Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014

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

I am concerned about this users edits, namely their contributions which appear to be

I deleted the userpage and blocked the user as NOTHERE, which is a bit of an understatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Utsav kapadiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hi, This user has 20+ warnings on his talk page, which did not seem to have any effect. Most contributions are biographies of non notable people, most stubs without any reliable reference. In addition, he has removed tags after being told not to do so: [2], [3]. All uploads on Commons are copyright violations, now deleted. In bref, massive violations of

In this article, a poster named user:Govvy has left an unprovoked incendiary personal attack in an edit summary today in response to a single edit. Would you remove it (not the edit but the edit summery itself) please? Thank you. --Loginnigol 15:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:SIGN your posts properly so there are links to your userpage and your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk

) 15:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: It would have been better if you had first discussed your complaint on the article's- or the user's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Technically

WP:SIGLINK only requires a link to one of the user page, user talk page or contribs page. But a link to the user page and user talk page when the user page isn't empty is the norm and in any case no link is a definite no-no. Nil Einne (talk

) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, @Fowler&fowler:, @Nil Einne: It is done but the poster removed it from his talk page. --Loginnigol

The editor, since started the discussion

The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN --Closed. The other editor, User:Miki Filigranski, has not responded in 72 hours.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor continues to provoke and refuse to get the point even in this case as explained several times to them that was not active in the specific days and could not respond, neither was notified the DRN continued after few days. Editor ignored the moderators closing remarks: Resume discussion on the article talk page. Report disruptive editing at

Request for Comments.--Miki Filigranski (talk

) 21:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Also reported at

WP:AN/EW because of edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk

) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I found in the Lead of the White Croats article references to books in which there are completely no statements that they should support. Raised this question, received a portion of the usual rudeness without any argumentation. I tried to fix article using correct references to verifiable and reliable sources and received blank reverts. For example, Miki returned a ref to the book that on the pages 295, 319 should confirm the sentence "In 1861, in the statistical data about population in Volhynia governorship released by Mikhail Lebedkin, were counted Horvati with 17,228 people". There is such a situation that either I am engaged in disruptive behavior, and on these pages something is said about "17,228 Horvati" or Miki, who returned this ref.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor does not understand the topic at all, is wasting another editor time in now a pointless discussion because is refusing to get the point for over 2 weeks and then wonders why are getting the "portion of rudeness"? What is even more incredible is the fact the editor is trying to support their "disruptive behavior" because of content i.e. their POV on content, again ignoring moderator's advice.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No need for so many words, just show "17,228 Horvati" in the ref you returned. --Nicoljaus (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What that reference has anything to do with the topic? Why do you detour from the topic? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the linked discussion, I don't see not listening, I see two editors engaged in a content dispute. I also see that there is an ongoing RfC to attempt to (at least partially) resolve this dispute. I would suggest that both editors allow the RfC to run its course, refrain from edit warring, and hopefully the RfC will resolve the content dispute at hand. For future reference, an example of not listening would be if the RfC was closed one way, and then an editor continued to revert to a version contrary to the closing consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:SILENCE consensus since the beginning, while the editor is tediously discussing and edit warring ignoring the remark of another editor for over 2 weeks, without patience to wait for any consensus, was it via DR or RfC. Also, anyone reviewing this case, please revert the current revision to old before the edit warring started ([57]) because the current does not have consensus and cannot be reverted by editors in question due to 3RR.--Miki Filigranski (talk
    ) 23:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

    BOLD

    edits against a silent consensus, although it is sometimes inadvisable as it will result in scenarios like the one that you are in right now. article title, scope, structure are all content, hence disputes about them are content disputes.

