Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Range block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban proposal - LoveVanPersie

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

---

I have just blocked LoveVanPersie (talk · contribs) for repeatedly adding unsourced IPA pronunciations to articles. This seems to be an ongoing and long-term problem - see #Long-term disruptive editing by LoveVanPersie above (I'm starting a new discussion here so it doesn't get lost - feel free to move/merge if you deem it necessary). I therefore propose that LoveVanPersie is indefinitely topic banned from adding IPA pronunciations, even if they are sourced, to all articles. I would also propose a mass rollback of all of his edits related to IPA. GiantSnowman 10:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the ban idea, but why would you rollback every edit by someone who's temporarily blocked? Or in other words, why wouldn't you propose a full siteban for someone if all his edits need to be rolled back? I can imagine either ("roll back everything" and "remove permanently") or ("temporary block" and "topic ban") making sense, but someone who needs to have all his edits removed isn't someone who ought to be contributing at all. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I've clarified that I meant rollback edits related to this topic. GiantSnowman 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I've reviewed this editor's edits in more detail, and am struggling to find anything that isn't IPA related - perhaps a site ban is justified, and a mass rollback is (IMHO) certainly is, given the concerns shared by multiple editors about this editor's editing and sourcing. GiantSnowman 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also no comment on the ban idea, but User:LoveVanPersie in the last edit provided references (and provided references increasingly, though arguably not sufficient in the first edits). I don't think it is a good idea to block an editor who you are reverting and who is trying to address your concerns - and I get the feeling from the above discussion that the concerns are controversial in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: he's not trying to address any concerns, he is trying to add IPA based on some mis-belief that that a language's "standard" pronunciation applies to everyone, regardless of where they are from. Would you give someone from Texas a New York IPA? They repeatedly added the same material, first unsourced, then sourced to random Wikipedia articles, then sourced to a website which gives 38 (!!!) different pronunciations of the same word... GiantSnowman 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: so you basically confirm that IPA is a controversial topic??? So I still think it is a bad idea to block an editor with whom you are editwarring over such a controversial subject, who is trying to address your concerns (but clearly not to your liking of addressing). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: no, I blocked an editor with a long history of adding un-sourced and poorly sourced content to BLPs (that happens to be IPA) and ignoring warnings. BTW if you want to accuse me of being WP:INVOLVED then just come out and say it...FWIW two admins (@Yamla and Yunshui:) have already reviewed the block. GiantSnowman 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I am not accusing you of being 8nvolved, because that is a too strong a word. I see an editor who is trying to improve (see also thread above), but gets reverted and reverted without an attempt to work together to solve the problem, and without a clear indication on how to use IPA (that is how I digest the above thread). Many throughout Wikipedia are unsourced, but apparently this editor is forced to properly source because other people, apparently, have said sources to show he is wrong. All I see is people stating LVP is wrong because LVP cannot source, without sources to show what is right. And yes, I know my WP:V and WP:RS. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I'm not required to teach phonetics to him. WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit Wikipedia. I've already spent hours and hours helping him - see my talk page. Even if that weren't the case, I still feel that my message would be justified. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I know you are not required. But I still have the feeling that this whole bickering is about something that is not an editor problem per sé (as also noted in above thread), but a lack of guidance and direction (but that is not strange to Wikipedia - we tie things to the editor, not necessarily to the problem). This situation is very similar to what we once ran into at the chemicals/chemistry WikiProject, and it is in the grey area between '1 + 1 = 2' and '0.999999999... = 1' .. both are 'simple mathematics' (agreed, the latter controversial) - but where do you draw a line between the two, do you mention them with a SYNTHESIS-source, do you mention them without a source, or do you chose to omit them completely. And I have been, in that case, close to bringing the editor to ANI over it. Here it is the same - do we need a source on it in the first place (WP:MOS/Pronunciation does not mention it - David Aardsma .. originally Dutch surname from the same area in NL where I am from, I would not pronounce that a z as in zoom, but an s as in sun - it lacks a reference since it addition in 2010/2012), where nearly every source amounts to (a certain amount of) synthesis (the number of ways people pronounce my given name and my surname .. ), or should we not mention them at all? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: See [1] and User talk:LoveVanPersie#Miloslav Mečíř Jr. and judge for yourself whether LVP was guided properly.

