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.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Jack Sebastian

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hijiri's problem

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

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

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

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

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

BLP violations and edit warring by BigDwiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As an aside, I just noticed that reference #12 is indeed a youtube video and it is used in the article and has remained there without objection. "In a Q&A video posted to her YouTube channel in July 2014, Jennings stated that she is pansexual, and that she loves people "for their personality", regardless of their sexual orientation or gender status." BigDwiki (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incivility and failure to communicate

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

Example breaches;

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

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

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

89.240.143.247
92.10.182.248
2.28.13.202
92.10.177.190
92.10.188.218
92.10.184.187

and I could give you A THOUSAND MORE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side issue

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

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

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

Violation of IBAN by Alansohn

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

---

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

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

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

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

The IBAN has a matching TBAN Baseball Bugs. It's hardly bogus and is easy to follow. Alansohn has zero edits [4] to the page nominated to AfD and zero reason to be on that page. Rusf10 is 100% in the clear here on his restriction. I'd be all over Rusf10 too if he was flaunting his TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate removal of NPP rights

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidelines for revocation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as for my new page patrol history, I've been doing this for years without incident: [5] And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• While I have never been a fan of unilateral removal of user rights unless in extreme situations, this is certainly within the administrator's discretion; for relevant revocation criteria, see WP:NPR #Guidelines for revocation. Given diffs provided above, this is a case where a largely inactive user made a grossly bad call, and continues to insist that they are correct despite of comments from several other experienced editors (including the administrator that they have apparently "misunderstood" and misquoted). This is a not a editor that clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control, therefore I endorse the removal of NPR flag. This thread should be closed. Alex Shih (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Kudpung has hit the nail on the head and I'll repeat it here: "What's so important in having a user right if one has no intention of using it? "[6] - WP:NPR does clearly state and I quote " to have made at least 500 uncontested edits to mainspace articles" .... And Adoil Descended you haven't even hit 100 edits since 2012 and as noted above you don't even use the NPR tool so the millionaire dollar question is Why on earth are you making all of this fuss over something you don't use ? ....

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

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

For an example of a new article cleaned up by Adoil, see [7]. There are many changes that need be made or at least tagged if he were patrolling this article. I agree with the removal of the right. We don't need articles half-patrolled. Natureium (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Detektyw_z_Wilna

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply from the accused

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

Now let's deal with specific accusations:

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial censorship issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested solution

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

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

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

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

Detektyw z Wilna's absurd attempt to hide this investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

• placing it prominently in the "Early life" section, where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation. This was removed several times [8][9]
• highlighting the one-paragraph incident via a subsection header in violation of the spirit of the RfC consensus and WP:WEIGHT—this numerous times after being reverted: [10][11][12][13]

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

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

With regard to alleged antisemitic comments—they are about a particular quote Ford made in response to allegations that his brother, Rob Ford, had used a number of racist epithets (for Jews and other ethnicities). I has been questioned whether the quote—especially when quoted at length—even belongs in the article or whether it is simply WP:COATRACKing anything to make Ford look bad. Nixon Now has responded to concerns that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Antisemitic comment by brother by expanding the text there, and again has editwarred to keep it in: [14][15][16][17]. Again, WP:BLP calls for disputed edits to reach a consensus before they can be included, not the reverse.

More editwarring:

• removing text in which a political rival, Jagmeet Singh, made positive comments about Ford: [18][19][20][21].

to keep in a bit about a John Oliver comment: [22] [23][24]

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

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

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

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

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

"Doug Ford, 60, a businessman, a former drug dealer, who is currently seeking the PC nomination in Etobicoke North for the upcoming June 2018 Provincial election."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • The IP on the 3RR edit warring report has now also been confirmed as a sock[25]. While CurlyTurkey dismissed my justification as "FUD" my suspicions about socking have now been confirmed. Nixon Now (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Other editors have also reverted attempts to remove the subheadings while the RFC is underway.[26] Singling me out for doing this or claiming it's somehow aberrant to do so is specious. Nixon Now (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Curly Turkey's belligerent attitude to editors can be seen here[27] where in short order, in separate comments, he tells an editor "The flying fuck is this shit?", "You admitted to it yourself. Now fuck off" and "just fuck off with the trolling horseshit". Nixon Now (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

