Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013

174.18.78.210

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.

---

After just slightly more than 1 day of release from the user's block, 174.18.78.210 is attacking other editors again. The user was originally blocked for long-term abuse. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nate Speed. The user is editing in violation of their site ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=790555410#Site_ban_for_Nate_Speed. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's already taken care of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2019 (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:Cody2019

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.

---

Could someone please rollback all edits from Cody2019? He’s a block evading sock of CodyFinke2019. I’m without usual computer for a bit. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:20, 26 June 2019 (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.

DoctorAldebaran and "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby"

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.

---

A "new", but surprisingly experienced editor DoctorAldebaran (talk · contribs) has joined Wikipedia apparently for the purpose of pointing out that antisemitism (or so-called "antisemitism" as DoctorAldebaran styles it), is not real, but merely "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby". As such he has been making edits that, in his view, help balance material that is " too pro-Jewish lobby" and that "favour a Jewish POV over an ethnic Catholic POV", and, in general, to clearly identify people and groups as "Jewish". DoctorAldebaran lays out some of his/her philosophy in this post. I submit that DoctorAldebaran's views and editing might be better suited to Metapedia than to Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Aaaand they've been CU-blocked by Bbb23. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 14:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as a sockpuppet of Ishbiliyya (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) - That makes Ishbiliyya's creation of certain categories (and their on-going deletion discussion more understandable. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 26 June 2019 (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.

Dan Vs.

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.

---

Could Geraldo Perez and myself get some sysop help at this article, need the page semi-protected and the proxy IPs blocked. LTA is disrupting the page. Home Lander (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Only two IPs, not sure if semi-protection is needed at the moment. Bigger question to me, are those IPs on webhost ranges? 162.220.51.129 (talk · contribs) and 82.223.108.106 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, [1] indicates they are both proxies. Home Lander (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the range for being web proxies and colocation hosts. Sasquatch t|c 03:10, 26 June 2019 (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.

Michael Gough (cricketer) - page protection request

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.

---

Hi. This is logged at WP:RFPP, but his article is going crazy at the moment with BLP violations, following some Indian cricket fans being unhappy with a decision he made today at the 2019 Cricket World Cup. I'd be grateful if someone could protect the page. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously admins, pull your fingers out. We non-admins haven't got enough fingers to plug the dyke. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Big thanks to @Malcolmxl5: for adding the padlock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:31, 27 June 2019 (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.

Nate Speed

He's back at it again... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=94.69.61.55&limit=50. He was banned a long time ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=790555410#Site_ban_for_Nate_Speed Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked for 60 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

El C has blocked another IP and semi-protected the pages. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unregistered IP User attacking me despite having issues corrected

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

User 87.75.117.183 maybe in violation of WP:PERSONALATTACKS after repeatedly attacking me with false accusation through Wikipedia Feature {Edit Summary). I contacted a admin on a talk page to help with the issue to get things clear up and it did. Despite heaving issues cleared up the unregistered ip user continue to attack . I believe the user may been blocked before for attack on another account and maybe using multiple accounts to group on me. I stop responding to the unregistered ip user started to repeatedly use the edit summary to attack after issues was clear up. I was gone from the page that had a issue for around 2 days. I decided to just let a uninvolved Admin to deal with the new problem. Issue that been cleared up Proof 1 Proof 2 Proof 3Proof 4Regice2020 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's difficult from the links you presented to see any personal attacks as they are not edits but different versions of the same article. Can you provide diffs, specific edits that show the edit summaries you find offensive? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Tip.... see WP:DIFF and HELP:Page history. What works best here is a diff like this. I got that url from the version history for this page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the IP labeled Regice2020's good-faith edits as vandalism a couple of times (see, e.g., [2]). However, Regice2020 should be aware that the discussion s/he linked to as an "issue that been cleared up" in fact shows third-party editor MelanieN seeming to agree with the IP that the material Regice2020 was removing should not be removed. @Regice2020:, if you have a content dispute and are not satisfied with the result of your discussion, you should turn to proper dispute resolution mechanisms—not ANI. Other than mislabeling your edits as vandalism, what has the IP done that would require an "uninvolved admin" to get involved? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As the person accused, I'd like to add vexatious litigant to the list of "personal attacks" too. Regice2020 appears to have a major problem with the fact that I am an unregistered user who uses a static IP address for my own ideological reasons. He requested deletion of the Ryzen article without first trying to improve it or even posting on its talk page. Naturally, the request was rejected. He then tried to block me from editing it by requesting that it be protected. When that was rejected, he tried again, a few hours later. When that also failed he began disruptively editing (deleting significant chunks from) the article and adding tags with the wrong dates to suggest that it has long standing issues and when challenged he sought advice from an admin, who told him that he needed to revert and seek consensus. He didn't revert but continued to argue, so the "clear[ing] up" was done by me. I've repeatedly tried to engage him in discussion but he refuses. If I'm wrong for calling him a disruptive editor or a vandal then so be it. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like there's a case for calling Regice2020 a disruptive editor, but not a vandal. That may not seem like an important distinction, but it always helps when there's a content dispute (bordering on an edit war) to avoid mischaracterizing people's motives. Not saying you're in the wrong in this dispute—just something to keep in mind. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I take your point. Thank you for pointing that out. Not that there was ever any risk of an edit war. I made it clear to Regice2020 that I would not be drawn into one but he barely acknowledges my existence. I only reverted his disruptive edit the second time when he showed no inclination to do so himself. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Ryzen page is still being too technical everyday and other issues from edits in 2017 to now. We do not know if Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7, and Ryzen 9 going even par with Intel . I mean this person going to keep going even if something ended in good faith. I am not bother. Right now there too much "heat" going around with multiple users and may get more people in trouble. I going just request closure to this to let "heat" cool off few days to a week. I am not going bother with that Ryzen page or even fans coming over once a while to edit for few days to a week. Thanks. Have nice day Regice2020 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As always , in WP:FAITH. I like to withdrew this report. Regice2020 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's very wise, and I'll forget that you ever accused me of WP:COI. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's drop our STICKs and move along. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I see that the discussion at my talk page has been cited here. I’ll summarize for the record. I first encountered Regice a few days ago when I declined their RFPP request for protection of the Ryzen page. It had previously been denied by another administrator, but as soon as that was archived Regice posted the same request again, for which I scolded them. They then approached me on my talk page with complaints similar to this ANI. My analysis at that time: Regice was repeatedly removing longstanding content, which the IP was restoring. I told Regice they needed to get consensus at the talk page to remove longstanding content; they have still not posted there. I'm not sure they understood me, and I certainly have trouble understanding them. I think the IP's characterization of them as a "vexatious litigant" has merit and I suspect ANI has not seen the last of Regice. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Update from Doc James

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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.

---

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Update from Doc James and decide whether further participation of The Rambling Man is beneficial for the discussion. To me, it clearly looks like harassment, but I am involved and possibly biased.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that anyone who criticises a board member is harrasing them. We might as well shut down the website now.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not what I am saying. I actually critisize a board member myself in a different thread at the same page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If telling Doc Jones that he isn't in charge of what constitutes being "under a cloud" constitutes "harassment", little wonder the project is in such trouble. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

:: Well, you replied to his every single post in this thread, all of your replies are extremely negative, and most are not to the point. This is harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC) ec with the closer (i) and with TRM (ii)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Time for you to leave it now, per above. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, IMO The Rambling Man is right. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• What I see in that thread is normal behavior from The Rambling Man. Not sure there's going to be a consensus to do anything, given there seldom is. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, normal focus on getting the discussion back on track and ensuring that some users don't believe they govern the community. Common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• ^^^ This is an example of why people email Trust and Safety or just leave Wikipedia altogether instead of trying to deal with incivility on wiki. This is the second ANI thread about TRM’s Framban-related participation to be promptly closed. TRM’s comments to Doc James, and his earlier comments to BU Rob, were out of line. They were not ok, and when editors brought it up here for discussion, the threads should not have been closed right away. It is arrogant to shut down a discussion within hours, presuming that you can make a decision without even giving your colleagues an opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter, as if your opinion is the only one that counts, as if you don’t need consensus to close a thread. – Levivich 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Levivich, You raise a good point. Tempers are short and nerves are frayed, and that can lead to a participant saying something or they wouldn't normally say. What's the best response? Some might counsel that responding early — nipping it in the bud — is the best way to cool things down. Others might feel it's best to allow someone to vent a little steam, don't take the remark too seriously, try to understand the motivation behind it rather than the literal words, and move on. I fear that the right answer isn't either one of those choices, or rather, I should say, the right answer depends upon the specific situation, the specific and individual making the comment, and (sadly) the individual making the response. This makes it difficult to identify a formulaic response to increased tensions.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• We can continue the discussion here, and I think it is important that we do because The Rambling Man's tone in the discussion linked was hostile, and there is concern about "hostile", "toxic", and non-community spirited ("monolith misnomer") behaviour on Wikipedia. People may (and do) have differences of opinion regarding what is uncivil, what constitutes harassment, what makes people feel unwelcome; and people may look at that exchange and have different views as to how appropriate or helpful TRM's tone was. But until we are prepared to openly discuss such behaviour to see how many people find it OK, and how many feel that they'd rather TRM tone it down; and to seek agreement on what is and what is not acceptable, then we stand little chance of resolving concerns that our community is toxic.

Do I feel that what TRM said in that exchange was sanctionable? No. Do I feel that his tone was hostile, and in the circumstances inappropriate and unhelpful? Yes. In the space of 30 minutes he made something like eight terse negative comments directed at Doc James such as: "Don't you dare come back with some boiler plate bullshit. You've already had three weeks to come up with something. Pathetic." "I'm sure Doc James' contributions have been historically marvellous, but if he remains a member of our community, he has to accept that this situation, and the ongoing malaise, is completely unacceptable." "If you really do still think of yourself as a member of our community, then you understand 100% why another week of waiting is unacceptable, right?" "while your opinion on the matter is interesting, it's not exactly relevant." "That is complete bollocks. It's not up to Doc James to tell us whether or not those admins and 'crats who resigned did so under a cloud. It's misdirection and utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand. " "As I said, it's not up to Doc James".

That appears to me to be rather self-indulgent, as though it mattered more to TRM to vent his spleen, than to consider the cumulative effect such badgering could have on the person receiving it. Thoughtfulness and a reflective understanding of Doc James' position was missing. Such behaviour has a chilling effect, and can discourage people from speaking in case they will receive such treatment. In these already strained circumstances, being not just unappreciative of someone's effort, but downright dismissive, can lead to resignations. I can't speak for others, but I can say that resignation has been on my mind from the moment Fram's ban was announced, and it has been very close several times due to comments from Katherine Maher that I felt were dismissive and unappreciative of my efforts.

We can't pick and choose who is going to offend/upset/annoy/harass us - be it a community member or the CEO of WMF, so it's up to all of us to look to what we say and consider how it feels to be on the receiving end of such comments. Yes, these are heated times, and an outburst is somewhat understandable, but a half hour of venting, especially when several users are suggesting that such venting is not helpful, appears to me to be self-indulgent and non-productive. SilkTork (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I find a lot of good stuff in SilkTork's remarks. While I largely agree with the overall thrust of TRM's arguments, I think he goes beyond what is necessary to make his point. But this is not a normal situation. The community is extremely unhappy, and Doc James has been misused as a lightning rod. That is unfortunate, but DocJames is in a prominent and exposed position - and he seems to be robust. I think the best that can be done is a polite reminder to TRM that behind the account is a real person, with in Doc's case a quite significant life off Wikipedia, who is neither in complete control of his time nor of internal processes of the WMF board. Not everything that is less-than-perfect is a case for AN/I. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, in the very topic I linked I politely asked TRM to stop and was told to mind my own business. I was previously not involved in any way, and my only option left was to go here. Sanctions can mean anything, I am not insisting on a block or a topic-ban, but a message must be somehow sent that this behavior is not really acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork - Your timid response says it all. You appease unacceptable behavior and in appeasing it you condone it. In condoning it you directly promote and encourage others to believe in and sustain that behaviour. This is why we are where we are. You are literally afraid to take action against vested editors. It is a clear fault line and a particular group of you are willfully blind. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork is right - it's not sanctionable, but it's probably not helpful either. TRM is understandably upset, as are so many of us, but venting at Doc James isn't helping. At the risk of coming across as condescending towards an editor I respect (with massively more experience here than myself), I'd remind him of this pledge. I'd say the same to Leaky caldron - you're venting in the other direction. If TRM is harassing Doc James, how would you describe your own response to Silk Tork? Let's all just try to calm down and stop biting each other. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't the same thing. I haven't assailed anyone with 10 hostile, bludgeoning edits in 20 minutes. He is a high level functionary - I actually expect a response from him. Why is it not sanctionable? - because you don't want to invite another internal Framgate. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I've taken administrative action. Not a sanction. There is a difference between a newbie editor and "a high level functionary". The later voluntarily steps into a position of visibility (and influence) and must be prepared to handle more fall-out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz I think your administrative action was exactly what the situation called for, and very tactfully worded. More of that sort of thing all round would be a good thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Agreed S Philbrick(Talk) 11:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Leaky caldron has made a useful contribution here, as "Your timid response says it all." and "You are literally afraid to take action against vested editors." and "...you are willfully blind" are comments which step over from polite debate into something a little distasteful. Yet Leaky caldron was haranguing me because I wasn't taking a strong enough stance against such behaviour. I don't think we are always reflective enough to see when we have slipped into road rage. Leaky caldron, what for you is the essential difference between what TRM was doing to Doc James and what you have just done to me? Your answer might be helpful, as I suspect most people who are being hostile either don't think they are, or they think they are entirely justified for some reason. SilkTork (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Stephan Schulz: "with in Doc's case a quite significant life off Wikipedia" ah yes, of course, the rest of us have insignificant little lives. Of course you'll deny meaning what you said. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • You don't get that? seriously? A whole shitstorm about how those in power treat those without, you single out one of those in power as having a significant life and by implication denigrating the lives of the rest of us, and the "significant life" of that one in power being a reason not to express frustration honestly to him, and you don't get it? DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Come on DuncanHill, can we just quit with the snark and sarcasm? Doc James is an ER doctor - mentioning that he has an unusually time-consuming and important job is not the same as saying that everyone else is insignificant. There's just no need for all this negativity. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: If his job prevents him fulfilling his duties on the board in a timely manner he will, I am sure, do the honourable thing. Nobody forced him to be on the board. Nobody forced any of them. They chose. I am, I am sure many of us are, sick and tired of being patronised. Oh it's so so difficult for the board, they are all far too busy to actually respond in a timely manner! To be perfectly clear, I am not having a go at Doc as a person, he seems to be trying, unlike most of the rest of the board, and he does actually respond meaningfully, which the rest of the board could learn a lot from. But you don't take on a responsibility like being on the board without being certain you can step up when needed. A board that can't - or won't - step up needs to go. One can have enormous respect for Doc as an editor, and as a human being, and still criticise the board in strong language when it deserves it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you DuncanHill - it must always be permissible to criticise the board, and even to use strong language. I'm just saying that there's no need to read any slight of the rest of the community into Stephan's words. He was advocating that we cut Doc James some slack because of his job - you're perfectly entitled to disagree with that position, but you surely can do that without equating Stephan's words to an insult to the community? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

We all have pressures and stresses and responsibilities off-wiki. Some of us put them on our user pages, some of us don't. All of us have significant lives. Stephan shouldn't assume that some editors deserve more consideration than others because of their off-wiki lives when he cannot possibly know the position of most of us. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And indeed I think we all should be cut a reasonable amount of slack. I also think if you only allow people on the WMF board - or indeed any board - who can spend all of their time and all of their energy on just the board duty, then you will have only millionaire playpeople and and bums on the board. For most people it's normal to have competing duties and to have to balance them. This would be different for Katherine Maher - she is paid to do this kind of work full-time. I also suggest you return your mind-reader to wherever you bought it and ask for a full refund. It's very bad on determining assumptions of other people. And if you have some spare time, take a look at both WP:AGF and principle of charity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

All their time and all their energy? I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that. I talked about stepping up when needed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are seriously, seriously comparing my single, considered accurate response to you here, to that angry tirade of repeated bile & invective, well I'm lost for words. The difference is this: I considered who the target it and why a response was necessary. I considered every word. I reviewed every word. I previewed how it would look in context. I stand by it as an accurate summary of repeated failures to deal with established editors. The fact that you are dangling a threat towards me ("stepping over....into something distasteful") entirely proves my point. IIRC you took NO action, not "not strong enough action". You've left that to someone else. :) Leaky caldron (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Silk Tork did take action Leaky - they composed and posted a lengthy, considered and tactful comment here, critical of TRM's behaviour, sparking this continued discussion, which led in turn to some further action from Stephan that might actually address the problem without needing to block anyone or have a massive fight. I can't think of a more appropriate action that Silk Tork could have taken. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron your comment was not a "single, considered accurate response", it was a rude and unpleasant attack on a respected admin trying to find a way through this mess. IMHO We all need to move on from this but yourself doing the very thing you're complaining about and demanding action on, is hardly the way to achieve that. Suggest a WP:TROUT for both TRM and LC for uncivil behaviour, noting that civility and harassment are part of enwiki policy, and reclose this thread.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Amakura You're wrong, it was single and it was considered. But I'll tell you what I will happily accept. If you believe that I was rude and unpleasant and therefore actionable in any way, make sure that approach is applied equally to everyone including those heavyweight, time served editors and admins who behave reprehensibly and circle the waggons for each other. I have been here 13 years. I didn't climb the greasy Admin pole pre-2010 when you just needed to be barely alive to get the tools, I'm pleased to say. But my contributions are as valuable in the limited areas I have worked as anyone's. Silk Tork could have addressed the editor directly, head on, on his talk page rather than here. No doubt had t been me, my TP would have been flooded with formal warnings. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view, The Rambling Man needs to take off his spiderman outfit and get down off the Reichstag. He doesn't like the WMF's lack of communication with the community. I agree. He doesn't like Katherine Maher's inflammatory tweet. I agree. He didn't like the anonymous Women in Red tweet making pot-shots at Fram. I agreed. Yet somehow I managed to make all these points without making an enormous spectacle of myself in the process. TRM, you've retired because you don't like developments on the project. That's fine, but when you retire you STOP EDITING. Otherwise you just become a drama whore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

He's not retired, he is still posting at more then just his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) He's by no means alone in that. I got blocked for pointing out another editor who claimed to be retired but was posting attacks all over the place. DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There's an ex-arb & admin who has also retired in a simiar fashion. ——SerialNumber54129 11:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Richie. TRM, I like and respect you a lot, you have the best interests of the project at heart and philosophically I agree with your points of view. And few deny that the work you do to protect the main page from errors and the library of featured content produced, are invaluable. But You promised at the last ArbCom hearing to rein in the aggressive posts, so please do make an effort to follow that. We all get emotional and feel strongly about our on wiki viewpoints, but ultimately it's other humans at the end of the wire and I'm sure you wouldn't like to be shouted at either. (And on the retirement issue, other editors have also posted templates to that effect recently, while still participating... I don't think it means very much, and I'm not aware of a rule against it) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is my point, any claim of retirement is utterly irrelevant nowadays at ANI, and should never be taken in to account. What matters is actions, not words.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Second Silk Talk. All of this WMF enthusiasm for the Engineering of Human Souls (A Communist concept) towards some Americanocentric notion of pernickety courtesy is artlessly laying a charged mine-field under editors, simply on the idea that an encyclopedia with 5,870,000 articles done without this über-bureaucratic finessing of etiquette, desperately needs a new, fussily Miss Manners culture to rope in those who feel intimidated by a bit of gruffness, or socio-linguistic obtuseness to nuance. For we already do have rules to sanction consistent bad behaviour. I’ll give you another example of the idiocy to which this Americanocentric obsession with euphemisms can go if left without a tight leash.

Dear Victoria

On your recent scholarship application, members of the review committee noticed the inappropriate use of the word "chairman" . .of course, it is especially inappropriate to address a woman as "chairman" unless she has specifically requested such a limiting language. .Soon you will be entering the corporate or media sector as you begin your career. There, too, you will find there are expectations that women not be made invisible through thoughtless use of language . . there are a number of books I would be happy to recommend. Please let me know if you wish a list.' S.Scott Whitlow, University of Kentucky cited Robert Hughes, The Culture of Complaint, 1994 p.23.

It is not an intelligent move to suggest that a perceived inadequacy of one regulatory body can be fixed by creating or empowering another, esp. one that has secretive powers invisible to the accused and the 'community' at large. That is typical bureaucratic turf-grabbing, avoiding the simple approach - internal reform. What we are doing here is a digital version of the Enlightenment's Encyclopédie, and the prioritizing of legislation and star chamber council redress to those with a grievance, above any consideration of the fundamental encyclopedic aim, reliable top-quality coverage of every imaginable topic- looks like trying to adopt the social media models (they produce nothing but chat) to create a stringent behavioural model of who should be encouraged in recruitment - polite, impeccably mannered people, acutely aware of discrimination and social hurts. It is rather like suggesting that the French model would have been even better had it been placed under the jurisdiction of the Congregation of the Faithful, and have Diderot, d'Alembert et al., subject to inquisitions judging their work in terms of the criteria governing the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. For every over-sensitive person a 'cosy family environment' engineered by rigorous word-monitoring might recruit, there would probably be someone with topic competence and a short temper who will be pissed off by the impression that, before rolling up their sleeves to actually turn on the jack-hammer and work the rockface, they have to keep thinking about never letting off steam if they encounter technical inefficiencies, inexperience, the odd nervous nellie among their mates who might feel harassed by sledging or expletives.That is, even in Darwinian terms, a sure-fire recipe for not recruiting the kinds of minds, with all their varied characters, capable of producing reliable articles. There are other options. Most people are decent. TRM in context (an extraordinarily good committed wikipedian in ther unenviable position of trying as a minority of one to talk sense to a clique) was utterly inept. Other editors pulled him up by the short and curlies, which is the way to go. Politely telling in adequate numbers someone to pull their finger out is far more efficient than endless haranguing over aggrieved reports. Shame is a better sanction than tribunal justice.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just give it a break all of you. I told Doc James if he still felt part of the community he would agree this was completely unacceptable. I also told him he wasn't the one making decisions on who resigned under a cloud. That's it. Now please give up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• ANI is the right place to discuss TRM’s comments at BU Rob, Doc James, and possibly others. It is a chronic problem, and I think it’s urgent, too. I agree with much of the above, including that while TRM’s participation has been problematic, it’s not necessarily something that’s block or ban worthy. However, as can be seen from TRM’s latest post above, there is just no indication that TRM is going make any adjustments going forward in response to this feedback, so I worry, simply put, after BU Rob and Doc James, who next will be on the receiving end of a personal attack. I am also even more worried about other editors, including the admins who keep trying to close this thread, who outright enable this behavior, which is a common pattern on WP and one that should stop. “Nip it in the bud” is far better than letting it fester. (That doesn't mean bring down the ban-hammer, just state clearly what the community’s expectations are.) – Levivich 13:45, 29 June 2019

There are at least 5 Admins that I can see in that section who will simply shut this down. As I mentioned up there, circling the wagons. This is an utterly pointless venue. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If you honestly believe these posts to be harassment of such a magnitude to continually re-open the discussion, I would presume that I'll be next in line for a WMF-based secret year-long ban. Let's see how that goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing constructive is going to come of this conversation. I'd be the first person to say that The Rambling Man's mode of conduct undercuts whatever usefulness he contributes in project space, but that's neither here nor there. There are other parts of the encyclopedia to set on fire. Let it go. Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (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.

Block SPA user for disruptive behavior and harassment

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.

---

On 12 June 2019 this article was nominated for AfD by The Banner.

A day later on June 13 the User account Verabo was created automatically. The first edit the Verabo account makes is a vote in the above mentioned AfD.

Verabo posts a huge block of text. From the start Verabo personally attacks another wikipedian and accuses the editor of sockpuppetry. Furthermore Verabo claims that the actual subject of the AfD is "unmasked". The rest is mostly filled with groundless opinion and proof by assertion. But when ending the post Verabo claims to write on behalf of multiple people and industries. Wanting to project the image that there is some sort of team operating the Verabo account.

One point of discussion was imdb. Since i am a Gold level imdb-pro contributor i thought i'd help. And after doing my own research, i posted my reply here. [3].

My post was followed by wall of disruptive text with the same personal attacks, tone of voice and accusations of sockpuppetry as Verabo's previous post.

Other Wikipedians started warning Verabo.

I also replied, asking Verabo to stop with the personal attacks and groundless accusations: "(...) please do not attack the person but listen to their arguments. Do not attack me." And i closed with: "We should not base research on assumptions and should be open to change our views if shown the opposite to be the case. Please do not personally attack other users again Verabo".

An hour later Verabo ignores every warning and continues with personal attacks and groundless accusations. It showed Verabo was not replying in good faith. Verabo's tone of voice becoming increasingly more hostile.

Verabo receives another warning from an editor.

At this time Verabo was harassing editors to the point that an spi case was issued against me and other editors. The result of the spi case confirms that all of Verabo's personal attacks and accusations are untrue.

Verabo is again warned about the disruptive behavior on his or her own talkpage.

It has become clear to me that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior and personal attacks.

Verabo has been warned multiple times by multiple editors to stop. Then Verabo's behavior disrupts the AfD to a point an spi issued. And when the spi results show that Verabo's accusations are untrue, Verabo continues with personal attacks and proven-to-be-false accusations of sockpuppetry.

At this point I believe that the single-purpose account Verabo account[4] had no intention to handle in good faith and was created to attack editors with an opposing view with the purpose to disrupt the AfD.

I am requesting account Verabo to be blocked. These patterns of harassment need to stop. Thank you. SimonRichter1337 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am a very correct and decent lady and you seem to be the only one who calls it "disruptive". Everyone else calls it constructive. Everything discussed was essential for the completeness of the case. You are the one who constantly refused to discuss the content. All other editors did. Have a good day. Verabo (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2019 (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.

Can someone stop this now please?

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.

---

There are some IPs (presumably socks) repeatedly posting copyvios and trolling at WP:Sandbox. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2019 (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 threats

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.

---

IP 108.161.169.19 at [5] and [6]. Ifnord (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2019 (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.

Incident on a Kurdish-related article

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.

---

Portbase can't seem to defend their removal of scholarly references by linguists in Kurdish languages when I ask for an explanation in the talkpage[7] and continues to remove templates I added next to sentences that are outright lies and cherrypicked[8]. Also, it has been a common trend for sock puppets on new accounts to start editing this article after a dozen or so edits on random pages. Delegitimation of Kurdish scholars (even though none are used has also become too common. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

lol you have reverted my edit and the source two times and you claim that the page Kurdish languageS is about a single "Kurdish language". This attempt and effort is totally ethno-pov. We should here be neutral. The article is literally called Kurdish languageS so it deals with several languages spoken by Kurds. Portbase (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

How are you neutral when you remove an article by the respected Iranica Online written on the basis of oeuvres by linguists? Nevertheless, I'm not here to discuss with you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2019 (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.

IP user censoring MH17

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 2001:D08:D9:7FEA:A5F5:E665:3A31:DC1E keeps on removing content about MH17 on any page that mentions MH17 happening, saying that it was "unrelated". Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for removing this report twice. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI I blocked the range, since he's been doing this for months at least. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2019 (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.

94.67.133.161 and subtle pseudo-text pastes

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.

---

94.67.133.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (OTEnet S.A., Greece) is indulging in a little vandalism (block-ready), but as it's complex and subtle, it's unlikely to be tied to just one IP, or to stop with a block.

Large paragraphs of semantically-valid boilerplate text, heavily over-linked and without valid sourcing (some inlined ELs) are being added to existing articles. They make apparent linguistic sense, except for being meaningless. Either someone with an obsession and a finely-sharpened green crayon, or else someone polishing an AI script. Keep an eye out for more. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Since reporting this IP user here, it looks like things have staled out... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 30 June 2019 (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 threats and threat of harm

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:Palauanboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Special:Diff/904196612, Special:Diff/904201573 —PaleoNeonate – 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Block now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2019 (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.

Iistal

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.

---

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

Iistal was previously indefinitely blocked and was unblocked with a topic ban from making any edits related to a living person (diff). Iistal has been skating around that ban for a while now, adding information on dead celebrities' marriages and information about their children, most of whom are presumably still living. Even worse, the edits, when Iistal even bothers to add a source, are cited to the IMDb (diff and restoring it) or self-published blogs (diff 1 and diff 2). Some of these edits are completely unsourced (diff and restoring it). I think it's clearly time to restore the indefinite block. I've been reverting Iistal across several articles for months now and trying to explain why these edits are problematic, so I'm too "involved" to do it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked indefinitely. Please feel free to unblock or modify the block at your discretion. This seems a perennial issue with this user.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:40, 30 June 2019 (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.

Misogynist and transphobic banter with fellow Wikipedian(s)

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.

---

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.

---

The Wiki Loves Pride content drive has been running for five years, but this year has been sadly targeted with off-wiki canvassing resulting in significant homophobic vandalism and abuse on Commons and elsewhere. As a result of the LGBT+ user group investigating suspected canvassing, we came across the following transphobic and misogynistic comments or "jokes" by long term Wikipedian Giano which were directly targeted at Wiki Loves Pride, and so members of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, given the link to c:Commons:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2019 that Giano used in the same thread:

• Then surprise, surprise, the judges will all need counselling because half the photos are pornographic and the health concerns too harrowing, they’ll all have PMT stress disorder or whatever it’s called and will sue Commons. I think I will send in my wedding photos and say Mrs G is actually man in drag and tell them about the very nasty chesty cold she gave me last month. Then I can win all the money. diff

The remark is homophobic, misogynistic and transphobic. Attacks like this should be unacceptable for any Wikipedian to publish on their Wikipedia talk pages under the guise of "banter" with fellow Wikipedia contributors. It was highlighted at meta:CentralNotice/Request/Wiki_Loves_Pride_2019#Discussions_elsewhere_about_this_notice that six Wikipedia administrators were part of that same discussion thread, and though all may have missed Giano's comments as they were a few weeks after their own edits, they were pinged in that meta discussion and invited to comment. So far Iridescent has commented, to make it clear that the transphobic "joke" is "nothing to do with me" and has taken no action, presumably finding the transphobic joke below whatever threshold the Wikipedia community currently finds acceptable as fun. The remaining administrators have yet to comment and were @RexxS, Johnbod, Bishonen, Ritchie333, and Jo-Jo Eumerus:.

At a time when the inclination and authority of Administrators and Arbcom to take action against abuse and harassment is under scrutiny, and current procedures and policies are being defended as sufficient and not requiring WMF employee interventions, including being defended by myself, I hope that this case of the use of Wikipedia to maintain a laddish lockerroom environment by making misogynistic and transphobic jokes is not acceptable. This must include long term Wikipedia contributors like Giano and Administrators, even where our only error is to tacitly sit back and chose ignore fellow contributors when they act badly. A failure to take action sends a clear message that LGBT+ Wikipedians must expect to be mocked and abused for their gender and sexual orientation, and those with trusted status who could help, are just as likely to prevaricate and circle the wagons to defend "old boys", rather than maintain a non-threatening and non-hostile environment for all contributors.

Thanks! Fæ (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Lighten up, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The predictable response. cygnis insignis 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It was a queation, not a statement. FWIW, if I came running to mummy every time I saw some comment about people with a disability, you'd soon start accusing me of seeking drama and looking for problems. Unless directed at an individual, it usually isn't worth the aggravation. In this instance, it is obviously satirical. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm reading your response as satire, to continue assuming good faith. cygnis insignis 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I am not known for satire, nor too fussed if someone ABFs regarding me: take it as it is written. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll state that I do not condone – and never have – misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, even under the guise of humour, and I hope you know that, Fae. However, given the current situation where the Trust and Safety team has arrogated the authority to accept complaints about abuse and harassment, and then act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner without allowing defence or appeal, I won't be taking any actions related to those sort of issues. I suggest you contact the T&S team to see if they are willing to act on your complaint. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The only action needed to be taken is not to be silent when ones mates cross the line. cygnis insignis 14:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, that's the most asinine take on the T&S situation I've seen so far. Abrogating all responsibility because the T&S team felt the need to step in once is a very "taking my ball and going home" attitude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. May I remind you that I'm a volunteer here, the same as the rest? I have no obligation, morally or contractually, to take any particular action, and I won't be doing so with regards to these sort of issues, until T&S accepts this community's right to play a part in resolving them. If T&S insist on stepping in once, they can damn well step in all the other times and I can get back to producing content. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

For those unaware, RexxS and me have been real life friends for years, and have very similar viewpoints on open knowledge. In this case old pal, you are shooting yourself in the foot and managing to take out several bystanders with the ricochet. Don't end up looking like one of the donkeys that when you are called on washes their hands, rather than getting them dirty. Cheers Fæ (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have a favorable opinion about the effectiveness of these campaigns (and Commons) but that joke is in downright poor taste, in today's world. Warn and move-on, may-be? I don't know whether he has a history of such stuff, though and that might affect the results. ∯WBG^converse 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Homophobic, misogynistic and transphobic comments should never be tolerated or go unpunished, even to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  This is not about punishment, find another thread Slater. cygnis insignis 15:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Already addressed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Keerrist. I have a transgender niece, and was once engaged to a lesbian (who told me that before we decided to marry). Sitush is right. The climate of seeking out evidence of 'deviancy' from some abstract ultra-politically correct line, and making a case for abuse that steamrolls over everything else the indicted editor actually does 99% of the time is witch-hunting. Giano said just before that:

What on earth all this has to do with writing an encyclopaedia God alone knows. People should remember it is an encyclopaedia not a vehicle for editors promoting their individual sexuality, politics or creed. Wikipedia should be entirely neutral on all subjects. A divorce from Commons is long overdue.

We are here to write articles not bicker over attitudes. I'd rewrite the Inferno article with Satan if his assistance was available, but kick the shit out of him if he visited me à la Adrian Leverkühn. This is the sort of thing the scandalous WMF project is going to incentivate. More denunciations, less hands-on-article time.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• OK and for those who wish to try and deflect criticism of bigotry and vileness, Homophobic, misogynistic and transphobic comments should never be tolerated or be allowed to disrupt (which is the purpose, to make it uncomfortable for certain types of people to be here the project), even to make a point. I am frankly disgusted if this is permitted to go with out even a warning...and that is the nicest thing I can say about the attitude being shown here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven You are radically misreading. This is an encyclopedia. People are supposed to be here to work articles, ensure their neutrality and press for quality, not scour and parse the words of editors one collaborates with to see if they agree with you on religion, politics, sex or whatever. It is not a social forum for endlessly nagging about the proper attitudes editors should have. There are a million other forums for that. Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

They are also supposed to be able to do so outside of an atmosphere of intolerance, bullying and nastiness. Now the fact that no one claimed has this was not Homophobic, misogynistic or transphobic, but have rather resorted to "tough get a thick skin" or "well I won't do anything, because I do not want to" meas they accept it is and they accept that as a reasonable way to communicate and that is pretty shocking. No one should face being deliberately insulted, ever, not even on an encyclopedia. And frankly this now looks to be deliberate provocation. No a warning is not enough. If this is about sending a message that "WE WILL NOT BE BOWEd, by the ..." then it is not going to go away and a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is any of those - homophobic etc - and have said so above. It was satire. I also suspect that you have not read the entire comment: no person was deliberately insulted, although doubtless those with well-developed antennae for such things might consider themselves to be insulted. I really should report here next time I see someone giving a favourable mention to that awful Trump man, whom I loathe. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: A good tip for comedians is to punch up rather than down. If a marginalised group is the punchline of a joke then the person poking making that joke is contributing to their marginalisation. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No idea what you mean sorry. Punch up? Punch down? Anyway, gone for 24 hours or so now. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Off it was a joke, ohh thats OK then, jokes can never be Misogynist or transphobic. Its clear from context they are "satirizing" gay pride (as in their previous comment about being proud of their wife). Yes this was a dig at gays, it may have been humour so are jokes about how many IRA fundraisers were killed on 11/9 or jokes about the pink triangles. It can be a joke and still be aimed at causing hurt.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The function of humour is to defuse tensions (while offloading at times one's own). Everyone in the world, in some part of their multiple identities, belongs to a minority. Every ethnic or social minority makes in-jokes, excoriating comically aspects of their own culture or group identity/culture. It is not coincidental that, in Western terms, the most viciously persecuted historical minority, Jews, have the exuberantly richest patrimony of such hilarious in-jokes about themselves. The worst caricatures of the Irish are nothing compared to what the themselves say of themselves ('Why are the Irish like mushrooms? They're raised in the dark (Catholicism) and flourish when fed on bullshit.' I heard that from one of our own in childhood). This is also true of the communities alluded to here. Faceless technocrats with some social bee-in-their -bonnets about good form will be the death of us. The ability to laugh, even against ourselves, is the oil of healthy societies, and modern trends to clamp down on it spell, seriously, the death of civility, which is not worth-perfect euphemizing, but tolerance. The violence is elsewhere, omnipresent and largely ignored, beyond our 'civilized first world borders'. Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? telling racist jokes diffuses racism (for example)? It does not matter if people make in Jokes (they are mocking themselves), it matters if those who are outside make jokes at others expense. Gays tell gay jokes, blacks tell n... jokes, does that mean it OK to wear a white hood and tell N... jokes if your white? You really cannot see how humour at the expense of minorities is a form of (and expression of) oppression (that is the purpose of this kind of humour, to show the target their place, and to keep them there)? No wonder WMF have had to act over this kind of issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh for Chrissake. Think at length, slowly ponder, don't snap back. I've spent most of my wiki working life combating systematic racism, by article creation. Giano's remark was not racist. Full stop.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And you are fully aware them being racist is not the issue, it was just an example. He was making snide comments about gay pride and how silly it is (that was the gist of at least two posts). That is not laughing with people, it is laughing at them. This was making fun of peoples desire for self worth, against a historical atmosphere of persecution and illegality (one that is making a comeback, in churches and in laws), within living memory.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The lack of action by the community and the responses here ("it's no big deal, it's okay, write more articles and stop pearl clutching") is exactly why the trust and safety team is needed and exactly why there is no faith that the enwiki community can police itself. This is a seriously shitty thing to have said, one that greatly damages the morale of other editors and intentionally excludes people (which is a violation of the pillars, but hey, who care, he's popular). Saying things like "we can't do anything about this now because of the current drama" smacks of "thoughts and prayers, but it's too soon to talk about gun violence so soon after this shooting" style deflection. There will always be some crisis. Failing to act is an abdication and cowardly.--Jorm (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Any evidence to support your claims, Jorm? Was the morale of more editors improved than was damaged, for example? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

^Q.E.D.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jorm, you are one of the most "politely uncivil" people here, with your consistently dismissive, uncollaborative "cool story, bro" schtick. You have no more room to talk than I. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a very cool story, bro, trying to make this about me instead of the behavior on the table. --Jorm (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Which I have said over at "mymategotbannedgate", this kind of dismissive attitude is why we have a bad image. It OK dear its only a joke, for fuck sake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I was puzzled by being pinged on this - firstly I've never been an admin, and secondly my only contribution to the section, 4 days before the joke or the section mentioning Pride at all, was: "There isn't really a procedure on Commons to rename a file - though I think an admin can do it. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)". Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• We have to pick sides between Giano and Fae? 8-( Well, one might be crying wolf rather often these days, but for comments like that I would happily throw Giano to those same wolves. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm on the record for well over a decade saying Giano should consider treating all editors with respect and have been well-abused for my pains. This is the sort of "joke" that went out ages ago, and it has no place here. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Giano should retract his comment, or perhaps this is a situation where do need to defer this to T&S.--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Per my previous comment on Meta, I have no idea how or why Fae thinks I'm involved in this. My sole connection is that the comment in question was made on a talkpage on which I'd commented three months ago (with a piece of dry technical advice about how to use intentionally non-Commons-compliant GFDL licensing for images one doesn't want transferred to Commons under any circumstances to ensure the bots don't try to copy it, not anything related to gender or sexuality). It's not my or anyone else's job to monitor every page on which I've ever commented in any capacity. ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• In an ideal Wikipedia, we would not be here. In an ideal Wikipedia, Fae would say something like "Giano, what you said there is really hurtful and contributes to an atmosphere that many people don't feel comfortable/safe in", and Giano would say something like "I didn't think it was so bad, but I didn't intend to hurt anyone with it, so I'll remove it" and then everybody moves on. No ANI, no sanctions, no WMF. Again, that's an ideal. Perhaps there's some history between these two that I don't know about which makes Fae feel unsafe leaving such a message or makes Giano doubt Fae's motives -- I don't know. It's just depressing to see these ANI threads, which so often make relationships worse rather than resolve things. If we really care about civility, a hundred talks with WMF isn't going to resolve an often broken style of interaction whereby (a) people go to noticeboards instead of having a conversation with someone, and/or (b) people dig in their heels when confronted with the knowledge they've said something that hurt someone else. Those are both dysfunctional strategies to foster civil discussion in the community. Again, I don't know what backstory there is that might complicate things -- it's just the latest example which, in the light of the trust and safety discussions going on, seems illustrative of something we have the power to fix ourselves. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I and the other people mentioned here were pinged in a meta discussion and invited to comment? Pinged in a meta discussion? That's fairly ridiculous. If admins (and non-admins like Johnbod) are now expected to follow meta in order to discover any pings there — I suppose, for me, there may be a meta ping once every five years — on pain of being dragged to ANI and implicitly accused of being complicit in homophobia, misogyny and transphobia, not to mention accused of being one of the "lads", I give up. I just give up. Meanwhile, I will not comment on what Giano said in a thread in which I had posted three months earlier (with a piece of dry technical advice, just like Iridescent). I decline to comment on it.

By the way, I just went to meta to look, and I can't find that I was even pinged. Are you sure I was, Fæ? Checking... no, that explains it: you didn't actually ping any of us. Adding a template with a list of users, as you did here, only works if you start a new line and sign anew. See WP:PING. Your indignation against those of us who "have yet to comment" is apparently misplaced on several levels. Never mind, don't worry, the ping rules are quite complicated and often trip people up. May I ask what your edit summary with your ping attempts meant — "add, with a few meaningful pings, rather than desysop requests"? Are you saying the desysop requests will come next? Be my guest. I was already getting quite tempted to join the line at WP:BN. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

I did not recall the edit comment on meta, it was over dramatic.

This thread is about Giano's transphobic remarks, and whether one sysop out of hundreds will take transphobic abuse as seriously as the WMF PR machine has the general public believe. We can probably all draw the same conclusions now, so that's a step forward. --Fæ (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, you think your attacks on me and the other "fellow Wikipedian lads" [sic] for failing to respond to malformed pings on meta were too incidental to matter, and your threat of desysop requests was merely "over dramatic". Noted. "This thread is about them, not me" is a common reaction from new editors when their report leads to comments about their conduct, but most experienced editors know such comments are a normal feature of ANI. We've had little contact, Fæ, but as far as I know it has always been pleasant, and I don't feel I or my fellow lads have deserved your attitude here. I'm done. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

• The comment itself was beyond the pale, with the "trans women being mentally ill dangerous men in drag" the exact kind of rhetoric that was responsible for the widespread discrimination and murders of trans women. This is the exact reason LGBT Wikipedians still feel unsafe despite years of pride campaigns. Being written as a joke does not give it immunity from the consequences for being downright ignorant, derisive and hurtful. We already face an extreme level of women Wikipedian shortage resulting in a systematic bias affecting our reliability, and WMF research has indicated that we do have a straight-male-dominated toxic atmosphere. (See Meta:Research:Communicating on Wikipedia while female) Allowing this kind of "joke" to exist is a serious expense to our project. The user should at least be warned and ensured that such comments never happen again. Go complain elsewhere. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 17:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would say the comment is sanctionable, but falling within the realm of a warning rather than more severe outcomes - unless someone has other identifications of unpleasant posts (if so, please post). The editor may well have actually viewed it as a joke, rather than disguising it as banter (etc), I'm unable to tell. However that is not enough to move it to acceptable standards. I would note to all those saying "we should inflict more severe punishments post-Fram" - doing so unless we're going to notify the community of such would be unfair, even if it might appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it is part of a series [[9]], going through this [[10]] onto this [[11]], its hard to see that series as a joke, so much as passing judgement about "promoting" gay pride.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• We give users wide latitude on their own talk page for freedom of speech. None of you ever need to look at that page. If something horribly offensive is there, don't go there. Additionally, I have asked the user to strike the offensive remark. I tried to close this thread, but my colleague Mackensen asked it to be reopened, so here we are. Civility blocks generate more incivility. Please don't make that mistake. I'm going to leave you all to do what you will. Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think you're trying to push a camel through the eye of a needle with that logic. --Jorm (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  I sympathize with Jehochman's belief that this discussion won't go anywhere productive, but I cannot agree with the sentiment that users are free to behave in such a manner on their own talk pages. To rephrase something I believe he once said to me, in another context ages ago, how does it help the encyclopedia to make crude, offensive, and possibly transphobic jokes on one's talk page? I can turn that around and answer that I know how it hurts the encyclopedia: by sending a message to marginalized editors that they're second-class citizens who are unwelcome in certain corners of the project. Mackensen (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly this, and thank you.--Jorm (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Jorm I've asked Giano to remove the remark. If he does, that is the best result and we can hopefully end this and consider it having been a success to teach somebody something. Some topics should never be joked about on Wikipedia. Please give Giano time to think it over. Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Some topics should never be joked about on Wikipedia. – Bullshit. There's a time and a place for humor about anything (not that I think the specimen under discussion in this thread has much merit). EEng 21:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair, as long as they remove it, and do not do it again.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good outcome. Let's hope that's what they do.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we keep this open for 24 hours to give them time to respond.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Jehochman Didn't you just say to Katherine, "If we've failed to solve problems related to online harassment, that's not because we're inept or unwilling, but because the problem is hard and nobody has solved it yet"? How does saying "trust us, we can handle it" square with "well, I asked him not to be a homophobic?" Do you really think that's a good solution, especially given Giano's history? Is that proving that you guys can handle this, and the WMF doesn't need to step in? This looks like both ineptitude and unwillingness.--Jorm (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Jorm, you are at risk of being sanctioned if this matter goes to ArbCom, which seems fairly likely. Please tone it down and stop head hunting. We want the simplest solution which is for Giano to remove the content. If he agrees to do that, then we will have some assurance it won't happen again. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Is that a threat? "Shut up or you'll be at arbcom getting sanctioned for being angry about a lack of action?"--Jorm (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

NO, quite a few of use expressed unhappiness over this, we do not need to shout "fuck you and the pig you rode in on".Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And this [[12]] is the response, they do not get it. It also makes it clear it was not a joke, that is was making a point about sexual politics. Which strongly tells me they will make the same point again.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just block and ban the lot posting in this thread, and let <deity> sort it out. This is childish on all sides, and I do not condone Giano's (frankly flippant) comment, but threads and comments like this DO NOT HELP A FUCKING THING, especially in a situation where the policies around incivility and harassment are already being abrogated by the WMF because we can't enforce them. We're proving their point for them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Let's not give up hope. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

They did not, the blocked one admin in one case where the community failed to act. Yes in that respect very similar to this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• In general, and not at anyone in particular, this is my frustration. A short answer might have been 'I was unaware of that comment', or, 'I ignored it' for all the reasons that people do. Those pinged have every right to remain uninvolved, but there is a lot of experienced users watching others testing social boundaries and this is not a time for silence or sharp criticism of those who do not remain silent. cygnis insignis 18:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC) This is the second time a comment of mine was removed in this thread, the first was stating this is not about punishing those who think this okay. cygnis insignis 18:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have seen multiple claims of history, what history, lets see it. What I see is one series of comments about gay pride this week.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it matters nothing that around the same time, one editor, who had many sensible things to say in the Fram case, threw in the towel out of a sense of neglect, solitude, being treated indifferently, and asked Bishonen to lock their page, and, of the 866 wikipedians who have it on their watchlist, only Giano was moved to express deep sympathy. I didn't because I wrote to offer assistance if they returned only to cancel the post on realizing that since I have decided to not edit in content for a period commensurate with Fram's ban, I couldn't honour the offer (not out of solidarity with F. Out of outrage for the WMF's kangaroo court encroachment). If you are prepossessed by a single identity issue, you will find something offensive regarding it in nearly everyone you interact with outside the pale of that identity. The flaw of this cognitive fixation is summed up in an old 'joke'.

