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

User:Jack Sebastian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Darkknight2149: You may not be aware, but Jack Sebastian and an editor you pinged in the above comment are subject to a two-way interaction ban.[1][2] If the editor you pinged were to comment here, he would likely be blocked, and if Jack replied to you he would run the risk of being accused of skirting the boundaries of the ban, and while I don't doubt that it was a good-faith mistake on your part, it might be a good idea to blank or strike the last sentence of your comment to avoid giving the appearance of trying to bait Jack into violating his IBAN. I looked into the dispute between the users in question back in December, and while there was certainly mudslinging on both sides I found Jack to be generally the less aggressive of the two, so he should not be expected to stand by while something he supposedly said about another editor's child (!?) is relitigated on ANI months after he agreed not to interact with that editor again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Darkknight2149: You need only read any of the articles he works on to see SYNTH, inappropriate use of dated/unreliable sources and other problems rampant, and if you try to fix them you will be met outrageous incivility like this. When one raises a legitimate concern that presenting the Chinese reaction to a film as the one represented by racist internet trolls is inappropriate, he randomly makes it about "liberal vs. conservative".[3] Nearly all of these battles have started at these article and with users that edit such articles, and Sebastian has a larger editing range than just Marvel TV/film. Given that the others have contributed moreso to most of these articles, and that Sebastian has been quick to edit war and initiate disagreement in a confrontational manner, it would be far more reasonable (in my opinion) to ban him from these articles than every other editor he has come into contact with. You should read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; certain editors in an echo chamber have been forcing out the opinions of the wider project, writing articles based on their own poor sourcing standards, pushing them through GAN (which, I can attest as the nominator of a bunch of GAs myself, is not a very scrutinizing process -- most of my reviewers have not even been able to read the sources, but didn't even bring that up), and then using the GA status of the articles to auto-revert edits they don't like. ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, it deals with incidents of incivility and disruption. Actually, ANI doesn't deal with content disputes when all there is is a good-faith content dispute; it deals with edit-warring, violation of content policies and the like all the time, and in fact TBANs are hardly ever placed solely for "incivility" without even looking at the content, as this would be a very bad precedent. And you don't seem to have understood the circumstances that led to the IBAN you have now brought up for the third time (again, this is looking increasingly like baiting) -- it was an unfortunate compromise to get the filibustering to stop, and I know because I was the one who spearheaded it, and it actually spun out of the same Adamstom/Jack dispute as this, which Adam initiated by making a comment that anyone who lives in Asia would very likely interpret as racist, and then ragging on Jack for months with the "I'm not a racist" non-response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated BLP violations at Sabrina Schloss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've just asked[4] Administrator John (read his response above me in this thread) to review this afd that Makro just started and to read my response[5] to something Makro wrote there....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Bulk revert needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template editor needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP violations and edit warring by BigDwiki

• BigDwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jazz Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite an 8 year tenure on Wikipedia, BigDwiki seems unfamiliar with WP:BLP. This user keeps adding poorly sourced edits to Jazz Jennings to include her deadname, despite WP:BIRTHNAME and past discussion on the article's talk page. The user offers Youtube and voterrecords.com as a source. This is a clear violation of BLP in an area under discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was in the middle of adding a new section here when this one popped up, so I'll respond here. There appears to be an edit war going on at Jazz Jennings. Despite consensus on the talk page, and plenty of sourced contributions, several editors want to continue to revert edits and claim that they are "vandalism". Youtube is indeed a reliable source. The subject of the article plainly states on his/her own Youtube video that "my legal name is Jaren", and thus it was added as a source and added to the article. There seems to be a steady beat of editors adding the subject's real legal name to the article, and then having it reverted as "vandalism" by activist editors that are dead-set on keeping the subject's real name out of the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You can also stop templating me... but I'd love to see this supposed consensus on the article's talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please describe your logic when you have left me three such templates.BigDwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I left 2 warning templates. When I realized you'd been here 8 years, I took it to ANI instead of AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the issue at-hand here rather than go off about "who can template who". Warnings get left; people get templated. It's not a big deal... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If they've stated publicly that their legal name is Jaren, why is that a BLP violation? Natureium (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BIRTHNAME. This is not widely published info. I'm sure you're aware of the issues surrounding deadnames with the whole Chelsea Manning naming issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That's just it. It's not a violation. Both the video on the TLC episode page as well as the Youtube video state it. https://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/i-am-jazz/videos/jazz-and-jeanette-at-dmv BigDwiki (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not. Manning's current and former names are both widely known as they were a public figure before and after transitioning. What's the BLP issue? Natureium (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I don't know if we have a reliable source for the spelling of that name, but in my view the main content problem here is the surname, which has been discussed multiple times without anyone ever providing a good enough source for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC x3) The Wikipedia manual of style does state that someone's name should be listed as the name they are famous under, and a name no longer in use should not be stated in the lead unless the subject was famous under it. The person in question was not famous under their birth name. Thus, if included in the article, it should not be in the lead. After looking in the aricle, BigDwiki seems to want it to be in the lead, when, frankly, much like the Laverne Cox article, it does not belong there. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is in the lead or not is not a concern of mine. As long as it is included in the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You most certainly do not have consensus for such an edit. And I would object any proposals that include "sources" like that mocking book or non-RS like voterrecords. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You are free to object, but I find that you are obviously very biased in this transgener/LGBT topic withj your reverts. You've called criticizm "mocking book", yet consider pro-transgender articles as fact. Also, you're convieniently dodging the Youtube and TLC network sources where the subject clearly and undeniably states that his/her legal name is Jaren.BigDwiki (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge my biases and that this topic is personal to me. Were I an admin, I would still have filed here at ANI because of that "involvement" with the topic. But my reverts don't make me "very biased" and I do not "consider pro-transgender articles as fact". Rather I understand the science behind these topics decently well enough and I am familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules and practices in the topic of trans issues. We do not include Laverne Cox's deadname, even though I think you can sources similar to the TLC clip. Why? Because of BLPPRIVACY, BIRTHNAME, and WP:HARM. Too often editors wish to add deadnames to shame or humiliate trans people, but claim it's for "the record" or "readers' information". The person's birthname in these cases adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

