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

Range block

Go ahead, block me! See if I care! I'm tired of this off-kilter kitchen anyway!

-EEng

Would a range block be useful for this vandal? In the last month and a half, he has used about 53 IPv6 addresses from 2600:1001:b000: ... to 2600:1001:b128: ... He has also used 25 IPv4 addresses that unfortunately don't fit into ranges very well. Semi-protection has been tried on several members of Category:Cleveland Browns seasons and some unrelated articles like Indian and Homeschooling, but he moves on to other articles and anyway, nobody wants to protect the whole category. Art LaPella (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocking Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/39 would get all of the IP addresses, but that's probably wider than necessary. From poking around, it looks like JamesBWatson already range blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/42. Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b100:0:0:0:0:0/42 seems to be where the the user is currently editing. I'll block that for two weeks. We can look at wider range blocks if these fail to stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Whatever /39 and /42 may mean, there has been no more of that vandalism so far. Art LaPella (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Whatever /39 and /42 may mean..." High-tech voodoo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Now he's back. Oh well, thanks for trying. Art LaPella (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a couple more range blocks (Special:Contributions/64.134.120.0/21, Special:Contributions/64.134.196.0/23, and Special:Contributions/64.134.160.0/20), each for two weeks. I tried to keep the range blocks reasonable, but the disruption is spread out across this network. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism has stopped again, since this. Art LaPella (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Started again. Art LaPella (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This person is really persistent. These IP addresses are spread out pretty wide, so I'm not sure if range blocks would accomplish much except inconveniencing innocent IP editors; more data (such as a list of IP addresses recently used) might be useful. If he keeps coming back on different IP ranges, page protection on a large scale might be the only way to really stop him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think page protection should be considered at this point. Significant disruption over the last few days. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And already protected over the last few days (Indian people and List of Family Guy episodes aren't protected yet.) OK, keep protecting, provided you realize that has been used for months; he just goes on to other pages. Wikipedia:Edit filter might help against some repeated memes like the Cleveland Show theme song. Art LaPella (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Blocked sock abusing talk page

Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can some admin revoke talk page access of this disruptive sock, Ms Sarah Welch, who is abusing talk page for claiming other editors in good standing to be engaging in sock puppetry? Talk page for a blocked sock is for requesting unblock, not for trolling and falsely accusing people of sock puppetry. Capitals00 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The only disruption here is Capitals00 trying to disrupt a legitimate unblock request with name calling and accusations. Ms Sarah Welch has the right to request to be unblocked and to provide evidence in her defense. First Light (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Why you edit ANI mostly when it concerns misconduct of Ms Sarah Welch?[4] That's not an unblock request. Starting battles is not a "defense", but harassment and rehashing false sock puppetry allegations is not going to contribute in an unblock request. Capitals00 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I probably have some few hundred edits at ANI among my 22,000 plus edits, but who's counting, and why is that suddenly your business? Sarah Welch has been an extremely productive editor in some of the areas that I edit, so I hope to see her back to editing soon. There is no evidence of her being disruptive, and no evidence that her alleged socking from a few years back is currently disruptive. Her unblock request is a legitimate one, and she has every right to provide evidence in her defense. It looks to be a complex case she is presenting. Let it proceed without drama and accusations, or simply have an admin unblock her. First Light (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Because you are defending Ms Sarah Welch's disruption. I have already made it evident how disruptive MSW is[5] and I dont have to do it again. MSW still restored his sock's edits before getting blocked, that's how the convicted sock puppetry is "currently disruptive". Since MSW is only abusing talk page, the access needs to be revoked. Can't agree with terms of sock, that's not how we do it here. Capitals00 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I fail to see how throwing false accusations of socking against other established editors constitute "evidence in her defense". That's clear abuse of talk page editing privileges. —MBL ^talk 16:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Her "evidence" that others are socking is a reductio ad absurdum argument that similar evidence against herself is invalid. So that is evidence in her defense. Art LaPella (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the use of their talk page by blocked editors is for the posting of unblock requests, period. Any other usage is by the sufferance of the community, and does not include WP:Casting aspersions, even in the form of a reductio ad absurdum argument. If MSW doesn't stop, immediately, TPA should be revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Update - Still rehashing same false allegations of sock puppetry against established editors while admitting that his frivolous revenge SPI discovered no sock puppetry but still he is claiming that "behavioral review has not been done".[6] This harassment is not stopping even after a warning.[7] Talk page access needs to be revoked now since this sock is only focusing on falsely alleging others to be socking instead of showing remorse for his own long term sock puppetry. Capitals00 (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I will wait to see, if she resumes her behavior.If, in affirmative, we have to go down the path of revoking TPA but now is not the precise moment to do so, given that she has quasi-promised to not resume such activities.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • He has been doing this since before he was blocked. Despite he is around for a long time enough that he must already know about the proper use of talk page as a blocked sock, we are still giving way too many ropes. Recent message came[8] after the warning[9] and since we are dealing with a disruptive sock, it makes no sense to allow more harassment. Capitals00 (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • A minor point, but why do you continue to refer to this editor as a he, when everyone else is using she? It does strike others as unnecessarily combative and rude...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
        • ApostleVonColorado was always referred as a "he".[10][[11][12] ApostleVonColorado is the main account, while Ms Sarah Welch is just another sock created after 2 other socks of this sockfarm. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I took a look out of curiosity and seeing things such as "([deleted by Winged Blades of Godric on March 25 2018], to be updated and submitted offline/off-wiki, to respect the privacy of those involved)" is troubling. This is less "I'm going to stop accusing other editors of socking" and more "I'm going to do it offline so the people I'm accusing don't even have a chance to see it or defend themselves". Are we done here? --Tarage (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Yes this sock plans to waste time of people by emailing them, canvassing them offline about his false allegations that other users are socking. Capitals00 (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Still abusing talk page[13] for claiming other users to be socking and making up stories about them, despite SPI's admins have already told him that there is no sock puppetry. Socks are supposed to use talk page only for requesting unblock (which will either way never happen). It seems that he agrees that he will never get unblocked on his sock account for his sock puppetry, that's why he is trying to use his account now only for claiming others to be socking. Meaningless arguments like "I am blocked but why others are not!?!?!" is probably worst way to get yourself unblocked especially when you are only rehashing false and rejected allegations.

Talk page access needs to be revoked already for continued harassment. @Ben MacDui and Bbb23: are you both fine with increasing the AVC's block to indef now? I am aware that Bbb23 has made blocks for rehashing false sock puppetry allegations before. We know that AVC was given a very lenient block of only 48 hours for years of sock puppetry, yet he is still using his sock for causing disruption by rehashing same false allegations of socking while being completely aware of its consequences and even had multiple recent warnings[14] as well as this whole complaint but he refuses to give up this harassment. AVC is also engaging in WP:BATTLE throughout his sock's user talk page by engaging in hostility against other editors.[15][16] We are having a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Capitals00 (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

How is the sock master not blocked? Cripes. This is beyond stupid. Block, lock the page, come back in 6 months. --Tarage (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is way over my head that the sock master was given only 48 hours block for prolonged sock puppetry when even new editors are given indef block for a single instance of sock puppetry. It is even more unbelievable that the user is still angry and vengeful over being caught socking instead of being thankful for leniency. Indef block should be instated on sock master for this continued disruption while talk page access of the sock (MSW) should be revoked. Capitals00 (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If you care to read WP:SOCKTAG you will see that although policy is rather vague about block lengths for newly identified sock masters that they are generally not given long blocks, initially at least. It is the socking, subsidiary accounts that are given indef blocks from the outset. If you consider the matter further, firstly the ApostleVC account has not edited since 2012, so giving that account a longer block would probably serve little purpose in practice. Secondly, don't you think it would be interesting if that account were to commence editing again for some reason? Be all that as it may, the original purpose of this thread was to discuss whether or not the Ms Sarah Welch account is abusing talk page privileges. As I am "involved" I am not going to pass comment on that topic. Ben MacDui 17:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"don't you think it would be interesting if that account were to commence editing again", that's why I didn't opposed the 48 hours block at first and assumed good faith but all that assumption of good faith has been largely thwarted by AVC with his own actions by continuing harassment with sock account. It is usual to see newly born sock masters getting indeffed for their first instance of socking,[17][18] and here we were having a sockmaster who deliberately violates the policy, and MSW continues to reject sock puppetry, despite having slipped a few times and revealed himself be a sock of AVC a number of times,[19][20] that's why an indef block was clearly warranted because the person is refusing to admit any mistake. Nonetheless, the indef block is still warranted given the recent abuse of editing privileges. Capitals00 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated BLP violations at Sabrina Schloss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting an indefinite block of ShareMan 15

ShareMan 15 was blocked originally here temporarily due to bot issues but also spamming. He has repeatedly created content related to Lucky Afaratu across several wikis, including spamming en.wp. Originally the content was under Malik Makmur and his original account, Malik GME (Originally Malikmakmur before name change) was blocked in 2015. This was followed by temporary blocks of Xulturid, Malmu15 and an indefinite block of his last bot account, Shareobot whose soul purpose was to remove deletion tags placed on his spam creations and has now created Xulbot.

I'll note that under various names, the following articles have been created all about the same individual (the user in question):

• Malik Makmur (deleted 3 times, salted)
• Malikmakmur
• Malmu (deleted twice)
• Malik M
• Malmu Xultur
• Lucky Afaratu

There are also several dozen other related creations about their band, but not worth noting at this point given all of this

Fresh off a 2 week block, ShareMan 15 creates Afaratu in yet another attempt to spam himself under Lucky Afaratu.

