made in his telling of events. Those articles don't justify uncivil comments towards other editors.

Your block log and previous ANI cases shows you have a history of bullying[[196]] and I think that is what is going on here. I'm not asking you to change your mind or agree with my edit suggestions. I also don't think this rises to any sanctions. I'm only asking that you assume good faith and discuss the edits, not the editor. This shouldn't be too much to ask. Springee (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You consider Newsweek and Haaretz to be "poor quality" publications? Your deliberate lack of response to the writer from The Verge was a strategic error - if you wanted your point of view to be presented, you have to actually tell the writer what it is. Now, you have no-one to blame but yourself if the article didn't mention where you're coming from, so you're in no position to bitch about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken - Could you possibly mischaracterize this issue any more than you just did? I have to wonder if you actually read this ANI report before posting that comment. This isn't about Springee's POV not being represented correctly, or at all, by The Verge. This is about Springee asking LegacyPac to knock off the persistent accusations of COI and POV-pushing, which have crossed the line into blatant personal attacks. So not only do you have this 100% wrong, but your characterization of Springee's request as "bitching" is appallingly rude and a violation of NPA. You need to strike your comment and post an apology to Springee immediately. You owe him that. People should be able to seek re-dress for issues here without being unjustifiably attacked. - ^theWOLFchild 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was also contacted, but the way the writer was framing his questions, it was obvious he had a POV that he was going to advance. He didn't want to hear my side, he wanted to refute my side in the article, where I'd have no control over how he presented what I said. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• You do know that it's extremely rare for writers to give the people they interview control over what they write, don't you? And, as I said to Springee, if you are correct that the writer had a preset bias, the only way you had available to you to hope that your point of view was presented in the article was to engage him or her with as convincing an argument as you could make. If you didn't do that, you can hardly complain if the article wasn't balanced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what in my response made you think I expected control over what was written? Maybe I wasn't clear: I KNOW I don't have control over what was written. Since the questions made it evident that the writer had a clear agenda, I had no confidence that what I did say would be presented in an impartial manner. He wasn't looking for my side of it. He was looking to cherry-pick a sentence or two and then spend as much prose as he wanted to refute it. I had zero confidence that there would be balance, so rather than participate and allow myself to be used to further his POV, I chose not to participate. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• It was your statement: "He didn't want to hear my side, he wanted to refute my side in the article, where I'd have no control over how he presented what I said." That seems clear enough to me: you didn;t talk to them because you'd have no control over how they used the material you provided for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• And then I clarified that further for you. Since it was an article where I'd have no control, I chose not to. I didn't expect control. I KNEW that I would not have control. If he appeared to be neutral and trying to simply report on the issue, I'd have been fine with the fact that I had no control. When it became evident that he was not neutral, I decided not to be a vehicle for his agenda. You can continue trying to act like I had some unrealistic expectation, but at this point, I've made it very clear that I didn't have one. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you seem not to be getting, or to be deliberately ignoring, my point, which is that by not responding to the writer's inquiry, there was little or no chance that your point of view was going to be presented adequately, thus making your and Springee's feeling that the writer was going to put together a (from your POV) biased article a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given that, you are in no position to complain about the article's quality, since you did absolutely nothing to influence it when given the chance. So, stop bitching about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• And unfortunately you seem to be either not getting or are deliberately ignoring my point. Given that I have made it crystal clear that I had no expectation of editorial control and explained why I didn't agree to participate, I'm not sure why you feel like you need to 'win' something. In any case, I can "bitch" as long as I please and you can stop acting like you are some sort of arbitor about what I can or can't talk about. Last I checked, you're just another editor like I am. When you get knighted the Prince of Wikipedia, let me know. Until then....well, I'll choose to be more civil than you were. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, sure, you can continue to bitch that the article you refused to give information to was biased, you simply won't be in any way justified in doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The articles in question were simply reporting what The Verge article said and for failing to investigate further the articles were poor (I don't recall claiming the publications as a whole were poor). The author of the Verge article presumably sent the same email to quite a number of editors. The question was vague and didn't suggest any interest in a real discussion. I was told the article was going out in 24 hours. Mind you at that point I had almost no idea what the article was going to say. I honestly didn't have much of a POV on the subject other than to say the author got a lot of things very wrong because they didn't do their homework. If you are interested in it, please see this talk page thread [[197]].

In somewhat condensed form, the author claimed people were trying to remove mass shooting information from the AR-15 article. But the author didn't bother to do their homework and didn't understand that there had been some churning of article names and thus confusion as to what went where. This happened just after the FL shooting so many new authors descended on what they thought was the right article and started adding material... but there was a problem. What started as the generic AR-15 article was changed to the Colt AR-15 (last spring if I recall) article because "AR-15" is a trademarked name. The conclusion at the time, as I recall as a largely uninvolved party, was change "AR-15" to "Colt AR-15" and then make a generic AR-15 page (and there was a debate about the correct page name... this is Wikipedia of course). Because "Colt AR-15" is a brand specific page, general AR-15 mass shooting information wasn't on topic, that would go in the generic AR-15 page. But this is Wikipedia. No one bothered to update the redirect links so "AR-15" searches (and thus web searches) found the Colt page rather than the generic AR-15 page. Editors on the Colt page would rightly remove general AR-15 material from the specific page but editors who were new were understandably confused. To make things worse, someone decided "Modern Sporting Rifles" was the correct name for the generic AR-15 page (a mistake that was being corrected before the Verge article came out). Wikipedia being what it is, it the editors who made the changes didn't finish the job and setup the links etc and we have odd names for articles. The Verge author sees only the surface and assumes this is some sort of mass conspiracy to censor articles and we have the story in question. A bit of digging would have shown this was simply the convergence of a major news story at the same time the articles were taking their time to evolve.

The article also mentions some NRA edits and notes certain material that was removed. However, it doesn't ask if the material's removal was valid. I think any long time Wikipedia editor will understand that sometimes material is removed because it isn't properly sourced (source doesn't support the claim, not reliable etc, added by a blocked sock editor). Since I wasn't directly involved with most of the material discussed in the article I think my non-reply to a vague question was the right choice. It was interesting to note that some comments in reply to the article basically supported what was happening at the Wikipedia articles. So what should we make of Legcaypac's reply below? Well there is a failure to understand the subject yet a willingness to assign motives without knowing the whole story. An attempt to mock and disparage which I suspect is not in line with WP:CIVIL behavior. I suspect that is part of the problem with the 2018 NRA Boycott incivility I noted above. Rather than look at the content as unsupportable by policy, Legacypac decided the only reason for removal would have to be bias/POVPUSH. At the end of the day that seems to have blinded Legacypac to problems that other editors had no issue finding. As Legacy said, I'm sure he he is a true believer in whatever he believes. All I was asking was that he follow the rules for civility when he disagrees. Springee (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

News org Verge found Springee's POV pushing so blatant they call Springee up for an interview and write an article about it. Newsweek and two other places pick up the story.

Springee files an ANi against me because I independently came to the same assessment about Springee's specific agenda editing as Verge and Newsweek!

First, That's awesome! No wonder Springee is so sensitive to any mention of the news coverage detailing how they personally brought Wikipedia into disrepute by whitewashing gun related pages. Second, congratulation are in order - we should put a DYK about Springee's editing making Newsweek. That's a rare honor indeed.

I think we can close this discussion again unless someone wants to use DS to topic ban Springee for editing so POV that four media outlets wrote it up. Legacypac (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The above is a clearly uncivil comment and illustrates exactly the sort of behavior that I've been concerned about. The edit justification assocaited with that addition is also a civility problem. [[198]] Based on the above comment I would like to request a formal warning for incivility. Springee (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• News org Verge found Springee's POV pushing so blatant they call Springee up for an interview - Legacypac, can you post a link that proves The Verge found "Springee's POV pushing" to be "so blatant" and that it is the reason they contacted him? Can you also provide links supporting your comment about "four media outlets writing about Springee's POV"..? (specifically) Otherwise, you should strike your comments and apologize. - ^theWOLFchild 05:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suggesting the DYK is exactly the sort of behavior that makes it difficult to work with you. Some writer with an agenda writes a one-sided opinion piece and you act like it was carried down from the mountain by Moses. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The box I posted was created by some other editor(s), I just borrowed it from the AR-15 talkpage.

• @Legacypac: I have told you that you must stop the accusations of conflict of interest. I know that "editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI)" stops short of actually saying that Springee has a conflict of interest, but in the context it clearly makes a not very deeply veiled implication to that effect. If I see you do anything like that again I shall block you from editing. I may also say that other aspects of your editing on this page is much more in line with a battleground approach to other editors than like an attempt to resolve disagreements. Your comments here have certainly led me to move somewhat away from the position that I expressed when I originally closed this discussion, and I hope I don't find it necessary to move further in the same direction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson I've never once said he had a COI (as you correctly note) and I only once asked nicely if there was one so we could get that out of the way as he keep coming to my talk to complain. There is no accusations of "bad faith" - I'm sure he is a true believer in whatever he believes. That dispenses with the false headline. I was not even going to comment here until I was pretty much forced to by the discussion on your talkpage - hardly battleground behavior on my part. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• " I've never once said he had a COI (as you correctly note)". Are you familiar with the term paralipsis? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I read Legacypac's bringing up the subject not as a rhetorical way to circumvent JBW's instructions, but simply as part of their explanation for their actions. Now that they have done so, bringing it up again would be a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Springee: you write: the [Verge] author claimed people were trying to remove mass shooting information from the AR-15 article [199], but the thing is that editors are still removing mass shooting information, even though it is *specifically* about the model in question: "remove Part Arthur Massacre per overwhelming consensus on talk page", 3 April 2018. The "overwhelming consensus" is the past discussions where editors were attempting to enforce WP:Local consensus of the now-deprecated "criminal use" essay; see for example: Talk:Colt_AR-15#Proposal_2.

It would help greatly if you step in every now and then to help enforce Wikipedia's policies, even if it means going against WP:GUNS local consensus sometimes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Port Arthur material is currently the subject of a talk page discussion. You say "enforce Wikipedia's policies" but which ones? These all can be distilled down to WP:weight (other than the cases where RS's don't support article claims). The issue I've raised is reciprocity of weight. You and I discussed it here [[200]]. It's improper to assume that those who are against including many of these facts aren't doing it against policy. Rather we don't agree on what constitutes weight in the context of the article. When are mentions in context of the crime (the car used, the gun used) due weight in context of the car or gun. I noted the contrast between how we treat the car and the gun used in the same crime. A well subscribed RfC said the Chevy Caprice article shouldn't mention the blue Caprice used as a shooting platform in the D.C. sniper attacks. The crime is mentioned on the page of the type of gun used in the crime. We disagree on the relative weight here but that disagreement is only over how to interpret weight in context. This isn't like the boycott case above where no policy was cited for inclusion. BTW, I'm for inclusion of the Port Arther material in large part because I think the weight is sufficient and because of the firearms project suggestions for when to include a crime on a gun page [[201]]. When the RfC comes I will support some type of inclusion. I was also for adding the mass shooting information to the AR-15 page. [[202]] This is rather off topic. You and I have disagreed but your disagreements are civil and stick to the subject, not the editor. I started this ANI to get Legacypac to do the same. Springee (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson, I'm disapointed that rather than see the problem with a post and edit summary such as this one [[203]]. Legacypac's reply to your warning suggest they feel there was nothing wrong with the comment. I think the editor either needs to acknowledge civility policy [[204]], in particular "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment," and "Be careful with edit summaries". Springee (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Were you, in fact, contacted by mainstream media such as Newsweek? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek? No. The Verge, yes, along with other editors, presumably on all sides of the edit debate. Contrary to Legacypac's bad faith accusations above, the email says I was contacted simply because I was one of the editor's involved on the talk pages. Email text below.

