Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User: and Israel-related edits.[edit]

Taken to AE. Swarm 01:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Originally posted at the NPOV noticeboard, [1], was told to bring this here.) This IP, which can be traced to Israel, might not be adhering to NPOV, at least it seems to me. All these edits take place in the last month. 90% of their edits have been on Israel related pages. User unironically cites NPOV in many edit summaries but respective edits themselves are misleading or disruptive. I have left messages on the user's talk page, but there has been no response, and editing pattern is continuing. I should note it is notjust myself who has reverted these edits. Also User:Cakerzing,

1. Unrecognized city status: User claims that the correct information is not NPOV, removes it, also saying it's "unecessary." East Jerusalem has never been recognised as part of Israel in the international community at large (they annexed it in 1980).

2. Inaccurate edit and misleading summary. User says "per NPOV, better leave this empty." This is a blatantly misleading edit. Not only is the Church of the Nativity commonly known to be in Palestine, but the cited link to the page even says "Palestine" as it's location.

3. Removing "Palestine" / replacing it with "Israel." Here in these next 7 edits ( , , , , ,, ) the user removes "Palestine" from the infoboxes of articles, or other sections, even though it is historically appropriate. "Palestine" is replaced with "Israel" in many instances, even though the State of Israel did not come into being until 1948. User offers no edit summaries for any of the edits.

4. Addition of weasel word (WP:ALLEGED): In these two edits: & , User continually adds "alleged," a commonly used WP:weasel word to the sentence: Prior to that, Ireland had refused to establish relations due to Israel's <<alleged>> violations of UN Resolutions. This is common knowledge. Israel has a long history of ignoring the UN and many times has been condemned for violating resolutions. R9tgokunks 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck finding a valid source for "common knowledge". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel R9tgokunks 19:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the first few edits in section 3, IP was correct in removing the links, but went to an incorrect version the other way. The correct version would be Mandatory Palestine, per practice on birth places in former countries. However, I AGF for those edits, as linking to "Palestinian Territories" is a position that can be seen as denying the existence of Israel, wheras Israel is correct, if they were born today. Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
False. All three edits are not correct. I feel like you're trying to gold dig for something positive out of clearly disruptive edits. That's like saying, "hey, they blanked the whole article... but at least they removed the inaccuracies!" It's just not a supportive argument and not an encylcopedic way of editing. The first completely leaves it blank without an edit summary, which can be construed as possible vandalism by some people. The second and third both add "Israel", which is historically innaccurate. Israel didn't exist before 1948. R9tgokunks 19:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: It's not just the first 3, it's at least 5. No, Israel isn't perfect, but it's better than Palestinian Territories, which cna be reasonably construed as FRINGE. Also, removal in some cases is appropriate- there was a lot of discussion about this on Natalie Portman. It doesn't look to me like a case warranting ANI, more a content dispute (and yes, NPOVN moved you here, but that's because of the format as a behavioural complaint). Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The user seemingly implicitly supports the IPs bias ([2]) with "the IP was correcting an error (not perfectly)]" This is whitewashing of the issue, especially taking into account the edits, of which, this user deleted the information and did not indicate why.

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

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

A WP:Discretionary Sanctions notification is not a "vague threat and warning", nor is pointing out that you violated 1RR and should revert so that you won't be subject to an admin sanctioning you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of R9tgokunks' tendency towards BATTLEFIELD behavior is available here, and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
User: Beyond My Ken, there are no sanctions on the Ireland-Israel relations. That is part of my point. I'd say it is. Especially since the user has followed my edits around wikipedia, much like yourself. R9tgokunks 19:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
You opened a complaint here at AN/I, I watch AN/I, hence I saw your complaint. I have no idea what you've been doing since the last time you opened a complaint (two, actually) at AN/I, because I don't follow you around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Officially the DS apply, but are only enforcable with an edit notice. Hence notifying you was completely fine, although asking for a self-revert was completely unenforcable. Relevant ARBCOM notice Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Boomerang - R9tgokunks support of placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories is untenable and a WP:CIR issue (particularly when repeated multiple times and refusing to acknowledge the problem with such an attribution). He has also reported me in the struck out portion above and failed to notify me properly. Not only that he has violated 1rr on an ARBPIA related edit [3][4] (the UN resolutions in question are related to the Israeli-Arab conflict) and after being alerted to sanctions and asked, in a friendly manner to self revert, filled my talk page with personal attacks and accusations in [5] (and 10 subsequent modifications). His accusations of hounding, based on interaction on NPOV/n which I have watchlisted and 2 articles (which I think were in the NPOV board post) are simply odd. Note that after the long discussion above he still has not self reverted the alleged 1rr vio.Icewhiz (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Addendum, I do apologize for mistaking another user with R9tgokunks in referring to one pf the edits he posted on npov/n. That was a mistake on my part (however, it was not my intention to lie as per written on my TP). I struck out my mistaken stmt where it was made upon being notified that I was "lying".Icewhiz (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note that Icewhiz has filed a complaint at AE concerning R9tgokunks, here. Therefore, this thread, which has had no contributions for 4 days, can probably be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bulk revert needed[edit]