The reason he's making so many mistakes in his transcriptions is that he's overvaluing his listening skills and because he doesn't read specialized literature, which he doesn't read because his English isn't good enough. In such situations you don't really guide people as much as you just do their job for them. We both know what tends to happen to people who do that in real world, don't we? :)

Transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides generally should always follow said guides which always (well, nearly always) follow reputable sources. When you transcribe something into IPA it doesn't mean that every symbol has to be taken completely literally. I mean, look at Help:IPA/Danish and Danish phonology - most symbols for the unrounded front vowels are seriously wrong when taken literally. The name of Hans Jørgen Uldall isn't really pronounced [hans jɶɐ̯n̩ ˈuldæːˀl] but [hæns jœɒ̯n̩ ˈultɛːˀl] (or even [hɛns -]). There are levels of narrowness to IPA transcriptions. Phonemic transcriptions (those enclosed within slashes /.../) are almost always broad, but phonetic transcriptions (enclosed within square brackets [...]) may be narrow, broad, or anything in between ("semi-narrow"). Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Sorry, I was slightly unclear. My 'guidance and direction' was more Wikipedia-wide, not to the people trying to guide/direct. The bickering is about the person, while Wikipedia does not have proper IPA guidance for the names of persons (where two Dirks in one street may have different pronounciations). It works for 'banana', it does not work for 'Dirk' (the given name). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

His transcriptions have a rather high margin of error, especially when it comes to correctly identifying stressed syllables in Spanish. I don't think there's anything controversial in my original post. Maybe I should've omitted more trivial mistakes, but then again - he's making lots of them.

There also are French, Portuguese and Basque transcriptions of his that I'm unable to check. The issue could be even bigger than we think. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

His edits are all either unsourced or poorly sourced, and all relate to IPA, particularly for BLPs. This is seriously concerning. GiantSnowman 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Tban 6 months or indef for all IPAs, or just BLP IPAs, until they can demonstrate they know how to proerly add and source IPAs. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (disclaimer: I was pinged above, but I've only been in casual contact with LVP). I think it's fairly obvious action – when someone shows they're unable to get it despite repeated and kind appeals and error-pointing, forcefully stopping them seems to be the only answer.
  As a side issue, in practice we have rather lax requirements for sourcing of pronunciations: any native speaker in the know or a trained linguist can write them based on a sound record or regularity of orthography (so I don't think WP:CRYBLP is in order), but LVP has soundly demonstrated a lack of competence in the area and should be stopped for that reason only. No such user (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBan, 6 months or indef for all IPAs. This comment ("Every IPA I added has been confirmed on YouTube and Forvo.") combined with claiming Wikipedia articles count as reliable sources, indicates to me this user hasn't read or doesn't understand WP:RS. I tried pointing them to WP:RS, apparently at least the fourth time they've been pointed to that policy. But they don't appear to have noticed yet. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (at least for now). Mainly per above thread and common practice. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban but oppose block rationale even though I don't mind the block itself. I defer to Mr KEBAB about whether LVP's IPA edits should be rolled back en masse.

  Blocking a disruptive SPA on competence grounds is fine. But unsourced? Give me a break, IPA is just a written transcription of how words are pronounced. LVP's IPA problem wasn't that his transcriptions were unsourced, it's that they were wrong.

  I trust Wikipedia editors to know how words in their native languages are pronounced (except in rare cases of genuine doubt) just like I trust them to be able to distinguish grammatical sentences in their native languages from ungrammatical ones, a task historically very difficult for grammarians to explicate precisely, and which is still beyond the reach of computers. And I trust our resident IPA weenies to be able to check transcriptions of spoken pronunciation into IPA orthography just like I trust our content contributors to spell words correctly (even if there's an occasional error).

  The last thing I want is Wikipedia's WP:RS goon squads tag bombing IPA transcriptions all over the project. Next we'll get a tag next to every sentence in every article asking for citations that that the sentence is grammatical, and a tag next to every word asking for a link to an external RS saying that the word is spelled correctly. Stop this, just stop it, IPA is (usually) part of the presentation and not part of the content, and as such it's something that we have to get right on our own.

  Also, Youtube is a perfectly good and useful RS for pronunciations. I've used it a few times to cite how people pronounce their own names: see Ronda Rousey as an example of this. The IPA in her biography lede links to a Youtube video of her introducing herself by name at the beginning of a TV show. We're in a mad bureaucracy if we think a video of her pronouncing her own name in a TV studio is unreliable. The subtlety that Dirk Beetstra ran into is about regional pronunciations: e.g., if we want an IPA transcription of a German word, we'd normally want Standard German (the dialect of Northern Germany) so we shouldn't transcribe it from a video of Arnold Schwarzenegger saying the word even though he has a cool accent, because his native dialect is Austrian. It's all contextual. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. If LVP's past behavior is any indication, he/she won't learn from any of this and will continue making sloppy transcriptions the moment we lift a ban. I wouldn't be surprised if LVP ignores the topic ban and gets an indef block as a result. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Unless we find people who can check all the transcriptions he's put into WP articles, then rolling them back is the only alternative. LVP has proven not to care about quality but quantity.