No, he's sworn at me too[28], refused to AGF, and has been shopping around specious complaints. If that's "gentle" I feel sorry for the editors he's harsh with. Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

CurlyTurkey falsely claims that I placed the Ford drug dealing allegations "prominently in the "Early life" section,] where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation." In fact, the allegation had been there for years, see for example[29] I simply restored it when POV editors, most of whom have been banned, attempted to censor the material from the article since around January 2018 when Ford re-entered politics. I have said this several times yet CT persists in repeating the myth that I am the author of the drug allegation passage. Nixon Now (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I said it appears to be buried because that is the effect. Whether or not that is your intention is irrelevant. I'm not speaking of your motives, simply of the outcome. I was mistaken in assuming you had previously opposed inclusion of the drug material in the article and I apologise for that.[30]

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

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

• Perhaps best we lock up the page till they all figure out what to do.....I see will still have reverts all over.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moxy: perhaps, but only after the removal of disputed material first, per WP:BLP.
  • Then it should be locked to the state it was back in January prior to the descent of a sockpuppet army - save for later sections on Ford winning the leadership etc. Nixon Now (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It should absolutely not be locked under a "Nixon Now-approved" version—it should be locked under a version in which disputed material has first been removed until consensu to add it back is formed on the talk page, per WP:BLP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • semi-protection until the June 7 election would remove the socks and IP editors from the mix and allow legitimate discussion and editing to continue. Pending revisions has failed to stop sockpuppet editing. Nixon Now (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Semiprotection might help defend the article against socking, but the issues are not limited to socks. Most of the editors are legitimate, and you're reverting them, too—against clear talk page consensus, and on a WP:BLP no less. On top of that is your POV-pushing, which is the subject of this report. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly not back to January, there is a lot of great non-disputed content over the past 2 months covering the Leadership race and new content about the upcoming Ontario general election, 2018, so please leave the Provincial politics section as it is today and we can add more via admin. requests. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Right—far too much legitimate material has been aded since Ford's election as party leader to revert the entire article, and we would have to be careful anything reverted to didn't violate WP:BLP or any of the consensuses reached already on the talk page. Reverting would cause far, far more problems than it could solve.
      But we still have NN's WP:OWNership issues to deal with. Regardless of any other issues, progress won't be made until we do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • So, I'd say remove all disputed content and go to either full or semi-protection until, as Nixon Now says, the election is over, at least. In terms of NN lets just all cool down for awhile and I think we can eventually all get along just fine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
        • There is a consensus for keeping the drug dealing allegations. Would you remove that? There appears to be consensus for the response to antisemitic comments? Would you remove that? It looks like you're trying to achieve here what you've failed to achieve through RFC, BLP discussion page, and talk page discussion. Nixon Now (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I'd have all of it removed until their respective RfCs closed, and then have someone other than Nixon Now add the information in that has officially achieved consensus. NN's "Doug Ford is a former drug dealer" edit and intransigence over the subsectioning (etc) show that they cannot be trusted with sensitive material. Proposed wordings for the drug dealing allegations, etc, should be proposed on the Talk Page first, so they aren't open to "creative interpretation" by POV-pushers claiming to be working under "consensus". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
            • So you would overturn consensus until some point in the future and impose your preferred version in the mean time. At least now we know the motivation for this ANI. This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Your ANI is an abuse of process. Nixon Now (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
              • And here you are accusing me of pushing some POV again, and yet still can't name that POV. Am I pro-Ford? Anti-Ford? Your very accusation is gibberish. Meanwhile, you continue to defend "Doug Ford is a businessman and former drug dealer ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
                • CT did not say he would impose his version, more along the lines of an uninvolved person coming up with the right content and Ivanvector is perfect for that, if he's willing, imo, even if he's had some involvement. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
                  • I'd be fine with that, along with a WP:0RR restriction on Nixon Now in light of their continued defence of "Doug Ford, 60, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivanvector, you have to be joking. How do you justify "Doug Ford, 60, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..."? How do you justify that every edit NN has pushed has put Ford in a bad light, while every edit he insists on keeping out puts him in a positive light? How do you justify NN's insistence that edits under discussion that NN supports be kept in the article until discussion closes, but edits that NN opposes be kept in until discussion closes? What of WP:BLP, which mandates challenged material be kept out when challenged?