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

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

In all fairness that template is ridiculous. The amount of automated categorization and automated text assembly going on makes it a complete nightmare of a template. Most of that garbage should be stripped out. A better solution than mass rollback here would be to fix the template so it doesn't add unnecessary text building and poorly judged categorization which would solve the problem. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Once the template is mended - I think ideally by removing all its automated categorisation - I would be quite happy for my edits to be reverted. But as it stands it makes proper categorisation of law enforcement articles impossible. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I concur, I've had dangerous run ins with that infobox before myself, took me hours to figure out why some articles were inaccurately categorized. Canterbury Tail talk 18:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Diffs? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't do it. I spent ages trying to figure out why some articles were being incorrectly categorised in the Category:Non-government law enforcement agencies. Eventually I reached out to Necrothesp who spotted the issues down in an included template of Template:Infobox law enforcement agency/autocat diff. It's a ridiculously complex mess of inclusions and autopopulation that is often as wrong as it is right and makes assumptions that are undocumented. In my case apparently if you didn't enter anything for the ‘Legal personality’ it added it to the Non-government law enforcement agency category. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Let's suppose that this template is "ridiculous". However it's also there, and it's in use across 1500 articles. So what the hell is anyone doing making a change like this, which breaks its use, and then refusing to rollback themselves? If _you_ break it, the onus is on _you_ to fix it. If that involves a bulk revert of your changes, then so be it. Why wasn't (at the very least) this bulk change stopped after a handful of edits, when it became obvious that it was breaking things? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
It's the infobox that's broken in the first place. If it wasn't so poorly designed then the edits wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. There have been calls in the past (from me, for a start) for it to be fixed, to which no response was forthcoming. I can entirely understand why someone would want to ditch this appalling thing. Frankly, I think the onus is on the people who designed the infobox to fix it when it clearly doesn't work properly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
So fix the infobox first. But don't make bulk changes to the parameters to that infobox, knowing that this will then break articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This template breaks things too. I am attempting to categorise articles and it prevents that. It's badly designed. Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you should revert your changes, then we can fix the infobox to not do the categorization and autotext. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

That's all well and good, but the disputed edits affect content displayed visibly on the page, which is a more serious concern than categories not being editable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it now? As I said, maybe if this was sorted out (or just maybe, if it hadn't been implemented in the first place) then all the problems would be solved! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I dont see why it is a big problem that the country where the agency is situated is not displayed in the infobox. I do think it is a big problem that the article does not appear in the categories relating to geography. By the time people reach the article they already know what country it is in. It is a big problem that infoboxes create categories that cannot be editted. Can we fix that first please? Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"I dont see why" - Ignorance is not an excuse.
I'm continually surprised by how WP, which relies on what is largely "software", always appears to have so few experienced coders involved with it, expressing the knowledge that is just everyday basic working practice for anyone working around halfway-competent software.
  • If you break it, you rollback the change which caused that, and then wonder what to do next. You don't argue over this. People who don't rollback their own mess lose their privilege to make further changes.
  • You don't understand all of it. No-one does. So you don't say things like, "It works for me" or "I don't see the problem".
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a textbook case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Rathfelder's edits need to be reverted, and preferably he should do it himself. THEN he can discuss how to fix the Infobox on it's talk page; this is not the place for that discussion. WaggersTALK 11:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That is a libellous statement. I am trying to categorise articles about organisations. This box prevents that. I dont see why preserving it should take precedence. I have no idea how to fix infoboxes, nor was it all clear what this box did. As it clearly does not do what it should do I dont see why I have to revert my damage limitation - though if it is still necessary when the problem is fixed I am happy to do so. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An article missing a category is a lesser evil than displaying things like in the country of England, [[|UK]] in the InfoBox - that's far more noticeable to readers. As such, your edits are disruptive and need to be reverted. The problems with the InfoBox are unlikely to be resolved quickly and we can't leave that many articles displaying gibberish to our readers for whatever amount of time that's going to take. WaggersTALK 15:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That is your opinion. I think that damage is purely cosmetic. Who is responsible for the broken infobox - and for neglecting the damage it was doing over what appears to be a prolonged period? Rathfelder (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists for the readers. A 'purely cosmetic' problems effects the readers and needs to be reverted until it can be fixed. If you want to categorize things that is a great thing and will ultimately result in an improvement but you need to figure out a process and do the prep work so those changes do not effect the readability of the articles. Jbh Talk 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Categorisation also affects the readers, even if it is less obvious, because it stops people finding the article in the first place. I'm afraid this infobox gives no clue as to its workings and I have no idea where it came from, who it belongs to or how it can be mended. The description it provides is both misleading and not in accordance with the principles of categorisation. There have been repeated complaints about it over the past four years but they do not appear to have been dealt with. It is certainly not the policy that categorisation is a trivial problem that can be ignored as you seem to imply by what you say and by your actions - or lack of them. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Autocategorizing inforboxes are a major maintenance headache. This needs to stop. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Then work to change/remove that function without effecting the end-user readability of the articles. Categorization is great but errors there are much less apparent to the typical user of Wikipedia than screwed up text on the page. I would think don't screw up the article must be priority one in any maintenance task. There is always a way to do things properly, it may take more planning and work, but there is a way. In this case I would suggest working with concerned parties to re-write the template and then planning a non-disruptive roll out. Much like any other maintenance task on q high availability platform. Jbh Talk 22:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am afraid I have no idea who the concerned parties are - but given the repeated complaints about this infobox over several years they dont seem to be very concerned. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