I also mostly agree with the rest of your post, I just didn't say it because I didn't want to start an argument (and I'm not saying that's what you're doing). But I also understand when someone considers WP:RS to be more important. I don't find this an easy issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying RS should be an issue iff there's real significant doubt, which is usually not the case. We should otherwise rely on our editors' linguistic competence, at least for their own languages. This particular incident was because of LVP trying to write IPA for languages in which he wasn't competent. Most editors aren't silly enough to attempt things like that, at least after they've been called on mistakes a few times. So this was unusual and we shouldn't go into an RS tizzy over it. I hope that makes sense. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is roughly what I mean above. IPA's seem to be poorly sourced, controversial, and often amount to synthesis. WP:MOS/Pronunciation is not mentioning sourcing requirements, WP:IPA does not mention sourcing requirements. Does this require sourcing in the first place, or does this amount to a high level of WP:SYNTHESIS by definition and therefor it should neither be sourced, nor mentioned unless there is a direct, independent source for the specific case (my name, Dirk, is pronounced in different ways depending on the mother tongue of the person pronouncing it (or even, 'mother dialect'), and there is no set pronunciation). It simply doesn't work, and there are hardly any proper references that do not amount to synthesis in most cases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember other controversies/disputes like this one. There's nationalistic disputes like Kiev vs Kyiv (same name in two dialects), but there's no disagreement about how to pronounce either version. No US English speaker will have trouble figuring out "Donald Trump"'s pronunciation from its spelling (even if they'd never heard someone else pronounce it), so the idea that the IPA for it should have to be externally sourced is absurd. For a Dutch name like yours, I don't have reason to doubt (unless you say otherwise) that I can trust Dutch-speaking Wikipedians to either confidently get it right, or recognize that there is uncertainty and look for a source (like the contributors to Ronda Rousey's biography weren't sure if the s in her last name was voiced or unvoiced, thus the link to the youtube clip).

Omitting the pronunciation info altogether is terrible too. It damages the encyclopedia's usefulness for the sake of bureaucracy. It might not matter for Trump, but for articles like Zbigniew Brzezinski or Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy the pronunciation info is very helpful. Those articles have audio clips of Wikipedian speakers of the relevant languages saying the names. Are you telling me those audios are SYNTH, and if I made an audio pronouncing "Donald Trump" or "California" (the state where I live) it would similarly be SYNTH? If we rejected Wikipedian pronunciations of "California" and wanted genuine RS for it, where would we even look? How about an authority like the top leader of the state government? Oh whoops, until recently that would have been former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and (trust me) a clip from him would have been less encyclopedically sound than a clip from me (though it would have been badass).

In some hairsplitting philosophical sense the editor pronunciations might be SYNTH, but pursuing the SYNTH concept that far would be bureaucracy gone nuts. We're trying to write a practical encyclopedia and our sourcing practices are supposed to serve that goal, not give it hoops to jump through. So I always want there to be more of those audios (and IPA is just transcription of audio) and I'm glad when Wikipedians make them. If you were to do some Dutch ones I'd be delighted.

We should not be looking for more places to turn our bureaucracy loose. We should be looking for ways to stuff it back into the can. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@173.228.123.121: The SYNTH argument is why we more-or-less dropped systematic naming in chemical compounds - it is mathematically straightforward .. and not. And this is more fragile than that, as I say above, my name is pronounced slightly different depending on the mother tongue of the pronouncer. I agree, for Donald that is not going to change too much, though even there the length of the o and a could change. Anyway, the first revert says 'unsourced'. That suggests that the original is controversial, and needs a proper WP:RS (or is it a my synth against your synth?). I would ask the same for the surname of David Aardsma - a clear North-Dutch-origin surname, where I would pronounce an 's' sound (as in sun), but the article puts a 'z' sound (as in zoom). There are a lot of cases there where I think the pronunciation is controversial. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And I would argue that the revert based solely on sourcing grounds was a very WP:DICKish thing to do. It does not suggest that the original is controversial, but merely that the reverter is a member of, quote, WP:RS goon squads tag bombing IPA transcriptions all over the project. Bizarrely enough, that particular IPA by LVP seem to have been correct. But we're straying off-topic for ANI now, I would support anyone hatting this subthread. No such user (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The IPA was correct. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

He is currently spamming various talk pages with threads about IPA transcriptions and how they should be fixed. He already made two mistakes: [2], [3]. Should that be viewed as ignoring the topic ban? Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban has not been formerly introduced - can an uninvolved admin please review and close? GiantSnowman 08:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

...that's true. My bad. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Still needs closing... GiantSnowman 07:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Mass rollback

• @Mr KEBAB: you're the editor who originally raised this IPA issue a week ago - what are your views on a mass rollback? GiantSnowman 08:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman:As I said above, Unless we find people who can check all the transcriptions he's put into WP articles, then rolling them back is the only alternative.

