Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

ANI Report Denniss: Abusive Behavior

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

• Denniss has been harassing me lately by threatening to get me blocked over tags that was reviewed by me. Intentionally removed tag that was not placed by me. He intentionally undone a non disruptive edits made by me in the Ryzen article. He blindly undone the article. 12
• He also abused the Twinkle feature on me deliberately after not reviewing edits i made on article. 3
• With obvious doubts, He more likely directed a group or individually used each accounts to try get me blocked for WP:Sock -- It led someone else to start case for sock against me. (maybe directed also) 1
• 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:dc:2709:6068:db9c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:c0d:5307:1ddd:eda3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:C0D:5307:1DDD:EDA3/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There maybe more. Keep saying i am those ip in a false manner - 1 2

Excessive use of undo`s in many articles. 1

I do not care if Denniss been here for 14+ years. He does not have upper say of anything. This no longer a content dispute. This is a attempt by Denniss to get rid of a individual who actively in good faith to do a general fix on a article with major issues since 2017. Enough is enough from this user. Regice2020 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Driveby tagging is a bad idea. There ought to be an accompanying talk page note explaining the reasoning behind the tag/s. El_C 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The talk page is highly inactive unless something happens to the page like move request or deletion were feedback are collected apparently. Regice2020 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Or the page gets tagged as an advert? Maybe that, too. We don't know because that discussion was not attempted. El_C 03:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup they do not want someone fixing then someone need to tag it based on feedback collection. I mean the product Ryzen 3000 series just released early this month. Many AMD buyers (the AMD fanboys) are just to excited on comments are being directed from a outside source to here. Denniss behavior against me is very unacceptable something need to be reviewed. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup? I'm confused. What are you agreeing with? You added a tag without an accompanying talk page note, which I'm saying was a mistake. El_C 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Does removing wrong warnings [supposedly placed by them?] from one's own user talk page really count as "excessive use of undos in many articles"? Edible Melon (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• In June 2019, you added three tags to the article, Regice2020, backdating two of them to May 2017. There was only one tag actually placed on the article in May 2017, and it was not any of those. This is clearly one of the points at issue, given the edit summaries and two talk page sections discussing this, Talk:Ryzen#Too technical? and Talk:Ryzen#Multiple issues, in which you have taken no part. Why did you back-date these tags when you added them to the article, Regice2020? Why have 24 out of the last 28 edits to the article in the past week been you and an IP address edit warring against others over the tags with zero use of the talk page? Given this on this very noticeboard from a month ago, where are your efforts to talk to people? Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This issue revolves around Fancruft. Oh boy Let me get something cleared up. During my United States Timezone July 8, 2019 and announcements in May 2019~June 2019 - New products recently released. (Ryzen 5 3600 (6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 5 3600X(6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 7 3700X(8Cores/16Threads), Ryzen 7 3800X(8Cores/16Threads), and Ryzen 9 3900X(12 Cores/24 Threads). The AMD fans were excited and decided to spread their overwhelmed comments after looking at outstanding benchmarks (performance results of a product) on news articles, social (reddit/facebook) and even directed to Wikipedia Ryzen article to put their fan comments here and got away. As part of the general fixes, i placed few tag in good will to guide other editors to fix after AFD Discussion since a specific group does not want others fixing their page. Ryzen talk page is inactive as i said unless something happens to that page. These are the same general fixes i do on MMA/UFC articles. I mean if you have someone posting a infected website, what will the good faith editors do? They do a general fix by removing it without use of article talk page. Its simple. Got Denniss saying i hide behind the ip its not acceptable. Regice2020 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What general fixes are you talking about? As far as I see, these include PROD, two requests for protection, AfD, a move request, drive-by tagging and [seemingly pointlessly] removing half of the page. Edible Melon (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it very unusual for Denniss not the one to start the Sock puppetry investigation instead it was started by another user. This is very suspicious. Regice2020 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I can reassure you I'm not a sockpuppet. I noticed the page being mentioned in the edit filter log for two days in a row and decided to look at it. Edible Melon (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited (Support or Oppose)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020 Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited to ending result because i feel like i need start a ANI against myself for allowing myself to be involved in this AMD Fanboys changing the Ryzen article. Community ban. Regice2020 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have closed the SPI and semiprotected the article. @Regice2020: we have a no personal attacks rule. The next time you call someone a "fanboy" you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am sorry @Ivanvector:. "AMD Fanboys" is not a attack. It refers to name of a group of excited AMD users coming into these new articles comments, social media and even directed to AMD Ryzen article to post their fan point of views over benchmarks. .Example of Behavior Regice2020 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Regice2020:, you write I am sorry Ivanvector. "AMD Fanboys" is not a attack then IMMEDIATELY follow with an explanation where you explicitly use it as an attack. Really, really not your best move. -- Calton | Talk 10:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Huh? Calton Its like this. There are a specific group wanted to prevent a article from making fixes and improvement. So they throw a rock at me to make it look i am the bad guy.This ANI Report mostly on why group of individuals or a individual trying get me blocked for SOCK and you get Denniss saying i am those ip in a false manner repeatedly while i am focusing on general improvements on UFC/MMA pages due to a upcoming event. Regice2020 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
        • "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?" Guy, no one is "mak[ing] it look like [you are] the bad guy", you're doing it quite well on your own. Your inability or unwillingness to see this is what will get you blocked and/or topic-banned. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

asia countries page

AuH2ORepublican and several editors are in dispute over whether palestine should or should not be grouped with generally recognized states or non un, non recognized states. Lo meiin (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin You must notify any other users you report to this page. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

331 dot I already did that Lo meiin (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Boomerang. It seem fishy that, Lo meiin, you did not edited those page nor their talk pages, and then as a new user, knew the way to ANI. Your first edit (that on not deleted page), was sending ANI-notice to AuH2ORepublican. Matthew hk (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to get a check-user sweep of Lo meiin against [nil Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)] (the other primary party in the dispute), given that Lo meiin's handful of edits all focuses (from the start) on AuH20. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that Arabistan has been suspended or anything (I certainly haven't reported to third parties his abusive behavior against me or his POV edits), so I assume that he created this sock account in order to make it appear that there is a larger group of editors protesting against the compromise reached by consensus around a year ago on how Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara are categorized in Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states. I further suspect that the use of this IP starting on July 15 is another sock account of his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.42.250.60 AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I left a similar comment in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arabistan already. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Arabistan has made similar edits, but unlike him, I have not engaged in inflammatory jibes against any user. And also unlike him, I am committed to working with Au20 and all other editors to reach a compromise on this perennial dispute. And yes, I have made similar edits because it was just a way to bring attention to this dire issue. I regret all the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of all sockpuppets directed toward Au20 and all other editors (and also the despicable remarks Arabistan made towards pro-Israel Pacific Island nations) affected and I vow not to engage or associate with any of their activities (and tbh my name Lo meiin is indicative that I do not have a personal bias for either the Arab/Islamic states or Israel in this conflict, thank you.) My position stands as that both the states of Israel and Palestine should not receive differential treatment from all other generally recognized states on wikipedia, a major source of reference for many worldwide, and that is the consensus of wikipedia in general ( see list of sovereign states). I would also like to mention that Au20 has changed several articles to categorize palestine as not generally recognized unilaterally where it was already mentioned as generally recognized, such as countries by capitals in their native language and countries by land area, so he's in no position of accusing me of being an NPOV. Thank you Lo meiin (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Lo meiin (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• So the SPI case has closed as unrelated - I apologise to @Lo meiin:. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Returning to the original issue, I feel that both AuH20 and Arabistan were acting uncourteously in the primary dispute. Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages mentioned. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear, I dispute your characterization of my communications with Arabistan as "uncourteous"; I certainly did my best to hold my temper while dealing with insults from the latest inexperienced editor who jumped right into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Day One. (As an aside, I guess that the restrictions on new editors being involved in edits that concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer are enforced.) I would posit that it is not uncourteous to point out that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state, and I have written nothing negative of the Palestinian people; the same cannot be said for most single-issue editors who exclusively edit articles to group Palestine among generally recognized sovereign states, as their vitriol towards Israelis (and, often, Anericans) shows up within a week or two of signing up as editors. I trust that @User:Lo meiin will live up to his word and doesn't follow in the footsteps of so many prior editors whose sole apparent interest (and writing style) were similar to his.

Regarding the merits of my dispute with Arabistan to which Lo meiin has devoted every single one of his edits and actions, it simply is not the case that the State of Palestine "must be grouped" with generally recognized sovereign states just because it is a UN observer state. The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo, is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition.

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Somaliland or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states.

I welcome comments from all interested editors and trust that we can reach a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @AuH2ORepublican: As a critical note, the correctness of the argument is a content dispute, which this isn't the venue for (you can be right or wrong, and still be uncivil). As a fairly important point, someone (presumably accidentally, it doesn't look willful) has managed to merge my two comments up above, so they now read...oddly. To clarify I felt that Arabistan was being more discourteous and WP:BATTLEGROUND than yourself. Re-reading, I'm unsure about the sarcasm of several points, so that should probably be re-clarified as significantly more discourteous. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Importantly, though, neither editor has become egregiously, "think of the children", rude. The conversation is not currently active. I feel this would be better settled as "Deploy dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion, and everyone remember to walk softly when discussing dynamite". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Au20 from my observations, you have made uncourteous remarks towards Arabistan by labelling him a PLO propagandists and have depicted Palestinians are a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people, and I have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates. Furthermore, coming from a country with issues of its own with the US - China - I kind of see where some Palestinian advocates are coming from and they certainly don’t hate Americans, but the American government. I also know how it feels how, similarly to Palestine, the western world for some time left the PRC in the cold, despite the majority of the other countries recognizing us. Furthermore, Au20 has made many arbitrary edits without consulting other editors concerning categorization of states and is blind towards the fact that most countries that are against Palestine are western world countries that take Israel’s side. The consensus is actually that UN members and observers are considered distinct from the 9 states with partial/no recognition and Cook Islands and Niue. Despite this, and despite nose bag bear confirming this established position, and that the rest of the country pages on Wikipedia stipulating so, Au20 decides to stubbornly revert the corrections made. Btw, the un does call Palestine the state of Palestine, and the rest of the states have 102 and less recognition, while Palestine has ~140/193

Lo meiin (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Au20 from my observations, you have made uncourteous remarks towards Arabistan by labelling him a PLO propagandists and have depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people, and I have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates."

@Lo meiin, these are defamatory accusations against me, with absolutely no bearing on the truth. Take back what you said, or else provide evidence to back up your cowardly accusation.