:‘Five men of five nations. . went elephant hunting in Africa, each of whom wrote about upon his return. The Englishman called his book ‘The elephant, his life and habits’; the Frenchman, ‘Étude sur l’éléphant et ses amours’; the American, ‘In Favor of Bigger and Better Elephants’; the German, ‘The Metaphysics and World Weariness of the elephant’; the Pole, ‘The elephant and the Polish Question’.’ Geoffrey Wolff, Black Sun: The Brief Transit and Violent Eclipse of Harry Crosby, Random House, New York, 1976 p.124

If you strongly identify with one ethnos, or nation, then you'll read everything in the light of that, and find something that looks like proof of enmity in the words of someone whose profile will then be nothing but that utterance or remark, whatever the complexity of the 99.999% of the person, unknown to all, who said it. Are they agin or for us? If with just your own gender, everything takes on a sexist cast; if colour, then you are ever on the watch for anything suggestive of prejudice against your own. It is rumoured Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite? You got 20% of his page reporting intense trawling to find proof of it. A whole community was dragged into thinking of one side of British politics exclusively in terms of that suspicion, how it might threaten them. For me, all this is all political and tablolid-driven paranoia, ballistic hyperbole, emblematic of an utter failure to see life in the round, a culture of social grievance (a good part of it legitimate) which, rather than act politically, thrives on the hermeneutics of suspicion and worst-case inference, and is probably an index of how digital cultures lead generations not to live through in depth contact with real people in the round, in the real world, but feed off virtual soundbites with hectic intensity as if they were under perpetual threat or attack.

That is what one is getting here, thanks to the WMF.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• The offending remark is gone, and if it doesn't reappear, I think we are done with this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I note you had to remove it, and there is no acknowledgment it was out of order, far from it. I say give it till tomorrow to see if it re-appears.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Important Wikipedia and life tip I learned from Bishonen: never demand apologies. I removed the remark because he asked "which one", and I had to show him which one. He has left it off, thus far, even though I gave him the free choice to restore it if he disagreed with the removal. We leave this thread for 24 hours before closing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You could have just said "the one at the ANI", as I said this shows he does not take this seriously. That would have then left him to make the choice to delete it, and not have it for for him. As I said, this proves to me he does not get it. But I will wait to see what happens now, but I suspect we will be back here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the thread will deadlock and then go to ArbCom because the question will be "what to do about it?" That's always the question. We can't usually sanction highly productive contributors without taking them to ArbCom or else it creates a storm. That's a statement of how it is, not how it should be. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh, so are you going to be censoring anyone else's talk pages for homophobic or misogynistic jokes?

Giano's reply to you was to continue to be offensive diff. All your actions have done is to hide blatant transphobic abuse and protect the person wanting to use Wikipedia like 4chan. --Fæ (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Then take it to T&S. They'll be more than happy to grant your request. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh ffs. "Take it to T&S"? Why? So they can come back and say "See, you can't be trusted to run en.wiki yourselves". These comments are going to make it that much harder for anyone to take our "constitutional crisis", as Jimbo puts it, seriously. There needs to be a coupling of simultaneously telling the WMF to back off and handling of these issues ourselves. We will not have one without the other. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What else would you expect Fae to do, file an Arbcom case? They raised an issue about a statement made, the statement was 86'd, and they're still complaining because Giano did not issue a mea culpa. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes It might be best to report this to T&S and see if they will intervene.Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are sufficiently incompetent to handle this. There is nothing suggestive of 'blatant transphobic abuse', an insinuative reading that itself does not assume good faith. That remark was critical of what its author considers misuse of company funds, diagnosing a potential for abuse by the end-users, who could very easily pretend to be what they are not in order to be beneficiaries. Like the rest of us, Giano is not paid, and it is natural to look keenly at the way Wikipedia uses its money to get people to edit (to me a contradiction in its principles). The abuse he mentions is a chronic problem, reported daily, in my part of the world. The fact that this relates to a transgender project, which the author illustrated by giving a private example of how he could organize just such a scam, is contingent. The objection would hold, if he maintains the principle Wikipedia should not be funding any specific identitarian group to write articles, whatever community might be the beneficiary. This is the plain intent of the text.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Fae, I looked at the comment a few hours ago, and now again, and I also find it in poor taste, very poor, and worthy of a warning and all that. I didn't do anything but read the threads earlier because it's Saturday and I had to clean the house and get groceries. And now that I look at this again, I'm just so sad that you see this as an opportunity to stir yet another shit pot: I don't have faith that all this is being done, and all those supposedly *ping*ed admins and editors being complicit and all that--and I'm even more sad that I didn't notice the first time that you attempted to smear them all with this "lads" shit. I mean, I think you know that Bishonen is of the female persuasion, and you pinged her, and so "lads" must mean something like either lad culture or Proud Boys. Either way, I am not going to defend Giano's tasteless if somewhat ambiguous joking, which does not seem to me to be blockable at this time--but I would like for you to stop smearing, because that's what I think this is. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the comment at all however I feel a simple message to Giano would've sufficed and it would've saved all this pointless dramah, Unwatch their talkpage and move on. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been solved there. Thanks.

To avoid or quickly resolve such future ANIs some history may help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#F.C3.A6_banned

Bows Zezen (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2019 (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.

• Before this gets moved off, to get the record straight can Fæ or someone adjust the initial complaint to correct the completely inaccurate statement that I'm an admin. Fæ, you shouldn't have to be asked to do this - also the incorrect bits on your pinging, and the same on Meta. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Hang on John, we've worked together on many events, at none of these would you cover up or protect a Wikipedian who was misusing the event to attack or make fun of LGBT people. Why here on Wikipedia, where you are very well known for being a leading content creator, are you more interested in a trivial mistake rather than condemning this disgusting misuse of the project we love for transphobic abuse or jokes. You already set the record straight, and there is no point in playing around with outdated pings.

Here is your opportunity, are you going to just continue working with Giano, as you have been within the last few hours, and pretend that this never happened, or are you, personally, going to condemn all misuse of Wikipedia for homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic attacks or "jokes"? Hell, even the Church of England does a better job at understanding basic human civility on the internet than the English Wikipedia community, where we all know it is normal for those complaining to be sanctioned before those deriding LGBT people. Fæ (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So that sounds like "No, I'm not going to correct it"! For someone who is very sensitive about the forms of address other people use about you, you are remarkably sloppy about accuracy in your own references to other people. You have dragged me into this under false pretences, & I'm not going to comment further. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Are you still here banging your punctured, tuneless drum? For the final time, no one has been disparaging LGBT people. I made the point that money should not be offered for any Wikipedia related competition because it encourages fraud and gave an example of how. Hard raised funds should not be squandered on prize money for a competition on any subject. I also suspect that photographic competitions related to sexuality of any kind will attract and be abused by exhibitionists and such like. Is that what you want to look at? Whatever, if such completions must exist then the prize should be a moment of glory on the Main Page, the same as it is for any other hard working editor here. My own view is that money should not be spent encouraging or discouraging any group, race or creed. The encyclopaedia should be in entirely neutral on all legal subjects and only express a view when an editor is thought to belong to an illegal group of people. Giano (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If your transphobic jokes were at a public editathon you would be permanently barred from all future WMF events. Your defensive self righteousness digusts me, and should offend every Wikipedian that cares about Wikipedia staying a non-hostile environment for all volunteers. That you have not even had an official warning speaks volumes for what an nasty lads lockerroom Wikipedia can be today. --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

My jokes were neither Transphobic or at an editathon (whatever that is) and it would appear that most people here prefer common sense. You and your supporters here are ridiculous, you egg each other on until you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you between the eyes. In particular, I am thinking of this particularly nasty and malicious post above where I am quoted as saying " "trans women being mentally ill dangerous men in drag", I'd love to see the diff for me ever saying that! and as for my comments leading to "murders of trans women." I won't even dignify it with a comment. No, your friends post what they like, believe it and exaggerate it. I am sorry your competition has suffered vandalism, but it's a pity the only thing you could find was a link to my page, where I had the audacity to raise some valid questions about your competition. That is not a crime. I have huge personal compassion for LGBT people, I woudl imagine it's not an easy path in life to have to follow, but don't you come here wingeing and complaining because some people question the way in which you choose to raise your profile and then try and turn it into some moral crusade because people see straight through it! Giano (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (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:AttticusRex

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.

---

Editing since 24 May 2019. 11 Edits with a clear pattern of vandalism, POV pushing, and defamation. Overall, the contributions of this editor appear to indicate that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2019 (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 Nenoniel

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.

---

Editor Nenoniel is engaging in disruptive editing on the Richard Pervo article, inserting wisecracks about the subject's surname, despite several other editors removing these jokes and leaving warnings on his Talk page. Nenoniel has also left inappropriate WP:NOTSOCIAL comments on my personal Talk page. Muzilon (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Nenoniel for 48 hours. Any administrator is free to block them for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks. Please also note the anonymous Finnish IP addresses vandalizing the Richard Pervo article, which are likely to be WP:SOCK. Muzilon (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I've put the page on my watchlist. If they resume editing and I'm not on-wiki, you should contact another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2019 (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.

Terrorist propaganda

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.

---

Hi

In 2017, some IPs have added links to websites of Al-Bayan_(radio_station) and Amaq. The websites have been blacklisted in Meta-Wiki. Since September and November 2017, we have not IP who add terrorist links to the articles. Now, should we purge the history to remove links to terrorist propaganda? I don't know if some links are still valid (it is also possible that some links who became invalid could be repaired by the terrorists).

And I am not able to check if the websites are down or not because I wouldn't like to have problems with authorities.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The one that was on Al-Bayan appears to be down [13]. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is a crime to merely link to terrorist propaganda. I guess this is a question for the oversighters. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

After taking a look into the details and the information reported here, I can conclude that the revisions in concern do not contain content that the oversight policy approves the use of suppression for. While the addition of URLs that contain terrorist propaganda can definitely be considered disruptive editing, be removed from the article or page in response, and actions taken against the user as a result, the visibility of those revisions can remain as-is. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:47, 30 June 2019 (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.

Disruptive editing by Yosakrai

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 would like if an administrator could look into this. There were previously blocked sockpuppets doing similar edits at the Sukavich Rangsitpol article and talk page. I think that the other editors including myself have tried to be patient with this particular incarnation and there is an ongoing RFC. When the RFC started, I archived the messy talk page. However, the same spam gets reposted there over and over like used to happen before, even as the RFC is in progress. Similarly, contested edits at that article are restored. Although I could provide diffs, looking at Special:Contributions/Yosakrai, page history and talk page history are probably obvious enough. Previous warnings were also posted at their talk page as well as at WP:BLPN#Sukavich Rangsitpol. The possibly related SPI page but CU results were inconclusive. Considering the previous socking and IP address editing, page protection may also be needed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to what I see the consensus on the talk page is and protected it for now. Sasquatch t|c 19:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I have just upped it to extended confirmed protection to allow more experienced editors who have been working on the page to keep doing so. Sasquatch t|c 19:45, 27 June 2019 (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.

Flixbus/Ashafir

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.

---

• Ashafir (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)
• Flixbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Suspected biased administration of the FlixBus page

User appears to be an WP:SPA with the sole purpose of adding as much "dirt" about this bus company as they can. In the previous ANI they groundlessly accused SoWhy of "biased administration". After having a couple of massive dumps of trivial incidents removed from the article for POV, RS and COPYVIO [14][15][16] they argued interminably on the talkpage, complete with backhand insinuations that I am somehow protecting the page due to some affiliation with the company.[17]

When I pruned their latest contribution of trivial content concerning timetable/booking disputes etc their reaction was to directly accuse me on the article talkpage,[18] and my talkpage[19] of having an "affiliation with Flixbus". Some assistance would be appreciated. -- Begoon 11:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is indication of "PR style" actions on the Flixbus page:

a) the Flixbus is a German company. The wiki page officially monitored by WiKi Germany. But now the Flixbus operates intensively all across Europe and in the US. The incidents published on the page was outside of Germany and than this info was deleted quickly. b) the user SoWhy initially took attention of the changes on the page is a lawyer in the region of the Flixbus HQ. c) just instantly after the comment of the user there was another anonymous user started "fixing" the page to look more positively. So there is a clear connection between the users or possible the same person act with 2 user ID. d) the whole page was 100% positive for the company service even there is a lot of controversy found.Ashafir (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, there are approx. 14,000(!) lawyers based in Munich and another circa 7,000 in the surrounding areas. But while I am one of them, I am not one working for this bus company, a conclusion Ashafir has clearly made by ignoring WP:NPA and WP:AGF as much as possible. As Begoon has previously pointed out, this user seems to be interested in righting great wrongs by adding non-notable and trivial "controversies" that are entirely sourced to user-generated social media platforms. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

lol. Well I'm not a lawyer, and I've never played one on TV or even on the internet. I did visit Germany once, in the 90s, and very pleasant it was. -- Begoon 12:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• What is clearly visible here, that both users (SoWhy and Begoon) are using "the lawyer style" of defending Flixbus. There are only favorable for their viewpoints policies listed. But not, for instance WP:BOLD. The grammar errors listed was not corrected but the whole data erased. There is no any visible attempt to help but it is a very clear indication to erase non-PR looking data from the FlixBus page.

Moreover, the initial "fix" of the FlixBus page was "complete cleaning" so there was not even a trace in the "history"! Also it is easy to check that the page with the correction initially stayed for many hours but when user SoWhy noticed it the "complete erase" by an unknown user happens in a very short time, nearly instantly. Whenever there is any connections between user SoWhy and FlixBus there is a community interest involved.Ashafir (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Anyone who looks at the diff[20] can see that I corrected your poor grammar in the content which I retained. Ashafir - when you are in a hole you really ought to stop digging. -- Begoon 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And I have honestly no idea what you are talking about. I only edited the page five times at all, three times to revert vandalism/unsourced changes and once to tag copyright violations you added for deletion. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, SoWhy i will explain. 1) I initially added the data to the page at 15:59, 16 June 2019. 2) You wrote to me at 05:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC). 3) soon after this the FlixBus page was edited that there was no trace of my initial submission in the history at all . Unfortunately i have no screenshot of this but I am sure the server logs have it. 3) Than, after I raised concern over admin page, the history got magically updated and now it shows user Praxidicae deleted the info (btw without notifying on the talk page). 4) another time user Bonadea reverted the edit. 5) now user Begoon is fighting to remove many of the published in the newspapers data as "trivial". Of course all it can be a coincidence. You are the lawyer. When you see so many coincidences around a case how it looks for you? I understand and agree that some of my work was (is) not properly formatted or spelchecked. But the claim that the very detailed data from non-anonymous customers of FlixBus is and even the data from the newspapers is "trivial" and "useless" looks quite strange. The same story happens around FlixBus on many places. IMHO for good PR need to support customers etc. There are many business models that incorporate this. But just cleaning up "uncomfortable" data does not solve the situation at all. As the lawyer you must know.Ashafir (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashafir, the content you tried to introduce was removed by three different editors: Begoon, SoWhy, and Praxidicae. When your edit is removed, it's not okay to keep re-adding it. That's called edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing it. Instead, per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you are supposed to visit the talk page and make a case as to why the material should be included. All three of these editors are long-time Wikipedia contributors who have good policy- and content-based reasons for removing the material, so it's likely that they are correctly removing it because it's not suitable for inclusion (rather than removing it because they some personal connection to this company). Having to wait for a bus is not something you would see in a paper encyclopedia, and it's not the kind of content we are looking for either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, please check the initial submission and especially the reverences/links added. ([21]) The situation is far from "Having to wait for a bus". Even after the wait the company has not provided any replacement buses, no accomodation and tried to object plainly the bus no show-up at all. This is the exact reason why the 15 ticket holders contacted the newspaper and the story was published. And this is not an isolated and not a worst case of the FlixBus related incidents. This case is listed alone just because all the other incidents listed on my initial submission was deleted and this is one of the few that has formally verified source. I also added a related question to the talk page but it is ignored up to now: Based on the discussion above it makes sense to clarify "triviality of incidents" to avoid further edit wars. Let's imagine a situation, when a group or family is traveling as usual. It knows the transportation laws etc. It expects a bus on a stop ... but it does not stop. It expects to solve the incident with a transport company ... but it plainly ignored. It reads the relevant reviews and finds out that it is a very stable pattern of the company handling. Is it a "trivial incident" for the family/group? Certainly not. Since it disrupts the whole holiday plans, costs more than most of the trip etc. Is it trivial for a company? Certainly yes if it care only about court cases but not about the customers. The question is it a "trivial incident" for the readers of the encyclopedia. I assume, not only a company and it's fans reads it by regular readers. So, as i stated above, if an accident has been noticed and published by a news agency it is more than "merely being true, or even verifiable". I can say that "true and verifiable" is applicable for the way more incidents than published in the news. So a news publication can be a trashhold level for "non-triviality". How does it sounds? Is there any specific policy for such "triviality"? -- Ashafir (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what it is that you're accusing me or SoWhy of and I'm not going to read the diatribe above but I didn't think my revert needed explanation as blatantly unreliable, and frankly garbage sourcing. I don't know anything about this company and I'd never heard of it until several filters were triggered via COIBot for adding Tripadvisor, which is not a reliable source, ever, for reviews, nor is a Facebook group or any of the other original research you added. I'll also note that the content you added was sourced to Gethuman (unreliable and should probably be blacklisted), Tripadvisor (explained above) and checkmybus (unreliable), so in addition to the no original research policy, you should probably take a read of WP:RS, cause this ain't it. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You are the lawyer. When you see so many coincidences around a case how it looks for you? IANAL but it's time to put the tin foil hat away. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Very nice try to change the point. This starts looking like an old FIDO style flame. But the point is: whenever you wearing a foil hat or not there was serious incidents with the FlixBus that started from a very minor issue and than with the negligence of the FlixBus HQ converted to a "noise" and appeared even in the newspapers. There are many "bureaucratic" lawyer-style objections that allows exclude this data to the encyclopedia. Why there is no a single attempt to fix it? Just clean-up. Better without a trace.Ashafir (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I spent considerable time on the talk page of the article attempting to help you to understand that, quite aside from poor sources and copyright violations, you cannot use the article to "aggregate" individual complaints about timetables, performance, customer service, booking problems etc to try to establish a pattern, because that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, but rather need to find reliable sources discussing the matter as a whole and cite their conclusions, along with any reliable sources which might conclude otherwise.

In return you have basically accused both SoWhy and myself of being "shills" for the company. This is disgraceful behaviour, particularly when the only person who seems to have an axe to grind in this situation is you, as you appear to be an WP:SPA with no other purpose here than to "dish the dirt" on this company. Instead of realising this and backing off, you appear to be digging yourself even deeper and accusing even more people.

Initially I had a certain inclination to help you, as I try to do with all new users, but you seem hell-bent on destroying any goodwill. -- Begoon 13:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Begoon, it does not matter helping you me or not. The encyclopedia shall help the public. If there is a verifiable data about FliBus that can help passengers it shall be presented. According to the policies, of course. And this you certainly can help as the way more experienced contributor than me.--Ashafir (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashafir This sounds like something you have an issue with personally, that needs to be dealt with elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae "Sounds"? It is very strange, especially in the view of your previous comment on this page. Have you read the article by the link(s)? All the links are still in the history (after it was fixed). Can you clarify why it is my personal issue? --Ashafir (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Because all of your complaints here are seemingly about the company and thus irrelevant to Wikipedia. They're the equivalent of "this company did this bad thing that sucks" but it's unsupported by reliable sources. If we allowed TripAdvisor or similar site reviews in articles, we'd be a directory of spam and puffery. But this is also irrelevant because the current policy and consensus is that the sources you added are not acceptable. Simple. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And if your argument is that this is the "news source" well yes, it might be a newspaper but this particular piece holds the same weight as a random op-ed. It's from a reader submitted tip and based on, shocker, internet reviews that are not verified. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeForget about tripadvsor. Can you use the same line of the arguments for the latest revertion related to the newspaper articles? Please check the FlixBus page history. Thanks.--Ashafir (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeOK, now you say rzeszow.wyborcza.pl is the same as TripAdvisor, right? What next? --Ashafir (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me back to this discussion. I reverted you once. But for the record, I agree with Begoon's revert as this isn't a soapbox and it is trivial. Adding every single time a bus malfunctions, misses a pick up or has an accident is trivial. Shit happens, unless it is chronic and reported in such a way that abides by Wikipedia's policies, it shouldn't be in the article. And no, I didn't say it's the same as tripAdvisor, I said it's the equivalent of an op-ed because it's a reader submitted tip based on tripAdvisor reviews, which is exactly what their clarification note says. Now drop the stick, please. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeI am very sorry but you are again twisting the point. For the record: the reason why this article was published on the newspaper because it was not "shit happens" but totally wrong handling by the German (Bavarian) company FLiXBUS which is managing the customer support. According Praxidicae and Begoon it must be "chronic and reported". And in fact it is. It is CHRONIC indeed. This is not an isolated case. Hundreds reports with the booking IDs, names, pictures[22], videos across Facebook, Tripadvisor (yes!) and other sources are clearly indicating it. Keeping it from the enciclopedia will make more passengers in troubles since there is no indication that the way FlixBus will handle it will change.--Ashafir (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to ask - I said my part, stop pinging me here. You are either not getting it or willfully refusing to. TripAdvisor and Facebook are never suitable sources for content of this nature. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

It's clear to me that Ashafir has no intention of dropping the stick and doesn't seem to quite understand what Wikipedia is for, so I'd like to propose either an indefinite topic ban from this article or an outright block for WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, as well as blatant personal attacks where they have accused multiple editors of bad-faith editing or "shilling", with the condition that it may be lifted once they exhibit an understanding of reliable sources, verifiability and the general purpose of an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I should add my preference is for an outright block as they've edited nothing else and don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block per WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. Editor seems clearly to be a WP:SPA and persistent bad-faith accusations (such as [23][24]) show a lack of mature behaviour and ability to engage in proper discussion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a block due to IDHT, NOTHERE and SPA. - Donald Albury 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT. Further, I would suggest a topic ban regarding public transit articles for a minimum of 6-months after any block is lifted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion

An encyclopedia or encyclopædia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge from either all branches or from a particular field or discipline.[25]

I don't know what is going on here. Possible I am wrong that I am trying to add this data from the verifable sources. I see only reason to block it - it is not adding a good PR for the company. I don't know how many incidents need to change the editors mind. Another trivial one today: [26]. --Ashafir (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

[Comment moved here from previous section] 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• One more "trivial incident"[27]. Of course "it is not a system". Another "dirt" about this bus company.. "fake news" almost...--Ashafir (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the proposal, other than proving the point above, Ashafir? Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for the records. You can find many policies not to list this information on the encyclopedia. It is easy for you. You are anonymous. No shame. But for me it is a shame that i can't help people that clearly needs help.--Ashafir (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You do realise that every time you post in this thread you prevent it from being archived with no direct sanctions imposed on you, and increase the chance that someone will get bored or irritated enough by your continued refusal to drop the stick to either topic-ban or block you? Just checking. -- Begoon 13:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Done with this. The editor doesn't get it, has an axe to grind with the company and is only interested in righting great wrongs. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 27 June 2019 (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.

Sock farm

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.

---

• Louismuyalde012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Louisivan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The various incarnations of Louis have a bad case of WP:IDHT. User talk:Louis00012 and User talk:Louisborromeo12 have already been blocked. Please also semi-protect Manchester Arena bombing‎.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)‎

I've reset semi-protection to two months after KrakatoaKatie and I hit the buttons at the same time. She's working on it...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2019 (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.

Jeremy9192

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.

---

• Jeremy9192 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

User copy/pasting swathes of copyvio to various articles, after final warning and faster than I can revert and stick on {{copyvio-revdel}}s. -- Begoon 10:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Update - they appear to have stopped after I posted this, so perhaps the message is getting through now. -- Begoon 10:33, 1 July 2019 (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.

a bit of a "mixup" (moved from "User Editor45671" thread below)

• From the other thread: "Or perhaps their fingers are just tired. They've received more than one warning without response. I indef blocked and they can be unblocked if they agree to stop and offer some inkling of understanding Copyvio stuff.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 01:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)"

@Dlohcierekim: Did you forget to actually block this user? ST47 (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Dlohcierekim blocked Jeremy9192 instead. Perhaps in error? Because the thread above on Jeremy9192 indicates that issue stopped without a block being necessary. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The block rationale looks to be for Jeremy. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

OH good God.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a blocked the copyvio person. Please someone sift through in case I oh Jeremy an apology.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is still odd. I must have had an old version of ANI open. I don't concern myself with closed threads, and I thought I was posting to that one.03:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have seen talk on WP:VPT about weird things happening recently around edit conflicts... ST47 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Weird things have always happened at ANI with edit conflicts - and sometimes there's no "edit conflict" warning displayed when there should be. I think it's a combination of size of page and number of quick, concurrent edits/sections being constantly created or removed while various people have different edit windows open for various periods, but it's been a "thing" for as long as I can recall. One should always check that an edit to ANI had the desired effect and there was no collateral damage. -- Begoon 03:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Back on (the other thread's) topic, blocking Jeremy until Jeremy can confirm that he understands copyright and won't continue copy/pasting huge swathes of text from books etc. seems like a fair enough call - I probably shouldn't have closed the section myself, but he'd been stopped for a while and I didn't want someone to start chasing revdels that had been done. I don't think it will be a bad thing to force confirmation - there were a lot of copyvios, and several warnings seemingly ignored. -- Begoon 03:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Pinging Dlohcierekim, because I forgot... -- Begoon 03:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  If anyone feels I blocked Jeremy unduly, please unblock him. Could someone move the Jeremy parts to the Jeremy thread? Should someone move the Jeremy parts to the Jeremy thread? This is so awkward.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  moved... -- Begoon 07:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Dlohcierekim: If it helps, sometimes I've noticed that when I write a post on ANI in what I think is the correct post, then preview it, it will put it in a different section. I think this happens when the ordering of the sections changes during my edit because another editor has saved a new section or a section has been archived. It's one reason why I always preview before I save on ANI. --Blackmane (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah - that's kinda what I was trying to describe above, but you put it more succinctly. -- Begoon 07:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats?

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.

---

Could an admin please kindly have a quick look at User talk:DuvellsCat where the more recent edits appear to perhaps breach WP:NLT? The sad thing is that it looks like DuvellsCat has failed to get any attention for their concerns because they are doing it all on their own Talk page, not the talk page of John Christodoulou, which article is where their concerns lie. They may or may not have a point, I wouldn't know, but at the moment it just looks like a textbook example of BLP issues not going well for an angry newcomer. Hoping for a peaceful resolution, 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:DuvellsCat has been blocked indefinitely by User:NinjaRobotPirate. See [28]. AryaTargaryen (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

In fact, it looks like I did that 7 minutes before this report was opened. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you entirely sure you should have? That looks like something that should have been placed elsewhere festering, leading the frustrated writer to keep escalating his rhetoric. rolling back the last couple of edits with a brief explanation of where he should have expressed his concerns might be better. Qwirkle (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the timing. Obviously he wasn't already blocked when I started, but by the time I'd faffed around looking up NLT and reading his essays and what have you ... yup. I won't comment on the rest – it's now moot (AmE sense) and I'm not an admin. Thanks, all 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Further oops - I regret that I forgot to notify the editor. Sorry: I'm not a regular at ANI. Should I do so now or just "let it lie"? it does seem a bit stable doorish etc ... but if I should, do say, and I will. Thanks 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d let it go now, things have moved on. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2019 (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.

Serious accusations, anonymously sourced

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.

---

The issue of the Signpost out today has an article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report, which I don't believe meets standards for acceptable journalistic content. It has, in particular, a serious accusation against User:Fram, by an anonymous source. It starts like this: "It is difficult and embarrassing as a man to come to grips with being sexually harassed". Fram denies the accusations but the Signpost has refused to quote or link to his denial and Fram is currently unable to respond on Wikipedia. The Signpost makes no indications that it has verified the anonymous accusation before publishing it. Unverified anonymous accusations are not the way to go. The section was repeatedly removed when the article was in draft form but always restored [29] User:Smallbones accepts responsibility for the article and directs complaints to ANI.[30] So here I am. Haukur (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unsourced content about living persons is a Wikipedia policy. If this is true than the Signpost/author has violated BLP policy. Repeatedly re-inserting against consensus before "press-time" might violate the spirit of the Signpost.

What admin action is suggested?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please demonstrate the basis for the phrase "against consensus". ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Bri! What do you think about publishing serious accusations against a named person from anonymous sources verbatim without verifying them? Is that journalism to be proud of? Is it an article that should be retracted? Haukur (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• So, no diffs showing any consensus then? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed not, I don't think that's the real issue here. User:Smallbones accepts full responsibility for the article, it's not really a question of our usual collective decision-making. Haukur (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The author has quoted 9 editors that do not wish to be identified publically. Does that mean that their comments/quotes cannot be used or commented on since the author can supply the names of the editors in private to demonstrate the validity of the quotes? Not sure if that is enough for public statements, comments or questions on the signpost per the community's own policies and guidelines. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia standards for biographies of living persons has been violated with unverifiable sources. Content about a living person must have multiple, verifiable references. I'm not sure these quotes are considered references...in fact, I am sure they are not reliable sources for these claims on the Signpost. They are, at least, pretty weak and at worst, unsubstantiated accusations from a third party.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's sure interesting to see just how many Wikipedia editors are determined to prove correct WMF's assertion that we are incapable of handling credible accusations of harrassment with our own procedures, preferring instead to shield difficult but productive editors behind claims that any accusations against them must be uncivil and personal attacks. It's funny how their own behavior never gets characterized in the same way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By all means, take these accusations to ArbCom and if it can be credibly demonstrated that Fram was cruelly participating in the sexual harassment of another editor by repeatedly posting links to a sexual depiction like the one described in the "news" item then I am sure appropriate action will be taken. But as far as I can see this is a completely misleading account and so far the Signpost doesn't even claim to have verified it. If we want to clamp down on harassment then let's begin by giving no quarter to this false and vile accusation. Haukur (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. I do not have evidence to prove the accusation false (nor to prove it true). Do you? If not, why are you claiming that it is false? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be sure, to see the full story would need oversight access and probably database access to a particular external site. But public information which can be easily found is consistent with Fram's account and makes the accusation look like a gross exaggeration of a half-remembered incident. Or possibly I am looking at the wrong incident! (And Fram too?) It's hard to know for sure with anonymous attacks like this which reference no evidence. Accusations like that are generally seen as a low form of journalism and it is amazing to me when people seem to think that tolerance of this sort of stuff will move us to a healthier community with less harassment. Haukur (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

When you say "consistent with Fram's account" what do you mean? Although the Signpost piece contains responses from Fram, none of it constitutes a response to or account of the specific accusation that you find troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The transparently-anonymous source claims the edit was revdeleted. Fram does not have so many of those, and there's a filter to find them in Special:Contributions/Fram. If you do not have the evidence, it is because you are deliberately not looking for it. —Cryptic 00:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There are hundreds of revdelled contributions there, and I don't have access to many of them (the ones that were actually revdelled and not just version-deleted). In any case, we have rules against trolling through contribution histories fishing for something dubious, and I think they might be relevant in cases like this where someone explicitly attempted to be anonymous. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So in your mind it is preferable to level accusations of serious misconduct with no evidence than it is to trawl (not troll) through an editors contributions in search of that evidence. I s'pose I should have seen that coming from someone who also thinks that evidence to prove an accusation false is necessary, but not to make an accusation credible. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[ec] In my mind it is preferable to assume good faith that Smallbones is meeting the usual standards of journalism: that when there are serious accusations made by a source who wishes to remain anonymous, that Smallbones has gone to extra efforts to verify those accusations, and that the reason for keeping the evidence from us is that it would violate the anonymity of the source. I would expect no less from any newspaper reporter, their editor, and the newspaper's legal advisors. If this supposition is inaccurate, Smallbones really did take the word of an anonymous accuser without evidence, and the other Signpost editors allowed Smallbones to do so without oversight, then that would be a serious problem, but for exactly that reason I would expect Smallbones and the rest of the Signpost editors not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable up to a point. If the accusation that Fram enabled sexual harassment was serious, however, that should have been handed to ArbCom. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The accusation was rather more serious than that Fram "enabled" sexual harassment. It was that he committed it, that it was indeed handed to ArbCom, and that "ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it" (or if you prefer, enabled it). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So any attempt to find the context of these accusations and substantiate or refute them is wrong? We should just take whatever vile anonymous accusations on faith? The Signpost refuses to link to Fram's reply because he provides some additional information and context (no names) which, sure, makes it slightly easier to identify the likely incident. But of course any defense is going to involve bringing in more information so this just amounts to denying him the right to reply to accusations against him. This is not fair and it conforms to no journalistic standards. Haukur (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is just excellent. The more whining and caterwauling by those who see their power threatened, the more attention is focused on the disputed parts of the report—by by our community and possibly the outside press. Thank you for this. Tony (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indef for Smallbones for blatant, continual WP:BLP violations, and for doing it over the concerns of other editors. If they wanted to take responsibility for it, then there's a clear way to do that. BLP policies are clear, and important, and it doesn't matter how controversial or topical the subject is, or whether or not the violations are being done under the guise of journalism. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Deacon Vorbis: - by continual WP:BLP violations, are you referring to this incident only? If only for this incident, let's not escalate matters to the point of an indef at this point. We can pull the article (and restore it if everything ends up okay) and in the meanwhile, have a discussion with Smallbones. starship.paint (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I meant their repeatedly adding the text back in after it was repeatedly removed. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Maybe you're right; this is the second time I've seen something like this today, and I guess I overreacted a bit. I'll strike my suggestion to indef, but I still think it was unacceptable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been avoiding this conversation but I've been bombarded by emails on the topic. I'll read what's written above and respond in due course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I urge you to pull the article until these issues can be straightened out. Haukur (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, what people don't seem to realize is that Fram was given several chances to respond to this quote and didn't. He had the opportunity to respond to other quotes and to the whole article and did, as you can see in the article He cooperated very nicely with the investigation. Referring to the same quote that most people are talking about here he emailed me "No, feel free to post it (with that line removed as it was confusing, thanks)," where "that line" was a previous response where I thought that he had misread the quote so had informed him of it again. Fram's given me permission to post most of his emails, but there are a couple of exceptions. I'd be glad to continue this at ArbCom so that I can send them the emails confidentially. There's another issue on what looks to me like an attempted outing by Fram on another website. I'm not going to accuse Fram of outing or speculate on his motives. I'll only say that at The Signpost we do not intentionally link to anything even close to outing, so we will not insert that link into the story. Please be patient for further responses from me - more emails. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I will not take this to ArbCom or do anything else at the moment except go to sleep. I will concede that if Fram explicitly told you to "feel free to post it" even without his reply (that's certainly not what I expected from reading his response) then that does change things somewhat. It's still the wrong thing to do and you should still pull it but if Fram doesn't object to you publishing it then the matter is less urgent. Haukur (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Striking this since more information has come in. Fram disputes Smallbones' account of this. See my comments below. Haukur (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I will note that Fram's refutation of this source states that it was part of an Arbitration case, and that "ended without any comments about [him], while the admin involved was admonished for his behaviour." Do we know what Arbitration case this was? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The bit about targeting vulnerable editors is patently false, considering he blocked Gorillawarfare and filed an arb case against me once. Still, there were always gonna be people complaining here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I'm not avoiding this conversation - the emails are getting ridiculous. I tried to review the article in detail to answer this concern but ... You have to look at who is saying what here. I summarized the respondents answers and the 3rd quote said that Fram targeted the vulnerable. That is what they saw and what *they* said. I can see what they said as valid from their point of view. The large majority of them said this. Fram said, either in the article or in my emails, that he did not target any particular group, in fact often (went after (not quite the right word)) top status editors. I've seen this and it is certainly valid from his point of view. That's what he said (I'll check again where in the article). In a sense though I don't think Fram's statement is accurate, there are lots more vulnerable editors than high status editors, so on a pure percentage basis the vulnerable probably outnumber the much fewer, but more memorable, high status editors. As far as what we wrote in The Signpost's voice - I don't think it was anything, i.e. 0. Let me check again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ok it's in Fram's response at the end in the green box, "We need admins willing to scrutinize the edits of ALL editors, no matter their status, and willing to point out problems with them, no matter how many friends they may have. This includes regular edits, and admin actions…. I did not care whether creations were autopatrolled or not, I looked at them all regardless of who created them. " it's also evident in 3 other places in the article, e.g. blocking GorillaWarfare. I don't see anything in The Signpost's voice. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let’s not go down a slippery slope towards a place where people are speculating about the identity of someone who claims to have felt harassed or demanding to know who it is, there are huge problems with that as I’m sure people will have realised by now. The complaint should be taken to Arbcom, where matters can be dealt with in confidence. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll suggest that we close this and reopen it whenever needed at ArbCom. That way I can responsibly deal with Fram's emails to me, i.e. send the one's released by Fram to ArbCom confidentially. This is not a matter for open everybody demands specific answers discussion. I'm sure ArbCom would be a calmer environment given the privacy concerns of everybody. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is The Signpost E-in-C going to have to get a get-out-of-jail-free card from Arbcom every time he or she wishes to publish opinions or facts drawn from confidential sources? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: makes a very good point. If that were the case, en.WP would be going the way of so many autocratic and quasi-democratic regimes. I'd rather see the Signpost terminated than expose it to bureacratic intimidation to force self-censorship. I wrote for the Signpost for seven years, of which the later five or so years were devoted to news and special reports. We tried not to include quotes from sources who would only speak on the basis of anonymity; but in the balance between transparency, public interest, and privacy, very occasionally we did. Sometimes it's a tough call by the editor in chief, but in all cases—including the circumstances surrounding the current story—I think the EICs have made the right decisions (it was always referred to the EIC for a ruling). In my view, the current privacy–transparency crisis in which en.WP has embroiled itself is much worse for the hardline binary view that transparency wins at all costs; and the tardiness of ArbCom to address the privacy–transparency crisis that has been gradually evolving and has now come to a head. Here, if ever, is a time for ArbCom to act swiftly to manage the need for privacy in this very public, very exposed online environment. ArbCom seems to have been asleep at the wheel. Tony (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am neither for or against the author or their opinion. I am for Wikipedia policy being adhered to in regards to living persons. For my part and opinion, I was and am only discussing what should and can be said about living persons on Wikipedia. Not sure I have seen any comment or discussion on that here but I'll look closer. As far as whether or not the article should be pulled before a decision is made...I am Against that. Either the article has or has not violated BLP or sourcing guidelines. In the end, I still don't understand what admin action should be taken beyond the normal stuff. Check consensus, check referencing and check policy and guidelines. This should not become a discussion of Fram, or their guilt or innocence. This is about whether the author overstepped with claims about a living person. My 2 cents. Maybe worth as much.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My "reopen it whenever needed at ArbCom" refers to this case. Somebody may very well want to reopen this case and I think that ArbCom is the place to do it, if it has to be done. It might even be a good place to review the status of The Signpost. We've always operated - just by common acceptance - as a newspaper - for about 14 years. But some problems have come up, e.g. disruption of the publishing process - so-called edit warring - on deadline. We just can't operate with that happening. If ArbCom wanted to say that we're in violation of e.g. WP:OWN by having a publication process that requires the approval of the editor-in-chief, they could do that and we'd have to shut down. But I don't think they would do that. If they wanted to say that using confidential sources was against the rules, they could probably do that. But again, I'm sure they won't. Maybe they might say we need to formalize procedures within The Signpost to guard against abuse, I think they'll find that we already have some such procedures, though perhaps not as formal as they need to be. So get-out-of-jail-free card every time somebody has a problem with our reporting? no way. Have somebody review our procedures once every 5-10 years? I'd welcome it if ArbCom or another calm forum wanted to do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• First, a self-disclosure that I have had off and on involvement with The Signpost for many years, including in the most recent issue, but I did not participate in the writing of the article in question. I think that the issue here should be treated as a policy question rather than an allegation of misconduct. My inclination is that anonymous sources for a Signpost piece don't violate the BLP policy because there is a known source, which in this case is Smallbones, who is reporting that information in a newspaper known as The Signpost that I think that Wikipedia would consider to be a WP:Reliable source. One could argue that this violates the WP:No original research policy, but I think that we often expect newspapers to conduct original research. All things considered, I am inclined to allow anonymous sources to be used for Signpost articles regarding BLP subjects, with the limitation that the author of a Signpost article who uses anonymous sources would be well advised to consider the legal risks to themselves personally and to their sources. --Pine (✉) 05:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This dispute concerns Wikipedia and the WMF. Signpost is not a third-party source. Not remotely. Not at all. Not in the slightest. And even if it was (which it isn't) I see no evidence that it has a 'reputation' for anything much at all. It is an internal Wikipedia webpage, and not a 'newspaper'. Trying to claim that it meets WP:RS is ridiculous. 31.49.219.102 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor this, but you're saying some pretty nasty stuff about the Signpost. Now you're an anon, citing reliable source policy, to defend a position that says that we shouldn't trust anonymous sources. That doesn't give what you say much credibility. So does anybody trust the Signpost? See The Wall Street Journal article citing us about the then-Acting Attorney General. That's one indication only, but it's fair to say The Signpost has more credibility than your opinion about us does. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about the Signpost that isn't routinely said about all sorts of sources over at WP:RSN, or on article talk pages. And I'm not defending any position, except one that assumes that WP:RS policy should be applied consistently. Including the 'third party' clause, which you have entirely failed to address. As for my credibility, as an anonymous person (albeit one familiar with Wikipedia policies), I am not asking to be cited in an article, or in the Signpost. I am merely pointing out what policy says. Which anyone can read for themselves. They don't need me as a credible source to verify it. And the policy is clear. If this was a discussion about say the 'Battersea Bee-Keepers Club', nobody familiar with WP:RS would consider a webpage they published as 'The BBKC Buzz' to be a third-party source on matters concerning their organisation. Because it wouldn't be, even if it had been cited (for something else entirely) By the WSJ, the London Times, and the United States Supreme Court. And this attempt to portray the Signpost as a third-party source in order to justify inclusion of anonymous material in it is simply illogical. If it was third-party, it wouldn't be a matter of relevance to WP:ANI, and you wouldn't need to be here defending it. But the Signpost is "community-written and -edited" [31], and as such within the remit of WP:ANI. Or do you wish to argue that a 'third party' Signpost is beyond the remit of WP:ANI? Because that would seem to be the logical position to take if you rally believe it. 31.49.219.102 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Incorrectly Claims Academic All-American Honors". The Wall Street Journal. 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2019.

I don't mind belaboring this at all. That is exactly what ANI is for (to a point of course). So if it helps consensus here at all, lets remember that IP's are editors and their contribution to a consensus discussion means as much as a registered account. At any rate, I agree entirely with the IP user. Also, nothing was nasty. It was dead on. If this must become a discussion of the Signpost as a reliable source...uhm...OK. Are we saying that the Signpost is reliable enough to simply allow anonymous sources for accusations about living persons or that the Signpost itself is somehow the source itself for it's own article? I might need this better explained but I don't see it.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Some of us remember the event in question quite well. I'm not sure how much to say in consideration of privacy, but let me just say the Signpost needs to immediately pull that quote from the article, and perhaps the article in general. Throwing around accusations of harassment, without any diffs, that Fram is not able to respond to on-wiki is entirely inappropriate. That article has turned Wikipedia into an entirely unsafe space for Fram, as well as those whose identities are easy to work out from the article. This is one-sided abuse and should not be tolerated. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There is at least one other article that references the accusations as well, should that be puled? Also what is the principle here, that Signpost cannot publish anonymous statements about users? Or can only publishers statements about users that have been published in RS? This is far too complex for ANI, as it has huge (potential) repercussions for signpost.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• The very least that could be asked of an ethical journalist is that they verify anonymous charges like this before publishing them. As far as I can see they still don't even claim to have done that. From what information is publicly available, the charge seems to be untrue. Fram just did not do what he is accused of here. Haukur (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram has now responded to Smallbones, characterizing his actions with regards to this quote as "backstabbing".[32] So much for his assurances that he had Fram's permission for the published version. In that light, I withdraw my earlier comment that the matter isn't urgent. For a final time I ask you to pull the article or, at minimum, to pull this quote from it. If not I suppose this will have to go to ArbCom after all. Haukur (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have filed an ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputed_Signpost_article. Haukur (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yep, this is why some consent to run with it isn't good enough. It's why we need a goddamn source. WP:BLP is serious. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

There is nothing to be gained here and it's just more hate and discontent with more to follow. Further fighting over this is just going to further hurt a community that has been hurt enough. Whilst I can see this as a terrible move on the part of The Signpost, we are just pouring gasoline on a fire.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 09:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support close of this discussion once the article has been pulled. There are too many negative aspects here to be appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm adding here that the quote "I can only imagine what he's done to female editors on Wikipedia" is clear, genuine harassment against Fram and needs to be removed immediately. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Pull the article first and/or escalate it to ArbCom/T&S, then we'll talk. Allegations of sexual harassment should NEVER be aired publicly absent compelling evidence, and Smallbones has not provided that evidence. If anonymity is genuinely a concern, Smallbones' source can email it to ArbCom or T&S. But dropping these allegations sans proof is both a BLP violation and a form of harassment (ironically enough). That being said, Fram claims that the events the source is talking about took place on an ArbCom page and was not revdelled, but thus far I'm not able to find it, since I've no idea (and quite rightly so) who the complainant is and what the website being linked is, and I'm not thinking it's Arb/MONGO. Fram (or someone who has a better idea of the incident he refers to) needs to, at the least, provide the case name (if it is indeed still visible). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Events of recent weeks have led me to conclude that the Apocalypse must be upon us. And if it's not, I hope it comes ASAP. This is all too much. EEng 09:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Pull the offending bit, plus escalate to ArbCom (ArbCom to decide if there is grounds for reinstatement) - per Haukur, not sure if the anonymous claim is verified. With the privacy concerns, and Smallbones being okay with ArbCom, take it there, since we're all in the dark here. starship.paint (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If this is gasoline on a fire, then burn it down. WP:BLP applies sitewide, full stop. And for years this has been acknowledged to be more than a "we don't want to be sued for defamation" standard (particularly given WMF will just assert CDA immunity anyway; cf. their filings in the Abd lawsuit). This is about doing the right thing and following the rules. There is no room for a pragmatic "choose your battles" when it comes to this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Now at Arbcom

This can probably be closed now, as a case request at Arbcom has been initiated - please see here. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2019 (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.