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

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

Ivanvector: do you agree that this comment accurately reflects how I've characterized NN? Do you believe that "Doug Ford, 60, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..." was NN honestly trying to be NPOV? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could we get an uninvolved party to comment here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry Nocturnalnow but your comments are highly misleading. It's false to say the drug allegations "stayed out until a few weeks ago". In fact, they were in the article for years, since 2013[31] and were still in the article as late as December 2017[32], and only disappeared in January around the time Ford announced his candidacy for the PC Party leadership and were kept out due to edit-warring by a now banned editor and their sockpuppets. To suggest, as you do above, that these allegations are a recent addition to the article is simply false. You are also cherrypicking policy and are completely ignoring WP:WELLKNOWN which is a component of BLP. Nixon Now (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I refer admins to comments made by admin User:Ivanvector and other editors in the main discussion above the break, particularly this one[33]. If I require a defence to CT's specious complaint, I will rely entirely on what Ivanvector has said and see no reason to add anything further. If CT brings up a two month old edit to an entirely different article (as he does below) please see this response[34]. These two diffs are all that need to be said. Nixon Now (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

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

Persistent addition of unsourced and wrong information on articles

• 178.2.72.68 (talk · contribs)

The editor is likely to the same as 92.216.255.190 (talk · contribs), and he or she kept adding unsourced and/or wrong information in various articles. For example in Loulan Kingdom, it is clear that what the editor had written was about Kingdom of Khotan, not Loulan (apparently the editor was under the mistaken belief that Loulan is Li county referred to in Tibetan sources, nevertheless kept adding the same information even when made aware of that it is wrong) [35] [36][37][38], while in Qiemo County, the editor kept adding unsourced information, and when removed, keep re-adding the same unsourced content with a more content (sometimes that may not be relevant) copied from other pages, [39] [40] [41] [42]. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible issues at AfD

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

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

Users involved;

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

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

if its not canvassing, and there is no proof of canvassing, then its derogatory using words suspicious and canvassing. Disappointed much with such words are being used here.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 20:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Talk about having entrenched wrong ideas about what constitutes stub eligibility - [43],[44],[45],[46]. Can we haz that topic ban as an actual possibility please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Check article Kakakhel (tribe) which you posted above as an example. User:Saqib voted to keep it, check this [47]. Then, this goes for him as well ".. having entrenched wrong ideas ..", a quote by you. --Spasage (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am not in business of harassing anyone. I gave my opinion. About Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tehseen_Fawad, he is creating very small articles, almost one liner articles with no possibility of expansion, which was bothering me. --Spasage (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

User User:Winged Blades of Godric added article Allah Dino Khawaja for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination). With comments "... Trivial mentions in sources and no significant position held, (which by-default equates to notability)...". I do not know what to make of it. He also goes by AD Khawaja. He is top most officer of second largest Police force in Pakistan. His article is using thenews.com.pk, tribune.com.pk, www.dawn.com, www.geo.tv and many other news paper. He received very large attention. His case went all the way to court because of politics behind his appointments. And this article is up for deletion. Not sure what to make of it. If I put these comments, I will be banned. Another article is for deletion Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder). He is covered in images.dawn.com and tribune.com.pk, both are leading news papers in Pakistan, not spammy. He is Mr. Pakistan which is highest level of body building competition you can win in Pakistan. In deletion text this is written "Won some local competitions.Not even professionally recognized.Most of sources are spammy". "won some local competitions ", he is Mr. Pakistan. Since, there is proposal for banning me, so not sure what to make of it. --Spasage (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination) and Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) both of these AFDs articles have one & more than one reliable sources and both articles subjects are notable, I wonder how its passing the criteria of deletion?. Some neutral Admin should go through the refernces will offcourse find reliable sources and notability. Rest in details is described by the Spasage, is it not a biased nomination, despite of some reliable sources?. Other nominations AFDs are also being contradiction and biased nominations. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for yiur kindness to notifying me here. If there any proof of canvassing?, then it should be proved here. Using such words of Promospam, canvassing, suspicious are derogatory for the volunteer Wikipedian. If some users have voted for Keep on one or more AFDs then is it a spam? How its a spam? And what are proofs blamming for Spam, promospam? What are proofs for canvassing?. If a users thinks any AFD meets atleast one reliable source and place a vote of keep, then its right of a user to be given fair chance for participating.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 20:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose

1) that And Adoil Descended (talk · contribs), JogiAsad (talk · contribs), Arif80s (talk · contribs), Spasage (talk · contribs) and مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs) be topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD") because of ignorance of the English Wikipedia's notability policies, compounded by an unwillingness to learn and bludgeoning of AfD discussions. See the AfD's that Black Kite links to as examples at the top of this thread. The bans can be appealed on WP:AN or WP:ANI when the users can show greater understanding of our notability policies, to the community's satisfaction, in, say, not less than three months.

2) and that the new page reviewer right be removed from Spasage (talk · contribs), per Winged Blades of Godric's concern above, until such time as they can show greater understanding of our notability policies to the satisfaction of an uninvolved admin, to whom they may appeal in not less than three months. Pinging User:Callanecc, who granted the right, in case they would like to comment.

Please discuss below. It's probably best, for clarity, to address my two proposals separately. Of course, if you wish, also address all five users separately. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

(I messed up the signing, so I'm re-pinging Callanecc. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC).)

• Support both. To clarify my position, I also endorse NPP removal from And Adoil Descended (talk · contribs). --Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support XfD topic bans based on ignorance/bludgeoning combo. Not sure about the NPP removal - from my random sampling, Spasage actually generally does an okay job there, which is surprising considering their ideas about notability (this might be what Winged Blades of Godric meant above?). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. Although since the new page reviewer right is being removed per community consensus, Spasage will have to gain community consensus for restoring this user right. Capitals00 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Update: Support both, but for a period of 1 year. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support all per my previous remarks, just writ large, as it were. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. —MBL ^talk 17:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment before making decision, consider my record of comments on deletion and record of page I have reviewed. Page review has long history. --Spasage (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per the salient comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, both proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. A timed ban would also be OK (1 year expiry). They mean well, I think, but this is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To develop my reasoning a bit: Yes, it is disruptive from lack of understanding rather than malice, but the end result is negative for the encyclopedia. See for instance this AfD !vote by JogiAsad posted after their post below, which shows that they still don't understand "trivial coverage" versus significant coverage despite the discussion here. Spasage seems to believe that it is a good idea to save poorly referenced articles as stubs, per this and this. Again, I'm sure this is good-faith, but it's still disruptive. I provided a diff for And Adoil Descended's editing in my post above, and there are other relevant diffs in that discussion. The other two users seem to be a little less disruptive, but AfD !votes such as this (from Arif80s) and this make me think that a tban that can be appealed after some set period of time (I'm not that concerned with the length), where the users show in their appeals that they have grasped the fundamentals of verifiability and notability, would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Disappointed with such a nomination (Topic ban) without sound proofs of Canvassing, Spams, Promospams allegations; I request worthy Admins (Sysop) and conflict resolvers to have neutral judgement of this nomination. I have not canvassed, forced any user to vote on my articles AFDs, and there is no proof mentioned of the allegations mentioned above by the nominators; I was just trying to contest my articles AFDs,and rest participant users who voted on AFDs have tried to conveyed their vote, because they have found the reliable sources on the articles. And is it not suspicious that probably having the biased intention the one user often and randomly proposing my articles for deletion? However those article have atleast one or more than one reliable sources. I am really much disappointed with such nominations and ban. If a article has poor references/reliable sources then anyone can edit, expand, improve the content and references of articles.! If the articles are being nominated in such targetted speedily deletion without going through the refernces and improving it, I think Wikipedia will lost dedicated, enthusiast volunteer contributors. Rest is upon the Admins and mediators to ask them for proofs of the allegations raised here. bytheway I'm really much disappointed with such happenings here on Wikipedia (the sum of all human knowledge) which I think is under control of some lobbying, biased nominators.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support--To prevent messes like this AFD, where 2 of the subjects participated, with their usual nonsense, thus generating a sheer volume of bovine excrement, which negated the prospect of the proper policy-based close.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with no opinion on the other editor. Natureium (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is very interesting what User:Winged Blades of Godric is talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrduPoint. See the stats