I'll also note that LVP said on his talk page that I corrected all of his transcriptions, which is obviously untrue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Jack Sebastian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Darkknight2149: You may not be aware, but Jack Sebastian and an editor you pinged in the above comment are subject to a two-way interaction ban.[4][5] 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".[6] 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)

Blocked sock abusing talk page

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

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

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

Why you edit ANI mostly when it concerns misconduct of Ms Sarah Welch?[7] That's not an unblock request. Starting battles is not a "defense", but harassment and rehashing false sock puppetry allegations is not going to contribute in an unblock request. Capitals00 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Because you are defending Ms Sarah Welch's disruption. I have already made it evident how disruptive MSW is[8] and I dont have to do it again. MSW still restored his sock's edits before getting blocked, that's how the convicted sock puppetry is "currently disruptive". Since MSW is only abusing talk page, the access needs to be revoked. Can't agree with terms of sock, that's not how we do it here. Capitals00 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Update - Still rehashing same false allegations of sock puppetry against established editors while admitting that his frivolous revenge SPI discovered no sock puppetry but still he is claiming that "behavioral review has not been done".[9] This harassment is not stopping even after a warning.[10] Talk page access needs to be revoked now since this sock is only focusing on falsely alleging others to be socking instead of showing remorse for his own long term sock puppetry. Capitals00 (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I will wait to see, if she resumes her behavior.If, in affirmative, we have to go down the path of revoking TPA but now is not the precise moment to do so, given that she has quasi-promised to not resume such activities.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • He has been doing this since before he was blocked. Despite he is around for a long time enough that he must already know about the proper use of talk page as a blocked sock, we are still giving way too many ropes. Recent message came[11] after the warning[12] and since we are dealing with a disruptive sock, it makes no sense to allow more harassment. Capitals00 (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • A minor point, but why do you continue to refer to this editor as a he, when everyone else is using she? It does strike others as unnecessarily combative and rude...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
        • ApostleVonColorado was always referred as a "he".[13][[14][15] ApostleVonColorado is the main account, while Ms Sarah Welch is just another sock created after 2 other socks of this sockfarm. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Pro-burmese, nationalist, disruptive editing, copyvios and spam (I shouldn't have to repost this)

Special:Contributions/103.233.205.57 seems to be here to promote the country of Burma and its military, or various websites, removing human rights abuses in the country from an article [16], posting many copyvios that seem to be pure spam, or posting spammy external links. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The last diff from that IP appears to be nearly 10 days old. A lot of their recent diffs are revdel-ed so I can't review them, but that's not a point in their defense. The diffs I can view aren't great, but I doubt they're enough for any action at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? why do you think anyone who post facts concerning a country's military is here for promoting? How is it pure spam when it was facts and specification about locally manufactured assault rifles? Where does it include any reference to any type of spam? Spammy external links? Did you actually follow the links and looked at the photos? The link to photos are posted here as Wikipedia allow users to link externally hosted images, and the images are of military nature and related to the article. There's nothing spammy about these pictures. You need to stope being overzealous with your accusations as you are pushing away people who just want to contribute to wikipedia with your silly assertions without any solid proof.103.233.205.57 (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The removal of content regarding human rights abuses in Burma tipped me off. I may have been wrong about spam, but what of the copyvios and revdel-ed revisions? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:7bench496 WP:OWNing an article

User:7bench496 has re-added uncited material to Tony Vaccaro, who he claims is his father. He has made bad faith allegations against me, including "Has a competitor to Mr. Vaccaro employed you to delete Mr. Vaccaro's achievements?" I am requesting assistance.--TM 01:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Namiba: Maybe point to our COI guidelines and why you think the material doesn't belong instead of making the very first post to their talk page a notice that they've been reported to an admin board? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

183.171.94.169

• 183.171.94.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Not sure if this is a legitimate bot or just a run-of-the-mill troll. Can someone look into this? Thanks. 184.22.20.78 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Seem to have stopped.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated BLP violations at Sabrina Schloss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odd IP behaviour

We may want to keep an eye on 50.111.3.17. He's been leaving rather strange posts on Wikipedia, including my talkpage. I suspect an evade situation. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but it doesn't ring any bells for me. Editing in article space looks fine, mostly good work, copyediting and sourcing. If he's someone who's been banned, I don't recognize him. --Jayron32 15:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible AFD or soapbox?