I have written thousands of words regarding the limited recognition of the State of Palestine's sovereignty, and the only time that I have mentioned the PLO was when I told Arabistan "you go as far as to express glee in thinking that Pacific Island nations that support the State of Israel "will be washed up in rising tides." That last phrase sounds almost [enough] poetic for the PLO to hire you to write propaganda for the group (remember its old boast that it would "push the Jews to the sea"?)." I have never accused someone of being a "PLO propagandist" for arguing in favor of deeming the State of Palestine to be a generally recognized sovereign state; I have pointed out to an editor who expressed happiness at the thought of thousands of Pacific Islanders being drowned that his language was reminiscent of the PLO's "old boast" of which you've surely heard. A few days ago you wrote about how horrible Arabistan's words had been, and particularly noted his attack upon Pacific Islanders whose governments supported the State of Israel; now you claim that my reaction to that same disgusting statement is evidence that I "depict[] Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people"? Talk about "uncourteous."

As for your claim that you "have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates," you certainly haven't seen the insults levied against me (an American) and other editors (many of them Americans) through the years--well, except the ones by Arabistan and by yourself. You did see Arabistan refer to the U.S. as "Israel's lackeys," which is an insult to all Americans; if you don't know what "lackey" means, you should look it up so that you know why it is an insult.

By the way, the worst offender in hurling insults against editors who acknowledge that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state was not Arabistan or Talastan, but User talk:Kawhilaugh42. He, too, was a single-issue editor (take a guess on the subject matter) who started off being fairly polite, but eventually started making baseless accusations and lobbing profanities in Tal pages and in his descriptions of edits. After he was blocked indefinitely for persistent vandalism, he created a sock account with the name "Do laima." Do laima claimed to be Burmese, and wholly agnostic on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet from his first day on Wikipedia he commented and edited exclusively on pages concerning the international recognition of the State of Palestine. A few days later, Do laima was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Kawhilaugh42 (see User talk:Do laima). Are you familiar with Kawhilaugh42 and Do laima? Their orthography and grammar remind me a bit of yours. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Au20,

I fully understand that you’re fed up to the brim from dealing with these inexperienced editors (and I don’t blame you) and I am just as appalled and frustrated with their behavior as are you. However, there is no need to lose our cool here; I am not accusing you of anything, I am just pointing out the faults of all sides here; just as I fully condemn arabistans vitriols such as calling you a “smarta**” and calling allies of Israel it’s lackeys and expressing indifference to the threat climate change poses to many pacific island nations, I am just simply pointing out for the sake of professionalism that we cannot assume a country of 4 million people ( plus millions more in the diaspora ) all bear animosity for Israelis, Jews, Americans, and others (which is what I interpreted your statement about arabistan sounding so poetic should join the PLO implied), and I regret if you thought I said otherwise. Likewise, we cannot assume that Israel a country of 8 million + the diaspora are bloodsthirsty contempt and cold blooded murderers and that none wants better future for both peoples ( which is what many Arabs like to assert ). And yes, from my research I am fully aware that the PLO has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric against Jews and Israelis, but yet again that cannot be said about all Palestinians. Furthermore, part of my sympathy with Palestinians and Israelis stems from the fact that my country, mainland China, was effectively shunned by much of the world throughout much of the Cold War and was too denied recognition by some western states and their allies and others. It is not fair or correct to assume that I am a Sockpuppet of theirs as I have edited non related articles such as one on ASAP rocky and I have repeatedly distanced myself from their behavior and am trying to start a dispute to put an end to this dispute. More importantly, I suggest that a compromise can be that Palestine will be listed as an observer state in its own category unambiguously and the rest of the un members remain grouped together. Notwithstanding my chinese heritage, and for the purposes of NPOV, I suggest that Taiwan province will be placed separately from Palestine, the un members, and de facto states in the same category. And btw, just FYI, you talk about maintaining consensus while you are going against the consensus that un members and observers are grouped together accordingly and separate from 9 other states, according to asia, list of sovereign states, list of countries and territories by continent, gallery of sovereign states flags in Asia, and flags, coat of arms, and governments of Asia pages. This is, in my opinion, the best compromise

Lo meiin (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@User:Lo meiin, you accuse me of having "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people," and then you have the gall to claim that you are not accusing me of anything? I don't know about you, but I think that depicting an entire people/nation as "a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people" would be pretty bad, and had I done so I would deserve to be ostracized by society at large and the editing community in particular. But I have never referred to the Palestinian people that way, and for you to assert that I have is, indeed, an attack upon my person, and I will defend myself lest others get the impression that I am guilty of the disgusting behavior that you falsely attributed to me. Once again, I ask for you to withdraw the accusation of ethnic intolerance that you lobbed against me. While I appreciate your change in tone, you need to clear the record in writing.

As for your "solution," I agree with you that the State of Palestine should be in a separate category from Japan and Sri Lanka, but the reason why Palestine shouldn't be listed with Japan and Sri Lanka (and Qatar and East Timor) is not because it isn't a UN member state, but because its level of international recognition, while substantial, is not generalized. It is possible for a state to be a generally recognized sovereign state without being a UN member state--after all, Switzerland wasn't one until a few years ago, and Vatican City never has been one, yet they both have long enjoyed general international recognition of their sovereignty--although rejection of UN membership certainly is a sign that the state does not enjoy general international recognition. If and when the State of Palestine is recognized by large majorities of not only small economies but also of large economies, and of large majorities of countries in every continent, then it would be generally recognized (and should be characterized as such in encyclopedias) even if it chooses not to join the UN as a member. And had Palestine not sought recognition as a UN observer state when its application for membership was going to be rejected, it wouldn't change the fact that it enjoys substantial international recognition of its sovereignty. So I don't think that "UN observer" should be the category under which Palestine is listed.

In the past, the consensus that emerged was to group Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara as de facto states with substantial, but not generalized, international recognition, which avoided grouping such states with de facto states with little or no international recognition (such as Abkazia, Northern Cyprus, etc.). That is still my preference, and believe that if we carved out Taiwan and Western Sahara (the two whose recognition is less substantial than that of Kosovo or Palestine, although, as you surely know, Taiwan's international recognition is complicated by the fact that so many countries have non-diplomatic relations with it in order not to anger the PRC) and grouped them with states with little or no recognition that it would violate NPOV. I guess that yet another category could be created for those two states, but I don't think that there would be much appetite for that.

As always, I would like to hear what other interested editors have to say. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish personal attacks

In this edit, User:MarcusBritish doubles down on his personal attacks on me that he started in an RM discussion here. I understand that he has some things to argue about, but this is not the way. His personal attacks should be stricken. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The personal attack has been stricken from the RM discussion. Thanks. I care less about the bits on his talk page and the continuing untruths and attack below. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly untruths when there are links to your own contradictory posts and made-up policies, a fine history of terminological inexactitudes. I will be making sure all your military history based RMs are notified on the MILHIST notice board, which to date you have avoided doing, be sure of that. No more lurking in the shadows with only ignorant "yes" men and no expert editors being advised who might challenge your controversial moves, and rightly so. You should be advising MILHIST yourself, instead of trying to go behind the backs of editors who worked on those articles and put in far more effort than you on sourcing material. And I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not operating on behalf of Google but are unwilling to disclose your conflict of interest. — Marcus^(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand now why Dicklyon has tried to subvert my complaints about his moving Campaign articles. In 2015 he was blocked for several months and returned under a standard offer that requires him to not engage in controversial actions such as mass page moves. That is precisely what he is doing now. I would like for an admin to please review the comment and links I left below, as well as Dicklyon's latest history of moves, which are en masse and have caused concerns at MILHIST, concerns that he has chose to ignore and work against. Ergo, he is in direct breach of his unblock terms, which are very specific and state no date when past blockable behaviour can re-commence. Untruths, he says. Unburied truths, I say. He has committed to circumventing those terms to achieve his goal. Again, I repeat my claims that this editor is tendentious and bad faith is the case; this is not an attck it is a foregone conclusion based on observation and evidenced patterns of behaviour. Doing exactly what the unblock offer told him not to cannot be construed into anything other than disrespect for the community process which sought to reintegrate him in the first place; an offer was made and has since been ignored. Since admins are meant to remain impartial, my concerns should be given due consideration. — Marcus^(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• 12 July Marcus criticises use of N-grams with links to third-party sources identifying shortcomings
• Dicklyon ignores comment; states that "no-one has shown that moves are controversial"
• 13 July Marcus indicates criticism comment and emphasises point that N-grams data is not verifiable
• Dicklyon admits "n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story" then claims "nobody is relying on n-grams as a 'reliable source' nor as the only way to look at usage in sources"
• Dicklyon states "I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming"

Since this discussion, in which N-grams were addressed, Dicklyon has proceeded to ignore opposition from MilHist members to use of N-grams to move articles to lowercase titles. According to his edit history he has continued to move a lot of military Campaign articles, many without even using Requested Moves, but in the case of RMs only ever used N-grams as "evidence", despite admiting that they only tell a tiny fraction of the story that he doesn't rely on, and demanding other editors use books to challenge him, contrary to WP:BURDEN. All N-grams results show differences between usage of trivial sums, like 0.0000001% differences. Shortcomings of N-grams include: Google scans a limited number of sources, OCR is not reliable for scanning upper/lowercase accurately, N-grams does not identify sentences, indexes, titles, captions, etc. And most vitally, N-grams does not link to its sources, which violates WP:V - N-grams can be seen both as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given the nature of how the results are gathered and interpreted. In the case of Waterloo Campaign, Dicklyon made a conscious choice to only search titles from 1970 - those exorcising a potentially vast number of titles from 1815. I consider this his most obvious bad faith act. He uses these results as "evidence" to to trick RMs into a false consensus. He ignored the concerns abour N-grams, by palming me off with I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. No further reasoning, just prenentious a put-down so he could move on and wilfully ignore the concerns. The entire discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign runs in the same format - someone makes a comment, Dicklyon puts it down with his own POV and no-one but me maintains their argument. This includes the fact that Dicklyon interprets policy in his own fashion, is selective when it comes to policy, and even invents policy that doesn't even exist, such as today, when I challenged him on only sourcing from 1970 - something he has never done before - he claimed We usually focus on recent decades when discussing usage in sources and has yet to respond to me request for the policy that states anything of the sort is to be practiced. Why? Because he made it up, after biasing his data to broaden the N-gram in his favour. Bad faith not only assumed, but evidenced.