BigDwiki, from looking at the page, you were edit warring to include their dead name right after the person's preferred moniker. This is generally inadvisable, and goes directly against our style guide. Whether or not it was a concern of yours, your inclusion of it there has become a concern. Further, wikipedia does not care about, as you put it "real names"; We care about the name a person became notable under. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've left formal DS alerts on both the BLP and GamerGate cases. If this behaviour continues, I believe it would be topic-ban time. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this "behavior". As far as I see it, adding a properly sourced contribution to an article leads you to the conclusion of "topic ban time"?BigDwiki (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Properly sourced to YouTube? Try indef per CIR. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• On one level I can understand the issue: the MOS sections on birthnames are inconsistent in their intent, and the one being applied here would appear to violate WP:NOTCENSORED, especially considering who the source of the information is. On the other hand, the politics of the matter are clear, and BigDwiki needs to drop the stick and give up. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban

• After reviewing the article, it's talk page, and associated sources, and considering the DS at WP:ARBBLP and BigDwiki's apparent intractability on this issue, I'm proposing a Topic Ban from BLPs, with a duration to be determined. I have full protected the article for avery short time until this issue is resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support BigDwiki's use of such phrases as "his/her real name" shows a rather dire misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies on such matters, there was a claim of false consensus, and he seems rather hostile towards any who disagree with him. I'd suggest a ban until such time as he has shown significant improvement in these areas. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per Icarosaurvus above. 68.42.64.71 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)— 68.42.64.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose He edited a single article, was reverted, and took his concerned to AIV and the talk page which was proper. Banning him considering he has been here for eight years without any blocks or violations is a heavy handed move and smells like oppression because he seems to obviously have views That some people would like to suppress. It looks like the only mistake he made was editing the wrong article where people are extremely heated to begin with. 107.77.253.5 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is totally out of line. BigDwiki (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll join the IP-contributor bandwagon. This is an over-reaction right now, and if disruption continues it can be implemented as Discretionary Sanctions. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no BLP violation. Sources support the edit and there is no suggestion the subject objects to its presence here or elsewhere. This is an MOS dispute. We don't topic ban for MOS disputes. Close, and take this discussion to the article's talk page. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

    I think there seems to be some confusion here. The inclusion of the legal first name is a MOS/editorial discretion issue, but the inclusion of the legal surname is a BLP issue—unless better sources can be found, including the surname is a WP:BLPPRIVACY problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose (at this time until I read more arguments here), as no previous sanctions or administrative actions have been attempted or imposed against this user before. The issues are very problematic, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But banning someone should mean that we have tried other methods and actions to correct this behavior and they have not worked, and that a ban is the logical next step necessary to stop the behavior and prevent additional disruption to the project. I think that we should attempt to impose a less-severe action in this situation, and then consider proceeding if the issue continues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I agree with Oshwah. User was disruptive, but too soon for tban. Tban should be a near last resort imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting how a provocative suggestion like mine can be a useful tactic to stimulate some comment. That said, EvergreenFir, it begs the question as to what you hoped to gain by bringing the issue to ANI in the first place. It's either a run-of-the-mill content dispute, or a serious BLP/DS issue - what is it to be? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: My hope was that an administrator would intervene and stop the disruption should it continue or that the request for such an intervention would stop the disruption, which was the case here. This board is for cases where there's not clear vandalism but there is clear disruption and that administrator intervention may be required. When I filed, it was not clear that the user would stop but it was clear that AIV was not the appropriate forum. My desired outcome was for the disruption to stop and possibly a block if it had continued or a warning if it had stopped. I do not think of topic ban is out of the question especially should the behavior had continued. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There is and was no "disruption". As multiple editors have pointed out here, there isn't even clarity on whether a BLP violation occurred. It is my position that no violation occurred. If a violation occurred, there would not be so many editors saying that there was no violation.BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no BLP violation here, just emotionally-charged editors arguing. Natureium (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfect summarization of the situation. BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's a discussion happening on the article talk page. Why don't we take this and put it there instead of here? GMG^talk 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support regrettably - BigDwiki is still showing WP:IDHT type behavior on the talk pages, despite multiple explanation as to why his sources will not work in the article, and worse, fail WP:BLP  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  12:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read further down the discussion that you lent to, you will see where another editor has analyzed the same question that I raised, and then analyze your response, and found that there was no violation. There seems to be the same number of people accusing this of being a violation as there are people saying that it is not a violation. BigDwiki (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not even close to being a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Have we learned nothing from the Manning case? The use of the phrase "his/her real name" appears to indicate an ideological agenda at work. Gamaliel (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