2600:8801:2C80:5C::/64

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.

---

• 2600:8801:2C80:5C::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Heavily problematical edits—namely removal of navigational items and wikilinks—albeit short of vandalism. I have failed to establish contact with the user. Good luck to anybody else. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked the range for 72 hours. Sasquatch t|c 10:49, 1 July 2019 (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 Editor45671

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.

---

• Editor45671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if I should do this at the AIV or here since the editor's edits look close to vandalism, but anyhow, this editor has been editing a large number of pages, deleting content without explanation [33][34][35], sometimes claiming they are unsourced when they are sourced -[36][37] deleting archived sources [38][39], randomly adding irrelevant sources [40][41][42][43] (same source added to entirely different articles, there are a lot of these), unsourced content with irrelevant sources - [44] and duplicating sources [45][46], breaking disambiguation - [47], etc. I've corrected around 60 articles after checking over 100, but he or she is editing more, not sure if I have the heart to check them all again. Hzh (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps their fingers are just tired. They've received more than one warning without response. I indef blocked and they can be unblocked if they agree to stop and offer some inkling of understanding Copyvio stuff.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 01:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Posted in the wrong thread. Sorry, y'all. I invited Editor45671 here as it does look like they've been removing sourced material.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2019 (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.

Glad we still have some checkusers.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

IP repeatedly restoring forum-talk disparaging article topic and venting personal feelings

IP repeatedly restoring forum-talk disparaging article topic and venting personal feelings, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKNO. Comments include "much of the rock press was despicable," "a very opinionated writer, and it shows," "his newspaper and magazine reviews were nothing but pablum", all under the talk-page header titled "despised by musicians" (See diffs for more). Dan56 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• 50.111.24.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Diffs

• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]

IP's talk page

• First notice to them
• IP claims to be a former admin
• Second notice, with explanation of why the IP's post has no merit
• IP's second response

• Comment. You also restored comments that the IP had removed. Per WP:REMOVED editors are allowed to remove warnings on their own talkpages (and it doesn't matter if they are a named account or an IP), other editors are not supposed to restore them except under very specific circumstances. The IP also said they used to be an admin when they lived in Oz, as in Australia. They did not claim to now be an admin, therefore there is no misrepresentation of their status. Keeping WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTAFORUM in mind I disagree with your assessment that they are using the article talkpage as a soapbox...maybe they are being somewhat inelegant in their phrasing but to me they are attempting to discuss the sources and the conclusions in the article itself...which would seem to be to be aimed towards improving the article... Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

They aren't attempting to discuss any sources; where did they discuss even one source??. They could not even quote the statement they have issue with correctly. ("Standard reference" does not exist anywhere in the article) Dan56 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I've stricken irrelevant and inappropriate remarks ([53]) Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No matter the behaviour of the other editor, striking parts of their comments is clearly WP:TPO (except if it is unambiguously an attack of the type "X is [insert words of your choice here]" - as far as I see, "X was a very opinionated writer" does not appear to be such a WP:PA). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And if the other editor is correct? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:E5A0:4CB9:5B55:89AE (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course the editor is right. I mean, what kind of reviewer or music critic, whose job it is to have many opinions in order to review music, won't be opinionated? The point was that, as WP:FORUM says, "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." The editor's personal feelings and insinuations about the subject of the article were not discussion on "how to improve" the article. Now that I've spelled it out for you, again, do you get it? Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The talk page comments like this [54] regarding Christgau are BLP violations and must be removed for that reason. ♟♙ (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do in this situation is just "take the meat and leave the bones". The discussion that the IP user started on the article's talk page is mostly just him/her stating their personal opinion, but also states briefly that "the 'standard reference' statement in the article can't really be backed up." I'm not sure what that means exactly; searching the article for the word "standard" doesn't come back with any content that means anything close to what he/she is stating... If any of the involved editors here know what that statement refers to, simply respond to the IP user's comment and that statement only, and ignore the rest of it and don't acknowledge it in your response. If you don't know what the user is referring to in that statement I quoted, then just respond and politely ask the IP user for clarification. Again, ignore and don't acknowledge the rest of the comment in your response... Take the meat and leave the bones. Simple... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

POV pushing on Pallava Dynasty page by user Lovslif who was recently blocked for using socks

Hi,

I would like to bring to your notice that LovSLif (talk · contribs) is engaged in an edit war on the Pallava dynasty article. He used an alternate account RViN341 (talk · contribs) to support himself in the content related discussion on the Pallava talk page recently [55]. RViN341 (talk · contribs) was found to be his sock and Lovslif was blocked for this reason [56]. He has now returned from this block and is now engaged in edit war and POV pushing on the same article. So request admin intervention regarding this issue. Also, how come he was let off with a one week block when other users are usually blocked indefinitely? Nittawinoda (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect to the socking issue only, socks are indefinitely blocked. However, sockmasters are blocked for varying periods of time (up to indefinitely), especially after a first offense.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23,

I request you to go through the ongoing discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pallava_dynasty#Origins_section. when the discussion is already underway, User Nittawinoda tried to add POV content in the same disputed area.
My only concern is not over the addition of content rather should be NPOV and user is trying to push POV based on secondary thesis and this is against what moderators concluded on talk page.
Also user tried to alter the position of most favored thesis by placing the same at bottom.
Hence I had asked him to first conclude the discussion.
I even did not revert the 'etymology section' which he added purely on POV.
This notice raised by user over here purely to suppress the ongoing discussion.

Nittawinoda was blocked for personal attacks only for certain period of time.

Also, I request you to clarify on the below query. I use shared IP in Singapore. My entire building works on same IP. In such case how can another user being on same IP be called SOCK. When I did not involve in such stuff , how will I accept such blame? What can I do from my end to prove? By LovSLif (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Nittawinoda and LovSLif: As Bbb23 noted the lasttime this topic was here 10 days back: none of the involved editors have clean hands. So instead of trying to weaponizing that troubled history to get each other eliminated from the discussion, focus of sources/content, follow the guidance Kautilya3 is offering at the article talkpage, and for goodness' sake be concise and limit the length and number of your posts (see your respective talkpages for more specific advice). If the current battleground and WP:IDHT-conduct continues, article restrictions or topic bans are likely to be necessary.

Pinging Liz, who has previously been involved, to see if they have anything to add before this section is archived. Abecedare (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare ,Kautilya3 As we are aware the discussion ongoing on the talk page of pallavas, in Meantime Nittawinoda has again altered the content in origins section by removing sourced content.If he alters the same as per his will then what is the core point in discussing the same on talk page with the help of moderation?Kautilya3,has already mentioned that he would come up with initial draft and these sort of actions in meantime do not sound rational By LovSLif (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Abecedare:, As mentioned previously [57], I removed K.R Subramanian after moderator Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) labelled it as unreliable [58]. Now the other user has reverted my changes and reinserted this unreliable source [59]. What is your take on this behavior? Nittawinoda (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

IP's who love Volvo engines

A series of Schleswig-Holstein based IPs have taken ownership of Volvo Modular engine and Volvo Engine Architecture. After six or seven months of attempting to communicate with this stonewalling editor, Citation talk page, Volvo Modular, Volvo Engine Architecture they insist on doing absolutely everything their way. So far five other editors have agreed that using both archivedate and accessdate is redundant (one diessenting editor has suggested that it is useful to have both in cases where a better archived page could be found, which is not the case here as both dates are added at the same time, and the archived version is the one used as the citation). The references on these pages are already hard to read, and with this set of duplicate dates it is simply a mess. There are other style concerns, but so far I have seen no evidence that this editor is amenable to conversation. I would request at least a temporary block of ips on these pages, in the hope of making this editor begin communicating.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked 2a04:4540:900:0:0:0:0:0/45 for one year for disruption. They've actually been at it since April 2018. Despite the width of the range block, I see no collateral damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope they'll start communicating.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Consolidate the account or IP with the same motivation as this Greek IP

Since 13 June 2019

• 2a02:214C:801e:eC00:713d:57bc:f319:c289
• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:5ca4:5e99:1a6e:961c
• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:9438:e8c6:6eba:e6d3
• 2a02:214c:8272:d00:64d0:c532:2eca:aac0

The move was made as part of a larger effort to distance the country from Maoist politics.  Specifically, Deng and the other members of the CPC leadership wanted to prevent another leader from rising above the party, as Mao had done.

Persevering in this paragraph, a paragraph that has a negative narrative to Mao Zedong.Delete this paragraph repeatedly.

Since 19 June 2019

• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:713d:57bc:f319:c289
• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:5ca4:5e99:1a6e:961c
• 2a02:214c:801e:4f00:9c7a:3f72:e724:d9c2
• 2a02:214c:824f:800:7883:26b1:54a4:dd1b

Although such actions were sanctioned by Mao Zedong himself, the Communist agents and cadres involved were nonetheless persecuted decades later during the Cultural Revolution. Li may only have escaped such a fate because he died in 1962.

Persevering in this paragraph, a paragraph that has a negative narrative to Mao Zedong.Delete this paragraph repeatedly.

Analysis

According to preliminary analysis, users of this IP should be extremely admired by Mao Zedong and interested in China's military information, and it may be a user of China Wikipedia.

Other findings

Because the editorial tendency is obvious,the IP range should be 2a02:214C:801e:eC00:713d:57bc:f319:c289/38 . In Inner Mongolia, it said that per WP:COMMONAME. The country's name is "People's Republic of China", NOT "Mainland China", and is referred to as such, including here in Wikipedia . 2a02:214c:824f:800:7de5:3f55:e747:2ea6 make editing war for this matter. In Wang Dongxing and Zhongnanhai, it said that minor fixes in correct translation from chinese to english and expanded bio and added sources, from his Guardian obituary and from Chinese Wiki. I think this Greek IP range should be being abused or need to be observed for a while.61.224.19.112 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

PS:I just watched it, recorded it and commented on it, but I refused to provide further comments because there is no more evidence. 61.224.19.112 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What is this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This (the above) was first posted at AIV, alleging several IPs of a coordinated effort to rewrite China-related articles with a POV slant. I advised them that ANI was one of their avenues to discuss this. — Maile (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me explain this to others.Next, I should have to escape. The recent political incident in Hong Kong made me feel terrible. I found that he spent a lot of energy to monitor the pages he wanted to control. This makes me worry that I am his next goal.@El C:I just want to tell you that there may be a problem with that IP range. But I am not sure if it is the same person in Molecular biology.--61.224.19.112 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, they also reported at RFPP, another avenue I suggested. From what they posted there, I believe they are asking for a Range Block, in addition to individual articles protection. I don't do range blocks, and I'm not familiar with recent events in Asia, but this editor seems to be trying to alert us to what they see as a larger/spreading issue of POV. — Maile (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem is we had no diffs, so cannot see what these edits are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I ran into this IPv6 user vs another user using a multitude of IP addresses and very wide ranges to edit war across multiple articles such as Jia Chunwang, Chen Shutong, Li Kenong, Zhang Dingcheng, Just war theory, and others. I've blocked all of the IP addresses that were involved in the dispute and the edit warring. I haven't dug in-depth with exactly what was going on dispute-wise and with the content itself, but I had to take action in order to stop the high magnitude of disruptive editing that was occurring and across numerous articles. Given that both users were engaging in back-and-fourth reverting, I felt that it was necessary to block the both of them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

AFD & comment there

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.

---

This isn't my usual rodeo, so please forgive if I'm in the wrong place. Can an administrator please keep an eye out here and give thought to this edit and those that came after in particular? They seem out of sorts. Thanks. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Revdeled, investigating to see if any further action is needed. Thanks for the report. ST47 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, former admin User:Paul Benjamin Austin has admitted to impersonating [[Miranda Borman], so I would say that there is no question that further action is required. Option 16 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I made a mistake for which i am sorry. A lot of people pretend to be celebrities or actors. I should not have been one of them. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2019 (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:AustrianFreedom

I'm on a mobile right now. Would another admin kindly review this editor's recent contributions and edit summaries and act as appropriate? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE, attack userpage deleted. Various other contributions may need revdel, especially edit summaries, but I'm on my way to bed (falls off chair). Bishonen | talk 00:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC).

I think Jechochman got most of the edit summaries, I removed a couple. Looked back at last 1000 edits, all problems found in most recent 500.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I just removed some bizarre trivia/ineptly translated text they had added to the Jabuka article. Their edits need a deeper review. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Issue with JesseRafe

I made a couple minor edits to the Julia Salazar Wikipedia page and JesseRafe keeps deleting them. By looking at his talk page, it is clear that he has a habit of deleting other people's work and has received a great deal of criticism for it. I am not interested in arguing with this person, but I would appreciate it if he stopped deleting and harassing other users. It creates an environment in which people are less likely to contribute for fear that their contributions will be immediately deleted and that they will be personally insulted in the process. My edits came directly from reputable sources that had already been cited on the page, and all I did was flesh out the entry to make it more complete. I would be happy to delete any information that is biased or subjective, but this is simply not the case. ODDoom99 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You should follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, because the onus is on you to gain consensus for the edits you wish to be included in the article. Thanks. El_C 19:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@ODDoom99: (edit conflict) A quick glance shows you've been adding poorly sourced or unsourced negative BLP. I think you need to stop this. I think you are casting aspersions. Please be aware that by posting here, you invite scrutiny. Please be aware that you have not notified the user as is required. Please be aware I see no effort of you to resolve this dispute short of ANI.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 19:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have ec protected the article due to possible violations regarding WP:BLPCRIME. El_C 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Such that it matters: I reverted this individual in February and today. Subsequent to that, their re-additions of the same inadmissible contributions were reverted by two other editors. The only reason I am even commenting at all on this allegation is that it is germane to another discussion on this very page, and this behavior is very suspicious considering 24.47.152.65 has made numerous posts anticipating being blocked for harassing me, so perhaps revived this (among other?) accounts to start establishing a post history before they were blocked (which they were for 31 hours). JesseRafe (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Examples of OP's edits Here 1, Here 2, Here 3 There are others, but you get the sense. At the very least, OP has been edit warring, they have reinserted negative BLP that has been challenged, and a cynical interpretation is that they wish to smear the subject.   Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

My editing history is not of any concern. What matters is the accuracy of my edits, and I have yet to find a single challenge to the veracity of anything I wrote. I reinserted information that was unfairly deleted. Information should only be deleted if it is false or defamatory, not because it is insufficiently flattering of its subject. It seems like the tone of the Wikipedia article is noticeably at odds with public perception of the candidate, and I thought that needed to be rectified. To characterize that as a "smear" is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ODDoom99 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, not everyone agrees with your interpretation. You must now obtain consensus for the challenged material before adding it back.   Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As your sole area of endeavor is to add these negative edits about this person, your edits are concerning.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to find a single challenge to the veracity of anything I wrote –– Have you looked at the talk page for the article you were editing? It looks like there's been several different attempts to add similar content, which have been discussed at length. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, but ODDoom99, your editing history certainly is of concern. Did you think that you could make a report here about a dispute between yourself and another editor, asking administrators to consider his editing while ignoring yours? Really? JamesBWatson (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose smearing those one disagrees with in the ANI thread is so common now as to go unremarked, but I fly in the face of convention to take umbrage with the casting of aspersions in the opening paragraph.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 00:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Boldly reblocked 24.47.152.65 with autoblock of logged-in users from editing from this IP address. Feel free to undo if you think this undue.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 00:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ineedtostopforgetting and disruptive editing

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.

---

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

Could somebody please have a look at the edits by this user? They were recently brought to my attention when they developed an interest to articles on Kuril Islands (which is part of Russia internationally recognized by every country except for Japan) and started renaming articles to Japanese names (example) and removing Russian names example). They did this in a dozen of articles. In the discussion of my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#New editor's suspicious edits at Kuril Islands-related articles, they said that they do not see any problems with their edits and they do not understand why I reverted all of them, even after I provided a detailed explanation, however, they stopped doing these edits, and I decided to let it go. Today, I noticed that they were engaged in edit-warring with Calton on a completely unrelated topic. For example, here (second revert) they claim they add sourced info and removed unsourced info, whereas the situation is exactly opposite - the architect's name is in the article and is sourced, the contractor name is nowhere else in the article. If you look at the user's contribution, you see that this is not a isolated case. I would have blocked, but I consider myself involved due to the previous exchange a week ago. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I literally just added the source minutes before you made this. How about you take a look before making another baseless accusation? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I forgot to mention that the behavior demonstrated here and elsewhere is another ground for the block, along with edit-warring and disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So you're just going to conveniently ignore what I said about me adding the source BEFORE you made this section. Okay then. You're the one with the 'authority' after all. Are you going to block me for saying this now? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that you removed sourced information from the article and edit-warred over iots removal. Repeatedly, in several articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And you actually edit-warred as a response tio a warning for removal of information. If anyone needs more diffs, I can lay out more diffs, but they are pretty obvious from the user contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're still harping over the Kuril Islands articles, the sources there did have the Japanese translations for these islands, and I was merely reflecting it. You accused me of 'edit warring' for that, and I decided not to bother anymore as you're just going to revert it back again. Now, you're making this section over an unrelated article without looking at all the facts, and decided to accuse me again for 'removing sources', despite the fact that the source to the architect's name links to an unrelated dead page (check the source for yourself) that does not even show his name. You said you couldn't find the contractors name 'nowhere else in the article', despite there being a source for it. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I just came here as I saw Ineedtostopforgetting's edits on Roppongi Hills Tower, something on my watchlist. I had just reverted their edit on that article as the source doesn't support the claim. All the source shows is that the company claims they worked on it. No supporting evidence in the source, primary source so not reliable, and the source doesn't even claim they were the main contractor only that they worked on it. They may have just designed the hinges for some doors for all the evidence the source provides. So I reverted it as not a suitable source. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If that's how is going to be, what about the source for the architect? Are you telling me that is a suitable source? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference was already in article, so I've just added the link to that field. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is unfortunately that you continue misrepresenting facts even though everybody can check the diffs. Japanese names were in these articles already years ago. You just removed Russian names and moved articles to Japanese names. This is pure disruption, not even part of these edits was in any way useful. If you do not understand this, you must be blocked per WP:CIR. If you do, you should be blocked for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely some problematic edits — I just clicked the contribs at random and got this. Sorry, Ineedtostopforgetting, that does not inspire confidence and, if it's representative of your edits overall, isn't tenable. El_C 10:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought it seemed pretty obvious that the Navy of a sovereign country would have it's allegiance towards its head of state, and this is shown for other countries such as China, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. If so, what is the point of 'allegiance' in the military unit infobox then? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Communist Party of China is not the PRC's head of state. Anyway, this was explained to you here. El_C 10:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I let that matter rest and did not revert it back. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The point is that you are too quick to revert, even if you let the matter rest eventually. This sometimes reaches heights of absurdity (example). El_C 11:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to block users for being 'too quick to revert', a majority of users on Wikipedia would be blocked. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been warned multiple times before for disruptive editing and edit-warring, so it is about time for you. Other users can wait.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You know what, no matter how hard I try to defend myself, you're obviously still not going to change your opinion or judgement. It just ain't worth all the time and effort. If you wish to block me so badly, just get on with it already. It's not like there's anything I could do anyways. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, I don't believe Ineedtostopforgetting is being deliberately disruptive. I think there is some learning to go, and some experience to gain. Their habit of adding non-native names as native names in some articles needs to stop, but I don't believe that's a blocking offence unless they deliberately continue it. Their edits appear well intentioned. Maybe a mentor instead of an admonishment? Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, The user that you're defending, Calton, is currently edit warring, reverting my constructive edits and accusing me of removing 'material' despite the fact that if you compared the revisions, I was adding more information (with sources). What exactly have I done wrong here? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest people take a look at this user’s talk page history. They have been warned numerous times (once by me) for things like removal of content, edit warring, and POV. Their response is to immediately archive the warning - usually without comment, although this edit summary stands out and kind of reinforces the attitude you see in their comments here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, MelanieN, I've only been warned once, which is from you, and not 'numerous times' like you falsely stated. The rest were general notes. Also, I made my first archive on 20th March, after my talk page was created on the 21st January, 2 months prior. That is not 'immediately'. I then archived again on 5th June, a day after your warning. That is again not 'immediately'. Furthermore, is archiving supposed to be an issue here now? I think we have had enough allegations on this section as it is. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no further comment. Your talk page history speaks for itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have given Ineedtostopforgetting a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, including lying about the warnings on their talk page. If the disruption continues, the next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Update: Just to note that the user has continued his disruptive practices like repeatedly adding Japanese translations of names to articles where it is not justified [60], and has been blocked a second time by User:Cullen328. Let's not close this yet, since the issues with this user have not been not resolved. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That one is not even a 'translation' but just a Japanese transliteration of the English name Changi Jewel Airport(ジュエル チャンギ エアポート), of zero encyclopedic value. It's like glossing and article on the word 'Please' with pureezu just to get in a Japanese angle. Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No. We're not going to do this "Proposal 1", "Proposal 2", ...., "Proposal 10" thing again. Make one proposal that has a chance of passing, and don't stir up massive amounts of drama with the hope that admins will clean up after you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's make some decisions, shall we? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Proposal 1: Temporary ban/block per WP:CIR and/or WP:DISRUPTIVE Support, accused user is blatantly lying about "only being warned once" when their talk page history disapproves that theory. Multiple warnings have been issued, but to no avail. I feel like a temporary block is thus necessary right now. However, the ban should not be permanent as the accused user currently has a clean block log, and such edits would probably not warrant an instant indefinite block. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Proposal 2: Let the accused user go with a final stern warning Oppose, for reasons stated in my reply to proposal 1. Maybe place the accused user under some surveillance after their possible future block expires? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Proposal 3: Place the accused user under some form of surveillance so this would hopefully not happen again Support, and this would be even better if both proposal 1 and 3 are carried out simultaneously. Placing them under some form of surveillance would hopefully hinder any other bad edits, and it could make the accused user more competent. This could, in the end, lead to very good edits being made by the accused user. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 19:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

The behavior seems to be continuing his/her tendentious editing, this time at Singapore-related articles. (See [61] and [62].) Japanese is not even an official language in Singapore. I propose, therefore, that Ineedtostopforgetting be banned from adding, changing, or removing translations or foreign names in articles, and from making edits related to Obayashi Corporation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: - that's not Japanese in the second diff. That's Standard Chinese, spoken in Singapore. you got the wrong second diff. Its [63] starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am finding this a little confusing. Please clarify your concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof: My concern or Starship.paint's? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably a little of both. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof: - I had a misplaced concern because the wrong diff was linked. I provided the correct diff of the offending edit. starship.paint (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• support, I find it to hard to see any other option.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Retired"

• Note Ineedtostopforgetting has now retired. Adam9007 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And subsequently reinstated a seemingly contentious edit. Despite the right to leave, that smells like bad faith to me. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the self-admitted use of a sock while their main account was blocked: [64]. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

But their justification seems like a valid reason to do so per WP:SOCKLEGIT (lost password. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ineedtostopforgetting says he is retired when he is not. How does this deception work to his advantage? (I have come across this before and not in a good way) - Ret.Prof (talk)

• On June 23 the user said he is retiring from Wikipedia [65] - although note the unrepentant tone of his reason. And as noted he then immediately reinstated one of his controversial edits. I was going to suggest we close this discussion with no action - keeping an eye out to see if he returns, and if he resumes his disruptive activity. But now I'm not so sure. Should we let his supposed retirement render this discussion moot? Or proceed with the information we have? There were several people in this discussion calling for a block and others for a topic ban, but none of the suggestions seemed to generate a focused discussion or consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and when he was caught socking, he claimed he had forgotten the password to his main account - but somehow magically remembered it again after he got caught. I am less and less inclined to assume any good faith about this editor. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You've heard of WP:ANIFLU? Meet WP:ANIPOSSUM.

To my mind this kind of dishonesty warrants a block. Gaming ANI using "I am retired" is to often abused, and it is time it was stamped down upon.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you (blocks are a preventive, not punitive, measure; but saying "I am retired" to get away from facing a sticky wicket is surely WP:GAMING, and has been looked down upon in previous ArbCom cases) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed: Since he wants to 'retire' we should find an admin who will 'truly' retire him. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, Retired Professor. EEng 18:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Could you provide an example from the last six months of how Gaming ANI using "I am retired" is to [sic] often abused? Because lacking any further context for such a claim (I have been monitoring ANI for years and I think it is a relatively rare occurrence -- the "silent filibuster" and "TLDR filibuster" are much more common), it looks like a needless and out-of-nowhere pot-shot at me, not dissimilar to your accusing me of sockpuppetry last year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Not everything is about you, and no why 6 months why not a year or for ever? I am not going to engage with this de-rail any further.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC).

Umm ... because you said pretending to be retired was something that happened "to often"? I disagree that it happens often (the last unambiguous case of such abuse I can recall happened four years ago), and I think your bringing it up seems like a fairly blatant reference to me, like the one you have on your user page.

You were essentially the ringleader of the "Hijiri's only fake retired" movement back in January/February, even reviving your bogus sockpuppetry accusation. You've been doing this on and off for two years now, and it's gotten more intense since you hounded MPants off the site. It needs to stop.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: I actually saw another case of something quite similar (though not undermining a live ANI thread) just now. But as I said there's no live ANI thread, and I doubt SS would say it counts anyway, since actions taken by our enemies are disruptive but the same actions when taken by our friends are fine.[66] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

All of the above about my actions are off topic and shoudl be hatted, we are not disusing me (or any other edd) we are discussing the subject of this ANI and THEIR actions alone.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't attack someone out of the blue (dozens of times, over several years) then when the person shows up and calls you out for doing so refer to said calling out as "off-topic". Your shoehorning in a reference to me was what was off-topic. Your failure to name even a single incidence of the "problem" you described as endemic makes it obvious you were talking specifically about me and didn't want to say so. Knock it off. The closest thing I have to a connection to this thread's content is that I live in Japan and Abe and Putin were talking about the Kurils this week. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that if someone edits after they have put a retired template on their page, the template should be forcibly removed. I don't think they should be blocked if they come back and are constructive, but any amount of editing and the Retired template are not compatible. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If done in the normal course of events fine, but if it is done during an ANI...Sorry but such retirements should be enforced.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• As far as retirements go, the elephant in the room is that we currently have an ex-arb member and ex-admin who has made nearly twice as many edits in the ~three weeks since retiring as they made in the ~three weeks prior. I'm not judging it one way or the other: but with that as a (ongoing) precedent, all of yous'll have a hard time in sanctioning anyone else for doing the same thing. ——SerialNumber54129 10:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there ought to be anything sanctionable about putting a banner on one's user page – but I reserve the right to interpret "retiring" and continuing to comment in contentious places as nothing more than a dummy spit. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Fine; but in the example I provided above, the editor hasn't made a singe of those edits no articlespace since retiring, and, indeed, is solely focussed on WP:FRAMBAN-issues. Again, I make to judgement as to whether this is good or bad, right or wrong; but presumably a "contentious area"...? ——SerialNumber54129

• If I was feeling mischievous I’d say the user in question has decided they are no longer here to build an encyclopaedia. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe but its also irrelevance they are the the subject of this ANI. But I agree its hard to sanction a proles for what his betters are doing. But my basic point stands, retirement notices should now be treated as meaningless when it comes to ANI. "but he's retired now" should never be a justification for no action or closing an report.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Having a "retired" notice has nothing to do with ANI. It is irrelevant.

However, OTOH, telling ANI that you are going to retire from Wikipedia gets rid of the need to address the merits of the complaint, and should be treated as binding. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Except its not, and its never going to be. But all of this is a discussion for another place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2019 (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.

Continued edit warring

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.

---

Vjmlhds had been blocked on 10 separate occasions for edit warring, and each time it has been on the page List of WWE personnel.

Two weeks ago this user made an edit on this page [67] basically saying "because X happened Y must happen." Both myself and another user explained to them that this is WP:OR [68]. I pointed out to them that not only had two people mentioned it on their talk page, they have been reverted by others for the same thing before. In addition I pointed out to them a previous discussion when the same thing happened, that they were clearly aware of because they participated [69], and that discussion went against what they claim always happens. Rather than actually discussing why they felt we were incorrect or actually trying to have a policy based discussion they claimed its always been done that way, and then claimed the discussion was WP:Harassment.

Once again this user made the same type of edit today using the same argument [70]. I reverted this user and reminder them of the discussion [71], however they reverted me saying that its how it is and if I revert again I will be blocked [72]. They also then left me a message on my talk page saying I am being a disruptive editor [73] and reiterated their OR stance.

It is very clear based on the discussion I linked to, the conversation on their talk page, and others reverting them, that this user is editing against consensus and with OR. The user appears to have a WP:OWN mind set to me, and is clearly not here to be a collaborative editor. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Really? Dude, YOU are the one engaged in an edit war. I did nothing different than what has been standard procedure for a decade in that champions automatically go on the roster. When you don't get your way, you throw a hissy fit and do these lame, "revenge porn" ANIs. This act is getting old and you SERIOUSLY gotta get a grip and chill out. You wonder why other editors mock you (and you know whom I'm referring to), it's because of crap like this. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As has been explained to you "because X happens automatically Y must happen" is OR. Its not revenge and its not about chilling out. It is about your blatant disregard for policy and consensus. I have provided you with discussions that go against your stance and multiple editors who have disagreed with you in other ways, but you think you know better than others and policies. I am not even the person who brought this issue to your talk page in the first place. Your response here very clearly shows you are unwilling to listen to what people tell you. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: If your personal attacks in this thread are an example of what other users have to put up with, It bodes badly for you.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest you both stop editing this content. You are both edit warring over it. Please go up the WP:dispute resolution ladder. I'd suggest starting with an WP:RfC to decide the matter. You've both been here long enough to know how to do that.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Only one disputing anything is Galatz, and I made no personal attacks against him - no threats, no religious/sexual/religious slurs, nor even did I call him any names...just said this whole ANI exercise was lame and stupid, because this is what he does when he doesn't get his way. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: There already was a discussion on this same situation and this user conceded during that discussion [74]. This is discussion is no different, they used the same "because X happened Y must happen" argument in that discussion, therefore I do not believe dispute resolution is the correct place, since there has been a conversation about this on the articles talk page and a consensus was reached, that this user "could live with". I intentionally came here rather than edit warring. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Comments like your Only one disputing anything is Galatz just further my points that you are not here to be collaborative. You are disputing what I am saying, how do you not see that? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

((ec)) :::Well, Vjmlhds, if you don't recognize the above for what it is. Casting aspersions is a better description, I suppose. This is not a faculty lunch room nor a grade school playground. I suggest you stop bickering and get on with dispute resolution. Galatz, I don't see the linked discussion settling the present matter. Hold another RfC or whatever, please.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one bickering. Galatz didn't like something I did, so he ran here. All I'm doing is defending myself. Collaborating does not mean rolling over and playing dead just because somebody has an issue with me. Just because Galatz says something, I have to automatically bow down to him? Vjmlhds (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dlohcierekim: Although I disagree that it doesn't show it settling the matter, I have opened a RFC on the talk page [75]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I suggest you self-reflect and read what you have written above. You have mentioned only one party was disputing something and only one side was edit warring. Both of those things require two parties to be involved, but you don't recognize that you could possibly be in the wrong, so feel the other party is obviously the problem. Its that mind set that is the problem and why you are being brought here for probably the 20th time. You have been blocked 10 times and none of those times had anything to do with me, yet somehow you think I am the problem. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You are the only one who brings me here (especially since I've been back from my 4 1/2 month forced sabbatical 2 years ago) - you are the one who goes to these extremes when I just don't roll over and give you your way...last time I checked you weren't God, therefore you are neither perfect, all powerful, nor always right. Maybe YOU need a little self reflection, and think about the fact that no one died and made you my personal hall monitor. You are not now, nor will ever be better than me, so you need to knock off this holier-than-thou, condescending attitude that everything that comes out of your mouth is gospel, and I should just be subservient to your whims. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You need to stop this. Please discuss your desired content on the talk page, w/o addressing the other editor's finer qualities.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Vjmlhds for one month for disruptive editing which includes edit warring and the combative behavior on display in this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I did try to warn them. :(  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2019 (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.

LisaTaz

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.

---

Hello I would like to report LisaTaz for edit war and attempting to say that she knows Tony Kenning and wants the page to stay unredirected. She thinks she has a reason to unreidrect the page but the info on the page in on the Def Leppard page she thinks that we are the problem as me and @Pichpich: have no reason to redirect the page. She’s gotten to the point where I've reported her to AIAV and I was told to come here. Anyways hope you understand the situation. Thank You A.R.M. (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@ARMcgrath: COmpassionate and I have both notified the user of this discussion. It is required.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I gave her a COI welcome. It lloks like we are at the "D" phase of BRD.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2019

Actually, this looks like an LTA to me. I've requested CheckUser. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been pinged so let me just explain why I believe the page should be a redirect. The article that LisaTaz tries to revert to has only three sources and they're all problematic. The first is a fan page that can hardly be considered reliable (and the info given about Kenning is very very thin). The second is a book that mentions Kenning only in passing by noting that he was the one to suggest the unusual spelling of the band's name. (This anecdote, by the way, is also recounted on the Def Leppard article.) The third reference is to Kenning's LinkedIn profile which is obviously not an acceptable encyclopedic source. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently this was reported to just about every single noticeboard :D I saw this at WP:RFPP and blocked the sock. There's also an open SPI. ST47 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2019 (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.

Hello

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.

---

Hi I just wanted to say this IP user User:Joshq1234 is adding wrong information for Bigg Boss Telugu 1 and Bigg Boss Telugu 2 as you can see that in Bigg Boss we don't put full names or labels like 'Evicted' on the section 'Vote Count' but he is reverting them and doing sock edits lying saying its vandalism but its not. Please block for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.118.213 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

When you report someone at ANI, you are required to notify them of such via their talk page. I have fixed that oversight for you. That said, you can't just report someone at ANI, then go mention the issue on the article's talk page, and then revert his edit using an edit summary for the first time, and you especially cannot do that after having been reverted once in the past week. Also don't throw around accusations that you aren't prepared to defend (like sock puppetry) or blatantly lie at a noticeboard (you're the one adding a ton of data, and you're making the whole thing less readable in the process). These are all things that are likely to result in you being blocked instead of him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I missed all the problems you mentioned. Dif's please.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2019 (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:Gemofadeal and Gordon Mydland

User:Gemofadeal has been reverting my MOS edits to Gordon Mydland and refusing to discuss the actual concerns, or request a third opinion, instead just reverting and making accusations, even after two other users have attempted to address the same (or similar) issues and propose solutions. He has now taken to (admittedly silly) threats and the creation of an obvious sock/meat puppet. As this is not a content dispute (I haven't removed any content, just modified to comply with certain policies), I am requesting that someone intervene here, as my approach is clearly not effective. Canadian Paul 02:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I gave that editor a short block and a stiff warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As opposed to a short Bock and a stiff drink.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

One of my favorites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Serpentza keeps editing his own homepage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChinaYTwatch

This is probably Serpentza, he keeps making changes to his own account

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winston_Sterzel — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasmineWalker51 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@JasmineWalker51: I was in process of moving this to WP:COIN when I found that ChinaYTwatch has been CU blocked. So think we have nothing more to do here. Thanks for your notification. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, for future reference you are required to notify people on their talk page when bringing them here. Take a read of the header of this page for how to do so. Thanks. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Old account with odd activity

Listed for vandalism recently on AIV, 1 The editor in question had been blocked for personal attacks since 2010. After my reply there, I had a couple of posts from the nominator on my talk page: 2. Because we have an editor named Zzuuzz, so wouldn't the blocked account be a violation of user name? Could someone just remove the blocked account from visibility? — Maile (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: It looks like they were mostly Oversighted along with their edits; see Special:CentralAuth/Zzuuzz_murderer. I'll delete the talk page, which should resolve the current issue. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 07:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged

The attention of admins would be appreciated. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have now cleared most of the backlog. Thanks for letting us know that it needed attention. -- Ed (Edgar181) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

User Obsidian Soul is a Single-purpose account. He has strong nationalism interests. He only focused on Austronesian expansion or anything related to Filipinos. (Austronesian people may be the ancestors of Filipinos. Hence, these editions are actually same area. ) His editions tried to make every achievement belong to Austronesian people and every regions inhabited by Austronesian people. Currently, 79% of the edition in page Austronesian people was made by Obsidian Soul. See statistics: [76]. His editions made every crop originated from Austronesian and every region inhabited by Austronesian people. Check these editions: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.244.137.231 (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I need to defend myself against a WP:SPA accusation, my editing history speaks for itself. Austronesians are my current interest. My edits are all sourced to books and scientific journals. If you have problems with my additions, contest them with better sources. Being interested in the ancestors of my people (and 5% of the world's population) isn't "nationalism" either. Neither am I "making every achievement belong to Austronesian people". Only the ones which actually are. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of SPA, this is OP's only edit and only one of 3 in /22 range.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used for hate propaganda.

• Adding link to AfD HERE. And to the (renamed because of the obvious problem with the title) article. 2019 Hauz Qazi clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup, Malcolmxl5, and NinjaRoboPirate: I again request all administrators that some people are involved in hatred posts and propaganda oriented posts very much. They are continuously posting tweets and blame people as muslim extremists on wikipedia and all that. Here are some proofs.

This Harshil169 made the page with communal hatred ideology "Temple attack" but in reality it was a communal clash which worsten further on due to law n order issue. I have provided enough proofs to take proper measures as this is very bad practice and wikipedia is the one true source for the knowledge. We cant let this disrupt tge harmony and peace.

I request the respected moderators and administrators @Hugsyrup, Malcolmxl5, and NinjaRoboPirate: to curb such practice on wikipedia. This is not a place to spread communal hatred and to desrupt social harmony. I hope you all respected members will take proper decisions to prevent this from happening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: We have no control over Twitter, and linking individual editors to off-wiki accounts publicly is questionable at best. If you can provide dif link's for such edits, we can deal with them.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear - I am not an administrator or a moderator, (nor 'respected', I fear - but thank you). My only part in this is that I nominated an article for deletion that seems to have created a bit of a stir and which attracted some (possibly accidental) canvassing and a resulting flood of SPAs and IPs yesterday. I neither have, nor particularly want to have, any other involvement in whatever this dispute is. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The off wiki canvassingn at the AfD can be dealt with/  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be glad if more admins looked at what's going on here. It's confusing for someone who knows little about South Asian politics and WP:ARBIPA enforcement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:[87]

This is the diff. As I said thid article although a true local minor tiff incident but the intention to make it has clearly arised from propaganda mindset. First this article was made,no problem, then this article was tweeted by the writer saying if muslims get wikipedia pages, why cant we. (Clear propaganda). And he asked them to make account to make this article publsihed. We can leave this sockpupetting for now. But still there is lot of hate and communal agenda hidden behind. The article continuously use the terms like violent muslims, muslim extremists, muslim mob. And terms like attackin temples, hindu. Which clearly shows how the article was stitched to develop hatred between communities. A lot of people start editing. Fake news were getting edited by A lot of people who had started to make accounts. Check here[88] Then after removing a lot of hate content which is my duty regardless of any religion or thought, the author started alleging me for vandalism. I said to him with repsect in my every edit to use the proper sources. But he keep using propaganda site opIndia as source. You can check the status of this article in reliable sources WP:RS archive number 248. I kept telling him that this is propaganda site, but he keep citing this site and add all the fake news which are being spreaded by this site. So the problems are despite knowing that the sources are unreliable the writer keep editing and add the fake and unreliable hate news as a part of communal propaganda. The language of the article was made so as to fill hate in Indian society. Still conspiring and sockpupetting on twitter with other people but I guess that's outside wiki. So I want @Dlohcierekim: to curb such practices which are involved with filling hate in otherwise normal society as a lot of young youth in India is online amd this type of propaganda is very harmful for a good society. Thank you.

Good points. Apart from the AFD, which is fraught with SPA's, I wonder if this is an example of where an WP:OFFICE action might be needed. First we should let the AFD run. If it survives (it is NN) then we can remove problematic edits and even revdel them (or OS). This looks like why WP:ARBIPA exists, if anyone wants to go the DS route. I may boldly adjust the thing. Other community opinions will be valued.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This could also be an opportunity for the community to show we don't need the T&S to hold our hands.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, don't think that there's much needed here, right now.

In short, we have a right-wing Hindutva leaning Twitter/Quora celebrity (who got banned from the latter) editing over here and once he canvassed, his followers barged in. And in the process posted some disruptive stuff, which I've blanked.