  • Wow, the hardheadedness I'm seeing here is astounding. @Rathfelder: I honestly can't believe that an editor of your tenure is going around casually breaking links, and you actually claim that there is nothing wrong with causing damage if said damage is "purely cosmetic". That's bizarre. If you can't fix one problem without creating another, you should be asking for help, not implementing half-baked "fixes" on your own that cause visible cosmetic damage. You should not be breaking links for any reason. There's no excuse to justify that, but especially categorization. I mean, really? You're willing to cause cosmetic damage to articles for the sake of your categorization work? This is low-priority stuff, and no, the overwhelming majority of readers are not concerned with or affected by imperfect categorization. Implementing broken links that casual editors do not know how to fix is disruptive. It comes across as very incompetent, and, given the skill of editors who know what they're doing in the template space, it seems completely unnecessary. You may not "see why preserving it should take precedence", but I can tell you why—because it is literally a matter of policy. @Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure MassRollback is actually an admin function—I think it's actually a script that any Rollbacker can use. However it would summarily rollback every possible edit in Rathfelder's contributions. I think it needs to be repaired manually. I also think that Rathfelder should do absolutely anything they can to help repair the damage. I don't care what needs to be done, the notion that the broken links can stand like it's no big deal is unacceptable. Swarm 20:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am quite happy to go back and repair the damage if someone will take responsibility for mending the infobox, which has clearly been broken for several years and has been the subject of repeated complaints. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems like an example of the infobox/tail wagging the dog. Paul August 22:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Template editor needed[edit]

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

Hi all. Working on it. Rehman 02:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more that this template is a mess. It was written in 2008 (hence understandable), but has only 127 edits since (!!!). I will try working on removing only the autocat feature for now, but I strongly suggest we redo the entire template (I'd be happy to write the code). I've written most of the code for {{Infobox dam}}, {{Infobox power station}}, and {{Infobox river}}. If we can agree to simplify to something like those, I will be glad to help.
As a start, if someone familiar with the infobox current uses can list all the required parameters (including removing unnecessary ones, adding new ones, and tweaking any existing names), we can get on it right away. Rehman 02:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Rehman, you're a saint. @Pigsonthewing: are you familiar enough to offer any feedback on this? If not we can probably consult the relevant Wikiproject. Swarm 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. I think most of us who work on categorisation would be happier if infoboxes did not do automatic categorisation. Or perhaps if they could just populate the categories when first applied, but leave them in a condition where they can be editted? Categories develop over time. Rathfelder (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure. A quick question, if auto-categorization is removed, do we have any plan of manually adding the missing categories? Since many articles will then be without most/all categories they are currently in... Rehman 09:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm quite happy to tackle that, as I caused the fuss in the first place. Rathfelder (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Repeated BLP violations at Sabrina Schloss[edit]

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

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

The article I nominated by the user was a violation of copyright. It was a clear copy paste. Since I reported it I have received abuse and bully tactics from both of the above mentioned users. They have gone on to indiscriminately nominate multiple articles I have created. I feel bullied by them and have received no help from Wiki when reported. I followed advice and added new sources to verify information which they ignored.Makro (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Where from, and with which edit exactly, Makro? I have now actually checked the edits made to that page after my own, and I'm pretty confident that there's no copyvio; but if you have convincing evidence otherwise, please present it. About Sabrina Schloss, exactly which independent reliable source did you add to support her date of birth? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
JustlettersandnumbersThe entire page was a copy paste from another website. One which you are not the owner of. In regards to the Sabrina Schloss article I said I added a reliable source. One from the BFI.Makro (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Makro needs a block per WP:CIR. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I've left them two messages asking them to clarify whether they would do this again and they have deleted them without replying. If someone else wants to block them I have no objection. I probably won't. They've had their warning though; if anything else like this happens it should be an instant block. --John (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm not entirely sure that hand-holding is what's needed, Legacypac. The user seems quite determined to show that he/she is WP:NOTHERE – now edit-warring with an admin at Lukas Gage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Or he's learning how to CSD. It is a COI page but not overly promotional so tag and leave is fine. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I've just asked[6] Administrator John (read his response above me in this thread) to review this afd that Makro just started and to read my response[7] to something Makro wrote there....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