    While the edit warring is bad, I don't see Nicoljaus ignoring you, they've engaged pretty heavily on the talk page, and even opened a DRN case which you declined to participate in, for whatever reason. They have not been swayed by your arguments, and you have not been swayed by theirs, which is within both of your rights as editors. The civil thing to do at this point is to stop edit warring, request outside input in resolving the content disputes at the affected articles (through RFC, DRN, or at a relevant WikiProject talk page), and then edit in keeping with the consensus that results from that discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't tried to research the details of the content dispute. However, it was

RFC. But it looked to me like a case of User:Miki Filigranski not listening. Robert McClenon (talk

) 00:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at this AFD? There are quite a few sock puppets (or meat puppets). Some appear to be altering other editor's comments. Peacock (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

On the plus side, they are all so obviously spurious that no closer will have trouble discounting them. Makes the page harder to read though... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Socks blocked, discussion closed, article deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Herostratus made three edits to the Murder of Seth Rich page on July 9, 2019 to add an article published the same day by Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News discussing a possible Russian government origin of the conspiracy theory that he was murdered by the DNC in retaliation for supposedly leaking e-mails to Wikileaks. The source was added to two sections. One was it's own paragraph near the end of the page. The second was a change of the "Conspiracy Theory - Origins" paragraph to "Russian Origins", stating matter of factly that the conspiracy theory had been manufactured by the Russian government. I felt this added undue weight to a recently published article by an author who had previously published articles that later turned out to be based on incorrect information from anonymous sources and a sensationalist partisan book about the contentious Trump issue. Since I am not a regular Wiki editor, I added these concerns to the talk page rather than making edits on my own.

Herostratus responded by accusing me of being a Russian agent in a short reply. The following day he added a long winding response about which particular author would be more pleasing to me personally that ended with a kind of verbal shrug that readers should be familiar with the source's author and decide on their own whether to disregard the source as a "hack journalist." Their arguments in this reply did not seem to me to have any particular central thesis. I replied addressing some of what appears to be their concerns, reiterating my concerns and urging that the article should not be given prominence until more sources discussing the claim were available to corroborate the claim of Russian origin. Another user, Geogene, noted that a Washington Post article had since been published casting doubt on the Isikoff claims. Herostratus responded to my post and Geogene's with a weird rant. He said article sources do not need corroboration, talked about their belief that the unpopularity of Donald Trump is practically universal, defended the use of bias, and said the Russian 'the "Russia collusion conspiracy theory". Is that something like the "Earth is round conspiracy theory"?' He also accused me of being a third person who started a different talk page discussion (this is partially my fault, I thought I had a static IP at my work computer, but apparently I do not).

I found this behavior on the talk page to be inappropriate and rude. It is because of things like this that I have no desire to regularly edit wikipedia or register here and have perhaps a dozen times in my life added a comment to a talk page. I am concerned his edits to the Murder of Seth Rich page itself were not in the spirit of Wikipedia and when questioned on the appropriateness of their comment, Herostratus discourage participation in Wikipedia, cast aspersions of people questioning them, and asserted bizarre claims that bias and unreliable information were suitable for publication on Wikipedia. I do not know the appropriate procedures here, so I leave it in your hands to take appropriate action with this uncouth editor.

I believe I resolved the matter of the edits to the Seth Rich page by starting a motion asking editors to vote on whether or not to revert Herostratus' edits and replace them with information from the WaPo Geogene posted to the talk page.2603:3004:6B6:F800:F090:7218:F73C:5CBF (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a

Inter&anthro's theory appears to be that if an article says that someone holds a religious belief, any religious belief, to any extent, then their criticism of Islam cannot be "secular". I would say that the category might pertain to (1) Anyone who criticizes Islam who is not a religious leader of some sort, or (2) Anyone whose criticism of Islam is not about the religion, per se, but about Islamic societies. I don't that I&A's theory holds water in any case, but the ambiguity of the category "Secular criticism of Islam" is not a subject of discussion for AN/I. I advised I&A to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, which he reports that he has done. Why they also chose to go forum shopping and open this discussion as well, I'm not sure. In my opinion, this thread is inappropriate for AN/I and should be archived in favor of the discussion at WT:CFD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Woah. Overtly pro-NK POV, Google searches as sources, willful misrepresentation of sources, and... well, this. He seems to now also be branching into writing about just how awesome Communist China is for Tibet. I'd suggest skipping warnings or even topic ban and go straight to indef for nothere and CIR. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Their contributions"? First of all, several points. First, I am one person and everything I've added is sourced. I don't see what's wrong with the information I added to "North Korean famine" and I have started a new discussion to challenge the revert. Do you disagree with the life expectancy data provided by Wikipedia or Google? Is Wikipedia not reliable? I admit it can be biased at times and has problems, but what is the issue with citing it?