Several other accounts attempted (unsuccessfully, thankfully) to add more spam about Malik Makmur:

• Nako tik (talk · contribs · logs) (here)
• Timokedaung (talk · contribs · logs) (here)

I'll also note, their original account is also blocked on id wiki for socking as well as Kerimajh. There are several other accounts and incidents of socking, spamming and cross-wiki spamming but I think it's fairly obvious what is happening. I'm requesting their block be reinstated and they are indeffed as they clearly have no interest in doing anything other than spamming. I realize many of these accounts are older but I've brought them up as it's been nearly 3 years and the behavior continues. Notified user hereCHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably worth noting the significant x-wiki abuse too: ru, id, id 2, tr, ms and this is only under the current names. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And it appears there was some meat puppetry/ip socking per this edit which is a SM characteristic as they like to rename Noah (band) to NOAH/Sahabat (see also their deleted contribs). CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked him/her, plus another account picked up at UAA. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Check is in the mail, K-stick. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You did tell me I had to block more Doc. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not entirely true, kelapstick: I made fun of you, but surely you're not an administrator just to make me happy. But you're doing good: keep it up! so I can retire. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Osirisosiris and logical quotation

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

Osirisosiris is a fairly new editor who mainly works through articles fixing grammar and punctuation. Most of this work is correct and beneficial to Wikipedia, but unfortunately he is presistently removing logical quotation, as mandated by MOS:LQ. Here are just a few examples:

• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

I have attempted to engage him on his talk page but he is not responding either there or via edit summaries. I don't think the editor is deliberately ignoring the talk page messages because there have been no reverts (a tell-tale sign that the editor knows somebody is challenging their edits). I believe this is simply a good faith editor not familiar with the house style, so has anyone got any ideas about how to approach this? Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The editor continued with a pattern of mass edits that go against MOS:LQ in spite of warnings, so I have blocked for 24 hours. Since they never communicate, it's not obvious how to get their attention. They are creating work for others, since their changes may have to be checked individually to see if they need to be undone. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 27 March 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)

Possible student meatpuppets putting hoaxes on Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk#Hoax?

DDCS (talk · contribs)

User:DDCS/sandbox is a lengthy article about a TV show that doesn't exist. Elsewhere he said:

"I've noticed that you've marked my photos, as copyright. I can understand, so please let me explain. I am doing a project for my school, (I know) weird way of doing a project, and this is the way my professor asked me to do it. I must keep all the photos in, I've uploaded the photos through the public view thing on Wiki, and your the only thing stopping me from completing this project on time."

And the deleted photos were related to the bullshit article. So it looks like the professor is using their students as meatpuppets to get hoaxes on Wikipedia. Assuming I'm right, their classmates need to be tracked down.

As for DDCS, well I guess what I've done here already means DDCS has failed this class. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If the "professor" himself is not a hoax, he needs a good talking to. Any leads on what class this is or the name of the alleged prof? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at Devereaux0772 (talk · contribs · count) and Jayydeeeen (talk · contribs · count). I seriously doubt there's a teacher. This is just run-of-the-mill school kid vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DDCS/sandbox&oldid=798770754 shows a fake school. Edward M. Felegy does exist though so the article may give some hints anyway. seems to be based on College Park Academy Public Charter School.

It seems like a lot of work for run-of-the-mill vandalism. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Serious blow to DeVos and her charter school claims.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is getting really messy, take a look at User:Jayydeeeen/sandbox. Here's a list of editors that I've indentified (copied from help desk):

• @DDCS:, makes contributions, own sandbox
• @Jayydeeeen:, created the sandbox, made significant contributions. Looks like might be the professor.
• 108.18.33.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), long term IP contributor
• 96.5.110.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), recent IP contributor
• @Devereaux0772:, contributed a month ago, has warning for hoaxing in different matter
• Unlisted stale IPs

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Can the pages about fictional entities be nominated for deletion? They are not notable and definitely unverifiable. Can the users be blocked as WP:NOTHERE? 35.1.210.88 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

This is @DDCS.

I want to apologize to the entire Wikipedia community for my actions. I understand that this is a major thing here that shouldn't be tolerated and it never dawned on me that sandboxes, private pages, could be seen by others. I had only written that, as a project for an online class that I'm apart of. If I had known my consequences would be this harsh and rough, then I would have never done it in the first place.

I have these fantasies about things in my life that I would like to come true, and Wikipedia almost makes them come true. Growing up, my grandmother always told me, "if it's on Wiki, its legit". I always had this dream about designing my own school, I had this dream about creating my own TV series, and stuff like that. At the time of me doing it. Editing my own article, gave me the sense that it was real, and I liked how I edited it. It seemed so professional, and well constructed, that I thought that nothing would be in my path.

If you want, I do, give permission for you guys to delete my article(s). I realize now that its a serious offense in this community, and can promise, that this will never, never, happen again on this IP address. A link sent me a FANDOM page, and I will use that from now on.

I appreciate this very, very much. I hope we can let bygones be bygones, and move on from this situation.

Sincerely,

DDCS a.k.a (Devin Dandridge Christopher Simmons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDCS (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@DDCS:, Look forward to seeing your future contributions to the project. 2601:401:500:5D25:74B8:A2DE:F79E:199D (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@DDCS: I can understand what you're saying, but nothing on Wikipedia (or Commons) is private. There are all kinds of wikis out there for fiction. You had at least one administrator fooled who moved the page for the "Renaissance Multicultural Technology High School" to its own draft page. So this kind of thing can result in citogenesis. When you say "this will never, never, happen again on this IP address", that doesn't mean you're just getting another IP address.. does it? Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:A Chris80

I have been unsuccessful in trying to communicate with AC80 about the creation of unreferenced articles, see User talk:A Chris80, particularly User talk:A Chris80#Sources. After 7 messages from me on this issue, and similar messages from others, I got a response at User talk:Boleyn#Story of Lee Hee-beom. which indicates that they had added a reference to one article, but I couldn't understand most of the message. There is clearly a language barrier, but I would say that editors should only edit if fluent or nearly fluent in the language of that Wikipedia. Otherwise, they will be very useful editing in their mother tongue.

I have sent two more messages since then, ignored as the first 6 were. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN etc. and outlined exactly which unreferenced articles I'm referring to, but nothing. I have been messaging this user since September 2017 on this issue, and after six months it is unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hazarding a guess based on some of their contribs, I left a message on their tp in Thai. All I got was a vague response on my tp - which due to the time stamp, suggests that they are in my time zone, but which covers a lot of SE Asia, including Korea articles they have edited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Wikihounding

The editor's recent comments have become problematic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billy_Graham&curid=209028&diff=832693885&oldid=832693567 Commenting about my departure from the site, (and the one before where he claims I'm being controlling when I'm simply applying an accessibility rule).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_and_Carol_Owens&diff=832695114&oldid=515290927 "I'm keeping track of everything and one day they/he/you won't be on here anymore and the articles will be right." Clearly stating that he's planning on hounding and again, he's waiting for or hoping for my departure.

There are several other IPs in the range. See the history of the Jon Gibson (Christian musician)‎‎, List of Christian rock bands‎‎ articles and their associated talk pages for further examples. Any suggestions? Aside from promising wikihounding, the editor has show other examples of being WP:NOTHERE, and has been increasing less compliant to WP:CIVIL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But I suspect that the editor won't even know that they were blocked as the address reassigned fairly quickly. I'll wait to see if anything further transpires. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I’ve extended the block to the /64 subnet. /64 IPv6 subnets are typically allocated to a single user and it’s clearly the case here. I note that the /64 was blocked for 31 hours earlier this month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I usually wait until edits come from other IPs inside the /64 CIDR before blocking the range, but I trust that the past block is good. Either way is fine. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the contributions for the /64 CIDR, and I see numerous edits from another IP in the range that are similar to this user made yesterday, so good call :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Though Malcolmxl5 already linked to the /64 range above, I'll mention it again so any other admins can see what we are up against: Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64. The person working this range seems not to have any good-faith objectives (just look at the edit summaries). If this were a registered account my guess is that some admins would be issuing a one-month block by this point. There does not appear to be much risk of collateral if the /64 is blocked for longer. Another option is to semiprotect a few articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

please block Thai editor user:Jsicavoravit

please block Thai editor user:Jsicavoravit who like to spam articles on The Face Thailand, The Face Men Thailand, Drag Race Thailand, MasterChef Thailand with no reasons, no sources or references many times.

and he also like to spam on older seasons of the Reality T.V. show of other countries such as , Big Brother, MasterChef, Asia's Next top model, The Face and more.

pls. check and block this Thai editor to edit on Wikipedia, thanks.Itipisox (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User is a  Looks like a duck to me, please block (see thread above). --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Itipsox: Please use SPI for sockpuppets, not ANI. It helps to document known behaviour and accounts. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the other thread, Itipsox didn't allege that Jsicavorit is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not, I was talking about the previous accounts as well, when I just asked. No pressure, ofc. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:47, 27 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)

• 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)