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

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

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


Blocked indef. Swarm 01:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Wikipedia is a collaboration. If the material is unsourced it can of course be removed, or the article taken to AfD. But if the material is encyclopedic and accurate far better to source it, to best build the encyclopedia.
If on the other hand the material they have added is all rubbish, then the account can be immediately indeffed as a vandalism only account. That seems unlikely, and we assume good faith.
I looked at 1997-98 Croatian First A League, the article you most recently cited as unreferenced on the user's talk page. (I even made a little copyedit there.) It's stubby and I haven't looked at the others but it occurs to me that perhaps all ten of the articles at Category:Croatian First A League seasons should be merged. That's assuming it's accurate and that sources do exist (but they don't need to be online or in English).
But the point here at AN/I is simply, is admin intervention the best next step? I think there are better alternatives at this stage. Perhaps for a start, ask the contributor where they are getting the information, and offer to help them write the appropriate refs. Writing references can be daunting, and newbies often assume that their local newspaper is not a reliable source just because it's not online, or not available outside their immediate area. Reassure them on this and the results might be a lot better. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Andrewa, I have asked the contributor where they got their information, but I have had no response to my messages. If someone won't communicate, it is impossible for me to help them on this. Ten messages over several weeks seems sufficient attempt to resolve this another way. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you have been patient. Could I have a diff of your best offer to help?
As a volunteer organisation, we have little opportunity to force people to do things they don't want to do. I'm assuming that this contributor wants to build the encyclopedia in this area, and is adding material that could be sourced and would be useful content if someone were to do that, and I'm looking for a way to achieve this.
If there's no prospect of sourcing the material, then it should be deleted. Perhaps we are already there. I'm not convinced of that, but that's not an ANI matter in any case.
If the material is disruptively recreated, then yes, it becomes an ANI matter, unfortunately. Andrewa (talk)
Collaboration and communication is necessary. Otherwise, blocks are. As simple as that. ~ Winged BladesGodric 03:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution. I would not oppose a block, there's no doubt IMO that it's justified by policy and it wouldn't be the first one for this rather problematic user. Mainly, I'm explaining why I'm not ready to do it myself. Either way I'll eventually try to communicate with this user myself but want to word it carefully. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Blocked indef. Swarm 01:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Same advice as above I think.
In fact even more so. They've asked for help. The best outcome for Wikipedia is we find it for them, unless they are nothere, and we don't have a case for that yet. Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Andrewa, I offered them help, but they have not responded to subsequent messages, although they know how to post on my talk page and are continuing to edit. I have been trying to help them on this for four months, but have got nowhere. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, see above. I see this diff as an offer by yourself to help along exactly the right lines, that's the sort of diff I was after above. This user has a checkered history, with some good contributions and some previous blocks. They don't seem active on any other language Wikipedia.
But this does seem the better of the two on which to work, based on their reply which you quote above (thank you, diff would have been even better). They don't seem to understand what we mean by sources. As you say, they are getting this material from somewhere. That's probably all we need. And if we can solve this one, it may provide the example we need to solve the problem with #User:HHRIA123 above too.
There are some subtleties in the sources policy and guidelines that these users can't be expected to know. Sports results would be verifiable from local newspapers. While refs are highly desirable they're only essential if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BURDEN which you cite and which is policy). I wouldn't consider sports results likely to be challenged and I very much doubt the contributor thought that. But you've challenged it. And there's no burden on you to provide your reasons, but I'd consider it constructive for you to do so, and only polite.
So I'd caution against escalating this by simply removing the material. You have the right to do so. But is it really the best way forward? Perhaps we should continue this discussion away from ANI, and I'm happy to do so. Andrewa (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threat from User:Jnewby1956[edit]

user blocked by Swarm. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Jnewby1956 has made a legal threat [8]. reddogsix (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation from SPA[edit]

User has been given a clear warning as requested.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I've given as short and blunt an explanation as I can manage within the site's policies. If there's further copyvios, then a block is definitely in order. I'm not quite ready to say "WP:NOTHERE" yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Fast. Efficient. Fair. Thanks. Feel free to close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Bot is temporarily not posting any more messages. Bot operator Jtmorgan (talk · contribs) is aware of the issue and attempting to fix it as well as correcting the errors that HostBot made (see example). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please delete User:E-artexte (spam)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Afrodizifunk3 (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Nothing further here to take action upon.--Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Just noticed this reply to me on his talk page that demonstrates the problem: "Why are you editing a Black American page regarding the Nation of Islam? Are you Black America." Doug Weller talk 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone else getting a significant WP:NOTHERE vibe? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

This edit illustrates the WP:NOTHERE nature of the OP. MarnetteD|Talk 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Afrodizifunk3: If you want to leave a message for Doug Weller (instead of everyone who pays the slightest attention to administrative matters), you can do so at his user talk page: User talk:Doug Weller. Also, we don't restrict editing of articles by race. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MoldyOne Vandalism[edit]