To summarise, please go see the Milhist discussion, the Waterloo Campaign discussion, as well as the "evidence" he presents at past RMs related to military campaigns (only N-grams, before and still despite concerns from multiple editors); consider the claims he makes that contradict one another and the policy he raises but does not link because it does not exist. Then you'll understand the frustration. Dicklyon is engaged in long-term disruptions which he handles via WP:CIVPUSH when challenged, as well as WP:PLAYPOLICY. This is not typical good faith behaviour, and so I stand by my right to challenge it, since it is so widespread. I don't care about my attitude, this is a matter of tendentious editing, with spurious evidence, ignores the concerns of MilHist, continues to move "dozens" (exact count unknown) of articles with no verifiable evidence, only this controversially unverifiable N-gram nonsense. Moves made using a source which cannot be verified. Dicklyon can shout all day about NCCAP, AGF and whatever other policy cares to invent, the fact stands, WP:V is a core policy, a pillar, a major requirement of any wikipedia article. He knows his data fails that test, yet persists, manipulates N-grams further, undermines policy and now he's here, trying to silence his greatest detractor. Because he can't prove his Google-sourced data is strong enough, he has to force his POV in, and that can only be achieved by manipulating searches, ignoring other editors, citing fake policy, not letting a consensus be determined. All bad faith behaviours. If anyone is not convinced that this stream of behaviour is questionable, they either need to open their eyes, or explain to me where I'm wrong. And I don't mean for Dicklyon to do that himself, given his conflict of interest, though he can attepmt to defend himself, as necessary. Maybe another "Poppycock" is all a common peasant like me needs, to stand corrected? Even though my opinions were "noted", no attempt was made to correct behaviour or seek alternative sources for future moves. N-grams is clearly wiser than all of us at Milhist, put together, since our concerns have not been heeded. That's one man's pretentious ego for you and yes, it disgusts me.

You can argue between youselves about my uncivil nature all you like, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me... but this is a WP:BOOMERANG case if you actually review the widespread amount of evidence regarding Dicklyon's current behaviour and crusade, which I have seen unfolding for several weeks, challenged at MilHist, but remains unchecked. I have never reverted his edits, nor !voted in RMs until now, my concerns have been made in only two places and have been supported, to some degree. So his comment above about "He can make points about N-grams without attacking me." Yeah, we tried that, many times. He swept our concerns under a mat and trod all over it, to continue revising article titles to the way he wants, and everyone at MilHist be buggered. Screw us military historians, with all our books and knowledge, if all we need is Google and their limited inaccurate data, let's burn down all libraries and make Dicklyon master of digitised world history. Because all this behaviour amounts to is authorative, anti-consensual and loaded with POV pushing behaviour because of its use of manufactured evidence that is not really evidence because none of us can see it. — Marcus^(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt, and thus it's time to revoke the unblock. That indefinite block came after it was shown that he was happy to ignore basic policy, so why should we be surprised that he's happy to ignore those unblock conditions? Moreover, WP:CIR; I don't have to be a specialist in military history to know that the solid military history sources use "Campaign" in such contexts. If you're not competent in an area, stay out (that's why I don't do significant editing in medicine or speculative philosophy) and definitely don't violate your unblock conditions in a fashion that's already disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What? If Dicklyon behaves disruptively, then he should be straightly blocked. Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The moves in question started with a discussion on the MihHist project page, and have been discussed there at length. I still have not been able to elicit a single allegation that any of the undiscussed moves was improper – just generalized whining like Marcus's. About a dozen proposed at RMTR were challenged and went to RM discussions, where the consensus to follow our usual policies and guidelines was reaffirmed. My move log shows about 75 "Campaign->campaign" moves in 40 days, a rate of less than 2 per day; not exactly "mass moves". Most "XXX campaign" articles were already at the correct lowercase title, as the original discussion pointed out. Nobody has pointed out any MilHist move that I got wrong; nobody has reverted one or opened a discussion about why it was wrong or even controversial. Marcus and a few have made generalized complaints, but can't point to a case where my move was not with consensus, or had some reason to be considered controversial; I have asked. The project talk page has been involved; a small move to rewrite the style rules for MilHist didn't get much traction there. In addition, I've moved over 6000 other articles since my 2015 unblock, and have stayed away from trouble by only moving where the consensus is clear. When people have objected to their favorite area being downcased, I have engaged in good-faith discussions, and in almost all cases the consensus re-affirmed the reason for the moves, following policy and guidelines. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign for details. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A whole debate took place at MilHist. Dicklyon characteristically boils it down to "whining", which is an attack on multiple editors at MilHist. Proving he has chosen to ignore editors with issues and step over them, set his own standards, invent policy, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He sets his own terms for what he considers a "valid complaint", despite a number of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign having concerns regarding his moves. It is not up to him to set the terms of discussion or consensus. When someone raises issues with your edits, you stop to discuss. He has chosen to ignore and proceed. In violation of his standard offer, since these are mass moves which have been deemed controversial; 75 moves are a mass number, the timeline is moot here. There is no good faith here, rather a load of disrespectful scheming per WP:PLAYPOLICY. I believe @Keith-264 raised the initial concern regarding all these Campaign movea, and will ping him, incase he'd like to comment further. — Marcus^(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No Incnis Mrsi, it's not "ancient" or "ru" to uphold the terms of standard offers for unblocks indefinitely. I accepted an interaction ban in 2017, are you seriously suggesting that "when enough time passes" (subjective in itself) I can just throw that away and self-determine my own terms or ignore them altogether, go get up that other editor's nose and claim immunity based on "who cares anymore?" notions? If an unblock offer was set by the community via consensus, you respect the community, no matter how much time passes, you don't give them the two fingers when you feel you've had enough... I kind of find your claim that this would be "discrimination" hyperbolical/dog whistling/virtue signalling terminology. On what level is that even the case? It's more discriminatory to turn a blind eye to wilfully breaking standard offer terms, when we know for a fact that other editors are blocked for far less, mor often. An admin's duty is to maintain the integrity of the community, not overturn it! The whole point of offers by ANI/Arbcom is not to restrict editors, but to be lenient while also preventing further disruptions by giving unblocked editors a way of self-moderating the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. This is effectively a breach of contract. The ru.wiki and en.wiki are two different cultures, no point comparing apples and oranges, that too could be seen as discrimination. All that said, I'm not saying I want to see Dicklyon indef, I'm just saying that I have gripes with his behaviour and having learned it got him blocked in the past, we can factually establish that he already knows it is considered disruptive, therefore he wilfully put himself back in this position. So it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be upholding the standard offer, which he has chosen to violate. So, to answer your "who cares?" - anyone who cares about the wiki community and genuinely respects consensus cares. — Marcus^(talk) 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m unable to find such person as Dicklyon anywhere in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His unblock log doesn’t mention any specific restriction either, only a decision to unblock despite some IP socking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI: User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here. Prodego talk 04:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC and Accept reason: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) - there's the community decision and admin performing unblock terms stated. No duration/end date for those terms was specifically set. Tell me, if you accept a standard offer are you at liberty to determine when you are able to no longer work in accordance with those terms? Wouldn't that make the purpose of consensus obsolete? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit like being on parole – maintain good behaviour per the terms of your unblock. He accepted. Why should he be at leisure to ignore those terms just because "some time" has passed? Is a standard offer only a binding agreement until you get bored of it or because it hampers your editing agenda? If you think so, that kind of undermines the whole point of standard offers, designed to help once-disruptive editors stay on track. The socking issue was another discussion, I gather, but the terms of his unblock stand now, because he is editing now contrary to those terms. I wonder if the unblocking admin Prodego would agree with you the "who cares?" philosophy. — Marcus^(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Ping: I was surprised by a number of page moves all from X Campaign to X campaign. It was replied that mooted changes had been notified on the talk pages and that there was an N-gram giving campaign majority usage, which seemed to me to be insufficient. I thought that this N-gram was a blunt instrument that lacked qualitative validity. I think that Marcus is more right than wrong in this and that the proposer of Campaign campaign moves should bear the onus of showing why, not burdening others with the work of refuting his claims. Regards 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)

MarcusBritish, Incnis Mrsi, Nyttend: In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant. All users should avoid large scale, controversial actions. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In which case the solution is to block now, because Dicklyon has a history of large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, because he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop making large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves when those actions have continued from at least four years ago to the present. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Very few of my moves have been challenged or reverted, and most of the ones challenged were subsequently upheld in move discussions. If I made a handful of mistakes among thousands of uncontroversial moves, can I ask for forgiveness? I will, if you'll point some out. You can read about the one most recently reverted (by Marcus, as it happens) at Talk:Gettysburg_Campaign#Reverting_move; I don't see why anyone would consider that controversial in light of all the recent discussions reaffirming following WP:NCCAPS and such, but in this case Marcus just made a mistake in trying to check the evidence for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the only incident since that block. Looking at Dicklyon's pagemove log, which is long, I can see the now he mass-moved articles on lighthouses, which all got reverted (see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lighthouses#Naming_convention), and he also mass-moved articles on World Heritage Sites, also reverted. He had many other mass moves that seem to have stuck, including changing dash styles and capitalization in titles of train station articles. I'm not sure if these changes were discussed, as he doesn't link to discussions in his mass moves. Though he will apparently complaint about other people making "undiscussed moves" [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I made fewer than 100 lighthouse moves, based on usage in sources (was I wrong on any of those?). Sam Sailor subsequently (months later) moved about 300 lights and lighthouses to uppercase, without discussion. I had dropped out of that dispute pretty early when I saw that some controversy was developing; Sam jumped in after that settled down, and did them all his way, capitalized for no particularly good reason. I asked for some of Sam's capitalizations of longstanding lowercase titles to be reverted (see Someguy1221's link above), but Sam just did them again, so I stayed away after that. Those are the moves that should be challenged, since they violate naming policy and style guidelines. Sam hasn't been around recently, but if someone knows him maybe they can ask him what he was thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On the World Heritage sites, those moves were subsequent to RM discussions at Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_15_May_2018 and Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_27_August_2018 in light of which they had no reason to be considered controversial, if I read the history correctly. But Randy never gives up, and got it reversed later, so now all those titles violate WP:NCCAPS. Since then I stayed out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved about 900 rivers and creeks, too. Nobody complained or tried to reverse the decision that we had discussed. Nobody thanked me for all the work, either. I just keep doing my bit to improve the encyclopedia, mostly without controversy or fanfare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And I moved well over 1000 Jr and Sr bios per MOS:JR, and engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial. Similarly thousands of other dash and comma and case and hyphen fixes subsequent to clear consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has engaged in discussions at MilHist here, here and at Waterloo campaign. I have found their posts repeatedly aggressive and uncivil, rising personal attacks. The effect upon me is much the same as what they ascribe to the actions of Dicklyon. I find it unacceptable. These moves are IAW WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and criteria established by these. While objections have been raised to these moves, there has been little or no evidence presented, addressing the criteria, to retain caps. I find that the most controversial aspect of these moves/discussion to be the posts and conduct by MB. This has now been moved to MOS:CAPS. Let us hope that the discussion there does not reach the same level and focuses on the issues rather than following what has preceded. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim, whether direct or collateral, despite barely having conversed with me a month ago. I think he might be confusing my frankness and honesty for aggression, some of us don't beat about the bush, but the word "aggression" serves as a dog whistle when no examples are presented. Also, naming standards of articles are not likely to be determined here, so no point even discussing it. Although Cindy is wrong, core WP:V policy must be considered before invoking lesser MOS guidelines – N-grams cannot be verified so the moves fail to be IAW WP:V before they even reach MOS styling. Can't ignore WP:V just to turn a few C into c, that's beyond stupid – write the encyclopedia first, make it pretty later. I have to question your lack of integrity here Cindy, over-stating my behaviour simply because you support Dicklyon's position and don't want to see it undone. And yet one thing fails to escape me: you never lifted your finger once to help him move a single article, even though there are so many. You crop up in every RM he raises, giving you the image of a pandering "yes" man, and it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS} for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. Clearly you don't realise that two different RMs may not be seen by the same people, and therefore it becomes necessary to pose the same question at each. Your response was aggressive, perhaps because he sees the same flaws in your claims as I do... POV-pushing MOS standards over policy. Come back to me when you have clean hands. — Marcus^(talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help with the obvious meaning of CITEVAR

• KTM 390 series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FF9600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous 3RR complaint filed by FF9600 in December 2018

Regarding this refactoring of the citation style, removing list-defined references from KTM 390 series, followed by three reverts [2][3][4], it appears that FF9600 doesn't understand what WP:CITEVAR is saying, nor what the ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles means. List-defined references are a valid option, and once a consistent style is present in an article, it shouldn't be changed on personal preference, any more than English spelling should be changed, without consensus.