By this same logic, which I’m not saying is accurate, how is it not an idiological agenda to promote something along the lines of “her name”? BigDwiki (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The MOS, reflecting tons of discussion, follows in the footsteps of other mainstream outlets in instructing users to use pronouns and names conforming with that person's gender identity. Repeated refusal to do so is disruptive and tendentious. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It actually states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." in addition to the gender-identity section. "His/her" is certainly neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is talking about generic contexts (the next sentence is "For example, avoid the generic he."), not about referring to individual transgender people. For this issue, the relevant section of the MOS is MOS:GENDERID. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: are you seriously suggesting using "his/her" in reference to a trans girl is remotely appropriate? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that it is neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: so you think it's appropriate? Shall we use it on all articles then? Or perhaps singular they? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• support Whether or not one agrees with the MOS on this (I have my issues, as I stated above), the onus at this point would be to achieve a different consensus instead of doggedly defying what we have now. I also see similar issues with other BLP disputes (e.g. at Sandy Stimpson; see diff) where there are problems about inclusion of material. The arguments show a failure to appreciate the matters involved. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - "his/her real name" is unacceptable verbiage, and to claim that it is "neutral" shows a profound lack of understanding. To protect the encyclopedia, a topic ban seems to be a very sensible measure. --bonadea contributions talk 22:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - It's hard to take a BLP report seriously when the reporter turns around and opposes a BLP topic ban. Also I can sympathize with the users who don't buy the BLP argument. The content is sourced and not really contentious in terms of accuracy. However that doesn't change the fact that disregarding MOS rules so that you can use a article to "deadname" a trans subject is extremely tendentious and certainly demonstrates a highly warped view of "neutrality". A block is not debatable if this behavior continues, or perhaps a TBAN from LGBT BLPs. I would be inclined to discretionarily implement either of these immediately if issues persist. Swarm ♠ 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: please see my explanation above. I came here because of the incident, not for a topic ban. When considering the proposed topic ban, I know my personal views on this topic may cloud my judgement, so I was airing on the side of caution intentionally. However, to be honest, given the user's responses above I am warming up to the idea of a topic ban. They seem to have no inkling as to why their behavior is problematic. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, particularly given the "his/her name" thing above. That BigDwiki thinks that's "neutral" language shows that they either do not possess the understanding of policy needed to edit in this space, or their own opinions are making them unable to edit appropriately here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban, but I would have no problem with the outcome being that BigDwiki is given a warning that describing a trans person's birth name as their "real name" is exceptionally offensive, and will incur a block if it happens again, as it would then be a deliberate act (at the moment I'll assume good faith and believe it was done through ignorance, not malice). Fish+Karate 09:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User:31.154.71.87 and Israel-related edits.

(Originally posted at the NPOV noticeboard, [6], was told to bring this here.) This IP, which can be traced to Israel, might not be adhering to NPOV, at least it seems to me. All these edits take place in the last month. 90% of their edits have been on Israel related pages. User unironically cites NPOV in many edit summaries but respective edits themselves are misleading or disruptive. I have left messages on the user's talk page, but there has been no response, and editing pattern is continuing. I should note it is notjust myself who has reverted these edits. Also User:Cakerzing,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The user seemingly implicitly supports the IPs bias ([7]) with "the IP was correcting an error (not perfectly)]" This is whitewashing of the issue, especially taking into account the edits, of which, this user deleted the information and did not indicate why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Boomerang - R9tgokunks support of placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories is untenable and a WP:CIR issue (particularly when repeated multiple times and refusing to acknowledge the problem with such an attribution). He has also reported me in the struck out portion above and failed to notify me properly. Not only that he has violated 1rr on an ARBPIA related edit [8][9] (the UN resolutions in question are related to the Israeli-Arab conflict) and after being alerted to sanctions and asked, in a friendly manner to self revert, filled my talk page with personal attacks and accusations in [10] (and 10 subsequent modifications). His accusations of hounding, based on interaction on NPOV/n which I have watchlisted and 2 articles (which I think were in the NPOV board post) are simply odd. Note that after the long discussion above he still has not self reverted the alleged 1rr vio.Icewhiz (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Addendum, I do apologize for mistaking another user with R9tgokunks in referring to one pf the edits he posted on npov/n. That was a mistake on my part (however, it was not my intention to lie as per written on my TP). I struck out my mistaken stmt where it was made upon being notified that I was "lying".Icewhiz (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible AFD or soapbox?

I recently came across an article that seemed very peculiar to me. One which I think may be WP:FRINGE, and would appreciate an admin to have a look.

Aleviler was created on April 2009 as a redirect to Alevism. However, on November 2013, edits began by an anonymous IP [11] that had created an article with nothing more than a list, a categorization of multiple sects and faiths. What is the purpose of it or the message the subject conveys? Who knows. I've just tagged it with a {context} template.

Another burst of edits was made on February 2014,[12] this time adding a "Further reading" section full of books to do with each of these religions (which all have their own articles, mind you). Then another burst on 3-7 March 2018, changing the list and adding more sects to it [13].

There are inline citations besides each line, but they are either inaccessible or the ones which are seem to have nothing to do with the topic itself (if there even is a topic, as the lede is vague). It'll reference an inline citation next to a sect name, and the link is mentioning the name of that sect, but what that's supposed to mean is unclear. It merely gives the appearance of a "well cited" article. DA1 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! these sound like items to be discussed on the talk page of the article. Or you could edit the article, or tag the article or leave a message on the talk page of the person making objectionable edits. It does not look like a case for the administrators to intervene.104.163.147.121 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I could have done that, and it could have sat there without a response. The point of contacting an admin was to verify whether the article has encyclopedic value, and/or are some of my concerns valid at all. The entire article was written by several IPs. I've only just added an AFD template on it as well earlier today, I am open to discussing it on the article's talk page. DA1 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• @DA1: The PROD has been contested so I sent it over to AfD. Feel free to argue your case further there if you feel like it, but an AfD should provide the clarification you're seeking. Swarm ♠ 12:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Passing of Alice Dacuba

• Moved to AN Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am literally being stalked on wiki by EdRivers56, Aquillion, and Davey2010

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

---

• EdRivers56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EdRivers56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aquillion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The New York Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is literally stalking my edits and undoing them, and also visiting several wikis and removing large areas that are located in the controversy section that are at least a few days old. This began all at once on March 31 in a matter of hours. I have already sent them a message on their talk pages as well as on some of the articles' talk pages, and yet I am randomly given a warning about 'edit warring' and being blocked by a 'third person' (Davey2010), however the other person (EdRivers56), was not warned. (Davey2010) is also visiting the other wiki articles that this person has undone that has removed entire sections of controversy, w/o any explanation, for example for the Daily Mail, and reverting all of their edits. EdRivers56, is claiming that the statements in the article do not identify the Daily Mail as the source of controversial information that was given out. Instead of only removing that section and discussing it, they remove entire sections that have nothing to do with it and that have reference links directly to the Daily Mail article where certain "controversial" things are located. There are also reference links to other news websites that also say that it was the Daily Mail who made those comments. Sock 3 Davey20010, is reverting all of EdRivers56 edits, without any explanation of the reverting. Aquillion has also deleted entire areas out of the controversy section for The New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb217 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kb217: As the edit notice for this page says, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." Please do so. Also, your sockpuppetry report was completely baseless, so I deleted it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