See WP:NOTVAND. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. is not following WP:NPOV[edit]

IP blocked for 48 hours. Fish+Karate 12:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

From the top of this page: Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. Fish+Karate 10:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: Actually, the IP is now blocked for 48 hours. However, if you look through all the contributions from this IP, they all break WP:NPOV. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. Fish+Karate 12:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No Nazis and Good Fortune to all. Closing as there is nothing to be gained by continuing this thread. (nac) Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly insinuating that I am a Nazi based on my username including the number "88" (a reference to the year of my birth, whose potential, fairly obscure, neo-Nazi associations I wasn't aware of until after I adopted it -- it's only come up twice before, but I still have to explain it on my user page anyway because of how apparently inflammatory it is). It started when he referred to me as "Hijari88", and I asked him not to; he then said that he would call me "88" instead.[9][10]

This was clearly not an accidental coincidence, as he just happened to make an edit to a page about neo-Nazis a half-hour later.[11] He also indicated that he was aware of a tongue-in-cheek discussion about number-symbolism I was having elsewhere.[12][13]

Anyway, I asked him either to explain how his new nickname for me was not meant to accuse me of being a fascist or to retract and apologize,[14] and he refused,[15] instead doubling down and calling me "Hachi-ju-hachi" (Japanese for "eighty-eight") three more times in a row.[16]

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

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

Firstly (and to state the obvious) his name is Hijiri88. It's part of his name.
I had mistakenly called him "Hijari" in a previous comment and he complained, so I suggested that I just call him 88. Again, this might be stating the obvious but I had assumed that if he chose "88" as part of his name, then he wouldn't mind be called "88" - the same as if someone addresses me as "420", I'm certainly not about to take offence.
Yes, I did call him "Hachi-ju-hachi" - which translates to 88 in Japanese - my full comment was "Hachi-ju-hachi kun wa san ju sai desu ka? Dakara namai wa hachi-ju-hachi?" which means "Mr 88 are you 30 years old? Therefore your name is 88" - due to someone being born in 1988 being 30 years old.
So obviously, I'm not calling him a Nazi - I'm asking him if his name refers to his age, in response to him claiming that I called him a Nazi based on the use of "88"
To be blunt, I (like most sane people) dislike Nazis and if I were under the impression that he was a Nazi, I wouldn't address the issue with veiled and ambiguous terms, I would just call him a Nazi.
This is all a non-issue, but it might be in part due to my poor use of Japanese, I may have made errors in my Japanese grammar which resulted in a misunderstanding, but that's something that a far better speaker or Japanese would have to confirm. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) No, I explicitly demanded an explanation of you before you wrote that romanized Japanese remark, and I even explicitly said directly above it that if you didn't own up and retract it you should be reported on ANI, so how it could be a non-issue spinning out of a comment you made after that escapes me.
Are you going to acknowledge how grossly inappropriate your comments (which were clearly meant to get me to stop telling you you can't violate BLP by insinuating that a Japanese musical group are best-known for a 2015 blackface incident) were, or at least apologize for the misunderstanding (if that is what it was) and promise to be more careful in the future, or not?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As silly as this all is, I'll confirm that SC420 was apparently asking about Hijiri's birth year:「八十八くんは三十歳ですか? だから名前は八十八?」 I hate not being able to fall asleep. No comment on intent though. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Spacecowboy420 makes absurd edits like this and has a good ability to troll those who resist, as shown in the diffs posted by Hijiri 88 above. Unfortunately there is no policy against making absurd edits so it will have to battled out at each article. However, trolling is blockable and Spacecowboy420 needs to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: There's BLP. He has been blocked before for trying to reinsert counter-consensus content in violation of ArbCom sanctions on that topic area, and is doing the exact same thing on the Momoiro Clover page. And he's apparently logging out to create the illusion of not being the only editor who shares his POV: the mysterious IP that has been helping him is in the same range as the one that both NSH001 and Edward321 reported as being him back in December. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Just to correct a small point about the second sentence of the above, I didn't take "Hijari" as an intentional slight. A bunch of good-faith editors have misspelled my username and I usually respond by laughing it off. The problem here is that whether or not "Hijari" was an intentional slight (and I don't think it was), responding to my request that he spell the "Hijiri" part of my name correctly by picking an entirely separate part of my username that could be taken out of context to associate me with Nazism, in a dispute where he was already making me and others feel very uncomfortable about supposedly white-washing/downplaying a super-serious and noteworthy blackface incident in the BLP in question, was clearly meant as bad-faith trolling. And there's also this that happened before the whole thing. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
"And he's apparently logging out to create the illusion of not being the only editor who shares his POV" don't make silly sock claims about everyone who disagrees with you. WP:ASPERSIONS might be relevant in this situation. Or, just ask me "Do you have sock accounts?" and I will be happy to answer.
But you're right. There have been sock puppet reports concerning me. Sock puppet reports that were all closed because I'm not using sock puppets or sock IPs.
If you still think I'm using sock puppets, then please file an SPI.
You're right again. (kinda) there is dispute over the Momoiro Clover article. That article is now locked and we can discuss the issue there.
Most importantly, this ANI report is to discuss your name and my use of it, not closed SPIs or protected articles.
And no, there is no attempt to troll - merely calling someone "88" due to their name containing "88" is not trolling. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: No one's accusing you of having sock accounts. The portion of my comment that you quote even explicitly says that the problem is logging out to create the illusion of being multiple people. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.[edit]