(Redacted)

Springee (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in emailing anyone here. So, were others on the talk page contacted also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The email I received was not personalized and the reporter said they were contacted multiple editors. Springee (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was contacted and after further inquiry, it was evident to me that the writer had a POV to advance, so I declioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Both Legacypac and Springee display strong emotional involvement with this subject, and it is not bringing out the best in either of them. This can't be viewed outside the the current political context, especially #NeverAgain and the objectively horrible response of the NRA and some of its surrogates. Springee's focus is mainly political and he edits a lot of firearms articles, mainly from a sympathetic perspective, but his edits also encompass many other topic areas. Legacypac has a much broader editing focus. Neither is the kind of SPA POV warrior for whom sanctions were originally enacted. I suggest that rather than formal sanctions on long-standing editors, we invite them both instead to take a 3 month break from this topic area. Otherwise it's going to end up with topic bans, and actually I don't think that will help Wikipedia in this case as both of them leave articles better than they started, even when they are butting heads. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I edit from a pro-verifiable facts perspective. I'll admit a bias against killing people. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And Springee would doubtless say the same. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "I'll admit a bias against killing people". And the fact that you see this as a crusade against "killing people" speaks volumes. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In general I have nothing against Legacypac's edits. I feel some aren't improvements or don't follow policy but in all cases I think they are legitimate, good faith efforts on which we disagree. Editorial disagreements aren't why I started this ANI. I simply want Legacypac to adhere to the WP:FOC policy. Comments about my supposed motivations are not focusing on the content in question. The insulting comment above is anything but FOC. If Legacypac agrees that going forward they will FOC when discussing editorial disagreements I'm fine. I will try to do the same and my talk page is open to Legacypac if they think I'm doing otherwise. Springee (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've only recently started paying attention to firearms-related articles, but it's immediately obvious that people are often incredibly unpleasant towards each other on this subject. Springee isn't. Getting into a disagreement with him is a far more positive experience than agreeing with many other editors in this area. From what I can tell, this report isn't about some kind of content disagreement, but about unpleasant behavior. Also, no one is even asking for a topic ban (although I guess Legacypac brought it up for some reason I don't understand). Asking Springee to stop editing because of someone else's unpleasant behavior would be a disservice to the encyclopedia. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac has a long history of unpleasant behavior and civility issues. That's why Springee came here. There are long-time editors who, I'm certain, are aware of LP's "way" of treating editors he disagrees with or simply doesn't like, but seem to be glossing over that common knowledge. I've never understood why LP has been allowed to continue on with this behavior over the years. When is enough going to be enough? Springee has a long history here with a clean block log and a good reputation. LP has and a long history and has been blocked more than once for harassment and incivility. Two months ago, LP was blocked for two weeks as a result of harassing another editor and edit warring. One day later, he was unblocked. And here we are again. Will a three week block now result in just two days of time-out this time around or will someone really do what should have been done in February? Why Springee is being doubted as to who's the issue here is beyond my understanding. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice you could share your thoughts based on your extensive experience. Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. And yes, I do have "experience" (as seen here). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Worst block ever based on my extending sn olive branch to you. I was not even involved in whatever got you blocked that time and I should have taken that Admin to ArbComm for abuse of tools. Anyway, you are not worth my time so stop trolling to settle old scores. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I don't know about your history with Winkelvi but changing the title of the thread [[205]] seems like more of the battleground behavior @JamesBWatson: was talking about. Springee (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikielvi has been trolling me (and others) for years. Your section header is a baseless personal attack and I'm well within my rights to neutralize it. You need to stop making my editing your concern. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, it is inappropriate to place a warning on my talk page [[206]] for reverting your attempt to change the section title of my complaint against you. I don't think edit warring the section title was what @JzG: had in mind. Springee (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, please note the accusations and disparaging remarks made on my talk page [[207]] and again after requesting that the topic not continue on my talk page[[208]]. Springee (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Evidently no point in trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think we are done here. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Legacypac would very much like for this to be "done" the way it's going. This ANI is about his behaviour towards others, and in his last 3 posts he called Winkelvi a "troll" twice and characterized Springee as "unreasonable", which he's not, and himself as "reasonable" when he's a anything but. Springee has tried to give him an out here, all he has to do is stop the personal attacks, but he don't, or can't, even do that.

@JzG, I see no reason why Springee should have to avoid editing any firearm articles for 3 months. Legacypac on the othe other hand could probably use a break from that topic, and that topic from him. Perhaps another proposal should be put forward to resolve this? - ^theWOLFchild 05:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive228#Thewolfchild for context. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See: WP:BATTLE. - ^theWOLFchild 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've been trying to decide whether or not to keep a lid on it. I have concluded that an unlidding is in order. Legacypac has been somewhat emotional (understandably to a degree), but also hostile on Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting where I have been active. They pointlessly threatened Mandruss (curtesy ping) with a TBAN, which has less than zero chance of being enacted, for quote unquote "way overboard on WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion". The discussion was extremely long and Mandruss made quite a number of comments, but to be fair they were repeatedly and unceasingly questioned throughout. I couldn't make a comment without an hours long thread spinning off from it. A more minor example from much earlier on the same page: Why are you wasting my time with this foolishness and worse by reverting my sourced edit? That is pretty much vandalism. This was a response to Mandruss for my removal of an edit of Legacy's conducted in the middle of a discussion over whether or not to include some material. You don't just override a discussion five minutes after its begun, and especially not after you've already commented on it (and are therefore aware of it). Diff of quote. There's general hostility on this page as well, I mean for pete's sake their very first comment in this section is: I edit from a pro-verifiable facts perspective. I'll admit a bias against killing people. Who, fucking who, is advocating for killing people here? As I see it, one of two things needs to happen. Legacy needs to temper their emotions; the alternative is clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: We all know that tensions run high and people were / are still on edge and upset, in part over The Verge article. But I'm a bit surprised at some of the comments here. Especially considering that Thewolfchild's AR-15 quote, for example, was included in The Verge, too: "If we start adding info about just one shooting incident to one tenuously-connected article, we’ll be opening a literal Pandora’s box (figuratively speaking)" source.

If any apologies and sanctions are warranted, such requests should probably come from those editors not cited in the press in re: recent gun-related Wiki controversies. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't just override a discussion five minutes after its begun. - No, but you can make a page move while the title is being currently discussed though, right? (twice!) And how can you possibly try to make this ANI about me? (seriously?) So what if the Verge quoted me? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment and I stand by it 100%. It's not as if I'm personally attacking anyone in it, which what this ANI is about (...and we're back on topic) - ^theWOLFchild 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The focus on The Verge article is a red herring and has nothing to do with the complaint other than the general incivility of using it to bludgeon the discussion. That any editor was quoted by name or otherwise in that article doesn't mean the wp:CIVIL policies no longer apply nor that their voices no longer should matter. That's right there with guilty until proven innocent. Springee (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Me thinks WP:ARBCOM might be where this ends up. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the proposal makes good sense, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus for it emerging here. If the proposal is'nt going to be the resolution, I think prolonging this discussion is simply keeping wounds open for the pouring of additional salt. So I hope some brave, uninvolved admin will close this up, with admonishments to everybody on this string that they're bound by FOC and CIVIL. David in DC (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Seraphimblade, I think it's very much worth noting that, as a result of my comments above, Legacypac decided to hound me over at an AfD, and after doing so, issued a threat and expressed his intent to be intentionally disruptive there should I respond to his comments. [209] This is the kind of crap that Legacypac is notorious for, and - it would seem from the result of this filing - that he gets away with over and over again. Editors are tired of it, to be frank. When is enough, enough? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeated re-addition of off-topic personal attack

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

---

[210][211]

Could someone block this IP, or semi-protect the talk page for a few days, or something? They've made it really clear they're not interested in improving the article to begin with, so it's not clear what they are even doing there.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As personal attacks go, those are pretty lame. And you really shouldn't be messing with someone else's talk page unless it's something directed at you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Actually (assuming you meant "someone else's talk page comments") my understanding (per some earlier advice from EEng (talk · contribs) regarding similar remarks directed at me) is that it should be left to third parties to blank "borderline" personal attacks. Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) is pretty thick-skinned and doesn't seem to think much of blanking of personal attacks in general, but that doesn't mean a comment that essentially amounts to "you have been blocked in the past, so you're wrong" should be allowed stand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN (talk · contribs) has reverted my latest removal with the curt edit summary "stop". If that's how it should be, then fine; I won't revert again now that someone other than the obvious sock-IP himself has re-added it. I guess if I was "wrong" that it should stay blanked as a personal attack, this thread can be closed now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hijiri88: I've undone your repeated removal. Do not remove it again. It's certainly no worse than other editors' comments on that talk page including thinly veiled accusations of socking and "We already knew what bad-faith tricks you were up to" which you seem to have somehow overlooked. Everyone could stand to focus on content more and minimize the sniping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This thread should have already been closed. I don't like being told that it's my responsibility to tell editors I agree with that they should use the appropriate user conduct fora to discuss user conduct issues. But there's no point responding, so collapsing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I removed it exactly as many times as the disruptive editor in question added it, and it's hardly my responsibility to point out where someone who is right on the content and has been putting up with IDHT and other such tricks (including, yes, apparently logging out in order to create an illusion of other people sharing one's views) for weeks would perhaps be better off not indicating such directly on the article talk page and instead taking such concerns to ANI (where they had already been ignored) or SPI (where nothing will be done because IPs can't be CUed). It doesn't really help to create a false equivalence between an editor who never focused on content and refused all attempts at compromise (and even requests to clarify what changes exactly they wanted to make to the article) and the editors who are putting up with them; the page was full-protected for a week to allow discussion, and no discussion took place because the IP and Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) refused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Constantinehuk

Almost all contributions of this user in 2017 and 2018 are, well, trolling. How should we proceed from this point further?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please give me some examples of that "trolling". If you do not like the idea that Kiev, naming of which in English was changed to Kyiv 25 years ago, the change adopted by major international organizations and modern online maps, thus fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES (and no another example of such an unfair treatment to a city in the whole world showed), you are entitled to your opinion. Anything else? Constantinehuk (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that Kyiv has been widely adopted in English language media and sources, and thus meets WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES, is patently false, as has been proven countless times in the ongoing discussion on Talk:Kiev/naming, so you are now not only being highly disruptive in that discussion, by flatly refusing to accept that there's no support for moving the article, but are also repeating your false claims here, at WP:ANI... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Your claim that Kyiv has been widely adopted in English language media and sources"

Give me a citation of that my claim, will you? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Claiming that the change meets the demands set in WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES is a false claim that a majority of English language media/sources have switched to using Kyiv instead of Kiev, since that is what is required to meet WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why one criterion (use by media sources) is more important for you than two others (use by major international organizations and modern online maps - especially when we talk about geographical names)? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES is a Wikipedia policy, i.e. not just a personal opinion held by me or other editors but a firmly set rule... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You have dismissed 2 of 3 criteria in that policy. Not good... Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This article from the NY Times says "KIEV".[212] But what do they know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Media sources still predominantly use "Kiev" - but not major international organizations, nor modern online maps. Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And in Google, "Kiev" outnumbers "Kyiv" by about 4 to 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And in Google, "Bombay" outnumbers "Mumbay (including results for Mumbai)" by about 150:1. Kyiv is in much better position, is not it? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times calls it "Mumbai".[213] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And when I Google "Mumbai" and "Bombay", "Mumbai" outnumbers "Bombay" at least 3 to 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Google ngrams. EEng 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The comparison doesn't really show "the truth", since there are a still a few often Googled entities that use Bombay instead of Mumbai in their official names, such as Bombay Stock Exchange and Bombay High Court. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd go with the NY Times over the opinion of some random editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not with Google Maps or World Trade Organisation? Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Less relevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if I agree with labelling Constantinehuk's editing as trolling, IMO it's more a case of not being here to build an encyclopaedia, only to push nationalistic Ukrainian views, as part of the latest wave of new Ukrainian editors doing that (with another one being Special:Contributions/Віталій Добрівський, an editor who has repeatedly added the blue/yellow trident state symbol of the modern day country of Ukraine as state symbol of Kievan Rus', with a false claim of it also having been used by them a thousand years ago...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Are major international organizations and modern online maps are too "pushing nationalistic Ukrainian views" (thus fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES)?