He has been already warned of ACDS and Canvassing guidelines by NRP and I have (now) asked him to refrain from any sort of political-agenda-pushing. It appears that he is operating within the boundaries, at-least for now but shall stuff escalate, a DS TBan is a button away:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WBG. Just came from their and saw all your great work. The page is semi'd and cleaned up. Not sure if we need action against individual editors for the hate stuff. That would be beyond my scope, though someone should consider bring a case here.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks again. Maybe a NOTHERE block is in order.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Dlohcierekim: A lot of thanks to the adminstrators. I dont have any problem with the article as at present article is now in very good condition and well written. But I found the author still tried to elevate the issue by making unnecessary edits. But whatever still thanks to all of you...All of you.Edward Zigma (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive vandalism on Ivan Gundulić by IP 93.138.159.254

• Ivan Gundulić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 93.138.159.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have a situation here, even more so if we take in hand that this IP adress was persistent with vandalising Ivan Gundulić some two weeks ago. The IP even went so far to report me here without any arguments while insulting me at the same time (under Ivan Gundulic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Ivan_Gundulić). The admin protected the page from further edits for 2 weeks. As we can see now - it was of no use. I checked the IP via geolocate and it is the same area of HR in question. The current neutral stable version was a result of a big dicussion (here and on the TP both), dating back to 2014. I hope that this sort of disruptive unconstructive behaviour will be neutralised. Thank you. P.S: I was not able to inform the IP about this entry (no user's TP ofc), if somebody can tell me how to do it, I will be glad to do so. Mm.srb (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP address is stable, so just post the notice at User talk:93.138.159.254. I've done it for you. If the IP were dynamic, you would probably post at the talk page of the most recently used address, even though it would be futile. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Mm.srb, As an FYI, wikivisually is not a Wikimedia site, although they incorporate Wikipedia content. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure the link is just an error—it's not like one can edit WikiVisually directly, so the appearance of the content there proves it was once here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I changed the link in order to avoid any confusion. ty for the info Mm.srb (talk)

The explicit tagging of Gundulic's nationality as Croatian in the lead fits with some past edit warring on this topic. I've semiprotected the article due to the long-term abuse. See the article talk page for some past discussions. If this was a registered account instead of an IP, we would be alerting them to the WP:ARBMAC sanctions.EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Bold edit without consensus and reverts

User:AnAudLife feels as if the infobox of The Real Housewives of New York City article should be sorted a different way and they refuse to take this opinion to the article's talk page to achieve consensus. KyleJoan^talk 23:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Every time User:KyleJoan has changed my revisions, even though properly and correctly cited by myself with reference, I have explained fully the change on my talk page, answering her comments fully on my talk page. All conversations are visible and documented. AnAudLife (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@KyleJoan and AnAudLife: stop edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if we could handle this without anyone getting blocked. Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Other_exceptions notes that "Names with particles or prefixes are a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies." So it's not necessarily an open-and-shut case - you'll need to try to figure out this particular case. Let me look into it a little bit. Haukur (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know! I couldn't readily find information on what the actress herself prefers, which is what we would probably default to if we knew. The article Luann de Lesseps currently sorts her under L but a previous version had her under D. I'd suggest commenting on Talk:Luann de Lesseps and maybe someone there will know something. Until some good information turns up, try to avoid fighting over it - the wrong version will do no serious harm until we figure out what the right one is. Discuss it materially on the talk pages and avoid templated warnings. If you can't do this and keep on reverting the most likely result is you both being blocked. Haukur (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The French "de" used in the context of a proper name is "of" and is NOT considered a part of the proper surname "Lesseps" therefore F (Frankel) comes before L (Lesseps) in the alphabet. The page may be written in English, but the fact will always remain that Lesseps is the proper surname, French or English being equal or irrelevant, and should be alphabetized as such instead of by the PREPOSITION "de" meaning "of". See reference: https://www.bookcrossing.com/forum/12/360742 "If the prefix consists of an article or of a contraction of an article and a preposition, enter under the prefix: - La Bruyere, Rene - Des Granges, Charles-Marc Otherwise, enter under the part of the name following the preposition: - Musset, Alfred de - La Fontaine, Jean de." AnAudLife (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(sigh) I flunked French.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 07:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. The rules for shortening French surnames preceded by de are actually a lot more complex, e.g. it's not possible to shorten de Gaulle to Gaulle. What's more, those are not really rules of the French language, but rather rules for surnames in France. The same names may be treated differently in other countries. For example, de is often considered part of the surname in Belgium (which is about 60% Dutch-speaking, 50% French-speaking, and 1% German-speaking, including bilinguals), presumably because it is not always clear whether the de is the French preposition used as a nobiliary particle or the Dutch definite article used as a tussenvoegsel. — My guess is that neither nobiliary particles nor tussenvoegsels are part of the legal American naming system; both are considered part of the surname, aren't they? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• For those interested, User:AnAudLife has now started a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Alphabetization_of_Surnames_Containing_Prepositions_&_Articles. Enjoy! Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User 2001:D08:DB:C337:2195:E1CA:C9E4:78E1 (Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans)

2001:D08:DB:C337:2195:E1CA:C9E4:78E1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I'm sorry, but I'm using my name and annoying other users.
The attacked user is likely to be the same person. Gundam5447 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 2001:D08:D8::/46 for 2 weeks. Anon-only, and there's no recent collateral. In fact, this has been going on for a while, so I'm considering lengthening the block. ST47 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Unknown attack on me

• 2001:D08:1283:338E:1:0:2160:BFD8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:D08:182A:66D8:1:2:F69A:2DE8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:D08:1000:BD4E:1:1:871B:71D5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:D08:182A:4FB9:1:1:F6CC:4548 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:D08:1202:1738:1:0:4554:892C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It is five people who write incomprehensible to me.
Please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Note to admin: this is the same case as the above section. starship.paint (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

They are probably the same person, according to the WHOIS. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked these individually. Looks like heavy collateral damage if range block. Perhaps someone more experienced can find a way.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Expanded each to /64's, anon only.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: merging with the thread above. The blocks should be effective, don't hesitate to ping us if it starts again, a short protection on your talk page may be a deterrent. -- Luk ^talk 08:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@ST47 and Dlohcierekim: Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Malaysian IP with strange contribs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thnaks. I added a subtitle above. Looks like ST47 nailed the range in that report with this RB>  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Exploring the OP's contribs and those of the IPs, here's another couple, clearly the same editor, outside the range. Stale now, just for documentation:

• ‎2001:d08:100a:89fd::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1200:55e9::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This is an example of a new behavior, where the IP warns themself by copying from another talk page:

• 2001:D08:DB:CBBD:2195:E1CA:C9E4:78E1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These might be related:

• 39.2.252.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 14.192.215.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.152.162.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

At Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, there was a sequence of rapid edits by 5 different IPv6s in Rhode Island and Ontario (Canada) in April. Two months later, our Malaysian friend undid those 5 edits from 5 different IPv6s with the top 34 bits in common (2001:d08::0/34) in 5 minutes. Weird similar pattern, but different topic area and geography of reverted IPs:

• 2001:d08:1a03:c3cc::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1281:5a66::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:2100:752::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1200:ff2a::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1013:cf55::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

So, it seems that 2001:d08::0/34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) (or maybe even /32) is the correct range to search for relevant activity, though there would be collateral damage from blocking the full range.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Leeds Male Voice Choir

LeedsMusician, HistoryOfLeeds, LeedsHistorian, LeedsHistory, and LeedsMaleVoiceChoir are all different promotional usernames that have edited the article, LeedsMaleChoir being the user that created the article in November 2013. This seems like a massive conflict of interest to me. Clovermoss (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I will note that HistoryOfLeeds and LeedsHistory don't seem overtly promotional, and LeedsHistorian doesn't seem to be relevant, while Leedsmalevoicechoir received a username softblock back in 2013 and never edited again. (Although this should have been noted on the talk page, which I will fix momentarily.) LeedsMusician and LeedsSinger99, the two most recent ones, give me pause, but I'm not sure what to make of all of it. There's a discontinuity of several weeks to several years between each user, and no overlap. Are we looking at slow socking to try to avoid scrutiny, or does he just keep forgetting his passwords and creating a new account? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know what action I'm looking for, exactly. I'm just concerned that all of these articles have Leed in the title and only seem to be interested in editing this article. The article was created by Leedsmalevoicechoir, so I have some doubt about whether the article is even notable - and if it is, it's likely biased. Clovermoss (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you're correct, but you didn't report this to WP:SPI? It's better to start at SPI, just saying. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't recommend that. This is much more likely to be COI-meat, and ANI (or COIN) is a much better venue for determining if the editing is disruptive and merits sanctions than SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Seeing as it's a choir, I think it's more likely to be about paid or promotional editing. I'm not sure SPI is the best place, COIN would probably be better if this was moved. A lot of the edits are marked as minor, some of them remove wikilinks, some remove references, other's change the link. I can link specific diffs to some of the more problematic edits if it helps. Clovermoss (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Bbb23 Yeah, you're right. But I don't really see any disruptive editing or abuse of multiple accounts. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Neither do I. Are there any recent edits that are actually a problem? I understand our COI guidelines, but it's understandable that an article about a notable organization would draw some editors from within the organization. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Without actually checking the cited sources, a scan of their titles seems to indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG and fails WP:NONPROFIT (assuming this choir is, in fact, non-profit). There seems to be some debate within the community recently as to whether subject-specific notability guidelines modify or simply aid in interpreting the GNG, so this could result in some interesting debate at AfD, if anyone wants to go that route. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
      • It is registered charity #1159299 according to a government list. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are some diffs.

• [89] This edit removes an edit to the Yorkshire Reporter and removed details of other choirs, was marked as a minor edit with an edit summary of "Poor grammar"
• [90] This edit removes wikilinks to musical directors and is also marked as a minor edit.
• [91] This edit adds an external link to the choir's website.
• [92] This edit removed a whole paragraph of information. It's cited from their own website, but there's a lot of edits like these. There seems to be a years-long effort by various editors with Leed in their usernames to update the choir's current activities and remove anything that's an older event. To me, this gives the impression that this could be about maintaining PR. There's also a lot of focus on the choir's charity work, which again, seems more advertising-related than encyclopedic. To be fair, these edits go from newest to oldest and a lot of these are slight changes that accumulate. I still think it's worth looking into though, since there's been a very similar editing pattern like this since the article was created in 2013. Clovermoss (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• As an aside, I note that apart from the Daily Telegraph (and YouTube), all the sources are local in nature, i.e. Yorkshire. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

These are not the only edits made, either. As I said, a lot of the edits are small and are updates of that are related to the recent events of the choir. Those diffs are a very small sample, since there has been 45 edits by LeedsHistory, 21 by Leedsmalechoir, 14 by Leedsmusician and 5 by LeedsHistorian. Clovermoss (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: That's true, all the independant sources are local. The choir's website is also cited frequently throughout the history of the article's changes. Clovermoss (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Malcolmxl5 Didn't ping you right the first time. Clovermoss (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I mention it because local coverage is not usually enough to demonstrate notability though that is a question to be tested by WP:BEFORE and at WP:AfD, and is not related to any COI issues. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have warned the two most recent possible UPE users about the COI guidelines, and have tagged the article. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I found even more possible UPE users: Rpb2012, RichardAtTheSeedHouse, RichardLMVC, and Lazzer185. Some of them have already been banned, none of them are active anymore. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec)I don't think we need to worry about blocked, inactive editors from years ago. This isn't exactly urgent disruption and probably should be taken to COIN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Liz: Just a quick note: LeedsMusician edited the article today. It was the only reason I started looking through the page history in the first place. That said, I don't mind this being taken to COIN, or whatever else people agree is best. I just thought that what I saw might be an issue, so I posted on here. Clovermoss (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hanlon's Razor applies. Consider this "Poor grammar" edit, for example. From the viewpoint of the (slightly inept) editor it really was a grammar fix. Look at what the article said in the previous revision:

The choir's divergence from the traditional male voice repertoire was highlighted in a new recording in 2015. and the Hollywood Heroes concert in June, celebrating legendary leading men from the movies to a sell out audience at Morley Town Hall with the Phoenix Concert Band.

The second part is gibberish, a sentence fragment with no main verb. Removing that happened to remove the supporting source citation at the end of the sentence fragment. To you and me, experienced in the ways of wikitext, it removed a citation. To the editor concentrating upon the rendered article, it corrected ungrammatical rubbish by removing it.

It was another of these accounts that mucked up that sentence in the first place, almost exactly a year earlier.

Similarly, the edit that removes wikilinks to musical directors has been misrepresented by Clovermoss above. In the immediately preceding edit that same person had, a mere 9 minutes before just added that list. Clearly, what actually happened is that the editor added the list, and noticed after saving that the bluelinked John Hickes, Unknown (sic!), John Wheeler, David Burnett, Michael Grant, and Tim Knight were not the people that were meant. You or I might have determined which truly needed to be redlinked and added some disambiguators accordingly, definitely de-linking "Unknown" (and possibly not even linking it in the first place ☺). The editor who clearly is less experienced than us, simply removed all the linking.

Clovermoss' aforegiven description of this edit is also a misrepresentation. Far from removing "a whole paragraph of information", it removes nothing at all, and merely breaks one paragraph in twain, in fact adding a sentence at the same time.

Uncle G (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Interestingly, xe did attempt to create Draft:Tim Knight (Composer/ Choral Director). Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Uncle G: I did want to mention that I did read what you wrote and thought a bit about it. I'm not the best person to ask about whether or not I'm misrepresenting things and I welcome commentary on other perspectives, because obviously I'm biased towards my own perception. I don't disagree that these are mistakes that could have been made by someone who is unfamilar editing Wikipedia. I think the razor has an applicable context in the assumption of good faith. It's also possible that maybe this choir just has a really enthuisatic fanbase. I realize that there are other possibilities and implications than the ones I've arrived at, though I do remain skeptical and concerned about other things I've already mentioned in this thread. Clovermoss (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am fairly certain that this is someone unfamiliar with editing. And the idea that a charity in the North of England that (according to a news report that I just read) almost collapsed for lack of volunteers and charitable income in 2011 is employing a PR company does make me laugh. I don't want to go into details. But the (I shall just say) blindingly obvious conclusion that I have formed is that volunteers who volunteer for a charity in the U.K. have come to a project run by charity in the U.S. to write about their U.K. charity. So yes, they have a conflict of interest, but as far as I can see it is not in order to line their own pockets. (And their charity claims the goal of promoting education, too.) So go just a little easier on the people who clearly are not sockpuppeeteering, aren't vote-stacking, aren't edit warring, and don't know how to use MediaWiki as well as we do, including especially the "preview" button, and beware of baffling them with WP:OMGWTFBBQ bafflegab and looking like robots who deliver boilerplate. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Salute to America

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.

---

Pretty obvious WP:NOTHERE by Cklsldkfiwr. Article needs to be semi'd to prevent further edit-warring. Cards84664 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:36, 5 July 2019 (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.

NOTHERE and DUCK

• KindnessAndFond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CleoWatson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antananarivo stampede (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see pornographic vandalism on this website. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 09:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if those edits could be revdel'd, as they are disruptive enough. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 09:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Also: SamwanLaikYu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

All the users have been blocked, the edits have been hidden, and the image on Commons has been deleted. If the problem returns with new users and new image, please immediately re-report here or at AIV. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting two more socks: MarkoVanBeaten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the already-blocked DeclanCorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive anon 82.132.244.0/22 revisited, now as 82.132.236.0/22

See archived link at wp:ANI: [93]

After their 72 hours block by user Georgewilliamherbert on 20 June 2019, they continued as

• ‎82.132.245.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 25 June 2019 with [94], [95]
• ‎82.132.238.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 3 July 2019 with [96], [97]

Same article, same M.O., same person, clearly solliciting a (longer term) range block. Prepare for the next range. DVdm (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anon Blocked 82.132.245.64/26 and 82.132.238.21  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Thx. - DVdm (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim and Georgewilliamherbert: Here's the next range 82.132.224.0/22 already:

• 82.132.225.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with [98] and [99]

Block evasion with more pointless math edits from range by same person. - DVdm (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is like swatting the mosquitoes on my lanai. Anyone got ssome off. Are these pages SP'd? Should they be? Or PC'd?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an RB BBQ. Happy 4th, y'all.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Betsy Ross flag

Can this page please get some administrative overview, constant edit warring the last couple of days, 3RR violations, etc. going against what seems a talk page consensus. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lot of IPs editing on American Independence Day. I think a WP:SEMI will solve the issue fast. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Only partially, per the history and talk page. Needs some constant admin oversite (the page is getting over a hundred and fifty thousand views a day). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I fully protected it for two days. It can be downgraded to ECP or semi if people settle down and stop reverting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Constant disruptive editing

DusanSilniVujovic (talk · contribs) keeps changing Yugoslavia records/medals to Serbia. The user has been reverted in every article, but still keeps doing that. Mostly recently concerning water polo competitions, while several discussions have been held (e.g), the user still refuses to understand and keeps mispresenting a source claiming "FINA considers Serbia to be the inheritor of the records of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro." Anyone actually reading that source will see there is no such thing written. There are no sources out there to back that claim. The user has done similar edits to basketball pages - all reverted and the user warned. DusanSilniVujovic is vandalism-only account. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

talk only vandalist here is you. The medal table below lists the national teams according to the respective table published by FINA, page 14 and 15, and this is my creation on medal table by Water polo at the World Aquatics Championships. DusanSilniVujovic (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You can't claim that you own your edits on the table. That would violate WP:OWN. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 13:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Nationalist WP:SYNTH is the most annoying type of WP:SYNTH - the source says that Serbia was previously part of Yugoslavia and refers back to the YUG abbreviation for records prior to the existence of Serbia as an independent country. Saying that means that Serbia specifically, as opposed to any of the other former Yugoslav republics, inherited those records is a NO. That said, this is a content dispute and probably a waste of everybody's time. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You can say that it is a NO, which is okay (it is not matter of personal opinion), but according to International Olympic committee Serbia is the successor of Yugoslav team and all of its medals. Mm.srb (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well that's definitely not true [100] [101]. And in this case we're not talking about Olympics - where we have a clear consensus to keep them separated from Serbia anyway. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no agenda here and I personally care little about sports, but even Croatian sources are saying this (while calling it injustice). Serbia counts Yugoslav medals the same way Russia counts the medals won as Soviet Union. I could be wrong, but I doubt that the medals are shared or divided by all 6 modern-day countries. I can post links in our language but you would not understand the text. Mm.srb (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Cantonese again

I raised the behaviour of Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on the Cantonese article in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Reference falsification at Cantonese, namely attempting to replace a sourced population figure without providing a reliable source. The page was temporarily extended confirmed projected, and some editors offered advice at User talk:Jaywu2000. However, the protection has expired, and Jaywu2000 has resumed forcing his/her change, ignoring attempts to discuss the issue. I would like it to stop. Kanguole 22:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Cantonese is on my watchlist as well and Jaywu2000 is popping up way too much with their edit warring. They're still very new and may not be familiar with norms here but failing to listen and continuing to edit war, when so many editors have offered advice, is disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

+1. Jaywu2000 seems to be on a mission. Their 20+ edits to Cantonese (plus a few to Yue Chinese and one to List of languages by total number of speakers) were all about raising the number of Cantonese speakers, but they failed to provide a source that is reliable and for Cantonese proper, despite users telling them again and again to discuss this on the article's talk page. See User talk:Jaywu2000, Talk:Cantonese#Number of speakers, as well as the article's revision history. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jaywu2000's most recent edits: changing the number of Yue Chinese speakers to 130 million in article Yue Chinese and to 80 million on Chinese language. How flexible they are with figures! Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

On Hong Kong Film Award, Jaywu2000 changed the language parameter from "Mandarin/English" to "Cantonese" without providing a source. Although the statement was already unsourced, this is in line with the user's current trend of disruption because it exaggerates the frequency of the Cantonese language. Considering that the user has made a single edit unrelated to Cantonese (save one about Yue Chinese, which is also called Cantonese), we should proceed with a temporary block (which has not been tried on this user) and/or a topic ban from Cantonese. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point, Jaywu2000 is behaving little more as a SPA and widening their area of disruption. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moneyspender&oldid=904841565 WP:PA not being WP:Civil and name calling/ verbal abuseMoneyspender (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Really dude?? Personal attacks?? Where when how? Just let it go please There had been a discussion on the page and other editors agree with me So? What did i name call u? Please?? Relax!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You said "Ok so u are biased islamophobic arabophobic" all because I disagreed with you you did a wp:personalattack. Btw, I am very pro-Arab and very pro-Islam. That is inapropriate. Being a keyboard warrior does not get your point heard any more clearly and is disruptive and rude. Please apologize. Moneyspender (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a terrible rant, Adam. Work on being civil. And learn to spell. 2600:100F:B11E:E9B3:4BB:E524:946C:D505 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Moneyspender: I've added some links to documentation about how to collect diffs. To allow any administrator to consider your complaint, we would need to see specific diffs of what you are complaining about. I looked at the page you linked to, and no personal attack immediately jumps off the page at me. I think a good course of action for you would be to disengage from whatever dispute you have with this editor and go edit some other page. Of course, you are free to come back here with diffs that actually violate WP:NPA, if those diffs exist. I'll leave this thread open for now.Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• This looks highly problematic to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The user doesn't seem to have that strong a command of English. It's hard for me to understand what they are getting at, but if you see the need, by all means please take care of it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

My guess is a warning would suffice. In any event I am not an admin so further action is not within my authority. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You pass the first test of becoming an admin. 😜 Please give the user advice to be more polite and to avoid personal attacks. Since no block is needed, you can take care of it yourself, and then close this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 04:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You could regain your administrative powers quite easily, Ad Orientem, just by asking. Please consider doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: i have perfect mastery of the English language, sorry just sometimes the key board play its tricks on me.

@2600:100F:B11E:E9B3:4BB:E524:946C:D505: @Ad Orientem: i apologize if i u think i was uncivil. This wont happen again but if u check the talk page the LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates u will get it more. But anyway sorry for that. @Moneyspender: first i have to say i didn't call u anynames or bad things and if u think i did then i'm so sorry Again there is no conflict the law of the UAE is the law and i'm an Arab so i can read Arabic. The ILGA doirce is not biased there have been no excutions because of homosexuality ever in Mauretania or UAE or Qatar This wikipedia needs to highlight to maintain neutral and to the point. Many other users agreed with me and i'm sure if i bring others into that discussion they would too. So again i'm so sorry if u were hurt in anyway that was not my intention and please try to stick to the facts and to bigtime reliable sources. Sorry again. Ok!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Moneyspender: there’s an apology above. Do you accept it and can we close this thread? Jehochman ^Talk 10:40, 5 July 2019 (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 accept. Thank you. Moneyspender (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic IP causing problems at South African farm attacks

The dynamic ip 2804:14C:5BA9:8156:DDA3:79CC:7186:3F99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps inserting incendiary material in Wikipedia's voice into this flashpoint article. It's clear WP:SYNTH but I don't want to look like I'm edit-warring trying to keep it out. No edit summary or discussion from the IP after reverts, of course. Admin attention appreciated. Autoconfirmed protection would probably not be remiss either. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Also it looks like the IP user has broken WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked 2804:14C:5BA9:8156::/64 for edit warring against multiple editors and POV pushing at South African farm attacks. This user already has a 24 hour block for the same reason in their log so I’ve upped to 60 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning - breaking Archive URLs

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.

---

Moved to WP:BOTN

See: Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#User:KolbertBot_is_malfunctioning_-_breaking_Archive_URLs — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 6 July 2019 (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.

Beyond My Ken

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.

---

BMK has been blocked 11 times for EW. After I reported a 3RR violation today, AN3 declined to block for an extended period of time (or even 24 hours, because I reported EW 15 hours after the incident) so I am asking here for a long-term remedy. wumbolo ^^^ 16:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe you should tell editors here that you don't have a clean sheet either, having been blocked twice for edit-warring so far this year, with the latest block being for a week (a length of block that usually means there had been some severe edit-warring...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Considering that Wumbolo was blocked twice in the last three months for edit warring the phrase concerning "glass houses" may be relevant. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: it is not forum shopping because it is a chronic problem that was not addressed at all at AN3. Wikipedia is not a glass house so I don't shy from criticism. wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 6 July 2019 (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 Hyde1979

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.

---

• Hyde1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User_Hyde1979

Continuing edit-wars that resulted in past blocks. Since last block:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive391#User:Hyde1979_reported_by_User:Ronz_(Result:_Stale)
• [102] --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• comment [[103] changed DOB to one not supported by cite source.] @Hyde1979: Care to explain? As this has been slow mo edit warring I am inclined to block for 2 weeks or a month, just to give others some rest.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 00:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Like the last time Hyde1979 was blocked, Hyde1979 has reverted it once again [104] --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked for two weeks, but was seriously tempted by an indef. This user has apparently never discovered their own talk page, despite a number of comments there and a swiftly lengthening block log. In fact they've never edited outside of mainspace. If this doesn't draw a response, I think indef is the next step. GoldenRing (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2019 (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.

Unsourced additions (Michaelgabrielo)

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

This user has been a constant problem when it comes to adding unsourced content (usually their own interpretations and speculation) to articles, as well as regularly removing 500-1000 bytes of sourced content without explaining why. This started in February and March with warnings for edits for removing content and unsourced content/WP:OR. They were blocked for a week, see here. After the block they left this message. They recieved a warning for removing content again in May and then blocked again the following day, this time for 72 hours [105]. However that did not help. In this edit and this one this month, they added unsourced content and after that on Chad Gable (diff) they added "Originally a heel [villain] tag team, their fighting spirit, and resiliency against their larger opponents won them many fans and began a gradual face [good guy] turn". This is entirely their own personal analysis of a storyline. They also removed around 800 bytes of content in the same edit without reason. For this they recieved a final warning again. Then today in this edit they changed a tag team's article to say they were now disbanded. They gave no source for their change, again just their personal analysis of what is going on. I searched online for a reliable source saying this and could not find one. This was also in disregard of a hidden note placed in the article for this reason. I have left multipe messages including in my own words and nothing helps. Refuses to respond to 90% of messages. StaticVapor message me! 08:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have a belief they are connected to User: Kingofcruiserweight (similar editing style of removing content with no explanation) or some other account with the whole "blockapedia" and this repeatedly mentioning they are a new user. Either way, this is a problem editor and it needs to stop. StaticVapor message me! 08:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

StaticVapor - If this is the case, please file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and link me to the SPI report when you've done this so that I can take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wrestling. Again. EEng 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• @EEng: Yeah I don't know why there so many disruptive editors in this topic area. Expect me reporting anyone else causing disruption. StaticVapor message me! 04:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: @Spencer: Hoping for some administrator response here. Tagging the previous blocking admins. I am looking for some comments, I do not want this to just go stale after I typed this all up and notified the user. StaticVapor message me! 19:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Michaelgabrielo hasn't made any significant edits for the last few days. I'd like for us to give Michaelgabrielo the opportunity to come here and respond. Looking at their response to the ANI notice that was left on their user talk page, I agree that the edit he refers to here seems perfectly fine, as he was only moving existing content to other places on the article. I do see that a reference was removed in Michaelgabrielo's edit here, but it was simply citing the fact that his name and birthdate are supported by a source. That's easily fixed... in fact, here you go, I fixed it for you. It took me but 20 seconds to do. :-) I'll take a deeper look into the complaint here and the diffs provided, but edits made to articles like the two that I addressed here don't seem to be anything other than good faith attempts to improve the project. In fact, it's considered best practice to not cite anything within the lead section of an article, because the lead section is supposed to summarize the content in the body of the article, which should without-a-doubt cite those same references in-line somewhere if done correctly. So I wouldn't really call the removal of those references a mistake at all... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry @Oshwah:, you must have misunderstood me. In the two diffs I provided to Homicide (wrestler) and Eddie Kingston, the user added: They later became known as The OGz. At the Bound for Glory on October 14, The OGz lost to LAX in a Concrete Jungle Death match. After several weeks, Homicide/Kingston moved to alumni section. Without citations both times. The part that would definitely need sourcing is that they were moved to the alumni section. This indicates that they were no longer with the company. If we're changing what company people work for, it is a BLP violation without sourcing. Also refer to the diffs related to The Bludgeon Brothers and Chad Gable where they are making unsourced (incorrect changes in these cases). I am past assuming good faith since they have been warned and blocked multiple times, without making any changes to their editing style. Disappearing for a few days (probably to a new account again), does not make their edits okay and no longer punishable. StaticVapor message me! 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

StaticVapor - See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonyjenkins450. I have suspicions that there might be more to this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for dedicating time to this @Oshwah:. StaticVapor message me! 04:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

StaticVapor - You bet. :-) A CU has investigated the report I filed, and (while sock puppetry involving two different masters was uncovered) Michaelgabrielo was determined to be unrelated to the account I suspected and any accounts that the CU uncovered. It doesn't appear that Michaelgabrielo has edited since the time I looked and found previously. Perhaps a custom final warning for the repeated addition of unsourced content may be in order? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would like any additional warning to come from some else, since the majority have come from me. This way it isn't just me that sees problems with the edits. I also see a problem with the WP:ANI flu and not addressing the concerns at all. They just act like I'm rude or out to get them. Sucks this went stale and didn't get much response, I have wanted to start a thread for awhile on this user. @Oshwah: pinging you just so you did not miss the response, but this is more a general statement if anyone that was not seen this stumbles by. StaticVapor message me! 04:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on Ivan Gundulić by Mm.srb

• Ivan Gundulić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

After EdJohnston edited the page and closed for editing, Serbian propaganda again wrote lies about that Croatian poet by the user Mm.srb. Please remove this user from editing wikipedias. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gunduli%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Gunduli%C4%87&action=history He is a Croatian poet here can read [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-Gundulic or here http://www.library.yale.edu/slavic/croatia/literature/literature.html and that is all user Mm.srb deleted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.0.2 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You are required to notify the other editor when you make a complaint here. I've done so for you. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Please return to previous editing by users EdJohnston, and user Mm.srb give sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.0.2 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear spin. There is an ongoing report and a discussion of the IP who is constantly vandalising the page and ignoring the rules which were politely given by admins and other fellow editors. The article is protected due to constant vandalism. I have provided new sources. This subject was a matter of debate in 2014 and the current version was a stable one and a compromise, all per NPOV. The IP is unable to talk calmly and understand that those edits are not made in order to bash any nation or culture (which is the general idea behing the vandalism and lack of good faith). ty Mm.srb (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not spin. He put two sources to prove that he was a Croatian poet, and you erased it.They need to go back to their previous state, not yours.I hope someone will change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiooio (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There was one source posted, after the IP deleted the previous version without argumentation and started campaign of constant vandalisation. Mm.srb (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Ivan Gundulić article is a frequent target for nationalist edit warring. Gundulić was a Baroque poet who lived in the Republic of Ragusa, a region which is nowadays part of the territory of Croatia. In 1600 when Gundulic was alive, Ragusa wasn't part of Croatia, but people people keep trying to make him either Croatian or Serbian in the lead. Here are some past discussions of that article on admin boards:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#User:Ragusino, part #3
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive146#Ivan Štambuk
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Ivan Gundulić

("Gundulic remains treated as a Serbian writer by Serbian sources", per User:Slovenski Volk)

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Ivan Gundulić ‎
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Arbitration enforcement appeal by Ivan Štambuk
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive302#User:77.105.63.244 reported by User:Eteethan (Result: semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Ivan Gundulić
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repetitive vandalism on Ivan Gundulić by IP 93.138.159.254

For reference, the 1911 Britannica calls Gundulić a Servian poet, the current Britannica says he is a Croatian poet, and our current Wikipedia article says he is 'the most prominent Baroque poet from the Republic of Ragusa.' At present our article does not say he is either Serbian or Croatian. Though I suppose we could mention the rival claims on his nationality. E.g. the Serbian Academy of Science does lay a blanket claim to 'the old Ragusan writers', a group which includes him. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well put; that whole dispute is sourced and explained in one paragraph on the same article (Ethnicity). Mm.srb (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What you write is a great Serbian mythomania that has nothing to do with the truth.Gundulić is a Croatian poet who has nothing to do with Serbia, which can be read in the post by Ivan Gundulić, where is nothing about Serbia is only written about Croatia. If you continue to edit other posts as this will surely ban you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiooio (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism from a Welsh government source

Contributions from 159.86.182.0/17[106] are basically, at least the recent ones I checked, all vandalism. This[107] is the owner of the range, "The Public Sector Network for Wales." I guess it might be just one school. I'd like someone with more expertise to suggest what to do. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

PSBA says its network aggregates connectivity for "local health boards, local authorities, higher and further education, emergency services and other public sector organisations", and includes "over 1500 schools". If that's really 1500 schools plus FE colleges, public libraries, hospitals, and public wifi in various public buildings, then that amount is vandalism is really very low. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So I think we should treat each IP as an individual instutition, and apply WP:SCHOOLBLOCK topically as required. Only if there were evidence of more concerted action, or serious political edits specific to the Welsh government (giving us WP:SIP concerns) would there be more to do. I don't see much of either in that range. All I see is the usual minor vandalism typical of schools - school or local articles themselves, topics relevant to the school curriculum, and pop culture things of interest to younger people. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Per others, looks like pretty run-of-the-mill lunchtime in the Welsh school system (why are the Welsh particularly prone to this?). But note that WHOIS says the network is 159.86.128.0/18, not /17. GoldenRing (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"(why are the Welsh particularly prone to this?)"? Perhaps the computer and mobile phone are a novelty after so many years of using a slate and abacus? Just wait until they learn English properly.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As a Welshman I understood enough of that to know you are being mean. Arogli fy ngwaelod, mochyn saes! Fish+Karate 10:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Commenting here as somebody who started his Wikipedia career as a schoolboy bored lunchtime vandal (in England)... GiantSnowman 15:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoever might use it, actual usage is mainly childish vandalism, such as this. Suggest a brief range block, but still permit account creation. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

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.

---

Could we have someone deal with it, please? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:16, 6 July 2019 (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:Superfriend223 calling editors racists

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 User talk:Superfriend223#WP:NOTAFORUM they reply to a 7 month old post from User:Kautilya3 with

"It seems like your policies just exist to hide your racist contributors and racist policies to shout out all those who provide credible challenges. I see you've done nothing about Joshua Jonathon who uses OLDER articles with no scientific data to "discredit" newer scientific papers on the Indo-Aryan migration talk page. You're just a bunch of racists, that's why his hateful views go unchallenged and don't get any shred of scrutiny. your bigoted racists."

At an article talk page[108] they posted this morning:" I don't expect any changes since it seems whatever is said by one-side is seen as far-right bigotry and none of you give a damn about the facts or are willing to change your minds from your preconceived, racist views. Oh, and by the way, the IndiaTV rebuttal makes no sense as Tony Joseph is literally arguing that he believes in the Indo-Aryan invasion because he has no evidence. It seems Joshua Jonathan repeatedly posts news sources that have no scientific value, claim Hindutva is the boogeyman, and uses politically charged language to ridicule other political groups while claiming to be objective with their own political biases. As in typical racist fashion. Superfriend223 (talk) 5:23 am, Today (UTC+1)" That was a reply to a post from March. The main target seems to be User:Joshua Jonathan. I could block and just might later on but perhaps someone can persuade them to stop. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks for the concerns. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I have given Superfriend223 a 72 hour block for these severe personal attacks on other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 6 July 2019 (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.

Obvious sock

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.

---

Hi. Please can I request that Criclover58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked as an obvious sock of Nainanike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Nainanike was blocked by GoldenRing, following a long-term period of harassment/stalking of me on WP. Criclover58 is a sporadic editor, but is trying to evade their block with this other account.

Their first edit was to ask another editor (who I work with closely) to change the tense of a paragraph in a cricket article. This was something Nainanike obsessed about in their editing. C58 edits follow the same pattern of editing moments after I made an edit, again to some semi-obscure articles (example, example). I'd log this at WP:SPI, but this is a clear WP:DUCK in my eyes. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• To be honest, I've been looking at this for 20 minutes, and I don't see it. Maybe it's just not as obvious to me as it is to you? Can you file a report at SPI, and show some diffs comparing Nainanike's activity with what Criclover58 is up to now? If you ping me I'll have a look at it later today (I'm about to be offline for a bit) or another clerk might beat me to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: see the interaction analyser[109] - ok, it's only three, but then the new editor hasn't edited very much and I'd argue that those 3 are unlikely to be coincidence. The actual times that they edit are similar also. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, @Doug Weller: thanks for your replies. Their second-ever edit was this asking a user a technical query about this article, which I had edited about 1hr earlier. They also created this article, which is incredibly similar to this article I started, including all the technical wiki-tags (short desc, use dmy dates, authority control), etc. If you need me to log a full SPI, please let me know. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I think you intended this edit for the section above.

@Lugnuts: I think it would be best to open a case, just because this seems to be an ongoing issue and it may be useful to have centralized documentation in the future. I can do that myself later when I'm not so pressed for time, though, if another admin wants to act here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Done. I've opened one here, and has additional evidence. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Now sorted. Many thanks to Doug and Ivan for their help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 6 July 2019 (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 name policy

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.

---

Any one can infom me the user name policy for wikipedia

(Ayyoram (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC))

You're looking for Wikipedia:Username policy and this really isn't the right place to ask that question. Railfan23 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2019 (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.

Years of Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and trolling

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.

---

2601:181:8301:4510:59A:6D14:E8B3:ED3A/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been engaging in highly inappropriate commentary on various talkpages dating back to 2016, and I'm thinking that a block is appropriate. Some examples:

• Holocaust denialism: [110][111][112][113][114][115][116]
• Assorted denialism: [117][118][119]
• Conspiracy theories: [120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129]
• Irrelevant commentary: [130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139]

I've reverted a bunch of it, but there's still more. I would appreciate others' opinions on whether a block is advisable, and - if so - for how long. Thanks, GAB^gab 16:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw the latest holocaust denial trolling from the most recent IP today and warned, but given three years of similar behavior from this range, I've blocked the range for three years. Acroterion (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork on this, I should have checked the /64 when I warned. They've been engaging in subtle trolling on a wide variety of subjects for a long, long time. I've reverted a few more talkpage ... observations. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2019 (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.

Disruptive editing at Rape during the Bosnian War

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:Žurnal is trying to push an extremist Serbian nationalist agenda at the article Rape during the Bosnian War. He is attempting to demonize Bosnian muslims and glorify the actions of the Serbian nationalists during the Bosnian War. Žurnal is using "sources" such as Serbian nationalist YouTube vidoes and extremist websites like [140] to include some extremely biased edits. He has been reverted by multiple editors, including myself, but continues to edit war to include these (IMHO) disruptive edits. Could someone take a look and decide what action, if any, would be appropriate in this case? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Article RAPE IN BOSNIAN WAR is gebels propaganda and User:Railfan23 promote this approach. I use much more sources than Rastko like San Francisco Gate, https://timeline.com/nazis-muslim-extremists-ss-6824aee281d2, https://www.amazon.com/Himmlers-Bosnian-Division-Waffen-SS-Handschar/dp/0764301349, Himmler's Bosnian Division: The Waffen-SS Handschar Division 1943-1945 Hardcover – September 1, 1997 Buy George Lepre, Islam and Nazi Germany's War by David Motadel. Besides rastko is not extremist site tha treasury of cultural heritage of the Balkans. In any case, if the problem in this one link is canceled, I am also installing another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Žurnal (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• This seems to pretty clearly be POV-pushing by Žurnal, see this diff reverting their changes. Maybe there's an ok source in there somewhere, but there's also a whole lot of citations to youtube videos. Particularly amusing is the justification for dismissing Niall Ferguson as a "controversial" source––the source doesn't actually call him controversial, it just describes a scandal where Ferguson was caught encouraging students to harass a political opponent. There is no reason to discount his work on Serbia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems you have problem with facts. You do not get into the matter or you are malicious - it's not a nationalistic site, but I've removed it and replaced it with other credible links that have nothing to do with the Balkans. Whatever, I have hundreds of other credible sources, so whatever you are disputed tell me and explain why I will replace it with others (in English, French etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Žurnal (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

about Ferguson - some "amusement" controversies: Source WIKIPEDIA:

1. Kissinger: 1923–1968: The Idealist Kissinger The Idealist, Volume I, published in September 2015, is the first part of a planned two-part biography of Henry Kissinger based on his private papers. The book starts with a quote from a letter which Kissinger wrote in 1972. The book examines Kissinger's life from being a refugee and fleeing Germany in 1938, to serving in the US army as a "free man" in World War II, to studying at Harvard. The book also explores the history of Kissinger joining the Kennedy administration and later becoming critical of its foreign policy, to supporting Nelson Rockefeller on three failed presidential bids, to finally joining the Nixon administration. The book also includes Kissinger's early evaluation of the Vietnam war and his efforts to negotiate with the North Vietnamese in Paris. The Economist wrote in a review about The Idealist: "Mr Ferguson, a British historian also at Harvard, has in the past sometimes produced work that is rushed and uneven. Not here. Like Mr Kissinger or loathe him, this is a work of engrossing scholarship."[51] In a negative review of The Idealist, the American journalist Michael O'Donnell questioned Ferguson's interpretation of Kissinger's actions leading up to Nixon's election as President.[52] Andrew Roberts praised the book in The New York Times,[53] concluding: "Niall Ferguson already has many important, scholarly and controversial books to his credit. But if the second volume of 'Kissinger' is anywhere near as comprehensive, well written and riveting as the first, this will be his masterpiece."

2. In 1998, Ferguson published The Pity of War: Explaining World War One, which with the help of research assistants he was able to write in just five months.[15][16] This is an analytic account of what Ferguson considered to be the ten great myths of the Great War. The book generated much controversy, particularly Ferguson's suggestion that it might have proved more beneficial for Europe if Britain had stayed out of the First World War in 1914, thereby allowing Germany to win.[57] Ferguson has argued that the British decision to intervene was what stopped a German victory in 1914–15. Furthermore, Ferguson expressed disagreement with the Sonderweg interpretation of German history championed by some German historians such as Fritz Fischer, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Hans Mommsen and Wolfgang Mommsen, who argued that the German Empire deliberately started an aggressive war in 1914. Likewise, Ferguson has often attacked the work of the German historian Michael Stürmer, who argued that it was Germany's geographical situation in Central Europe that determined the course of German history.

3. Another controversial aspect of The Pity of War is Ferguson's use of counterfactual history also known as "speculative" or "hypothetical" history. In the book, Ferguson presents a hypothetical version of Europe being, under Imperial German domination, a peaceful, prosperous, democratic continent, without ideologies like communism or fascism.[70] In Ferguson's view, had Germany won World War I, then the lives of millions would have been saved, something like the European Union would have been founded in 1914, and Britain would have remained an empire as well as the world's dominant financial power.[70]

4. Ferguson sometimes champions counterfactual history, also known as "speculative" or "hypothetical" history, and edited a collection of essays, titled Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (1997), exploring the subject. Ferguson likes to imagine alternative outcomes as a way of stressing the contingent aspects of history. For Ferguson, great forces don't make history; individuals do, and nothing is predetermined. Thus, for Ferguson, there are no paths in history that will determine how things will work out. The world is neither progressing nor regressing; only the actions of individuals determine whether we will live in a better or worse world. His championing of the method has been controversial within the field.[80] In a 2011 review of Ferguson's book Civilization: The West and the Rest, Noel Malcolm (Senior Research Fellow in History at All Souls College at Oxford University) stated that: "Students may find this an intriguing introduction to a wide range of human history; but they will get an odd idea of how historical argument is to be conducted, if they learn it from this book."[81]

question: IS IT ENOUGH CREDIBLE? — Preceding

IS THIS POV?

aND QUICK NOTIONS - If you are lazy to watch and evaluate some You tube lectures from Noah Chomsky I can post transcript or another sources. If the Chomsky, Effraim Zuroff are not credible enough?

unsigned comment added by Žurnal (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to give a comment on this, and please don't kill the messanger. Some of Žurnal's sources are valid. The most important thing is style, in my mind. The way the last entry was formulated may look like finding reasons to okay the event(s), which must be changed, with some of the sources kept. The wounds from those terrible events are still fresh and any POV which is not giving the highest number of victims or sources from Serbian or "pro-Serbian" medias/authors are mostly dissmised as biased, which is often not the case. That is not NPOV, which is a must. Ferguson should remain a part of the article if he is precisely cited and his views neutrally presented. P.S: Žurnal, I think it would be good for you to register on Wikipedia. That is just my advice. Mm.srb (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (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.

The period IP

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.

---

Blue period added by IP.

-108.7.146.151 (talk)

Has anyone else seen the period IP yet? And, no, EEng, I don't mean that kind of period. It's an IP that unnecessarily adds periods or adds them in awkward places.

Period added by IP in awkward place

-108.7.146.151 (talk)

I first saw the IP on July 6th. The person controlling it was using the 2401:4900:35F3:5D4B:1:1:DF10:62D0 IP. Right now, that person is using the 2401:4900:35F0:E5FC:1:1:E592:186A IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2401:4900:35f0::/44 range blocked for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

And thus ended the blue period period.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2019 (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.

Bomber7600

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.

---

Clearly fighting to think he’s Right without thinking about the facts provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's unlikely you're going to get any action on this if you don't describe the problem a little more thoroughly, and provide some diffs to illustrate the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

it’s mainly happening on these pages

• The King's Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

He seems to disagree with the sources provided and only giving his view based on facts that are made up. He also seems to be going back and forth with other users and isn’t giving the sources a chance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

From this thread and this one at AN it seems the IP reports editors that they are having a disagreement with rather than working through a WP:RFC. MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think that they will respond well to the RFC, they seem to fight back too many times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

184.54.163.113, ANI is for urgent, behavioral issues, where editors are being disruptive. Disagreeing on article sources should be discussed on the article talk page or you can use dispute resolution pages. Just disagreeing with other editors will not lead to sanctions on that editor. Wikipedia requires you to try to work out your differences, as aggravating as that can be. So far, it's worked out pretty well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well can you help with starting that discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You can start discussions at Talk:The King's Man and/or Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present) in exactly the same way that you started the discussion here. There's no need for you to ask anyone else to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I gave a warning for unsourced edits via WPRFPP. I will notify of this discussion.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• I see that the original poster of this discussion has been checkuser blocked, so it would be good if someone who knows how could close this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2019 (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.

Promotional account Myzeb83

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.

---

Myzeb83 (talk · contribs) appears to be here for the purpose of promoting the company "Research Snipers RS-Tech", and not to help build an encyclopedia. Their sandbox page was deleted last year under WP:CSD#G11, and they were warned on their talk page about blatant advertising. But they seem to have immediately re-created the sandbox page with promotional material. Though they have not been very active, all their edits have been to insert citations or external links to the company's website, or to create the declined submission Draft:RS-NEWS - with the exception of their latest edit which inserted what appears to be a promotional citation of a travel website. --IamNotU (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU: Thanks for bringing this to attention. Though the account has not been active, I've removed the sandbox pages as promotional, and have blocked the account. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:03, 8 July 2019 (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 82.27.90.157.

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.

---

See subject line. User left a threatening sounding message on my talk page and is edit warring on a page. If someone could get him/her to stop this....that would be helpful.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rja13ww33#Michael_Ruppert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking&action=history

No opinion on the content issue, but it's more than a bit tough to AGF in an IP that is edit warring on Allegations of CIA drug trafficking over something that is under discussion on the talk page, posts "Your identity and location have been noted" on a user's talk page, and calls him or her a CIA operative posting disinformation in an edit summary. Meters (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Warned IP for edit warring and pointed them to WP:NPA to start off with. Meters (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2019 (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.

WP:MRV

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.

---

Hey guys! There's a contentious WP:MRV discussion that's gone on for well over a month. (I'm not sure why it's contentious, but hoo boy it is.)