DoRD, NeilN notified those users. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I simply spotted an editor adding a hell of a lot of content (and then saw it being reverted), Upon investigating I came to the exact same conclusion as EdRivers56 hence my reversions .... I will add I've reported the editor at AN3, Anyway this whole "You're a sock who's stalking me!!!" is laughable at best, I would suggest blocking per CIR. –Davey2010^Talk 14:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kb217: You've now been reverted by four different editors with explanatory edit summaries and this causes you to make accusations of socking, stalking, and vandalism. Have I got this right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kb217: And in your edit summaries you're calling editors who disagree with you "vandals" and "idiots." Do you see a problem with this? Acroterion (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't, then I think we're looking at a block here. So Kb217, please read WP:BRD and WP:NOTVAND and explain how you're going to change your editing behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, I've never even edited the BBC or Daily Mail articles (something that surprised me a bit given that they are within my interests, but they weren't even on my watchlist previously), and only reverted you once in a single series of edits, for the reasons I explained. I was completely unaware of any other disputes you were in and AFAIK we've never interacted before (although for what it's worth, if I had checked and noticed you were adding the same text to multiple related articles, I don't think that that would fall under stalking - WP:HOUND allows for following up on a user's edit history for the purpose of correcting related problems on multiple articles, and adding nearly-identical text on the same topic into multiple articles, as you seem to have been doing, certainly qualifies. But, again, I wasn't aware of that when I reverted you and did so solely because the addition seemed out-of-place in that article.) I can understand why it might make you feel put-upon when independent editors raised similar-but-separate objections to your actions on similar pages in a short timeframe, but the common thread here is you and your actions. And generally speaking, it's not unusual to encounter some pushback when adding a large amount of text to the controversy section of a very high-profile subject like these, since they're controversial topics that have had a huge amount written about them, meaning that there's inevitably going to be WP:DUE weight concerns and the like. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

They're literally stalking your edits, Kb217? Is that as opposed to one figuratively stalking your edits? If your report here is indicative of how you write, your edits need to be "stalked". Writing in silly teenager vernacular is wholly inappropriate here. This is a formal document. Facebook is that way ==>. John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone should right an essay about competence does not equate to socking?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of mere rumours and speculation on a BLP (Dan Schneider (TV producer))

Could we have more eyes on that article, since I intend to go to bed soon. The article is PC-protected, but the rumours ("sourced" to Deadline Hollywood and Huffington Post...), are now being added by autoconfirmed users, including a user adding it back again after being reverted. And mere rumours and speculation (about why he and Nickelodeon parted ways), sourced to digital gossip rags, should IMO not be added to BLPs... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Patriciamontazaah

Not sure where else to post this. Patriciamontazaah first appeared on my radar with a couple of unexplained page blankings here, here, here, and Special:Diff/833536742. That's just the immediate set that I could find.

After being warned by myself and other users, I noticed this message on the talk page. Assuming good faith, I, as well as General Ization (talk · contribs) and HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) took the time to explain that a sizable amount of content was removed, and that it would be reverted barring a reasonable explanation for why the edit should remain. On User talk:Patriciamontazaah, HickoryOughtShirt?4 asked the user again to discuss edits on the talk page, where the conversation took a turn for the bizarre.

Judging from this user's bizarre behavior and unexplained repeated page blankings, I think it's pretty clear that they're not here to build an encyclopedia, and even if it isn't intentional vandalism, it's still disruptive nonetheless, despite the fact that numerous editors have tried to offer guidance. In any rate, WP:CIR comes to mind, and my interactions with this user are concerning, in that sense. Sierrak28 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I just notified them. I agree with the above. I am trying to assume good faith here since it appears they speak tagalog [14] but their edits are frustratingly lacking competence. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What is this all about? Okay fine I'm really really SORRY for what I've done to the administrators. I just want to impress my feelings to Orlando Bloom. Thanks to @HickoryOughtShirt?4 for helping me and talking to me on what I should do. Thank you for your kind consideration. ~~~~ Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciamontazaah (talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

{ping|Patriciamontazaah}} Thank you for the comment. As I am sure you know now, Wikipedia isn't the place to express fondness for an actor. However, it doesn't explain odd edits like this [15] where you oddly changed the date of a source. I checked the URL and the date stated was right. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, broke the ping, Patriciamontazaah. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Most likely an April Fool's troll. I would hope. Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 19:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:MAXNP

• MAXNP (talk · contribs)

The rate at which this user is "welcoming" new users is a bit concerning (WP:GAME may be involved here...?). Can an admin please look into this? Thanks. 83.53.215.247 (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Everyone have right to welcome new user and i am welcoming individually and not any WP:GAME is involved here. MAXNP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Why was MAXNP blocked? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It was a check user block. Sock of Gaurav456. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Incivility and failure to communicate

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

Example breaches;

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

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

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

89.240.143.247
92.10.182.248
2.28.13.202
92.10.177.190
92.10.188.218
92.10.184.187

and I could give you A THOUSAND MORE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:HHRIA123

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jvfmgnlllj

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

Same advice as above I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nov3rd17

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

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

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

Violation of IBAN by Alansohn

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

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

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

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

The IBAN has a matching TBAN Baseball Bugs. It's hardly bogus and is easy to follow. Alansohn has zero edits [16] to the page nominated to AfD and zero reason to be on that page. Rusf10 is 100% in the clear here on his restriction. I'd be all over Rusf10 too if he was flaunting his TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate removal of NPP rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidelines for revocation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as for my new page patrol history, I've been doing this for years without incident: [17] And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• While I have never been a fan of unilateral removal of user rights unless in extreme situations, this is certainly within the administrator's discretion; for relevant revocation criteria, see WP:NPR #Guidelines for revocation. Given diffs provided above, this is a case where a largely inactive user made a grossly bad call, and continues to insist that they are correct despite of comments from several other experienced editors (including the administrator that they have apparently "misunderstood" and misquoted). This is a not a editor that clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control, therefore I endorse the removal of NPR flag. This thread should be closed. Alex Shih (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Kudpung has hit the nail on the head and I'll repeat it here: "What's so important in having a user right if one has no intention of using it? "[18] - WP:NPR does clearly state and I quote " to have made at least 500 uncontested edits to mainspace articles" .... And Adoil Descended you haven't even hit 100 edits since 2012 and as noted above you don't even use the NPR tool so the millionaire dollar question is Why on earth are you making all of this fuss over something you don't use ? ....