Calibrador

There is a past issue now coming alive again: Calibrador disruptively re-adding his own photos to articles. This has been discussed ad nauseum numerous times previously over the last few years. MelanieN brought it up at WP:AN a couple of years ago. EdJohnston warned him against "warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others" in May 2015. (see the following for the entire discussion [27]). When asked to not engage in this behavior, he replies that his edits are being "stalked" and he claims to be a victim of "hounding". Just a little while ago, he engaged in the same behavior he has been warned about numerous times over the last few years and changed out an image without any discussion or attempting to take part in the ongoing discussion at the article talk page [28]. At the John R. Bolton article, there is an RfC taking place regarding the infobox photo. Rather than take part in the RfC, Gage reverted the photo in question, claimed there was "no consensus" for the photo to be changed (although that's what we are working toward right now at the article talk page), and when asked to revert his change because there is an active RfC and discussion taking place re: the image, he refused, stating at the article talk page "Just wanted to add that Winkelvi will never support one of my photos being in an article, as they have a history of going around from article to article and removing them. They've been blocked for Wikihounding me once in the past. Because the image was changed by Winkelvi unilaterally, without any discussion, and then there was found to be equal support for both of the images in the above discussion (thus, no consensus), I restored it to the previous image that was in the article prior to Winkelvi's sudden interest in this article because Bolton is in the news. Since there is a discussion pending, gain consensus before changing the photo.".[29] This behavior is disruptive. In my opinion, it's a form of edit warring in that it's attempting to start an edit war, and it is neither helpful nor constructive. It is, as others have said in years past, a way to promote his own photographs over the photos of others in Wikipedia. This is problematic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't change a photo and then get consensus on the talk page to support your change. You get consensus first. Calibrador (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the AN or dug too deep yet... If he's adding an image to an article where one wasn't there at all before, I don't see that as promoting his own photos - that's expanding the project and that's fine. However, if he's replacing perfectly fine images on articles with his own and without valid reasons when asked, and has been talked to and asked to stop before in numerous discussions, and continues after a noticeboard discussion and being told to stop there - then yes I agree that this is potentially problematic. It depends on whose replacing what, where these images are from and whose the uploader, and the result of past discussions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In this specific instance, I replaced my own photo with my own photo a month ago, when there was very little article activity. If there is a naming issue, regarding the image names, that is a Commons issue and there are no rules in place regarding credit in the name of an image. Winkelvi changed the photo during a time of high edit traffic. The discussion on the talk page has so far yielded no consensus. I simply restored the image that was present in the article for about a month without any objection, until it was clear that the talk page discussion had support for the new photo that Winkelvi was attempting to add. It is not about self-promotion. Calibrador (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, he has been replacing perfectly good photos in infoboxes, taken by others, with his own images for years and with no explanation. Just look at his recent contribution history for numerous examples. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Past discussion re: GageSkidmore/Calibrador on this page include: his 2015 filing here in which I and others raised concerns, his warning at AN in which Admin EdJohnston warned him, and his Talk page restrictions from AN, Part of a larger discussion. Looking at his last 500 edits, he seems in clear violation of his stated promise to use edit summaries. I have said before, he’s a good photographer but his relentless self-promotion is, in my view, disruptive. Jusdafax (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit I forgot about the second part of the agreement I made regarding judging consensus. My intention was not to judge consensus, or lack thereof, but can see how it can be seen that way. If I should be blocked because of that, so be it. Calibrador (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is what I see:

• Several images have been used in this article over the years. Many have been Calibrador's work. He looks to regularly update the images when he has new/better work. The only obvious red flag in the history is an edit war back in 2016 (presumably stale and/or dealt with), but otherwise none of this is problematic yet.
• File:John R. Bolton 2017.jpg was in the article from December 2016 until March 2017, when Winkelvi changed it to File:John R Bolton at CPAC 2017 by Michael Vadon.jpg (an improvement, not that that's necessarily the point here).
• In April 2017, Calibrador restored the image above (problematic since it's lower quality).
• File:John R. Bolton 2017.jpg remained until February 2018, when Calibrador updated it with File:John R. Bolton by Gage Skidmore.jpg. (again, an improvement over the other; debatable whether this or the one Winkelvi added is better)
• In March 2018, Winkelvi again replaced it with File:John R Bolton at CPAC 2017 by Michael Vadon.jpg and shortly thereafter opened an RfC.
• Calibrador restored File:John R. Bolton by Gage Skidmore.jpg a few days later, without participating in the RfC.
• Corkythehornetfan undid Calibrador, restoring the one Winkelvi had added.

I don't agree with Corky that Calibrador's original addition of that image was the bold edit in the sense of BRD. The one that was in the article for the longest time happens to be the lowest quality of the bunch. Regardless, it's hard to say there was ever a firm consensus for any one in particular -- just that a couple editors have disagreed, and neither is clearly in the right (although Calibrador deserves a wag of the finger/trout for the edit warring back in 2016 and for adding a lower quality image in 2017. Best practice would be to just let the RfC play out without further changes. More diffs of recent promotional activity/edit warring would be needed to make a case that action is needed re: Calibrador IMO (this is presuming we are not going to rehash the same examples from the previous ANI). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Calibrador again? Just for reference, Here was an earlier discussion at the 3RR board, May 2015, with the result that he was warned. ("In particular, any warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others can be sanctioned.")

Here was the AN referral I made in September 2016. That was an enormously long discussion, with talk of TBans and 1RR restrictions, but no sanctions were imposed and there was no closure or conclusion to the discussion. At one point he voluntarily agreed to this suggestion from me about talk page discussion: "Based on his documented activities at multiple articles, I propose the following where one of his own photos is involved: limit his discussion at the talk page to a single !vote, including commentary and disclosure, per discussion section or subsection; a ban on replying to or arguing with other discussants unless they directly addressed him; and a ban on attempting to assess or claim consensus, unless it is unanimous."

So here we are again. Looking to see what he has been up to lately: He mostly adds pictures to articles that don’t have them, and that’s fine and helpful to the ‘pedia. He also does a lot of replacing other people’s pictures with his own - [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], and that could be dicey, but the recent replacements mostly do not seem to have become controversial. Restoring his own after someone removes it is maybe pushing the envelope [36], and he may have been premature in restoring his own version at John Bolton. So he is still very strongly promoting himself. But overall it looks to me as if he has mostly been doing it within the bounds of the previous warning and talk page agreement. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I am behind hounded and wikistalked by an IP

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

---

104.163.147.121 (talk · contribs) has been relentlessly hounding me ever since a dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination). My first interaction was noting his uncivil language accusing me of writing a "hype job" [37] and a "puff piece" [38]. It went downhill from there, where he accused me of being a sock [39], accused myself and another of bad faith [40], proceeded to gaslight me [41], accused me of COI connection to the subject of an article with no evidence [42], added a bad-faith COI template to an article I wrote [43], added me to a sockpuppet investigation of someone else (presumably the subject of Jesse Waugh) [44], then posted a deliberately misleading comment at another AfD of another of my articles w As far as I'm concerned, the SPI can move ahead. But this has turned into a witch hunt against me by this IP editor and it's ludicrous. I want him to leave me alone, but he can't seem to stop pinging me and hounding my edits. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, YES I wrote the Jesse Waugh article, the Nitin Shroff article and the Thomas Darnell (artist) article. Yes, I asked Darnell if he had press clippings I could use for sourcing his article, and he also provided some for the Shroff article. Asking people if they have sources isn't a conflict of interest. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I do not think anything that you claim above is the case. I am still wondering why you miraculously produced a bunch of references on Thomas_Darnell's Archive.org account, and you happen to be the creator of the Thomas Darnell page. Now you explain you are friends. Oh and Thomas Darnell and Jesse Waugh are old pals. That's really the only question I had. You have just confirmed that you know them personally, so that is an undisclosed COI. So it's entirely reasonable that I would add you to the SPI and mark Darnell as COI. You created the articles, argued at AFD's, deleted votes at AFD, badgered those who disagreed with you, are friends with at least one of the subjects, and asked for Jesse Waugh to be unprotected so you could create the article... Do you see my thinking there? Strong sense of connectedness. Have a nice day. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, asking me if I have "skipped my medication" is just a good old personal attack. Could you stop that please.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright both of you need to knock it off. There are accusations here of incivility (which I agree that this is uncivil), but I also see accusations of sock puppetry here, and accusations of undisclosed COI above here. I also see bickering by you both on the AFD discussion. Keep your messages and interactions between one another on-topic and about the content-related matter itself, and don't comment directly on each other and make accusations or point fingers at one another any more. Easy :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I can live with that fine.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• THIS IS NOT RESOLVED. The IP keeps reinserting a COI tag on the Darnell article [45], which is a deliberate smear of me. Once again, is e-mailing the subject of an article to ask if they have press clippings a conflict of interest? Will someone please make this stop? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 11:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I did that before OShwah's comment, as you have an undisclosed interest COI in that article.104.163.147.121 (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Having a communications channel with article subjects is something, I think, that is pretty irregular in terms of maintaining independence and objectivity. As it says at COIN, "A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics." That is why I tagged that, as the connection between article subject and editor had not been disclosed. The article therefore needs to be checked by someone entirely independent. It's a straightforward maintenance tag to improve the quality of the wiki. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP completely. If you are getting direction on what sources to use from the subject of the article, you have an unequivocal COI. Period. By getting input from the article's subject on what sources to use, you are giving him some control over the content of the article. Any and every change you made or make to that article will need to be reviewed by independent editors to assure accuracy and neutrality. From now on out. By your own admission, The Master, you are creating extra work for the other volunteers here, and that in and of itself is disruptive. I'd suggest you stop protesting and start following best practices for COI editors. On a related matter, and input from an administrator familiar with policies on signatures is requested here, is the overtly political statement appended to The Master's signature within policy? I'd think it shouldn't be. John from Idegon (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Kafkaesque. My signature line is a Dr. Who reference, not a political statement, but nice try. I'll just stop writing articles altogether and save you all the trouble, please let the others know on IRC that they can call off the dogs. You can hat this thread or keep attacking me and assuming bad faith, however you choose. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, everyone - let's take it easy, now.... No need to get upset or resort to pointing fingers or driving other editors away from the project. The Master, I do agree that having communication with, and using references and citations at the direction and recommendation of the article subject compromises Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. While I don't agree that simply reaching out to the article subject and getting information from them makes the contributing editor a conflict of interest (where the editor has personal relationships and close ties to the article subject or matter), many issues and violations of guidelines and principles are introduced by taking recommendations and information from the subject and adding it to the article. This behavior will understandably cause major concerns by the community, and it's fair for those editors to question the user's ability to participate in editing the article. I think that the content in question should be heavily scrutinized and reviewed if not removed entirely due to these issues.