Also, I maintain that the disclaimer I added to "Seoul National University Hospital massacre" was necessary. There is no information available in English about the subject and no Korean historians have written about it (or any historians at all, even though it supposedly happened in 1950). If you disagree, please list even just one (preferably contemporary)? The well-respected historian Bruce Cumings has noted that a number of massacres, including Taejon (4-7,000 people) and the Bodo League massacre (one massacre of 200,000 people), once attributed to North Korea by South Korea and official American histories, have since been proven to have been committed by South Korea. The South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission has even reviewed many reports of North Korean massacres and come to the same result. The only sources for the "Seoul National University Hospital massacre" are from right-wing newspapers in South Korea based on reports from the South Korean military and a plaque/report from that hospital dating back to 1963. And as noted, not a single historian has written about it. All massacres attributed to North Korea by South Korea in the past need to be re-examined. I note that on the Talk page another user has questioned reliability as well.

What is the "misrepresentation" of sources from "North_Korean abductions of South Koreans"? A commission led by the South Korean prime minister (see https://books.google.com/books?id=DT4yAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22wartime+abductees%22+%22korean+war%22&source=bl&ots=tGOD8oGIG5&sig=ACfU3U0MScKbsyyiGx6xXxJHfHEuafOXNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1kIC5zd_iAhUmiFQKHZ5ZB1I4ChDoATAJegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22wartime%20abductees%22%20%22korean%20war%22&f=false - quote: "In August 2011, the Korean War Abductees Fact-Finding Commission (6.25 chonjaeng nappuk chinsang kyumyong wiwonhoe) led by the prime minister said it could confirm 55 cases", p. 80) claims there were 55 abductions during the war, not the tens of thousands claimed in the article.

What is the issue about trying to bring neutrality to articles on North Korea (or for that matter, Tibet)? There is a lot of pro-South propaganda and unsourced anti-North Korean POV material, as well as lots of material on Tibet from biased sources that are anti-Chinese. Often it remains on Wikipedia for years without anyone to correct it or balance it out. I have not pushed a pro-North Korean or pro-China view, but rather added sourced information that balances (or balanced, prior to reverts, whatever the case may be) the articles out (I would note that other users have noticed issues with the articles on both Tibet and some on North Korea). If I had written, for example, information about how the life expectancy in North Korea had fallen or that it was lower than other countries I doubt we would be having this discussion. But, as it turns out, it was actually higher than other countries with similar or even higher GDPs (such as Cambodia and India). I also would note that, before today, I had not received any complaints here or rarely on the Talk pages. Incogreader (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"First, I am one person and everything I've added is sourced. " The English language allows the use of "their" as a singular. For example: Someone makes edits about how awesome North Korea is, and a reasonable person responds, "What is their problem?" --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

neutral point of view? It appears that your edits to articles have reflected a pro-North Korean point-of-view, which is not neutral and violates this policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

04:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

As per this edit, the source is literally owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, and the source itself seems a bit off. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

First on, Tibet. So, it is OK to use sources like "International Campaign for Tibet" (website is savetibet.org), The International Commission of Jurists (funded by the CIA and which functioned more or less as its propaganda instrument), CIA agents like the Dalai Lama (just three questionable sources that come to mind), but not to add information from a source representing over a billion people? It is clearly labelled as China's view, unlike many of the various other sources of the kind I mentioned. What is off about that particular edit? Do you have evidence the ROC did not approve the current Dalai Lama's enthronement, or that the other historical documents referred to are fake? If not, the edit was good and I have challenged the "revert" (of which there doesn't appear to have been one, but it still disappeared somehow). As one commentator has noted, China's claim to Tibet is much stronger than the American claim to parts of the Western United States (or for that matter, the American South, over which it fought a civil war which ended slavery - in the United States, that is - it still continued in Tibet for many years, only ending after the PRC's intervention).