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

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

For an example of a new article cleaned up by Adoil, see [19]. There are many changes that need be made or at least tagged if he were patrolling this article. I agree with the removal of the right. We don't need articles half-patrolled. Natureium (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Detektyw_z_Wilna

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply from the accused

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

Now let's deal with specific accusations:

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial censorship issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested solution

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

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

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

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

Detektyw z Wilna's absurd attempt to hide this investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

• placing it prominently in the "Early life" section, where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation. This was removed several times [20][21]
• highlighting the one-paragraph incident via a subsection header in violation of the spirit of the RfC consensus and WP:WEIGHT—this numerous times after being reverted: [22][23][24][25]

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

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

With regard to alleged antisemitic comments—they are about a particular quote Ford made in response to allegations that his brother, Rob Ford, had used a number of racist epithets (for Jews and other ethnicities). I has been questioned whether the quote—especially when quoted at length—even belongs in the article or whether it is simply WP:COATRACKing anything to make Ford look bad. Nixon Now has responded to concerns that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Antisemitic comment by brother by expanding the text there, and again has editwarred to keep it in: [26][27][28][29]. Again, WP:BLP calls for disputed edits to reach a consensus before they can be included, not the reverse.

More editwarring:

• removing text in which a political rival, Jagmeet Singh, made positive comments about Ford: [30][31][32][33].

to keep in a bit about a John Oliver comment: [34] [35][36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • The IP on the 3RR edit warring report has now also been confirmed as a sock[37]. While CurlyTurkey dismissed my justification as "FUD" my suspicions about socking have now been confirmed. Nixon Now (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Other editors have also reverted attempts to remove the subheadings while the RFC is underway.[38] Singling me out for doing this or claiming it's somehow aberrant to do so is specious. Nixon Now (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Curly Turkey's belligerent attitude to editors can be seen here[39] where in short order, in separate comments, he tells an editor "The flying fuck is this shit?", "You admitted to it yourself. Now fuck off" and "just fuck off with the trolling horseshit". Nixon Now (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

No, he's sworn at me too[40], refused to AGF, and has been shopping around specious complaints. If that's "gentle" I feel sorry for the editors he's harsh with. Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

CurlyTurkey falsely claims that I placed the Ford drug dealing allegations "prominently in the "Early life" section,] where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation." In fact, the allegation had been there for years, see for example[41] I simply restored it when POV editors, most of whom have been banned, attempted to censor the material from the article since around January 2018 when Ford re-entered politics. I have said this several times yet CT persists in repeating the myth that I am the author of the drug allegation passage. Nixon Now (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I said it appears to be buried because that is the effect. Whether or not that is your intention is irrelevant. I'm not speaking of your motives, simply of the outcome. I was mistaken in assuming you had previously opposed inclusion of the drug material in the article and I apologise for that.[42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could we get an uninvolved party to comment here?

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

97.94.163.47

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

---

• 97.94.163.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP user's talkpage access needs to be revoked, and their block length should probably be extended. Thanks. 126.25.161.126 (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended to two weeks and removed talk page privilages. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Violetriga

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

---

• Train graveyard
• Nazi gold train
• User talk:Violetriga#Nazi gold train
• Talk:Nazi gold train#"Train graveyard"
• Talk:Train graveyard#Nazi gold train

I removed material from the Train graveyard article,[43] written by User talk:Violetriga, on the grounds that the supposed burial of a Nazi gold train is not a "train graveyard" within the normal meaning of that expression. A train graveyard is a place where old trains and other rail equipment is put to rust and "die". The Nazi gold train -- if it ever existed, and if it was buried -- was buried in order to hide it. That's not the same thing at all, and while the located of the supposedly buried train could be called a train's "grave", it is not what is meant by a "train graveyard".

That's a content dispute, here's the behavioral issue: after I removed the material, requesting that the author provide a citation from a reliable source not to indicate that possible existence of the buried Nazi train, but to specifically call the burial place a "train graveyard", Violetriga, showing very strong WP:OWNership behavior, violated WP:Verifiability by repeatedly restoring the material without the requested citation.

It's all very silly. It started because Violetriga insisted on Wikilinking the Nazi gold trains burial site to Train graveyard. [44] When I went to her talk page to explain why I reverted,[45] they took offense and replied with sarcasm, Edit summary: "Oh, I didn't realise that I was talking to the authority on the subject." so I opened a thread on Talk:Nazi gold train, [46] and that lead to Train graveyard. At one point I added a link to train graveyard in the "See also" section of Nazi gold train, in the hope that this would settle the issue. [47] but the dispute continued at Talk:Train graveyard.

(While I was writing this, GreenC commented in the thread on Nazi gold train, agreeing that the burial of the Nazi gold train was not within the usual meaning of "train graveyard". [48])

Maybe I've behaved badly, I dunno. (I do know that my explanation on Violetriga's talk page was not meant sarcastically or meanly, which is apprently how they took it.) If someone wants to block me, I'll take my lumps, but I really can't countenance deceiving our readership by an innaccurate description of the burial of the Nazi gold train, and an inapproriate inclusion of material in the "train graeyard" article.