At User talk:FF9600, I tried to explain this, and suggest that if FF9600's changes are valid, it should be easy to get consensus from other editors.[5][6]. It looks like there's some history of unilaterally refactoring backend style variations, and sometimes stonewalling and edit warring, such as at Alfa Romeo 145 and 146 or Audi 80.

All I'm asking for is a clear warning to respect the WP:CITEVAR and similar guidelines to avoid creating disruption by picking unnecessary fights over personal preferences. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As already stated, WP:CITEVAR talks about change CITATION STYLE (e.g. APA style, Chicago style, etc.), not whether the ref's code is actually inline or tag & filled out in another section of the article. In addition the other linked "disputes", my edits were rectifying WP:COLOR & MOS:FONTSIZE, yet User:Typ932 wanted to OWN the Alfa Romeo articles, at which time I reported it and nothing ever happened.  #FF9600  talk 23:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that encapsulates exactly why I think intervention is necessary. You wrote on the 3RR/N "I know that technically User:Typ932 is not completely in violation of 3RR, but..." You report a 3RR violation while admitting that it is not a 3RR violation. And you demand action? It suggests you see what you want to see and ignore editors who try to reason with you.

Here, you want to wikilawyer the meaning of "citation style", as if CITEVAR is a narrowly written guideline. Even after I pointed you to the ArbCom ruling which said "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style." Does that sound narrow or expansive to you? The phrase "these include (but are not limited to)" suggests it is to be construed broadly. They aren't merely restricting "citation styles", defined narrowly. They mean the whole gamut of valid was of doing such things as formatting, spelling, or behind the scenes code, such as where citations are defined.

And does CITEVAR mention that specifically? Yes. You only have to keep reading:

To be avoided

When an article is already consistent, avoid:

• [...]
• changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

Changing where the references are defined. Changing to or from Help:List-defined references, the very thing this is all about. I'd like you to consider taking a breath and carefully reading the guidelines others have asked you to read before you carry on another of these edit wars. And, again, post a note on the talk page and see if there is consensus to support it. The whole reason restrictions on personal preference changes like this are necessary is so many editors who insist on reverting without giving time for the discussion and consensus process to happen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@FF9600: you're edit warring to violate a guideline while making personal attacks ("Just continue to be ignorant") in your edit summaries. You're lucky to not be blocked already, so stop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So unless @FF9600: or anyone else objects, in a day or so I'll be restoring KTM 390 series to this version to maintain the established list-defined references format. Feel free to propose a revision at the talk page to see if consensus supports such a change. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent harassment on other editors

Having been warned by admin EdJohnston [7] not to abuse other editors in edit summary, this user Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to harass me in his/her edit summaries:

diff[8]; diff[9]

STSC (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but those edits do not look terribl WP:NPOV. I asked them to explain what looks like personal attacks here.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This has been going on for over five years. I am getting exhausted with the total lack of admin action to address persistent, long-term political agenda editing that clearly violates the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. My concerns with this user are solely related to his editing behavior and I will adjust my future remarks accordingly. I am not "harassing" this user – I only encounter him when he returns from dormancy whenever there's a contentious Hong Kong issue in the news.

The edits don't look terribly NPOV because brazenly NPOV editors don't last long before being noticed by admin. The reason why this issue been so drawn-out is because STSC's edits are subtle. They subtly reflect the viewpoint of the Chinese government, or quietly downplay things that the Chinese government would rather people not notice. In most cases the edits just make the wording obtuse, disingenuous or are otherwise unconstructive.

Just look at this edit!. It's a patent falsehood! It serves only to prevent news of the pro-Beijing attacks from making the front page of Wikipedia, and exemplifies the kind of subtle, disruptive editing that has gone on for half a decade now. It's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Citobun: No offense, but have you considered this editor is just a regular person with a POV that you disagree with? Comments like this are not okay here. Instead of actually participating in the move request, you decided to bash another participant that you don't like. It hurts your cause and won't lead anywhere good imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Having witnessed a 5-year campaign of censorship and misinformation... no. I have now just run out of patience. Many other users have raised concerns over this user's editing in the past few years and nothing has been done. What is your opinion of this diff? No reliable source characterises the Yuen Long attacks in this way. NONE. Given past editing patterns, all signs point to this being yet another brazenly disingenuous political edit meant to censor this news from reaching Wikipedia's front page. Citobun (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Citobun for 31 hours because of these sustained personal attacks and aspersions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP is not here

92.234.228.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Random edits from November 2018 which are all vandalism. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

One should bear in mind that IPs often change hands. So it has been used twice - once to edit about football eight months ago, and once today to edit about religion. I don't think we can conclude a long term pattern. However, I've blocked it for today for trying to be offensive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Question: since it's probably a dynamic IP, shouldn't there be a template posted on their talk page so they know what's up? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's only a 24-hour block and the edits were vandalism. As the IP hadn't been used for nearly 9 months prior to today's spate of vandalism, I can understand why the blocking admin chose not to create the talk page with a block template. It just provides the vandal with more stuff to vandalize and eats more admin time. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood, was just curious! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:WhiteStarG7

• WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Falsifies information about the governor of Attica
2. Adds Francisco Franco to the list of presidents of the Republic (the caudillo Franco never presided over any republic)
3. Replaces Azaña’s portrait with one of the Caudillo and adds the Nationalists’ symbolic to the same article

It is also very probably that the user edits from IPs. I doubt that s/he is here for anything good. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Also engaged in useless edits switching the positions of United States and United Kingdom on the Western Front (World War II) article, which is completely unnecessary. Also listing people who weren't founders of nations as founders of nations (4th_of_August_Regime is not a nation) -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

During the last 18 hours the account made edits to three articles. In all three the edits were reverted (in two cases with an explanation). Admins? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Could someone quickly protect these pages please?

One IP-hopping editor is currently orphaning Template:Infobox India district at a pretty fast pace (examples: [10], [11], [12] . This is almost certainly the same editor who's been recently active in several TFDs for similar infoboxes (they all geolocate to the same city and provider, they all display the same strong opinions), so they know very well that they can't just orphan an established template like that without discussion. I can't reach them, as the IP is very dynamic: they make and edit or two and then the IP immediately changes. What is the best way to stop this madness? I'm thinking a temporary semi-protection to the pages that still transclude the template they're trying to orphan might help. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Adding that there we might also need a longer-term solution here. It's likely this isn't the only infobox this editor will try to surreptitiously orphan like that. They've been active for quite some time at TfD, and even though the community oftentimes ends up agreeing with their points, the way they go about making them is not always constructive (for an example, (see this long quite discussion and search for "canvassing). Now, I've reverted a few of their recent edits, and they've started stalking me (for example, reverting me on an unrelated article [13] or posting to my talk page about another completely unrelated edit I've done [14]). – Uanfala (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The ranges are 89.14.0.0/16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 78.55.0.0/16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), both on the same ISP. Pretty large ranges to block, but the template has 160 transclusions, too many to quickly semiprotect. I'm not sure here. {{|template|checkuser needed}} can you please check the ranges for collateral? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding that I very strongly suspect this a certain registered editor, who used to be very enthusiastic at TfD but stopped editing when a number of problems with their participation there started to get raised. That's not socking by any measure (I don't think they've ever been blocked), but it certainly appears like they're finding the absence of scrutiny afforded by a dynamic IP very convenient. – Uanfala (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I wouldn't hard block them, but you could anon only for a while, and an account creation block wouldn't cause too much collateral damage either. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala is known for disturbing infobox clean-up, including trolling in discussions, e.g. at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Template:Infobox Nepal district. He could explain his reverts, and e.g. explain his position at Template_talk:Infobox_India_district#Edit_warring. This is a content dispute. As clean-up is interrupted by Uanfala, a TfD has now been started: Wikipedia:Templates for_discussion/Log/2019 July 29#Template:Infobox India district. Additionally a user changed the protection settings without providing any reasoning, see Template talk:Infobox India_district#Template protection 78.55.29.138 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

While there may be a content dispute about whether this particular infobox should be used - and MfD is a reasonable place to discuss it, preempting the results of a discussion by deleting uses is a behavioural issue - which are discussed here - does this issue come under the existing DS for infoboxes?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, can you point to a policy that prohibits replacing a little used template with a much more widely used template? Anyway, as said before it is now on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 29#Template:Infobox India district. 78.55.29.138 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala against the mayority:
List of TfDs initiated by IP where Uanfala did show opposing interaction (not allways actually voting) - and no single resulted in keep (i.e. his position lost):

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 7#Infobox settlement wrappers - group TfD for 25 templates closed as no consensus, but each of the 22 that were put into a single TfD afterwards resulted in replace and delete
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Template:Infobox South African municipality
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Template:Infobox Nepal district
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15#Template:Infobox townlands
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 22#Template:Infobox Ukrainian raion
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5#Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Template:Infobox Palestine municipality

78.55.29.138 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC) // Strike + clarify 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @IP: please do not rapidly change your IP address if you are able to control it, it makes it very difficult to contact you. I realize that you may not have control over it, but if the only way we have to effectively get your attention is to block you, that's what we'll do. Also, you should presume that deprecation of widely-used templates will be controversial and start a discussion first to gauge consensus, rather than deciding for yourself on a course of action and boldly implementing it. Since you asked, the policy that prohibits such mass changes is WP:CONSENSUS.