P.S. And I said nothing about "blue/yellow trident state symbol". Constantinehuk (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And no one claimed you did either, so maybe much of the problem lies in you simply not understanding English well enough to be able to contribute constructively to this version of Wikipedia? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Thomas.W is correct that Constantinhuk doesn't understand English well enough to follow the discussion. He and User:Roman Spinner are engaged in a massive WP:IDLI campaign without actually initiating a WP:RFM, which they both know that they would lose by WP:SNOW. --Taivo (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

When arguments are absent, blame the opponent and threaten with WP:SNOW? Very invigorating. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You really, really need a new dictionary. EEng 18:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to debate or resolve content disputes. However, this discussion illuminates the behavioral problem. Constantinehuk, this is a formal warning: Wikipedia operates on the consensus model of decision-making. Editing against consensus is tendentious and disruptive. If you continue pushing this point against consensus, you will be blocked. My personal suggestion is to devote your energy on this matter to persuading major English language newspapers, press agencies and news magazines to change their usage. Wikipedia follows such sources and does not lead them. Please take this warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen:, I obviously agree with your conclusions, just a remark: they were not editing (articles) against consensus, they were disrupting discussions, a skill they brilliantly demonstrated in this very topic (which was not supposed to be the discussion of the English name of the Ukrainian capital, but of the user's behavior).--Ymblanter (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. I appreciate the clarification but I did not mention "articles". I consider their talk page behavior to be editing against consensus as well. I will not comment on the substance of the content dispute and will stay uninvolved, but will be watching. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Is not Talk page for expressing one's position (in a kindest and polite way) - for example, asking questions (as I did initially)? No, now it is called " the behavioral problem of pushing the point against consensus in tendentious and disruptive discussions" (even without reading those discussions, apparently). Very interesting changes are happening in Wikipedia (or only in your part of it?) right now... I will keep this in mind. Constantinehuk (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Since User:TaivoLinguist pinged me above, in this edit, it should be noted that the "massive WP:IDLI campaign", in which I am allegedly "engaged" alongside Constantinhuk, has taken place entirely at a single venue, Talk:Kiev/naming, which states at the top, "This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing.". I did not intiate the discussion, Question: Mumbai/Bombey and Beijing/Peking? and my contributions consisted entirely of a series of replies, to Taivo and other contributors, aimed primarily at correcting false and/or misleading statements and analogies.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Trolling continues [214]. Given that the user is net negative to Wikipedia, may be we should follow up.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  And let me be explicit: It is not up to me to decide, but I believe an indefinite block would be in order. We have enough Eastern European trolls, and this one is not there as well to let them continue wasting our time.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, I would suggest you stop posting to their talk page as it looks a bit like you are baiting a new user into responding intemperately so you can get them blocked. Fish+Karate 10:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  They have actually been registered longer than I have been, and on their talk page they were replying to me. But, indeed, may be to stop replying to them is a good idea, aka DNFT.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

BusriderSF2015

BusriderSF2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a problem editor since 2015 and is due for a WP:CIR block. Busrider mostly posts serial messages to talk pages, neither using previews nor edit summaries. Both TBMNY and I reported them to AIV for vandalism after fourth warning because they continually post information with inadequate or no sourcing. Since Busrider's edits aren't considered blatant vandalism, I'm bringing the issue here. After multiple warnings, Busrider hasn't changed their editing and discussion is leading nowhere.

• Max Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BusriderSF2015 repeatedly added copyrighted images (File:Max Halloway.jpg and ), for which I reverted and warned. This complaint by Busrider to RHaworth followed. A discussion on Wikiproject MMA illustrates my attempts to explain and his/her inability to get it. A discussion on TBMNY's talk page about commons:File:Raf.png and commons:File:Max Holloway E.png is also illustrative on the issue. Busrider made a complaint to Ad Orientem which evinces a level of confusion not befitting a Wikipedia editor.
• Mike Jackson (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Busrider also created this article about this non-notable fighter and despite my efforts on my talk page to engage him/her and explain the issues with the article in question, Busrider continues to argue that the subject is notable and what the subject said on a Reddit thread is a permissible source. Busrider also made this incompetent request for page protection on an article's talk page. I don't think Busrider understands the guidance given them and I don't think this disruption is worth our toleration. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition, he has been caught lying about photo uploads to administrators, claiming that clearly copyrighted images are his own work, when they are of course not (not that this specifically applies to Wikipedia, but it shows that he's willing to break the site rules). TBMNY (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This gang-bang report is baseless - Contributors can behave differently (and follow the rules).🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This what? Please address the issues raised above, they aren't baseless. I have significant concerns about your ability to edit Wikipedia productively, having reverted your RFPP removal. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment It baseless, i seen nothing on my talk page from the users reported me about concerns, as always go talk page regarding their concern. This case should be dismissed. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 02:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing English isn't your first language? Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing this editor's contributions, it is obvious that they are not competent to edit Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting choice of adjective. Natureium (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked about the user's English to make sure that they were not being deliberately offensive - I don't think they really understand what they're saying, which confirms my assessment that they lack the necessary proficiency in English to edit here, in addition to the copyright violations and a policy of ignoring other editors. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User warned multiple times

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

---

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

---

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

He was warned multiple times, but he keeps adding unsourced content to the article Doctor Who (series 11). Titore (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry as Special:Contributions/Poleleads. DonQuixote (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sock drawer cleaned, page semi-protected. Courcelles (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Etc

Courcelles, you might want to mention on his/her talk page that s/he was indeffed (or is that not necessary to do anymore?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ve never seen the need to do it when blocking obvious ‘disposable‘ socks before. It’s not common practice among CUs, since the template appears if they try and edit anyhow. Courcelles (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I never notify blatant sock puppet accounts or LTA's that they're blocked - at that point, it just gives them more of your time and effort that, quite frankly - they don't deserve. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE sock

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

---

Hazratleri, per his edit summary[215] is WP:NOTHERE, and he is also engaging in sock puppetry per checkuser results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hazratleri. Should some admin already block these confirmed socks? Raymond3023 (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If they were really confirmed then they would be blocked. What I read from what is written is that they are likely related which would mean that some behavioral evaluation is needed. What I see when I run a check is: three editors, three different countries with two on proxies. Two of the UAs match as it is a common UA, one on a proxy, one not. So it should be decided based on behavior.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have struck confirmed because likely is the result. But there is nothing to left to wait for given its a case of WP:DUCK, and the accounts are used only for edit warring on Hookah for restoring a particular version. He is also engaging in massive canvassing,[216][217][218] and still edit warring. He is here for ethnicity-related POV pushing (WP:NOTHERE), should be blocked already with other two accounts and there should be no unblock without a topic ban. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Northernelk888

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

---

I have sent this editor five messages, in Jan, Feb and March - no response to any of it, but they do know how to respond to talk page messages and have done so to others. I was contacting them about creating unreferenced articles. I have pointed them towards WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required, but can't get them to discuss the issue or address it. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Northernelk888 should certainly respond to your comments on their talk page, however, I'd like to note this is the third or fourth AN/I report you've filed recently about other editors not responding to you. Do you think there's some reason for that (not for the reports, for other editors to not respond to you)? Your comments on Northernelk888's page seems straight-forward and polite, so I assume the same was true of the messages you left for other editors. Any idea what the common thread might be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I message dozens of editors when I see a pattern of creating unreferenced articles as part of New Page Patrolling - most do respond, but these are often editors who struggle with English/do not feel they need to add references/do not read messages at all and so there is no way to communicate with them. \luckily the majority are happy to resolve the issue or ask for and accept help - hopefully Northernelk888 will too as part of this discussion. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn, I don't see anything in the messages you've left him that requires his response to you or requires any action on his part. All you have done is suggest ways to improve a couple articles. There is nothing in the messages indicating why he needs to improve the articles; nothing indicating anything will happen if he doesn't; in short, nothing requiring either an action or a response. John from Idegon (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, my first message at User talk:Northernelk888#Ways to improve List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity says 'Please add your sources.' My second message at User talk:Northernelk888#List of Members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina by time in office also says 'Please add your sources.' Both were more than 2 months ago. My fourth message at User talk:Northernelk888#Sources and communication, a little later, pointed out that WP:Communication is required, with a link to the essay. It also pointed out the importance of WP:V and asked for the editor to reply to the first two messages. The fourth message, two weeks after that, pointed out that by not responding they were risking a block. A whole month after that, I left another message saying that this could lead to an WP:ANI and a block. I then waited a couple of weeks after that to actually initiate an ANI. This editor was editing in between all these messages, but not responding. The links to WP:V and WP:BURDEN indicates why he needs to improve the articles; the two mentions of WP:ANI and a potential block indicate what could happen if he doesn't; asking for a response and asking 'Please add your sources' clearly require an action or a response, especially with links to WP:Communication is required. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn, you are confusing content guidelines with behavioral guidelines. NorthernElk has no obligation to do anything to any article simply because you say so. Your recourses if he doesn't are to either tag (which you have done), fix (which you could do), or nominate the article for deletion (which likely wouldn't fly). Just like you no longer have any right to control the content you add once you add it (see WP:OWN), outside of obvious behavioral issues such as libel and copyvio, you also have no obligation to do anything whatsoever to it. NorthernElk does not work for you or answer to you in any way. Your threat, not even a veiled one, that he could be blocked for his inaction is both incorrect and a behavioral issue on your part. Now if he has a pattern of doing this, a much longer one than you've shown, that may be a WP:IDHT or WP:CIR issue, but you have not shown or even claimed that. If he edit warred over content changes, that is a behavioral issue. WP:Communication is required is a very useful essay, written by Dennis Brown, one of our most trusted administrators, but I doubt he ever intended it to be used as you are using it here. It is an essay. It isn't policy. All you did in your communication with him is point out some content issues. He isn't obligated to fix them, nor is he required to talk to you about it. Now if you had reverted some of the unreferenced content in the lists and he put that back and didn't communicate, then "communication is required". Pardon my bluntness, but you are not required to reply simply because I communicate with you. I am not required to answer simply because you communicate with me. Dennis is not required to answer the ping I left him, and neither is BMK (whom I am hoping will inform us if the ANI reports he alluded to earlier in this thread indicate a pattern of behavior on your part, Boleyn). IMO, you need to get over yourself. John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, insofar as Boleyn has started similar threads recently about other users, it's a pattern, but since I haven't looked into any of those situations, I can't say that it's necessarily a problematic pattern. I do you think your explanation, although (as you say yourself) blunt, is correct, and I would urge Boleyn to take it into account before he posts another similar, thread here.