I am not asking for any sanctions here. I am asking that an admin explain to Violetriga that restoring material disputed on WP:V grounds without providing a citation from a reliable source is inappropriate, and that she should stop doing it, and for the meaterial to be removed again until such time as a citation is provided. I have said explicitly that I would withdraw my objection to the material in Train graveyard with the addition of such a source which calls the burial place of the Nazi gold train a "train graveyard", even though I would continue to disagree with that description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have notified Violetriga, and I have removed Nazi gold train from my watchlist. (Train graveyard was never on it.) I hope this issued can be settled by uninvolved editors without my further participation, as I believe I have made my position abundantly clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am awaiting your source to prove that your definition of "train graveyard" is correct. To me a place in which a train is possibly buried can legitimately be considered to potentially be a "train graveyard". We don't have to "deceive" users just give them a link to an article that is potentially relevant. The wording does not state that this is certainly a cemetery, but wikilinking to it gives people another avenue to explore. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are now simply being obstructionist for no reason. Your yourself wrote, in the article Train graveyard:

A train graveyard is where trains and rolling stock are abandoned while awaiting recycling or destruction. They are often left to decay and some locations are forgotten or secret

but if your own words are not sufficient for you, take a look at each and everyone of the results of this search, all of which are about places where old trains are put to rust and "die", and none of which talk about burying a train -- and that's because burying a train would be expensive and time-consuming, and no one wants to spend any more money on this old equipment than is necessary, so they're driven or hauled to a train graveyard and just left there. The Nazi gold train -- if it ever existed and isn't simply a bit of local folklore -- wasn't buried to die, it was buried to hide it. It's something that if it happened, rarely ever happens, and is certainly not what the term "train graveyard" was invented for. (Cf., for instance, Airplane graveyard).

But the real issue here isn't the content dispute between us -- AN/I doesn't deal with content disputes-- or even that you don't seem to understand the clear metaphorical meaning of the English expression "train graveyard", the issue is your restoring material after it's been removed on WP:V grounds without providing a citation from a WP:RS to support it, as is required by policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I find your opinion and actions to be incorrect. The content that I included is totally verified in the article. It states that a train (or parts thereof) might be buried after being abandoned by the Nazis. If it were to prove true then I don't understand how it could not be called a "train graveyard", a term which you have still not actually provided a definition of. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that you are exactly correct: you do not understand the meaning of the expression "train graveyard" and somehow believe that the burial of a train, the way a dead body is buried in a human graveyard, must therefore make the location a "train graveyard". This is why I have been asking you if you understand what a metaphor is. "Train graveyard" is a metaphorical expression, and an idiomatic one at that, not a literal one. The metaphor is based on the fact that trains go there to "die" (another metaphor), just as (some) humans go to a human graveyard when they are dead. It has nothing whatsoever to do with burials. I'm clearly having great difficulty in making you see that your understanding of the expression is flawed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the likelihood is that no such train exists and so your Googling is not going to come up with much. The articles make it abundantly clear. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Google search of Google Books was on the expression "train graveyard", so the fact that not a single result mentioned a burial is a strong indication that burying trains -- which is obviously a rare thing, if it ever actually occurs at all -- is not what the expression is about. If the Nazi gold train existed, and if it was buried, the site could be called the train's "grave" (again, metaphorically), but it would not make it a "train graveyard" because that is not what that expression means. Why is it so hard to make you see this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You're the one insinuating that it has to be a burial. I'm saying that a train that has been abandoned and left to decay can count as a train graveyard. It has been left to die. Yet the whole thing is untrue so should we massively prune Nazi gold train because it's all so presumptuous? violet/riga _^[talk] 17:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Uncle. I give up. I'm clearly incapable of explaining to this editor why they're misinterpreting the generally accepted meaning of "train graveyard", or they're clearly not interested in actually listening to what I'm saying (WP:IDHT?), or both. Nor can i make this ex-admin see that when someone removes material from an article on the grounds of lack of verification (i.e. there is no source which says that the burial location of the Nazi gold train is a "train graveyard") one cannot simply restore it to the article without providing the required citation from a reliable source to verify it.
  Someone, please, put me out of my misery. Make me put down the computer, put sweet things in front of my and whip me if I stop eating them, force me to try to read Gravity's Rainbow for the fourth time, make me watch re-runs of I Love Lucy, anything but this torturous drip drip drip of hard-headedness and misunderstanding. "I'm coming, Elizabeth!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

• Just came back to ask: should I be concerned that User:Violetriga just followed me to NoMad, Manhattan, an article they've never edited before, [49] but for which I am the primary author, [50] to edit [51] almost immediately after I did? [52] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  i'd say give it time. Nothing to woeey as of now. Also, are you sure Violetriga is a she? Girls never follow me, neither in real life nor in online life. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  Because of "Violet" my mental image was of a female, but I was trying not to assume that, and I changed a bunch of the automatic "she"s that I wrote to "they"s. Guess I must have missed one. {{gender|Violetriga}} returns a blank. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've started an RfC at Talk:Train_graveyard#RfC:_Nazi_gold_train, to resolve the content dispute for that article.-- GreenC 18:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Violetriga, having seen the RFC go clearly against their opinions, decided to do a ridiculous and unjustified page move. (I done messed up when reverting it - can an admin remove the plural?) This is clearly a behavioral issue now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done put back to Train graveyard. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay seriously, someone please review User:Violetriga's behavior, because this is WELL beyond acceptable. Editing against consensus sure, but have you seen the things they have been putting on User:Beyond My Ken's talk page, especially AFTER being told they are not welcome to post there? [53] [54] [55]. If this isn't block worthy for editing against consensus, it sure as hell is for civility. Either way, User:Violetriga needs to go, now. --Tarage (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

All incivility started by Beyond My Ken, but I'm sure you were just about to report what he said... violet/riga _^[talk] 22:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So that makes it okay to spam insults on his talk page? Insults he has made VERY CLEAR are not welcome? He has the patience of a saint to put up with you. How daft are you? --Tarage (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I replied to him and quoted one of the sayings he seems to live by (the image). He wasn't welcome on my talk page either but that didn't stop him. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep digging, I'm sure you'll reach that burred train with all the evidence of your innocence eventually... --Tarage (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tarage, but Violetriga is correct, she pushed me to the limit and over, and I gave her (on her talk page) as good as I got on my talk page, the difference being that I was never told not to post on her page (maybe she has by now, but I'm not going there), while I specifically told her not to post to mine, and she continued to do so. My general rule of thumb is that if I throw someone off my talk page I do not post to theirs, but I will admit that there have been a couple of times I've forgotten and slipped, especially after some time has passed.