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

Aleviler was created on April 2009 as a redirect to Alevism. However, on November 2013, edits began by an anonymous IP [17] that had created an article with nothing more than a list, a categorization of multiple sects and faiths. What is the purpose of it or the message the subject conveys? Who knows. I've just tagged it with a {context} template.

Another burst of edits was made on February 2014,[18] this time adding a "Further reading" section full of books to do with each of these religions (which all have their own articles, mind you). Then another burst on 3-7 March 2018, changing the list and adding more sects to it [19].

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

Elmidae is treating AfD as Notability tag

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

---

I would like to raise a concern that Elmidae is treating AofD as Notability tag.

Elmidae flagged Wei Dai for AfD without going though the AofD policy in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives required steps including

1. C.2. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
2. D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
3. 1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.

And to my understanding Elmidae has not been actively contributing this topic area (cryptocurrency) to be qualified as an "Editor familiar with the field."

He said in the Wei Dai AofD:

 I'll readily own to being ignorant about the topic, and having no respect whatsoever for your idols. It's for you to show their notability to people like me by referencing sources that clearly demonstrate that assessment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Suffice to say that it seems well understood in the NPP crowd that notability tagging in most cases is just equivalent to passing the buck to an empty place at the table - the related maintenance queues are vast and growing, and chances are that nothing will be done about any specific article any time soon. If a check of provided sources raises reasonable doubt about nthe notability(which I believe to be the case here), I prefer to call for a discussion and get decisive input. I don't buy any accusations about "forcing people to respond" - we are all volunteers that do as much as we want to; the final metric is article quality, not how much or how little work any editor was able to get away with; and if there is need for more expansive comments in an AfD, then the likelihood is that there was need for work on the article. - But let's not turn this into too much of a meta-discussion on notability tags vs AfD nominations, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I am convinced that Elmidae is using AofD as Notability tag because he believes a Notability tag is not as effective(as he said ). I disagree with this approach. Instead of keeping flagging new article for AofD, I'd suggested him to take a different approach:

1. Raise his concern if he believes the Notability tag is ineffective, and suggest the community to collaboratively make a decision to change the policy in his favored direction.
2. Prioritize flag AofD the articles which have had Notability tag for a while.

I would like to raise awareness and start a discussion here.

Xinbenlv (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Xinbenlv, you need to notify Elmidae on their talk page that you are discussing them here. ~ GB fan 16:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

GB fan, sure. Xinbenlv (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• In general, when reviewing a page for notability one should make a good-faith search for source material and if you do not find sufficient material it should be kicked to one of the deletion processes. In some cases the reviewer will use their own judgement to say 'I can't find anything but someone more familiar with the subject probably can' – that is when it is appropriate to tag for notability. Elmidae is correct that most maintenance tagging is unlikely to result in the issue being addressed.
  Sometimes one gets it wrong and it becomes apparent at AfD. In that case the proper thing to do is Withdraw and, if there are no other Delete !votes close the AfD as Speedy Keep. Live and learn, figure out what you missed and work not to make the same kind of error again.
  What should never be done is for an editor who opposes the AfD to go off-site, gather a mob of brand new accounts and long dormant accounts and brigade the AfD to force the result. That, if shown to be true, is in my rather strong and inflexible opinion strong evidence that the responsible editor is a poor fit for Wikipedia. Jbh ^Talk 17:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article was only recently created. While I've voted to keep it, there's nothing unreasonable about nominating it based on the state of the article (the refs are weak). Due to Wei Dai's generally private nature there's less readily-accessible information than would be expected. I don't think ANI needs to do anything here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm, just as a note, but a notability tag means I suspect this is non-notable, but I don't have time or access to verify at the moment. Here's a notice for someone else who does. It doesn't mean This subject is non-notable. Here's a note for someone to fix the notability of the subject. You can't "fix" notability like you can tone or the presence of original research. It either is or ain't notable. If someone has time and access and verifies the subject is non-notable, the correct step is to nominate for AfD (or another form of deletion if appropriate), not to tag for notability and move on, and there is no requirement to tag for notability first prior to going to AfD. GMG^talk 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think there's anything wrong with nominating an article for deletion if you come across an article at NPP that doesn't seem to have any evidence of notability. Putting a notability tag on an article may be helpful (but probably still not) if you are unable to determine if a subject is notable, but if you do a couple of google searches and come up with nothing, there's no point in slapping on a notability tag when you are relatively confident that the article should be deleted. (And even if you aren't relatively confident, it's actually doing something, as opposed to tagging and hoping someday someone will do something about it.) Natureium (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'd need to see thet the user has a bad track record of AfDs which they don't [20]. Tagging is nearly pointless. This should be closed as baseless. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting an indefinite block of ShareMan 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70.91.221.157