Boleyn, I know from experience that a lack of response from an editor you're trying to communicate with can be very frustrating, but, as John from Idegon says, unless you've warned them about some violation of policy or editing norms, and they don't respond to that and keep doing it, it's really not an issue for this board, or for admin action. I least, that's my estimation of it. I'd also agree with the advice that you might try to provide the needed sourcing occassionally, under the guideline WP:SOFIXIT - but with your editing history,[219] I'm sure you must have done so at times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly not been Swarm's assessment on similar threads, where they pointed out that communicating is policy, and this editor is refusing to communicate, not per the essay WP:COMMUNICATE but by the policies WP:CONDUCT 'The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available.' AND wp:dispute: 'Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object...Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus.' They don't have an obligation to do anything to an article - but they are required to communicate. I wouldn't nominate an article for deletion because it was neglected, and I cannot fix every unreferenced or poor article that comes into NPP - I can however, contact editors, make sure they understand how to source and work with them. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Communication is required as a matter of policy, and refusal to respond to input or to cite sources is considered disruptive editing. The entire new page patrol process is pointless if article creators are allowed to just ignore WP:V. Blocked indef, Boleyn. Swarm ♠ 08:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

(user:Marplesmustgo) Use of racist slurs offensive language in edit summaries of a conversation about a sporting event

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

---

this diff contains a racist slur and inflammatory language in the edit summary

this diff again uses similarly racist language (by the same user using an IP without account log in)

This diff shows the IP log in, revealing him or her self to be the above user

I've informed the user in question as well as the talk page of the IP. Many thanks for your time.

The following lists of contribs also show a history of ignoring 3RR and neglecting to work with other users on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.104.157.120

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marplesmustgo

Edaham (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What? Neither "American" nor "Yank" is a racist slur. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "racist" is the wrong criticism here. There is nothing racist in those comments. Insults, yes. So maybe refactor this incident. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback I didn’t realize that. I’m British and assumed that since I’ve heard people calling Americans yanks in less than congenial terms, that they were using it as a disparaging term. If that’s not the case internationally then my apologies. I still feel that the diffs I’ve made note of here record the use of language which most users would prefer not to hear per wp:civil. Edaham (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"Ethnic slurs" might be more accurate than racist. Regardless, calling someone an "ignorant American cretin" in defending disruptive edits to cricket pages is unacceptable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Preposterous. Crete doesn't allow dual citizenship. EEng 08:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone from Crete might be a Cretan. A cretin is "a dwarfed and deformed idiot".[220] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Drax, for that vocabulary lesson. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it's certainly lucky that BB happened by, because I actually thought they were talking about people from Crete, and compounded the error by implying that Crete is a country, which it isn't. Silly me. EEng 15:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ve corrected it and hope that the title now more accurately reflects the issue I encountered while reviewing the page in question. Edaham (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the objectionable part is "ignorant ... cretin", no matter what race, ethnicity, nationality or religious belief comes in between.

As for "Yank", consider the lyrics to "Over There", widely considered the popular American propaganda song about the US entering World War I: "Because the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming...".

Now "Yanqui" is sometimes used as a disparaging term in Mexico and Central America, meaning "American", and "Yankee" is also used to mean "Northerners" by people from the South of the US, but, then again, one of New York City's baseball teams is called the "Yankees", which lead to that being a disparaging term to fans of their arch-rivals, the Boston Red Sox -- but, then again Bostonians and New Englanders were also called "Yankees" by those in other sections of the country. (A once popular magazine about New England is titled Yankee) So, all-in-all "Yank" or "Yankee" isn't really very objectionable, because the only way one can tell who's being referred to is by context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

well I’m learning something, so the report hasn’t been an entirely negative experience. Thanks for all of the information :) Edaham (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Its good to know that some Wikipedia editors are so incredibly smart, sophisticated and "tuned in" they can determine if and to what extent an anti-American slur is "objectionable". And even know why it is or isn't objectionable. To Americans without being Americans themselves, no less. Is it considered "original research" and acting without consensus when something like that is just arbitrarily decided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm an American and I can tell you that you're talking nonsense. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - While I agree that Yank is not necessarily a slur, this editor has used definitely derogatory terms several times in the last few days, such as in this edit, or the clearly derogatory term used in this edit, or this, or this one. There were others as well, but I have neither the time nor inclination to find them all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm surprised User:Marplesmustgo was not already blocked. They are now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just curious as to who the IP 68 thinks is not an American. Can't be me, I've got apple pie coming out of my ears. (Makes it hard to hear, though.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• But isn't apple pie a German invention, Mr. Ken? Or should I say HERR KEN?!? --Calton | Talk 03:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ach, Mein Gott im Himmel! Die Verdammten Yankees haben mich entdeckt!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

How to deal with constant sock/IP allegations.

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

---

Firstly, I would like to make clear that I'm not looking for any sanctions against the user who is making these allegations, that solves nothing. What I would like is a solution that allows me to demonstrate that these allegations are false.

There has been an issue with an IP editor and myself sharing an opinion and constant comments from Hijiri 88 that the IP and myself are one and the same person.

If there was one comment, I wouldn't care at all - but these allegations don't stop. comments such as "obvious sock-IP" [221] and "yes, apparently logging out in order to create an illusion of other people sharing one's views" [222] "And he's apparently logging out to create the illusion of not being the only editor who shares his POV"[223] are becoming a little tedious when they just continue in every single discussion between myself and Hijiri 88.

I realize that due to check user rules, we can't compare IPs with users - so I can rule that out. I did consider logging out and making a "Hi, I'm Spacecowboy!" post, to display my IP - as it could then be compared with the IP editor. After looking at the geolocation of the IP, I can see that we aren't in the same country, so it would be an easy way to confirm things. But, I don't want to put my IP all over Wikipedia for privacy/professional reasons. Are there any other technical solutions that I could use to confirm my IP to Check User, without revealing it to all of Wikipedia? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri: You know not to do that, even with someone like Spacecowboy420. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: To be clear, I didn't. Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) did, but did so in the wrong forum; Spacecowboy420 made a disruptive "please elaborate on that so I can say you are making repeated off-topic accusations against me on an article talk page" remark and I told him to knock it off and pointed out that CT had a point. Then, more than a week later, NeilN (talk · contribs) brought it up in a comment that amounted to "you can't blank uncivil, off-topic remarks from one editor if you don't blank other remarks from other editors that I say are equivalent" and I explained how the two weren't similar because Curly Turkey did have a fairly good basis for accusing the IP of being 420 (even if I don't think he was right to bring it up on an article talk page) and there is no requisite obligation to remove all remarks that could be taken as personal attacks on any given talk page. I was 1000% clear that I did not mean to raise any kind of accusation on ANI about it, and even collapsed my comment with a "please close this thread; we're done here" title.[224] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You did more than blank the comments. You edit warred to keep them removed, reported them here, and asked for admin help to win a dispute. You know that edits from all sides in a dispute are going to be looked at here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: No, I removed an edit that I interpreted as a personal attack (and other editors had agreed with me in a similar case in the past), and the editor who made it edit-warred to keep it in, with dismissive edit summaries that didn't address the problem. You know that edits from all sides in a dispute are going to be looked at here. I honestly don't know what that has to do with anything -- does that mean that I have an obligation to remove comments that I don't see as equivalent? Do you mean that if I had blanked CT's comments as well before coming to ANI and he had accepted their blanking as being inappropriate, you would have blocked the IP? Anyway, that has absolutely nothing to do with the present discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "constant"? The above user waited well over a week after the "accusation" by me to open this thread -- I only responded in another ANI thread above to someone else, unhelpfully bringing it up when it wasn't even relevant. these allegations don't stop in this light is nonsense.

If the first and last paragraphs of the above are taken at face value, this thread is in the wrong place, and notifying me that I am "being discussed" on the "block request" noticeboard was not helpful. @Spacecowboy420: If you want a CU to state that you are not the Filipino IPs multiple users have accused you of being over the last five months, then you should ask one; don't come to ANI and post on my talk page about how I am being discussed here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq thank you for removing those refs.

Hijiri 88, I'm sorry if you didn't like the notification that I placed on your talk page, I didn't actually desire any interaction with you on this discussion, I assumed that the notification was required, also I think I made it very clear that I wasn't requesting that you be blocked in my statement "Firstly, I would like to make clear that I'm not looking for any sanctions against the user who is making these allegations, that solves nothing."

I'm looking for solutions that might make our interactions a little easier, rather than another ANI mud slinging session.

"The above user waited well over a week after the "accusation" by me to open this thread" - no, I'm responding to the comments that you made today. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's how you can avoid interacting with me: don't name me, don't make this thread about me, don't refer to my defending my own "one-sided" blanking of off-topic remarks on an article talk page as "accusations" as though I approved 100% of what CT had done in bringing it up on an article talk page, and make it 100% clear that you are only asking if there is any way to demonstrate that the IP you normally edit from geolocates to somewhere other than the Philippines.

You could do this by being a bit more clear about what you actually want: you say above that you don't want to put [your] IP all over Wikipedia for privacy/professional reasons, but you leave it hanging in the air whether you want to state where your IP actually geolocates to and would mind a CU verifying that in public.

no, I'm responding to the comments that you made today Yes, and I only made those comments because it was implied that I should explain how I felt "You appear to be logging out in order to create an illusion of consensus" is different from "You have a block log so you don't have a leg to stand on". The former comment was brought up completely out of the blue and I really don't see how they are remotely equivalent, but when other users say they are, you can't tell me that I am not allowed explain how they are not, on the appropriate forum.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, my accusation rested on Spacecowboy and the IP making the same bad-faith proposal in separate sections that the article needed a "blackface controversy" subsection because otherwise the blackface stuff would appear under the "2015: Collaboration with KISS" subsection. If they're not the same user, they nonetheless are both editing in bad faith to achieve the same ends, and using the same bad-faith arguments—such as the imaginary mountain of sources that supposedly make the incident so prominent that it needs its own subsection (repeatedly debunked). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 no, this thread isn't about you. I thought it was necessary to show the allegations that make me think I need to prove that I'm not using a sock IP and if I show those allegations, then of course I have to notify you. There isn't any need for you to act offended or defensive about this discussion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: If it is not about me, then don't name me. Just say "Four or five users have accused me over the last several months of being these two Filipino IPs; my actual IP geolocates to an entirely different country; is there any way I can prove this without publishing my actual IP?" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to participate in some tit for tat argument with you. I think I made myself clear in my initial comment and don't consider all the finger pointing to be constructive. This is merely a request for information, but thanks for your concern. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you are just trying to harass me by opening nonsense "I don't want you to block this user" threads about me on the forum to request blocks and are not going to attempt to justify artificially making it seem to be about me when I was the last editor to accuse you of being that IP? The place for technical questions is WP:VPT, or maybe WP:VPM; ANI is for requesting blocks against editors for disruptive conduct.