• Also, I have not written about "how awesome North Korea is", as per Golbez, or "how awesome Communist China is for Tibet," per "someguy", just added sourced facts, written the truth (which speaks for itself), and balanced out a number of biased articles. None of my edits reflect a specifically pro-North Korean POV, they have just attempted to bring neutrality to topics that are desperately lacking it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incogreader (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Block indefinitely this account. This is a very clear pattern of POV-pushing, possibly editing on the behalf or North Korean government. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

None of the users listed here have gone into any detail of what exactly is the problem beyond vague "pro-North Korean POV" or (presumably) "pro-China" POV. They have not stated what specifically I've added to articles that is "pro-North Korea." As for "possibly editing on the behalf or North Korean government," this is a very serious claim, so you must have some proof for that (other than editing pages related North Korea - and Tibet - in addition to a few other edits)? Luckily this isn't South Korea with its National Security Law.Incogreader (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

See Streisand effect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Here is an example of editing by Incogreader. Yes, the sourcing of the page must be significantly improved, but the facts about the abductions are well known. There is nothing "alleged" here. Incogreader inserts the following: "Questions have been raised as to whether Jin Gyeong-suk was actually arrested, rather than abducted" sourced to ... a WP page. What? Well, even if we wanted to use this page as a source, it tells something very different, as anyone can easily check. They remove "Despite the testimonies of former abductees who have escaped from the North,..." (but these testimonies are well known and publicized, so this is an important to note). And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact, according to the same article, North Korea disputes the existence of post-war abductees, so alleged is appropriate. And the article on Jin Gyeong-suk contains the line "The question arose whether Jin had actually been kidnapped or only arrested in accordance with North Korean law.", so this question actually has come up. The same article also says that the person in question was to meet a middle-man who "was supposed to smuggle a video camera into North Korea" on her behalf. If she had been acting legally there would be no need to get someone to smuggle it. How would she know about supposed drug involvement by the North Korean government anyway? Did she report this story to the proper authorities before seeking out the aid of foreign forces? The story itself raises some questions. I could not find anything from North Korea reporting this - if they have indeed not acknowledged an arrest, perhaps she was kidnapped by drug traffickers independent of North Korea, if her story actually has even a bit of truth to it. And finally, if the "testimonies of former abductees" are "well known and publicized," there should be no problem with finding a source and readding the passage in question. I checked, and although I did not spend a long time searching, I could not easily find any. Incogreader (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect Wikipedia promotions from Kim Fatso III so this may be just a rare case of Juche enthusiast. But the above abduction-denial is delusional as well as inexcusable. Block this account.

*miki*⧸ 🌉

04:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not actually denied the claimed North Korean abductions in South Korea, just raised questions. Although, based on the sources, I do find it doubtful. To my knowledge, China has never raised this issue, even though several cases are alleged to have happened there. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this line;

"First on, Tibet. So, it is OK to use sources like "International Campaign for Tibet" (website is savetibet.org), The International Commission of Jurists (funded by the CIA and which functioned more or less as its propaganda instrument), CIA agents like the Dalai Lama (just three questionable sources that come to mind),"

Unfortunately, propagandists for

"Democratic People's Republic" of Korea aren't the only communist propagandists to push this lie. The "Party for Socialism and Liberation" is big on perpetuating this propaganda (https://factandtruth.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/american-people-oppose-anti-china-campaign/). Ignore the title of the link - it's neither facts nor truth. So I agree with Tsumikiria and others here. Block thus user. ---------User:DanTD (talk

) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is untrue? Did ICJ not receive CIA funding? A check of its Wikipedia page shows that it did, and that it was in fact co-founded by long-time CIA director Allen Dulles. Did the current Dalai Lama not receive founding from the CIA as well? Again, research based on declassified American documents shows that he personally received funding from the CIA.[1] Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at this edit - You cannot just use Google as a source here, and why did you remove a reliable source (Reuters) here? As for this edit, I'm sure that North Korea itself threatened to launch missiles at Guam, and not test. This source tells that it was a threatened launch. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 13:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The removal of the Reuters article citation was accidental (the part about the CIA's help with fleeing to India was also removed, again by accident). I meant to remove only the line "because the people of Tibet wanted to take a stance and protect the man they all cherished, from the communist government." THAT is obviously POV ("the man they all cherished"?). As for the missile tests, I would like to see a source for the claim that North Korea threatened to launch at Guam without provocation, if this is what you are claiming. Regardless, it did not actually launch a missile at Guam, it test fired one into the air, and it landed safely dozens of miles away from Guam. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Quick check shows that Incogreader intentionally misinforms readers. Consider this edit with edit summary: "source cited does not actually confirm 45% stunted North Korean children". How come? Here is the source, and it tells: "Roughly 45 per cent of North Korean children under the age of five are stunted from malnutrition". The user did start a discussion on talk [72], but in no way the discussion disproves what this and other RS tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This was not properly cited. The citation for that article (from Telegraph) appears after the next sentence, which I did not check (the line about "45 per cent of North Korean children under the age of five" being malnourished has a citation to a BBC article, which has nothing about this - and while, after some research, the 45% figure, probably dating back to 1998 when the country was still in a serious food shortage, appears elsewhere, other sources do not make clear that 45% of children were actually stunted, rather than simply being malnourished). A later figure from Jimmy Carter in 2011 mentioned elsewhere the article gives a figure of one third of children. One researcher at a university in Seoul reported an average difference of about 3-4cm in the children of defectors, which depending on sample size may or may not be statistically significant. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fact remains: you removed well-sourced info which was in the source, while falsely claiming it was not in the source. That might be just an honest error on your part, but you continued to argue on the talk page (link above) that "the source provided for the claim "Roughly 45% of North Korean children under the age of five are stunted from malnutrition ... does not actually state 45% of children are stunted, and is sensationalist reporting about young supposed "defectors" whom Laos and North Korea say were actually victims of human trafficking who may have been beaten and forced to convert to Christianity." So, not only you intentionally misrepresented the source, but you seem to believe that victims of human trafficking and Christians are no longer defectors and therefore ... not trustworthy? My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking about Tibet, Incogreader posted this. He tells: "Starting in 1950-1, the People's Republic of China (PRC) began undertaking democratic reforms in Tibet" and elsewhere". This is just ridiculous. See
  WP:Not here and possibly has a COI. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 18:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

While its true that most of the democratic reforms occurred in 1959 and after, the reforms did start in 1950-1. They included the reduction of interest rates on loans by monasteries (which were as high as 50%) and building hospitals and roads. Prior to the 1950's (especially 1959), Tibet was a feudal theocracy, and the separation between temple and state, a pillar of democracy, occurred only after Chinese intervention. Slavery still flourished in the period before the PRC's intervention as well. See the citations, particularly Michael Parent's "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth." Incogreader (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And the "democratic reforms in 1959 and after" included what? Great Leap Forward, Great Chinese Famine and Cultural Revolution? You are just repeating old communist colonialist propaganda that they made happy their own people and other "savages" like Tibetan people (this is basically a copycat of old time Soviet propaganda how they made everyone "happy" in Gulag). My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As noted in the citations, democratic reforms included abolition of human slavery, corporal punishment, separation of church/temple and state, and redistribution of land to landless peasants and tenant farmers. And the entire country, not just Tibet, suffered during the GLF period/famine (which natural disasters contributed to, and during which life expectancy was still above pre-1949 levels) and the excesses of the misguided Cultural Revolution (which were often carried out by ethnic Tibetans). Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh! So the widespread destruction of Chinese culture during the Cultural Revolution was largely the responsibility of the Tibetans! I'd missed reading that before. Thank you for clarifying! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The article itself says that "During the Cultural Revolution, Red Guards, which included Tibetan members,[47] inflicted a campaign of organized vandalism against cultural sites." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incogreader (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the page tells exactly the opposite: [73]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Democratic reforms? "abolition of human slavery, corporal punishment, separation of church/temple and state, and redistribution of land to landless peasants and tenant farmers" aren't democratic reforms. Where's the democracy? And cultural suppression counts as "democratic" reform? Besides, one of your edit's source (this edit) was literally government propaganda. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this edit is one of Incogreader's first edits. How on earth would they know about the POV tag so early? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indef block the account. Not to pile on or anything, but here [74] the user edited the article Korean War, changing a sentence that atrocities were committed on both sides to say that they were committed by the South Korean side. I will say that I feel sorry for the person behind the account, who may find himself or herself in a horrific situation. But the encyclopedia needs to be protected, and doing so won't hurt the person.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