Since becoming aware of this thread, the IP editor has stopped their mass-changes and has started a discussion at TFD, so I think we're done here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thank you. I confirm that I read this, and will try to have less IP changes. I will also not replace in India nor anywhere else Infoboxes without TfD decision to do so. 78.55.29.138 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, IP, for starting the TfD: that solves the immediate concerns. But could we also have an undertaking from you to abide by WP:CANVASSING? You were made aware of this guideline in last month's discussion of the Japanese prefecture infobox, but now I see that for the current TfD you again have notified only editors who are likely to agree with you. – Uanfala (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala please provide evidence for "but now I see that for the current TfD you again have notified only editors who are likely to agree with you" and show how abiding could have been violated. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I was able to trace four notifications you've made: [15] [16] [17] [18]. It's not clear how you've selected 1 and 2; #3 who you claim you've notified as the "second contributor" to the template (why him among the dozen or so substantial contributors?) is known for his very strong opinion pro infobox merges; while #4 is the person who previously nominated a similar template for deletion. Also, it's probably not a good idea to ask individual admins to close your TfDs: even if the admin you normally ask weren't known to have a bias that can be seen as favourable to your proposals, it at least appears like you're trying to rush people (remember we're all volunteers here). And on an unrelated note, your habit of responding to people who disagree with you in TfDs with screens upon screens of graphs and lists of other templates is at best a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF; at worst, it can be seen as an attempt to derail the discussion and drown out opposition to your nominations. – Uanfala (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala, as can been seen above from the other discussions you posted text to, you lost it all. On the other hand my arguments in words explained with graphics, statistics, lists and tables have convinced users. Don't you want that deciders have the best information possible avaible to decide on the topic? On the topic of "attempt to derail", I am not an expert for that, when looking at your contributions to the TfDs listed above, where you never supported, you seem to be much better here: making TfD personal, unsubstantiated claims marked as "rant" by yourself, pointing to prior "no consensus" with purely promotional "extensively", to some extend misleading old TfD pointer as later explained, another "old TfD" pointer, supporting FUD, etc. Regarding the selection of notifications: WP:CANVASS prohibits "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" - so I only notified four. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Campaigning" - so I made all my message neutral. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Votestacking" - so I selected people not one the basis of prior votes in TfD. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Stealth canvassing" - so I publicly posted on the English Wikipedia user talk pages. Regarding asking admins to close - I want to improve the English Wikipedia better today than next year. It involves many steps, a delay in one step may seem irrelevant, but one day for each of 1000 steps is 1000 days delay. Regarding "remember we're all volunteers here" - I remember that this is not true, it has been revealed that paid editing exists. But surely you can explain in more detail why you posted that claim here. Regarding "it at least appears like you're trying to rush people", I am not an expert neither, was it you who created the headline above "Could someone quickly protect these pages please?" and rushed into reverting contributions by a volunteer without giving a reason [19] which in itself might be a violation of editing rules, instead of starting a content discussion per WP:BRD at the template talk? 77.11.201.49 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala - what's up with your accusations? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just following up: when Uanfala first posted this thread I didn't realize this was the same IP editor who was badgering me earlier this month with demands to explain why I didn't see it as a problem that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada existed ([20], [21]) which they helpfully reminded me of this morning by posting a wall of off-topic images and tables in the discussion ([22]) as a reply to my stale comment from two weeks ago. I suppose that makes me WP:INVOLVED so if there is admin action to take here, some other admin will have to take it. At least to the extent that the editor's IP is still rapidly changing despite my advice further up the thread, they don't appear to be making any other deliberate attempts to evade scrutiny or to appear to be multiple persons, although there's this, or else they're just doing a really poor job of it. The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions is largely unhelpful bordering on disruptive, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, please read WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff you provided after your attack statement which they helpfully reminded me of this morning by posting a wall of off-topic images and tables in the discussion" is not from "this morning", nor is it "off-topic", nor does it contain any posting of an image. Re At least to the extent that the editor's IP is still rapidly changing despite my advice further up the thread - it does not really match, can you explicitely quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? Re The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions - where did that happen? Do you want to censor discussions? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  The above reply is descriptive of the just-off-topic-enough-to-be-disruptive nitpicking from this editor. To wit:

  1. The diff you provided after your attack statement is not from "this morning" - the editor can see from the timestamp that I posted my comment at 17:09 UTC yesterday, which they may not have known (but should have checked my userpage to find out before criticizing) is 2:09pm in my time zone. At that time, their comment (timestamped 12:31 UTC, 9:31 Atlantic time) did arrive to me (along with its ping, and several more from other comments on various pages) that morning. The timestamps of the various comments is also completely irrelevant, and demanding an explanation for it is gaslighting.
  2. nor does it contain any posting of an image. This is true. It was not "an image", it was a gallery of fourteen images ([23]). These are not the only graphics they have added to the discussion.
  3. can you explicitely [sic] quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? No, I will not quote it. See diff.
  4. Re "The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions" - where did that happen? All of the above, but also:
     • IP has replied to every single new comment in the discussion thread (except for one), often multiple times. In nearly every instance they also ping the editor they are replying to, sometimes (inadvertently by their own explanation) doing so twice by pinging them in their reply and again in their edit summary. (Admittedly this may be a bug)
     • Several of their replies have not been a substantive reply at all but only criticism of the commenter's choice of formatting, often with a veiled (or not-so-veiled) personal attack. ([24], [25], [26])
     • If a reply does not go in exactly the spot that the IP expects it, they criticize the poster and then repeatedly ping them to answer the comment again in their preferred location. ([27], [28])
     • If they don't get the answer they're looking for, they ignore the reply and simply restate the question. ([29] - in this instance they also moved Moxy's comment so that it appears to be a reply to the IP's question when in fact it was not; [30] - asking a repeat question days later when it was already answered)
     • Pinging an administrator they expect to be friendly to their cause. ([31])

  Thus, variously: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DE, WP:TPO, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVASSING. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• The badgering is pretty bad, yes. Just look at the last couple of screens in the Canadian province TfD, with the latest gems in the series [32] [33] [34] [35]. Given that this is not one-off, but a persistent pattern throughout most of their TfD nominations, I think some action is necessary:
  Proposal. This editor is banned from replying in TfD discussions. They're allowed one comment per TfD discussion, subject to the exception that they may reply to a question explicitly addressed at them. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala, you are known to have commented in several occasions against my TfD proposals, and in not a single of such cases the closing of the proposal resulted in Keep. Now you are campaigning against me on ANI and propose that my comments regarding templates and content be censored. Of the four diffs you provided three were related to editing - I usually don't make comments like these, because usually the editing style by the others isn't that disruptive. I know, some people assume blind users with screen readers don't exist, but there is even a wmf:Resolution:Nondiscrimination on that topic, cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot - Uanfala could start with applying "This editor is banned from replying in TfD discussions. They're allowed one comment per TfD discussion" to his own contributions to demonstrate how it works. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Just noting that after a side-discussion in the TfD about indenting in which the IP first made this connection to the accessibility policy, I invited them to continue the discussion on my talk page, as I am genuinely interested in how indenting either with or without a bullet is an issue for screen readers. As of this edit they have not accepted my invitation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposal per my comments above, but I suggest it include a ban from discussions about infoboxes broadly construed, noting an exception for TfD nominations and replying to comments specifically addressed to them. The editor might have good points about some infoboxes but they are being a fanatic about it and disrupting consensus-building with their obsessive bludgeoning. It would be better if they made their point and moved on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Struck my alternative suggestion, it's too broad. Their input on infoboxes is useful, their behaviour in replies is not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, thank you for the struck. Regarding your campaign list above against me contributing to WP:INFOCOL, what about putting that effort into content and templates? Double-pinging - I told you already that I didn't know it happened, why do you bring it up again. Etc. Looks all like a smear campaign by you and Uanfala - both of you opposing my views re WP:INFOCOL. And why do you run all this under "Could someone quickly protect these pages please?" - TfDs are normally closed after 7~10 days. There are only few low-inclusion Infobox settlement wrappers left, so it all will soon be over anyway. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic editor Joshuakodrat

This user continually adds unsourced genre's/content to articles (here, here, here, here & here for example) despite having already received 6 final warnings and a multitude of other warnings for the same reason on their talk page. To date they have made no attempt to discuss the warnings received. While this editor does edit constructively occasionally this disruptive behavior has been happening since April 2017. An admin reminding the editor the importance of verifiablity would be most appreciated! Robvanvee 14:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Their talk page is also full of warnings about uploading non-free content without it being used anywhere, and about how doing so is a violation of WP:NFCC, and a number of those warnings pertain to files they have uploaded several times after having been deleted for NFCC violations in the past. That's besides the several instances of adding unsourced biographical info about living persons, and the original complaint about changing genres without sources. They've had plenty of warnings and so I have blocked the account indefinitely. If they can convince an admin that they understand they're not allowed to do these things, I have no problem with them being unblocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Robvanvee 17:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and talk page guideline violations

I went to WP:DRN but was advised to move here. Azra Arda Gusema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly editing/reverting on multiple articles related to the Ace Combat video game franchise. This user is trying to add games to the franchise that are not officially considered to be part of the franchise. This has covered multiple articles, including:

• Ace Combat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ace Combat Infinity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Air Combat (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Ace Combat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Ace Combat series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I attempted to start a conversation with the user on their talk page, since this covers multiple articles and I could not determine which article's talk page would be best suited for this. After my comment on the user's talk page, they continued to revert my reversions. I posted to WP:DRN and informed the user about it, after which they still opted to ignore me and began changing my talk page sections, even after I warned them that doing this would violate WP:TPO.