I would love it if someone would close it! Red Slash 18:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

We have WP:ANRFC for this, and it's already listed there. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:30, 8 July 2019 (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-summary removed

The full summary

yet another WP:INTEGRITY case—links:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6698576_Origin_and_Expansion_of_Haplogroup_H_the_Dominant_Human_Mitochondrial_DNA_Lineage_in_West_Eurasia_The_Near_Eastern_and_Caucasian_Perspective + https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8373878_Most_of_the_extant_mtDNA_boundaries_in_south_and_southwest_Asia_were_likely_shaped_during_the_initial_settlement_of_Eurasia_by_anatomically_modern_humans)

My edit summary has been deleted here. It was about WP:INTEGRITY policy and providing URLs for editors viewing the revision page. It would be useful for informing the editors regarding the removal. Puduḫepa 12:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted by User:El C. He'd be the best one to tell you why - is it possible that you had linked to some sort of WP:COPYVIO? ST47 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The url filled the entire edit summary field in and was therefore skewing the page margins. Sorry for the inconvenience. El_C 12:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Do I have an option to rewrite the edit summary? It was a mass-removal that needs an explanation. Puduḫepa 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hidden note in the article or a talk page note would do. El_C 13:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is it normal to use revision deletion for aesthetic reasons such as this? If edit summaries that fill the entire edit summary field are so problematic that they must be hidden, why aren't edit summaries limited to a shorter length? Peacock (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's more for utility than aesthetics. Anyway, usually, there's spaces in lengthy edit summaries that fill the edit summary field, so the margins are unaffected. I see this happening maybe once every few months, so I don't think it's an issue that requires a systemic solution to. El_C 13:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at WP:REVDEL, and I don't see this as falling within policy. REVDEL is for bad things, not for petty annoying things. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well done to whoever removed the disruptive edsum. That sort of thing makes the screen on this device impossible to read. Keep up the good work. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't annoy me. But, indeed, it can have issues pertaining to readability, so the rare times I see it I revdel it as RD6. El_C 16:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame the software allows edit summaries that ruin readability. The need for readability trumps many other considerations. Good Revdel.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this meets WP:CRD. RD6 is not a hide things that annoy your or others criteria. The edit summary was not disruptive – it just contained long links. This was not correction of clear and obvious unintended mistakes in previous redactions, changes to redaction based upon communal discussion and clear consensus, adding information to the delete logs, [or] converting traditional selective deleted edits to RevisionDelete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I seem to recall some goofing around when it was discovered that the edit summary field had been expanded, with some users adding a whole massive long string of emojis in the edit summary field, and those were deleted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd guess they were hidden for being purely disruptive, which is not the case here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about all that, but distorting the interface for some devices is a problem that revdel solves. El_C 19:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add "breaks the user interface" to rev-delable things. Anyway, I've started a conversation at WT:REVDEL#Breaking the user interface. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding it to cover the rare instance in which it would be applicable is pure bureaucracy when it's already covered by this overarching policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The distortion (as you call it) is not something that should be solved by hiding a perfectly valid and useful edit summary. (More on the policy talk page) — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to just use a null edit instead of revdel. Again, it just happens so infrequently, I've never given it much thought. But, anyway, that does sounds like it would satisfy both sides of the dispute. El_C 01:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll just copy what I said at WT:REVDEL. This isn't a big deal. The community has become significantly more comfortable with the RevisionDelete extension since it was introduced, and we do have ambiguous lines in the policy for stuff like this. Doing this is not a big deal, and given that we've become more liberal with use of the tool over time, it was reasonable to assume that the community wouldn't mind this as a technical deletion. I wouldn't have done it, but I also don't think it was a bad revdel. It's not a big deal, and doesn't happen that often. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC) While I can certainly imagine that we would want to revdelete unnecessarily long and disruptive edit summaries, I don't agree that this summary should stay deleted - the editor was merely linking to sources to justify their edit. That is certainly a rational reason for a longer-than-usual edit summary and that it skews the page margins is not such an overwhelming issue that we'd hide the edit rationale for it. If it was a joke edit summary or the like I might see a revdel reason, but not here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope that the editor who did this at least has the notion that it is a problem, just as the hidden box at the top of this discussion is. It's a problem with a very simple solution: format the damn link! Now I know this doesn't solve the rev del question and you can't edit an edit summary, but going forward, at least it will prevent re-occuance. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:POV-pushing in far-right related articles

45.50.57.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been pushing their POV into a serious of contentious articles, such as Far-right politics in Australia and United Patriots Front. They have been repeatedly warned for disruptive editing, edit warring and POV-pushing. After the most recent final warning [141] they apologised [142]. However, they have continued to make extremely contentious edits from a far-right political perspective on articles such as 2017 Fresno shootings and 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers. These appear to me to be POV-psuhing and are unsourced. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and see if specific action should be taken? Many thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident the IP is Ck4829 (talk · contribs) who is indefinitely blocked. He is also using a ton of IPv6 addresses within the 2605:E000:A44D:9200:0:0:0:0/47 range. He has been continuing the same categorization that got Ck4829 blocked (although not all of them are BLP violations). I have filed a SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ck4829. --Pudeo (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE & WP:DISRUPT: User:Gregnator

Gregnator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They make personal attacks/uncivil comments on article talk pages, using them as a forum.12 The first link is also a case of refusal to "get the point", as they once again continue a discussion with the same viewpoint, despite there being clear consensus against that viewpoint. A look in their contributions show they are solely here to push their (right-wing) POV and are being disruptive. Because the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, I request an indefinite block. --MrClog (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a false statement of fact. I have in the past clearly pointed out that my political leaning is left-wing/Liberal. On the Forum for Democracy page, MrClog has repeatedly shown a negative bias towards the Wikipage he/she is contributing to. Not only does MrClog ignore evidence when presented, he/she continues to push a left-wing POV. Clogg uses sources which uses the term "far-right", but do not tell the reader why they call that party "far-right." As seen in on the "Far-Right" politics section there is a clear meaning behind "far-right." One of the sources used is a hyper-partisan far-left organization, which even talk about why Forum for Democracy is not far-right. Objectivity and neutrality are on key, and MrClog has not shown him/herself as objective or neutral on the topic of Forum for Democracy. I do apologise for the unprofessional and uncivil anger voiced on the Forum for Democracy page, but I do accept false statements about me. This could've been resolved through my own talk page, but Mrclog has shown that he/she is not here to talk, but rather to get anyone blocked and banned who do not share their point of view, which goes against what Wikipedia (used to) stand(s) for. Gregnator (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not intend to create any threaded discussion here, so this will be my last post here unless an admin asks a question, but do note that this is once again a case of refusal to "get the point". Most of Gregnator's comments just repeat the arguments they already made at Talk:Forum for Democracy, and there simply is consensus against their viewpoint. I do not expect the admins to rule on this content issue (whether Forum for Democracy should be labelled as "Right-wing to far-right"), because the community already did through a RfC (where the editor also participated in). This refusal to "get the point" and usage of a noticeboard for behavioural problems to accuse me of not being neutral and objective (whilst the community through the RfC has agreed that the text I proposed was the neutral version) show that they do not intent to finally get the point and move on from an already closed discussion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Gregnator, you are behaving too aggressively, with exclamations such as "pathetic," "a joke" and "partisan bullshit." You need to start conducting yourself in a more professional, understated manner. Stick to the substance. This sort of conduct fosters the very toxic environment we are tying to curtail on AP topics. El_C 17:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Hammelsmith

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.

---

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

Adding informations from unreliable sources. [143],[144], [145] Adding information which contradicts those in citations.[146],[147]. Adding WP:OR and WP: synthesis.[148] He also deletes the content from the well cited sources to his convenience and cherry picking the content to push his point of view.[149] Warned him before that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it A lot of users also pointed out these things over the days, [150], [151]. But he is still continuing with his WP:Advocacy Michael Jackson related articles [152]. Directions of senior editors to revert the edits made in pages and reach consensus by discussing in talk pages has also been ignored.[153],[154],[[155] During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM. Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts until there are multiple editors to revert him.This user also noted for spamming and WP:Votestacking on different users talk pages. [156], [157] ,[158],[159], [160],[161],[162], [163],[164]. These [165] ,[166],[167], [168],[169] activities shows that this user have some kind of  "conflict of interest" in this subject and its proving that they are WP:NOTHERE. His actions warrant a topic ban or a permanent block".Pinging @Moxy:, @Flyer22 Reborn:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Partytemple:, @Israell: who all know this story already. --Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment while these pertain to the same page, I'm guessing you meant to say WP:NOTHERE (where someone IS NOT here to contribute constructively) instead of WP:HERE (where someone IS here to contribute constructively). In any case, I do agree that this user has made problematic edits, and support a topic ban on Michael Jackson articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the error.--Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

When there is a dispute and need for consensus, I only ask for a vote. I've never asked anyone to just vote in my favour. I admit that I am ignorant about some rules and policies, but all the edits I make are done in good faith and in the spirit of improving an article. I only want to help. If I have made grievous errors, I'm happy to listen and learn from my mistakes. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I dont think your deliberate deception can be considered as good faith. You need to read WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, WP:CIR and WP:CHERRYPICK. You are only here for your WP:PROPAGANDA.Your edits and your comments on talk pages hence prove that. --Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree Hammelsmith has displayed poor judgment on articles about Michael Jackson. Recent contribution to Talk:Michael Jackson suggests he didn't read the article but still argues the sentence should be there, which was the problem we were addressing since the beginning. —Partytemple (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Support topic ban. Partytemple (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hammelsmith once wrote "I think a consensus has been reached and I do accept that, although I am heartbroken." after consensus was reached to exclude a list of accusers from the 'Renewed sexual abuse allegations' section of the main Michael Jackson article. Why would they be heartbroken about it? This shows strong bias. Israell (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Support I support Akhiljaxxn's request (topic ban on Michael Jackson articles). Israell (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hammelsmith is still continuing with his edits despite the issue being on this Administrators Notice Board. He has been warned by SNUGGUMS and asked refrain from his contentious changes. Israell (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hammelsmith continues to defend and use unreliable sources and distorting facts according to his opinion of Michael Jackson. Partytemple (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you all feel these terrible things about me, I really am. Believe me, I'm always conscious that other editors have different viewpoints and I am respectful of that. I can only say that I don't agree that I practice "deliberate deception", I just hope for a speedy consensus without fighting with people. I'm not that kind of person. I'm doing my best to make quality edits and if I make a mistake or source a reference poorly, I'm happy to own up to it. Best to you, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not that I "feel terrible things" about you, but that I think you are unable to edit without bias and tend to clutter talk pages with WP:FORUM. You can continue to feel like the victim all you want, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that your edits are disruptive. Partytemple (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff has the following issue w/ Hammelsmith: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammelsmith&diff=904159035&oldid=903923032 Israell (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Not to sound like Trump, but there has been POV-pushing on both sides. There are Jackson articles that are a mess partly because of the editors who believe Jackson never sexually abused children and are editing from that viewpoint and partly because of the ones who believe that he did sexually abuse children and are editing from that viewpoint. The editors who are editing more neutrally on the topic, despite their personal beliefs, are being drowned out by the POV-pushers. There has also been socking going on. And the socking I've seen thus far has been from editors who believe that Jackson is innocent. As seen by this warning to Akhiljaxxn from Yamla, Akhiljaxxn has also been problematic at these articles. And I don't believe that Partytemple is a new editor. When I asked Partytemple on Partytemple's talk page if Partytemple has edited under a different Wikipedia account, Partytemple said no. I really can't support removing Hammelsmith when the other side are just as problematic. Giving one side free rein to push their POV is not something I will support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't be neutral on such issues here, as legally people are innocent until proven guilty and for recently deceased persons the BLP standard will still uphold this. If it isn't all that certain if some person did something bad, then on balance the article will be quite skeptical about such claims. Count Iblis (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I follow the WP:NPOV policy, as should everyone else. That policy is how we determine balance. "Jackson is innocent" POV-pushers do not get free rein to balance an article to their liking. Neither do "Jackson is guilty" POV-pushers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, Jackson died nearly a decade ago. So to many people, his death is not "recent," even though time flies by for many of us. The topic of whether or not he is guilty is being reassessed, in part because of Leaving Neverland. We shouldn't give undue weight to Leaving Neverland, and I was clear about that at Talk:Michael Jackson. But we can't ignore the reassessment and we shouldn't frame articles like 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson in a way that makes it seem like he couldn't possibly have been guilty or in a way that goes beyond due weight with regard to casting doubt on child sexual abuse having occurred. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hammelsmith has distorted or defended distortions of statements of living people who commented on Jackson as well as Jackson's own words. Jackson can't be both a pedophile and not a pedophile at the same time. To say there should be totally even representation is to make mockery of reality and invite tabloid nonsense—and definitely not NPOV, which is objectivity and commitment to stating facts rather than forming an opinion. The fact is Jackson was found not guilty for all the accusations made against him. If you don't like that statement, well then tough titties, because those are the sources we can cite. It's also still highly unethical to accuse someone of a serious crime without substantial evidence whether they are dead or alive. Tabloids don't belong in WP. Citing sources dishonestly is a serious red flag. These are the reasons why Hammelsmith is listed here. —Partytemple (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No one stated anything about "both a pedophile and not a pedophile at the same time." No one stated anything about "totally even representation." What is "the reality" as far as Jackson's guilt goes is your opinion. As is clear by the responses to Leaving Neverland, whether or not Jackson is guilty is an opinion. O. J. Simpson was found not guilty. But as is clear in the O. J. Simpson trial article, most people do not think he's innocent; so we cover it. Many black people who originally found the "not guilty" verdict for Simpson just no longer find it just. It's a cultural matter that should be covered on Wikipedia. The key is WP:Due weight. Save your "tough titties" take for someone else. Then again, some here might find it sexist. Luckily for you, I don't mind such language. I'm not excusing Hammelsmith's problematic editing, but I'm not going to act like those who share Hammelsmith's views are the only ones who have been problematic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to discuss or challenge anything precisely about Hammelsmith and his/her behavior, don't derail this thread into talking about other user's editing problems. If you genuinely have issues with other users, you need to make a different thread. Also, "tough titties" is a common idiom. "Luckily for you" implies intimidation. If you're going to call me a sexist, you should just do it without these pointless threats and digressions. And this account is not a sockpuppet, as much as you accuse me of being one without evidence. Partytemple (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You're not new. Surely, you know that everyone's behavior is under scrutiny at ANI. Noting that the other side is just as problematic, if not more so, is a topic for discussion at ANI. It's not derailing any thread. I didn't call you a sexist. I also didn't call you a sock. I said you are not new. But as seen below, you very well know why an experienced editor such as myself, who has seen and reported more socks than I can remember, including those who claimed they weren't socks, would think that you are a sock. You can continue to claim that you are new, but I don't have to buy it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You've started a lot of irrelevant topics in this thread (e.g. the rant about Akhiljaxxn's editing problems and O.J. and black people). But I'd like to bring this back to your core reasons why you don't support Hammelsmith's topic ban. You said, "I really can't support removing Hammelsmith when the other side are just as problematic." This means you'll be in favor of disruptive editing if "both sides" of the argument are engaging in it, or at the very least you won't stop disruptive editing when you have the opportunity to and when both sides are doing it. You're also accusing other users of doing equal amounts of disruptive editing or disruptive editing of equal magnitude, but you haven't proved that either. I can't recall anyone else distorting facts and using tabloids on Jackson related articles lately other than Hammelsmith. Please stop pointing your finger around aimlessly. Partytemple (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A lot of irrelevant topics in this thread? No. And do I need to repeat myself? I think I do: "everyone's behavior is under scrutiny at ANI. Noting that the other side is just as problematic, if not more so, is a topic for discussion at ANI. It's not derailing any thread." Again, this is not something I need to tell you since you are not new. Mention of O. J. Simpson? It was provided as an example with regard to the fact that we very much do cover public opinion with due weight. Black people? As made clear in the lead of that article, "A poll of Los Angeles County residents showed that most African Americans felt that justice had been served by the 'not guilty' verdict, while the majority of whites and Latinos expressed an opposite opinion on the matter." That trial was very racially-charged. Public opinion-wise, many black people's opinions on it have changed. Public opinion can change. Legacy can change. It's obvious that you don't like the public opinion that Jackson was a child sexual abuser, but I couldn't care less about your personal opinion. For example, I couldn't care less that you think that my comment that "I really can't support removing Hammelsmith when the other side are just as problematic" translates to "in favor of disruptive editing if 'both sides' of the argument are engaging in it, or at the very least [I] won't stop disruptive editing when [I] have the opportunity to and when both sides are doing it." No one who is familiar with my editing and mindset on Wikipedia will agree with that assessment. I, am, however, tired of seeing all of the Jackson POV-pushing, regardless of whatever side whatever person is on, which is why I took the 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson off my watchlist. I am under no obligation to take on disruptive editing; I deal with taking on more than enough of it at various Wikipedia articles. I am under no obligation to take on the role of mediator. This thread was a mess before I showed up to it, which is why, seemingly, no admin thus far has paid it any attention. But, hey, maybe one will pop in and take care of your Hammelsmith problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Michael Jackson was a child molester" is an opinion. "Michael Jackson was found not guilty by investigators, two grand juries, and a criminal trial because of the lack of evidence" is a fact. The ones POV-pushing cannot see the difference between these two statements. This has nothing to do with "public opinion," nor O.J., nor is there a convincing plurality between the two sides as both of these statements can be heard "in public." We have sources to cite the second statement but not the first, hence we write the articles according to the second, which again is a fact. None of the articles state absolutely "Michael Jackson was not a child molester," but they frequently state that there isn't enough evidence to prove him one. The facts of what exactly happened during the investigations and trial, which the articles describe in detail, are not opinion, nor are they up to "interpretation" by "public opinion." Partytemple (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, "Michael Jackson was a child molester" is a viewpoint. It's a viewpoint that more and more people (including professional critics) hold since the Leaving Neverland documentary. It is a part of his legacy, no matter who dislikes it being a part of his legacy. So we cover that viewpoint on Wikipedia. A court finding someone not guilty does not automatically silence all thought or debate. Otherwise, most people wouldn't think that Simpson is guilty, or that Casey Anthony is guilty, and many wouldn't believe that Jackson is guilty decades later (since the 1993 accusation). R. Kelly can claim what he wants, but we cover the controversy about him with regard to underage girls as well. And that includes the Surviving R. Kelly documentary. Even before Harvey Weinstein was arrested, charged with rape and other offenses, and released on bail, we covered the controversy surrounding him, and that includes having dished out spin-off articles. The "Michael Jackson was a child molester" viewpoint has everything to do with public opinion. As long as editors follow WP:Due weight appropriately on this matter, things will be fine. Hammelsmith has learning to do, just like all passionate newbies who come to Wikipedia trying to right the great wrongs do. If Hammelsmith needs a warning or a block (temporary or indefinite) by an admin, so be it. But an admin might be willing to give Hammelsmith another chance by simply issuing a warning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who read the original complaint about Hammelsmith knows this is not a WP:WEIGHT issue. The Leaving Neverland article has a large section on public response to the film which includes responses in favor of the film, some of which contributed by Hammelsmith and to no objection because it follows editing policy. So there is no need for your semi-relevant rant about O.J., black people, and now Harvey Weinstein and R. Kelly—all of which you don't sound informed enough to make an intelligent opinion anyway. And this is not the place for it. Partytemple (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Rant about black people? LOL. I just love how you are subtly suggesting racism on my part by continuing to stress that "Flyer talked about black people," when black people are directly relevant to the Simpson topic I brought up for reasons I mentioned. As if you even know my "race"/ethnicity. And do save me any denial that you are suggesting racism on my part. I must be racist against Anthony and Weinstein, two white people, as well. If you are going to try to insult me (laughably, my intelligence of all things), then make sure your insults make sense. I have no patience for your snippy and/or passive-aggressive nonsense because I'm not stupid enough to believe your "I've had no other Wikipedia account" claim, and because I don't worship Jackson, and because I don't buy you as a neutral editor on Jackson topics, and because I'm not on board to topic ban or indefinitely block the actual newbie or actual significantly inexperienced editor -- Hammelsmith. Rants? It seems you are not familiar with reasoned discussion, in which similar cases may be compared. Trial articles or similar and how we cover them have been compared all over Wikipedia. For some, their WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are flawed. For others, their OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are valid. As noted at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, such arguments can be valid or invalid. In this case, you were talking about what we do and don't do on Wikipedia, as if you are the more experienced editor. Gee, I wonder why you talk like you are more experienced than me. You aren't a newbie, but I doubt that your knowledge of how this site is supposed to work is superior to mine. I pointed to other criminal and sexual abuse allegation cases as examples of what we indeed do on Wikipedia. No one stated a thing about allowing tabloid text/tabloid sources.

Moving on.... Looking at the case filed against Hammelsmith in this forum and Hammelsmith's edits, and different editors who have reverted Hammelsmith, it is partly a WP:Due weight issue. Since I spoke to Hammelsmith about poor sourcing and was pinged above because of that, it is not like I am unaware of sourcing problems that have come with Hammelsmith's editing. Looking at your arguments about Jackson (via your contributions), it's quite clear that your idea of "informed enough to make an intelligent opinion" differs starkly from mine. Unlike you, not only do I have significant knowledge of all of the cases I mentioned, I am extremely knowledgeable on child sexual abuse and rape topics (as many at this site know). But that's not relevant here unless we are going to get into talk about our personal opinions on these cases, which, of course, we shouldn't. I'm certainly not interested in Israell's commentary below about why so many people believe Jackson is guilty and that everyone was just out to get Jackson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you've proven yourself to be a thoroughly unpleasant person with all that nonsense. You're still defending a disruptive editor by saying he's a newbie, but he's been warned several times and that's why he's here. You can continue to rant all you want; it's not going to be any less irrelevant nor illiterate than it is now. —Partytemple (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Just when I thought you were done, since you edited on July 4th but didn't reply, you just had to come back here and try to get the last word. You know nothing about me to conclude that I've "proven [myself] to be a thoroughly unpleasant person with all that nonsense." That line makes not a bit of sense. A thoroughly unpleasant person because I don't believe you are a newbie, because I don't worship Jackson, because I don't buy you as a neutral editor on Jackson topics, because I brought up other criminal cases that show that we do indeed cover public perception as long as it's done right, and because I'm not on board to topic ban or indefinitely block the actual newbie or actual significantly inexperienced editor -- Hammelsmith? Not supporting you or whatever view you have is not the same thing as "defending a disruptive editor." Saying that the editor is still a newbie or relatively inexperienced is stating a fact, which many admins consider at ANI when it comes to whether or not to warn or block such an editor. Keep your "irrelevant" and "illiterate" nonsense to yourself. At this rate, you'll be brought to ANI for WP:Personal attacks. And WP:Personal attacks is clear that "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." It speaks volumes that you couldn't hold a discussion for long without resorting to personal attacks. Or maybe it's just that this topic is just so touchy for you because it concerns Jackson. Still no excuse. And before you say that not believing that you are new is a personal attack, it isn't. Editors are very much allowed to state that they don't believe that an editor is new, and it happens all the time at ANI (where every account is scrutinized). Saying that you are a sock is different, but I never said that you are a sock. Now one might say that since I don't believe that you are new, I'm saying that you are a sock. To that, I point editors to WP:LEGITSOCK. And some have edited as IPs before getting a registered account. Again, you can say you are a newbie, but I most certainly don't have to believe it. Either way, it's time for you to move on. Like I noted before, admins seemingly aren't paying this thread any attention. And that certainly can't be blamed on me "derailing" the thread. This thread was being ignored before I showed up to it, and you didn't have to keep engaging me. You didn't even have to reply to me, as if I was gong to change my mind about you or this situation. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever that patch of letters written above is, it's literally unreadable without losing some sanity. Surely somewhere in there I am addressed personally and in a irate manner. This isn't the first time this user has tried intimidating me on a keyboard, nor the first time she has devoted an entire post to flaming. She also continues to accuse other people of things that aren't true and cannot be proven. She is certainly unpleasant, proven yet again, and a tenacious ranter and rambler of nonsense, too. —Partytemple (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You are that desperate for the last word? Really? You came back with more irrational commentary, I see. And one interesting comment: "This isn't the first time this user has tried intimidating me on a keyboard." Admitting to having edited under a different account or as an IP? Must be, because, with you as Partytemple, there is no record of me trying to intimidate you on a keyboard. And it's a lie either way. Your latest comment is so beyond childish that I can't take you seriously. I appreciate you further displaying why this thread should be closed with no action. In fact, I might contact an admin to close it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn has made her point, and this issue will be dealt with (without her involvement) in due time (depending on Hammelsmith's behaviour). Yes, many believe Jackson was a child sexual abuser but just as many if not more do not believe so. Detractors have a tendency to be very loud and vocal, and it may give the impression someone or something is more despised than it actually is. It's true in the fields of politics, soap operas, music, etc.

I agree w/ Partytemple that Wikipedia is not a place for endless tabloid reports. Plenty of ludicrous rumours about public figures were published, and it's a known facts tabloids sometimes pay people thousands of dollars for stories that may completely be false and libellous. Why is there a public opinion that Jackson was a sexual child molester? Because of 26 years of incessant allegations, rumours and tabloid reports (there are now hate sites as well) that went in that direction. And the current #MeToo movement encourages the public, the media, organisations and political bodies to fully believe accusers no matter what.

Did you know James Safechuck at all? No, but I know people who do. His problem is that he can’t keep his story straight. They just have a platform now and they have a movement that they’re utilizing -- a movement where we believe the victims no matter what. I can’t go with that. I agree with listening to everyone, but I don’t blindly believe anyone because that’s a dangerous place to be.

Yes, quite some believe Jackson guilty, but he was never officially found so; all the rest is and will always be speculation. Israell (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your view on why many believe that Jackson is guilty is your belief. Many rabid Jackson fans, who can't even consider that Jackson might have been guilty because of their idol worship (and, yes, reliable sources have talked about this), have stated the same thing. For many, it's not about what you cited at all. And the Me Too movement is about many things, including being more willing to believe accusers/victims instead of dismissing them or acting like "no physical/direct evidence" automatically means "your story lacks credibility" or "you're lying," especially considering that most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. The Me Too movement has shown times over that society believing the accusers/victims is a good thing. False accusations of rape are rare. False allegations of child sexual abuse, also a rape matter, are rare. Of course, we also live in an "innocent until proven guilty" world, and that's a good thing too. But "innocent until proven guilty" is about the law; it's not about public opinion. And, like I stated above, we do cover public opinion on Wikipedia. We do this with "Legacy" and "Public image" sections, and similar. Jackson's legacy is affected by child sexual abuse allegations. We cover it. It should be covered with due weight. Of course, tabloid sources should be avoided. No need to ping me in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is not a belief but a plain fact. Besides reasons I've listed, the media have grossly misrepresented Jackson's sleepovers; girls and parents also took part in those sleepovers that were basically pyjama parties during which they'd all watch movies, play video games, chat, laugh and then fall asleep. Members of Jackson's family such as Brandi and Taj Jackson also did partake in those sleepovers. (Brandi had been Wade Robson's girlfriend for seven years, and that includes the time the alleged abuse took place, and Robson made no mention of that in 'Leaving Neverland'.)

Jackson had a two-storey bedroom, and there were several large beds available, and he often slept on the floor. On occasions, as Brett Barnes (who still defends him) explained when he was a teen (at the time of the first allegations), Jackson would sleep on one side of the bed, and he'd sleep on the other side.

The media perverted it all into something grotesque and salacious, making it sound like there were only boys there and Jackson was sexually abusing them. I recently spoke to a friend that told me he believed Jackson was guilty just because of the bed thing. That's the very argument LaToya Jackson used when accusing her brother of child sex abuse (asking what 35 yr-old would share his bed w/ little boys and spend weeks with them).

LaToya later (repeatedly) retracted all such statements (explaining her ex-husband Jack Gordon had threatened and forced her to say all those things, and that Gordon would keep her a prisoner and beat her up). Right there! Jackson's own sister was led to make such false claims, and she seemed and sounded very sincere when making those claims like she was an Oscar-winning actress! (I'm referring to those who say Wade Robson & James Safechuck could not have lied since they aren't Oscar-winning actors.)

No wonder why many people at the time believed those claims! LaToya's old allegations have just recently come back to the surface once again, and I've read comments from people (that had just seen 'Leaving Neverland') that take those old allegations as the ultimate proof they needed. Some argued she only recanted because she wanted to get back in the Jackson family's good graces... And someone even (sickly) wrote on Twitter that Jack Gordon was right to beat her up so she'd tell the truth about her "paedo" brother. I'm not making any of that up! I'm just typing this here to demonstrate how gullible some of the public (which includes public opinion) may be.

And what about that 'Hard Copy' story by Diane Dimond herself? A 15 yr-old Canadian boy from Toronto once accused Jackson of sexually molesting him and a friend, also in teenage. Though he was able to describe Neverland, it was all a lie! At the end of the news report, he admitted to have lied and made it all up! Turned out he had been coached by an adult named Rodney Allen. Allen was reportedly later found guilty of child sex abuse...

I have just provided evidence that abuse victim LaToya Jackson and that Toronto boy both falsely accused Michael Jackson of child sex abuse under the pressure of woman beater Jack Gordon and child sex predator Rodney Allen. Why is it so hard to believe other accusers (incl. ex-employees) may also have lied, have been pressured to lie, esp. when all those accusers were challenged and either caught lying or deemed not credible. The following article explains in detail how those Neverland insiders were deemed not credible: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-allegations-staff-friends-family

As for Jordan Chandler, he could not even tell Jackson was not circumcised after all that alleged sex abuse incl. frequent baths and masturbation sessions. Jackson's autopsy report stating he was not circumcised: http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0208_mj_case_report_wm.pdf

The rabidness of those Jackson fans is an opinion you and others share, not a fact.

You can use rabid to describe someone who has very strong and unreasonable opinions or beliefs about a subject, especially in politics.

With due research (like mine above), one can reasonably conclude that in Jackson's case, false allegations of child sex abuse are definitely not rare. Israell (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

To no doubt a number of people, you just showed your rabidness with your long defense of Jackson above. And just so you know, many people (both children and adults) are protective of their sexual abusers. And for a number of reasons, including shame and/or fear. It is not uncommon for boys to deny being sexually abused, especially given notions of masculinity and the false belief that a boy or man being raped by a man makes one gay. You want to believe that every accusation against Jackson was just an "out to get him" matter, that's your belief. But I'm not interested in debating Jackson's supposed innocence or guilt on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22, in my observation, Akhiljaxxn hasn't been anywhere as problematic as some implied. It is common for editors to make a few mistakes; it's the only way to learn. One editor deemed Akhiljaxxn incompetent because of his written English when it's just fine! He's actually quite good at it, and grammar/syntax mistakes can quickly and easily be fixed.

What proof socking do you have? Many of us (me included) have been on Wiki for years and contributed to non-MJ articles. None of us here is pushing POV but Hammelsmith who has constantly and repeatedly ignored warnings and kept making plenty of disruptive edits that then had to be fixed. As Partytemple explained it on a Talk page, Hammelsmith seems to believe each one of those accusers even though the very source articles challenge their credibility. Who's pushing POV?

As I pointed out, Hammelsmith once wrote "I think a consensus has been reached and I do accept that, although I am heartbroken." after consensus was reached to exclude a list of accusers from the 'Renewed sexual abuse allegations' section of the main Michael Jackson article. Flyer22, why would Hammelsmith be heartbroken about it? Why would they take it so personal? That's something he himself admitted!

I, for one, am just going w/ the facts. An allegation remains an allegation and only becomes a fact when there is sufficient evidence, especially evidence produced in a court of law followed by a guilty verdict. As for the 1993 allegaions, two grand juries refused to indict Jackson for a reason—lack of evidence. It's not the article's mission to imply that Jackson could have been guilty; it just needs to state the facts—there were allegations, here are the details, and two grand juries refused to indict due to lack of evidence. Israell (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Flyer22 Reborn, I've been neutral for a few years, now. I was blocked for sockpuppetry in 2017. But I was later unblocked since I convinced the admins that I was unaware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and assured them that I would refrain from indulging in such activity. Since then, I have never been involved in any such activity. But a few months ago, Yamla asked me to refrain from making these kinds of edits [170][171]. The edits I made were reinstated by other user, even though they were later removed by another senior editor. I haven't edited that page since then and removed it from my watchlist. It is not fair to hold what I did in 2017 against me. Since then, I've been trying to learn more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I became an administrator of the Malayalam Wikipedia. I would like to ask you to show me the problematic edits that you believe I have made to Michael Jackson-related articles since August 2017. If you show me that I made any problematic edits that violate our WP:NPOV policy, I'll simply stop editing Jackson-related articles. I have other things to do (here and elsewhere) than editing those pages. I understand from your words that you believe Partytemple to be my sockpuppet. No, he isn't, and I welcome a sockpuppetry investigation in this regard.-- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I stated nothing about that editor being your sockpuppet. Nor was I implying that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see the points that everyone is making. I suppose the most significant issue is doubt. I did happen to know some reported facts that would introduce this, so I started editing. Certainly some of my edits have been less than perfect and I apologize for offending peoples' deeply held beliefs if it caused you anger or hurt. Absolutely Wiki is not the place for POV pushing and that is part of what makes this resource so important. Good faith comrades. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Israell that the ones doing a lot of POV-pushing are those who tacitly, or sometimes openly, believe Jackson is guilty of child molestation but are never able to provide a source that claims or proves this without going to the tabloids or distorting a reliable source. This is deeply sinister and dishonest. Flyer22 Reborn is still claiming she finds POV-pushing on both sides, but I don't see it and other users here agree with me. Partytemple (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the POV-pushing from the "Jackson is great side" has been dealt with, such as this case I cited above. Other, less problematic POV-pushing persists. Your "other users here agree with me" claim consists of Akhiljaxxn (a known "Jackson is great" POV-pusher) and Israell. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I voted not in favor of adding a section called "Discrepancy" which I believe was originally submitted by Awardmaniac. I can't speak for other editors. I do not think that what Awardmaniac wrote was impartial enough and it read like OR, hence I altered the "Jackson supporters" section in the Leaving Neverland article into "Issues regarding credibility and Jackson supporters" to provide a more impartial representation for those who disagree with the film, meaning it wouldn't sound like WP is arguing against the film but a section of the public is. I think Israell agreed with me at the end there. So no, I didn't push that section forward for the same reasons I disagree with some of Hammelsmith's edits, a disruptive editor which you tried defending. Partytemple (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"A disruptive editor which [I] tried defending"? Sighs. Do not act like I've supported any disruptive or other problematic edits by Hammelsmith. Not supporting a call to topic ban or block Hammelsmith -- an actual newbie or actual significantly inexperienced edior who is still learning -- is not the same thing as supporting that editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. WP is not a soapbox for tabloid media, rumor mongering, or any other kind of unreliable source, many of which are blacklisted or deprecated from WP. The sources that write salacious stories about Jackson's alleged pedophilia prove to be in this category. I have not read a reliable source that outright says or proves Jackson was a child molester. I have read many reports on simply the facts of the allegations, investigations, lawsuits, etc. Accusing someone of a serious crime such as pedophilia without credible reason is highly unethical and potentially libelous. First, the tabloids were introduced to Jackson related articles as supposedly reliable sources. Now, Hammelsmith has tried to distort or manipulate an actual reliable source into something to fit his beliefs about Jackson. This is unacceptable in any other article on WP and repeated offense will be duly reported. The fact that we are having this discussion about reliable sources proves Charles Thomson right. Perhaps Jackson was indeed a victim of tabloid smearing. As for Fly22 Reborn who thinks I'm a sockpuppet, presumably because he thinks I'm too familiar with WP for a newbie, no, I am not a sockpuppet. —Partytemple (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Presumably because he thinks I'm too familiar with WP for a newbie." Well, you said it. And I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything you write is correct, except that I have never tried to "distort or manipulate an actual reliable source." I'm sorry, but that is your opinion. I am happy to discuss sources and work with absolutely anyone to improve an article without prejudice. Good faith comrades. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Your errors in editing are already listed above. I'm not absolutely certain you're doing it intentionally, but they are in effect distortions and misrepresentations of the source article. WP:CIR. Partytemple (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (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.

Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1

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.

---

• Arianewiki1
• Attic Salt
• VQuakr
• Editor interaction analyzer

I couldn't tell you why, but Arianewiki1 has had it in for this editor, from the get-go and for approaching two years now. Their first interaction appears to have been on Plasma (physics) in September 2017, within a week or so of Attic Salt creating their account. Arianewiki1 more or less immediately jumped to bullying, casting aspersions, attacks, and requests for administrative action ie "those who have aimed to cause disruption", this baseless sockpuppetry investigation, openly mocking the newbie's confusion, reverting and striking and striking again and reverting again and involved-closing and involved-closing again their attempt at dispute resolution, and attempting to enforce the temporary retirement induced by Arianewiki1's own assaults via reversion on Attic Salt's user page. This was all within two weeks of Attic Salt's start here.

So it goes on, month after month with frivolous accusations, unnecessary posts to noticeboards, and invitations that they quit editing:

Following a final warning, [172] and their acknowledgement of the warning, user's very next article talk space edit was to continue the same attacks by accusing Attic Salt of violating WP:POINT, [173]. Enough is enough. I am proposing that a one-way IBAN be applied to Arianewiki1 to prevent additional attacks on Attic Salt.

Since both editors work in similar topic areas, I realize the proposed restriction on Arianewiki1 will be significant. Less significant, though, than a site ban, which I view as the only other viable alternative at this point.

Notifications: [174], [175]. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. [176] is alarming, and that it comes immediately after this exchange suggests to me that nothing less than an IBAN will address this pattern of harassment. ST47 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - if not Attic Salt it will be someone else. Have a look at Talk:Rigel for starters. Also look at interactions with Lithopsian. I support this BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Some of the diffs were, imho, not particularly uncivil, and not even bad enough to factor into my calculation. However the aggressiveness of things like dropping a final warning while simultaneously demanding they leave him alone, along with abuse of RfCs and repeated involved closings, show both personal hostility and abusively mis-using process against Ariane Nosebagbear (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Just how many restrictions can we layer upon an editor without banning them? I recall they are already under restrictions as a condition from lifting their last indef ban. And we've seen them here at ANI repeatedly this year, drumming up drama which goes nowhere. Attic Salt has certainly received a lot of abuse, but that seems mostly an indication of survivability on Attic Salt's part. (As an aside, isn't this T&S's remit these days?) Tarl N. (discuss) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tarl N.: I don't see anything at WP:EDR. ST47 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, they're under 1RR and BLP probation. I think that's supposed to get logged at EDR for searchability, but in any event, it doesn't look like they've violated it? Are you proposing a ban? ST47 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If we're at the point of taking further action against Arianewiki1, I would suggest a ban, not just an IBAN for one of their targets. I've made a point of avoiding them this year, to the point of walking away from discussions when they drop in. They are knowledgeable in their field, but don't seem to understand "collaborate". It's their way or no way - now that edit wars have been precluded, it seems venom and ANI drama substitute as techniques to achieve victories. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Pinging @Ritchie333: who was the original admin involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As with others, I'm not certain this is the best solution or enough. For starters we probably should include an iban on Arianewiki1 against Lithsopian at a minimum since as per my comment in Arianewiki1's most recent thread Lithsopian seems to be just as much a target of Arianewiki1 as Attic Salt. But I wonder whether even that will be enough. That said I would support this if nothing else is proposed, as another step in trying to convince Arianewiki1 that they seriously need to modify their behaviour if they are going to edit here. 06:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)

After more consideration, I've decided to support the cban as my preferred option with the one way iban as my second choice. I'd also support a one way iban on Arianewiki1 against interactions with Lithsopian. Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban. Looking over the provided diffs, Arianewiki1 clearly has a serious attitude problem, and an IBAN will not cut it. Someone else besides Attic Salt will definitely be the recipient of this. - DoubleCross (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have invited Arianewiki1 to join this discussion. They've not edited since June 29. Taking what I have read here at face value, it's obvious an IBAN may not be enough. We will need some honest and frank discussion and some answers. Soon.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 07:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban First Litopsian, now Attic Salt, next someone else. A community ban is probably insufficient for this type of aggression but it’s the best we can do unless Arianewiki1 wants to harass someone who has high-level connections at the WMF. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban, or failing that the one-way IBAN. Per WP:CIR, where "C" might be replaced by "collaboration". The type of collaboration Arianewiki1 envisions is well-represented by their answer to that thread.

I would add to the file Attic Salt's talk page, starting here, where I nudge them toward kicking Arianewiki1 off their talk page (with the least inflammatory wording I found) and they do so. This diff and that diff are clear violations of WP:NOBAN to my eyes; the first one was immediately after the talk page ban and might be excused as a hot-temper edit, the second one not so much. I would also argue that this and that are fairly spurious warnings chosen to get around the talk page ban. The most generous explanation is that Arianewiki1 thinks Attic Salt and me (at least) are conspiring against them and invented a non-existing rule of "stay off someone's talk page when they ask you to", so they decided to ignore that rule without asking for clarification.

The problem with an IBAN (beyond possible gaming / "finding another victim") is that Arianewiki1 edit pretty much only topics in which Attic Salt edits as well (astronomy) so the IBAN would severly constrain their ability to contribute. As the IBAN is one-way, and Arianewiki1 does not produce stellar (no pun intended) content, the best-case scenario is a cycle of Arianewiki1 edits some article, Attic Salt corrects something they wrote, then Arianewiki1 cannot edit again due to the IBAN; rince and repeat until all astronomy articles have been exhausted, which would probably not take that much time. I believe we do not dish out TBAN for problematic editors who have only one area of editing, we ban them outright - same thing here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I've read your response here and this needs much better clarification. The point about this edit[177] regarding the WP:NOBAN is somewhat trivial, only because I didn't understand the intention to why they didn't consider possible alternatives.

However, you point with this edit is quite possibly valid[178]. My understanding was that notifications were OK. The cause was this rv edit[179], which I reverted.[180] Knowing I was on 1RR, I wanted Attic Salt to be informed that I did so with that notice. I was particular annoyed with this, because they had seemingly followed me to directly to this page. As pointed out below in Response 2: " Velocity article about a month ago with this edit here[181], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[182]. (VQuakr too was involved here[183] and here[184], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[185] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) " Attic Salt dismissively responded here [186]. (they should have done this on the article's talkpage), especially saying "Regarding your accusation of unconstructive editing, consider what you write. It isn't very good." They also claim "The sentence needs to be reconstructed if you want to work in "or vector". Maybe you could do that." (then why not fix it instead of an rv edit?) Yes. I should not have responded, a simple mistake that will now likely cost me dearly. I have to openly give my apologies to Attic Salt for doing that. (How do I do that without breaking policy? )

As for the "spurious warnings" the were regarding notices of templates the were active is on going edits of article pages, notifying what I had done. The Rigel on was I think because there was a tagging problem/bug in the software as discussed here User talk:Arianewiki1#Templates on Rigel. I thought it proper to help understand the edit in case of rv.

You state: "Arianewiki1 thinks Attic Salt and me (at least) are conspiring against them…" I have no problem with you at all, and I cannot recall interaction very often. (I pinged you after Attic Salt's 'ban' to be open in what I said. Din't think it a problem.) Attic Salt isn't necessarily conspiring, they are likely looking for faults to make anothee point.

A concern I do have however, is that under User talk:Attic Salt#Supernova edit clash is acting outside article pages and having discussions where I cannot respond because of WP:NOBAN. (I'm pretty aggrieved that I pointed out the supernova nucleosynthesis to them, fixing some of that article's structure[187], which Attic Salt made some minor fixes[188] I even added an explanation of what I did on the talkpage.[189] I wrote: "IMO, this article is far too complex and looks like original research.", but the discussion to improve was on Attic Salt's talkpage. Enough clarification?

As for the rest, your logic is fine, however the bigger issue is the differences in the level of knowledge. e.g. The astronomical word and meaning of "dredge" or "dredging", they revert the edit, you explain it on the page then won't listen nor acknowledge the mistake. (Thinking about it, I cannot seem to recall any positive encouragement at all. If I make an obvious error, I usually admit that. e.g. Here[190] or thank editors. They have never seemingly posted to my talkpage.) Simply the problem is balancing context versus "stellar content." Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt. The comment made by Trigaan regarding my Velocity article response on your talkpage should not have occurred. It was a mistake to do that there, so my sincere apologies for doing that. I have been trying my best to avoid such interaction as you have requested. Why I did that there I can't explain, except perhaps I thought I was somewhere else, like the article's talkpage. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• SUPPORT COUNTER SANCTION : Attic Salt : Attic Salt has admitted to harassment (below) in saying:"Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual. In this way I found one of your edits at velocity to be problematic, [191]. I undid it [192], and then you undid that [193], You accused then me of vandalism and not understanding textbook material [194], though I think it comes down to you not writing clearly. The problematic edit was then undone by VQuaker [195]."

This is by, their own words is plainly wikihounding, which states; "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.". Saying "Honestly, I don't think this is unusual." It is against policy, and they were told that multiple times. Arianewiki1 in their other responses below confirm this before Attic Salt made this statement,

Evidence and Consequences

HOW HOUNDING IS DAMAGING Seeing a User 1's recent edit in an article found by tracking them, User 2 going to the same article, but modifying an unrelated part of the article to get User 1's attention, then later go to User 1's first edit and making a modification to it in the hope that User 1's responds. If User 1 reverts it, User 2 jumps in with another revert or modification, then makes as much disruption as possible. (Easier if User 1 is on an editing restriction) Other outside Users then see the disruption, seeing User 1 responses, then judges them by their reaction. If this escalates, User 2 achieves their goal by not only gaining other User's support for them, but further inhibiting User 1's contribution. Furthermore, User 2 then makes other changes, frustrating User 1 even more, they then go away for awhile, waiting for User 1 to make another edit in the same article, and finding User 2 modifying it again (or another part) supported by other Users who now think User 1 might be a troublemaker. When things finally get to a crescendo (nearing some level of edit warring or possible sanction) User 2 suddenly goes away, and go to another article page that User 1 edits, and repeats the cycle, often within several weeks or months. This all started because just one User has tracking another. Every time, User 1 either becomes frustrated, made out as being disruptive, makes a mistake and is blocked or banned, or in the end, gives up contributing altogether. If isolated, they are claimed to be not collaborating or notthere. Evidence suggests the methods are being employed here by Attic Salt : Example 1: On Supernova by this edit[196] (an IP edit that wasn't correct nor cited in the reference), this innocuous edit then appears here, an d under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements? with the accusation ownership, then the main article edit here[197], followed by these edits[198] In this section they say: "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." I modify it here[199], it is reverted in the next edit by another user here[200] (claimed because "not what the sources say, and of course complete rubbish", then the article's chaos begins - all because a User tracked me to a page they never edited before just because I restored an IPs deletion. Example 2: In the article Ion on 4th December 2017 10:07, I did these edits[201], but the next day on 5th December 2015 11:01 later turn up on the page with this edit here[202]. Anyone else looking at this appears utterly trivial, but it now appears on my watchlist, showing me that I now being watched on this page. Then you do this edit 18 days later[203] followed by this edit 07 January 2018 [204], which I partial reverted on the same day here.[205]. Example 3: The same kind of thing on Supernova. It has happened on other pages too. e.g. Velocity article about a month ago with this edit here[206], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[207]. (VQuakr too was involved here[208] and here[209], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[210] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) First Edits Ion 04 December 2019[211] Velocity 02 June 2019[212] Supernova 17 June 2019[213] Before this, Attic Salt had never edited these articles. CONSEQUENCES I don't think Attic Salt has got the whole implications of what they have disclosed above and the kind of damage this tracking of my edits has done - both to me and to other editors - especially VQuakr who has defended them here. Those considering this IBAN need to balance the evidence of undermining where each instance of hounding gains further support against the target. If the hans are tied by some Combined with suspicion of sanction gaming, makes the target more vulnerable. If they react by speaking out of their frustration or lash out, it is the target's fault. If they make a little mistake they are cornered and blamed. If they challenge the attacker, the target is called out for harassment, while outside observers never see the origin of the angst (hidden behind the implementation of the tracking.) They longer the process goes on, the higher the stakes,

If we do read this ANI it seems to show multiple problems has caused the great support behind some IBAN on Arianewiki1. On the face of a sanction might be appropriate. However by Attic Salt's own statement confirms they are following them. It is clear from some responses reading past points are actually true. e.g. VQuakr's response here[214] and the response and plea "Go away. Leave me alone. You have been told before. Attic Salt has been targeting my edit and won't back off."

User ST47 said here[215] saying:"...suggests to me that nothing less than an IBAN will address this pattern of harassment." WP:Boomerang? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianewiki1 (talk • contribs)

• COMMENT For me, the level of distress and wasted time already placed on me cannot be understated, making the whole editing experience unpleasant and hindering my contributions. (My four responses below explain this.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to yourself in the third person and claiming to be the victim of attacks aren't the trump cards you seem to think they are, and your attempts at deflection are transparent. Viewing your editing history is not harassment, and real victims of harassment don't follow their harassers around. The interaction report posted in the OP of this section shows numerous examples of you editing an article for the first time (or returning to edit after a long absence) shortly after Attic Salt made an edit; one egregious example is [216]. Your claim that you are the victim here is trivially falsified by anyone reviewing the report. VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt has been shown to be wikihounding. Fact.

Yes. "Viewing your editing history is not harassment", but targeting or following another editor by repeatably reverting or disrupting their edits then start engaging in punitive arguments IS HARASSMENT.

Again harassment (or sanction gaming) is difficult to prove.

However, Attic Salt admits to doing wikihounding (harassment).

They were asked to stop doing this. They ignored it. Fact.