All this aside, if my findings are correct and this is all that The Master did and he doesn't have any close or personal motivations or ties with the subject, COI isn't violated and the content in question can be easily removed. Other than maybe giving The Master a big trout (lol), just remove the problematic content pending a discussion on the article's talk page, move on and focus on what lies next :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing the content would mean deleting the article, as The Master was the creator and main contributor. I think the COI tag suffices, and another editor has restored it.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends... did all of the content and references come from the interaction with the article subject? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• perhaps this ANI should be closed, and the whole Thomas Darnell thing transferred to COIN? I started cleaning up the page and the article image was received from the artist and his wife via email, and uploaded by The Master. The unaddressed issue here is this connection. There is a connection here that has not been answered that is better dealt with at COIN.104.163.147.121 (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Hard to revert IP vandalism

Hi again - I'm unsure if this is the right place about this issue. Feel free to quickly close and hopefully give me a hint how to deal with this kind of situation accurately. :/

Special:Contributions/111.74.7.168

Quoting from the talk page of a colleague I informed about the problem:

Hi :) Maybe you could help me with this, as you stumbled across one of the edits yourself:

* Vandalism by IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OECD_Better_Life_Index&diff=832678106&oldid=829362241&diffmode=source

* Accidental revert to not-obvious, hidden maliciously bad version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OECD_Better_Life_Index&type=revision&diff=832706562&oldid=829362241&diffmode=source

There is more of this, probably reverted by people like you and me. Let's clean the mess up together. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary: Persisting IP vandalism that does not get caught as such because the edits might be good-faith cleanup of outdated lists. The issue is spread across multiple articles and persists because following vandalism by other users is reverted to the last "clean" version, which contains deliberately wrong information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, in this particular case I did actually review the malicious change and assume it to be vandalism, but on inspection of the reference I found no correlation between the source and the table, so I could not verify it. I personally always check the history of the page to ensure that I am not rolling back to a bad version, although I am aware that the ease of the rollback function may mean that not all rollbackers do this. I think my only unoriginal insight here is that pages should be simple and closely linked to sources in order to enable easy verification. AJ2265 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

IP WP:PA

178.197.231.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2A02:1206:4576:8CD1:1DC0:9EB:C182:F94D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2A02:1206:4576:8CD1:CC9D:F1D1:4970:55C9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2A02:1206:4576:8CD1:E1C7:FE75:70E3:3CAC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Bizarre invective in this edit summary in response to a warning about WP:EW on the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• IP blocked for the personal attack, page reprotected for a couple months, as there seems to be a decent amount of disruptive IP editing in general. Swarm ♠ 18:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Much obliged. The other three addresses are almost certainly the same user (all Swiss IP addresses, same ISP, same edit). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Range block request

Hello. I was wondering whether it might be possible to apply a range block to cover the IPv6 addresses starting with 2A00:23C5:4690:7A00: (examples listed below, there are more).

Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:4690:7A00:700F:E025:4DCF:20AD, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:4690:7A00:35BF:3F0F:D1C:7824, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:4690:7A00:7D3D:D8E5:40BF:6AAD, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:4690:7A00:4114:73C6:3274:7B6C, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:4690:7A00:EDEA:7249:1E81:7F1B, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:4690:7A00:703C:D855:6CA3:4A65

What they do is turn up, change the height of a few footballers, and go away again, several times a day. Because they usually include at least one well-watched article, the vandalism doesn't stay there very long, and it's nothing major anyway, but it's starting to get annoying. Thanks for listening, Struway2 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

IPv6 range is blocked for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

pls. block Thai editor user:Vbts12, the new account of user:Golf-ben10 and user:Btsmrt12

pls. check and block Thai editor user:Vbts12 he is the newest account of user:Golf-ben10 who blocked by Admin, and user:Btsmrt12 that just got blocked yesterday, Because he like to spam the colors and articles on The Face T.V. show pages every season of all countries, such as The Face Thailand, The Face Men Thailand, The Face Vietnam, US and UK every seasons. he also edit on Thai pop music, Thailand Youth League pages so much with no sources or reference for the articles.

and he just registered new account to spam on wikipedia again today. pls. check and block him to edit on Wikipedia, his profile is the same person with user:Btsmrt12 and user:Golf-ben10. thank you.Itipisox (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop labeling editors by their nationality? It gives the impression that it's important to the report and that blocking them is somehow related to them being Thai, which is not true in the slightest. --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating ever new accounts in order to evade scrutiny and blocks

Szerbey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Wollie JU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kerenski-Dubra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are per WP:DUCK the same person, creating a new account every time their old account has reached a level-4 warning for disruptive nationalistic editing (talk pages for Szerbey, Wollie JU). They have also engaged in edit-warring, and before starting to use named accounts they also edited very disruptively as 2600:1700:F1E0:97F0:71A3:2693:59EF:ED9D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See page history of List of Russian military bases abroad and page history of Branko Radičević for evidence, i.e. that each new account has immediately continued the edits of the latest discarded account, starting after each discarded account had received a level-4 (it's easier to see when looking at the page history than when looking at individual diffs...). There is in other words no overlap between the accounts, but using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny is also sockpuppetry, as clearly stated on WP:SOCKPUPPETRY ("Creating new accounts to avoid detection"). So could someone please wield the big hammer on all of them? There might also be accounts from before Szerbey and new accounts lying in waiting, so a CU-check might be in order. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• This can be closed now: Wollie JU and Kerenski-Dubra have been CU-blocked by Bbb23 along with a couple of accounts created after that, and neither Szerbey nor the IP has edited for a while. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Users interested in blackface controversies

Hello! I would like to report an ongoing incident. I think it requires the intervention of administrators.

Please look at what is happening on the article about a Japanese musical group called "Momoiro Clover Z". There are two editors, 124.106.139.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Spacecowboy420, who are repeatedly adding information about a controversy regarding the group's planned performance at a Japanese TV show. And they aren't simply adding it (actually, the controversy has been mentioned in the article for a long time now), but they seem to want to make the incident to stand out as much as possible.

(What happened was that that Momoiro Clover Z planned to collaborate with a famous Japanese blackface band called Rats & Star. And they were going to wear blackface makeup too. And there was a picture of both groups together in blackface makeup posted on Twitter. The picture was noticed by some American media outlets, who criticized them, and the performance was cancelled. That's all.)

Now look what the editors in question repeatedly added to the Momoiro Clover Z article:

• The four members of MCZ are known for their controversial use of blackface
• The four members of MCZ are known for their controversial use of blackface
• The four members of MCZ are known for their controversial use of blackface
• The four members of MCZ are known for their controversial use of blackface

They added it to the lead section! I've tried to explain to the people (on the article's talk page and at WikiProject Japan) that it is false cause Momoiro Clover Z never performs in blackface, that the performance was planned but never aired, and that Rats & Star is a respected Japanese musical group, but the editors don't seem to care.

And again, this was also added to the lead section:

• In 2015 MCZ were criticized and accused of racism for their use of blackface in a joint performance with Rats & Star. Pulitzer prize winning reporter for The New York Times Hiroko Tabuchi stated on social media "Why Japan needs to have a conversation on racism" in response to an image of the group in blackface.

But there was no performance! Even if it was rehearsed or filmed, it wasn't aired. And I couldn't revert anymore cause I've already reverted 3 times. (Actually I thought that it could be reverted an infinite number of times as a blatant violation of WP:BLP, but I was afraid to revert...)

Then finally Curly Turkey came and deleted the paragraph:

• [46]

But the IP has just come back and created a special section titled "Blackface controversy" (!!!)

• [47].

I believe that what's happening is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BRD (cause I've reverted them and tried to talk to them on the talk page, but they continued). Can something be done about this please?

P. S. And please look at one more article, "Nita Negrita". The IP added a huge section named "Blackface controversy" to that article too: [48]. A user named Hotwiki reverted: [49]. But Spacecowboy420 came and reverted the section back in: [50].

Please do something. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I definitely saw a pattern about those editors in that certain subject, and I don't think their contribution regarding about the subject was helpful and needed to the articles mentioned. Also criticism doesn't automatically means controversy.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I must say I'm not really sure what Spacecowboy420's intentions are. He actually reverted the IP's edit to the Momoiro Clover Z article at first: [51]. But then he reverted it back in and wouldn't let me delete it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know why some users insist on adding this nonsense. I am informing that the IP was blocked for his personal attacks and edit warring when he was bothering over this content.[52] Rzvas (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This brief, three-year-old controversy is in the body of the article. It was an ill-informed blip in the group's history. There's no way it could possibly belong in the lead, and it was so brief and quickly dealt with that having a section header for it (and thus placing it in the Table of Contents) is simply way WP:UNDUE. "The four members of MCZ are known for their controversial use of blackface" is simply counterfactual, and a gross misrepresentation of both the band and the controversy—keep in mind that this is the opening sentence.

Of course, ANI is not the place for content disputes—the issue is the ceaseless behaviour, constantly re-adding these things against consensus. Yes, there is a Talkpage discussion, and these editors are agressively ignoring the consensus there. They should both be blocked and TBANned. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to address these points one by one.

1. repeatedly adding information about a controversy regarding the group's planned performance at a Japanese TV show. And they aren't simply adding it (actually, the controversy has been mentioned in the article for a long time now), but they seem to want to make the incident to stand out as much as possible.

(What happened was that that Momoiro Clover Z planned to collaborate with a famous Japanese blackface band called Rats & Star. And they were going to wear blackface makeup too. And there was a picture of both groups together in blackface makeup posted on Twitter. The picture was noticed by some American media outlets, who criticized them, and the performance was cancelled. That's all.)

I initially added the content to the lede, as I saw a notable incident that was worthy of inclusion on the article.

It was removed by User:Spacecowboy420 with a comment saying "I reverted your edit because there was no source given. Please find a source if you want to restore that content."

After that Spacecowboy put the content back along with the source that it was missing.

2. User:Moscow Connection started remove this content and claimed on the relevant talk page that "They didn't wear it even once." despite there being lots of sources actually showing the photos of this group in blackface.

3. After having it pointed out that whether it was aired or not, they still wore blackface, Moscow Connection then started to claim that it was undue weight.