This user is totally unresponsive to my attempts to reach out and settle our content dispute. If someone could help with this situation I'd greatly appreciate it. ~SlyCooperFan1 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

:This is all you need to know. The user has failed to find their talk page. A block that includes a link to their talk page(just in case they cannot see talk page messages) is the only reasonable way forward.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind they have talk page contents for their own talk page. However...this editing of user comments the following warning...

and the swift disregard of these warningshere look like a refusal to listen to sensible requests. I'll give them a bit more info.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't explain this. ~SlyCooperFan1 20:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I noticed I omitted user talk; my fault. I have left them a new message that will hopefully help them understand what they have to do.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Refuses to talk, still no edits to article talk pages, continues editing - block?Lurking shadow (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The user has now been warned on their talk page by an administrator against any further addition of unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edits from 2.122.0.0/15 range

What seems to be a single IP editor is making continual race/ethnicity based edits, which seem to have a common agenda that seems to me to be unhelpful See User talk:2.122.14.215 for more on IP ranges. Is this editing pattern familiar to any other editors here? -- The Anome (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC))

• I looked at a bunch of edits from three of the listed IPs--I see unverified edits, but I don't see a consistent pattern of disruptive edits, yet. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jayjg that this sort of thing is definitely problematic [36]. If there are more in the same vein, IMO some sort of block would be justified even if their edits are interspersed with okay edits. In answer to the original question, I recall Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#126.209.22.197 problematic editing but I don't believe they had a UK focus and IIRC most of their edits were clearly problematic. And also completely different ISP and geolocation. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• The underlying pattern here is a belief that various "white" ethnicities (German, English, Scottish, Irish) are the only legitimate inhabitants of countries like England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands etc. and that any other ethnicities (particularly Jews) living in those countries are not legitimate citizens, but rather "guests", "alien" or "minorities" living in their "host" countries. Thus David Cesarani cannot be an English historian because he's a Jew[37][38] Jews and Roma can't be national minorities in Norway because only "white" groups like Kvens and Finns are.[39] There is no such thing as a "Dutch Jew" because a Jew can't really be Dutch; rather, they are "Jews in the Netherlands". In fact, Jews aren't legitimate citizens of European countries, but rather live in "host" countries (the latter is a common antisemitic claim and tell). And, of course, Jews can't be white. Jews are "alien" to England, while whites are "native" to Britain.[40][41][That's why they also consistently change "English" to "British" in articles (sometimes legitimately) - because, to them, "English" can only be an ethnicity. The rest of their edits, for the most part, assign people to various "white" ethnicities (e.g. Ulster Scots, Irish descentIrish descent) based, I assume, on their last names. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The header of this complaint refers to the 2.122.0.0/15 range, but that is very broad. A lot of people from the /15 range are not this guy. The only ones from 2.122.0.0/16 which clearly are him are Special:Contributions/2.122.14.27 and Special:Contributions/2.122.14.215. There is also Special:Contributions/2.123.76.175 but it's from a different /16. It is not obvious there is any good rangeblock to use. The cited thread at User talk:2.122.14.215 mentions a bunch of 2.123.*.* addresses but those edits aren't quite clear. A lot of people are prepared to revert between British and English. It's one of our most popular revert wars. The best way to deal with this editor could be some well-placed semiprotections. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The ones that are clearly him are Special:Contributions/2.122.12.145, Special:Contributions/2.122.13.87, Special:Contributions/2.122.14.27, Special:Contributions/2.122.14.215, Special:Contributions/2.122.15.203, Special:Contributions/2.123.75.123, Special:Contributions/2.123.76.175, Special:Contributions/2.123.83.24, Special:Contributions/2.123.108.184. They go back over two years, and they're not too hard to pick out. As you can also see, they cover a large number articles, so I'm doubtful semi-protection will help much. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat

IP editor 2601:581:4502:96ee:d086:abea:bcd3:284a has posted what appears to be a legal threat at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne/Archive, of all places. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the range for a few weeks. of course since they used IPv6, not sure if they'll actually get the detailed block notice, but w/e. The SPI investigation is about a user who has attempted for years to spam content related to the client the IP claims to represent, though I have no idea what content there is that they allege is defamatory, as the only accusation made against their client by name is that he is not a notable music artist. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, after he used T-Mobile device to make the same legal threat here to ANI, from looking at deleted contribs on that same v6 range, this is Prince-au-Léogâne himself, trolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article they referenced in their legal threat was thrice-deleted in 2011, and they offered no links to this supposed "defamatory content", if it exists (or if it ever existed at all). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Neodymium29 NOTHERE

Given this edit, their first, I think it's quite clear that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. I suggest that an admin nip this in the bud and deal out the necessary indef. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

IP vandalism

IP continues to add (here, here, & here for recent examples) unsourced genre's to music related articles despite multiple warnings. Please could an admin take the appropriate action. Robvanvee 07:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a long-term genre warrior. I blocked for a week. It's not going to stop the disruption, though. When more show up, I can do a range block or page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. Yup, been reverting this myself for years. When I see it again (and there will be an again, as you say) shall I bring it here or, given your familiarity with the vandal, should I report it straight to you? Robvanvee 09:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You could report this disruption to me if you wanted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic IP

IP keeps repeating a controversial edit and refuses to engage in the discussion. Rather than that, he/she keeps reverting again and again and ignoring warnings. There are a total od 9 edits, and not a single constructive one. Sideshow Bob 08:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob, given that this history clearly shows you edit-warring and breaching WP:3RR and Talk:Greens (Montenegro) hasn't been edited since 2018 are you sure you want to be drawing attention here? ‑ Iridescent 08:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've warned the IP and left a message for Bob, but he is lucky no-one blocks him for edit-warring. He should know better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Delta Jackson

I just blocked Delta Jackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as being, or proxying for, Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bishop has a long history of sockpuppetry, and the blocked account is here primarily to engage in battle about a website with which Bishop is in dispute, note especially [42] referencing Bishop's website, which is blacklisted due to his spamming. If it is not Bishop or a close associate there are still significant WP:NOTHERE issues, including BLP problems. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you want another admin to do something? I don't quite understand what the "incident" here is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My guess is he wants admin eyes on the articles and pages Delta was editing, given the putative sockmaster. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just posting out of transparency, as Bishop attacked me personally via his blogs after he was banned so I like to invite independent review for the sake of transparency. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Harrassment by an editor

I am starting this ANI because for some time now I have felt harrassed by another editor, @Tvx1. Things have recently come to a head and I feel that the time is nigh for some kind of administrator involvement. I would like to spell out the nature and extent of his behaviour and also provide what I think is an appropriate course of action. Before I begin, please note that I fully acknowledge that I am no angel in some of these situations, but based on my interactions with other users, I often feel that Tvx1 deliberately tries to instigate conflict.

The nature of my complaint

My complaint centres primarily on what I feel is Tvx1's abuse of the ANI procedure. He has, on several instances, taken me to task at ANI with the clear intention of having some kind of administrator interaction. Each of these usually follow some kind of ongoing debate on an article talk page where I have not yielded to him. Some of the diffs that I will be using for this will go back some time, but I believe that these demonstrate the full extent of his behaviour. Examples of this include:

• Directly lobbying to admins to review ANI cases involving me, particularly when he feels that they are not progressing fast enough or are not progressing to his liking.
• Digging up ANI archives that were over a year old and presenting them as evidence of current misbehaviour. When taken in isolation, some of these are questionable as to whether they are actually evidence of what Tvx1 claims them to be, but when combined with others, may have more weight.
• Selectively reporting who he reports to ANI. In this instance, I had reverted the edits of a user who I felt was being deliberately disruptive after they insisted that edits be made to other pages before the article in question. Tvx1 claimed to have used his judgement to decided that the editor had done nothing wrong, but refused to acknowledge that I could use my judgement to assess the situation.
• Trying to get me blocked for edit-warring on a high-traffic page which he had no prior involvement with (so he had to be monitoring my contributions); the admin closed the report because the page was high-traffic and so could not justifiably be called edit-warring. Tvx1 was not happy with this and appealed directly to the admin to try and re-open the ANI report after the admin had closed it without going through the ANI procedures.

During this time, other, uninvolved editors have pointed out his behaviour as he clearly wants me blocked. Tvx1 claims to be upholding Wikipedia policies and to be driven by a desire to act in the interests of the articles, but he rarely reports other editors to ANI even when there are issues clearly worthy of admin attention.

Tvx1 has a habit of misrepresenting things in discussions. During a recent (now closed) DRN, I pointed out the existence of a previous discussion (albeit eighteen months old) and an editor who had agreed with me on the subject. Tvx1, however, claimed that "all but one" editor in the most recent discussion had supported him. I felt that this was a blatant misrepresentation of the situation because Tvx1 repeatedly failed to acknowledge the existence of the previous discussion or the editor who had agreed with me, even after it had been pointed out. I felt that all he had to do was say something to the effect of "sorry, I forgot about that discussion because it is a bit old", but he pointedly refused to. I can think of no reason as to why he would do this unless he wanted to continue to claim that it was a one-against-many situation. This is but one example of what I feel is Tvx1's blatant attempts to misrepresent things.

Furthermore, Tvx1 has a disturbing habit of monitoring my contributions page. On several instances he has acted or responded to things that I have done even when I have taken pains not to involve him. This aforementioned ANI report was made based on edits to an article that Tvx1 had not previously been invovled with. When I approached @Fastily to discuss whether or not I had a case to discuss at ANI (as I noticed Fastily had previously commented on Tvx1's talk page about similar issues), Tvx1 approached @EdJohnston to comment on my approaching Fastily. I had taken pains not to tag Tvx1 in my comment to Fastily because I did not want him to be aware that I was discussing his behaviour with an admin (and also because I suspected that Tvx1 was monitoring my contributions page). Considering the post that made, I feel that he is trying to pre-emptively address this ANI by getting an admin on his side.

I have from time to time raised these issues, but mostly in the context of responding to ANI. I have never put them all together in the one place before. Tvx1's response has usually been to deny wrongdoing, claim that he is being targeted with bad-faith accusations, extensive wikilaywering and trying to shift the focus of the discussion to someone other than him, all of which are patterns of behaviour that can be found throughout his editing history. Given the content of his post on EdJohnston's talk page, where he claims that I have "painted a false image of [him]", and suggesting that an administrator I approached for advice "unfortunately apparently still has an overly negative impression of me [...] judging by their replies seems to fully believe it", I expect a similar defence from Tvx1 when he posts here. I stress that I had never heard of Fastily until I went looking for diffs from Tvx1's edit history for this ANI. I only approached Fastily because I noticed that he had previously blocked Tvx1 for reasons similar to my concerns (for example, I had never even heard of wikilawyering until I read Fastily's post).

What I propose as a solution

My solution to this is two-fold. First of all, I would like an interaction ban put in place. I am quite happy for this to be a two-way interaction ban; that is, I have nothing to do with Tvx1 and Tvx1 has nothing to do with me. However, I am not willing to agree to a one-way interaction ban where I am banned from interacting with Tvx1 as Tvx1 is the editor who has been harrassing me.