"...real victims of harassment don't follow their harassers around." Prove it. My edit summary (yes there is an ES) says "On watchlist. Actually relevant. Unconstructive "this takes us off track." rv " e.g. This article was on my watchlist not Attic Salt. (Writing this now, only three users appear on my watchlist. Arianewiki1 and Attic Salt (as explained since this ANI became active.) The third is User talk:71.212.15.213, to whom I post a welcome message on 22nd June 2019 here[217] (in case they replied) 'Electromagnetic radiation' appears is on my watchlist, as I added it when doing edits on various magnitude articles. I presently have 662 pages on my watchlist. No other User has appeared on my watchlist that I can recall for many years.

If I reverted an edit, THAT DOES NOT SAY I AM WIKIHOUNDING. Such harassment is can only be true if a User persists with the engagement with a second user and then undermines or inhibits the editing process. e.g, Sanction gaming. There is no further discussion on the talkpage, and no further interaction between Attic Salt and me. It was reverted by Chetvorno here[218], who says in the edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Arianewiki1: I agree with Attic Salt; I don't see that this unrelated comment is relevant. It is WP:OFFTOPIC and not WP:NOTABLE". Nothing else happened.

So according to you here: "Your claim that you are the victim here is trivially falsified by anyone reviewing the report." is also falsified.

Saying "...and claiming to be the victim of attacks aren't the trump cards you seem to think they are, and your attempts at deflection are transparent" is not only avoiding good faith it is perpetuating a falsehood without any real proof.

Deflection is too easy. I have responded in good faith to all the demands being made within this ANI, and defended myself without personal attacks. This is looking more and more like simple personal retribution; probably stemming because a personal obsession with me not writing edit summaries and the previous rejection in an earlier ANI enforcing policy for me to do so. The pretext (by your words) in seeing one missing edit summary, was enough to set you down track to the position as it is now. This is made worst because I did add many edit summaries in the same Supernova article - possibly even because of I might have reconsidered my position based on what you have said. (Of the 99 edits done in June a total of 44 had edit summaries (48.9%) But you are still point pushing. You apparently still think I deserve to be further sanctioned, or better still, permanently banned. The problem is not me or Attic Salt is it. It appears to be a continuing grudge and you want to see me punished for it. (I don't care why.)

You have said in the very first statement that: "I couldn't tell you why, but Arianewiki1 has had it in for this editor, from the get-go and for approaching two years now." You got your answer. Attic Salt has been proven to be wikihounding and tracking me for most of that time. My responses are caused by increasing frustration because they continue to do it even when asked to cease. It is no being done to improve the project notthere it is being done to inhibit the contributions of another editor. It is against policy. This situation was not manufactured up by me, but by Attic Salt's own words without an trickery or coercion. Worse. They don't see it is a problem. Fact. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE This is near impossible to defend adequately in a short number of words, especially when exposed to what is presented is like a collected FBI dossier. It is likely an example of a very complicated series of gaming that is near impossible to prove or disprove. However, VQuakr saying: "I couldn't tell you why, but Arianewiki1 has had it in for this editor, from the get-go and for approaching two years now." is interesting, because it isn't (and can't be) just one way. Even a partial two-way IBAN (or even three-way including VQuakr, on the repeated excuse to revert edits just based on missing edit summaries) might help. (Both do this in edit summaries like here[219] or [220].) I'm acting within policy, and have now done so when it matters.

Most of this ongoing angst I think is because of a problem with Attic Salt's editing approach across many articles, especially when it comes to context. (See the many examples be me and others throughout their talkpage. Please read this discussion User talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations which shows the problem.) I do feel that they are specifically targeting my own edits and are sanction gaming. After experienced this many times, I've had to repeatably asking them to leave me alone and stop following my edits but they keep undermining the process by sticking to a POV until the evidence becomes overwhelming. I am not imposing OWN here.

I can't deny that most of the responses selected by VQuakr do show a real escalating level of frustration (as the recent edits on the Supernova article is yet another example, as explained below.) I also feel that on 1RR is likely being exploited by reverting my edits on some minor pretext (like edit summary, punctuation or elaboration), forcing me onto the talkpages to present and endless ignoring open advice or improvement. e.g. Spelling out in this recent edit[221] but having it reverted for the reason "No, it doesn’t say “all” white dwarfs, but rather “a” white dwarf." Even though this is being discussed on the article's talkpage, and leaves the opportunity for others to improve it.

I'm just a little confused as to what VQuakr's involvement actually is here, as far as I know I rarely interacted with them in the articles I've been editing. They once prosecuted a case about the lack of edit summaries in a previous ANI, which seems over-the-top considering in contentious edits. I've since been adding them.

I'm more disturbed by VQuakr claiming in this edit[222] is somehow badgering, when it only points out policy, especially when the 'ban' came out of the blue. I responded in case there was a misunderstanding, and then did as they wished.

Another is quoting this response[223] in a negative light, but failing to point out the had previously had accused me of "being a troll" and a "jerk." Reading the initial post hereUser talk:Attic Salt#Towards Happier Times..., and then saying: "Clearly, I was totally wrong in my initial assumptions. I sincerely extend my apologies regarding the comment on socking. I might be sometimes over zealous, but believe me, it was never personal." or saying: "I have looked at some of your edits, but the vast majority are positive and useful contributions. Keep it up!" Does that really look like someone acting improperly?

Though, much to my better judgement, an equal WP:IBAN of all Users here might be justified - just to stop the disruption. This might be difficult with some related astronomy articles, but it would stop the monitoring and executing of reverts.

Some may claim that I am notthere, but contributions like Photometry (astronomy) [224] (even with this sandbox), Photographic magnitude [225] or even Apparent magnitude[226] shows collaboration and improvements as it should be.

Extended content

Examination of the current editing issues with the content dispute on Supernova shows that Attic Salt has made 53 edits on this article page, the first being on 16 June 2019.[227] The next day they make this edit[228] and then add this query[229], where I'm accused of "Arianewiki1 inserted (without edit summary) the following sentence into the lede." and that "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." Yet when explained the original text was not mine[230], and asked to retract the accusations[231] - they instead ignore it. It seems the only reason they went to this page was my edit made solely by this single revert edit made on 13th June[232] made by an IP, whose removal looked like vandalism or an incorrect reason. Rather than discuss this further, they keep pushing the POV on 16 June 2019 with these POV edits[233]. This is then followed by a series edits trying to justify the adding of the words "heavier than nitrogen" (This is further discussed in detail in the ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian) Yet instead of trying to get consensus, they ramp up the discussion even further Stellar nucleosynthesis vs supernova nucleosynthesis, and the problems are explained with their view was then give by me and Lithopsian. Yet even when this appears, they still believe they are right against reasonable and informed opinion/evidence. This next edit by Lithopsian adds 'or white dwarf'[234], which I restored the version here[235]. Attic Salt then reverted this text here[236] because "Unexplained (no edit summary) removal of “white dwarf”, from lede but which is discussed in body of this article." I detailed why this was unnecessary here[237], then I next went to the talkpage with Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained explaining these original restorations here[238] The reasoning for this appear from 12 April 2016 under Talk:Supernova#Introductory sentence and in 2017 Talk:Introduction Explanation (again), with this problem being explained. This latest issue with this seems to come from me restoring the text under Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph as it looked like missed vandalism made in September 2018. (Before Attic Salt's editing of this page as it was made 29 May 2019.) Yet doing this now, as now claimed by VQuakr, launches into this response[239] claiming; This is "a broken-ass edit" Again whinging about edit summaries, saying " Of course it was reverted." to justify it. Claiming "Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban." ('messes' are irrelevant to any harassment, but repeatably pointing out some lack of edit summary is harassment under rehash and hounding them for it.) Accused on own saying: "You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work." (Anyone surely would reading this section is not expressed as OWN e.g. Me saying "It is perhaps imperfect, but it has been stable for sometime and is a reasonable compromise." or "...IMO there needs to be a better or fuller explanation for any further modifications." and "Further changes should be again discussed on this talkpage if gaining a newer consensus is required." Saying that: "It doesn't appear there is a stable version despite Arianewiki1's self-reference above."(most of this text existed since December 201 Saying that: "I am fine with removing "white dwarf" per this section", but then say "Rmv "white dwarf" per Arianewiki1's comment on talk"[240], but now say to Attic Salt comment "" that it "Works for me." So which is it? As I point out, Attic Salt refuse to acknowledge basic mistakes. They continues to do this kind of behaviour and is unwilling to change even if the evidence is against their views. e.g. User Talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations Every time there is a dispute, you have to climb another mountain to fix the problem. e.g. [241],[242], [243], [244] or this.[245] In the end it just becomes tedious.

IMO, the picture that VQuakr is painting seems to be only in the worst light, especially with the apparent obsession with them trying to force me by a further sanction to use edit summaries. As far as I know I have rarely interacted with them in the articles I'm editing. They once prosecuted a case about the lack of edit summaries in a previous ANI. Also why they responded this way in Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained when this shows opening up a reasonable discussion to get some sort of consensus. It is unjustified based on the given content.

What I would like to suggest before any judgement, is that Attic Salt might also respond here to get the other side of the argument without an intermediator speaking for them. I don't think VQuakr has the full picture here. If I've made unintentional mistakes anywhere here, then I'm sorry, as this took me sometime to organise and be consistent with the complaint. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There isn't much point in my responding to Arianewiki1's response, here, since they have so often responded with hostility and insults. Attic Salt (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE 2 @Dlohcierekim: Good. So Attic Salt you are not denying anything stated by me above?

The question is have you been sanction gaming? (As evident because the discussion given the previous ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian), that do suggest you have, and in which you also didn't defend.)

Also in the recent Supernova article does look like you are following my edits. I think you saw my changing the first paragraph, was because I restored a possible vandalism that went unnoticed? Or was it because Lithopsian added 'white dwarf' to the statement and thought it a good idea to defend it? Is this true? Even after a reasonable explanation appears here[246] But you did this rv edit[247], where you justify it as "removal of “white dwarf”, from lede but which is discussed in body of this article." Another is the rv edit defense: "This really is ridiculous. The article discusses SN from both massive stars and white dwarfs. So, the defining first sentence can't mention one without mentioning the other."

Yes, "white dwarf" appears 34 times in the article, but the problem is that you still don't seem to understand is that very few white dwarfs will go supernova. The current editing improvement in Supernova (not made by me) says "...massive star or when a white dwarf is triggered into runaway nuclear fusion." Saying only certain kind of white dwarf can go supernova. Isn't adding "white dwarf" ignoring context?

This example (among many) is not the only issue with context or editing e.g.

• Defending "about nitrogen." assumed by just by looking at some graph in a cite but not actually stated in the text. (Only later to find the source says "oxygen")
• Another was "Western" versus "western" claiming this was usage was given in MOS (It turned out it wasn't.)
• This edit[248] or this Deneb edit[249] (where you didn't realise 'dredging' was the correct astronomical term, but said in the edit summary that ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor") or even this unnecessary rv edit[250].

I posted you on the talkpage about one several of these issues in detail here on 23rd September 2018 under User talk:Attic Salt#Request, but instead deflected it by saying the unrelated: "Readers might peruse the rest of my talk page (above) for several other contributions provided by Arianewiki1."

Proving sanction gaming is occurring

Whilst anyone looking at these issues might say that they look trivial, there seems a long cumulative history of this kind of editing style. Other editors do see this in isolation, and it looks as a whole like acting against policy, but from my perspective, this continuous little niggling becomes very frustrating. I cannot absolutely prove this is an imaginary or a deliberate provocation, because when it get to the brink of breaking editing policy, finds it just moves onto to somewhere else in the project, and start again.

Is following Arianewiki1's edits possibly true?

I often feel that someone like Attic Salt (or even VQuakr) is always looking over my shoulder with everything I contribute. (Sure there needs to be scrutiny by others, but if one or two editors keep reverting on some pretext, while most random editors are not doing this, it highlights there might be a problem.)

Some Examples

If I go to an unrelated page, I find you following it. e.g. In the article Ion on 4th December 2017 10:07, I did these edits[251], but the next day on 5th December 2015 11:01 later turn up on the page with this edit here[252]. Anyone else looking at this appears utterly trivial, but it now appears on my watchlist, showing me that I now being watched on this page. Then you do this edit 18 days later[253] followed by this edit 07 January 2018 [254], which I partial reverted on the same day here.[255].

Isn't this a problem? It might be just coincidence, sure.

But I have already shown above, this same kind of thing on Supernova. It has happened on other pages too. e.g. Velocity article about a month ago with this edit here[256], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[257]. (VQuakr too was involved here[258] and here[259], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[260] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) All three were not edited by Attic Salt prior to this.

Summing Up

So how does this quasi-claim of tit-for-tat undermining be prevented and stop being disruptive?

Perhaps it might be better to post to MY talkpage that you see a problem with some edit I have made, pointing it out and let me attempt to fix it or even explain why. Not once have Attic Salt discussed any problems on my talkpage. Instead we just see repeated rv with my edits. Is this true?

In the end there are three possible options here. I get an IBAN (or banned all together), we both of us get an IBAN, or the problem between can disappear. Alternatively, we can just mutually agree just to stop interacting at all with each other's edits? I leave you alone, and you leave me alone (as I've already repeatably requested). Is this unfair? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that I am "sanction gaming"" I know that you are under a 1RR restriction. I'm not under any such restriction. Am I supposed to change my behaviour because you are under sanctions?

Regarding your suggestion that I am following you: You might recall that you have accused me of following you to the article on Deneb, of "harrassing" you, of "hounding" you, and of being a "grammar nazi": [261]. But, as I noted [262], your first edit on Deneb came three days after my first edit on that article -- doesn't this mean that you followed me?. To top it off, as I also noted, 5 of the 6 edits you seemed to find so problematic on Deneb were made by you (not by me) [263] -- and yet, ironically, you also accused me of being incompetent.

Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual. In this way I found one of your edits at velocity to be problematic, [264]. I undid it [265], and then you undid that [266], You accused then me of vandalism and not understanding textbook material [267], though I think it comes down to you not writing clearly. The problematic edit was then undone by VQuaker [268].

I suppose I might respond (yet again) to your problems with the Supernova article. You seem to think it is acceptable, in the defining first sentence of the article, to mention that a supernova can result from a the explosion of massive star, but not to mention that a supernova can also result from the explosion of a white dwarf. The supernova article discusses both sources. So, to mention one source in the first sentence without mentioning the other is, to me, unacceptable (the reader would be confused). And, contrary to your confusion, to say that a supernova can result from an exploding white dwarf doesn't mean that all white dwarfs explode, just as saying that a supernova is a stellar explosion doesn't mean that all stars explode.

Still, you pour it on -- just look at your many derogatory responses on the supernova talk page: You accuse me of insulting you [269] because I refer to a sentence you restored as "Arianewiki1's sentence". I apologised [270], but this wasn't good enough for you [271]. I note that the supernova article appeared to be conflating stellar nucleosynthesis with supernova nucleosynthesis [272], and while Lithopsian responds in civil terms [273], you certainly didn't [274] --and, as far as I can tell, you don't seem to understand the point I was trying to make. Anyway, I could go on and on. Interested readers can just read through Talk:Supernova to see what is going on.

I hope this claifies things, Attic Salt (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE 3@Dlohcierekim:

I do appreciate your response above, and read it a couple of times to understand what you are saying before a reply. However, importantly I do disagree with several of your points, and will counter some of them.

• I did not track you to the Deneb page. I did this because of the ongoing discussion with Rigel on the brightest ACYG variable, which Deneb is sometimes considered as the brightest. My first edit was this[275], which I did reading the article and never looked at the article's Watchlist. (My edit was unrelated to your previous edits, which were made later.) Further modifications in the article affected my own edits and some other pages that I also edited.

How do I know of your changes? Either through my Watchlist or through Contributions. If it is one my watchlist, the change is noted in the list. In contributions, it says "(current)" or is blank - indicating another. I don't have you on my watchist for sometime nor do I know exactly what you are editing. (I currently have you on my watchlist switched on for this ANI so I can be highlighted you may have placed a new submission. You could highlight the ANI page, but are swamped with too many edits.)

• SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM You are openly admitting to: "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual." OK, but didn't I ask you not to do this? When you placed your 'ban' from your talkpage, I requested this, but the article on Velocity was after this action. As Tigraan advised me not to have you on my watchlist, but now it is OK for you to do that? Can't you see that this is a big problem because it might be seen as targeting as I've stated. It is against policy. You are admitting you are following me. (So my previous ANI, in which you didn't respond BTW, my assertions were likely correct.)

• You still don't see "white dwarf" might need some additional qualification. Massive stars make massive white dwarfs and normal stars make small white dwarfs. Nearly all Type I supernova are created by massive/ heaviest white dwarfs. Small white dwarfs cannot make supernova (except merging binary white dwarfs - and very rarely.) If you remove "white dwarf", it still logically means that all massive stars go supernova. I and Lithopsian already told you that on the article's talkpage. Context is everything, and even if your logic were true, you just reverted the text but never attempted consensus.

• You made the claim under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements? on 13th June, but made the apology under Talk:Supernova#Stellar nucleosynthesis vs supernova nucleosynthesis on 23rd June - ten days later. Yet you realised I made a revert on 14th June here,[276] (worst you removed "inserted (without an edit summary)" in the previous edit, which seems to be part of the problem with VQaarkr.) There was a good opportunity just to 'keep the peace' by admission of the mistake.

Now we are only left with issue stated in "Summing Up", which hasn't be addressed. Can we instead come to a mutual agreement between us here to solve this? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree not to look at your edit summary and not follow your talk page. Attic Salt (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE 4 @Attic Salt: @VQuakr:: No, this isn't good enough.

I want the harassment and sanction gaming to finish.

The requested was that ...we can just mutually agree just to stop interacting at all with each other's edits.

I don't think you have got the whole implications of what you have disclosed above and the kind of damage your tracking of my edits has done - both to me and to other editors - especially VQuakr who has defended you here. (Did VQuakr even know you were hunting down my edits?)

The level of distress and time that your targeting edits has had on me personally cannot be understated.

You have now openly admitted to been doing wikihounding : THIS IS HARASSMENT

Wikihounding says: "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Quoting directly from there:

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, following another user around, if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Attic Salt, you have now done this multiple times (as shown above) in: Ion 04 December 2019[277], Velocity 02 June 2019[278] and Supernova 17 June 2019[279] (and many others, like Asterism, Constellation, etc.)

As for saying above. "I agree not to look at your edit summary and not follow your talk page."[280] shows a problem in understanding editing.

• If I (or someone else) make an edit summary that you see, then READ IT.
• If I (or someone else) don't leave an edit summary DON'T JUST REVERT IT (I've either made a mistake leaving it out means I probably consider the change as trivial.)
• If you (or someone else) make an obvious mistake, like a word duplication e.g. "and and" or a missing bracket, then FIX IT. (I'll thank you for it.)
• If in doubt, ask on some talkpage without inferring they are to blame or wrong. e.g. Pose a open question and/or an offer an alternative.
• If nothing happens, or they disagree, then LEAVE THE EDIT ALONE, and let some other future editor decide. Else provide supporting evidence.
• If you decide to REVERT, then be prepared to follow BRD, and get consensus.

THIS AGREEMENT

You are free to look at my or any other edit summaries, BUT YOU WILL NO LONGER REVERT IF THERE IS NO EDIT SUMMARY. (and not point that out. OK VQuakr?)

In your talkpage "ban" you were also asked this: "In return, I expect you to avoid all of my edits in the future, and remove me from your watchlist (if applicable), so I don't have to bother about responding here at all."

Attic Salt replied: "I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page."

We now know you have been targeting another editor which is Wikihounding. Now not some accusation or aspersion by me. It is now by your own words. So perhaps I may of had a good reason to be frustrated and aggressive?

All this needs to end here and now, else admins will step in. Without a mutual agreement, this or another new ANI will then conclude this situation by sanctions or a ban: me, you. or both.

You've already said in the same place: "I'm curious as to how deep the hole will be dug." Are we not still digging? Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I'm not sure why you pinged me. Not sure I'm needed here at all. And I must say, at a glance, you've handled all this quite well.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: hopefully you don't mind me pinging you again. With reference to your comment to Arianewiki1 above, if you feel that Arinewiki1 has convinced you via their replies that a ban is not justified or that someone else should also be sanctioned, it'll probably be helpful to comment above on this. To my involved eyes, while the discussion seems to have stalled the existing comments would suggest consensus for a ban of some sort. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I could never mind (in this sense) anything you do. I meant above that he'd done a great job providing counter arguments. I don't see Arianewiki's comments as that incivil. I was also blind to Fram's-- look where that got us. Hopefully those calling for a BAN of some sort did not come with axes to grind. (I don't think people who are complainants should get to !vote on remedies. They are not impartial. But I guess that's not how ANI functions/malfunctions (take your pick)).^ If Ariannewiki's comments are truly offensive and toxic in the eyes of someone not involved in a dispute, then some remedy is in order. I would ask that it be short term and predicated on Ariannewiki addressing people in less toxic fashion. Perhaps offering examples of what they would do instead. VQuakr is not totally blameless in this. As no one is indispensable, I think short blocks for both and have these two very intelligent but pissy editors write short essays on how they will be more civil and collegeal and less sensitive. And they should bloody well learn to collaborate. I mean really, what goes on in their real world academic settings. (They both sound like academics). Perhaps they should both take a week off and get some couching (or coaching) on how to interact with others. (As an Aspie, I know this sometimes can be helpful.) Sorry y'all my dog is sighing at me and I promised today to her. Hope this helps.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

^What I see happening at ANI generally falls into 3 categories. 1) Impartial and unbiased regular gather information, present it, and an univolved admin takes action. 2) The report is ignored. No one looks at it. No function at all. 3) A lynch mob complete with burning torches and clubs runs someone out of town on a rail.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, I disagree with your assessment, here. Arianewiki1 is a bully. VQuakr does not deserve a block. Not at all. Attic Salt (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

'RESPONSE 6'  : Nil Einne Dlohcierekim VQuakr @Attic Salt: Tigraan:

VQuakr is reacting for a different reason, and is only the catalyst. Their own predicament is that they didn't know you have been wikihounding, and others here have not known that. (Q. So have you been wikihounding?) Justification in this ANI is based on the contention that simply comes down to that I've been 'attacking' you. If you were blameless there would be no problem, but you were undermining the editing process. You are not blameless.

Point straight off says: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently." Both VQuakr and you have been pushing justification to revert edits if there is no summary (repeating that within the edit summary.) Yet, even following H:ES where is says edit summaries are not mandatory, and you should not revert if their is no edit summary. Point says "Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban."

Yet even if this is dismissed, on top of it, they keep on following from topic to topic. e.g. Attic Salt went to the Velocity article, which Attic Salt or VQuakr had never edited before. I was almost certainly found by watch me, then Attic Salt immediately reverted my edit.[281]. Similarly, VQuakr, also having me on their watchlist, again reverted this here[282]. Looking at the history listing[283], I had only attempt to improve the article adding two words, and whatever I do, they revert it. Even when VQuakr reverts saying "rmv confusing phrasing. Yes, direction + magnitude = vector, but we can write in a way that is readable, no?" I do that, but the new version is yet again reverted[284]. I just gave up.

So here is direct evidence of wikihounding AND making subtle points about a missing edit summary.

Yes there is even more to this.

My very next edit I go to the Talk:Ptolemy questioning if he was Roman, and up pops Attic Salt with a reply.[285]

My next edits then go to Lithopsian to ask a simple question, but they move the discussion to the unrelate page Talk:Antares#Magnitudes (please look at the initial dismissive response), and again there is Attic Salt, then followed by VQuakr and Cas Liber (who supports the IBAN here.) weighing in. Cas Liber says: "Arianewiki you know this so this is you (again) trying to drum up arguments". I asked a question to one user, including a relevant cite. I wanted to know, because I was updating the articles on main stars in the constellation of Crux, and Lithopsian reverted the format for magnitudes on Crux here[286] claiming "correct usage of magnitude as a unit".[287]. I just wanted to know why. A reasonable question I'd think, or is it a distraction or drumming up drama? (Extraordinary too, here is where VQuakr chimes in wit the discrediting: "Don't expect others to follow your arbitrary evidentiary standards just because you say so." I just asked a question nicely with a relevant cite. That's 'arbitrary'?)

I'm clearly being hunted down page to page, but with ol' niggling Attic Salt still wikihounding. This is now on-going month after month, safer because they're ban another on their talkpage. (Yet according to dear Tigraan "Seriously. You tick all boxes of Paranoia#Paranoid social cognition. Do not think they will lock you in an asylum (they won't) and do not think only wusses seek help." According to Tarn N. "Which leads to the fundamental collaboration problem. When collaborating, you should be considering in every single edit you make "how can I make it easier for my peers to understand what I've done?" and "And we've seen them here at ANI repeatedly this year, drumming up drama which goes nowhere. Attic Salt has certainly received a lot of abuse, but that seems mostly an indication of survivability on Attic Salt's part.")

But Attic Salt now boldly says "VQuakr does not deserve a block. Not at all." and "Arianewiki1 is a bully." ! Does Attic Salt now deserve a sanction here?

Attic Salt continues to undermine another editor (taking no responsibility for their actions and now feels immune), VQuakr continues to be the catalyst of the angst, Arianewiki1 is painted into a corner and frustrated (ready to have to be given their hat and coat, and about to be shown the door), and the mob outside lusting for a lynching. Ironic. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I've realised something even more ironic. I was put on a 1RR restriction after the lifting of an indefinite block because of BLP issues quoting unsuitable sources. VQuakr also chimed in there too. One new reliable source did turn up, and I posed a simple question under Talk:Clementine Ford (writer)#Controversies and criticism section, which VQuakr responded too in February 2019. How did they find this page?

Odd too, the new source finally validated the disputed text and the poorer sources, however, I'm still stuck with the restrictions.

As Richie333 said: "The 1RR is to prove to us that you have reformed and can be a productive editor without any disruption; if you can do that, and get the restriction appealed, then all will be well and we'll forget about it." I have not broken 1RR since. Continuous reverts by Attic Salt (or VQuakr) is especially egregious because they targeted in the hope finding a 1RR violation - meaning another indefinite restriction for me. It is reasonable to assume that watching a User is to await such a circumstance occurring as to enforce such restriction, thus it is a likely motive to follow edits via my talkpage. (The other Achille's heel is being "…and can be a productive editor without any disruption;" This is where this can be exploited.)

Maybe this is all imaginary, but it explains a lot, especially with Attic Salt following my talkpage and then making some revert every now an then on some little odd pretext. e.g. As by Velocity. Yet to them, this is not a big deal? This has to end. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

VQuakr's own Involvement here

@VQuakr: Could you please explain your own involvement here?

Exactly how does Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained initial statement deserve this response[288] followed by this ANI.

What is wrong is saying:

"Attic Salt is yet again reminded that edit summaries are not a requirement to edit, and using revert edits (rv) is no justification to revert. It is against policy. Repeatably doing this is now violating rehash and wikihounding, all seemingly done just to cause distress to another editor in the hope of 'nailing them' on some esoteric point. They are also openly reminded of the WP:BRD policy, especially if there is consensus in the community against some specific change you'd like to make. Please break away from this unpleasant repeated cycle of pointy (Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) behaviour. "

It was in response to this edit[289], where Attic Salt used as a reason to rv contained "no edit summary".

The invective response by you was "Oh. Good. God. You are seriously defending this broken-ass edit…", referring to[290] when the reference to the quote above was this[291] It is then said: "….with its faulty capitalization and punctuation…" (neither any of these edits have capitalisation or serious punctuation problems)

Then we return back to the seeming obsession with my edit summaries, saying: "….and (due to the lack of an edit summary) complete lack of context that might have otherwise helped another editor figure out what the hell you were trying to do? " (Again, H:ES edit summaries are not mandatory.) The suggest that: "Of course it was reverted." is a justification. This followed by the off-tangent response here.[292] Either way, this is personal attack, isn't it??

Yet you come to my talkpage and say that I'm the one doing a personal attack[293] . It seems to indicate that you took exception to me saying you making "new false accusations" but it is OK for you to do them?

Yet incredibly, you now place this ANI proposing IBAN and about an interaction of another editor, but evade what caused your own issues.

My objection was that: "Attic Salt is yet again reminded that edit summaries are not a requirement to edit…" and by them keeping on and/or reverting edits for this reason is against policy. "Repeatably doing this is now violating rehash and wikihounding," because a previously made long debate. (Note: Rehash says "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. " and Wikihounding says: "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.)

How is this exactly a personal attack if it is points out policy?

It is also interesting about these continuing edit warring issues above, especially after Proposed editing restriction: incident here and under this broader ANI here.

There are other wider questions here beyond this current ANI. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So, your response to a discussion about how you habitually make frivolous claims of attacks as a proxy for discussion, is to make a frivolous claim of an attack. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it? You did this rv edit[294] and this edit[295]. (I gave a edit summary). This is 'frivolous'? You were involved.

Ultimately the question come down to the response [296] and this edit[297]. (and those on my talkpage) What PA is here for you to respond as you did? Reading Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained please show where there is any PA in this section.

Saying "Oh. Good. God. You are seriously defending this broken-ass edit…"[298], Your's isn't PA?

Your own edit summary on my talk page says "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Supernova."[299]. Reading my response has no PA of any consequence, considering you own accusations.[300].

I think there is a misunderstanding or overreaction here. Who is the "specific editor" here? Reading this has a whole heap of accusations that has little to do with Attic Salt but your own issues with me - especially edit summaries. Yet the initial edit in this ANI above is all focussed on Attic Salt. Your own issue was an interaction with you not Attic Salt, but it have been used as springboard in defending Attic Salt. (It possibly looks like a tactical move making one problem unrelated to another issue,)

Simply how do we go from what is in my first two responses in Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained to this:

Oh. Good. God. You are seriously defending this broken-ass edit to the lede of a FA, with its faulty capitalization and punctuation and (due to the lack of an edit summary) complete lack of context that might have otherwise helped another editor figure out what the hell you were trying to do? Of course it was reverted. Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban. You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work.

Yet you have accused me of "faulty capatalization", but the edit you point out has no changes in that at all.[301]. You complain about a "lack of context", but even though this is discussed in the article's takepage already. I changed back an edit, sure, but I followed BRD, and introduced this Section. The rest of these accusations cannot be related to this Section nor the edit. You say "your requests for others to not modify your work. I didn't. I invited further discussions, and pointed out previous discussions. (I think you might have misread this.

As for the lack of edit summaries, well let's look at the Supernova edits of mine. e.g.[302]. Feel free to read my contribution page here.[303] if you think no edit summary appears in this article, I have now been adding Sections to the article's talkpage. e.g. here[304] Yes, I did leave off one edit summary. A mistake. Yet you pounced on that as seen within the blockquote above. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Arianewiki1's summary of the revert [305] and justification for his paragraph (quoted above) is incomplete. My edit that seems to have prompted this is summarised and makes it clear that he both 1. didn't provide an edit summary, so the rest of us are left with no understanding of why the edit was made, and 2. the content that he removed, "white dwarf", needed to be in the defining first sentence so long as "massive star" was also was also in that sentence. This has been explained several times, such as here: [306], and is the subject of an RFC that Arianwiki1 has called: [307]. Why we are going around in circles on this is unclear to me. Attic Salt (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a diversion. When called upon about their actions, this editor flails around trying to splatter blame, any blame, elsewhere to avoid scrutiny. Witness above dramatic There are other wider questions here beyond this current ANI. Anything to avoid dealing with their own conduct, which initiated this current round of drama on ANI (as I recall, this is the 5th round triggered by this editor this year). We should avoid being diverted - the issue before us is Arianewiki1's behaviour. Is it sufficient to require action? If so, should we try to layer on yet another round of restrictions, or just decide they are a net negative to the project? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it? VQuakr is involved here. True or false? Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Can you provide the list of people you have banned from your talk page, and the list of people who have banned you from their talk pages? I believe such lists are significant. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have "banned" no one from my talkpage (that I can recall). I see no reason to do so, because I can read and delete anything thing posted there as per policy. I rarely do deletions unless there PA. I have one person who has 'banned' me from their talkpage. None of them appear related to VQuakr issue here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This case is not about VQuakr, it's about you. I notice you still haven't provided the list, which you say is a single individual (I'll go back and check, because I was under the impression I knew at least three). The reason I ask for the information about people who don't want you on their talk pages is because we are considering an IBAN - it at a minimum should include people who have already told you to go away (and any you told to go away, although you say you've never done that). Tarl N. (discuss) 05:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Umm… I answered your previous question. This is not a court. The "case" is also about VQuakr because they are involved and not just an uninvolved observer. Also you've asked about "banned" or "banned you" from talkpages, but now you ask for wider "go away"? Isn't this fishing? By saying "I'll go back and check" looks problematic and might be likely against policy. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Tarl_N. VQuakr. I 've not interacted with either of you for sometimes now (except Quakr on Supernova, that now looks like ). While I understand there might be some slights that may have occurred with either of you in the past, a simple behaviour analysis now looks like you also have been on your watchlist, and are also likely wikihounding, especially because pertinent as Tarn N. and Quakr is repeatably chipping in on my previous ANI each time. Tarn N says "This case is not about VQuakr, it's about you." No. Like Attic Salt, you almost certainly have me on your watchlist. This on-ging gaming needs to end and end now. Admins now have a global picture of what is going in the background here, and frankly, all participants display foibles. They are in their rights to come down hard on future breaking of policy. Rethink what you do in the future - that equally applies to me. OK. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Arianewiki1: - regarding your time at Wikipedia, the die is probably cast at that point, but I will still give you again the advice I gave during last year's block, which might be of use off-wiki. Try to contemplate the possibility, no matter how remote it seems, that your view is incorrect.

There is no editor on Wikipedia that you got along with. Not a single one. In the "best" case people gave up dealing with you, in the worst case they contested your edits and gave you trouble at ANI (often after you initiated such threads, BTW). I do not think you contest that. The interpretation you make of it is that every single person whose path you crossed is malevolent towards your person: see your reply above directed against Tarl_N., VQuakr and Attic Salt, see your comments about Nick-D in last year's unblock request, and a thousand other instances.

If you truly believe that a dozen strangers on the internet all hate you for no objective reason, I would advise getting medical help. Seriously. You tick all boxes of Paranoia#Paranoid_social_cognition. Do not think they will lock you in an asylum (they won't) and do not think only wusses seek help (if you start coughing blood, you don't wait it out, you go see a doctor - at least I hope).

On the other hand, you might see the wrong in your actions. Not in a "I kinda remember I might have been wrong at times but it was mostly others' fault" way as you said above (and in your unblock, and...), mind you, but with knowledge of clearly-identified errors ("I did X, it was wrong because of Y; I did Z, it was wrong because of W; etc.). In that case, I suggest to work on a concrete plan to avoid making the same errors in the future. At this point, I highly doubt you can convince any of us that you saw the light, but there is a life off-wiki where you should not reproduce the behavior you displayed on-wiki. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you for your comments. I disagree. The portrayal here has little to do with understanding VQuakr involvement here. This ANI is about VQuakr interceding on behalf of Attic Salt, based on some VQuakr own perceived problem within Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained, then using it as pretext for a springboard for some IBAN based on a broader history. I have defend my position and addressed the accusations, where Attic Salt admits to have been following and targeting my edits on their watchlist and then surgically reverting edits they disagree with. This is against the policy because it is wikihounding and they have been likely using sanction gaming to obstruct the editing process. It is also likely both VQuakr and Tarn N. have me on their watchlists too, and are using some mistake or complaint to attack me or defend another user. Either way it is harassment. Fact.

VQuakr first paragraph in Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained several assertions towards me are untrue, and when basically asking them to refute them, don't do so. Instead. VQuakr thinks: "So, your response to a discussion about how you habitually make frivolous claims of attacks as a proxy for discussion, is to make a frivolous claim of an attack." The whole pretext of the launching of this ANI, is based on something within this[308] or this[309]. They still have not adequately explained this. What this has to do with Attic Salt? Do you see a problem in this Section to deserve an IBAN?

Finally, I'm very disappointed that you 'hate' me or that you think I also 'hate' you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in Arianewiki1 case

@Arianewiki1: We are in the 5th round of ANI drama for you this year. The proposal was for a one-way IBAN from you towards @Attic Salt:. Above, I inquired to find out who had banned you from their talk pages. I was under the impression that three separate editors had, but you claim only one - and refuse to provide their name, which makes it more painful to check your assertion (and frankly, not worth my time any more). Which leads to the fundamental collaboration problem. When collaborating, you should be considering in every single edit you make "how can I make it easier for my peers to understand what I've done?" Instead, your approach (including your refusal to use edit summaries, writing walls of text, and repeated ANI drama) seems to be orient around "How can I make it as miserably difficult for any other editor to interfere with what I want done?" That's not collaboration, that's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

My suggestion was that if ANI extends an IBAN, it should include anyone who has a problem with you, most particularly anyone who has banned you from their talk pages or told you to stop pinging them. On the other hand, this is laying Scylla upon Charybdis, given you are on probation with other restrictions already present. Rather than having you try to thread that needle, ANI should consider whether you are simply more of a detriment than a positive to the project. I suspect we could go at least several more rounds of laying further and further restrictions before you finally stumble and fail to thread one of the restrictions. That's frankly the wrong approach - an editor with one restriction is an anomaly, and should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. You already have two, ANI is contemplating at least one more, possibly two more (if we go back to your last drama, where requiring meaningful edit comments was bandied about as WP:ROPE).

One last comment about problems interacting with people on Wikipedia. When you were indef'ed for socking, you claimed it wasn't you, because the sock was in Victoria while you are in New South Wales. From 16,000 km away, they look next door, but it's probably more than an afternoon's drive. If it was indeed someone gaslighting you, then consider that it isn't just people on Wikipedia who have a problem with you. In that case, someone you know in person dislikes you enough to track down what you do for fun and deliberately set you up for a fall. I don't know whether that's accurate, but the fact that I consider it a plausible explanation says a lot about how you've interacted here.

Oh, and don't bother including me on the IBAN, I've decided to retire from Wiki. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"Above, I inquired to find out who had banned you from their talk pages. I was under the impression that three separate editors had, but you claim only one - and refuse to provide their name," Attic Salt has, the only one I know. I don't think anyone else has done that. If they did, how do I prove of disprove that or satisfy your request? I've told you honestly, I don't think anyone else but Attic Salt has "banned you from their talk pages". If you know better, evidence please.

The rest I see as mostly fiction. I don't know why I think you would include you in IBAN. I have no idea what you've been editing, and I can't think of any in recent times I have come across your edits. I am only disturbed by why you keep popping up every time there is an ANI, and all you seemingly write is negative. Unless you regularly track through ANI's, it can only be assumed it is from a watchlist. It is implausible to have some excuse, because I might consider a futher IBAN, that "I've decided to retire from Wiki." That is your decision and has nothing to do with me.

Objectivity is a problem here. I have been accused in an ANI of some wrong doing, and have adequately explained and defended my position. In the end, Attic Salt turned out to be following me and frustrating the editing process, they have admitted it (fact), and they don't see it as a problem (fact). This opens up the real possibility some of my other claims are also true. I.e. The 'ban' was a tactical move, sanction gaming, etc. Had they not done so, perhaps the impression that others may have of me might have been different. Wish you well. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting closure

It does not look to me like any new editors are going to join this discussion. The discussion between existing editors doesn't seem to be achieving anything productive. Can someone assess whether there is consensus for any sort of ban for any editor involved, and close this? I've also listed it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure so it might be good if anyone closing it follows the procedures there to avoid duplication of efforts. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2019 (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.

Editing against consensus after RfC

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

Editor is refusing to accept consensus as determined by Talk:George_Washington#RfC:_Cooper's_abolitionist_tract and edit-warring (though not breaching 3RR) to insert the statement that was challenged by that RfC. The rationale given for doing so is argumentative, with claims that the "so called" RfC lasted only a week when it actually ran for a month, and, apparently, that it is invalid because it garnered "only" three !votes and two of the them were by "involved editors". Factotem (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The activity in the RFC in question lasted only a week; It was initiated on May 31st, while the last edit was made on June 7th. Yes, it was finally closed on July 4th, as no one else was interested in such an opinionated issue apparently. During all this time this RfC only garnered three votes, two of which did not involve  outside  editor's opinions, including a vote by the editor who initiated it. The RfC claim of "unanimous consensus" is wrong, as I clearly did not submit my vote, as Factotem has, as I thought it was only for outside opinion. WP:RFC : "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." Two of the votes were submitted by involved editors. Only one vote was made by an outside editor. As such, this RfC should be dismissed. As for edit warring, as Factotem mentions, no breach of 3RR occurred. In my 12+ years of editing here at Wikipedia I've never violated 3RR. I've been working on the George Washington article for more than a year, trying to get it to FA, and have been trying to include important context, per FA criteria, covered by a number of sources. As an act of good faith, I will delete my own edit and try to achieve a better consensus. Please accept my apologies for any issues I may have caused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The response above and the activity on the article TP seem to indicate the editor is heading down the path of WP:LAWYERING and WP:IDHT. Please, could an admin look into this and, if that is indeed the case, nip it in the bud with an appropriate warning? Factotem (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The 'response' above contains a legitimate complaint about Factotem voting in his own RfC, that, after well over a month, it contained only one outside vote. As can be seen, my response also includes a second reminder, with a link, about the primary rule concerning RfC's, with my statement indicating that the edit in question would be (and has been) deleted by my own initiative, along with an apology. Yet he's still at it. The same could be asked that he be given a warning on the same basis, given his rather incessant activity, as he has initiated, contested and dragged out the debate surrounding the one, factual, well sourced, statement in question on the Talk page, and now here, for well over a month. The second sentence in the edit in question was originally written by and added to the article by Factotem, btw. All things considered, it seems he is now pursuing this affair and hounding me for personal reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding

Not sure where you got the idea that involved editors cannot respond to an RfC. Its primary purpose is to bring in outside comment, but there is nothing against involved editors commenting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I never said involved editors can not respond. It was the voting that I had issue with. The voting was considered as a "unanimous consensus", when in fact two editors who did not vote said the statement in question could be covered keeping due weight in mind, as was outlined above. The first sentence on the RfC page says WP:RFC : "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." Perhaps I've interpreted this wrong, but there was not a "unanimous consensus". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the root of the problem here is that Gwillhickers objects to the closure. Without having read through the RfC in detail I can't say whether or not the objection has merit, but at a glance it seems plausible that Gwillhickers' (and another editor?) declining to formally vote may have given the closer a false impression of consensus. At any rate, I'd suggest that instead of editing in opposition to the closure, Gwillhickers should follow the process described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (i.e. take it up with the closer first, and if that doesn't resolve satisfactorily escalate to a formal review). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I asked the closer to strikethrough(remove) the word unanimous from closing statement and he has agreed to do so. CBS527^Talk 12:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cbs527 and Rosguill: - Thanks, as I said above, to show compliance and good faith, I reverted my own edit a couple of days ago and will wait for any further developments. In the first sentence on the RfC page it says WP:RFC : "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." This lead me to think that only uninvolved and impartial editors were allowed to vote. It seems the RfC page needs to be more clear on that. Anyway, I've gone along with the RfC, such that it is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 behaviour

Extended content

I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me. Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content: Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [310] Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [311] More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [312] Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [313] The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [314] [315] His reply to the template message [316] Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [317] Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [318] [319] Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [320] One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [321] [322] I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [323] [324] [325] The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me. I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC) It was archived as udea, and I am not sure that you deciding it should not be archived is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC) The archive was done by a bot. I provided diffs, evidences and everything, how can they not try and evaluate this? They can't just discarded this because it was created by me. This been going on way before anything else prior to that. I don't want to let this get sweep under the rug and forgotten. --Vauxford (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC) u|Oshwah I know I shouldn't really ping admins but I talked to you about this before. Please at least look at this, this is nowhere near worst then what I got myself into with the previous discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening this because he has been archived the 2nd time now since nothing has been done about this. Charles01 has reverted my edit after I replaced a picture that wasn't even discussed, it might of been in the talkpage discussion but it was simply ignored, YET again calling it my "personal vanity project". I'm going to blow a fuse if he going to accuse me of that one more time. Please something be done about this, I really think the talkpage discussion on the Audi Q3 wasn't justified (see Extended content for the original post I did). I tried talking to him, solving it on the talkpage discussion, but now he simply reverting anything I do because he calls it a "personal vanity project". I'm at a dead end here and doing anything else would just become disruptive. Please can this be look at that, I know I can a handful but still this has been going on for half a year now and I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit much; but you do also suffer from a conflict of interest when it comes to adding your own work. Best to try to argue for its inclusion on the article talk page rather than inserting it yourself. El_C 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I did discuss this on the article talk page, I added a alternative image but it was never discussed except for some opinion about the wing mirrors. I thought because it hasn't been discussed I could use that instead of the one which a consensus have been reached, but even the consensus I find unfair because 80% of the reason for why they choose the grey one over the blue was mostly personal rather then actually talking about the picture. --Vauxford (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Try to change the consensus by getting wider input, taking advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Which one should I pick for this sorta thing though? Also this incident isn't just about the Audi Q3 dispute it the overall misconduct Charles01 has been giving me all this time. --Vauxford (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. That, indeed, depends on the depth and breadth of your dispute. El_C 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

[326] Charles01 made another lengthy comment making personal remarks of me rather then the picture itself in another talkpage, this often happens when I start discussion on the talkpage or anything with my name on it and when he gets involved it the comments become personal very quickly. --Vauxford (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C I made a request for comment on the talkpage discussion and I reverted a comment by a user who has already had their said about the photo in the previous discussion. Charles01 reverted that with yet another lengthy comment which mention I have "destructive arrogance", "toxicity" and implying that I edit warring all the time which I don't. I thought RfC was made so users who aren't involved in the previous discussion can have their say? --Vauxford (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. You removing that comment was totally inappropriate. Please don't do that again. El_C 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake then, sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

[327] Now it seem one of the users (who is more active on the German Wikipedia) is favouring Charles01 photos over ones that were done by me, the fact isn't whether which one is better, the fact is this user is acting biased by siding with Charles01 on anything now. Alexander-93 was the one who created the Audi Q3 talkpage because he wanted the grey car (which he took himself) to be used. The thing that bothers me the most is he insert his OWN photos into articles both on English and on the many Wikipedia I personally thing their nothing wrong with that as long as it isn't disruptive but I'm the one who been getting all the hassle saying I'm a "destructive user" and is "degrading Wikipedia" by Charles01 and he doesn't. Now I'm predicting that Charles01 gonna revert the recent edits Alexander-93 done with another lengthy scolding about how much a problematic user I am. What I find unfair is the sheer hypocrisy this is becoming and all I am is a scapegoat simply because the photo or edit was done by me. --Vauxford (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias: [328] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335] [336] [337] [338] [339] [340] [341] [342] [343] [344] [345]

[346] Alexander just made another talkpage discussion which is just gonna be the same bias outcome from Charles01 and I'm fearing he just going to continue doing this on any photos taken by me (whether I put them there myself or not) --Vauxford (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not prioritise anybody's photos. I changed the image in the Fiat Panda article since I think it is better! After you reverted my edit I started a new discussion on the talk page. It is the same procedure as I already did for the Tesla Model S and the Audi Q3. It is getting stupid since every edit, in which a picture of you is replaced is endling like this. It seems like not even I have a problem with this behaviour.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexander-93 The photo was taken by Charles01, and recently you have been siding with him for any comment he post about me. I'm going to be honest, I know this may seem rude and unethical because you have every right to edit on here, same with me on the German Wikipedia, but you are mostly active on the German Wikipedia because that your native language, I haven't been making edits/replacement on your Wikipedia because people on there got upset with me because their manual of style for automobiles is different to here which I respect that so I leave them be, same thing happened with me and the Italian Wikipedia so I also leave them alone, As far as I'm aware, it not against any polices to do edits on other Wikipedias unless it disruptive but if people on their really oppose my edits I would leave them alone. Why do you insist of trying to get your own way on here when it not even your main Wikipedia? --Vauxford (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

When I first read the words 'vanity project', 'Vauxfordy' etc. I did not know, what the others meant. I'm not someone who bullies someone and I will never use such words. But after a while working side by side with Vauxford, I can understand the others. And to be true: Since a few days, I'm looking at your and Charles01 edits. But I do not side with anybody! I'm following different users on Wikicommons, who upload (car-)images regularly. And if I'm convinced by an image (as I was for the new Fiat Panda image), I share it on Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter if it's from me or another user. I think this isn't a problem. It seems to me like Vauxford is creating his own rules and if someone says something against him or his edits, it's ending like this. As I mentioned above, I do not prioritise anybody here. I also vote for his images ([347]) or implement them in some articles ([348]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([349]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([350], [351], [352]), but your behaviour is different to others. You do not assume good faith and do not respect the work of other users!