I've seen "This is totally not about Hijiri88" threads opened on ANI before, and you don't want to know how they worked out.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I suspect this spurious ANI thread, the refusal to withdraw or even reword it, the obvious continued trolling on the talk page, and this bizarre edit summary (which Urban Dictionary tells me means a word to describe and let out the awesome feeling inside, when one is king of the world) support this thread ending in a BOOMERANG. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the most constructive comment I can make in response to your statement above is to copy and paste my previous statement: "Sorry, but I'm not going to participate in some tit for tat argument with you." I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than I'm not here to argue with you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you three times now to be less confrontational and live up to your stated claim that this thread is not supposed to be about me. I was one of four or five users over the past several months to make comments that hinted at a (sincere held) belief that those IPs were you, and I did so in less explicit fashion than all the others, and yet you chose to hone in on me in this thread. When I suggested you make some changes to your opening statement in light of your claimed intention that this thread not be about me, you aggressively refused to do so, and now are engaged in open trolling on the article talk page and your own talk page to boot. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"Firstly, I would like to make clear that I'm not looking for any sanctions against the user who is making these allegations, that solves nothing."

"Hijiri 88 no, this thread isn't about you."

"Sorry, but I'm not going to participate in some tit for tat argument with you."

"I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than I'm not here to argue with you"

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The first is a clearly false accusation against me: I am not "the user who is making these allegations" (note the wording of "the user" in the singular); I merely didn't disagree with several other users who had made such allegations.

The second is untrue, as demonstrated by the false accusation included in the first, and by the fact that you opened this discussion on a noticeboard for discussing user conduct problems and requesting blocks.

No one is asking you to participate in a tit-for-tat argument. What is being requested is that you stop making false accusations in an ANI thread.

If you didn't want to argue with me, why did you open an ANI thread about me?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW: The fact that the IP shares your idiosyncratic outdenting style (see for example here and here) makes the idea that the IP was not you all the more untenable. I wouldn't be bringing this up if you weren't insisting on keeping this ANI thread about me open. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Elchezinazo's edits are problematic

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

---

After a lot of communication, it's time for a block for Elchezinazo (talk · contribs) who I would argue is WP:NOTHERE. The editor has a few favourite bands. At least two of them happen to be on my watchlist. The editor continues to

1. add incorrect content
2. create articles associated with the subject, mostly singles, that do not meet notability criteria
3. creates controversial articles, such as a song by a precursor to the band Three Days Grace, and attribute it to the latter band. I assume this is in an attempt to make it appear more notable.
4. "updates" navigation templates to include non-articles and redlinks after having explained the problem to the editor
5. does all of this without explanation (despite having been asked to do so) and without discussion

This is why I suspect NOTHERE. I don't know if the communication is because the editor is not a native speaker or writer of English, which is possible. If the user were creating articles for notable subjects that needed to be cleaned-up, I would grit my teeth and bear it. The problem is the lack of notability of the content the editor is creating.

Feel free to check the editor's recent history to see some of the problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've warned the editor to join the discussion here or risk being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I hate to say it but Wave of Popular Feeling DOES redirect to Three Days Grace, so it might need at least a mention. That or redlink the redirect. --Tarage (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It does, but that's due to a soft redirect without discussion. I'd be happy to revert that redirect and nominate for deletion. I suspect we'll get the same response as at the song article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making any comment on the information inclusion itself, I'm just saying that a redirect without information is not good. --Tarage (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor just contested a prod for a song that clearly fails any notability criteria, and created an article for another. Time to permanently stop the editor. He's wasting the project's time and not adding sufficient value to it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And another: My Beautiful Robe. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And another: Hey You, I Love Your Soul (song). I'm expecting one at Locked in a Cage in short order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I was wrong. More Faithful was next, then Locked in a Cage. Any chance we can at least revoke "create articles"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I see an indefinite was applied. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:QPhysics137 and WP:CIVIL

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

---

User:QPhysics137 has been pretty uncivil the past couple of days.

They started by removing a well-sourced claim that somebody is a white supremacist [225]. Then immediately after being reverted they started making insults ("[...] no matter how bad your English skills are") [226]. Then they took it to user talk pages to start saying things like "What special kind of doofus came up with that rule?" [227]. And most recently they've said "Why don't you tell that to the morons who are calling me a liar" [228] and "LOL Wow...please tell me you're not really THAT stupid. [...] Wow...I have to wonder if that much stupidity hurts you or if you just don't have enough neurons to register pain." [229].

I understand they feel strongly about this issue, but they seem unable to stop themselves from insulting anybody who disagrees with them. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you for your help. I'm not sure the block had the intended effect though: [230]. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. From four dubious article edits three and a half years ago to attacking everyone in sight now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Everyone in sight includes you, Neil. I've now also revoked their talk page access. De728631 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gee, all I did was go have a bite to eat ... Actually, they also attacked Neil before my initial block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah Neil..." I'm sorry if you're not capable of following along. Let me try to use smaller words for you"... Lovely. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You have to wonder why this particular BLP prompted such a dramatic return after three and a half years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, they're overtired from being a "Physicist Mathematician Engineer" (three, three,three careers in one!) not to mention a "History buff". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Spacemountainmike

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

---

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

After leaving for a while after being advised not to add incorrect information about area codes to the lead sections of articles such as Idaho, this user has returned to add information about "Hitlery Clinton" [231] to the article about Doritos, with what appears to be a fake image they created. They appear to not be here to build an encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, that's a new joke... not. Indeffed for NOTHERE and could have just called it a vandalism block. Also deleted the image involved as G3. Courcelles (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

pls. block Thai editor User:Gtv39

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

---

pls. check and block Thai editor Gtv39 (talk · contribs) he is the newest and sockpuppy account of Golf-ben10 (talk · contribs), Btsmrt12 (talk · contribs) and Vbts12 (talk · contribs) that got blocked by admin, Because he like to spam the colors and articles on The Face T.V. show pages every season of all countries, such as The Face Thailand, The Face Men Thailand, The Face Vietnam, US and UK every seasons. he also edit on Produce 101 Tv serie pages so much with no sources or reference for the articles.

and he just registered new account for spam on wikipedia reality pages again on 10th April. pls, check and block him to edit on Wikipedia, his profile is the same person with user:Vbts12, user:Btsmrt12 and user:Golf-ben10. thank youItipisox (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You've only been here a couple of weeks yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It shows; I had to fix their links to user accounts. Now I can actually look at the accounts involved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits don't look disruptive to me, but the circumstantial evidence for sock-puppetry seems strong enough that a CheckUser might want to look. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

because he is back to spam on the same reality tv. pages with newest account, he not stop to spam on article after blocked by admin 3 times. it's the same person and personalityItipisox (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

can't block him by sock-puppetry again? how to use CheckUser?Itipisox (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Realabdulr

Resolved

 – no admin action seems warranted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asphalt_9:_Legends&diff=prev&oldid=835919192
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Need_for_Speed:_Most_Wanted_(2012_video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=835927933

Seems like a spam-only account. Warned by The1337gamer on User talk:Realabdulr, the text is suggesting The1337gamer is an administrator but why does that not show on Special:CentralAuth/The1337gamer? Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

NO, that's a template User:Alexis_Jazz. User:The1337gamer is not pretending to be an admin. Note that he's saying you may be blocked not I will block you. Its a standard template.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I guess its a substitution template in that case. To me, the wording is confusing but that's no fault of The1337gamer in that case. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please..

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

---

Excuse me, could you unblock my main account, Caesey, then block it for a week, (for creating this account) then block this account indef? It was a block of my account as a sock puppet, but checkuser turned up unrelated, and I am not a sock account of Iniced. I really, really want to edit... Sincerely, Cali 06:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if Cæsey (talk · contribs) isn't a sock of Iniced, it seems certain he's a sock of somebody. There's no chance that a new user would be obsessed with tagging ancient sock-puppets of Random-5000 or AtlanticDeep; of course an SPI couldn't tell if he's either of those users. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Heepman1997

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

---

• Heepman1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor continues persistent 3-year pattern (see talk page) of adding unsourced content and/or WP:OR to articles. This includes BLPs such as Ivan Doroschuk (and his bands and their albums). A recent talk page warning with {{uw-unsourced4}} was ignored. Temporary unsourced content block per {{uw-ucblock}} is suggested. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The user in mention has only responded on his talk page once. [232]. —JJB^ers 18:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked for one week, and I've warned the user that the next block will be indefinite. Swarm ♠ 02:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Article about Hookah and sources

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

---

Hi, i received a notification from a blocked user (Hazratleri) a few days ago about the hookah article. This user wanted to remove the Indian origin of that pipe and asked me for an insight. I replied that i would have a look. I looked at the contributions of that user and it appeared that he was engaged in an edit-warring but i noticed that some of his comments on other users talk pages were deleted by user Rzvas and i warned him for that : [233]. Please note that i am not a sock of Hazratleri, if needed, i would welcome a checkuser to confirm this. When i looked the Hookah article, it appeared that the Indian claim is perfectly legit but some sources used in the article are not, according to me reliables for this claim (and some sources are not reliables for the Persian claim either). First, i removed one source from the article because it was cited twice : [234]. As to the quality of the sources, i discussed on the talk page : [235]. I asked to other contributors why they wanted to keep some unreliables sources and if this was to prove a point : [236] and then user Anupam accused me of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND but this was interrupted by this edit, which deleted my answer and asked me to take this to ANI : [237]. In the aftermath, another user posted a DS alert on my talk page, while i was not alerted before : [238]. I came here to understand what’s going on, why many contributors claim that all the sources of the article are reliables while they’re probably not, why my demand of help for edit conflict has been removed on the talk page of the Hookah article and why Anupam accused me of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND ([239]) and, especially, why am i received a DS alert from Capitals00 without having been alerted before and while i was discussing on a talk page. Thanks a lot for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.173.27.223 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC) The comment above was mine, i forgot to log in.—>Farawahar (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not a sock of Hazratleri. You are still disruptive because you are not only ignoring his faults but you are advocating his disruption and engaging in WP:BATTLE with editors who tackled his disruption. Your canvassing[240] is a good evidence of that. You are clearly going to get indeffed just like Hazratleri has been. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You probably missed a point in what i said above :THE INDIAN ORIGIN IS PERFECTLY LEGIT BUT SOME SOURCES ARE SEEMINGLY UNRELIABLES. Hazratleri is a sock and i don’t care about him.