The response to this was that there were a lot of reliable and notable sources that showed is to not be a WEIGHT issue. It's not a fringe theory or an incident that was only picked up by one minor source.

Here are the sources that were given:

These sources include the Japan times, Vox, Vice, IBTimes, NY Times - with comments from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.

4. Then finally Curly Turkey came and deleted the paragraph But the IP has just come back and created a special section titled "Blackface controversy"

Yes, I did - because previously there was one line of content, hidden within a section on a collaboration with the band Kiss. That content had no place in a section with zero connection to the controversy, so it's just common sense to give it a heading so that people know what they are reading about.

5. They added it to the lead section! I've tried to explain to the people (on the article's talk page and at WikiProject Japan) that it is false cause Momoiro Clover Z never performs in blackface, that the performance was planned but never aired, and that Rats & Star is a respected Japanese musical group, but the editors don't seem to care.

I changed "performed" to "appeared" when it was pointed out that it might not actually be a performance and if the other group they appeared with is respected or not, doesn't have any relevance to anything that I can think of.

6. This brief, three-year-old controversy is in the body of the article. It was an ill-informed blip in the group's history. There's no way it could possibly belong in the lead, and it was so brief and quickly dealt with that having a section header for it (and thus placing it in the Table of Contents) is simply way WP:UNDUE. "The four members of MCZ are known for their controversial use of blackface" is simply counterfactual, and a gross misrepresentation of both the band and the controversy—keep in mind that this is the opening sentence.

This "ill-informed blip" was prominent enough to reach not only domestic but international media such as the USA Today, IBTimes and the New York Times, I think that shows that it isn't undue weight.

And yes, I did make a section header for it - prior to my edits it was in a section titled "2015: Collaboration with KISS" - I will assume good faith and assume that was a mistake to place it there and not an attempt to hide it from readers, but whatever the intention the effect was the same - it was hidden from readers.

7. ANI is not the place for content disputes

I agree. So stop hunting for blocks, when there are so many other options to resolve disputes. Get some uninvolved opinions and see what they think about the content. Not everything has to be a battleground.

124.106.139.19 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

• I don't have any thoughts about the dispute with this content but more about the behaviour of 124.106.139.19 and Spacecowboy420. I came across them in my discussion/disagreement around Jake Zyrus, I have since noticed that they both like to get involved in what seems to be controversial topics that involve reverts/warring with other users as per Momoiro Clover Z, Dog meat consumption in South Korea, Nita Negrita and Jan Blokhuijsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Footballs Conscience (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• @124.106.139.19: I still think that these edits of yours can be regarded as vandalism:
  1. "The four members of MCZ are known for their controversial use of blackface"
  2. "Luna Blanca is a 2012 Philippine television drama fantasy series broadcast by GMA Network, it is known for the controversial use of blackface".

Cause it's hard to believe that a well-intentioned person can act this way, would put something like this into the lead section.
I'll cite WP:VANDAL: There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding (...) crude humor to a page, (...) and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well-intentioned but singleminded people do strange things. This isn't vandalism, but POV-pushing, trying to make this one incident somehow 'definitional of the group, and willing to editwar over it. Momokuro are not "known for" their use of blackface—it was a single, ill-advised incident that was not even widely reported, as I demonstrated on the talk page:

"Momoiro Clover Z" -blackface (3,820 hits)

vs

"Momoiro Clover Z" blackface (19 hits)

So aside from lying, this editor does not edit in a collaborative or NPOV manner, and needs to be dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curly Turkey (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Momokuro are not "known for" their use of blackface—it was a single, ill-advised incident that was not even widely reported, as I demonstrated on the talk page

The fact that the incident was reported on major international media sources means that they are well known for that incident.

I'm sorry, but those misleading google hits don't show anything relevant. I can take content similar to "Momoiro Clover Z" blackface" from the article such as "Momoiro Clover Z" energetic performances" (which is an ideal comparison because it comes from the same sentence that you are mistakenly (more on that later) complaining about The four members of MCZ are known for energetic performances

"Momoiro Clover Z" energetic performances (21 hits)

There you go. 23 hits compared to 19. So, if you want to base how well known this group is, based on Google hits - they are about 80% as well known for blackface as they are for energetic performances. But you have voiced no objections to The four members of MCZ are known for energetic performances being in the same sentence as the references to blackface were, I guess 23 hits makes something highly suitable for the lede, while a mere 19 hits makes something highly unsuitable, the editor who added it a liar and deserving a block. Wow! The difference those 4 extra hits make is very important!

And now let's get back to "more on that later" - I think you're missing the point here.

Yes, initially I put that they were known for the use of blackface, for two reasons: 1. I considered it to be accurate. 2. It fitted in with the lede that listed a few things they were known for, it was easier for add them to that sentence than to make a new sentence.

But, while other editors were removing/restoring the "they are known for their controversial use of blackface" line from the lede, I placed that content in a different line that had no mention of them being "known for" blackface. Note this edit (there is one revision between those two edits that is not shown): [53] - so you're complaining about something you consider to be an issue, that I had reworded and rectified myself. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You haven't convinced a single commenter in this discussion with your bullshit walls of text yet. Nothing has changed—you editawarred to push a POV against consensus and Wikipedia policy, and continue to push your bullshit here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I added content that was met notability standards and was supported by many reliable and verifiable sources.

I'm very sorry that you find my "walls of text" offensive, I will try to be a little more succinct in future.

On the subject of offensive, I think your use of profanity here (as well as edits like this [54] and this [55]) are demonstrating your combative attitude towards Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how productive continuing this discussion is. I think we've covered the relevant points, so unless there is a constructive reason for me to comment any further, I think I will step away from the drama and get back to editing articles. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What's offensive is your persistent policy-violating POV-pushing attempts to define the band's entire career with one brief incident (breaching WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, etc), and the horseshit mind games you play when backing it up. You are disrupting Wikipedia and show every indication that you intend to continue doing so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Another IP vandal: here by 108.18.165.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Falls into a very similar pseudo-controversy pattern. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Harry (singer), hoaxer from Nottingham

Indeffed User:Harry (singer) has been using IPs from Nottingham to create hoax articles for some years now. One IP, Special:Contributions/82.25.11.240, was blocked for three years in January. Another IP, Special:Contributions/194.61.223.53, was blocked for a year but quickly unblocked as a false positive – certainly a mistaken action. Below is a list of involved IPs and the recently recreated hoax articles. Can we delete and salt these hoaxes? Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#Sock_keeps_creating_hoaxes

IPs

• Special:Contributions/194.61.223.64
• Special:Contributions/82.25.11.240 (blocked three years)
• Special:Contributions/194.61.223.53 (blocked one year)
• Special:Contributions/86.5.176.46 (blocked two years)

Hoaxes

• Draft:Kevin Saville
• Draft:Magpie/Carter Corporation
• Draft:SkyView Productions (company)
• Draft:Spaceman Music (US Label)

I've deleted all four drafts (but not SALTed); blocked the latest IP (194.61.223.64); and nuked contribs for both that IP and one of the older ones (194.61.223.53; it hasn't been used since November 2017 so I'm not blocking it). Let me know if anything pops back up. GiantSnowman 15:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:31.154.71.87 and Israel-related edits.

(Originally posted at the NPOV noticeboard, [56], 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 ([57]) 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 [58][59] (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 [60] (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)

Colin and The Videos

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

---

In case anybody isn't aware User:Colin has gone on a campaign throughout Wikipedia, putatively about some videos.

The many sprawling discussions are at:

• Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation (which ends with the claim that Wikipedia is being privatised and collaborative editing denied.
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Osmosis_concerns
• Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Unsourced_documentary_videos
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Topic_ban_proposed_for_Doc_James (snow closed as wrong venue and overwhelming opposes)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#RfC:_Should_Wikipedia_contain_video_summaries_of_diseases?_And_how_should_they_be_presented?

Less centralized discussions

• User_talk:WhatamIdoing#Osmosis_concerns
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube (new essay created by Colin)
• Talk:Epilepsy#Osmosis_video
• Talk:Asperger_syndrome#Osmosis_video
• Talk:Autism_spectrum#Osmosis_video
• Extended to Meta by User:SlimVirgin in this diff, selectively pinging Colin and SandyGeorgia, with respect to a grant proposal.

Colin has edited sporadically for the past few years. Since he re-emerged in this burst on March 26, he has made about 175 edits constituting 57.7 MB kB, solely focused on these videos, which started with the 5 kB MB (!) posting at Jimbo's talk page at the top of the list, with its inflammatory header. That is the definition of WP:BLUDGEON.

I have been especially concerned about abuse of "COI concerns" used as a cudgel by both Colin and SandyGeorgia...

• e.g. Colin diff bolding in the original For the YouTube generation, this is now Wikipedia: unsourced content brought to you by a billionaire's private foundation. and the inflammatory header, etc etc, and
• Colin also made a similar "paid editing shill" attack on User:soupvector at talk Jimbo, to which soupvector responded here.
• SandyGeorgia followed suit here with I am seeing it more broadly as a COI issue, in which Doc James is involved with furthering paid editing. That is gob-smacking.

I have been trying to figure out where this was coming from. (others too have noted the ferocity of the posts - Guy here Park your hysteria, please. and User:BallenaBlanca here The attacks on Doc James sadden me. ...

Colin and SandyGeorgia are apparently wikifriends from away back; the root of the original posting at jimbotalk by Colin was a clash between Doc James and SandyGeorgia at Dementia with Lewy bodies, and Colin and SandyGeorgia have been working this "video" issue cheek by jowl.

While there are some legitimate issues with the videos, the ferocity is not. Where this is probably coming from seems to arise from some interpersonal history of which I am not aware, but Colin wrote here, embedded in a long post: You are the reason I have not edited medical articles for years. You. And SandyGeorgia repeated that and stated her own past clashes with Doc James about bigger-picture issues in point #4 of this post, as well as elsewhere, in the midst of the discussions about the videos.