As El_C mentioned before: Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. And just because English is not my native language and I'm also active in the German Wikipedia, I shouldn't do that in your point of view? I think you have to be careful with statements like this! Your problems in other Wikipedias are not my fault! In the German one there is the guideline to use mainly LHD-vehicles, since 99% of the vehicles in the DACH-countries are delivered with the steering wheel on the left side. And since you didn't stick to that rule, the German users had a problem with your edits. If I see it right, nobody here without you has a problem with some of my edits. But you have a problem with many edits, since I think you are making your own rules - and if I see it right, I'm not the only one thinking about you in this kind of way. So I do not care about your statement, that I should not use the English Wikipedia!--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, while I don't know the full depths of this dispute as it's been mostly outside of my sub-topic area, I've noticed a few things. Your photographs generally range from decent to less-than-passable, but you don't seem to understand that. You also don't seem to understand that replacing one adequate image with another adequate image isn't particularly productive. Whether your intention is to fill Wikipedia with your own pictures or not, your editing pattern gives other editors the impression that you are. I suspect these issues are where Charles01's frustration comes from, and that repeated attempts to get you to see that have left him believing he has no alternative but the unpleasantries you mention above.

If someone wanted to make a measurable improvement in terms of illustrating automotive articles, one would identify articles where an existing image is lacking and seek out opportunities to replace it, rather than taking photos in mass quantities whether they will be helpful or not. The goal should be to replace poor images with adequate ones; replacing adequate ones with excellent ones is icing on the cake (but in the vast majority of cases, a curbside shot like those you have access to is never going to be at that level). The point of having images in the articles is to provide the reader with a reasonable idea of what the vehicle looks like. As long as an existing image does that, ad nauseum discussions of whether a new image is a 1% improvement or a 1% detriment are wholly unproductive. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 Knowing a picture that need replacing is completely subjective towards the viewer. I have every right to do make these bold edits and I clearly understand why I do them and the repercussion I could get because of it. How the heck could I tell if a image could truly be replaced with something else or vice versa and thinking like that is just mind numbing. A person could replace a picture something they consider the absolute best but there always going to be someone who said otherwise. It doesn't matter if Charles01 is expressing frustration over me, it beyond unacceptable accusing others for "edit warring" when they have done whatsoever! It just harassment in general, it really patronising to be labelled as the "Vauxford Problem".. --Vauxford (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, you have a conflict of interests when it comes to adding your own images. You should really be suggesting that on talk pages, instead. El_C 16:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

But I'm not getting paid to do these edits or doing it out of my interest. I know that hard to believe but that's the truth and I understand why people mistake that. --Vauxford (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you're not getting paid, you cannot be presumed to be neutral regarding your own images in the event these are objected to, so you should let others add them instead and limit yourself to proposals on the talk page. That sounds like a sensible solution to me. El_C 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• The pictures-of-cars topic area is rapidly supplanting pro wrestling as the universe's #1 source of lame controversy. EEng 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Think of it as the flavour of the quarter. Blackmane (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hopefully it's only for the quarter and no longer. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I eagerly await a page entitled 'RuPaul Riding In Cars With Wrestlers.' JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the reason why this was ignored twice is a lot of people looking at maybe thinking, Mmmmm, not sure this is all that one way. At this time I am going to suggest that this is dropped before a boomerang ensues.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is one way because I did nothing to make Charles01 like this. This was all his choice, if was actually giving me advice of how to edit productively none of this would happen. --Vauxford (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing to edit more constructively would be to stop going to ANI about everything. No, not everyone is a puppy, unicorn, or eternally happy, and some of these people will make you upset. But if that happens, back away for a bit, maybe delete the message they sent to you if it's not applicable, stop reverting them. If they continue, for a long time, then maybe you can report them. MAYBE. You probably shouldn't. Unless they are making definitively uncivil statements or reverting several people, you probably shouldn't. The reasons people are against you right now are that for one, you opened this less than a month after that YBSOne mess, and two, you are reverting far too aggressively. Stop reverting people for a while and people should feel less animosity. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A lad insane That YBSOne wasn't started by me, it was started by U1Quattro which got myself involved in when I shouldn't have. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Aight, great. Now don't get involved in any more, and no reverts, and everything will be peachy. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Per wp:brd once you are reverted it is down to you to make the case, not down to the other user to give you advice. You are being told here what you did wrong, and your response is "I disagree".Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I been doing that this whole time though. I been discussing my edit on the talkpage instead of reverting all the time. Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI, so I went to the ANI and then E1_C told that this sorta stuff should be discussed in the talkpage section. It just seem like no matter what I do I get shouted and scolded for it. I'm at the brink of just giving up because at this rate I feel like every thing is all falling down on me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you had been doing it the whole time you would not have reverted even twice. It does not matte if you sometimes do it (and to be honest we all forget sometimes). What matters is you are here over this mater (it does not matter who started it, or who was reported) and have now re-started this twice, when you did not get your way (when I saw you first re-post I was going to say "maybe they have not commented because they see nothing to comment on"). Please note that sanctions are not punitive, they are preventive. At this time you are the disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't re opened this because it wasn't going my way I re opened it because nobody said anything and the bot automatically archived it before anyone could, all I'm doing is addressing the issue, I haven't reverted more then twice recently and I have been taking to talkpage discussion instead of that. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong here. --Vauxford (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am troubled by a lot of the stuff here on a number of different levels, but I was repeatedly dissuaded from intervening (1) because initially I couldn't think of anything I could add that would be helpful and (2) as the thing has dragged on and the temptation to jump in has periodically returned, I have been dissuaded from commenting by the belief that anything I wrote/write was/is likely to be savagely reinterpreted beyond recognition. So I bit my tongue and stayed silent here. But I am particularly taken aback by the statement "Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI...." I have no recollection of having "told" Vauxford that or anything that could have been construed as that. I really think he is ...um .... mistaken with his statement here. Either that, or my mind is going. (Of course, those two possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.) He is, as far as I understand the rules, entitled, as we all are, to write whatever he wishes here. But I think I would have been borderline insane to have "told" (or even recommended) him to do it as he has chosen to. I wonder what you are / he is thinking of with this. Charles01 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 I don't even know at this point. I think need a breather from all this because in my head I think I see something someone said but haven't actually said it, I just end up accuse them for no reasons. Even looking back to what I said it starting to not make any sense. Edit: [353] This what I meant. I might of misinterpeted in a way that I thought you were telling me to take my concern about Typ932 to the ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an all too predictable response to someone complaining about being hounded by another editor. Personal attacks are not justified by being "frustrated", are a clear violation of wikipedia policy, and need to be stopped. Conflicts of Interest can be reported to the COI Noticeboard. Period. ♟♙ (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More cases of using the "Vauxford Vanity Project" and belittling my own work over someone else. All because of a a short thought about someone else proposal. --Vauxford (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here I don't completely understand this whole COI thing. I been reading about it since but the way it describe doesn't fit the type of edits I do. I'm not closely connected or associated to anything or anyone. I just really love cars of all type and photographing them and thought they be good use in the article. I started this ANI because of the user's behaviour in the long-term. If their more I need to know about this subject please do explain it to me. The diffs I have provided shows he has accused me of edit warring, using wikipedia as some sort of "vanity project" which upsets me each time he uses that term because I know myself that isn't true, he calls my good faith contribution "toxic and delusional" and that I am "degrading Wikipedia". These are the type of comments I get whenever am trying to solve a dispute on the talkpage which is why people could take this as a COI (if am using that correctly) and became a more serious issue then it should to be. --Vauxford (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

COI is different to WP:COI. That sounds silly but the addition of WP: references it to the encylopedia's take on conflict of interest. Editors above that mention COI (without the WP:) are talking about one's conflict of interest when it comes to one's own work. Of course we are going to be biased towards our own contributions, we're going to think that it's great and defend it (to the death for some, figuratively speaking). And this is where editors lose perspective. They get so caught up in defending their work, they get blinded to all else. They start seeing any sort of constructive commentary as attacks on their work, people pointing out areas for improvement become bullies, harassers or hounds (sometimes this is true but for the most part, people generally do act with the best for the project at heart, you know, good faith and all that) and round and round it goes. I mostly restrict myself to copy editing because I'm pretty confident in my writing skills (quite a few of the articles I've copy edited have gone on to pass GA and even 1! FA), but I always keep in mind that at the end of the day no matter how well I think I write, someone else will no doubt come along and improve it, and that's the take home message. Don't get too enamored with your contribution to the article. Blackmane (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[354] As much as I wanted Charles01 take his time fine tune his testimony against me and I been making my counter defence one in the process but, I was too shocked the fact he even suggested that I was even using sockpuppet accounts. Apparently people other then him has suspicion that I been using sockpuppet account, for starters I have NOT used any alternative accounts for abusive purposes, the only two accounts I ever created was this one which was orignially Makizox, and Vauxford2 for mostly uploading files from Flickr to Commons with one accidental edit on Wikipedia because I forgot to log in to my main account. I did made some accidental log out edits which I got admins remove them because they revealed my actual IP address and that's it. I tried asking him on his talkpage about where he is getting these so-called suspicions from but it clear he is ignoring me. Along with the many assumption and accusation he has made against me on his testimony just shows the determination he has to throw myself and whatever reputation I ever had on here away. Why am so shocked from this is from my own impression on Wikipedia (which you might think is a bit exaggerating), being known as a sockpuppet user is equivalent to being a known sex offender, people will instantly change the way they think of you and would not have a second thought of what they think about you. --Vauxford (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, the evidences just keep on stacking, sorry if I made this ANI a bit too lengthy for your taste but I really think something must be done. --Vauxford (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

[355] It seem Charles01 have made a influence on a user from the lengthy paragraphs he wrote. I reverted the edit telling them that he it not a valid reason to shadow revert a edit over something they weren't involved with. --Vauxford (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic

That looks like an IBAN violation, as does this [[356]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC) as does this [[357]]. So in fact the pair of you have not taken a blind bit of notice of the IBAN, I would suggest a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven Wait, I never had a IBAN from U1Quattro. That one done by Sable was revoked wasn't it? I know there was a IBAN propsoal between YBSone and U1Quattro but the one proposed by me and U1Quattro was revoked by a admin over some reason. I really wasn't aware the IBAN was official or not since it was done by Sable. Then he closed it and got reopened by a admin and it just got postponed. Then a separate IBAN was created based on the ANI U1Quattro created which I didn't get involved in. --Vauxford (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Was it, when? I see nothing on your talk page to indicate that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC) I can't retrieve the diffs where one of the admins reopen it because they all got suppressed over a unrelated incident. This is why users shouldn't close ANI because it confusing to know which of these mental barriers are active or not. --Vauxford (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC) [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=900659991&oldid=899776308}}, "two-way interaction ban implemented between you and U1Quattro.". I can find nothing that says this was overturned.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven [358] Here it is, and then after that nothing got declared and was automatically archived, I think me and U1Quattro made up by ourselves by not speaking to each other until now. "Apart from the very obvious fact that there is no consensus for any sanctions here, in which case only administrators are in the capacity to impose sanctions" --Vauxford (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Because it got disputed and buried, how am I suppose to know if it in place or not? Unlike the second IBAN proposal where it was only towards U1Quattro and YSBone which was actually in place and the two already got a 2 week block for breaching it. --Vauxford (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC) I stand corrected, the message on your talk page causes confusion and should have been removed. Its a shame the pair of you could not resist speaking to each other.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven Well this talk I had with them today was for once was a lot more friendlier then the others and we came to a agreement that the edits was fine. --Vauxford (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC) So why did you raise them here?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Because I presumed he jumped on the bandwagon from Charles01's ramble nonsense about me. I was just logging anything that is related to this incident I created and providing as much evidences and diffs as I can. --Vauxford (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Need to revert many edits

User:2605:A000:1327:618E:146:11D3:F12D:9338 unilaterally decided to remove all links to the Science Fiction Book Review Podcast in external links in many articles about science fiction books, calling them “spam”. From the first several edit notes, they found it objectionable that the creator of the podcast, Luke Burrage, inserted those links eleven years ago into about 15 articles. But the IP removed way more than that.

Those links are actually very useful to readers, and should not have been systematically deleted like that. I reverted a couple, but the list of the IP’s edits is too long to tackle one by one. I did try to reach the editor on their talk page, but they’d no doubt long since been switched to a different IP. I’m hoping admins have a better tool to revert all the edits. No picking and choosing needed; their edits consist only of deleting these links. Ping me with any questions. — Gorthian (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is cleaning up spam to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt most editors of those articles would consider those links spam. — Gorthian (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What is so special about Luke Burrage or The Science Fiction Book Review Podcast that it should appear as an external link on the article of everything Luke ever read? Sounds like spam to me. It looks like this is, what, Luke Burrage's audio blog? IP is doing good work afaic. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The podcast is well known in science fiction circles as an intelligent, cogent review of books. It is not spam, especially in the "External links" sections, which is where it is used. Even if Burrage added the links to some articles more than a decade ago, enough editors have found them useful to have added them to many, many more articles. — Gorthian (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That viewpoint seems unlikely to be compatible with WP:EL. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As someone trying to remove the use of a celebrity autopsy program as an WP:RS where the host ME never met any of the subjects and might as well be typing trivia into IMDb with their unauthorized 'reports' of how said celebrities died...we've reverted spammers for the same type of keyword spam into articles and their YouTube commentary on something regularly. I have to do the same all the time on television network articles involving illegal websites streaming their content. This is clear WP:SPAM. WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't an argument here, and I wouldn't continue any reversions. External links should be limited to things like the publisher's site for the book and websites about the book from the writers or others. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking the time to read my plea and respond, anyway. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyingd

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:Flyingd keeps adding an number of irrelevant shootings to the article List of airliner shootdown incidents. No matter how many times there was a consensus reached on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents, he fails to see them and/or ignores the. Discussion, including a RFC, are persistently polluted with endless side paths.

Flyingd is clearly pushing those attacks on the BOAC777 in a very disruptive manner. His failure to see any consensus of its irrelevance, gives severe concerns about WP:CIR.

On the Dutch Wikipedia he has already a topic ban regarding the attacks ( = the attacks on BOAC Flight 777 on 15 November 1942 and on 19 April 1943.) Seeing his disruptive behaviour, I know call for a topic ban on ENWP, broadly construed, regarding the mentioned attacks. The Banner talk 16:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

And more proof of his disruptive behaviour here. The Banner talk 16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Restored edit removed by Flyingd.

@Editors Please read Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#Solution? to get and idea. The rest of the talk page will give a good indication of Banner's adverse behaviour. Flyingd (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also please note that I did not add items to the list as Banner states but only added a small, one sentence, note to the existing item 1943 BOAC 777 in the list. Flyingd (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read correctly, as I state that you added irrelevant shootings. Not that you added new items/planes to the list. The Banner talk 22:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Having read the talk page, I don't see consensus. I see the same editors talking over one another and several references to "previous consensus" without links or other identifying characteristics that would allow someone to locate the discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing that clearly. Flyingd (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777

Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents#Requested move 22 September 2018 (attempt to widen the scope to include the attacks)

Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents#revisited: Mentioning two earlier attacks on the same airliner on the same route / BOAC 777

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#RFC: are earlier attacks, not resulting in a shoot down, relevant

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#Move to rename article to 'List of attacks on commercial passenger aircraft' (second attempt to widen the scope of the article to include the attacks)

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#Solution? (third attempt to widen the scope to include the attacks)

The Banner talk 18:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So I didn't miss any then? They were all on the current version of the talk page? Because across all those, I count 7 unique participants. Three oppose inclusion, three support inclusion, and one was a single sentence from User:Chris troutman that cited prior consensus, which depended on a conversation from a year prior among the same participants. Sorry, but I'm not seeing consensus anywhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: My involved opinion is that this is an attempt to use administrative action to win a content dispute that has gone south. As The Banner noted, this is a multi-wiki dispute. Flyingd and The Banner are both active both on Dutch Wikipedia and here. Flyingd does seem to have a history of tendentious editing, looking at the bottom few sections of nl:User talk:Flyingd (translation). He was topic banned by the Dutch ArbCom back in August, but as you can see had resumed editing the topic by early June of this year, for which reason he was blocked on 5 June; apparently, he was under the impression that his ban should have expired earlier this year, an impression that appears to have been mistaken. (ArbCom was apparently supposed to re-evaluate the ban, but whether or not they did is another question, and a re-evaluation does not mean the ban was supposed to be lifted.) He continued to advocate for his revisions on his talk page, resulting in talk page access being disabled on 8 June.

At that point, he returned to English Wikipedia and began championing his revisions here. (Or other revisions? I'm not really sure whether they were the same edits, but they were within the same topic.) Most of that drama has played out on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents, beginning in section revisited: Mentioning two earlier attacks on the same airliner on the same route / BOAC 777. As you can tell from the section header, this issue has been raised before; The Banner, flyingd, and a few other editors argued this same question last year, apparently around the same time as the events that precipitated Flyingd's topic ban on Dutch Wikipedia. As for the current discussion, there are about four sections consisting of Flyingd and The Banner shouting past each other, apparently both unable to communicate in a way that made mutual sense, with the occasional, more-sensible input of Robotje and, to a lesser extent, MilborneOne, although their greater sensibility did not actually help the conversation go anywhere. At some point, a (very biased) RfC was called, and five days and scores of revisions after this argument began, I was summoned by LegoBot to the talk page. That was 12 June.

The fact that Flyingd and The Banner were utterly failing to communicate with each other was obvious to me, so I began trying to distill the real issues in section Re-gathering of issues. The Banner was the first to respond (indeed, Flyingd took a four day break from Wikipedia at this point), and so I began discussing with him, if we can really call it that. During that conversation, The Banner repeatedly engaged in behavior designed to thwart discussion of real content issues and thus prevent the building of consensus. I would encourage you to read section "Re-gathering of issues" and all subsequent discussions, or the ones above as well, to get a full picture of what has been going on, but I'll provide some examples. An easy one is casting aspersions [359][360][361][362] (among many others) and other ad hominem arguments [363][364]. Another common behavior is moving the goalposts, which he uses in combination with wiki-lawyering and other irrelevant arguments over semantics, typically in a pattern of stubbornly pointing to one procedural detail to stonewall discussion, then retreating to another redoubt when someone demonstrates the irrelevance of the procedural detail. See this chain of diffs, where The Banner explains that the discussion, at its core, is about how the Flyingd is attempting to add entries to a section that are irrelevant to the list [365]; I explain why I think they provide relevant context [366]; he diverts to arguing that they are irrelevant to the RfC [367][368]; I reply that what the The Banner raises in the RfC misrepresents the issue Flyingd was trying to raise [369]; The Banner continues to shelter behind the RfC [370]; I point out that I was initially discussing the topic of the RfC [371]; he now retreats to hiding behind the (rather dubious) previous consensus [372]; I point out that consensus can change and that he can’t avoid my new arguments by hiding behind prior consensus [373]; and having apparently run out of things to hide behind, The Banner disengages from that conversation, still having not offered any kind of response to my initial argument about why I believed the content was relevant.

I can point to more diffs: for example, other instances of trying to hide behind consensus, e.g. [374], but I’ll spare you most of them. There is one other chain I should note, however. Otto ter Haar and I have argued that including attempted shootdowns in the list (because there aren’t enough to make a separate list) would benefit the reader. This morning, The Banner made a strawman simplification of our arguments and asked for real content-related ones [375]; I pointed to previous diffs where we made those arguments [376]; he insisted they weren’t content related [377]; I responded that arguments explaining why content benefits the readers are definitely content-related, noted that we had done this senseless arguing over semantics before, and asked that he just respond directly to Otto’s and my arguments or raise some of his own [378]; and then The Banner, apparently exasperated, threatened to take the whole thing to ANI [379]. So here we are.

I hope all of these diffs have helped you gain some context. My own personal (again, definitely involved) reading of the events so far is that while Flyingd has indeed displayed tendentious behavior, The Banner's behavior is far more problematic. He has repeatedly engaged in WP:POINTy behavior, stubbornly sheltering behind procedural details and consistently retreating from one to another when I’ve demonstrated their irrelevance. He has repeatedly framed other editors arguments’ inaccurately to try to gain the advantage. When he runs out of erroneous logic to hide behind, he rage-quits, essentially, disengaging from the conversation until he can find another illegitimate objection to raise. Over the past 16 days of conversation with him, he has raised zero arguments addressing how taking one course of action or another would help or hinder our readers. Has Flyingd engaged in disruptive behavior? Given his repeated refusal to disengage, I would say so. I am, however, convinced he is making a good faith effort to improve this and other articles. He engages with me and other editors, makes real suggestions, and is willing to concede the point when he's been convinced. That’s more than I can say about The Banner. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

*This was much longer than I expected it to be. My apologies for burdening you with this, but I do think it is all relevant. For anyone not wanting to read the entire thing, the meat of my argument is the last three paragraphs; the others are context. Anyone with suggestions on how I might trim or refactor this is encouraged to mention them. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

True, I indeed disengaged a bit as you wandered into every side road Flyingd opened without going back to the issue at hand. I know that I am not well (depression) at the moment and disengaging is one thing I do for self-protection. The Banner talk 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand that depressive episodes suck (I have the disorder too), but that is not a satisfactory answer for the behavior I just described. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If I look at the last 185 edits of Flyingd on en-wiki almost all of them are directly or indirectly related to BOAC Flight 777 and prior incidents involving that airplane. As far as it is on the article BOAC Flight 777 that is off course OK. For other articles his behaviour is more like a kind of name dropping; trying to squeeze in some (extra) information on the flight in articles about pretty unrelated topics. In at least one case he started pushing on making the scope of the article extra broad by changing the article title so he could squeeze in some extra information on the incidents on that airplane in that article. After a discussion that was turned down so he just waited another year and started trying it again probably hoping the others would not notice or just give up. When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there. The 185 edits I mentioned above were done over a time span from 30 September 2012 until now. So over the last 7 years his focus on en-wiki was mostly on incidents that airplane was involved in. Adding information on the article about that flight is perfectly OK with me. I suggest a topic ban on en-wiki for him on anything about that airplane and the incidents including talk pages (maybe with an exception for the BOAC Flight 777 article and talk page for that article). After pushing for 7 years it is now enough. - Robotje (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where I am/was "trying to squeeze in some (extra) information on the flight in articles about pretty unrelated topics."? Can you also point out where I have ignored your arguments? Flyingd (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Douglas DC-3, [KLM, section The 1940s and 1950s, [KLM, Section Incidents and accidents for example. The Banner talk 08:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The addition to this section Notable incidents without fatalities in the above mentioned article seems perfectly in place and related. If you have another opinion on that please explain it. Flyingd (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it seems odd that in the edit of the 19 April attack ([KLM, Section Incidents and accidents]) there is no mention of the final shootdown allowed. This is just an example of how 'some editors' would remove such info without any normal discussion other then saying it's irrelevant with some ban/tban request threats, start an editwar and arrange for a TBAN and several bans for some days as has happened on the Dutch wiki.

I insist such a mention where any other attack on the Ibis is mentioned could be relevant to many readers. The Ibis is the only airliner in the world that was attacked 3 times (in 7 months). I see no reason to obfuscate this fact to the reader by not allowing a short one sentence mention of previous cq. later attacks when one of the attacks is mentioned in an article or list. Flyingd (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that mentions of the two non-fatal attacks and the last fatal attack on the Ibis have been removed from KLM#Incidents_and_accidents. Does this serve the Wikipedia? Flyingd (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyingd, as for your question for examples of you trying to squeeze in that kind of information in en-wiki articles The Banner already gave some examples and if you really interested, I can add more. Just let me know. Then about ignoring. I guess your question is related to my remark "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." I was referring to your 'Ah, there you are' edit. - Robotje (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You know very well that I reacted to you here: [380] (right bottom) Flyingd (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. - Robotje (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

sorry, fixed Flyingd (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

After my remark "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." you asked me: "Can you also point out where I have ignored your arguments?" I explained where that was based on and now your response is "You know very well that I reacted to you here ..." As everybody can see, your first reply was the 'Ah, there you are' edit where you were importing a problem from nl-wiki but ignored the whole point I was refering to. Only after I pushed for it you finaly responded and again you were importing the problem from nl-wiki. That underscores "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." Now clear? - Robotje (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and there wasn't much to begin with. Restarting a discussion after a year seems extraordinarily patient to me. Also, if nearly all of his edits over the last 7 years are about this plane, isn't proposing a TBAN effectively a ban? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but a TBAN would still be preferred (because he might theoretically find something else to work on). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

After waiting for a year this was his first edit. He did not try to resume the discussion to find out if the situation was changed or not, he just started adding text in that article he likes to spread all over in articles that could be a tiny bit related to his favourite topic. To me it is obvious he is not doing that for the readers. BTW, he did in the beginning edit on other items on en-wiki. - Robotje (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that previous attacks on the same airplane on the same route within 7 months are a 'tiny bit related' to the last fatal attack? Are you deciding this for the readers? Flyingd (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyingd, next time please try to read more carefully. I wrote "... articles that could be a tiny bit related to his favourite topic." so not incidents but articles that are a tiny bit related. Take this edit of you about an air race. The Ibis airplane (DC-3) had nothing to do with that race. You seem to have mixed up with the Uiver airplane (DC-2) that did participate in that air race. It was DragonFury not me who decided it was not relevant for the readers. - Robotje (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

*This is going to sound like I am trying to cast doubt on the motives of Robotje's comments above, which I am not, but because I am currently the only one providing any information on the happenings on Dutch Wikipedia, I believe I should, for comprehensiveness's sake, note that Robotje and Flyingd also have a history with each other there. I would simply add this information to my own comment, but it's been too long to do so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: As an involved editor I concur with Compassionate727s opinion that while Flyingd has indeed displayed tendentious behavior, The Banner's behavior is far more problematic. Otto (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I also concur with Compassionate727's opinion except the part about my alleged 'tendentious behavior'. I do not know where I have displayed such behaviour. Just in case: I don't regard the countless reverts of Banner's undo's of my edits, without any relevant discussion from Banner's side, as tendentious. Flyingd (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

How many times have you reverted my edits without a single word of explanation or without any relevant discussion from Flyingd's side. I call this pushing, tendentious and disruptive. The Banner talk 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You know it is exactly the other way around. I have never reverted any edits that you initiated. I don't follow your edits. I did revert countless undo's on my edits from you. Could you please try to focus on the discussion above where you answered a question that I had directed to Robotje? Flyingd (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• a question to Banner, Robotje and MilborneOne: at Leslie_Howard#Death the previous attacks on the Ibis are described (not by me). Do you believe mentioning the earlier attacks in this article is correct? Or would you say the previous attacks had nothing to do with the last attack (in which Howard died) and mention of the previous attacks are irrelevant and should be removed (as per your logic which you have been using to undo my edits)? Flyingd (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your long term obsession with the subject but this is not the place to discuss content issues. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue why I ended up here and your reaction will give admins a good idea on how any relevant discussion is avoided. The only obsession I see is the obsession of a few editors (including yourself) with me. Flyingd (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Claiming that the above is a content issue and using this as a reason not to give a relevant reaction is ridiculous as it is obvious I mentioned the Howard article as an example closely related to the reason Banner requested a TBAN for me. Flyingd (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This, opening up another side discussion to confuse the main discussion, is a perfect example of the way you disrupt discussions. The Banner talk 15:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't this discussion about a closely related example touch on the reason you requested a TBAN on me: Adding other attack info where one attack is mentioned? Isn't that why you got us here in the 1st place? Hardly a disruptive side discussion. Yet another example of not reacting to/avoiding the issue at hand. Flyingd (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyingd, After August 2012 you made more than 200 edits and by far most of them were about the incidents that airplane was involved in, squeezing (extra) information about those incidents in a lot of (almost) unrelated articles, trying to justify that you did so on talk pages, etc. The fact that you bring up just another similar topic (seems like you want to justify your behaviour because somebody added that information in ONE article) is just underscoring the issue with you. In the discussion abobe you blamed three coworkers to be obsessed with you. I was hesistating to use the word obsession/obesessed/etc. but to me it is becomes more and more clear you are obsessed with those incidents and your main purpose for being active on Wikipedia (including but not only en-wiki) is to get information about those incidents in a lot of articles on Wikipedia. For the article about the last flight (and the talkpage for that article) adding information related to that airplane and having related discussions about that is OK. For the rest this behavoiur became more and more troublesome. I think a topic ban for you on this issue is a good sollution, the sooner the better. - Robotje (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of these edits have been reverting undo's from the same few editors and trying to discuss (to no avail) on talk pages. Flyingd (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Involved but I would support the original proposal by User:The Banner that we need a topic ban on Flyingd on anything related to BOAC Flight 777 as per a similar ban on Dutch wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Admins please note I started the Dutch BOAC Flight 777 article back in 2010 (translating bit by bit from the english article). Banner endlessly editwarred me there with among others his opinion that any reference to the previous attacks were irrelevant in an article BOAC 777 and should only be mentioned in a page about the airplane itself behind the wikilink PH-ALI. According to the Banner the airplane was the only common ground for the 3 attacks so the 3 attacks can only be mentioned together in an article about this airplane. Flyingd (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Indeed I received a TBAN from the Dutch ARBCOM for a very similar case and I have stated that the Dutch ARBCOM is either corrupt or incapable. I hope the latter, not enough manpower/time to sift through endless non-reactive discussions and just taking a one-person extensive description of my 'misbehavings' as the truth. Flyingd (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

During World War 2 between 50 million to over 80 million died.[381] In 1942 and 1943 millions of poeple were murdered in extermination camps or killed at battle fiels, bombing of cities, etc. In 1942 and 1943 millions of others got severly injured/handicaped. In november 1942 an airplane was involved in an incident when flying from Portugal to England. It looks like nobody was hurt or killed, only some damage to the airplain that still could fly hunderds of kilometers from Bay of Biscay to England and safely land there. In april 1943 something similar happened, nobody was hurt or killed, only some damage to the airplain that still could fly hunderds of kilometers from Bay of Biscay to England and safely land there. For Flyingd both minor incidents were such an extremely important part of World War 2 that he added these minor incidents in the article about 1942 [382] and 1943 [383]. Flyingd also thought quite a lot more (almost) unrelated articles had to be modified to add some (extra) information about his favorite topic. Similar behaviour on nl-wiki caused him to get a topic ban by the arbcom there and now he thinks that unless they were incapable people they must have accepted some money or so in order to have a topic ban imposed on him. Soon after he was blocked there for one week for violating that decision of the arbcom, he resumed his troublesome behaviour here. - Robotje (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

With his remark Indeed I received a TBAN from the Dutch ARBCOM for a very similar case and I have stated that the Dutch ARBCOM is either corrupt or incapable. Flyingd makes clear that no compromise whatsoever is acceptable to him. So restrictions need to be enforceable. A topic ban is the most friendly way to let him change his ways. The Banner talk 21:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not yet convinced of the necessity of a topic ban. I've only seen two diffs here where Flyingd added information to pages where it obviously did not belong (the two Robotje supplied earlier today), and that was less a disruptive "this is completely irrelevant" than a simple editorial issue (all items in those year lists should be notable, i.e., have their own articles). So far, I've seen a lot of shouting, finger-pointing, accusations of tendentious editing, etc. Can I see 1) more diffs of Flyingd adding information to clearly irrelevant articles, in order to establish a long-term pattern, and 2) diffs where someone calmly, clearly explained to Flyingd why adding that information did a disservice to the reader or was bad for the Project? Unless we can establish both that there is a long-term pattern of misbehavior and that previous attempts to address the behavior in a more constructive manner have failed, I do not believe that the need for a topic ban is demonstrated.

I am, however, of the opinion that no-fault interaction bans are warranted at this stage. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Compassionate727, it turns out you did your edit while I was still working on my last edit. In that edit I wrote to Flyingd: "Take this edit of you about an air race. The Ibis airplane (DC-3) had nothing to do with that race. You seem to have mixed up with the Uiver airplane (DC-2) that did participate in that air race." I think that is just another example of adding text about his favourite topic in an article about an unrelated topic. Togehter with the other two that makes 3, already enough for a pattern I would say. I will try to find a few more of this kind of edits. - Robotje (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do. I am not convinced, and I think you will struggle to convince most uninvolved editors, that three edits from 7 and 11 years ago warrant a topic ban. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What about edits like [384] and [385]. The first one was undone soon after his edit so a few years later he just tried it again. The topic of the article is a type of airplane made by the Douglas company. Both perfectly fits the pattern of adding info about his favourite topic in articles about basically unrelated topics. The problem becomes now more clear? - Robotje (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The first diff was reverted with the summary "too much detail". The second diff, added four years later, has less detail. Seems like a good faith effort to me. It also went uncontested for four years until you removed it without comment. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2019 (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:JJMC89 behavior

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've encountered the unusual situation, one that I've not seen in 12 years on Wikipedia, of an editor who has taken it upon himself or herself to look at individual user pages and then to "boldly edit" them [386]. I responded with a warning to the editor's talk page [387], but I would not be surprised if the editor is doing this to the user pages of other editors, and feel that this is a practice that should be discouraged. The editor's identified status as a Wikipedia administrator might deter other editors from objecting to a rather heavy-handed, if not arrogant, invasion of their own user pages.

Perhaps this editor is correct, perhaps not, that use of the image, identified with a public domain tag [388], is a violation of WP:NFCC; that's irrelevant for something that hasn't moved to the point of being displayed as an article. Once it is an article placed on "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", then anyone can edit it. On a personal page, however, I think it easily qualifies as aggressive behavior. It's somewhat disturbing that there's an individual who is scanning through other editors' user pages in his or her spare time, and then quietly "correcting" them. It's bad precedent to allow this type of intrusion to become acceptable behavior. Mandsford 17:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The bot is doing it's job to remove NFCC content from non-mainspace (WP:NFCC #9)... What's the issue? The image is clearly tagged as NFCC, and even has specific warnings not to copy to commons because of its non-free derivative nature. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mandsford, you need to read the policies, that you cite. WP:NFCCP#9 is quite lucidly written. FWIW, I have not seen you either, prior to this thread which smacks of an assumption of bad faith. Also, are you coming across a bot, for the first time, in your 12 years of wikilife? ∯WBG^converse 17:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It must be a mistake. The image is not in public domain.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as an innocent misunderstanding arising from a technical issue: the public domain tag (relating to the underlying source material) is presented by the image previewer, misleading people about the images' actual status. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)…

(edit conflict) I understand Ferret's response. I think WBG's comment is unnecessarily snarky. I don't quite understand Ymblanter's comment, although I suspect it's just too brief for me. Putting aside that Mandsford is wrong on the merits, I don't understand why they didn't discuss the issue with JJMC89 first. The one comment I can see that they posted on JJMC89's Talk page was more of an attack than the opening of a dialogue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The OP clearly thinks (and says this) that the image is in the public domain, hence possibly the misunderstanding. But, indeed, the talk page of JJMC89 must have been the first stop here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I figured it was me being dense.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In case it's not clear yet, for Mandsford: JJMC89 is not scanning through other editor's user pages in his spare time. This action is being performed automatically by an approved bot, not a human. -- ferret (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@BBB:- Mandsford's responses over his own t/p, JJCM89's t/p and this thread smacks of a default assumption of bad faith. From his stating that he had not seen JJMC over his 12 years of editing (which I read in a patronizing tone) to his so-called warnings. I genuinely suspect that he does not know about how bots work or you need to additionally consider the prospect that he is intentionally accusing JJMC89 of invading user-pages in spare-time. Incidentally, he became a sysop in 2010 and there are 2 admin-actions after 2013. ∯WBG^converse 18:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Mandsford: Why did you come here less than three hours after asking JJMC on his talk page? Per WP:VOL, he's got a right to a life outside of the Wiki. So some people think any way :D ——SerialNumber54129 18:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That was a misunderstanding related to this being a bot. He left the message, JJMC89 bot (who the OP thought was JJMC89 himself) removed the image again without responding to the message, and he came here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate most of the responses. I drew the wrong conclusion from the image, but the labels on it are ambiguous; perhaps the label on it should be clarified. Mandsford 18:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see what is ambiguous about: "Re-users of this content … need … a fair use or similar legal claim to use the depiction of the copyrighted work." Please explain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Prior to this edit, the file was displaying some PD tsg.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that was clearly incorrect then. Thanks for clarifying. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• The most frightening thing about this episode is that the original poster has administrator rights. Should that really be the case for someone who doesn't seem to know what a bot is, and who has such a basic misunderstanding of our copyright policies and WP:OWN? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the closing statement on Mandsford's RfA says, in part, "While there are several valid reasons given by those opposing this candidacy, the reasons basically boil down to 'he doesn't completely understand all the policies and guidelines'.. The closer brushed that off, but maybe that wasn't such a good idea. Perhaps 'crats shouldn't promote when there are serious concerns over the candidate's knowledge of our policies and guidelines? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2019 (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.

Obvious sock and revision deletion

Hi, the article Otto Brixner consists of lots of libelous content as a IP told USer:78.26 today ([389]), e.g.:

• "who sentenced the justice victim Gustl Mollath into a forensic hospital" - when do you have a justice victim???
• "once hiding in bushes along with other undercover investigators" - suggests that he is very interested in putting people to jail
• "As a supervisor, he eliminated the fee demands of the supervisor which in his opinion were excessive. As a result, those affected had complained about him in a protest march to the president of the judiciary. Although Brixner was transferred to another position, he was regulated the supervisor by law" - suggests that he should not be supervisor any longer
• "ever made use of communication in criminal proceedings (So-called. Deal on penalty), that is, a practice widely used in criminal justice" - in German law this Deal is something suspect, but the article suggests that Brixner acted rather unusual
• "considered a judge that is a 'tough dog' ("Judge Mercyless")" - insult
• "Mollath had presented the court, as proof of his black-money allegations, with a 106-page folder with receipts to accounts in Switzerland and other evidence documents. In his interrogation before the committee of inquiry of the Bavarian state parliament said Brixner on 17 May 2013 that he had never read this folder" - libel, especially since according to German law the court maybe wasn't allowed to read this folder (because the accused has to give his statement orally only)
• "The revelations to Gustl Mollath and Otto Brixner" - I mean "revelations" ...
• "In addition to demands for reforms in psychiatry and justice, it was required to hold those responsible to account. Above all, the former judge Otto Brixner was named.[15] In its final report, the committee of inquiry stated that it was refusing to punish Brixner." - libel, the article says that Brixner should have been punished
• "Otto Brixner had interrupted the defendant Gustl Mollath each time loudly and threatened with a reference to the room if [...] Literally, Brixner, addressed to Mollath, had shouted: "If you keep this up, you'll never come out again" (referring to the psychiatry department) [...] Brixner had shouted at Mollath for over eight hours without interruption.[17] [...] Brixner had acted like a "dictator."[18] [...] when you call Otto Brixner, you have to be prepared to barely speak one sentence to the end. He speaks in a very harsh tone." - a lot of irrelevant information, overinterpreting the cited sources and libel
• "Brixner had determined the appointment of the court on his own initiative, refrained from hearing the accused and operated a willful falsification of the facts with the documentary material available to him" - libel taken from a text of a lawyer that has never been proven. Even the article itself says "appealed in advance for a possible retrial, in particular to a blog entry[24] the former prosecutor Gabriele Wolff" and Gabriele Wolff was never involved into this case.
• "outrage against Brixner was ignited by the fact that it is the fundamental obligation of all German courts to take full note" - as I said, according to German law the accused has to give his statement orally
• "Brixner is also already in the run-up to the criminal proceedings in a telephone conversation with the financial management caused Mollath's allegations concerning the black money allegations to be discontinued by the tax investigation authorities" - libel that has already been proven to be not true

These contents where imported and translated from German Wikipedia, where they have been removed since and where the article is now blocked. According to this hints User:Xaosflux removed the imported revisions from deWP. Remaining are still further revisions with the same contents until this version. Unfortunately today a obvious sockpuppet of Hans Haase who translated this article reverted these improvements, so that we again have this libelous revision. That Wikicare-en is a sockpuppet can be seen from his argument "Undo whitewashing" ([390]) which is used by Hans Haase too ([391]). So I would ask you to delete the revisions prior to [392] as well as younger than [393]. Maybe it would make sense to block Hans Haase and his sockpuppet. Thank you --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledging I'm aware I was mentioned above. I'm not following up on this beyond having already reversed my own transwiki-import as the dewiki article is under review. While we do not require imported history, it is customary to do so with dewiki to meet their normal processes. If technical assistance is required regarding history imports once the other factors are resolved please feel free to let me know. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep out German users and users with possible bias in the case, have only American or English users review the artcle. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

... since American or English users have a better understanding of German Law and of the crimes you accuse Brixner?! --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Dont assume others for supid, there are enough German speakers in America. By the way You blamed me for a "obvious sockpuppet ", dont assume this! --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC) The word "whitewashing" was already used in the German discussion on 1 July 2019 (CEST) at 23:54. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: Domitius Ulpianus is talking about an old revision before 19 March 2019. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about all old revisions before 16 June 2019 and all revisions after 3 July 2019! Don't assume me for stupid AND it is not about understanding German language but about knowing German criminal law. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and does not belong here. I see some discussion on the talk page so a WP:RFC is the next step there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute but a dispute about revision deletion and sockpuppet-abuse. I am not interested in the content of this article but I want illegal content to be removed that claims a living person has commited crimes!" --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You do realise that when you say "I am not interested in the content of this article but I want illegal content to be removed that claims a living person has commited crimes!" you contradict yourself in the same sentence, don't you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually there is a signifiant difference whether someone abuses an article to claim a living and named person had comitted crimes or someone says that this action of a -not personally known- user is problematic. I apology for my wording; it was due to my -perhaps exaggerated- anger. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• On the unintelligible English alone, if not the painfully obvious RIGHTGREAT, the article needs to go back to some last good version. EEng 00:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. An article on the Gustl Mollath judge? This is not going to end well...

I'll see what I can do (as a content editor and/or mediator) as I was extremely interested in this affair when this judge's victim was still locked up in a closed psychiatric ward. Maybe we can get rid of the article. I am not sure the judge is notable independent from the Mollath affair, but then I haven't looked at the article and the judge-specific guidelines yet.

In any case, get prepared for years of disruption. Hans Adler 16:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I hope not. I welcome your contribution. Part of the problem here, as can be seen above, is stuff that is not very good English; using the wrong words and saying things other than what is actually intended. I believe that you'll be able to help with that, if nothing else. And the explanation that we do not do these things in the form of biographies is a good one. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  So far there has been almost no feedback to my wall of text at Talk:Gustl Mollath#A vision for dealing with this topic. I take this as a good sign, for now, though it could also make things difficult if some players with strong opinions are hard to reach. Currently I would prefer writing an article about the whole affair from scratch on my own rather than starting with the contentious articles that were imported from the German Wikipedia. Maybe this is possible, after all.

  Sooner or later we are also going to get an article about a certain prominent German psychiatrist whose role in this affair wasn't glorious, either. Maybe the German Wikipedia takes the heat off these articles, but if not, our only chance is to get neutral articles on the complex before the fighting breaks out here as well and neither side is happy with a neutral article. Hans Adler 08:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I am not an admin. Even if I were able to make revision deletions, I would still not see this as my job at Otto Brixner and Gustl Mollath. I haven't even looked at the mess that is currently lying around there, and am not planning to. Hans Adler 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung

User:Alexkyoung and several apparent sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

I'm not quite sure of the standard procedure here, so I apologize in advance if there are issues with how I've handled this or if this would be more appropriate on a different noticeboard like NPOV or DR. I've begun to become worried about POV-pushing behavior on some of the Xinjiang related articles by user:Alexkyoung. It started for me when I noticed some misused citations and OR on the article History of Xinjiang, which made me feel that it read like propaganda in some places. In the discussion on the talk page that followed (Talk:History of Xinjiang#Citation misuse), user:Tobby72 brought it to my attention that there's apparently been a pattern of biased editing on a number of Xinjiang related pages from Alexkyoung: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff.