In any case, despite what I view as Violetriga's bad behavior (a biased view, of course), I still don't want anyone sanctioned, I just want the Nazi gold train removed from Train graveyard -- which you did, and which seems to be sticking because of the RfC-- and for there to be no link in the body of the Nazi gold train article back to Train graveyard (which is how this whole thing started), although I myself added a link in the "See also" section, which I think is legitimate.

Today has been a really hard day. I've been editing for about 8 hours and have actually gotten almost nothing constructive done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[56] Please block this editor to prevent further disruption of Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? Even though the originator of this argument agrees with its inclusion? You really should find better things to do. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And no swearing please. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid you're mistaken. I did not agree with the inclusion of the Nazi gold train information in Train graveyard, I voted "oppose". All I said was that I saw nothing wrong with a link in its "See also" section, which is not the same thing. I said the same about a link going the other way in the other article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was referring to with that link. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't frankly care what his argument is. You. Are. Editing. Against. Consensus. You. Are. Edit. Warring. You. Are. Not. Civil. You need to be blocked. I have never seen a former admin as stubborn as you are. It baffles me that you were able to even get the bit in the first place considering your continued behavior, but a look through the archives shows that this is not at all a new problem with you, but rather that when the going gets tough, you run away till everyone forgets about you. You need to be blocked before you damage this project any more. --Tarage (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm pretty sure that everyone has occasions where they disagree with things. Most people are able to discuss things though - shame that you can't because I'm impressed with the recent calmness of posts by Beyond My Ken. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I deserve none of the credit for that: you forced me to take a pill. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, both BMK and violetriga are at 5R on that article. I'd advise you to both cool it before someone decides you both need an enforced break. This is hardly life-and-death stuff. GoldenRing (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your advice is good, of course, but I'd point out that neither of us has reverted the other in over 11 hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Likely there's no need for further comment here, but since both Tarage and Violet have come to my page, I'll say something. I'm kind of surprised anybody cares so much about this, and that BMK lets it interfere with his peace of mind. But on the matter of fact of the section which Violet has been insisting on in Train graveyard, and the link she has been insisting on in Nazi gold train, I say (and I think it's obvious): Violetriga, the RfC at Talk:Train graveyard has gone against you, so I'm sure you won't insert your preferred version in that article again, nor reinsert the link in Nazi gold train. I don't think you should have moved the article while the issue was so infected, but that is hopefully water under the bridge now. And, with all the respect I have for you and your record, and with our always pleasant relations, I also think you have been guilty of bludgeoning the various discussions, which is a pretty bad thing, and I hope it stops as of now. I agree with User:Miniapolis about the massive timesink,[57] and I hope you take it to heart.

Oh, and the other matter, Beyond My Ken, that you re-opened this thread for: Violet probably did edit NoMad, Manhattan because she saw it in your contributions list. But so what? I don't see that there was anything hostile, or anything involving you, in her edit; I think she just looked at the article and saw something she wanted to fix. Oh (sigh), and the third matter, of the user talkpage quarrelling: I'm fairly appalled by it, more by Violet than by Ken.[58][59] "I hope there aren't lots of other articles that you're ruining" — seriously? Also, AFAICS, you, Violet, were the one who started with the user talkpage aggression. Don't post on BMK's page again. Bishonen | talk 06:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen: Thank you for your comments. It's the fact that, as you say, "I think it's obvious", which I find so debilitating to be having a dispute over, because it is obvious, and sane, rational people -- such as one would hope Wikipedia editors would be -- shouldn't be objecting so obstreperously and intransigently to things that are obvious.

For the record, I agree that there was nothing hostile in Violetriga's edit; it was the act of coming to that article, one written primarily by me, while we were in the midst of a dispute, that I found... well... unsettling. "Nice tanks you've got there, Colonel, it would be a shame if something were to happen to them." It's also worth mentioning that the edits were totally unnecessary, as double spaces after a period (full stop), a hangover from the days of typwriters, when it was necessary to make clear where the end of a sentence was, are now automatically reduced by the system to the equivalent of a single space following the period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The behavior here is particularly vexing because on March 30th, with this edit, violet/riga, on a page they created, gave the definition as a place trains and rolling stock are left to decay. By the editor's own definition, the purported Nazi gold train is excluded. Yet for days afterward, the editor single-handedly maintains a set of battles, across a bunch of page, to insist the Nazi gold train DOES fit into the definition. Pretty hard to ascribe good faith to this train of thought. The motive seems loco. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

196.74.206.135

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

---

• 196.74.206.135 (talk · contribs)
• 105.149.3.178 (talk · contribs)
• 196.64.113.81 (talk · contribs)

This is an anonymous user who keeps adding erroneous information to Adele related articles, in particular 25 (Adele album) and Hello (Adele song). 105.149.3.178 was blocked a little earlier this evening, but the user has now returned as a different ip to continue the edits. As this is the third incarnation of this user then it's starting to border on the disruptive. This is Paul (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Protected both pages for a few days. Unfortunately the IP's look dynamic so blocking is likely going to be ineffective. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced and wrong information on articles

• 178.2.72.68 (talk · contribs)

The editor is likely to the same as 92.216.255.190 (talk · contribs), and he or she kept adding unsourced and/or wrong information in various articles. For example in Loulan Kingdom, it is clear that what the editor had written was about Kingdom of Khotan, not Loulan (apparently the editor was under the mistaken belief that Loulan is Li county referred to in Tibetan sources, nevertheless kept adding the same information even when made aware of that it is wrong) [60] [61][62][63], while in Qiemo County, the editor kept adding unsourced information, and when removed, keep re-adding the same unsourced content with a more content (sometimes that may not be relevant) copied from other pages, [64] [65] [66] [67]. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible issues at AfD

I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, but it looks problematic to me. I noticed this when looking at the issue above regarding User:And Adoil Descended. The AfD referred to (where AAD removed a perfectly good G11 speedy) is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Tech Mela, and whilst it looks like it is heading for a Delete, now has a number of WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes. Looking further, a number of those editors have done the same at other AfDs, spamming "It's notable" at multiple Pakistan-related AfDs - some examples are