Whatever that history is, I don't really care.

What is going on now with these axes being ground is just disruptive. There are complex issues with respect to these videos that can likely be solved through careful discussion, but discussion is somewhere between impossible and very difficult with the swamping of the discussion and overwrought claims. The sprawl was noted for example by User:Beeblebrox here at the RfC.

My initial pushback (e.g for this sort of post) was harsh and User:Francis Schonken admonished me for being too harsh, but there is way too much ferocity, even now, in all this.

I had RW stuff for a couple of days and was dismayed to see this continuing apace with posts like this today.

I think Colin and perhaps also SandyGeorgia need a timeout from discussing these videos so that the rest of us can work things out. I don't know what to do with their anger over bigger picture issues. I guess we just live our way through to wherever that goes. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) (redact kb not mb Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

• Of course, as Sandy notes on her Talk page, you don’t exactly come to ANI with clean hands. Since you bring this to ANI, I urge comments include a thorough look at your own edits in this matter, which you attempt to dismiss as merely “harsh” and your overall editing history. This filing of yours can easily be seen as an attempt at bullying and intimidation. Jusdafax (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• This has been a heated discussion from both sides. I would hesitate to ask for a timeout for the people who disagree with you. Natureium (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

to be clear i agree with some of Colin’s objections on the content.

this filing is about behaviorJytdog (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• The entire discussion about videos is a debacle, and probably will go from here to ArbCom. But yes, Colin definitely has been battle-groundy in his comments. (As for Jytdog and Jusdafax, this time I'm staying out of that discussion entirely.) I pretty much agree with what Natureium just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Justafax, I barely know Jytdog, I don't recall ever interacting directly with him on any talk page as he appeared on Wikipedia during a period when I was semi-retired. So, I believe I can provide a neutral opinion. Colin has been creating enemies, conflict and drama with people who disagree with him. He is far too emotional. Even with me look at this diff and you will see Colin falsely accused me of edit warring and associated my innocent good faithed actions with an abusive swear word beginning with 'F'. There are more examples from Colin towards me and countless between Colin and many others on this issue. He is very emotionally unhinged about this video dispute. Jytdog is not at all starting the problems but he is reacting to problems, perhaps sometimes overreacting, and these problems are most often started by Colin. If your impression that Colin is a victim or a pure victim of "bullying" that would be incorrect. Colin is interacting with people with negative toxic messages and some people including Jytdog are reacting negatively in response. Doc James is easy to get along with and has thick skin and has been getting an unfair battering by Colin who has created a toxic environment with him as well. Colin's approach should have been, okay we have a disagreement, let's have an RfC discussion about it. Even with that RfC discussion in place the toxicity persists.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• The problem is is that the community, including Colin, are voting in an RfC on this issue and I don't think it would be fair to Colin to be excluded from voting in that process.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Colin has !voted until he is blue in face.... er fingers. I think everybody is very, very, very clear on What Colin Wants. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we've kind of all had to vote til we are blue in the face, because it was not a very well designed RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you have replied to me, I will say that your very civil/pleasant posts here, in which you dodge any acknowledgement of what is going on with Colin, and try to nudge this back onto me, are in my view the most corrosive form of incivility and disruption in Wikipedia - namely the very civil playing of wikipolitics. I don't play those games and I don't respect them; everybody makes mistakes or acts badly sometimes, and sometimes people go seriously lost in some way. And yes I have heard your repeatedly stated hints here about coming after me. If you take these wikipolitics all the way through to long-term retaliation, well that is what you will choose to do. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Jyt, as I've told you before, you think so differently than I do. I have never gone after anyone, and you are no more special than the last guy. I am unlikely to spend my time in dispute resolution (especially not at ANI where anyone with a computer can enter a stupid opinion): I am likely to spend my time trying to continue to reach you, because we need your editing skills. (In the other case I mention, the fellow got a rather enormous boomerang and lost his bits on an arbcase launched ... by him ... and involving JzG and others. I merely presented evidence in a case I had nothing to do with.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no concern about my "editing skills" being available for the work of building the encyclopedia; for some reason you keep bringing up the risk of me losing editing privileges, here in this thread about Colin. Which is what I mean. The "blink blink -- who, me?" response is par for the pseudo-civility game. I don't know why people who do this cannot see how obvious it is to everyone else. This is the kind of interference you have been running for Colin and why I mentioned you in the OP. Please stop doing this. Colin is behaving disruptively and your support of that (and effort to prevent the community from addressing it) is not good for Colin or the community. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The problematic RFC is the responsibility of Doc James,[61] who chose not to wait to frame a neutral RFC: [62] [63] [64] [65] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog knows that Beeblebrox's comment above is aimed at Doc James launch of the RFC, nothing to do with Colin (who wanted a well-framed, collaborative RFC). As I have long been concerned about the level of discourse Jytdog gets away with, I hope it will be examined. I'll offer up my worst, right here, to save time, and encourage anyone interested to follow up on the interaction after that between Literaturegeek and myself. (She/He acknowledged not knowing the DSM requirement, and we both roundly apologized for the heated discussion-- see his talk and the RFC.) I doubt this will end up at ArbCom, because the community is handling the RFC just fine. If it does end up at ArbCom, I will be happy to dig up a long history of Jytdog attacks, as well as Doc James admin edit warring. I disagree with characterizations of Colin's behavior, and see Jytdog's habitual tone as contributory. As to the number of editors I go way back with on Wikipedia: comes with the territory of being FAC delegate. I go way back with everyone. Happy Spring, Passover or Easter to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• I can't say if Colin has a point or not because he takes it waaaaay too personally, to the point that I find it impossible to tease out anything valid from his walls of polemic. He is also exceptionalyl rude and obnoxious even by my standards, and I generally don't give a monkey's about that. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Diffs. I'll match you with those from others, who you don't seem to have done anything about, Guy. After Easter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You can list them, and if they have been brought here and I've been pinged in the discussion and they have previously been obnoxious to me and if I've ignored them anyway - i.e. if they are like for like comparable - then I will happily look at them. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would not want to find myself in the position of doing that. ANI can be a 3-ring circus, and not the best place for working towards enticing good editors to have better behavior towards their colleagues. Too many people pile on in unproductive ways. And you, Guy, know up close and personal what it looks like when I give up on Pollyanna and take on editors with abusive behaviors. It's been, what, 10 years now, but that fellow was desysopped, and an arb told me it was my evidence that did it. I gave him ample opportunity to mend his ways, make peace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I can call that one to mind, though I don't doubt it. For me the problem here is that Colin has gone straight from zero to illuminati in under six seconds. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll remind you sometime of a certain arbcom where I defended you, and another admin was desysopped for grossly abusive behavior reminiscent of what I have chosen not to diff here. After Easter. No, the deterioration that has been going on at WP:MED, of the type that led to this debacle, has lasted much longer than six seconds. For all the problems that were so obvious in this video debacle, it is astounding what it has taken to get participants there to listen, hear, learn. That is what is behind the frustration you see as 0 to 60. There has been an impenetrable walled garden at WP:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. (Glad you said something User:Jytdog, I saw this too, but didn't want to start this ) So, this project was , roughly on March 15, 2016 with of the scripts made available on the talk page itself, for anyone to peruse and critique. A place was made on that same page for commentgs , critiques, and criticisms. Interestingly enough, I see Soupvector commenting (and getting attacked ) but no comments or anything by Colin or Sandy Georgia. In fact this page we have Sandy Georgia arguing with Doc James, who really is a doctor in real life, that his information is wrong ?!?!? What ?!?!? That's a stretch! Further on that same page, we see Doc James responding patiently to what can only be described as constant nit-picking. Essentially, a lot of time was given to respond to the script, they didn't. They need to stop going after Doc James, in place after place, in post after post. The argument that keeps being made is the videos can't be edited, and that they're wrong. Once is fine, but this is being reposted to different places ad naseum. Either post it in one spot and let consensus decide or stop entirely, it's getting into WP:REHASH and WP:FORUMSHOP territory really quickly.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  21:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Appeal to authority. Again, should it come before ArbCom, I shall produce the diffs of Doc James removing correct information (in conjunction with Jytdog) and replacing it with incorrect information. It is not possible for a general practitioner to be up on every specialty, and Doc James is not. That I had to argue the new, 2017 consensus into the lead of the Lewy body article speaks for itself. That Doc James cannot know every area of medicine is not intended as a criticism, but your appeal to authority is problematic. Everyone is a dog on the internet, and I'm the Queen of Sheba. We discuss sources, not who someone is or is not in real life or what their profession may be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia and you know better or more than he does ? By all means, kindly provide the name of the medical college you graduated from and what your specialty is. Yes, I know Wikipedia is the place anyone can edit in, true, but telling a doctor he's wrong about medical terminology and procedure and medication on a medical page ? Uh, unless you're a doctor, that's a pretty slipperY slope, and again, you have years to look over the script as well. Oh hey, since you're not please with the videos, and this is Wikipedia, why not create your own and we'll let consensus decide.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  21:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case, yes I did. You seem to have missed my point. You are welcome to read the sources in the article. Particularly the new 2017 Consensus Diagnostic Criteria. To wit, and to address Jytdog's implications, Doc James had already come around on the article issues and read the sources by the time the video matter appeared on Jimbo's talk page. You really should not expect a general practitioner to have read every specialist review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You can tell a doctor they are wrong about medical content, but you best have sources and policies & guidelines on your side and consensus if needed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

:) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc James is a (well read) ER general physician, not a general practitioner, a small but important difference.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But to the original poster appeal to authority, I am still a cardiac surgeon with a degree from Harvard and practicing at Stanford. But only when they let me out of Sheba, and Trump lets me into the USA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Oh for heaven's sake. This ANI needs to stop. This is absurd, ridiculous. The community can and should handle this. Colin has said some things he shouldn't. He's frustrated. I'm aware of the background between him and Doc James. Jytdog is way our of line in the way he interacted multiple times with Sandy Georgia. Doc James in an editor and whatever his background is, he's not infallible which is an unfair burden to place on any editor. SG has remained remarkably calm throughout. There are issues surrounding the videos which Doc James has interjected into WP articles. These issues need to be dealt with by dealing with the issues themselves not sidestepping them. I will assume good faith and hope this was not an intentional diversion, but a massive Red Herring with capital letters is what this ANI is and by the way Jytdog's suggestion that Colin and SG be removed so he can get on with the work at hand is really astonishing. The work at hand will be better served with all of the editors involved who want to be involved in what we remember is a Collaborative Project.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

    Jytdog presumes much :) The epilepsy article is more relevant to Colin's long-standing medical editing on Wikipedia than the dementia with Lewy bodies discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandy normally is calm. So is James. I have never seen Colin before. I am rather wishing that were still the case. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, @JzG:, I can tell you a few things about Colin. First, we would not have MEDRS today were it not for his efforts. He honed in on the problems and issues, and in his incisive manner, helped put together what was needed, and helped make sure it could be promoted to guideline by staying within the parameters of RS.