An IP user in the range Special:Contributions/2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:3DB1:1FA5:CCE4:A120/64 has been persistently removing maintenance tags, especially "citation needed", without explanation or fixing the problems, and edit-warring over it, since at least March 2018. At that time they received multiple warnings and a block already (User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:B83D:566A:8523:595E), but have continued with several hundred similar edits. The most recent warnings are:

• User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:3DB1:1FA5:CCE4:A120 (today, from me)
• User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:9451:6474:6D5D:806D
• User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:781F:87D1:3B2B:72A6
• User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:49E6:C15C:F183:1FDC
• User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:5511:4169:3E00:6FE7
• etc...

I'm not sure if there were any more blocks. It looks to me like they have been the exclusive user of this IP range. At least two outbursts of out-and-out vandalism are linked to the same user: July 2018 [75], [76], and September 2018 [77].

The majority of the edits are to articles related to food or to films. In addition to removing templates, there's a habit of removing information about whether a dish is served hot or cold, and other idiosyncrasies. --IamNotU (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the range for 2 years. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been discussing with

Apocheir, I sincerely apologize for deleting your most recent message in your talk. I had not realized that was unacceptable and unwarranted under Wikipedia policy.

However, I think that your opinion on my edits on

Original Research as well (and 'does not improve the article,' as you say). Harry Princeton (talk

) 03:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I thought it was on my user page, which is why I deleted it. Harry Princeton (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User U1Quattro violated IBAN twice in last 2 days.
1. This user still arbitrary deletes chassis codes from italian cars that were uploaded by me, repeating his Tendentious editing behaviour that resulted in his previour block:
Special:Diff/905790969
Special:Diff/538038099 and Special:Diff/883957905
There already was a discussion about how important they are and are also in Automobiles WikiProject guidelines.

2. He arbitrary deletes source provided by me, knowing very well it was provided by me. And this is deliberate IBAN violation:
Special:Diff/905919559
Special:Diff/856959988
Section violated: Interaction ban
"Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" YBSOne (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I would present my side of the story. There as already been a discussion on this user's talk page that his website is not in compliance with

WP:RS so I removed it. Further, I didn't know that the source was added by this user until he mentioned it here. I saw an unreliable source and replaced it. About removal of the chassis codes, the Automobiles guideline allow them to be mentioned in the names of the automobiles in the article in order to distinguish them from each other when they have a similar name. This doesn't apply to all automobiles and their names. I did not undo the edits in short, I just deleted excess information. That doesn't count as an IBAN violation. I stayed away from this user and his user page until today he decided to go on and post on my talk page which is indeed an IBAN violation.U¹ _quattro TALK

12:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Wheather this website in not a reliable source is not an issue here. One persons opinion on my talk page does not constitute this weebsite as unrealiable source. You have not replaced it with more reliable sources but three car selling sites. Those are also self published information provided by a seller. Don't claim that You are improving wikipedia. You knew very well it was provided by me else how would You know it was mentioned on my talk page? I can post a notice on Your talk page, and it is required. It is not an IBAN violation. Quote: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." YBSOne (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter if you are right, it is an IBAN, that means no interaction for any reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I do however note that at least one of the reversions was to an edit you made 6 years ago [[78]], so he might not have known it was you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not my problem. I have proven that this is a continuation of his tendentious editing behaviour and that he knew who provided the source and I'm pretty sure he knew who added the chassis code.YBSOne (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