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suhai Aziz Talpur (this one was closed as a NAC Keep by User:And Adoil Descended and looks particularly dubious)

Users involved;

• JogiAsad (talk · contribs)
• Arif80s (talk · contribs)
• Spasage (talk · contribs)
• مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs)

There doesn't appear to me any on-wiki canvassing, but it does look suspicious, especially when you look at the contribs of some of those editors. What do others think? Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It does look very suspicious and almost coordinated to me also. Pinging Mar4d for requesting some potential insight. Alex Shih (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--Some of these users are active on Sindhi Wikipedia (two are sysops) and....... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment -- Anybody please help me understand the issue clearly.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment-How fine is this !vote.I mean, why we don't just dole out XFD-topic bans?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk about having entrenched wrong ideas about what constitutes stub eligibility - [68],[69],[70],[71]. Can we haz that topic ban as an actual possibility please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Spasage's AfD nomination in retaliation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehseen Fawad. --Saqib (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whilst, I mentioned the possibility, I would prefer to let him off with a warning to increase his understanding of our guidelines.

But, I'm highly confused that how someone with such an apparently poor idea about notability and RS, can constructively patrol new pages, (from the few examples I"ve seen).

And, that points to the fact that he might be intentionally harassing Saqib by spamming his nominations (as Saqib's example brilliantly hightlights), which is umm......~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for bringing this here. I was working and only got a glimpse. Is my impression correct that they were involved in editing said articles? My impression was one of overlap. Have not looked closely.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps promospam is acceptable on Sindhi W? Winged's "fine" dif above clearly illustrates the disconnect betweeen their !votes and views here on spam and notability. I guess there, Wikipedia is a business directory and that existence is sufficient. @مھتاب احم:, I think this encompasses the problem is a nutshell-- that y'all see promospam as acceptable. And I have to say And Adoil Descended's advocacy for at least one of these articles (have not been back through the AfD's) is what drew my attention to the problems.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• CommentThanks for inviting me here. I am being accused of something, I would like to hear apology if you can not prove something. I recently got active on delete page for articles around Pakistan. And after reading comments above, I am really disappointed. Comments and words like "suspicions","suspicious and almost coordinated", "XFD-topic bans", "constitutes stub eligibility", "Spasage's AfD nomination in retaliation", "off with a warning ", "here on spam and notability", According to rules, if you have issue, which are stated on top of this page, you should have comments my talk page. On the deletion request, if I voted to keep something, you have right to reject it or voice your concern. There is a user who is saying, I have no idea of stub. What I understand from above discussion, is that there are few people who can speak, and rest can not. If they talk they are accused of coordinating. If there is a coordination, please prove it. Your idea of coordination seems like, if few people are working on similar articles, it is coordination. In above discussion started for 3 articles ,and one is added later. Out of original three, I only commented on 2 to keep it. I did not vote on Suhai Aziz Talpur. I have issue with editors who put up articles for deletions, without doing any search on the net to make sure that there is difference in badly written article and article which has notability issues. There are many articles on wikipedia which are based on one or two sources. So, number of sources is not an issue, since there are few topics which do not get a lot of attention from every news paper or similar places. Bigger issue is if source is unreliable or paid content. That should not be involved. In 3 examples which are quoted above, all of them have atleast one source which can be considered reliable, rest can support. Proving a source is reliable or not can be discussed on their deletion talk pages. As things go, majority vote wins. I do not have issue if I have minority vote. From above discussion, I only understand one thing, which is not to comment on deletion discussion, because we disagree with you. Which is wrong at every level. I am not arguing with anyone, I am just putting my vote in some of the articles. Others are arguing with me. So, not sure how I am aggressor. For coordination, I just want to state again, that I am not coordinating with anyother user.--Spasage (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spasage:--There is no inalienable right to free-speech over here.Rest can speak, provided they display a minimal competence.Secondly, AFDs are not poll(s).And, please mandtaorily read the edit-notice and the linked policies, that is so-prominently visible at every AfD edit-window.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionally, number of sources is not an issue, since there are few topics which do not get a lot of attention from every news paper or similar place flies in the face of GNG and/or most SNG(s), in the areas you have choosen to work upon, which is miles away from being a victim of systemic-bias.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So, in your opinion there is no place of single source articles? Go and see my comments, I used reference to vote, see my history. This is for all the users who are adding articles for deletion. Do research before putting articles for deletion. It is easy to put article for deletion and it takes a lot of time on discussion. We can save a lot of time, if editor spend some time and see if it is reliable or not. I see lack of judgment in many deletion requests.--Spasage (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Socking and WP:OWNERSHIP

User Bertrand:101 has been using numerous accounts and IP addresses to establish ownership of Hyori's Homestay, such as edit warring with many users and even leaving warnings on users' talk pages. This is a clear block evasion.
See: [72], [73], [74], [75] - user insists on adding specific content, and preventing other content from being added. Even to the extent of reverting vandalism control by a bot.
User leave "warning" messages on talk pages by other users who don't agree with his editing - [76], [77], [78], [79] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.253.212.227 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Pinging @Kenny htv:, @Pooriyaa:

I assume you mean Bertrand101 (talk · contribs), who has long been banned? Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. ElopeGarry (talk · contribs) and 112.204.31.179 (talk · contribs) are his sockpuppets and have been banned.

The article should be semi-protected, to stop the IP from editing/reverting. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Protected by Ad Orientem.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/171.248.246.158

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP address range block

A range block should be warranted to 2600:1001:b104:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of long term disruption and vandalism. I have reported one IP on AIV but there are multiple IPs from this range who are vandalising. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, 69.113.132.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making the same edits as the other two IPs. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid doing a gigantic range block, but I blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B000:0:0:0:0:0/39 for a month. There shouldn't be much collateral damage, and the disruption seems to be spread throughout multiple subnets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

174.238.1.106

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

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

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