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

---

Would someone mind removing the crap from this IP's talk page and revoke their access to edit it? Thanks. 172.58.46.235 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks as though it’s been cleaned up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Osirisosiris and logical quotation

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

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

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

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

The editor continued with a pattern of mass edits that go against MOS:LQ in spite of warnings, so I have blocked for 24 hours. Since they never communicate, it's not obvious how to get their attention. They are creating work for others, since their changes may have to be checked individually to see if they need to be undone. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Bulk revert needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous IP address user is an open proxy...

The anonymous IP address user User:192.169.226.73 has been traced back to an open proxy called alter-ip.com. They have been vandalizing the article Unknown Hinson on three occassions removing information from the discography section, see here, here and here. I made a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but the request to have their editing privileges revoked was declined by User:Amorymeltzer because "Wikipedia doesn't permanently ban vandals", I responded on their Userpage (see here) stating that maybe the case for vandals but for open proxies they are banned, as of this post I have not yet received a response from User:Amorymeltzer. I'd like to request that an Wikipedia Administrator look into this. Thank you. YborCityJohn (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Range blocked Special:Contributions/192.169.128.0/17 as a webhost. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

YborCityJohn, sorry for completely missing your message, it came in as we were heading to bed and got muddled in with the Legotbot RfC notification this morning. Just to clarify, I said "IPs", not "vandals;" I hesitated as, despite the two warnings you gave, it was last used for seemingly benign purposes. At any rate, thanks NRP for cleaning up. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please have a word with Nick845?

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

---

Nick845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user after I was pinged on Talk:George H. W. Bush. The user in question is editwarring in several articles, such as Rex Tillerson, George H. W. Bush, James Comey. He's been warned twice (1, 2). His reaction to the last warning was "I suggest that you stop policing other people's pages, stop making empty threats, and start being smart." and he stuck with it. All in all he's well into WP:ARBAP territory. Although Nick845 seems to be here to contribute, he displays all the signs of habitual WP:IDHT and an apparent unwillingness to use talk pages or to seek and abide by consensus. Kleuske (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well, Tillerson is under 1RR, and anyone would be within their rights to pass out a short involuntary break during which they could... familiarize themselves with our policies, after having been given both the bureaucratically required notice as well as a follow up reminder. If they're amenable to some friendly but stern advice, we can probably chalk it up to inexperience, but their response on my talk gives me doubts that they're open to constructive criticism. For my own part, I figured I'd wait to see what they did next. The restored text at Tillerson is at least arguably a fair-ish summary, which before it was...something, but wasn't exactly that, and on a BLP that's getting an (admittedly highly skewed) ~23k page views per day (but honestly more around 4k). GMG^talk 22:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what? GMG, I'm starting to like you. I take back my admittedly harsh and undue reaction. Instead, I'm going to transfer it to Kleuske. Nick845 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to restore the James Comey article back to the consensus version after Nick845's 1RR violation? His slow edit warring on this content started back in February. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Without prejudice to any other editor who disagrees. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible student meatpuppets putting hoaxes on Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk#Hoax?

DDCS (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

This is @DDCS.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Jesse Waugh AfD

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

---

The editor Jessewaugh has been disrupting the Afd of the same name with persistent personal attacks. "You’re just another bandwagon leftist [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] - when they’re finished with me who do you think they’re coming after? You’re the wrong gender, buddy - also the wrong race - so it’s only a matter of time before they purge you too." (diff) and also "Note to [[User:Theredproject|Theredproject]]: This whole kangaroo court we're suffering is you and your man-hating minions launching an ad-hominem attack against me for being a White male artist. You'll of course claim otherwise and try to gaslight me for stating the obvious, but we all know the truth: Your entire paradigm is failing, and like jackals, you feminazis gang up on any subject you perceive to have a weakness in your quest to purge Wikipedia of men. That and you're personally frustrated that your non-art gets exhibited but no recognition because it is meaningless, Michael Mandiberg. Let it be known that the previous sentence is no more a personal attack than is this whole Kafkaesque stoning of me." (diff) There are apparently others in the edit history. He was warned on his user page. So, personal attacks and also a blatant attempt to disrupt the AfD.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I've issued a strongly worded Final Warning. If this continues ping me and I will drop the hammer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

His rants (some of which were directed at me) are definitely something that makes Wikipedia feel more unwelcoming and not an inclusive environment. – Jooojay (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, he has been given a very firm final warning. Any further disruptive editing will result in a block. Let me know if this persists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Not here to build an encyclopaedia