For the imposition of the IBAN between U1quattro and Ybsone, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Ongoing feud with U1Quattro. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

To make my point clear, I do not have the time to dig up years old edit history regarding a page. So I did not know who added the chassis code and the website. As for the website not in conformity with the WP:RS, I participated in the discussion on the user's talk page before an IBAN was implemented. Also the website clearly mentions in large text about the owner. All of the claims made by the said user are false. I have complied with the IBAN rules to this date until this discussion and a notice popped on my talk page. To post on my talk page, an appeal against the IBAN was required which wasn't allowed before a time of six months. This user has violated that.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not post a notice about this incident on Your talk page to appeal to You about an IBAN. Please stop bludgeoning this thread. YBSOne (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing an IBAN violations here - On both the Maserati_Shamal and Maserati_Q articles there's a months gap on them both, There's been no reverts, It's a bit of a stretch to say U1 knew they were your edits IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

My bad didn't realise he was removing a website which he knew was yours, That indeed is a IBAN violation and as such I agree with Drmies's block. –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

His quote: "As for the website not in conformity with the WP:RS, I participated in the discussion on the user's talk page before an IBAN was implemented." He knew I inserted that source, that he claims is not reliable, but freely uses its contents and links provided there. Also definition from Interaction ban: "whether by use of the revert function or by other means". Definition does not state the time frame. YBSOne (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not know that the said user inserted the source Davey2010. The website belongs to the user, thats true because the website says so. Participation in the talk page discussion was about the website not being a rouble source, not about whether or not the said user inserted it in the Maserati Quattroporte page. All in all, this user is just wasting everyone's time in reporting something that wasn't violated by me. U¹ _quattro TALK 13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why we deliberate about his intentions. He removed a website that he knew I provided because he was feuding with me for past months banging on about it also. If there was any doubt he should have checked. This edit: Special:Diff/905919559 was not legitimate. Website provided: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/cars/maserati-quattroporte-iv/ was replaced with links from the very same website. His violation of IBAN is unquestionable. YBSOne (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A simple Google Search about the Maserati Quattroporte Cornes Serie Speciale reveals these links as stipulated here. I did not visited the said website to check the links either.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well. If there is an IBAN, and if that IBAN was issued in part because the one editor was undoing the other user's edits involving those numbers, and if the one editor adds that the information should be removed because the source is unreliable AND the source is a website run by the other editor, then it is HIGHLY disingenuous for the one editor to say "Oh I didn't know it was that editor's text I removed with that unreliable website". In other words, this claim has no validity whatsoever--and if one has been blocked before for a violation, one should try much harder to stay away from the other user. So this is a violation of the IBAN and thus blockable: I have blocked for a week.

  As for YBSOne, I think the best thing to happen here would be a formal discussion at

  WP:COIN. If indeed the website is unreliable (and I see no reason whatsoever to accept it as a reliable source), and if indeed it is run by YBSOne, then a. those references should be removed and the website perhaps blacklisted, and b. consideration should be given to warning or even censoring YBSOne for promotional linking. Drmies (talk
  ) 15:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I intend to take this website to

WP:RSN because amongst car community it is seen as a reliable source. Information gathered there is from car manufacturers, press releases and other reliable sources. As could be seen here sometimes there are no other sources: here. Also I am actively replacing all previous instances of citing this website just in case. YBSOne (talk

) 15:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RSN won't care for the blogs, forums, and personal websites you listed there as evidence. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Week block is unsatisfactory for his n-th offense. He will not stop pestering me. And I in the meantime cannot edit this blunder: Special:Diff/893183501, one of many. He is not here to build an encyclopedia:
  

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Feud_with_U1Quattro

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Unacceptable_behaviour_by_Ybsone

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Ongoing_feud_with_U1Quattro

In May this year I complained: "Over past year my edits were reverted 18 times by U1Quattro"

In June this number rose to 45... and now we have 2 more. I was under the impression that this IBAN was his last warning. YBSOne (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)