Second, once there was some big argument at Raul's talk, and I lit into someone who was being just a monumental pain in the arse. Momentarily, I had a message from Colin calling me on my behavior (behavior that in today's Wikipedia would not raise an eyelash), and demanding that I apologize. I apologized. It was a weasly apology. Moments later, another message from Colin telling me, not good enough, apologies don't have "but" attached. A lesson I remember as often as I can. That's the Colin I know. I prefer on Wikipedia NOT to associate with cabalistic people who will defend me no matter what, but to associate with those who will hold me to standards.

The Medicine Project is not what it was in the days when we got MEDMOS and MEDRS up to guideline status. The way misguided newbies are attacked, in the name of MEDRS, is brutal. Do you remember the scholarly physicians like Encephalon, Knowledge Seeker, and JFW who used to populate the place? It is awful to see that at the same time that MEDRS is now used as a bludgeon against some editors, with an incredible level of incivility attached, it is at the same time disregarded and disrespected in this video situation. That's the view from the old-timers' seat. And, Colin identified issues with these videos that never occurred to, well, most of us. Certainly not me. Because he spends his time these days on Commons.

Well, sorry for taking so much space on musings, but I am hopeful that this video situation will not turn out as Tryptofish anticipates. I've been asking Jytdog for a very long time to curb his behaviors, but I'm not interested in laying out diffs at ANI, where we have things like argument to authority. I think Jytdog can be a very good editor, and I believe he can hear my message. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And I trust your judgment, so perhaps you could use your influence with Colin to try to persuade him that he'd get a lot further by making the effort to at least appear to give a neutral summary of a dispute, rather than going in with full-on accusations that respected long-standing editors are colluding to promote paid editing. The assumption of good faith was strikingly absent right from the first statement of the case. Often these things drift over time, but when it starts with accusations of ill-intent, there's an implicit assumption that the complaining party also has a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to "influence" Colin, who is a far better person than I; he is much more likely to simmer down in a dispute faster than I am, but there was a significant fanboy factor keeping this dispute alive. As I explained above, there has been a long history of WP:MED simply not listening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

But I'll make a deal with you @JzG: you watch list Jytdog, follow his posts for a month, exercise your influence there, and I'll exercise mine with Colin. I think you'll be busier than I will :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I wish I had time. I have talked on Skype with Jytdog, he is a bit of an energiser bunny, I am way too old and way too busy to keep on top of his edits, much as I would like to do this. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to whinge about "appeal[ing] to authority", perhaps you shouldn't appeal to authority. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Especially not at ANI! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "Colin and the Videos" would be a good name for a band. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Or a cabal ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

.....So, Colin's objections are:
The content cannot be edited. [While theoretically, someone can take the CC BY SA video and make a derivative work, it is not realistic to do that as the narrator would be different and it would be very hard to achieve the same visual style].

True - Same is true for audio version of articles. Again, anyone can edit, if you don't like an audio or visual on an article, by all means, add a better one.

The content begins and ends with publicity for a third party.

And ? There's no policy / rule / procedure that says it can't.

The content is unsourced and therefore does not meet our editing policies.

Uh.. how can you exactly source a video, and the same argument can be made for an audio version of an article. Straw man argument.

Some content is outdated, and it is not possible to fix. For example the video uses the outdated term "complex partial seizure"

Yeah, speaking as a non-medical person ,however, I'm a cancer survivor and read a ton of medical books going through chemo and was told by physician after physician that the books are at least a 1/2 year out of date. That's to be expected of book published literature. It can be fixed by updates and addendums that appear in later reliable studies. Another strawman

The video does not fit with our style guide for medical articles, referring to "patients" rather than "people with epilepsy".

Which guide ? Our guides are all print or audio. To be sure there's no video guide on all of the Wikipedia, so while not quite a strawman, it points to something that could be setup but does not exist at the moment.

The video contains American English slang terms such as "spaced out" which would not appear in professional writing and may be unfamiliar to our international audience. Hmmm......I understand brit slang pretty well, and anything I don't understand, I can google. Another strawman.

Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia, not a YouTube channel, nor a documentary. Videos should supplement the article text, providing information in ways that cannot be done by reading alone. Instead here, we have whole article topics in video format

Yes, that's your opinion, and certainly everyone's entitled to their opinion. It doesn't mean that it's right.

He also states:

"Videos have been released under a CC BY SA license and uploaded as part of a partnership between Osmosis.org and meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. I can find no mention of Osmosis at meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis page was created by Doc James "We are working with Osmosis to create medical videos under a CC BY SA license." That project page contains almost no discussion -- these videos are not in fact being reviewed by the project or community prior to being added to articles by Doc James. I must conclude that the "we" is Doc James, and not WP:MED nor the Wikipedia community.

Uh....actualy there is on this archive of WikiProject Medicine, it's also |mentioned on Meta too

Sandy Georgia's complaint over at[66] that the video on Lewy Bodies is inaccurate and engaged in a long discussion about it.

No problem - this is' Wikipedia and anyone can edit, so by all means , create a video and present it for consensus. This is just straight up forum shopping and it needs to stop. I'm just this close to requesting IBAN's for this , since I don't belive a TBAN would be the right way to correct this.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  13:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You have much reading to catch up on. (Could you work on better formatting of your posts, please?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, User:SandyGeorgia you might be surprised and how much I've read of this. For example |over here at Jimbo's page where Colin remarks that the videos were placed back in without consensus by Doc James, I actually agree. In both the mentioned pages, I see no consensus for the videos to be placed there in the first place. For all intents and purposes, it appears to be a WP:BOLD move on DocJames's part, and as always WP:BRD is how that's supposed to work, he did the Bold, colin did the remove, but the discussion was skipped. I'd actually ask User:DocJames to verify if consensus was established for their inclusion , obviously with a link included. Otherwise the contested videos need to be removed per BRD. Surprised ?  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  14:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite. The videos have already been removed.[67] Surprised? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI threads are not about content; that Doc James is able to read the writing on the wall of the RfC (that he started and that you have disrupted and tried to undermine) and is removing the current versions of the videos, shows all the more starkly how disruptive Colin's campaigning and personal attacks were (not to mention unnecessary - such behavior is never necessary). We could have gotten to this result more swiftly without all this drama. We still need to figure out if/how the videos can/will be reposted in a modified form. That discussion is still ongoing. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you insist, here is a diff discussing your behaviors. As to the ongoing discussion, they have indeed turned quite interesting. As the concerns emerge, it appears that Colin was particularly accurate in the description "Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation". There are a number of issues well beyond en.Wikipedia, and well beyond ArbCom, that appear to need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You are least being more honest with respect to your intention to retaliate.

Again this thread is not about the content. Colin's behavior has not been OK on this; nor has yours.

My responses to you from here onward will be very brief and simply rebutting further efforts to derail this. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you think very differently than I do. My last sentence is an indication that this is probably a WMF matter. As far as I know, that has nothing to do with any part of Dispute Resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• This diff (the 2nd comment in that diff), misrepresenting what is going on here, is an example of how SandyGeorgia is part of the problem. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, Jytog. Except for the title of Colin's post, everything else is inaccurate.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have asked you to explain this post, here. Actually talking to and answering questions asked by the person you have a disagreement with is the kind of dispute resolution I endorse. Please do. On your talk or mine, as you please. What did I misrepresent? I am always happy to strike when shown wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Answering:

a) Colin is not "under attack" (the purpose of ANI is to stop disruption for the good of everyone involved)

b) the subject of the thread is not Colin's "quite accurately pointing out that "Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation"" - indeed that yet again repeats the disruptive use of COI as a cudgel.

What you are doing here is deploying well worn and tedious ANI tactics, continuing the set of behaviors described in the OP. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Please stop casting aspersions ("well worn and tedious ANI tactics"). a) OK, I will strike and replace the "under attack" wording in the original post; I can see your point there. b) Best I can tell, JzG is bothered by that specific language from Colin, so we disagree on point b. We also disagree that he is using "COI as a cudgel"; there are serious COI issues here, and yet it took a week for anyone to see what Colin saw from the outset (others only came around to seeing it mostly as a result of @SlimVirgin:'s work). I do not think it appropriate for Colin to be under fire (replace: taken to task by JzG) because he saw the seriousness of paid editors from an outside company having a COI and the videos being inserted, with edit warring, by Wikipedia editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Struck and rewrote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Update from Doc James (thank you, @Doc James:). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor violating NOTHERE, here to promote

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

---

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

New editor Peaksunsolution (talk) is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to promote Peaksun, which the editor describes as "our company". First I tagged their article for speedy deletion, then gave the standard Username-COI and COI warnings, followed by further warnings when they persisted in removing COI and speedy delete tags. I'm not in the mood to get involved in an edit war over this, so will an admin take action? Thanks in advance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that Peaksunsolution is now warring [68] with another editor over the speedy deletion tags.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, mop needed please! Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

There's lot of spam out there needing to be cleaned. Even UAA needs attention. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Peaksun article has been speedy deleted as A7 and Peaksunsolution (talk · contribs) is blocked for username. Admin User:Mfield has helped out at WP:UAA. This ANI can probably be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 2601:400:C001:87D2::/64

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

---

• 2601:400:C001:87D2::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over many month now, this user has been adding unsourced info to cartoon pages (e.g., birth dates and heights). Example edits: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].