Blocked. Swarm 20:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please check This user is clearly posting remarks based on racism on my talk page.U1Quattro (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've moved to this to the bottom and here is a link to make it easier to check on the edits (talk · contribs) MarnetteD|Talk 14:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Inexcusable personal attack, short block issued. Please feel free to ping me should similar behaviour continue after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jack Sebastian[edit]

(non-admin closure) The uncivil dispute between Adamstom and Jack Sebastian, the very subject of this report, appears to have calmed down. If anyone feels that either of these users are being independently disruptive, they can file a separate report. DarkKnight2149 19:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment - I am not familiar with either editor here. Threats violate WP:CIVIL. Jack Sebastian has a previous history of light-weight blocks for edit warring. Light-weight, in the fact that the longest one (1 week) was lifted after only a few hours on a promise not to edit war again. He later got blocked again for edit warring. This is a pattern. Maybe it's time to consider some stronger restrictions here. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I find it interesting (read: offensive) how Adamston seems to have take to heart the saying, "A good defense is a good offense." After all, I asked him to self-revert after reverting three times in very quick succession (1, 2, 3). I went to his page to let him know that a) Edit-warring is a stupid way to build consensus, and b) that our EW blocking policy isn't an electric fence - you can get blocked for less than three edits if you are using it incorrectly to force your POV on others. Clearly, his take-away from that discussion was to report me before I could report him.
I gave him an hour to self-revert and use the discussion page instead. Because of our previous interactions, he knows full well that I meant what I said, and so thus decided to post about my "behavior" instead: this complaint is cynical attempt to muddy the waters of the AN:3R complaint that was coming. This is what Adam does; he's done it before at least twice. And yeah, he was called out on a racist edit, suggesting that all Asians ewre essentially interchangeable. Uncool doesn't even begin to fill that gap of AGF, deepened by the fact that not only did the user fail to apologize for it, but claims still that they were utterly innocent.
Despite this not being the place for content issues, I'd point out that my revert simply asked for sources that supported a statement (knowing that any in support were likely outlier opinions). After the revert, I initiated discussion, not Adamston. He replied once and then reverted again. As per his usual behavior.
Lastly @Maile66:, I'd point out that up until 7 months ago, I had not been blocked in 4 years. Maybe that shouldn't serve as a "pattern" of my behavior. While it is absolutely true that I do not suffer edit-warriors with anything resembling grace, I never call anyone on their bullshit unless they were absolutely deserving of it. So I respectfully submit that you are being subjected to some passive aggressive dancing by Adamstom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
These editors were both involved in an ANI thread recently, with archives at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Jack_Sebastian's_edit-warring,_personal_attacks_and_hounding/stalking. While I'd prefer that the editors involved could agree to disagree in a civil manner, that appears to be unlikely, and I don't plan on commenting as to the disciplinary sanctions necessary on any of the involved parties. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you are linking the wrong AN/I threat, power-enwiki. I think you meant to link to an AN/3R: oopsie. I guess it might seem Machiavellian to point out that Adamstom's typical behavior of walking right up to the 3RR electric fence is pretty much his thing. He does it all the time, and others have commented on it s well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The one I link contains (in its voluminousness) a proposal of an IBAN between "Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97", and the history there will be of interest to ANI participants. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, you are right; Adamstom did have a small part to play in that. And it looks like you were part of it, too. Interesting that you would just "happen" to stop by, whenever Adamstom ends up in the thick of things. Hmmm. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I comment on many ANI threads, for reasons yet to be determined. I'm not sure whether I was on your side or AlexTheWhovian's in that thread, though I suspect I was on the side of "can't you all get along or else let's TBAN the lot of you to save some time". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Dude, first you misrepresent the previous AN/I as being about Adamstom and I, and then pretend that you were nothing but a hapless passerby. Do you really need someone to point out your apparent lack of integrity here, and post your less-than-neutral remarks from that page and elsewhere? Come on, son; don't piss on our legs and tell us its raining. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you want me to support some kind of ban for you (when it inevitably comes up; I don't have the slightest idea why you should be banned from anything right now, other than your aspersions)? You're campaigning pretty hard for it. Just because I remember your ANI history better than you do doesn't make me biased against you, unless you ask me to be biased against you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course not, but you're the one who added a fairly prejudicial link, intimating that it has everything to do with this discussion. I'll point out that Adamstom was the one who started reverting here, and didn't stop until he came up to the electric fence. I initiated dialogue. I even warned the other user to self-revert and participate more fully in discussion. Their respnse? Report me to AN/I. The way I see it, I have a small but dedicated group of ego-driven editors who OWN articles and engage in petty edit-wars. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I raised this issue because of Jack's general behaviour and patterns of harrassment, not the specific editing issues in the diffs provided. Those can be discussed in more appropriate places such as the respective article talk pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The content area of "new/upcoming films/TV shows" isn't that large; if you can't work together one (or both) of you is going to end up with a TBAN which will make you avoid that area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about being able to work together, I have no problem working with Jack when he treats me appropriately. But those moments are fleeting, and it always goes straight back to the swearing and the personal attacks at my talk page, and now threatening me is the next step. I don't want to stop editing these articles again, which is why I came here instead of taking another Wikibreak like I did last time. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I personally find it difficult to edit collaboratively when you prefer to edit-war instad of talk: that is pretty much the sum total of my issue with you, Adamstom. Well, that, and your assumption that my salty language is directed at you. It is not about you; its the way I talk. When I ask you to revert, it isn't becaus ei am threatening to go all Verbal Fisticuffs™ on you, but because your (imo) OWNy behavior is corrosive to collaborative editing. I absolutely despise editors who discuss via edit summary instead of, you know, actually discussing.