Keep votes: 8 (Tahir mq, امین اکبر, Arif80s, Ma'az, Hindustanilanguage, Mar4d, Samee, Störm) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric) and the list of people who you want to ban are: Adoil Descended, JogiAsad, Arif80s, Spasagea nd مھتاب احمد In the list, I found only Arif80s, I did not find anyone else. I was not part of it. If you go in detail of this AFD, Arif80s only voted once. There were only two votes against it and they were Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric. Here are more details on AFDs. Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memon Abdul Ghafoor Keep votes: 1 (JogiAsad) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business incubators in Pakistan Delete votes: 2 (Ajf773, Saqib)

Request put by Winged Blades of Godric - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) Keep votes: 2 (JogiAsad, Spasage) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric)

Request put by Winged Blades of Godric - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination) Keep votes: 3 (86.17.222.157, JogiAsad, Spasage) Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ismail Shah Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 3 (Winged Blades of Godric, Saqib, Narky Blert)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Umber Lodhi Delete votes: 1 (Saqib) Speedy Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehrooz Waseem Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 3 (Saqib, Bonadea, Winged Blades of Godric)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JW Forland Pakistan Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 4 (Winged Blades of Godric, D4iNa4, Saqib, Ma'az)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi Keep votes: 6 (Saqib, 31.173.188.190, Spasage, Atlantic306, مھتاب احمد, Arif80s) Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi Keep votes: 5 (Saqib, 31.173.188.190, Arif80s, Spasage, مھتاب احمد)

Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haroon Janjua Keep votes: 3 (Ma'az, Spasage, Legacypac) Delete votes: 3 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric, Störm)

In above 12 AFDs, Spasage 8 keep votes, Saqib voted for delete 11, Winged Blades of Godric voted for delete 10. and 9 times both Saqib and Winged Blades of Godric voted on delete. Arif80s only 3 times Keep. Adoil Descended did not even voted. JogiAsad voted keep 3 times. مھتاب احمد 2 keep. Arif80s & Spasage 2 keeps, مھتاب احمد and Spasage 2 keeps, JogiAsad and Spasage 2 keep votes. This is what stats says.

Here is my voting record for full disclosure: Keep Dana Meadows, Kaghan ‎ - result keep, Saqib also voted keep Kakakhel (tribe) - result keep, Saqib also voted keep Amb Jogi ‎ Iqbal Jogi ‎ Haroon Janjua ‎ Ismail Shah ‎ Mehrooz Waseem Daily The Patriot JW Forland Pakistan ‎ Allah Dino Khawaja Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) ‎

Delete Samoon Ahmad,MD Lal Salam (party) ARY Digital Tower

intially I was accused of coordination, I dont see any coordination with anyone in delete or keep vote. For some of the articles above, if result is delete, I am ok with it. In cases where I voted yes, I provided reference. --Spasage (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spasage: I am not exactly sure what your point is with this comment. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD note

I have relisted the following

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi
  • although I suspect the AfDs will both be deleted and re-listed when this is closed. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/171.248.246.158

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Special:AbuseFilter/910, set to detect only for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

174.238.1.106

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

---

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

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

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

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

Range block Request

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

User:Ealbayrak

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

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

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

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

Help!!

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP edit war at Jon Paul Fiorentino

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

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

Genre warring IPs from Irvine

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

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

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

---

In principle, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity is for all Wikipedians. However, they are planning to publish a newsletter proclaiming that the death of Billy Graham was "a profound loss". Not everyone would necessarily agree with that. Maintaining this is obviously not in the best interest of having a pluralistic community project. So, what say ye? Shall we vet our Christian WikiProject's communications? un [48]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban for jps

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block for jps

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

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

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

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

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

Calling for a global ban on CJ 4DPLEX GLOBAL

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

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

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

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

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

---

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly insinuating that I am a Nazi based on my username including the number "88" (a reference to the year of my birth, whose potential, fairly obscure, neo-Nazi associations I wasn't aware of until after I adopted it -- it's only come up twice before, but I still have to explain it on my user page anyway because of how apparently inflammatory it is). It started when he referred to me as "Hijari88", and I asked him not to; he then said that he would call me "88" instead.[49][50]