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

---

Kizznyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing OR and fringe theories, sourced to blogs etc, about Indian languages here, edits that have been reverted by multiple users (see their talk page), and obviously doesn't like being reverted, so they're now clogging up my talk page with incoherent rants, claiming that I'm a "British loon who wants to blur facts", trying to team up with other POV-pushers to get me banned ("Let's report Thomas to Wikipedia. We shall get him banned. Such a person who blurs or ignores facts cannot be reasoned with. United we can"), and threatening to resort to sockpuppetry to get their way ("As a white hat I can spool multiple accounts"). All of it showing that they're here only to push their own OR, not to work collaboratively with other editors to build an encyclopaedia. So how about giving him a forced time-out from WP? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Kizznyc here.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Deccani-roots-truly-secular/articleshow/11562152.cms

I have given many valid sources time and again but he seems hell bent of impsoing his reality when facts are clear you can check his page for the information I have written in full I'm sure he must have deleted that also by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizznyc (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Kizzncy, just a head's up that the discussion is no longer about the edits you want made (that's for the article talk page), but has moved on to your behaviour and interaction with other editors. What this report means is that everybody's actions are now being scrutinised: you personally should give particular consideration to your own rather than others'. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• I have reverted two edits of yours, both on the same day, the first one sourced only to a Wordpress-blog, and the second one not sourced at all... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have cleary given sources regarding the Deccan film industry before you revert atleast have some brains to do research and you'd have found other sources as well and could've added instead of destroying the work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizznyc (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've indeffed as NOTHERE. The user is also a troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Now unblocked by Bbb23 per WP:INVOLVED - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've unblocked because I realized that minutes before I blocked, when I was reviewing Kizznyc's edits, I reverted on one article without thinking about the administrative consequences. That made me WP:INVOLVED before the block. That's the only basis for my unblock. I still believe the user should be blocked. Sorry for confusing things, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Someone should really indef him. He is indeed WP:NOTHERE.[27] My Lord (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  Reblocked for WP:NOTHERE. Bbb23, I don't think anyone would have faulted you for your block originally to be honest. One revert, especially for unsourced editing, doesn't equal a situation to withdraw yourself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. The degree of INVOLVEMENT here is trivial and defending the project from disruption is one of the primary duties of an admin. That was a good block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I concur with both blocks. One revert on an administrative matter does not make one involved. Just as well as we would not be able to block vandals. --John (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk page access should probably be yanked too. No clue at all there. John from Idegon (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:A Chris80

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

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

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

User OllyDarcyRoblox states that their "account was hacked"

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

---

Hi, I'm not sure if someone should have a closer look at this. It might be either a bad excuse or an (involuntarily?) shared account: Talk:Alexnewtron User:OllyDarcyRoblox ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:GOTHACKED I've blocked the account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm a white hat and network security expert. I can definitely help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizznyc (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

pls. block Thai editor user:Btsmrt12

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

---

Moved from WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Btsmrt12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

pls. block Thai editor user:Btsmrt12 who like to spam the colors and articles on The Face T.V. show pages every season of all crountries, such as The Face Thailand, The Face Men Thailand, The Face Vietnam, US and UK every seasons. pls. check and block him to edit on Wikipedia.

and he is also a newest account of user:Golf-ben10 who blocked by Admin already because he spam like this very often before.

he also edit on Thai pop music, Thailand Youth League pages so much with no sources or reference articles.Itipisox (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a confirmed sock puppet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Notice of Wikihounding

The editor's recent comments have become problematic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please block Thai editor user:Jsicavoravit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely not, I was talking about the previous accounts as well, when I just asked. No pressure, ofc. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing deletion templates

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

---

User Zouaoui16 created Template:Diplomatic missions in Palestine, which is basically all red links, so I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 25#Template:Diplomatic missions in Palestine. The user has now removed the template about the nomination from the page here, here, here, here and here. This user has been warned against similar actions on 4 separate occasions before, such as User talk:Zouaoui16#February 2017 and User talk:Zouaoui16#February 2017 2. In the second link you can see they have been banned for this before. It is clear this user has their own agenda and has no regard for policies. - Galatz^Talk 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Note, after notifying the user of this discussions, both by pinging above and writing on their talk page here, he continues to remove the template see [28]. - Galatz^Talk 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see the user now came here and changed my completely change the point of my post rather than actually responding [29]. - Galatz^Talk 20:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