When reverted, go to the talk page, and stay there until you find a solution; don't throw acronyms, use reasoned discussion. Do that, and 98% of our problems vanish like a fart in the wind (well, that and not make ill-advised comments about race). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • To avoid this turning into an even greater wall of text I suggest that Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97 stop the back-and-forth and pretend that, here, they have a limited IBAN and may not post any comment about one another without supporting diffs. This will make it more likely for them to get issues addressed. I generally dislike IBANs but, unless you two can demonstrate some minimal ability to discuss things politely and concisely, I think, based on behavior here and at the linked ANI, that is the way to go. Jbh Talk 12:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It isn't like I go looking for the user. I just do my Editing Thang in a fairly limited scope of articles,a and didn't participate in edit-warring. It may seem like a minor distinction, but an important one. It isn't unreasonable to expect discussion in place of edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Not this again!? I have found the OP, adamstom.97, to be a very uncooperative editor, who frequently auto-reverts edits without attempting to discuss first (putting the "status quo" as determined arbitrarily by him above reasoned arguments for changes), expresses a poor understanding of our content policies (particular NOR and V) and behaves in an extremely uncivil manner to anyone who disagrees with him. Jack Sebastian, on the other hand, has a good grasp on policy (even if I don't agree with him a lot of the time) only behaves in a questionable manner when repeatedly pushed and goaded. To the best of my knowledge, the conflict between the two began when adamstom.97 made a remark that could very easily be read as at the very least racially insensitive, and when Jack pointed this out Adam became extremely defensive, insisting multiple times over e course of several months that he "is not a racist", without once considering that perhaps his style of rhetoric could be easily misinterpreted and perhaps he should reform. I have thought for a long time that something would eventually need to be done about adamstom.97's behaviour, but a mutual IBAN with one of the editors whom he has targeted is definitely not the solution. Hijiri 88 (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.[17][18] 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 (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 (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 (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 (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".[19] 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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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. GMGtalk 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
If we had a dispute, GreenMeansGo it must have either been so long ago or something so small that I don't recall, either.
It's totally true that I could probably be a lot less snippy with others when dissent arises. I utterly despise OWN-y behavior, and do see a lot of that in comic-book related articles. When editing there, I am - 9 times out of 10 - tagging uncited material (as an aside, DK made a snarky comment about how I'd ask for a citation of Batman Beyond to the Batman; that isn't true, but it does bear pointing out that the Batman depicted in BB is not the Batman from the comic books). Entertainment-related articles very often get crufty with fan forum stuff, so they need the extra attention.
Since I don't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia, I focus on putting out the little fires and making the little course corrections that I can. DK opined that I am always the edit-warrior here is at best missing recent history as well as the point: I am almost always the one who initiates discussion, or suggests widening the loop via RfC when problems cannot get sorted out between two editors.
While I have interests outside comic book and comic book film- and tv-adaptations, I enjoy cleaning those up. I am not interested in a topic ban that removes half of my reason for editing.
I am not blameless in this; I have admitted that I am 'God's Little Unfinished Art Project', and often have trouble suffering unpleasant people. But I will make more of an effort to do so. If they get to out of hand, I will just widen the observational loop so that others can weigh in on what I think is poopy-head behavior. No more calling anyone a "harsh douche-canoe" unless a consensus opinion emerges that they are indeed such.
Does that solve the problem? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, I said Batman Begins and not Beyond, and the comment wasn't intended to be snarky as much as it was to point out that you can be a bit too extreme at times when it comes to citing sources. However, with that aside, everything else you said does sound somewhat understandable and my only concern here is the edit warring, incivility, ETC, which has also been mutual at times and not 100% just you. I am willing to drop my proposal on the terms that you make more of an effort to be less confrontational and try to deal with the incivility of others better. When you return insults and whatnot, administrators will see it as equally disruptive, even if you didn't start it. DarkKnight2149 05:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
On a side note, I can't speak for Hijiri88, but do feel obligated to apologise that our little encounter interrupted this discussion, especially considering that this discussion is about avoiding confrontations. DarkKnight2149 05:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the irony wasn't lost on me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