This was clearly not an accidental coincidence, as he just happened to make an edit to a page about neo-Nazis a half-hour later.[51] He also indicated that he was aware of a tongue-in-cheek discussion about number-symbolism I was having elsewhere.[52][53]

Anyway, I asked him either to explain how his new nickname for me was not meant to accuse me of being a fascist or to retract and apologize,[54] and he refused,[55] instead doubling down and calling me "Hachi-ju-hachi" (Japanese for "eighty-eight") three more times in a row.[56]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

39.42.159.51 is not following WP:NPOV

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sorry you're not able to see the other benefits. Maybe you can go read about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Are you actually an Angelino, or are you using an open proxy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

ResilientWiki is NOTHERE

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

User is spamming external links (e.g., [57]) and making personal attacks (e.g., [58]). Seems to be related to the electronic harassment issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly inclined to banninate as a spammer, but there are no edits since the last warning, I think, so let's wait and see if the penny drops. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  I saw your comment, but when I went to try to hold fire I managed to set Twinkle into motion instead of closing it. Yeah, waiting a bit isn't a big deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoryWeagant. I think this is the same person. ~ GB fan 15:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that wixsite.com cold be safely added to the global blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. It would avoid any potential socking to add that sub-domain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not saying you were wrong to initially remove the unsourced content, even if it is non-controversial. However with an edit message like [59] from Govvy restoring the material, this is the point where you assume good faith and that the editor will be working to improve the article in the next day or so. It would be different if someone came by to challenge the removals a week or more later and wasn't attempting to fix. --Masem (t) 20:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:MoldyOne Vandalism

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please delete User:E-artexte (spam)

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

---

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

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

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

HostBot

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

---

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

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

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

Copyright violation from SPA

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

---

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

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

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

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

Legal Threat from User:Jnewby1956

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

---

User Jnewby1956 has made a legal threat [60]. reddogsix (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Legacypac accusations of bad faith, COI while editing DS firearms articles

Legacypac has made a number of uncivil accusations towards me relating to edits primarily on the talk pages of firearms articles. While I'm sure we don't hold the same views on the subject I do not appreciate accusations that my edits, ore more often my talk page comments are "whitewashing". Repeated accusations of WP:POVPUSH, accusations of whitewashing, and not very sutle accusations of COI are not condusive to WP:CIVIL editing (examples below).

I have tried to reach out to Legacypac to address these issues on the editor's talk page. Initially here [[61]] and after additional instances incivility here [[62]]

Several associated with the article 2018 NRA boycott that related to a request to remove material that I felt was WP:SYN. Consensus on the article page and a NORN thread supported removal. Accusations were made on both locations and at myself and a second editor.

• March 13, "I'm tiring of your pro-NRA advocacy User:Springee. This is an area under discretionary sanctions." [[63]]
• March 13, Similar comment directed at another editor "A review of [User]'s recnet contributions show NRA whitewashing. I remind this user that this topic is under discretionary sanctions. " [[64]] Note edit summary
• March 14, "Anyone reviewing edit histories can see which editors are whitewashing and even the big name media is picking up on the effort of these editors. " [[65]]
• March 17, from the NORN discussion related to this material, "These two editors are the ones arguing to remove it. In fact Springee has a history of trying to downplay anything negative about the NRA. The RS are noticing. [links to external media]" [[66]]

Non-firearms article:

• March 18, "Stop trying to whitewash this page", [[67]]

Noticeboard comments:

• March 26, "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort? [Link to blog post by blocked editor Lightbreather]" [[68]], Archived discussion [[69]]

Smith and Wesson article:

• April 2, "You will not whitewash the page completely", [[70]], upon a talk page[[71]] request this one was removed. [[72]]
• April 2, "Wow you are narrowly focused on reasons to exclude a good source where the headline names S&W. Here is another [removed ref] but I'm sure there is something wrong with this source too" [[73]]

AfD discussion page:

• April 2, "Pretty POV of Springee - when will you stop advocating against any transparency around the NRA's activities?" [[74]] Per a talk page comment I requested this comment be removed. [[75]]

Talk page implication of COI:

• April 2, "Are you in anyway employed by a gun manufacturer or the NRA? Just wondering?" [[76]] A quick search of my edit history shows no firearms edits at all prior to Aug 2016 and until late last year only limited involvement.