You say that i engaged in WP:BATTLE and that i am disruptive ? Where ? Everything i said is in print and checkable. You should refrain from baseless accusations as this is personal attacks. Again, calm down and stay cool.—>Farawahar (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You can engage in battle and still be right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments . But what deters me, is these baseless accusations of battle and disruptive editing while i was just discussing calmly and suddenly numerous users intervened against me.—>Farawahar (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: So, where are your evidences about my disruptive editing and battle ? You came here fastly to accuse, but when i ask you evidences, you can not provide any—>Farawahar (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farawahar: You care so much about Hazratleri that you are fighting other editors who removed his clear violation of canvassing policy.[241] You are continuing his nonsense around, which includes WP:IDHT and WP:CANVASSING.[242] Telling me to "stay cool" while engaging in WP:BATTLE shows you have serious competence issues (WP:CIR). Raymond3023 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, stop accusing and provide evidences . Where are my disruptive edits ? Where have i battled ? As to your comments about my competences, this is again a personal attack. AND as to your evidence number 99, as i said on his talk page, i had not noticed that the owner of the talk page already complained about this comment removal. I was not canvassing in the talk page of hookah’s article, i just asked for the opinions of more experienced users than me, and among them Oshwah, who is an admin. I would really welcome an admin’s opinion about all that.—>Farawahar (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Evidence has been already posted. Yes that is canvassing. You got outnumbered by those who tackled your non-policy based objections and you started canvassing those users who you think might be biased towards you. Here you have reported everyone because you are not getting POV of Hazratleri pushed. Being an "admin" doesn't means you get automatic license of being more acceptable as an editor. Justifying your canvassing by claiming that you canvassed an editor only because he is an admin is nonsense. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Farawahar, you were giving a warning to remember WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND after you capriciously accused "you guys" of wanting to retain sources only "to prove a point", linking to WP:RGW, thus demonstrating an "us versus them" mentality. In reality, I have never interacted with most of the users commenting on the talk page and am open to critiquing their positions as much as yours, in light of evidence. When I offered you valid reasons why I felt certain sources should not be removed, you responded with an unfounded accusation. Do you now see why such conduct merits a warning? Despite your misbehaviour, I still tried to work with you and offered a thorough response to your query about sources, even searching your own link to show you where the content you requested was. Rather than assuming good faith, you responding by pinging certain editors who you feel might share your POV. This is considered a violation of WP:CANVASS and is not appropriate to do. I sincerely hope that you are able to learn from this issue and proceed as a constructive editor from here on out. If you're willing to offer an apology or an admission that your choice of words were not prudent, I'll take that into consideration before offering my insight on the proposed block below. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Block proposal

• Support indef block per WP:CIR. Thinks everyone is plotting against him and whoever opposes him has ulterior motives. Capitals00 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What support of an indef block ? He wanted to remove all Indian claim from the article while i’am only dealing with the quality of the sources and do not want to remove any claim. Where have i said that everyone is plotting against me ? i just said that i was discussing calmly and suddenly numerous editors intervened against me, do not manipulate my statements. And you are the one who gave me a DS alert while i was not alerted and you come here to speak about Wikipedia’s rules ?—>Farawahar (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed! That's why I am in favor of indef block, due to your lack of competence. You have been making loud sound on multiple talk pages for days but now you really need enough time to think where you were wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, i checked your talk page and this is what user Kautilya told you about irrelevant DS alerts given by you 23 april 2017 : [243], don’t remember ?

Please, help me and tell me where i was wrong. I rather think that you Need time to provide evidences of my « mistakes »—>Farawahar (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Capitals00 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef per above. His frequent demands for "evidence" are becoming too disruptive and shows he believes what he thinks is best. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So discussing about the quality of sources is disruptive ? You attack me blatantly because some so called battle and disruptive edits, i ask you to provide evidences of my disruptive edits and battle and you’re completly unable to provide any, and that makes that i’m disruptive ? and you say that i believe what i think is best ??? You’re joking right ? Calm down and provide evidences of what you say please.—>Farawahar (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Vehemently oppose As best I can tell, Farawahar created their account in September of last year. Frankly, what ever happened to "Don't bite the noobies"? They are a new user, and from what I have seen, only seem disruptive because of some misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. A much more measured solution would likely involve advice and/or mentoring, rather than an immediate ban for an author who does not seem to have previously been sanctioned, and who's behavioral issues could stem from simple inexperience. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Icarausaurvus, thanks for your comments but could you please tell me where i misunderstood Wikipedia’s rules ? And how am i disruptive ?—>Farawahar (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: Mentoring proposal is for those who have some grasp of English and they are eager to learn. We have no room to tolerate this user's incompetence and allow him to harass established editors only because he is over 7 months old and has 626 edits. He is not a new user, but aware of all policies and he has been intentionally violating each of them since he believes Wikipedia is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, he is proxying for an indeffed sock. You are indirectly telling us to check all his edits because he hasn't been sanctioned despite he has been overall disruptive since I have inter-acted him. He is not here to listen anyone but tell what he thinks is best. He can't even read or understand the diffs that have been provided to him. Evidence is the boring question that he just asked you above which has been already answered enough times. How can you expect him to understand anything and reform? That's a wishful thinking. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again baseless attacks, so i don’t listen to established users according to you ? Just an example for you information :[244]. Yeah, you don’t find it boring to accuse without any evidence but you are bored to check my edits ... I perfectly saw your diffs which contain no evidence to support your accusations. Please stay cool and refrain from baseless accusations, instead, why don’t you just provide evidences ? It should be easy if all the things you say about me were true ...—>Farawahar (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) It is not really the place for editors involved in vehement dispute to be throwing around suggestions for indef blocks of their opponents. It is inadvisable to show one has a low threshold to impose an indef block lest one be subject to one's own judgement. I also strongly suggest that the editors in dispute with each other not argue back and forth with each other. The back and forth between you serves no good purpose and creates a barrier of crap uninvolved editors must read before helping resolve the situation. Accusations without evidence almost always places the accuser in worse light than the accused.
  @Farawahar: I believe you have an incorrect idea of what constitutes a reliable source. Simply claiming that someone is not a historian, as you did in your numbered analysis of sources on the talk page, is not sufficient. You must examine why the facts they report or the opinions they have are not valid for what they are being cited for. The baseline for a reliable source is a published work, from a reputable publisher with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. A brief look at the sources you claim to be unreliable shows me that there is at least a reputable presumption they are reliable ie you must show why they are unreliable. That requires more than saying the authors are not historians. There is no requirement that one be a credentialed historian to be competent to opine on this material especially when dealing with 19th century writers. If you think the works are not reliable you need to persuade not assert. Jbh ^Talk 18:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anupam: I’m sorry but i do not agree with you. I don’t deserve a warning for discussing fairly on a talk page. And i was not canvassing, i asked for the opinions of more experienced users, and among them a veteran admin (Oshwah), are you charging this admin of bias ? And about your sentence « you guys » and « prove a point » did you see the question mark ? As to what happened « mentally », i don’t know if you are serious or joking ...—>Farawahar (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Farawahar is a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. He is desperately continuing disruption of an indeffed sock master that can be construed as proxying and believes that he is making no mistakes. You should read his messages, observe his frequent failure to understand relevant policies such as WP:CANVASS, WP:RS, WP:BATTLE, WP:CIVIL, and it is nothing but further indication of his lack of competence. He needs to be indeffed and he will get enough time to think where he is wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Capitals00: there are definitely some problems but looking at their history, including some articles where I have run across them, it is clearly evident that your NOTHERE claim is not supported or supportable. Just looking at your talk page I am extremely disinclined to accept your judgment of whether an editor to much of a disruption to be allowed to edit. There is a parable about a mote and a beam you may wish to locate and reflect on before you start calling too loudly for indefs.

Best case is you all take a day or so break and present your positions. I have already mentioned to Farawahar that they seem to have an incorrect notion of what makes a source reliable or not. Hopefully he will present some solid reasons, beyond the author not being a historian, why and for what they feel those sources are incorrect. Also, hopefully the others at that talk page will respond politely and calmly to their concerns. Both sides should support their positions with Wikipedia policies and guidelines not with inventive and accusations. Jbh ^Talk 18:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Whoever engages solely in disruptive POV pushing and annoying other editors[245][246] is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. What do you think, why he opened this firovolous complaint? Since he don't want to listen anyone there is no hope he will ever improve, just read his response to your above message. Capitals00 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Chasing people from the project for being mildly annoying is not generally the policy of Wikipedia. Were we to do so, I fear we'd quickly find ourselves out of editors. As for the POV accusations, the user does seem to have an interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source that is rather different from my own, but that is hardly an appropriate justification for an indef. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, he has more edits than you and should know better but given his WP:CIR issues he just can't. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

My edit count is deceptively low, as I've made more than a few edits as an IP; gnoming isn't exactly the kind of thing one needs to bother logging in for. This said, I do not see how my edit count actually matters in this particular assessment. As for the CIR essay which has been cited many a time here, I recommend looking at the section where it states that "It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence." While there may be issues with the user's edits, I have yet to see a concentrated effort at mentoring or helping the user improve; a number of edits does not necessarily indicate a period of time spent studying rules and policies. Mentoring exists for exactly this kind of case, and can indeed help a user improve. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

But first he needs to prove if he is willing to hear someone, so far he is not interested in that. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

He just listened to me. Satisfied? --Tarage (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And for how long? If you agree with "mentoring" what will be your proposal? Do you believe that he will agree with limiting his edits per day and ask for a review of his edits every time he make them? D4iNa4 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Here we go, more and more accusations without any proof, this is just unbelievable that you keep going on with such an aggressive behavior without providing any legit reasons. Hopefully, i think that admins are far more neutral than you.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you even know what the word proof means? Capitals00 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Have you checked the diif i posted above about Ammar Mawsili ? Viaros17 used a source for his Arab claim and i used another (a historian if science) for the Persian claim. Kansas Bear, who is i think, a veteran user with NPOV, told me that since my source was not specialized in ISLAMIC studies it’s unreliable. According to Kansas, no matter that my source was published and a historian of science (David chapman), his work about a medieval muslim scholar is UNRELIABLE, i listened to him and removed my source and the Persian claim. Your comment proves only one thing : All veteran users of Wilipedia don’t agree on what is a reliable source.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I have not looked at it. Would you please post the diff/links you are talking about either here or in a new thread on the talk page, so I do not need to go digging through the talk page to find them. Also, yes experienced editors disagree on source reliability regularly. However the way we deal with it, or should, is by talking the matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard. To open a thread there post the source, including page number, along with the statement being used to support it. You may also why you think the source is or is not reliable to support the statement. Sources may be reliable for one statement/kind of statement but not another. It may be considered sufficient for the claim to be made 'in Wikipedia's voice' or it may need to be attributed as the opinion of the source. There is much nuance in judging sources. Jbh ^Talk 18:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mixing up two very different topics in an attempt to gain false consensus for your POV pushing is not helpful for you. Capitals00 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: On a the talk page of Mubariz al din, i just asked if Nabataeus and Frasfras17 were the same user and you told me do not accuse others of sockpuppetry. Here, Capitals blatantly and repeatedly accuses me of being a sock WOTHOUT ANY PROOF and you say nothing about that. Thanks, really. I appreciate.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Where did I "repeatedly" accused you of "being a sock"? Looks like your deception is not going to stop until you are indeffed per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. Capitals00 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Jbh, i haven’t noticed your comment to Capitals. My appologies.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Jbh ^Talk 19:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment While I am not an administrator and can not block anyone. I will happily ping one and ask they block the next editor who makes an upsupported accusation. All of you, stop, stop the accusations and stop replying to unsupported accusations. Just stop. Jbh ^Talk 18:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment So, am I right that none of you dispute that the general sense of the sources say the Hookah was invented in India but there are alternate, though less well accepted, claims that it was invented in Iran? Second, the dispute is about whether some specific sources, like BBC, should be included but there is no desire to change the primacy of the claim of Indian origin? Jbh ^Talk 19:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:Thanks for your comment, but i think Raymond and Capitals went too far here with their baseless accusations. More Capitals gave me a DS alert while i was not alerted before. For my part, i would happily welcome an admin’s eye on all this, and for the sake of honesty, even if that admin decides to block me indef, because if so, at least, i will understand that i was wrong. You must understand that this case is just making me asking myself if it’s worth keep going on editing Wikipedia since it completely disturbs me, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why so much reproachs. I have the feeling that these users hate me and i don’t understand why. Just because i want to discuss about the quality of their sources ? Really ?—>Farawahar (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The most likely outcome is that you all get warned for one thing or another and, so long nothing is repeated that would be it. If you really want admin eyes here make an edit with — '''Comment''' {{ping|AdminName}} would you please review the issue of unsupported accusations per [[WP:NPA]]. Thank you. ~~~~ Be aware that pinging a particular admin is kind of jumping the queue and the result may not be what you want. It is also borderline WP:CANVASS but since neither you nor I know how the pinged admin will respond and I am giving you several to choose from it should be OK. I would suggest NeilN, Bishonen or Swarm. Whomever you ask place their name in place of AdminName They are all good, experienced administrators. Think twice. It looks like things have calmed down but it is your call… Jbh ^Talk 19:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry again Jbh, haven’t noticed your last message. For my part, i just wanted to discuss about the quslity of some sources and svoid bombarding the article with additional sources with no real gain.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Indef block - per his statements:-

• "these users hate me and i don’t understand why".
• "Capitals gave me a DS alert while i was not alerted before".
• "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why so much reproachs."