Requesting a rangeblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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 [75] 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,[76] 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 [77].

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)

User:ThePierrasse

I've been contacting this editor since August 2017, leaving several messages. They haven't responded or addressed the issues: the creation of multiple unreferenced articles. They have continued to create unref articles since I first raised the issue. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but have had no response. This editor doesn't edit all the time, but has edited many times since messages were sent, and has edited for 6 years. They have never responded to a talk page message from anyone. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, at least some look like translations from other languages and some of the originals are a bit short on references as well. I'll drop them a note as well, but I don't hold out great hopes in view of your experiences. Deb (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. If I didn’t take time to respond, it’s because I’m clearly getting targeted for trivial reasons and I don’t mean to be involved in any admin bullying. Those articles are indeed mostly translations, but since I wasn’t able to find an equivalent to Modèle:Traduction/Référence on the English Wikipedia (On other Wikipedias, this is a tag that you put on top of a References section to essentially redirect to the References section of the same article in another language, which I believe to be better practice than copy-pasting sources from one Wikipedia to another), I just went ahead and placed the Template:Translated page in the talk pages (On some other articles I actually tried to recreate the tag that I wanted by leaving the note ‘’This article is based on the equivalent article of the xx Wikipedia (...)’’, but I figured that defaulting to the already-existing tag would be a better idea, even if it didn’t do what I really wanted). If those articles were about controversial politicians, I would have understood the concern, but in the case of two plain simple articles on train stations, I really don’t understand the matter. ThePierrasse (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

All articles should be referenced, not only those about "controversial politicians", and preferably with inline citations. What you appear to be doing when you translate articles is stripping out any inline references. DO NOT DO THIS - even a incorrectly formatted reference is better than nothing.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

ThePierrasse, responding to other editors' concerns is compulsory, as I pointed out to you by linking to WP:Communication is required. It is an essential part of Wikipedia policy, also outlined at WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. Refusing to communicate or discuss concerns is disruptive. WP:V is essential to Wikipedia and not trivial, and accusations of bullying should not be used unless that is clearly the case, which it isn't here. Thank you for taking the time to communicate now, it's just a real shame it took seven months, numerous messages and an ANI to get to the point where you would respond. Do you understand that communication is a requirement on Wikipedia? Will you respond to concerns raised in future? Will you add reliable sources to articles when you create them? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

responding to other editors' concerns is compulsory, as I pointed out to you by linking to WP:Communication is required. It is an essential part of Wikipedia policy

Is it compulsory and part of Wikipedia policy? Because when I looked at WP:Communication is required, it had a huge notice at the top stating the following:

"This page is an essay on conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

124.106.139.19 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if the above is a new editor or ThePierrasse, but, 'it is an essential part of Wikipedia policy, also outlined at WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE'. Those are policies which are outlined in further detail in the essay WP:Communication is required. Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you point out exactly where it states that "responding to other editors' concerns is compulsory" and "communication is a requirement on Wikipedia? ", please?

Discussion is useful, especially when dealing with disputes - but it looks as if you're just getting annoyed and creating reports because someone doesn't want to talk to you. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As editing here is voluntary, nothing is really compulsory. However repeated failure to respond to other editors is disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4) and therefore blockable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In response to 124.106.139.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): You'll find that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution #Discuss with the other party is policy and states:

Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus.

Note particularly the phrase "or not at all". Failing to engage at all with other editors' concerns frustrates a fundamental mechanism on Wikipedia for overcoming problems, and you will eventually fall foul of a charge of disruptive editing if you never respond. Hope that helps you understand. --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't second guess your statement, as you're the one who is going to block them. But, I would say that if an editor does nothing wrong, then they have no obligation to respond to anything and shouldn't be blocked for not wanting to talk to people. Also, if an editor does something wrong, is messaged and changes their behavior without responding, then again no block is deserved.

The block should come when they do something wrong, don't respond and continue doing something wrong - and in that case the block is there for rule they broke, not their lack of response.

I'm sure there are lots of editors who have no desire to communicate and just make their edits without responding to anything.

What do you think, Nein - if an editor made decent edits and just refused to communicate with anyone, while making good edits and causing no disruption, would that still be considered disruptive? Obviously that's not the case in this situation, but I'm curious about the hypothetical situation. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No they wouldn't be "repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" in that case so not disruptive. Boleyn has always made it clear in this and other reports that concerns were repeatedly being ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. It was just curiosity, I don't think it applies to this situation or any situation I am likely to find myself in. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Wikilawyers who insist on the letter of policies and guidelines while violating their spirit ("Could you point out exactly where it states that "responding to other editors' concerns is compulsory" and "communication is a requirement on Wikipedia? ", please?") are likely to end up blocked. Also please log in to your account to post here, User:ThePierrasse / IP 124.106.139.19. You are currently contributing to this discussion in a way that implies the account and the IP are two different editors ("you're the one who is going to block them"). Please state upfront: are you one and the same? I admit I'd have trouble believing a "no", but we'll see. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

Please state upfront: are you one and the same? I admit I'd have trouble believing a "no", but we'll see.

For what it's worth - no we are not one and the same.

I was just curious about the rule regarding compulsory communication, so I asked about it - nothing more sinister than that.

But as you said, you are unlikely to believe that answer.

124.106.139.19 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Bishonen: The IP edits from the Philippines. ThePierreasse is fairly clearly French. Plus the IP has been involved in another ANI thread. Seems unlikely that the IP and ThePierreasse are the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes that isn’t me and I think the debate is slightly getting off-topic. If Boleyn had really cared about missing references, he would have been able to realize that there had been translation templates on the talk pages of both articles since day one. I do understand that this might not be enough of a reliable source on the English Wikipedia, but was that really enough to issue a report? Leaving a Template:unreferenced tag on top of the pages seemed to be the only right move. Plus I can’t stress enough that we’re talking about two railway stations articles with very few information written in them. What could have possibly been made-up about them? Their location? Date of opening? Don’t make me laugh. If there was really a problem with those articles, they should have been requested for deletion, but I don’t get the point of only going after the user who wrote them. I’m all for removing and challenging unsourced material, and I can only admire people who spend their time patrolling Wikipedia to make sure no bad content ends up on it, but I don’t think this was really the case here.ThePierrasse (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You refused to respond to quite reasonable questions about sourcing on your talkpage and in your response above, you indicate that you consider referencing as optional. In your translation efforts you actually managed to remove references that were present in the French article and you did not provide adequate attribution to the article on which you appear to have based your translation (hiding a translated tag on the talk page is not enough). You should clear up the mess you have made rather than just shrugging your shoulders and attacking editors who complain about your poor behavior.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Spjayswal67: SPA since 2009 with many recent issues

• Spjayswal67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Ambarish Srivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spjayswal67 is a very problematic single-purpose account (created in 2009). His single purpose is to create Ambarish Srivastava, that he created 3 times (AfD (closed 2010-02-08, result delete), 2nd AfD (started 2018-03-27, currently open)). After my !vote to delete, Spjayswal67 greatly increased the size of the AfD with comments and arguments against deleting the article. All !votes at the AfD are delete, except Spjayswal67's !vote. Today, at 08:42 UTC, Spjayswal67 did a legal threat at the AfD. There is also serious suspicion of undisclosed paid editing (at the article and the Spjayswal67's talk page). Spjayswal67 needs to be indefinitely blocked as soon as possible. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Enough nonsense at zero benefit---Let this blatant legal threat be the last nail on the coffin.Zero benefit for the WP community.Cross-wiki SPA.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Today at 14:01 UTC, Spjayswal67 was indefinitely blocked by NeilN for making legal threats. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Spjayswal67 indefinitely blocked. I thought about G4'ing the article but the first AFD only had two participants so getting more opinions might be a better if we're going to delete and salt this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: There are 5 participants in the current AfD, not counting the SPA: Softlavender, Usernamekiran, SpacemanSpiff, Winged Blades of Godric, and Luis150902. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Luis150902: And that can probably run for the usual seven days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@NeilN: Can't G4 as the original AfD was appealed at DRV which permitted recreation and recommended a relist at AfD (something I didn't have the energy to do), given the amount of promo stuff that in local interest pieces was being passed on as genuine just because all of it was in Hindi, something that no one else could read and photographs of buildings as references! —SpacemanSpiff 14:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2601:400:C001:87D2::/64

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

---

• 2601:400:C001:87D2::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over many month now, this user has been adding unsourced info to cartoon pages (e.g., birth dates and heights). Example edits: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83].

Requesting a rangeblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Passing of Alice Dacuba

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

User:Beyond_My_Ken dislikes the WP:EASTEREGG formatting standard, keeps reverting edits without reason, and is making offensive personal remarks.

Hi there,

Would you guys be able to help out here? I've tried reasoning with this user, and I've told him that his edits detract from Wikipedia's readability; and I've also pointed out that personal insults aren't appropriate on Wikipedia. But he ignores everything, and even tried to cover up the disagreement by reverting my message on his talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=833346595&oldid=833343325

Also, he's stated clearly on his userpage that he dislikes rules and guidelines, and he seems to revel in disregarding them.

I'm aware of the fact that rules and guidelines sometimes need to be bent or broken, but he's given no reason for it in this instance. It's wasting quite a lot of time. Here is a link to the page in question: Adolf Eichmann

Regards, InternetMeme (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)