Several times Legacypac has linked to a few external media articles that started with an article in The Verge about Ar-15 edits on Wikipedia. I discussed the very questionable articles here [[77]]. I think it is uncivil to use questionable articles as a way to impugn the actions of other editors.

I'm not requesting sanctions, only that the accusations etc stop. Springee (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see some specific edits that the two of you are arguing about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Springee states that he or she is asking "only that the accusations etc stop", so let's consider accusations that have been made. (1) Springee has a history of wanting the removal of negative information relating to gun supporters in the United States. Legacypac regards that as editing to support a point of view, and uses the word "whitewashing" to describe it. Legacypac has a perfect right to hold that view, and it is not reasonable to attempt to suppress his or her right to express the opinion. (2) Legacypac has asked whether Springee has a conflict of interest, and received an unequivocal answer "no". Having received that answer, Legacypac must now drop the matter, and not suggest that Springee has a conflict of interest again unless and until there is clear evidence that Springee in fact does have one. Persisting in repeatedly making such an accusation without substantiation is both a failure to assume good faith and a violation of Wikipedia's policy on harassment. (3) Springee needs to be careful about making accusations against Legacypac. For example, Springee has linked to this talk page section, referring to it as "additional instances incivility", but while Legacypac firmly expressed critical views of Springee's editing, he or she did do perfectly civilly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is is really a legit question? Springee has a 10 year edit history, editing more than firearms articles. It should be obviousl that there was not a "paid editor" issue. The COI "question" was not called for. And the term "whitewashing" is being used in a manner that suggests collusion or nefarious motives. The technical use of the word may not be wrong, but the implication is clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I had closed this section, but on representation from Springee I am reopening it, to allow Legacypac a chance to respond. There is also a question of whether "whitewashing" is, as I took it, simply a term describing repeated removal of content supporting a particular position by someone who clearly disagrees with that position, or something more reprehensible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you JamesBWatson. Your close was fine I asked the other editor once if they had a COI and they said no, which I take them at their word for. When I used the term whitewashing (just like other editors do [78]) I refer to removing any negative information about a subject from the page directly, and indirectly by attacking the critical Reliable Sources used, weight, relevance and so on on the talkpages/RS notice board etc of any material that the NRA would not want on the page. At issue are facts like:

1. some guns are commonly and in legislation called assault rifles [79] [80]
2. there is significant backlash against the NRA because of their response to recent mass shootings including the 2018 NRA boycott [81], and somewhere he deleted a link I placed to this article from I recall the NRA page.
3. that the NRA has been suggesting boycotts of opponents for years [82], which he sees as irrelevant to the current boycotts and NRA response and that
4. Smith & Wesson changed their name to American Outdoor Brands Corporation [83] [84] to blunt criticism.

Examples and supplied links are just some I was able to quickly gather from memory. None of them illustrate the talkpage POV pushing.

(By the way the American Outdoor Brands Corporation and Smith & Wesson pages cover the exact same company under two names. The page incorrectly identifies S&W as a subsidiary of itself. Further Smith & Wesson is basically G11 material - a glowing advertisement and product catalog with subpages for each gun they make.)

There are multiple editors whitewashing gun topics and mainstream media has noticed:

Anyway as I said, this editor has been editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI). I reviewed some recent contributions after they filed this report and there appears to be some recent moderation in their POV pushing. I'll not claim all the credit for pushing them in the direction of NPOV but I hope that trend continues. Hope that clears things up. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, there is a difference between saying the edit is a problem and saying I'm POV pushing. I think the same argument could be made about your edits but I haven't because I would like to keep things civil, hence reaching out to you twice. You accuse me of POV push but lets review the example where you lodged most of the accusations. "That edit is whitewashing" is about the edit. "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort?" is about the motives of the editor and not civil.

In reply to your numbered points.

1. You didn't note that there were a number of edits related to what to call the rifles and that a talk page discussion said that they shouldn't be called "assault rifles" (start of back and forth[[85]]). Additionally the source for the claim didn't use the term "assault rifle" so the change is completely appropriate per contentious wp:label [[86]]. I believe sticking to what the source says and avoiding contentious labels is good practice.