Secondly, I would like to suggest a topic ban or at least an article ban. Looking at Tvx1's contributions reveals an unusual pattern. Like many editors, he has many topics that he is interested in. For example, Formula 1 racing the UEFA Europa League, and tennis. And as with editors with many interests, he often edits many pages within the scope of that interest. In addition to the Wimbeldon article, he has edited pages on Roger Federer, Simona Halep and the US Open, among others. And this is where the unusual pattern emerges—his contributions to rallying articles are much more limited. So limited, in fact, that he only edits one part of one article (such as 2019 World Rally Championship) at a time. He does not contribute any content. He does not correct errors on the page. He does not contribute to any related articles (such as drivers, teams, cars or events). His only focus when it comes to rallying articles is World Rally Championship season articles is specific sections of the current season article—usually forming and implementing a consensus. And the one thing that he has in common with each of those consensus discussions is that he opposes me in them. Tvx1 is well aware that I have a vision for these articles. A lot of the conventions of those articles are conventions that I developed, and I am quite proud of them; I also have more ideas that I would like to implement. I am certainly not claiming to own these articles, merely highlight that I have a heightened interest in them (see for instance Volkswagen Polo R WRC, which I got to GA status almost single-handedly). Based no his edit history and his unusual pattern of editing on WRC season pages, I believe that his actions constitute a further form of harrassment, deliberately trying to prevent me from forming a consensus. It is worth noting that his attitude in these discussions is hardly productive; whatever points that he raises are offset by his dismissive attitude, claiming that my concerns are "all in my head". Forming a consensus with Tvx1 often amounts to two sides emerging very quickly, then retreating to their respective corners and repeating their arguments over and over again ad infinitum until one side gives up and Tvx1 gets a consensus by forefeit. If one person should persuade another to change their mind, Tvx1 interprets that as being unreliable and therefore marginalises them. Once he feels that he has enough support, I feel that he shuts down entirely, waiting for the other side to give up because he does not need to address issues so long as he has the numbers. He turns the discussion into a battleground and I know of several editors who have quit Formula 1 articles in frustration. When he does not get his way, he finds a reason to go to ANI and report me. To his credit his most recent contribution to a discussion is actually a very good one because it addresses specific concerns, offers points for further discussion and it something that newcomers to the conversation can engage in.

Therefore, in addition to an IBAN, I would like to suggest that Tvx1 be banned from editing articles on the topic of rallying, or at the very least banned from editing WRC season articles until such time as he can demonstrate a sustained commitment to editing rallying-related articles in the way he does Formula 1, UEFA Europa League and tennis articles. If Tvx1 has an equivalent article or topic that he would like me to be banned from editing, then I am quite happy to negotiate that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I cannot reply which much more to these accusations than that Mclarenfan17 ((who originally contributed to Wikipedia as Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and in between changing accounts as an IP) has massively overreacted to what really is a minor issue. The basic facts are that we disagree on content. On the article in question I made exactly two edits to the article in question over the last week. I made the first one in good faith when I felt the discussion had run its course and there was a clear support for the proposal. This was escalated to DRN which was not used by Mclarenfan17 to discuss the content, like that venue request, but merely to criticize my contributions. They even tried to game the system by approaching the DRN volunteer directly to try to poison them against me. The DRN volunteer Robert McClenon subsequently closed the DRN thread. I then made the second edit to the article in good faith because I felt the DRN had closed without new agreement with Mclarenfan17. Following that I left the article alone and focussed solely on the article's talk page. Following that, Mclarenfan17 approached the specific administrator (an action I find particularly concerning) of whom they clearly know I was recently indef blocked by, and with whom I unfortunately have a very poor reputation which I seem unable to shed, and escalated this to ANI here.

I fully believe this is an unnecessary overreaction. I fully believe that we can still find an amicable conclusion to this. They accuse me of misrepresenting the situation by refusing to acknowledge that an older discussion on the topic exists. That is simply not true. I referenced it here (I do apologize for the strong words I used there) in the discussion on Robert McClenon's talk page and addressed it again on the article's talk page. Mclarenfan17 and I merely disagree on the effect the older discussion has as whole. They consider it leading and I strong reason that there is little merit in discussing the subject any further, I felt that the second discussion was a fresh start under the principle that consensus can change. The actually impact lies probably somewhere in the middle. That is an issue that could perfectly have been resolved though at WP:DRN. Thus is strongly believe that we can resolve this content dispute to mutual satisfaction. There a couple of options we haven't even considered (e.g. RFC) but it is even possible that this can be resolved by something as simple as asking an uninvolved person to come to assess the discussion.

Therefore I fully believe that we can still resolve this content dispute collaboratively and that this does not need to be escalated to a IBAN and or topic ban. I would be very difficult for me to agree to a two-way IBAN because that would effectively lock me out of the topics I most actively contribute to. I would have no problem to respect a topic ban on rallying if that is deemed really necessary, but in that case I would suggest Mclarenfan17 is subjected to a topic ban on Formula One and its feeder series broadly construed. My greatest concern though is that even if I am subjected to the proposed restrictions regarding rallying, it would only affect this case directly but would not solve the greater problems at that WikiProject. The thing is, I'm not by far the only person McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys has clashed heads with over a content dispute at WT:Rally. Other users like Klõps[43][44], Pelmeen10[45][46], Pyrope [47] among others. Two of those users have even been reported at ANI by Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys:12. Thus it clearly doesn't take me at all for a rather hostile discussion involving Prisonermonkeys/Mclarenfan17 to emerge regarding rallying.

I cannot stress enough that I hold no personal grudge whatsoever against this user. Over my over six and a halve years history I have actually agreed with this user just as much as I disagreed with them. If they genuinely felt harassed, I sincerely apologize for that as I had not intentions whatsoever in that direction. I sincerely believe that we can resolve the content dispute at hand in an amicable manner.Tvx1 15:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of response that I was expecting from Tvx1. His strategy is obvious: deny any wrongdoing, and try to turn the admin attention back on me. He claims that this is an over-reaction on my part and the product of a single recent disagreement despite the fact that I have been dealing with this behaviour for years. He then drags as many unrelated editors into the discussion as possible. This issue has nothing to do with any other editor but him and myself; tagging the other editors is merely a tactic for distraction and hoping that they will advocate for him. It doesn't matter what other editors think of Tvx1 because they're not being harrassed. He won't even accept responsibility for his actions—he says "if they genuinely felt harrassed", which is both conditional ("if") and clearly implies a lack of sincerity ("genuinely"). Despite claiming to have done nothing wrong, his counter-proposal of "a topic ban on Formula One and its feeder series broadly construed" is yet another example of harrassing behaviour, since Tvx1 does not edit Formula 1 feeder series articles (such as F2 2019 and F3 2019). There is no reason for me to be blocked from editing those articles. A TBAN on Formula 1 articles is disproportionate to the TBAN or ABAN that I am suggesting (I would be banned from editing thousands of articles whereas Tvx1 would be banned from editing hundreds); a TBAN on F1, F2 and F3 is completely ridiculous. As for his suggestion of two weeks, I was thinking more along the lines of two months. Or two years. Or better yet, forever.

As I said in my introduction, this is not the first time I have complained about Tvx1's behaviour—it's just the first time I have brought those complaints together into one place. His pattern of behaviour is ongoing, and he has previously been blocked and warned about this behaviour by admins for incidents unrelated to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not mentioned any time-frame regarding the proposed bans im my comment.Tvx1 21:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. I did write it at three in the morning, though. Still, I would prefer it if the IBAN and/or ABAN/TBAN was for am extended period. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment My views on based on rallying/WRC articles only. As I'm not familiar with others. Basically we have only 4 active editors in that subject, 2 of them involved in this discussion. Don't ban/block Why? Because Mclarenfan17 himself is very hard (childish) person to discuss something. Afaik, he has never (or rarely) had an intention to achieve a consensus, rather than talk and repeat his first opinion. Some discussions are just wasting everybody's time, when everybody has already expressed their opinion and one user singlehandedly is blocking a consensus (which he sometimes accuses of others). I'm not assuming bad faith, very happy for his enthusiasm. But sometimes feel he lacks empathy - not a person who is up for a teamwork (which Wikipedia is all about!). And worst of all, Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys (or IP editor in between) is very eager to jump into editwarring, when things are not to his liking. Everybody can check the histories of 2019 World Rally Championship, 2018 World Rally Championship etc. But with Tvx1, I've never had any problems. I feel he is much more of a teamwork person. He takes more time to discuss, and often expresses things to McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys that I'm not able (my English vocabulary is just not that good). Anyway, this ban/block seems ridiculous proposal - just discuss and move on. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no idea why you are in this discussion. It has nothing to do with you, and Tvx1 only tagged you to deflect attention away from himself. If you haven't had a problem with him, that's fine, but just wait until you have a disagreement with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Walls of text are not likely to get action, from experience. 2001:4898:80E8:8:A2A8:1492:2DE5:4C33 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment / Oppose ban - I can see both sides of this. On one hand, I don’t think that User:Tvx1 has deliberately attempted to antagonize the McLarenfan. I think that both users are operating in good faith and have made good contributions to the project. However, I found it somewhat disturbing that User:Tvx1 deliberately interrupted a private conversation between McLarenfan and the DRN volunteer Robert McClenon and literally ASKED to be reported to WP:ANI. In my opinion, this was poor judgment at best (see WP:BOOMERANG).

See diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=next&oldid=907923878

I don’t think that a topic ban for both would be fair though — for one, it would mean that eminently qualified and constructive users would lose the ability to contribute meaningfully to an underserved topics. It would be especially tragic to lose the contributions of User:Mclarenfan17, who had added a lot to the topic and has single handedly improved multiple articles in this area.

My preferred resolution is that both users submit themselves to community sanctions in be areas of civility, and mutual respect, and discussions, including a voluntary adherence to the 1RR and a commitment to work with a mediator for any future content disputes. The interaction ban should exclude talk pages for articles, but they should also commit to avoid provoking or baiting each other as was done during the DRN.

This would be a mature and respectful way to close out this dispute and create a path forward for a harmonious resolution. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Michepman, I’m willing commit to your proposals.Tvx1 21:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman — I am afraid that does not go far enough. Tvx1 has been repeatedly warned about and even indefinitely banned for this kind of behaviour (before talking his way out of it) in the recent past. One admin even suggested a limit on how much of the admins' time he should be allowed to take up. When filing ANI reports, he often insists that the subject (me) should be held accoubtable for their behaviour, but here he is refusing to accept responsibility. As you pointed out, he interrupted a private converastion (which he should have had no idea about unless he was monitoring my contributions) and asked for an ANI to be started; then, once that ANI was started, he tried to use that same conversation he interrupted as proof of my doing something wrong, all while trying to claim that he was innocent. Meanwhile, he had discovered another private conversation of mine and approached another admin separately about it, which arguably poisons the well, the very thing he accused me of doing. It's harrassment, it's mistepresentation and it's wikilawyering, the very things he was blocked for. His "[willingness] to commit to your proposals" means nothing when he cannot even acknowledge his own behaviour and instead makes his apology conditional while implying my feeling of bring harrassed to be an overreaction on my part.