WP:CIR is the key issue here. Failure to admit any mistake and misrepresentation of other's statements confirms that Farawahar is a net negative. It also seems that Farawahar's disruption is not limited with this article but it is also found elsewhere.[247][248] His long term failure to understand WP:RS, WP:V is undoubtedly evident, and demonstration of typical battle ground mentality that he started this frivolous thread without consulting the editors in question first. such disruption leaves zero doubt that he should be blocked and should not be unblocked without imposition of a topic ban. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please do not engage in deceptive quoting. Farawahar said " I have the feeling that these users hate me and i don’t understand why."^{(emp mine)}. Not "these users hate me and i don’t understand why." big difference. Not sure what you are trying to illustrate with the DS quote but there is a recent long thread about how confusing editors find DS alerts and think of them as warnings or for doing something wrong.

I most certainly am not incompetent and I find the vehemence being expressed in this thread a bit unsettling so I can see how an inexperienced editor might wonder about it. Or maybe it is the ALL CAPS both have equal validity to a CIR claim. Jbh ^Talk 19:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't engage in deceptive WP:GAMING, I presented correct words and the meaning is still same. There is no difference. He believes people are conspiring against him, which is nothing but nonsense. Read WP:BATTLEGROUND carefully. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, you should check your first diff. It is made by a different editor. If your intention was to use it to show what the second diff was in reply to you should make that clear. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to show two incidents of disruption. Jbh ^Talk 19:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So you rechecked my comment after you made a nonsensical response to it? That comment from "different editor" shows how incompetent Farawahar is. You must be having same WP:CIR issues as Farawahar, no wonder he is getting support from you. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Out of line. Cut the personal attacks. Jbhunley is a well established editor and you would be wise not to open yourself up for review of your own behavior. --Tarage (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It is confirmed that he replied my message without reading it. Why he replied it second time while already misrepresenting it another time in favor of this WP:CIR editor? That's the issue. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"It is confirmed that he replied my message without reading it." Nothing is confirmed. Again, stop the personal attacks or I will find an admin to step in and make sure you stop. Do you understand? Those in glass houses should not throw stones. --Tarage (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It is confirmed because he made first response here and another one here. Why he didn't made both of them at once? It is clear he didn't even read my whole comment properly when he made his first comment. There is no need for him to make deliberate misrepresentation of my comments at first place. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We have a thing here at Wikipedia called assume good faith. Right now, you are not. I'll give you the same advice I gave Farawahar. Calm down, stop posting so much, and listen to what people are saying. Jbhunley is an established editor with a long history. You would be wise to listen to what he is saying, and you'd be wise to slow down and stop edit-conflict-deleting other people's posts. You're about to be blocked for that if you continue I hope you realize. --Tarage (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand you are biased about Jbhunley, given you are a party of a frivolous ArbCom case request he has filed. Hence your empty threats will do nothing. Read the comments carefully, Jbhunley started to badger my comments for no actual reason. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If i go out this ANI and ask an admin for his/her opinion, is this CANVASSING ? I’m suspicious now.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

That is called WP:ADMINSHOP. Many admins are reading this page, you don't have to canvass anyone. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I said that i had the “feeling that these users hate me”, not “they hate me”. More, what battleground in your diffs ? If this is battleground, it’s okay then an admin can easily block me.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Same thing. You can twist your words in an attempt to mislead others but the fact still stands that you have a battleground mentality. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, you should look at Capitals talk page, Kautilya asked him not to deliver DS alerts without alerting the user before right ?—>Farawahar (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't have any competence to understand simple English. Why you are trying to misrepresent things that are totally out of your scope? Per User talk:Capitals00#DS alerts, Kautilya3 said "It is not appropriate to give another alert within 12 months," it doesn't means that he can't give any DS alerts to anyone. Capitals00 replied "I understood that he was already notified recently after I had already left the notification, his talk page is way too long that I stopped loading the page in middle and left the notice." If you can't understand this simple conversation, how can we even think that you should go ahead and disrupt articles that requires judgement and correct representation of reliable sources given your WP:INCOMPETENCE? D4iNa4 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I invite all of you to have a look at Zakarya al Razi’s talk page and give your opinion about the sources proposed by Viaros17. I said that if there was a consensus about that, it’s ok for me, why do you say that i fail to recognize a RS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farawahar (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose so far unsupported call for block per my comments above. Jbh ^Talk 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Since when we oppose block on an incompetent editor who is WP:NOTHERE and can't even understand what is being said to him or to others? D4iNa4 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jbh.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: please consider making contributions of substance in order to resolve the issue. To date you have contributed nothing but insults. You may have a valid point of view or useful opinion but I, and probably everyone else, can not see it through all of the venom.

From the article talk page it looks like a question of which sources to cite for the origin. That is not an unreasonable question since twelve different sources are cited in the lead regarding origins of the hookah. That is patently ridiculous. The lead should be restating cited information in the body of the article. Removing redundant citations, particularly in the lead is proper. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill#In article conflict. Jbh ^Talk 20:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know if anyone is ready to mentor him and what will be the terms. Opposing any sanction is not really helpful. How good or bad the article is, that's not relevant here. We are not discussing the article nor any of these issues have been raised by Farawahar, in fact the issues that you have named, about over citing for a name, they are never going to be resolved when you have editors like Hazratleri, Farawahar, engaging in canvassing, frequently disputing reliable sources on talk page, some people resort to overciting and it happened here as well. What kind of resolution do you have in your mind? D4iNa4 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see my comment before this went off the rails. I think Farawahar needs to study WP:RS and learn to articulate a persuasive argument rather than just saying 'not reliable'. I think the other editors involved here, including you, need to rein in their accusations, attacks, and insults — Nobody respects that shit. People can disagree with you in good faith. Sometimes they are right and you are wrong and sometimes it is something in between.

I see one edit to the article and maybe five comments on the talk page by Farawahar including a good faith, if poorly done, attempt to analyze the sources and say why they thought it was wrong. It looks like there are similar likely good faith but clumsy edits to some other articles which may, in some way, explain why you all descended here with such, lets call it, vehemence.

I would suggest that Farawahar find one, at most two, articles they want to work on. Then address their concerns on only those two articles by making policy based arguments and taking disagreements which can not be resolved to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN or WP:ORN as appropriate. That way mistakes, misunderstanding or disruption will be contained while they learn how to apply Wikipedia's content policies and how to present their case. It will also highlight any IDHT or CIR issues, should they exist. After doing five or six like that they should have a good handle on Wikipedia's PaGs and dealing with collaborative editing. Farawahar is, like anyone, welcome to ping me if they get into difficulty. Last time I ran into Farawahar I was on the other side of the dispute so I'm sure they know I will not automatically take their side.

You and your compatriots here were the bad actors on this thread. Maybe Farawahar did something wrong and maybe you had some valid complaints but the unsupported accusations, unfounded attacks and generally abysmal behavior obscured any case there was to make. In particular you frenzied and repeated attacks on me were both uncalled for and pointless. If you disagreed with me, or thought I misrepresented what you said then say so. You can be polite or blunt and you will get a response, I may even end up agreeing. Being snotty on the other hand gets you nothing. Jbh ^Talk 22:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

‘’’comment’’’ @Bishonen: would you please review the issue of unsupported accusations per WP:NPA and unsupported call for block please ? Thank you .Farawahar (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:ADMINSHOP won't help. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farawahar: Please see [249]. Though I would not suggest pinging another admin. Anyway, Bbb23, an admin, has their eyes on this per [250]. Considering the thread has degraded into a madhouse I suspect no one is going to jump in unless the personal attacks continue or someone really screws up. My advice would be disengage completely from this thread I seriously doubt you will get banne/blocked if you just ignore everything except questions from uninvolved editors.

Make diffs of all of the unsupported accusations and attacks and save them if the same people attack you again. If they do, open an ANI thread and clearly and concisely make a complaint about their behavior. Once you do do not reply to their responses. If they make mistatements make diffs and after some uninvolved editors have commented make your replies. That will keep a repeat of this shit-show from occurring. Jbh ^Talk 21:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Farawahar, I understand that you are upset, but show down the comments, and do not ask for sanctions for people calling for a block. You are doing yourself more harm than good by doing either. --Tarage (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tarage, thanks for your comment. i want to understand. I am not asking for sanctions (for me or others), this is admin’s call, but please read the text above and imagine this was about you, what would you think ? I spent a lot of time editing Wikipedia, and i think i did my best to be usefull ... —>Farawahar (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Wikipedia can be a scary place for a new editor and unfortunately, you have stepped into the lion's den by posting on this so-called 'drama board'. My suggestion for you is to stop replying unless someone asks you a specific question and let people talk this issue through. You already have an editor defending you in Jbhunley who can articulate things much better than you can at the moment. Right now, your job is to listen and accept earnest feedback. Slow down, take your time, and listen to what people are telling you, even if you don't agree with it. --Tarage (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. Ok, i will follow it, stop replying and listen.—>Farawahar (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• @D4iNa4: You are out of control. Unless you stop interpolating your comments everywhere and moving other user's comments around, as well as repeated personal attacks on any editor who disagrees with you, you risk being blocked. I suggest you stay away from this thread completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I just rechecked my edits here. Indeed it seems some of them moved comments, though it was not intentional and I am more cautious this time. Thanks for reminding. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Ok, no problem, i leave the thread. Just a question before leaving : can i remove the DS alert from my talk page, or is this considered like a misconduct ? ( i mean, i know we can remove ordinary comments from our talk page but what about warnings and alerts ?). Again, thank you for your wise advices and sorry if i looked like a little angry about all this mess. I don’t know if this is because i’m a woman and a little emotive, but i can say that all the attacks badly hurt me. Nice week-end everybody.—>Farawahar (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farawahar: Yes, you can remove the alert. If you leave anything else in that section, though, make sure there's still context. The easiest thing to do is to remove the entire section, including Capitals00's added comments and your response.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm more concerned about the approach of D4iNa4, Capitals00, and Raymond3023 than I am by Farawahar. There's certainly enough for WP:TROUT all around, but I doubt anything more ANI can do here will be productive. This seems like a situation where WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions or a new case would be more helpful than discussion here. However, hopefully, the personal attacks (by everyone) can stop, and discussion on the talk page can achieve a consensus (as it's about the ethnic history of an object, expecting everyone involved to agree may not be reasonable). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • After reading through more edit history, I may tsupport some action against Farawahar. They seem to do nothing but POV-pushing edits regarding nationality (example diff: [251]), also at Talk:Ismail al-Jazari and Ibn al-Haytham, the latter an article with a historically high volume of POV pushing, but not under Discretionary Sanctions. The users I mentioned in my previous comment aren't helping their own causes by commenting here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Put the pitchforks away and go start an RfC. That's what RfC's are for. Someone kindly close this as a content dispute, and consider trouting liberally, especially for calling for an indef of a user who's made, as far as I can tell, a single edit to the article ever, and all of a half dozen comments on the talk page. ANI is not the first step in the dispute resolution process. GMG^talk 22:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I second the above suggestion to close this uncharacteristically vicious discussion with a stern warning or trout if an admin can identify the behavioral misonduct at issue in this pile on.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been notified by user:Power-enwiki. Please note that i have been asked to leave the thread and so i did. Please Power-enwiki, if your notification is about my so-called POV-editing, you can check the diffs you posted above and see that i added another ethnicity than mine (Polish and Persian), or added source for another ethnicity than mine. If you need any further explanation, i will be happy to oblige, but for now, with your permission, i need to disconnect for a while from Wikipedia. Thanks.—>Farawahar (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary Hookah Break