2. This was early on in the existence of the article and I wasn't the only one who was concerned that the article was more like a cry for action against companies rather than a neutral description of events (which were still unfolding). The edit was BOLD and reverted and I moved it to the talk page. You may not agree but that doesn't justify personal attacks.

3. This edit suggests you were tone deaf to policy. You felt the information was relevant but could find no RSs linking material from 2014 to the 2018 Boycott. Rather than discuss policy the first thing you did was attack @Miguel Escopeta: and myself. You continued the attacks on the NORN discussion. In the end you were the sole editor who felt the material was supported by policy. If you are the only one supporting inclusion maybe the issue isn't POV push but policy. I'm not saying you were wrong for opposing removal but that opposition didn't need to include attacking other editors.

4. OK, bring that up as a RfC or such. That doesn't justify attacking me for pointing out that the edits being added were using sources that didn't support the claims being made. The originating editor was previously blocked for sock editing and edit warring (and is currently topic blocked for these edits) so it's understandable that myself and others weren't quick to embrace the material. If you had opened up a talk page discussion asking how we can get the material in I think you would find I was supportive in general but not of the exact text and I wasn't interested in helping an editor who had accused me of being a S&W employee etc.

Your reposed a series of poor quality opinion articles based on one published by the Verge. The author of the Verge article contacted me 24 hr prior to publication, asked a vague question that made the tone of the article clear. I didn't reply. Earlier in this ANI I posted a link my take on the article and the gross errors the author made in his telling of events. Those articles don't justify uncivil comments towards other editors.

Your block log and previous ANI cases shows you have a history of bullying[[87]] and I think that is what is going on here. I'm not asking you to change your mind or agree with my edit suggestions. I also don't think this rises to any sanctions. I'm only asking that you assume good faith and discuss the edits, not the editor. This shouldn't be too much to ask. Springee (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

News org Verge found Springee's POV pushing so blatant they call Springee up for an interview and write an article about it. Newsweek and two other places pick up the story.

Springee files an ANi against me because I independently came to the same assessment about Springee's specific agenda editing as Verge and Newsweek!

First, That's awesome! No wonder Springee is so sensitive to any mention of the news coverage detailing how they personally brought Wikipedia into disrepute by whitewashing gun related pages. Second, congratulation are in order - we should put a DYK about Springee's editing making Newsweek. That's a rare honor indeed.

I think we can close this discussion again unless someone wants to use DS to topic ban Springee for editing so POV that four media outlets wrote it up. Legacypac (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The above is a clearly uncivil comment and illustrates exactly the sort of behavior that I've been concerned about. The edit justification assocaited with that addition is also a civility problem. [[88]] Based on the above comment I would like to request a formal warning for incivility. Springee (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suggesting the DYK is exactly the sort of behavior that makes it difficult to work with you. Some writer with an agenda writes a one-sided opinion piece and you act like it was carried down from the mountain by Moses. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The box I posted was created by some other editor(s), I just borrowed it from the AR-15 talkpage.

• @Legacypac: I have told you that you must stop the accusations of conflict of interest. I know that "editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI)" stops short of actually saying that Springee has a conflict of interest, but in the context it clearly makes a not very deeply veiled implication to that effect. If I see you do anything like that again I shall block you from editing. I may also say that other aspects of your editing on this page is much more in line with a battleground approach to other editors than like an attempt to resolve disagreements. Your comments here have certainly led me to move somewhat away from the position that I expressed when I originally closed this discussion, and I hope I don't find it necessary to move further in the same direction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

[[User:JamesBWatson] I've never once said he had a COI (as you correctly note) and I only once asked nicely if there was one so we could get that out of the way as he keep coming to my talk to complain. There is no accusations of "bad faith" - I'm sure he is a true believer in whatever he believes. That dispenses with the false headline. I was not even going to comment here until I was pretty much forced to by the discussion on your talkpage - hardly battleground behavior on my part. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected DWIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rajrajh

Rajrajh had many warnings now,[89] still he is edit warring on Ho people, by gaming WP:3RR,[[90][91][92][93][94][95] and never participating on talk page.[96] Capitals00 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Arjayay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP

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