They have also changed what I wrote on their page, to have me thank them for their contributions rather than the notification of the discussion [30]. - Galatz^Talk 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And now changing other people's comments on the deletion page [31]. - Galatz^Talk 20:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the content Zouaoui16 is adding should be up for deletion, but this response to it seems wholly unacceptable. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dorsetonian: At the time of the deletion nomination there was only one page that was not red. Today he has begun created a ton of pages, so the way it is today is very different than the nomination. - Galatz^Talk 00:07, 28 March 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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

User:Pro Regnum Siciliæ

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

---

I have contacted this editor six times about created unreferenced articles over the last 7 weeks, but they have ignored all of them. They have also received similar messages from other editors. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN but can get no response (see User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ. They appear to have not responded to any communication in the two years they have been editing. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks in an attempt to provoke reaction. Without prejudice to an early unblock if user responds positively. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

EWD: Editing while drunk at Gender differences in suicide

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

---

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

---

• SuperSucker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gender differences in suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please block. Person was disruptive and writing weird stuff today about "no bitcoin thx" (e.g. diff) and then wrote: I'm also drunk now thus stick to what it is worth that I did followed by this too drunk for blowjobs tonight

Please block. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I support Jytdog on this. I noted at the article's talk page that Jytdog, Doc James and myself have had to repeatedly revert this editor's edits on suicide matters because he so often engages in WP:Synthesis or outright POV-pushing, and that I am very likely to propose that the editor be topic banned from editing suicide articles. The editor won't listen to reason when it comes to WP:Synthesis, but sexist stuff like "too drunk for blowjobs tonight" just further shows a WP:NOTHERE attitude. And, yes, I'm sure that SuperSucker, who knows my sex/gender, was directing that comment at me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

• The edit warring has now expanded to Commons. Would anyone want to chime in there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to report the issue over at Wikimedia Commons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't work there, so I won't, which I mentioned it here. If someone wants to report it there, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Irrevelant info at WISN-TV

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

---

DaneGeld has added information to the WISN-TV article on how the station's website is geoblocked outside the U.S. I deleted the edit as irrevelant. [32] Now DaneGeld wants me to restore his edit, saying its "absolutely pertinent." [33] Should I? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Calibrador

There is a past issue now coming alive again: Calibrador disruptively re-adding his own photos to articles. This has been discussed ad nauseum numerous times previously over the last few years. MelanieN brought it up at WP:AN a couple of years ago. EdJohnston warned him against "warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others" in May 2015. (see the following for the entire discussion [34]). When asked to not engage in this behavior, he replies that his edits are being "stalked" and he claims to be a victim of "hounding". Just a little while ago, he engaged in the same behavior he has been warned about numerous times over the last few years and changed out an image without any discussion or attempting to take part in the ongoing discussion at the article talk page [35]. At the John R. Bolton article, there is an RfC taking place regarding the infobox photo. Rather than take part in the RfC, Gage reverted the photo in question, claimed there was "no consensus" for the photo to be changed (although that's what we are working toward right now at the article talk page), and when asked to revert his change because there is an active RfC and discussion taking place re: the image, he refused, stating at the article talk page "Just wanted to add that Winkelvi will never support one of my photos being in an article, as they have a history of going around from article to article and removing them. They've been blocked for Wikihounding me once in the past. Because the image was changed by Winkelvi unilaterally, without any discussion, and then there was found to be equal support for both of the images in the above discussion (thus, no consensus), I restored it to the previous image that was in the article prior to Winkelvi's sudden interest in this article because Bolton is in the news. Since there is a discussion pending, gain consensus before changing the photo.".[36] This behavior is disruptive. In my opinion, it's a form of edit warring in that it's attempting to start an edit war, and it is neither helpful nor constructive. It is, as others have said in years past, a way to promote his own photographs over the photos of others in Wikipedia. This is problematic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am behind hounded and wikistalked by an IP

104.163.147.121 (talk · contribs) has been relentlessly hounding me ever since a dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination). My first interaction was noting his uncivil language accusing me of writing a "hype job" [37] and a "puff piece" [38]. It went downhill from there, where he accused me of being a sock [39], accused myself and another of bad faith [40], proceeded to gaslight me [41], accused me of COI connection to the subject of an article with no evidence [42], added a bad-faith COI template to an article I wrote [43], added me to a sockpuppet investigation of someone else (presumably the subject of Jesse Waugh) [44], then posted a deliberately misleading comment at another AfD of another of my articles [45].

I do not care if he wants to vote delete and I have no idea about the other accounts at the SPI. As far as I'm concerned, the SPI can move ahead. But this has turned into a witch hunt against me by this IP editor and it's ludicrous. I want him to leave me alone, but he can't seem to stop pinging me and hounding my edits. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)