Given the warnings and ban he has received and his insistence that editors be held accountable for their actions, a one-way IBAN and an ABAN or TBAN would be getting off lightly, in my opinion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't had time to review the content or the details of the conduct, due to a combination of real-world problems and other Wikipedia issues. I will say that I found both parties to be bellicose, and both wanted to treat a conduct-content dispute as a conduct dispute. Neither of them was trying to settle the matter peacefully, and neither was trying to be constructive at DRN. There is a content dispute waiting to get out from the conduct dispute, but it is likely to be stillborn due to birth injuries in getting it out. Both parties have behaved badly, and the sanctions should be two-sided. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon — in that case, could I please ask that you do read the entire post? You will see that the DRN only constitutes a tiny fraction of my complaint against Tvx1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon, I have no problem to admit that I did not behave in the best way during that DRN and I didn't really help the situation. I apologize for that. I do maintain however that I'm fully convinced that we can resolve the content dispute. The content disagreements we have are entirely of the kind that we should be able to resolve through a DRN process. I made a comment during the failed DRN to iterate that I was fully willing to continue discussing the content. I did not intend for that comment to mean that I didn't want to participate any further at all, but simply as a request for the comments against the contributors to stop. If it came across differently, I apologize for that.Tvx1 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Greyerieve

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greyerieve (talk · contribs)

Summary of their first edit is a straight-up nasty personal attack on Favonian. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE, probably a sock as well. – Teratix ₵ 11:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by CaradhrasAiguo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

These edits [48] [49] at WP:ITNC constitute a naked personal attack and violation of WP:FORUM. After multiple responses, including a warning from me advising them to remove, strike or otherwise modify their comment, they modified it here. As I am WP:INVOLVED I cannot act in an administrative capacity. However, IMO their behavior is deliberately disruptive and I think someone needs to have a formal word with them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

See also their just posted reply to my warning on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And I complied with your warning after receipt of your "message", as you admitted. Moreover, I honestly did not see the ITNC remarks by WaltCip et al until your post on my user talk. So what do you want out of this? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think your modified oppose is still over the top and inappropriate. You accuse another editor of bad faith IDONTLIKEIT voting while in the same breath referring to the music with the words "crap" and "degenerate." Really? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the overt criticism of the U.S., that was my intent of the modification. And as to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I think they were using a bad argument and misguided, that is all; nowhere did I imply that they were specifically was habitually resorting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT "argumentation". And if you still had objections to the modification (made at 17:14 UTC), you had more than enough time to notify me directly on my talk page or WP:ITNC instead of: A) waiting THIRTEEN FULL MINUTES to open this thread. B) resort to a venue you yourself purport to dislike. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

As you banned me from your talk page, further discussion there did not seem practicable. And I also note that your reply there seems to imply some kind of prejudice on the part of myself and the other two editors on the basis our nationality. There appears to be a recurring theme here. In any event I am prepared to let others review both of our editing history and draw their own conclusions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Can you explain what you meant by "The fact that three U.S. residents decided to react in the manner they did speaks volumes above anything I could ever verbally conjure." My geographical location is not relevant to my editing - I also opposed posting the Old Town Road story. You appear to have strong anti-Amercian bias.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I noted WP:ITN/C as another venue to express your dissatisfaction with the modification. Yet you, for some reason, chose not to. Enough said.

I made yet another modification, and will sign off to tend to actually significant matters for the next 36 hours at least. Am done with literal language policing of terms that apply to a poetry form (rap) and not an entire nation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Such behavior from CaradhrasAiguo is utterly unacceptable on ITN or anywhere on Wikipedia; it's offensive, dickish, and frankly bigoted. I hope that we don't see anything like this again, nor the combative nature that came with being called out on it.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm from New Zealand, not the USA.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 31 hours for their reprehensible behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the block, especially given CaradhrasAiguo's failure to grasp just how inappropriate their behavior was. IMO any experienced and uninvolved editor can close this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and harrassment by User:Knoxinbox

Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is single purpose account has a long history of making disruptive edits to the page International Relief and Development Inc. that whitewash or significantly downplay the company's history of fraud, waste, and abuse. User initially added copyrighted materials (I can't provide diffs, because most of the edits have since been hidden) in an effort to spam the page with content and dilute balanced prose. User then sought to delete content about why the institution renamed itself. More recent attempts have been to add puffery to the page and characterize the organization as a non-profit. User seems eager to revert important contributions, such as organizational improvements to the page. Request sanctions against the user and page protection to International Relief and Development Inc. for extended users. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am user knoxinbox. I confess that I am not a regular wikipedia editor and this is the first article I have attempted to edit. If I am not following best practices on wikipedia editing I apologize and am happy to revise the content I have added to better conform to accepted standards. I am also struggling to learn your tagging and formatting rules, but that is besides the point. I am not, nor have I ever been an employee of the above mentioned organization, however I had several good friends that were, which is why I am interested in it, and international development in general. The organization has a complex history and it has evolved significantly over the years.

This page is not well known and over the years besides Bangabandhu and myself, only a couple of other persons have tried to edit it. Bangabandhu holds a very critical view of the organization, often making unsubstantiated statements such as the above "company's history of fraud, waste, and abuse". It is true the organization was being investigated for about a year, but this is common in the International NGO world, and there were no findings of wrongdoing.

Bangabandhu has been very hostile towards myself and other editors who have attempted to enrich the article with content not related to scandals. Bangabandhu has frequently removed content without explanation, and at other times twisted the interpretation of the source material to sound more critical than it was. The user insists that the scandal of 2015 be the foremost (and only) thing people know about this organization. I have a wealth of other material, from high quality sources, that I am attempting to add to the page but Bangabandhu reverts my edits within minutes. It has been very frustrating. I would like Wikipedia administrators to advise on how to proceed. -Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll add that the page has long been the target of single purpose accounts. Perhaps these are the "friends" to which Knoxinbox refers? Impartial, experienced editors who have visited the page did not see any reason to take issue with the content. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You and I are the only people editing this page. It's an obscure subject that few know about. I am not a regular wikipedia editor, whereas you are. You have seniority in terms of wikipedia activity, but you are not a subject matter expert. All content you have posted so far has been related to the 2015 investigation and suspension - though you conveniently forgot to mention that the suspension was overturned that same year. I had to come along and add that (you subsequently buried it deep in the operations section).

You say everyone (except you) is biased. I say you have shown yourself through your own statements on the talk page to be very biased, and have made a toxic environment for the rest of us who are trying this for the first time. But without other stakeholders unfortunately it is my word against yours. My goal is to continue to enrich the page with material from varied sources that spans the entire life of the organization from 1999 to today. Good or bad.

And I still strongly believe that information on individuals, particularly salary information was put on the page by you, with malicious intent to publicly shame them. It doesn't belong on wikipedia and should be removed. -Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject matter expertise is irrelevant. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. The fraud, waste, and abuse has been extensively chronicled in reliable sources, including the Washington Post. There have been many efforts by other impartial editors to remove self-promotion and puffery. For example, see the "advert" tag that was appended in the 17:27, 4 September 2015‎ edit - I can't link to it, as the content was expunged when other editors removed promotional material that was copied verbatim from the organization's website. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

When making a report at ANI, you need to notify the user your reporting by leaving a message on their talk page as stated in red letters near the top of ANI. I have already notified the user in question via their TP. AryaTargaryen (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Thanks for letting me know, this is the first time that I've seen a situation that required this intervention. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Calvinkulit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Calvinkulit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2406:3003:2004:6A0:835:A534:19AB:FE6C/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Calvinkulit was indefinitely blocked on 20 April 2019. Coming across a range of IPv6 adresses, i think there might be block evasion going on (The dynamic IP started editing on 21 April 2019 (first IP edit [50]).

• A bunch of articles edited have a noticable overlap between Calvinkulit and the dynamic IP range. (examples: Tokyo Rapid Railway, Draft:Yurakucho New Line, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal, Nagano Shinkansen, Sotetsu Izumino Line, Wako, Saitama)

• On Shimbashi Station, one of the IPs from the range reinstated [51] a translation originally added by Calvinkulit [52].

• Template:Tokyo Subway (TSSN), on which Calvinkulit and the IP are the sole editors (Note that nothing else links to it [53]).

Another similarity of Calvinkulit and the dynamic IP is an interest in redirect pages, lately in merging articles.

Just sayin' that i could be in the wrong here. My thought might be proven false, then i'd owe Calvinkulit and the editors of that IP range an apology for accusing them of doing something they shouldn't.

Any thoughts? Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 00:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPI may possibly be a better venue for this. Also, the affected articles may need to be semi-protected via requests at WP:RFPP with the rationale of IP-hopping block evasion. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, this could just merit a simple rangeblock of as long as possible. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate to investigate. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Check out the revision history of Commons:File:700kei shiteiseki.jpg. I'll range block for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit summaries need revision deletion

Could someone please look at the contributions of Ludowypoeta (talk · contribs) and revdelete what needs to be revdeleted? Thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Long-term promotional editing by multiple single-purpose accounts in a biography.

See the article Thomas Salme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which concerns an individual who's sole claim to 'fame' is a conviction for illegally flying passenger jets for thirteen years after forging a permit, despite having no legitimate training whatsoever for the profession. And see also the article's history, which indicates that it was created by, and since largely been edited by, a succession of single-purpose accounts, which each seem to be able to supply entirely unsourced personal biographic data for this individual, along with vacuous fluffery about his 'amazing adventures', his life as a 'caring father', and his subsequent career as a photographer. And then see the sources actually cited: short pieces in the Daily Mail, the Sun, and the Daily Telegraph, all concerning his conviction. If this individual merits an article at all (which I'd have thought was at least open to question), it is because of his criminal behaviour and subsequent conviction, and accordingly the article should not be used as a means for what I think any reasonable person would assume was either self-promotion, or at best promotion of by someone closely associated with Salme. I recently cut the article back to what I considered reasonable coverage of the individual's claim to notoriety, but first an IP 79.12.244.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then a registered user Mistermancini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's sole editing history concerns the Salme article have reverted me, restoring the unencycloaedic promotional prose, accompanied by edit summaries which attempt (without citing any sources) to minimise Salme's criminality. Since I see no reason why Wikipedia should be used for such overt promotion of this individual, I ask that other contributors add the article to their watchlists, and that at absolute minimum User:Mistermancini be informed that such editing practices will not be allowed to continue, if it isn't deemed appropriate to block Mistermancini entirely. I have notified Mistermancini of this, as the latest single-purpose account involved, and for reasons I think should be obvious, I see no reason to notify the 'other' accounts that have relentlessly added much the same breathless prose to the article. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, I see that has now stated that "I have met Mr.Salme and is following his activities I know the facts more then you ar", [54] which appears to me to be a clear statement regarding a conflict of interest. Mistermancini should not be editing the article at all. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I've AfDed the article. Beware of the SPAs converging on the AfD however. Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, thanks. To add to the list of Mistermancini's apparent disregard for Wikipedia policy, I note that he is now accusing me of 'stalking' (difficult I'd have thought, when Mistermancini has only edited the one article), of adding 'wrong facts' (which I hadn't since all I'd done was removed unsubstantiated fluff, and hadn't added anything of any consequence, and of 'personal anger', which seems to be a classic example of projection more than anything. [55] 86.143.229.185 (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

And on it goes: Mistermancini is now edit-warring with multiple contributors in an apparent attempt to whitewash the article. A section entitled 'Conviction' has now been renamed as 'Light fine'! [56] 86.143.229.185 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I indefinitely blocked him. This is not someone here to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)