@Adamstom.97: @Jack Sebastian: This discussion has become barren in terms of activity. If you can both agree to try to be non-confrontational in your disagreements, then I don't see any reason for this to continue or for anyone to be sanctioned. Right now, separate users on this page have accused both sides of disruptive activity but if you can show that this sort of thing won't be happening again or on a continued basis, I imagine administrators wouldn't have any issue with closing this discussion without sanctions. DarkKnight2149 19:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Things seem to have calmed down now. Hopefully we can move forward without further issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Things certainly are calm when everyone else just chooses to ignore adamstom.97's continued refusal to focus on content or engage in civil discussion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Dammit. I thought this had just about wrapped. At any rate, I would encourage the next commentor to instill an Arbitrary Break. This probably isn't ending until an administrator intervenes. DarkKnight2149 21:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri's problem[edit]

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

I didn't see anything blatantly disruptive in the diff that Hijiri provided. It just appeared to be you asking him to stay on topic and not make personal comments, which is a reasonable request. If it has nothing to do with the incivility or edit warring between you and Sebastian, then it honestly didn't need to be brought up (at least, not here). ANI is for reports of incidents of genuine disruptive behaviour, not for:
  • Content disagreements
  • To help specific users achieve their desired result in a discussion or civil dispute
  • To neutralise or fan the flames against users you disagree with, or to help further one's WikiProject goals.

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of IBAN by Alansohn[edit]

Iban enforced via 48h block. Swarm 01:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I cannot take administrative action here because I am involved as a participant in the AfD. However, this appears to me to be a clearcut violation of the IBAN. Can an uninvolved administrator take a closer look? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Unless the IBAN is two-way, it's unfair. It's bogus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The IBAN has a matching TBAN Baseball Bugs. It's hardly bogus and is easy to follow. Alansohn has zero edits [20] to the page nominated to AfD and zero reason to be on that page. Rusf10 is 100% in the clear here on his restriction. I'd be all over Rusf10 too if he was flaunting his TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Legacy I have to strongly disagree with you saying Alansohn has zero reason to be there. How can you ignore his long history of involvement with New Jersey articles. If anything related to NJ is up for deletion, you have to expect Alan might take part in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what excuse Alan uses for being there, the IBAN was clear. It's his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior of New Jersey that started this problem anyway, no one should be enforcing his claim of ownership.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I struck the comment but I would not object to an admin taking some action to push the point home. Alansohn had to have the IBAN placed by the community as opposed to Rusf10 simply agreeing to his. Also, as I remember the last ANI, he has done nothing to accept that he has been part of the problem and must work to be part of the solution. Since there is really only one way to get a recalcitrant editor's attention it is probably time to start the whole 'escalating blocks' game. Jbh Talk 00:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No matter what excuse someone can create for Alansohn, the community came to a clear agreement on an I-ban (Alan)/T-ban (Rus) combo. Rus agreed to his conditions, but Alan never accepted that he was part of the problem, and this blatant violation tells me he did not hear the community the first time. A block is the obvious result.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Then Rusf should be blocked for the same length of time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense, Bugs, unless you have detected something that none of the rest of us have. Rusf may be a determined deletionist, but they have not violated an IBAN or a TBAN. It appears that Alansohn has. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The case for blocking Baseball Bugs for CIR based on his comments here is much stronger than for blocking Rusf10 who was going about his own business until Alansohn came around to challenge his AfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The OP didn't need to cast their line that far then if "fishing" is how you are describing it. Alan committed a blatant violation, and I question your motive to outright ignore it. For somehow who wanted to be an admin, this is not something you should be blind to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I've asked on Alansohn's talk if he can justify that edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

He claims User_talk:Alansohn#Interaction_ban_with_user:Rusf10 there was no violation even though his conduct at Rusf10 AfDs is the primary reason for the IBAN and there was very specific discussion on the IBAN that this would prevent him from commenting on Risf10 AfDs. Evidently he has no intention of leaving Rusf10 AfDs alone. Either he needs a block to drive the point home or we need to clarify the IBAN scope to include all AfDs by Rusf10. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Obvious topic ban violation and gaming going on. Blocked 48 hours. --NeilN talk to me 09:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Good block- this was quite obviously an attempt to WP:GAME the interaction ban. Reyk YO! 09:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.