To attempt to summarize the wall of text found above: Hazratleri (talk · contribs) (blocked for sock-puppetry) recently started a discussion about the historical origins of the hookah at Talk:Hookah. Farawahar (talk · contribs) was canvassed to that discussion, and after some discussion, brought the dispute to ANI. A large amount of discussion followed here. All of the editors involved are advised to avoid personal attacks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:HenSti

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

---

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

I have contacted this editor four times over a number of weeks; they continue to edit but won't reply. Full messages at User talk:HenSti#Sources. HenSti knows how to reply to messages, has been editing for years and knows how to add references, but will not communicate on this issue and hasn't added the references. I have directed them to links showing it is policy to engage in discussion, but to no avail. I am hoping they will engage now. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn - Does the source provided at HMS Enterprise (1705) have what you're looking for? I'm sure you've already looked at it, but I just thought I'd ask just in case :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That is presumably their source; I guess my main concern is the refusal to communicate and the creation of several unreferenced articles - do they understand the need to work with other editors and to verify information? I've no idea if they won't talk. Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is potentially problematic and that collaboration and communication is a key part of contributing to the project and working as a team with others. I'm going to allow others to comment on this discussion so we can figure out the best course of action moving forward that will help this user and benefit the project overall... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the articles in Category:Lists of ship launches don't seem to be well referenced, with lots of them completely unreferenced, (as with many other list-type articles on Wikipedia), so its not as if the community is setting a terrifically good example with regard to sourcing of this type of article. This does not excuse the failure to respond to concerns of course.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

List articles are often poor, which is why I linked to WP:SourceList on their talk page, because many editors aren't aware lists should be referenced, and I don't blame them. I was hoping the editor would respond and we could work together, but when it's been pointed out to them and they've ignored it, then it is disruptive. I'll look through the category and see if I can find any sources for the unref ones - so hopefully there will be some better examples out there, although a drop in the ocean. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

HenSti, you've continued to edit, you need to join in the discussion here. This discussion is just trying to find a solution to this problem, but you are risking a block by refusing to comment. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Normally I name my souces. DNV GL od ABS, ... In the furure i try to be more consequent with this. HenSti (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@HenSti: What does that stand for?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying HenSti. If you can agree to respond to messages in future and add sources to your articles, then I see no need to continue the conversation. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

DNV = Det Norske Veritas, GL = Germanischer Lloyd, ABS = American Bureau of Shipping. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar, does not appear to be relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just me, but does that shorthand of his remind anyone of a user that was banned a while back, who also used shorthand, and claimed to be using it due to a hand injury (Repetive stress something or other ... ) ?  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  12:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I remember that. Who was that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Answering my own question: User:Sven70 in 2010. [252]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) And to note, there are no article editing overlaps between HenSti and Sven70 [253]. Nor do/did they edit in the same subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources: ABS, DNV GL (classification society) HenSti (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Alexisajet

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

---

Alexisajet has been repeatedly adding unverified material to Wikipedia, including creating unreferenced articles, and refusing to communicate. I have sent them six messages over several weeks. I have pointed out the importance of the policy WP:V, as well as that communication is required under the policies WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT. Other editors have also left many messages of concern which have been ignored, see User talk:Alexisajet. This editor has only been editing a couple of months, and has never responded to a talk page message. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:IDHT. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Lack of communication is the key issue here. He has 539 edits [254] though none of them were made on any discussion page. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Inna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:DashDog01

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

---

DashDog01 recently changed my userpage from User:Levdizd to Template:Levdizd. I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't know exactly what this means, but it appears unnecessary and unconstructive. Levdizd (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd

I have fixed it and warned him on his talk page. Ping me here or message me on my talk page if he does something like that again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked that editor for this and a couple of other incidents. I have great doubt that DashDog01 is here to build the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Levdizd (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Levdizd

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

User talk:WikiEditorAU

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

---

I have contacted this editor four times since January, and although they've continued to edit in between all the messages, they have not responded or addressed the concerns. Please see User talk:WikiEditorAU#Sources and User talk:WikiEditorAU#Sources and communication for full messages about repeatedly creating unreferenced articles, pointing to the policies re communication and verifiability. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Image of an underage murder victim

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

---

Probably not the right forum, but I feel urgent attention is required. We are currently linking to an image, the copyright status of which I cannot verify, of an 8 year old girl who was raped and then murdered. I am uncertain if this would be appropriate even if the licensing were immaculate, and would appreciate some advice. Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The photo is pre-murder. It's certainly in scope - e.g. Murder of James Bulger, it feels appropriate to me to have a photo of the victim. Copyright is more of an issue - there may be a fair use case, but as it stands, further digging needs doing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding copyright, a reverse image search throws the earliest matches as [255] [256]. It looks like a family photo has been legitimately uploaded to me, but we will need OTRS verification. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this was urgent why? EEng 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• @EEng: potentially urgent, because the WMF takes the privacy of minors fairly seriously. Vanamonde (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The image was uploaded to Wikipedia on April 14th, the same image was on the NYT on April 11th, by someone claiming the image was their own work. Just remove it for lack of copyright and the problem is solved. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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

RHaworth and speedies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RHaworth has acknowleged the communication issues and no futher action is required

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• DGG, I consider that it is perfectly OK for me to say firmly to someone "I think that you should not be contributing to Wikipedia". So please give me a form of words that I could have used to reply here to BrentMBeshara . — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth, I gave my preferred wording above in that very paragraph, and repeat it: When you become notable enough that other people write about you in third-party independent reliable sources, then someone will be interested enough to write your biography DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Winged Blades, I would like you to substantiate that "radio-silent" jibe. If you are talking about this exchange, I claim that a reply within eight hours is perfectly acceptable and that I did email you details even though you had not explicitly requested me to do so. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm...You emailed the content(s) and then used your silence to reject my subsequent request of un-deletion.You ought to know, that for purposes of attribution, I couldn't have restored the material in main-space. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we have "There was absolutely no need to e-mail me and the matter is not the slightest bit urgent. If you don't know what has happened, I suggest you learn to read edit histories and logs .... ", "Please learn wikilinks and to not use br" (in response to "Thank you very much for your help" after another admin restored an article speedied by RHaworth), "Do you know the difference between an encyclopedia and a social networking site? Go away to FaceBook.", "Talk about helping lame ducks. If you really cannot find out how to submit a draft, you should not be here.", "Please read this" [257], "Since you have been foolhardy enough to bring yourself to my attention, I will say: so far you have done nearly an hundred edits none of which are actually contributing to the encyclopedia.", "do it yourself! Learn to use the tools the MediaWiki software provides", "The singular of criteria is criterion. A person who has been on Wikipedia for 10 years and 3 days ought to know to provide a link when they talk about an article.", ""Not through Google" - what an insult to the MediaWiki software which provides all the clues you need. .... In its original form and as amended above by me there are two links, one red one blue. Did it cross your mind to follow the blue link? Have you thought of looking at your contributions history instead of asking Google?", "Get your facts right.", "Don't be ridiculous. I have already told you to put it at draft:Winning Jah (2). Why is that concept so difficult to understand? Please reply." ..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I acknowledge that my communicating has been below the expected standard. I accept the criticism and assure you that my communicating is something I will work to improve on. To all my stalkers I say: if you see an example of my failing to come up to standard, please comment - but briefly and preferably not more than a couple of you! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Something I do and which you may want to consider is using a keyboard macro program. This will allow you to create some boilerplate, either brief text or detailed responses which you can insert using a mnemonic and customize. I use ProKeys which is an extension for Chrome and opera. With it if I for instance type autobio crtl-space I get:

Since you have stated here that you are the subject of this article you should become familiar with out conflict of interest policy. Also, please note that Wikipedia strongly discourages writing autobiographies. Please read the material I have blue linked above it goes into our policies and guidelines in detail. I realize that it looks like a lot of reading but attempting to write a Wikipedia article, particularly about yourself, is not likely to be a satisfying experience without understanding how Wikipedia works.

This, for me lets me give useful, detailed answers even when I am annoyed or just do not feel like writing much. It is also easy to customize your responses by chaining multiple canned texts, making some fill-in-the-blank, or just editing the canned text to make it fit. (Incidentally, the block quote was formatted by highlight text crtl-x blockquote crtl-space and this parenthetical was done similarly.) Jbh ^Talk 14:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who has not a technical bone in their body comes along to say that's really rather absolutely bloody clever indeed"  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Then my ration of 'clever' was well spent Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• RHaworth has given what I would consider to be a very reasonable response to the community's objections to his behavior. This is a big step in the right direction. If anyone wants to take this further, I will give them the opportunity, but I think this thread has achieved as much as it can, most likely, and will be considering closing it if no one raises any objections. In sum, we have a documented community consensus that RHaworth's conduct has been problematic, and we have RHaworth acknowledging it and providing a pledge to resolve the complaint voluntarily. This is more than most threads here achieve. Swarm ♠ 00:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur with closing this. This has been a more civil thread than those of this kind usually are, and that's a credit to those involved. WP:BITE is a very tiring policy to comply with, and despite best efforts these things happen. The more work we can do on templating kind canned responces, the less Wikipedia will be a compassion drain. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing=thirded. But, regarding your summation, Swarm, can the close be mindful to specify that the community consensus is that RH's communication has been found overly-robust (!!!), but that there was no consensus as to their deletion / error rate. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Without any edit summary, RH reverted two categories I nominated per WP:DENY. You can find my inquiry at his talk page here[258]. I just made that post minutes ago. A whole category tree (without substantial edits by other editors) has been created by a banned User. Why doesn't WP:DENY apply. I await his answer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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