I was also worried by ownership-like behavior from Alexkyoung, particularly this post: [394]. I wasn't able to find anything that indicated that consensus had been reached, so I wrote a note saying as much, only for it to be deleted and responded to with the accusation that I was trying to start an edit-war [395]. I initially thought it was just a problem on one article or perhaps an extreme response during an argument; at one point I felt really guilty about having potentially misconstrued Alexkyoung's behavior and apologized to him on his talk page. Since then I have reviewed the edit history and been somewhat disturbed by edits made with edit summaries like this: [396]. I'm not really sure what to do because I hate to write all this negative stuff about an individual editor's behavior, especially as in my view, Alexkyoung has been largely civil with me. However I've become increasingly concerned that there's a greater pattern of POV-pushing and page ownership and was hoping others would be able to look into it. Darthkayak (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

First it is more productive to edit wikis yourself than to complain about others. I've had to annotate your response to pinpoint exactly which places are of dubious concern. I helped better organize the Xinjiang article, fixing many grammatical and stylistic articles. Most people have thanked me for my edits, and even you would have to admit that my edits have made the wiki much better on the whole. If there are remaining places where you would like to improve the article, then DIY. If you make general accusations and targeted attacks like those above, then it becomes hard for me to help you improve this wiki, which in the end is the ultimate goal for all of us (that is, I hope your main motive is to improve wiki and not discriminate against a specific user).

Second if you really hate writing bad, untrue things about your fellow wiki users, then do not. There is no 'pattern', and most of those edits were from more than a month ago. As I have told you before, the 'misused citations' were there before I made the edits, and I still fixed them for you (and the earlier editor, whoever it was). Most of my edits deal with fixing style and formatting and grammar. Most of the info I have added has been cited or deal with neutral topics.

Sirlanz stopped reverting so that was taken as a sign of consensus, since the original requests were made by him, which I fixed for him. Furthermore you pointed out specific lines and sections where the article could be improved, and I answered your call. In both cases, I welcomed you to make specific edits yourself; and in both cases, I ended up fixing the specific critiques for you. So who is the one making the positive contributions to the article? Moreover, I have been thanked many times for my contributions to this wikipedia. My contributions benefit this wikipedia and make it a better place. Darthkayak, if you provide specific feedback to exactly which lines of an article need to be fixed, rather than make general accusations, then I can help you improve the existing articles. Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The political agenda [specify] pursued by the subject editor is patent but generally skilfully executed so as to divert attention or to make targeted re-editing a major chore (who has that sort of time to spare? [if you have no time, then why waste your time complaining]). Admin(s) were easily duped [are you implying the admins are stupid?] when I crossed paths with this editor [specify] and I decided to leave the scene, notwithstanding the ongoing infection [specify] of the encyclopaedia. sirlanz 02:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no political agenda. Sirlanz left the scene, so that was taken as a sign of consensus, since the original requests were made by Sirlanz. He gave me specific feedback, and I responded. In general, if you guys give me specific feedback, like which sources to fix or which specific lines to fix, I will respond. I thank Sirlanz and Darthkayak for pinpointing specific lines or sources that needed to be fixed, and I did fix those in front of your very eyes. But if you emptily accuse me of very general things, it is hard for me to help you.Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The obvious [weasel word] anti-Uyghur [this is your pov] POV-pushing [unfounded]: [397], [398], [399], [400], [401], [402]. File a report at NPOV noticeboard per WP:NPOVD. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't get delusional. There's nothing anti-Uyghur about that. Read about the 2014 Kunming attack or other terror-related incidents in China. Look I'm all against any discrimination against minorities, but as per wikipedia guidelines, it is best that all of us stick to the neutral viewpoint, rather than regurgitate what you read in tabloid journalism.

The user's edits to this article Foreign interventions by the United States are amongst the most extraordinary I've ever seen on WP.Nickm57 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'most extraordinary' but Jamez42 appreciates them. Citobun destructively reverted my edits (which organized the article better), but then Jamez42 reverted Citobun back to my edits. DavidMCEddy even thanked me for my edits.Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have also encountered this user's POV-pushing, on the article Gui Minhai. He was purposely misconstruing the content of several reliable sources to make it appear like they depicted the allegations of the Chinese government as fact, and continually edit warring over the issue despite three separate users (myself included) objecting to his dubious contributions. Citobun (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nickm57:, I just reverted those edits diff. This user is obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an impartial encyclopedia, but to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government. Citobun (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Citobun, they do not appear to have been reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes Jamez42 reverted back to Alexkyoung's original version diff, and DavidMCEddy thanked Alexkyoung for the edits. Alexkyoung has certainly been appreciated for his positive contributions to the wikis many times before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 28 june 2019 (UTC)

What a blatant lie and targeted smear-campaigning. I had a conversation with OhConfucius about this, and he thanked me for my edits. In the end OhConfucius took a middle ground between me and Citobun. Citobun, it is in your best interest to stop attacking and retaliating. You made a series of destructive reverts that were not appreciated.Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It is against the collaborative nature of wikipedia to target a civil user who has been thanked many times for their contributions to improving wikipedia. I would suggest that we can all work together to improve the existing encyclopedia, but the first step would be to stop blaming each other and state very specifically which places, lines, sources need to be amended. We each have certain similarities and differences in interest, so in the end it is probably best to stick to your pages; and then I will stick to my own. Alexkyoung (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have read into what kinds of issues merit being posted here, and this one does not deserve to be. This is not chronic, nor is it urgent. I have stated repeatedly that if you pinpoint specifically and exactly which sources and lines need to be fixed, then I can help you fix that. I have also repeatedly invited others to make edits themselves, but they continue to complain rather than contribute to this wiki. If anything their behaviors should be examined more closely. Some of the things like 'citation misuse' do not even belong to me, but to some other wiki user. I still gladly fixed it for them, but to my irritation, these users continue to harass me by blaming me for other people's mistakes. Lastly, it must be emphasized: many of the mentioned edits are from nearly two months ago and form a small fraction of all of my wikipedia contributions. Many users have personally thanked me for my edits, and on the whole, I have made wikipedia a better place. So to the admin reading this, this case should be discarded as it is clear that these other users are not teamplayers, whose main objective is not to improve wikipedia but to take down another civil, positive-contributing user. I will not let them bring me down, and I will continue to make positive edits to improve this wiki; many of my fellow wiki users support me, and I trust the admins of good faith and judgement to support me as well. Alexkyoung (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung's beahvior is troublesome:

• 22 may he removed a comment by Sirlanz from Talk:History of Xinjiang, without any explanation
• 20 june he removed a comment from Darthkayak from Talk:History of Xinjiang:

: I'm really sorry to be bringing this up late, but this is really inappropriate. I cannot find anything on this talk page that indicates that consensus has been reached other than the proclamation here. Darthkayak (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

edit-summary ‎Enough

• 28 june he removed another comment from Darthkayak,

I don't think my specific points have really been addressed. In addition to the Hultvall stuff, the question of original synthesis still remains. Perhaps we should take it to a noticeboard for discussion? Darthkayak (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

edit-summary [[tq|remove unproductive, irrelevant libel as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines}}

• 28 june he removed a response from Darthkayak:

Why was my comment above deleted? That's not really ok, unless it's established to not be in accordance with WP:TPO, and even then, standard practice is to leave it up as documentation of my errors for potential dispute resolution. An unsigned comment declaring consensus achieved without summary, particularly considering that there was no closure of the discussion, reads like a statement of article ownership, and in that sense, I felt it was inappropriate. Darthkayak (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

edit-summary removed off-topic material as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

• 28 june JimRenge warned you; you removed the warning, edit-summary I gave two very good reasons already: libel and off-topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Please read my edit summaries next time.
• 28 june JimRenge gave you another warning; you removed that watrnong too, edit-summary gave two very good reasons already: libel and off-topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Please read my edit summaries next time.

I utterly fail to see how I don't think my specific points have really been addressed. In addition to the Hultvall stuff, the question of original synthesis still remains. Perhaps we should take it to a noticeboard for discussion? could be considered libel, nor how Darthkayak's questions about Alexkyoung's behavior could be considered off-topic. On the contrary, his behavior is WP:DISRUPTIVE, and should stop immediately. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"it is probably best to stick to your pages; and then I will stick to my own" [403]. History of Xinjiang is not your page, Alexkyoung. That is an incredibly blatant claim of article ownership - I'm just shocked. I didn't initially blame you for the mistakes of others, nor did I claim it was you who was responsible for the citation misuse - I didn't accuse you or anyone of being responsible for the issues with the article, I simply said they were a problem. It was only after I was shown the diffs that I learned that there were long standing concerns about POV-pushing.

I am not trying to "screw you over" [404], or make an "empty claim because others have" [405]. What I am now disturbed by is the way your conduct regarding the article has turned increasingly towards policing. Sirlanz no longer reverting isn't necessarily a sign of general consensus without agreement on the talk-page, but even if it was, consensus can change. You recently told Citobun "stop, you're late to the party, this was resolved a long time ago, and remaining pov was in this article before the edits" - not only is it not resolved, but why should he not get involved simply because he was several weeks late? Not that I am saying a revert is necessary, but to try and look at it from his point of view, sometimes material isn't fixed in a quick fashion. That information on a page is long-standing has no impact on whether it should stay - I recently performed a revert on a page where the intro appeared to have been edited to read like an advertisement roughly a year ago. Statements like "moving forward only existing content shall be edited or added to" [406] are against the spirit of a wiki.

For those interested in looking to the talk page, I should mention that Alexkyoung keeps deleting people's comments on the History of Xinjiang talk page, claiming they are libel or irrelevant [407][408].

Lastly, I should note that I am trying to be helpful [409] - raising concerns about an article's contents on the talk page without editing (particularly when it is so long), is a vital part of the process, and one of the things which prevents the cycle of edits and reverts that compose an edit war from occurring [410]. No one here is being a "complainer" and it makes me sad that someone would accuse anyone of that. Darthkayak (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I just realized User:Alexkyoung heavily edited my signed comments on this page with his own "annotations" and rebuttals in parentheses. I'm trying to find the words for how upset I am by this behavior. [411][412] I also would like to ask him why he chose to leave this unsigned comment on this page in the third person, [413]. Darthkayak (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This behaviour is indeed troubling. @Darthkayak: would you mind restoring your postings to their legitimate form? You can probably figure out more quickly than I could what they should look like. @Alexkyoung: Do not ever do that again. I'm looking some further into these diffs, but at the moment I tend towards the view that a lengthy block for tendentious/disruptive editing may be required here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've restored my initial post as best I can tell, though I might have left something in by accident - those interested in what Alexkyoung added to my post can check the two diffs above. The comments from @Sirlanz: and @Tobby72: were also similarly annotated by Alexkyoung - as the annotations are crossed out they may have already seen, but I'm pinging them just to be sure. Darthkayak (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The behavior of Alexkyoung seems to be part of prolonged edit-warring at History of Xinjiang: diff diff diff diff diff. He's claiming a consensus for his edits, where actually there is a consensus that his edits are unacceptable. Deeply disruptive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Note also the edits at South Korea–United States relations. This type of POV editing renders the WP project useless in my opinion. Some of the cited sources are selectively used and are personal blogs. A number are not available in English - so difficult to check. One thing is admirable about this user however - the speed with which she or he is working their way through wikipedia. Nickm57 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read through my response again.

As I have said, I will be happy to help you improve the wiki if you pinpoint specific places where the article should be improved. When I am being accused of things like this, it is hard for me to help. As the above discussion shows, people are more focused on finding excuses to attack me rather than to actually improve the content of existing articles. That is why I labeled these personal attacks as off-topic and libel. But if you wish to keep it there go ahead.

When I say 'my articles' I do not mean it as a sign of ownership. What happened is that after I accused Citobun of disruptive edits on Gui Minhai, Citobun just retaliated and disruptively edit-warred many of the articles that I had recently edited.

If you believe History of Xinjiang is not resolved, then tell me: exactly where should it be improved. If it reads like propaganda, tell me where it reads like propaganda. If there is OR or synthesis, tell me exactly where there is OR or synthesis. If you read satan or the PRC in between the lines, tell me which lines, and I can help you purge it out. Darthkayak and Sirlanz gave me specific feedback, and I responded, even though I did invite them to edit the article themselves. I never claimed ownership; I always invited others to edit when they had complaints. What ended up happening was that they just waited for me to edit for them. And when people make general claims without specifying where in the article things should be fixed, how does one even begin to help?

I have asked many times to point out where exactly in the article I can help you fix. Isn't that what your goal is? To improve the wikipedia?

Lastly I repeat again: many of those diffs were from nearly two months ago, when I was just getting started with wikipedia. And those only form a small fraction of my contributions to wikipedia. Try not to be so selective about your sources. I only recently made my 1000th edit, and I've been thanked many times already for my positive contributions. I really do want to help improve these articles, since I believe deep down that is what you really want, but we should discuss civilly how exactly to improve these articles. Alexkyoung (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I ran into this editor at the Australia page where he was trying to edit war in his desired content concerning fringe theories of early Chinese arrival - (see Talk:Australia#Speculative Chinese Arrival). On that occasion too his technique was to edit war against clear consensus as much as possible, perversely claiming BRD because "nobody had replied" instantly to his walls of text in the "discussion" he was solely prolonging. On that occasion he did not "back down" until it was made clear that sanctions would otherwise be the likely outcome. The behaviour described above is therefore familiar, and I tend to agree with FPAS that a block might be necessary to prevent this tendentious editing pattern from continuing. This style of disruption exhausts other editors and is extremely damaging to the collaborative process. -- Begoon 01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is your point of view. I was just adding well-sourced info from reliable resources, and the fact that you bring this up clearly shows that you never listened or even understood my main argument: I never said the Chinese arrived to Australia; I only said that it is a hypothesis, and it is well-covered in the news (anybody who reads the talk page can find sources).

What you are accusing me of is equivalent to saying that the Altaic languages page should not exist since it is a controversial hypothesis. It is not about whether it is right or wrong or 'fringe'; it is still a hypothesis that scholars have written about. And to bury that in wikipedia reeks of censorship. Begoon and Nickm57 (both from the Australia debate, who have been stalking me simply because they disagree with whatever doesn't conform to their Eurocentric world view) in this case are no different from the PRC when it comes to censorship of well-cited content.

I have no doubt you guys would censure the pants off the PRC for the Xinjiang conflict or the Tiananmen square massacre. It is just so much easier to criticize others. Unfortunately that is not so balanced, to criticize the governments of other countries without stomaching well-documented criticism of our own. This is what DavidMCEddy has been arguing for on foreign interventions by the US, why Jamez42 undid Citobun's reverts and restored my version, why OhConfucius thanked me for my edits on Gui Minhai, etc. We all want a neutral point of view, not just pov's that are more sympathetic to our own country but less sympathetic to others. Otherwise, you guys are defeating your own purpose, the whole purpose of wikipedia to be a neutral encyclopedia.

On Australia, I was shocked that so many would disagree with well-sourced info just because it didn't fit in with their chauvinistic point of view. And let's be honest: others started edit-warring me by reverting my contributions. Still I stated my case and left the scene, realizing that the Australia page had such a toxic environment. This was from more than a week ago, and I have moved on. Alexkyoung (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No sign of reflection or change in this editor at all. See his comments at my talk page and on Racial discrimination.Nickm57 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best to give this editor a little vacation to reflect on things.--Moxy 🍁 04:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Add diff diff for History of Xinjiang. WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, this can't be serious! diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Touche, it goes both ways. Try to understand my points as well.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Quit the anti-semitism crap and other accusations and join the talk in a productive manner Talk:Racial discrimination#A silly introduction. As of now your rants are not conducive to what's going on.--Moxy 🍁 06:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Watch the language, and read through my response.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to draw people's attention to what's going on here: others deliberately harassing and smear-campaigning me and clearly not listening to my replies. These are lies. Nickm57 is just harassing and edit-warring me this time. I call administrators to investigate his abusive behavior and put an end to it. To quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nickm57&oldid=903966217#stop_edit_warring

It is clear that Nickm57 is stalking me around, and I do not appreciate his harassment. It is shocking that he didn't know 100 years ago Jews were considered non-white in the USA. He should find something more productive to do than to follow my user contribution page and revert everything he disagrees with. If anything Nick needs a vacation himself. It is unhealthy to stalk a single user for so long. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse. Alexkyoung (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Alexkyoung: Since you are actively canvassing numerous administrators to address alleged "harassment" by Nickm57 ([414] [415] [416] [417] [418] [419]), can you please provide some detailed citations (in the form of diffs) that show the stalking/harassment/bullying/abuse that you referred to, above? You have stated that Nick is just a really bad person, however, I don't see any evidence either in this ANI discussion or in the message you're canvassing admins with to support Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. or Nickm57 is stalking me around. More, the concerns that Joshua Jonathan quoted above are troubling. ST47 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure referring to those that are concerned with your additions as anti-Seimitic holocaust deniers helps your position ...considering what was said on the talkpage.....time for a long weekend in my view. --Moxy 🍁 05:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Include the more recent update

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&type=revision&diff=903972649&oldid=903816936 Alexkyoung (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @ST47: Gladly. In fact, examining the history of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&action=history

It appears that Moxy, Nickm57, and Begoon have come back to talk smack about me. They are all from the Australia article and simply didn't like the stuff I was adding, about Menzies theory. So at least Moxy and Nickm57 decided to look through my user contributions and revert my edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&action=history

One hundred years ago, Jews were not considered white in the US census. The non-Jewish Christian majority of the US and Europe discriminated against them. The Holocaust is just one example. Nowadays, Jews are considered white but it took years for that to happen. This is just the fact, and I don't see what points Moxy, Nickm57 are trying to promote by denying this fact.

And lastly, the fact that all three have reported on this ANI notice and Moxy, Nickm57 continue to post here shows that they are stalking me around. Just reading their posts it is obvious what their intent is. Yes I have reached out to Joshua Johnson as well. I am open to civil discourse, but I request that Moxy, Nickm57 to stop their disruptive harassment. (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

compromise

@ST47: @Joshua Jonathan: I admit I am new. When coming to wikipedia, I became accustomed to the idea of editing existing content on the article pages, so for some reason it didn't cross my mind that editing other people's responses was inappropriate: to me it was just the same as editing article content. Reading Joshua's and other people's comments, I say thanks for letting me know. In the future I will not modify people's messages on the talk page, and I have already stopped doing that. In my defense I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines but it seems that if the person's request is 'legitimate'; it should be kept there. This is all fair to bring up.

So I outline a compromise: 1. I will not edit or modify people's responses on talk pages. 2. Retain my existing version on the History of Xinjiang. This is not just my version, but many other editors. 3. If you would like to improve Xinjiang, do not revert but pinpoint specific places (exact lines) where you would like the article to be improved, and I will be happy to help you. 4. We should all avoid following each others' user contribution pages and edit warring each other from now on. We need to keep distance. This is best to avoid retaliation.

Lastly, I have already let Nickm57, Moxy keep their edits on the Racial discrimination and Australia articles. In compromise, I would politely request them to not post anything further on this talk page as I want to first hear back from the administrators. Thank you Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexkyoung: You have come very close to being blocked for at least three different reasons. In addition to your long term WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, you are involved in several edit wars and have made personal attacks. While I appreciate your offer to disengage from the areas that seem to get you into trouble, we won't be negotiating to keep your preferred version of any article as any form of "ransom" in exchange for your good behavior. Let me make an alternative offer:

1. You accept a voluntary WP:TOPICBAN from areas related to the present conflicts. I would phrase this as "areas related to ethnicity and race, broadly construed", but if other editors have better suggestions, I'm open to hearing them.
2. You accept a voluntary WP:1RR probation in all topic areas, with the usual exceptions that reverting vandalism or WP:BLP violations are not subject to this restriction.
3. These restrictions are indefinite, you may request at WP:AN for them to be lifted after no less than 6 months, at which point the community will decide based on your conduct.

During these restrictions, you would be free (and encouraged) to use talk pages and requested edits to discuss these topics. However, this would hopefully prevent the disputes that are likely to get you blocked. Note that there's nothing in here about modifying other people's posts on talk pages, or related to WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. That's because those are prohibited regardless, and you would be blocked for disruptive edits or personal attacks regardless of whether there's a ban on you. In any event, please indicate whether you'd be willing to accept these restrictions, so we can hopefully put this matter to rest. ST47 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was before I read the edit summary at [420]. I'm blocking Alexkyoung for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, he's welcome to re-engage when the block expires, or if people want to propose a community-enforced topic ban/actual ban, that's fine too. ST47 (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the leadership on this. Appreciated. Nickm57 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And just for the record, I had been about to make some edits on South Korea–United States relations including some made by Alexkyoung under a new heading of "Incidents of US abuse" that are quite inappropriate. However, in the circumstances I'll leave it alone for a week or so.Nickm57 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nickm57 and talk. Following your statements above, I have reverted the user's edits here and here. I am still learning about the rules of Wikipedia as I did not join that long ago so please let me know if this kind of edit is actually allowed. But from what I have read, I think a revert like this is okay given how disruptive this editor has been. Likuu (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that Likuu is a blocked user for being the sockpuppet of Syopsis.General Lincoln (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes that’s right. And I said I would return to this matter and will do so on my return from China next week.Nickm57 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So apparently while waiting for the second unblock request to be decided, Alexkyoung chose to get on their soapbox and declare the entire ANI case was just a pretext to get them blocked, and accuse Nickm57 & Moxy of censorship. I don't think this user is here to contribute constructively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I note that User:ST47 blocked Alexkyoung for only 31 hours, citing the specific personal attacks made in recent edits as a reason. From my reading of the situation, including the edit-warring, the tendentious edits, and the persistent battleground mentality, I was considering something substantially longer, possibly up to an indef. Alexkyoung's latest reactions, including his "free speech" rant on his talkpage [421], as well as the earlier attempt at passing off as a "compromise" a proposal that would keep him in full control of his preferred version of the contested article [422], have not improved my impression. ST47, would you mind me increasing the block length, or do we have a realistic hope this user will improve their behaviour when they come back from this short block? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, given this user's lack of any previous blocks, my hope was that a short block in combination with a very short leash for future edit warring or civility issues would allow them to contribute productively. It does seem like they have made some substantial contributions to other articles, and it's just this one area where their POV-pushing gets them into trouble. The rant on their talk page does not fill me with confidence, but can we see what happens after the block expires? ST47 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'm not particularly optimistic though. (And the cynic in me still grumbles he doesn't believe in this concept of "educating" POV-pushers to become good wikipedians anyway, but maybe that's for some other discussion...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is for another discussion, but I confess that this particular editor's history, both before and during the short block, doesn't lead me to suppose that your inner cynic will be proved wrong on this particular occasion. I hope we are wrong. -- Begoon 00:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung reached out to me on my Talk: page, which I appreciated, but unfortunately the way he described his issues did not match at all what I was seeing. I also suspect that his edits to Racial discrimination and the Holocaust were intended solely to bring me into his conflicts as a sympathetic administrator. His description (or implication) regarding the editors he was in conflict with on those articles being "antisemitic" and "holocaust deniers" was unconvincing at best, misleading and defamatory at worst. I am also seeing serious issues with WP:NPOV; almost every edit made until he was brought to AN/I appears to have been for the purpose of boosting China or its government and/or denigrating the United States. Even edits like this, which are not pro-China per se, are clearly inflammatory (and with an edit summary that appears to hide the true purpose of the edit). I am surprised a longer or even indefinite block was not applied. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I note General Lincoln has suddenly turned up to continue this user’s editing practice. (And how amazing the two never edit at the same time) But I’m pleased to see the appropriate wheels are in motion elsewhere Nickm57 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So from what I understand, you're suspicious simply because I support Alexkyoung? Ridiculous.General Lincoln (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for topic-ban

I notice the article Han–Uyghur intermarriage, written entirely by User:Alexkyoung. Except the article isn't actually about Han-Uyghur intermarriage. It's just an attack page written after most of this thread. The article strikes me as rather strong evidence that User:Alexkyoung is not here to contribute productively, at least not in that particular area. I'd suggest, at a minimum, a WP:TOPICBAN from Xinjiang and Uyghur-related articles. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - his edits are far from neutral; see Talk:History of Xinjiang#Tarim mummies and Talk:History of Xinjiang#Indo-Europeans, where attempts were made to WP:CENSOR the Indo-European origins of the Tarim Mummies, and the term "indo-European" misleadingly was framed as "European." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - as a minimum, but I tend to think that something "wider" might be more appropriate, such as the "areas related to ethnicity and race, broadly construed", suggested earlier. I'm also not opposed to My preferred solution at this point, though, would be a longer/indefinite block/ban as suggested by FPAS, because the problems do seem likely to continue, and, in fact, are continuing. -- Begoon 05:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all China-related topics at a minimum (including, but not limited to, Xinjiang/Uyghurs). Prefer full indef-block, as the disruptive editing and the battleground mentality has spread out over additional topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support without prejudice also to imposing wider or different sanctions. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all China-related topics as second choice. I prefer an indefinite block because his edits suggest that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. JimRenge (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN Full disclosure, I came to this through the Han–Uyghur intermarriage AFD and didn't notice this thread until just now. Even if that ... pretty gross POVFORK is deleted, I've see no evidence that this user is capable of constructive editing in this highly controversial topic area. I've gone on record as opposing TBANs for SPAs in the past since it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy, but I also don't want the editors who have !voted keep in the AFD to start harassing me for attempting to pursue "the Wikipedia equivalent of the death penalty" for this particular editor at this particular time: if others think an indef is what is called for, I will not oppose it.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. Not here to build an encyclopedia, as Jim says. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons, and with the same disclosure, as User:Hijiri88. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on China-related subjects. Disruptive and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Decline: I welcome Alexkyoung's edits. They are quite informative and well-written. I know deep down Hijiri 88 will not support any type of ban on his edits. Also Adoring nanny should note that Han–Uyghur intermarriage was written originally probably by User:Milktaco and that Alexkyoung was copying it over to a new article in History of Xinjiang simply because the article was too big. Lastly, you should be honored to have a Harvard graduate helping you improve your articles.General Lincoln (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Decline: I don't trust any of those against Alex to be any better at writing neutrally about China, Russia, or the US for that matter. Bunch of hypocrites. Alexkyoung is one of the few editors on the web who at least makes sense and writes well enough that her contributions to wikipedia on the whole are beneficial. She even writes about math and is getting a Phd from Stanford. By the way, it does not seem that any of those who favored 'support' are admins. I'm on the side of ST47 that because Alex is new, she should continue to edit freely. It appears she hasn't made one in days. She probably has more to contribute to the world working on her Stanford Phd than dealing with all of this. This is one long case; just close it, and let her go! До свидания.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought the above were two random racist trolls attacking those who support this proposal -- but it turns out they're both socks of Alex. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Another suspicious account

Sven Karmanova is a new account, restores Alexkyoung's edits at History of Xinjiang. Sven Karmanova also restored diff a comment made by new user Steph Goodwin diff. And Doug Weller: have a look at Talk:History of Xinjiang#Indo-Europeans. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung for the follow-up. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that the checkuser has been completed, and no relation has been found between any of these users. Joshua you cannot just assume everybody who supports each other is like that. Otherwise what does that make you and JimRenge?General Lincoln (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

General Lincoln, please do not misrepresent the findings [423] of the checkuser in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung. JimRenge (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Jim are you a sockpuppet of Joshua? You two seem to have a lot of suspicious activities working on the same pages together and agreeing with each other all the time.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Joshua Jonathan. JimRenge (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from U.S. foreign relations

This edit, specifically the first paragraph, is one of the most disgustingly POV edits I have ever seen written on Wikipedia. I would like to propose an indefinite topic ban for Alexkyoung from all articles related to U.S. Foreign relations until such time as he can demonstrate proper understanding of wikipedia's NPOV policy.

• Support as proposer. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support I find myself in agreement. As I noted several days ago, the article on South Korea–United States relations as it now stands is awful, with, amongst other things, at least three links to U.S. Military and prostitution in South Korea, three to the Yun Geum-i murder and a bizarre sub heading of "Incidents of US abuse" which lists a domestic murder victim in the US, the apparently unrelated murder of Jee Yong-ju a south Korean boxer by his south korean neighbour, and the case of Sergio Verdú. It is now so bad it's an embarrassment to the project, quite apart from the offensive and biased editing it displays.Nickm57 (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

And another "new user" - Jarvis Maximus has now appeared, editing in the same way and on similar topics[424]! Wake me up when its all over! Nickm57 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Decline: I was brought to this page by Nick's recent disruptive pov edits. Anyways, I have to say that I support Alexkyoung's edits and that they are quite welcomed to wikipedia. He or she is a talented writer that has much to offer to this community and has created a number of articles on notable topics. To silence this one voice out of what appears to be sinophobia or anti-semitism (I don't know if he/she is Chinese or Jewish or both or whatever; it doesn't matter) is to defeat the purpose of wikipedia in the first place, to be an inclusive community.General Lincoln (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Decline: How do you think I feel when you Americans write anti-Russian things like that and call me communist pigs? That's one of the greatest first paragraphs I've ever read on this wikipedia, and I'm thankful that not everybody here is a US sycophant. And it's from an American herself! Am I sensing another Ed Snowden? By the way he's still living here in Moscow. I don't trust any of those against Alex to be any better at writing neutrally about China, Russia, or the US for that matter. Bunch of hypocrites. Alexkyoung is one of the few editors on the web who at least makes sense and writes well enough that her contributions to wikipedia on the whole are beneficial. She even writes about math and is getting a Phd from Stanford. By the way, it does not seem that any of those who favored 'support' are admins. I'm on the side of ST47 that because Alex is new, she should continue to edit freely. It appears she hasn't made one in days. She probably has more to contribute to the world working on her Stanford Phd than dealing with all of this. This is one long case; just close it, and let her go! До свидания.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to read more pro-US stuff, just go to WSJ or Fox news or whatever. You guys like to pride yourself in how free and unbiased your internet and media are, but look what you are doing trying to censor your fellow citizen. Even I wouldn't think the US would be this divided. It makes your democracy so easy to exploit, as with Trump's recent elections. Accuse Putin all you want. Alex is here to stay, and I fully reject any kind of ban against her.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not touching this proposal with a ten-foot pole, but it should be noted that the above two have been blocked as socks of Alex. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Interaction ban

Editor NewsAndEventsGuy has a history of following my edits, makes frequent claims about my edits and violations, has a dedicated section on his talk page where he collects selectively from our communications. I've noticed that I edit pages where he is also known to be more active less so, e.g. at global warming/sea level rise where I in the past was among the most active editors. But even when I edit pages he never touched before, he follows me around. Yesterday, editor Sean Heron posted on my talk page in regards to my edits at climate emergency in a constructive consensus finding way. But immediately NewsAndEventsGuy had to show up (even though I asked him to take such matters to article talk), reverts my edits, and made a point about a POVFORK violation. Sean Heron noted subsequently, Then someone else (in this case you NewsAndEventsGuy :P ) blankets the page. That's not exactly courteous - not to Prokaryotes nor to me :/ .

Generally the user reverts me then drags me into long talk page discussions where he usually argues I violated NPOV, OR, POVFORK or a combination of those. The first interaction I had with NewsAndEventsGuy was around 2014, at the article polar amplification, the user since made 20 edits, added 336 bytes of text, deleted 5,786 bytes of text in article space, on the talk page he made 829 edits, added 235,847 bytes of text. He usually is not acknowledging when he makes a failure, instead doubles down. I am happy to provide more examples where the user interferes with my edits in a not so constructive manner, but basically I ask the community here to enact an interaction ban between him and me, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope you do understand that this potential interaction ban would be effecting you just as much as NewsAndEventsGuy. I say this as I see that you have reverted one of his edits as late as just a few hours ago.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted his revert of my edit, which wouldn't have happened if we have this ban. I am aware that I would no longer interact with him (including his edits, unless they are in gross violations). prokaryotes (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To sum up, you've offered as evidence of recent problematic behavior one diff in which NAEG made an obviously correct decision to restore a redirect, that has been well supported by numerous editors on the article talk page. --JBL (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reply by NAEG To sum up, I'm accused of WP:Hounding in which The important component... is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Say again, "no constructive reason". Prokaryotes editing merits following because they often inject two kinds of problems into our articles. The first is an over-reliance on WP:Primary sources which he is likely to mis-interpret. He is especially likely to do this with scientific papers on climate change and global warming. This problem was discussed in August 2018 at WP:AN in this thread where Boris (recently deceased, alas!) concurred with my observations and mentioned WP:CIR. The second problem is Prokaryotes climate alarmist POV, e.g., in his own words Unfortunately humanity is to dumb to understand the implications. [[425]]. That has been P's approach to climate articles for a long time. For example, in May 2012 at Fermi paradox#It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, P made an edit with edit summary Adding climate change to the possible list of self destruction. P used a different name, as explained [here]). Similar RIGHTGREATWRONGS editing on P's part led to vaccination Tban in 2013 and a GMO Tban in 2015. Since I'm not seeking a boomerang, I'm going to stop now. I just wanted to say NPOV and proper use of PRIMARY sources are constructive reasons to follow someone around, when they have a troubled track record in those areas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That's all you could find, my block log, a spot on edit summary, a talk page comment, who reads in full, The agreement is 1.5-2C while the Arctic warms at least twice as much (which should be somewhere in the article). Unfortunately humanity is to dumb to understand the implications. Guys, can we please have this interaction ban, or do I have to show you how lots of editors have similar problems with this editor, and that he often is plain wrong in his argument? I am mis-representing the sciences my edits have an alarmism bias, I ask you to retract these claims without merit. NewsAndEventsGuy, is the only editor who makes these claims about my edits, he usually did not read the science studies I add to article space. I have literally added thousands of science papers to the Wikipedia, if there was room for improvements I discuss on talk, that's about it. prokaryotes (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

P's reply is (yet another) CIR like tantrum of which the ANI and related pages have plenty to choose from. No P it is not all I can find, but as I stated my only purpose was to show there is a constructive reason to follow your edits, and I provided diffs for that purpose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that the real CIR issue is on your side, otherwise you would provide diff's which show mis-representing and alarmism POV (whatever this is). prokaryotes (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who is (more) at fault, or if the edits of one (both) of you are indeed inappropriate per policy, but given your current feelings, an interaction ban between the two seems absolutely warranted as a minimal step even if my first two questions are answered in the negative. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we please hold NewsAndEventsGuy accountable for his baseless accusations that I mis-represent the sciences, is reluctant to provide evidence (other than an accurate edit summary from 2012)? And if this is not moving you, remember he has a creepy special section on his talk page about me, above wrote he follows me around - YES, I feel harassed by this user that's why I came here for help. If yo u have specific questions, want more difs, please ask me and I will provide, thank you! prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There has been a previous discussion on the matter (to which NAEG has linked), in which others editors do side with him so I do not think his accusations are baseless. "Reluctant to provide evidence" also seems inaccurate given the post he made in reply to you; and the fact that other editors right here seem to disagree with your assessment of his editing. I also fail to see how a discussion on his talk page where he invited you to participate is "creepy". You might be taking this a bit too personally - maybe you should take some distance and let cooler heads prevail? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes:@NewsAndEventsGuy: Alright you have both said your piece, now stop arguing with each other. NAEG: Would you be amenable to a 2 way voluntary (yet quite enforceable) IBAN? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Having interacted with both users quite a lot, I think that a IBAN might be quite fruitful. I do worry a bit about the edits made by P still though, which make me suspect a passion for the topic which makes it more difficult for P to write up facts in a balanced way. An example is [426], where P added a line about global warming to a very generic physics article in the lede, for which I had to extensively explain how this contained errors and was unbalanced. Further examples are [427], where P added a full paragraph about a new alarmist study to global warming, a top-level article where this led to quite some unbalance. One study for which P seems to have interpreted as having a more extended application that the studies implied themselves: [428]. Is there a possibility that in addition to an IBAN, P would volunteer in some mentoring program? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• NewsAndEventsGuy, now canvassing, he also broke ANI protocol when starting a topic discussion without informing me. prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Complaining about procedural errors in a discussion from last year now seems misplaced and only hints at the animosity (reciprocal or not) between you two. Note that you are also a party at the discussion you linked where NAEG supposedly canvassed... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate to get into the weeds, but just to answer his accuastions briefly.... (A) The place I supposedly canvassed is the venue of the original content dispute, and I didn't pick and choose editors, I simply alerted all the witnesses who might have insight to offer. (B) His bit about ANI protocol is another example of CIR. It was a question about procedures, not a complaint, and I didn't name him since I wasn't seeking action. But P interjected and tried to convert my education-seeking post into a complaint.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A great example of CIR challenged editor not being careful what they ask for. OK, I am voluntarily NOT editing anywhere but user space until I post a full account and ask for P to be topic banned from science articles and anything to do with climate change. But I am real life busy and this is one of those that will take days, probably, to properly assemble. So bye for now. I'll be back when I am ready to give the DIFFS I didn't want to assemble but P just keeps demanding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC) See updated comment below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

While other editors in the mentioned discussions noted my good faith edits, I can't see this in what you write, and you just keep ignoring the call to provide actual article space diffs. And please stop threatening me with a topic ban, not exactly what this community has written up under WP:AGF. prokaryotes (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't have the time and passion to continue this venue here, to make it short and help you guys I request an indef block, thanks, good bye and thanks for all the fish. prokaryotes (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested Closing Since P wants to be indeffed instead of facing my promised Tban complaint, I can agree with that outcome and this should be closed accordingly. However, I would like the closing to specify unblock criteria for the future. This isn't P's first retirement after controversy. In 12 months, when this has all blown over, he will probably again ask for unblock. A great irony in this thread is that the opening post he says of me, above, the user reverts me then drags me into long talk page discussions where he usually argues I violated NPOV, OR, POVFORK or a combination of those. He wants action against me but does not provide diffs. In contrast I did not want action against him so only provided diffs to defend myself. This is a classic boomerang deal. But he wants to dodge a CIR based TBan review, so he's asking for indef to kill that before it happens. OK I can let it go. However, as a WP:BOOMERANG request, please grant his voluntary indef and condition any return on his documenting where I have inappropriately "reverted and dragged" him into long talk page discussions where he usually argues I violated NPOV, OR, POVFORK or a combination of those. That's what he's mad about and that's why he wanted me sanctioned. So if he wants to be unblocked down the road, let's make sure he takes the time to document all that before unblock is granted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bye NAEG, bye Wikipedia community, I mostly loved the way how WP encourages you to provide reliable peer-reviewed science, enjoyed editing during my time here, but my work is done here I realize. No bad feelings. Over and out XD prokaryotes (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In any case, without any bad faith, and quoting myself from above: "Saying "I am retired" to get away from facing a sticky wicket is surely WP:GAMING, and has been looked down upon in previous ArbCom cases)". I am also unsure whether this would be an acceptable case of WP:SELFBLOCK. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the IP mentions GAMING possibilities here, it made me realize I may have inadvertently suggested prior GAMING also. I apologize for poor writing. P's prior indef request was in good faith, because at that time the controversy was over. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that if an admin chooses to enforce prokaryotes self-requested indef, any later unblock be conditional on a 6-month topic ban from climate change articles, broadly construed. This gives the community a buffer to evaluate their editing capability before returning to a topic of contention. If you don't want that prokaryotes, just withdraw your request and avoid the topic area from now on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm unfamiliar with procedure here, and only posting since I too was made aware of the discussion by NewsAndEventsGuy. I just want to point out that I can see some of where both of the two "Loggerheaded" Users are coming at each other from. I've not been involved in (practically) any editing yet, but there are points both Users make that I agree with. I would disagree with Topic Banning Prokaryotes - many (if not most) of the contributions made by the user are good faith edits as far as I can tell. I can't say I support or oppose an interaction ban - I can see that the two were not interacting in a constructive fashion, but my hope was that some structured discussion might have helped to resolve the issues (part of my motivation in suggesting the Wikiproject Climate Change ). Seems that seems to be out of the question for the moment though, unfortunately :/ . Regards Sean Heron (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

BTw, Above, P complains about a "creepy" thread on my talk page. This is GREAT example of the WP:Competence is required problem with Prokaryotes. That section is nothing more than threads he started on my talk page, all collected for convenience under a neutral section heading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't close this. I am prepping a shortened version of the promised Boomerang, to ask the community to ratify P's own request for indef. I may not have it ready until next week and I won't edit article space in the meantime. Meanwhile please note that P did a similar maneuver to avoid a TBan sanction in 2016. Please don't close thisNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm here anyways, so I'll ask: would you comfortable with a voluntary no-fault 2-way IBAN with this user? That can probably be either in addition to, or in lieu of, the proposed topic ban. Please ping response (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Mechanical problems have delayed my departure.... short answer "no", see "alternative closing idea" below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternative closing idea

(A) Fact correction... It's not true that I follow P, in general

I monitor climate change articles in general. P is prolific and sometimes errs, but he can't handle disagreement over his errors. Evidence that this is not a personal dispute is that despite our 2014 content disputes I did not pile on during his two failed Vaccination Tban appeals (ending in his first RageQuit. Then in 2015 when he adopts GMO as a secondary passion I did not interfere with his work there, nor did I pile on during the dramatic AN/ANI/AE cases that led to his TBan and second retirement (full thread since diffs were revedeleted), Then when he tilted at the Cryptocurrency windmill in 2017/2018 I did not follow him there even as matters crescendoed with his third Rage quit/retirement (see also). So it's not exactly true to say I have it out for P, in general. I started on climate in 2011, P in 2012. I work for great climate articles. P has a prolific contrib history in this area, and like any editor imperfect edits. He just can't handle having them called out and, given time, I will show this.

(B) This case is evidence that I don't have it "in" for P because I only wanted to defend myself and did not pull the Boomerang trigger.....

Then P repeatedly demanded Diffs

So I promised to supply them and seek a Tban

Gaming to avoid that scrutiny, P does his fourth Rage Quit/Wikibreak.

The guidelines for LEAVING suggest a way foward....

(C) POSSIBLE CLOSING

Per WP:LEAVE Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned.. I am OK with closing this and granting P's indef request, conditioned on any future UNBLOCK provide a list of DIFFS where P thinks I followed him "for no costructive purpose", plus an explanation of the issue that I raised and the outcome. So an admin might impose the following condition on his right to LEAVE (but not to escape criticism)

By your own request you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. Since this is a retirement in lieu of facing a Topic ban boomerang request in AN case "Interaction ban", future unblock requests will only be granted after resolution of that dispute. Your complaint about the other editor, NewsAndEventsGuy, is based on our policy about [{WP:HOUNDING]] which presently says in relevant part The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. To renew your case filing, (1) Indicate your intent at ANI, and (2) provide DIFFS you believe show HOUNDING by NewsAndEventsGuy as described in the quoted text, (3) Provide a short summary of any article changes that resulted, (4) provide DIFFS that show NewsAndEventsGuy intended to cause distress or engaged in tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior,

If I'm blowing smoke about CIR, he should have no problem fulfilling those conditions, and my own behavior will be the one under scrutiny. I'm OK with that.

Now I really do need to continue truck repairs... overdue at inlaws! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Housekeeping FootNote upon archiving

FYI, here is a status Note left at the other user's talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Aykhan Zayedzadeh

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

Inserting pro-Azerbaijani Turkish material into articles:

• Added "Azerbaijan" without source to the Bidet shower article. No edit summary/explanation either.[429]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Supra (feast) article without source. No edit edit summary/explanation either.[430]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about a Georgian administrative province even though the article makes zero mention of any relationship with the Azerbaijani ethnos or Azerbaijani Turkish language.[431]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Wudu article without source. No edit summary/explanation either.[432]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Akhalkalaki article even though the article makes no mention of the city's relationship with Azerbaijani Turks/Azerbaijani Turkish langauge.[433]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about an Armenian monastery. No edit summary/explanation either.[434]
• Added the Latin Azerbaijani script in an article to the Blue Mosque, Tabriz article, even though the Azerbaijani Latin script is not used on an official level in Iran.[435]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to Iwan, even though the article demonstrates no relationship in relation to the Azerbaijani Turkshi people/Azerbaijani Turkish language.[436]

Using the race/ethnicity card and general violations of WP:BATTLE and WP:PERSONAL:

• "There are lot of Persian users interrupting the factuality (...)"[437]
• "Iranian nationalist Shia (which is pagan at this point) who shouts "Ya Hossein", instead of "Allahu Akbar"[438]
• "Dear LouisAragon, I understand being bit anti-Azerbaijan (...)"[439]

Ignoring personal warnings:

• Warned on two occassions for violating WP:PERSONAL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Never replied.[440]-[441]

Ignoring WP:AA2 warning:

• [442]

Copy-vio violation:

• [443]

Topic ban proposal

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user's editorial pattern has been disruptive on numerous levels for an extended period of time. Said user has been warned on numerous occassions (incl. by admins)[444], but to no avail unfortunately. I therefore propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Caucasus region, the Middle East and the Iranian/Turkic world. -

• Support As nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose article of Bidet shower had already country names mentioned without citations, and articles of Supra and Wudu had already transliterations in other related languages without any citations. Kakheti was strongly related to Azerbaijan and has a Azerbaijani population (at least since early modern ages). 9.8% of Kakheti is inhabited by Azerbaijanis[445] "From the early 16th century till the early 19th century, Kakheti and its neighboring Kartli came under intermittent Iranian [a.k.a Turkic dynasties] rule." The region was exposed to Persian rule, and ultimately, Azeri-speaking Azerbaijani population.[446] The reason behind that name is same as here. The name is even mentioned here. No one is making irredentist claims here. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about an Armenian monastery", actually no, it was an Armenian monastery located in AZERBAIJAN, in a town with majority Azerbaijani population. "* Added the Latin Azerbaijani script in an article to the Blue Mosque, Tabriz article". No, I added transliteration of the Perso-Arabic script. There is a big difference. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Akhalkalaki article even though the article makes no mention of the city's relationship with Azerbaijani Turks/Azerbaijani Turkish language." The town historically had close cultural relations with Azerbaijan.[447][448] If an article in enwiki doesn't mention something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It is only the fault of enwiki to exclude that information, as other wikis have added it. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to Iwan, even though the article demonstrates no relationship in relation to the Azerbaijani Turkshi people/Azerbaijani Turkish language." No, it has. It was an important part of Azerbaijani-Persian architecture of the early modern era and is still used to describe balconies to this day[449]. "Warned on two occassions for violating WP:PERSONAL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Never replied." What was I supposed to reply? Me not replying means that I do not object those warnings. I hope I was able to clearly explain everything. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 18:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. The Turkish and Azerbaijani transliterations of Iwan removed right after I added the Azerjani transliteration of it. I did not oppose it, believing that it was a rightful removal. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 18:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• "article of Bidet shower had already country names mentioned without citations, and articles of Supra and Wudu had already transliterations in other related languages without any citations."

So because these articles lack citations, you are given a free pass to add more unsourced content?

• "No, I added transliteration of the Perso-Arabic script. There is a big difference"

You added the transliteration written in the Latin Azerbaijani script, which has letters such as "ə"[450] and is only officially used in the Azerbaijan Republic, not in Iran.

- LouisAragon (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support (even if, given the above evidences, i would prefer a topic ban for a longer period of time). This editor seems to be here on a single mission, trying to "Tukify" the greater number of articles he can, edit warring and being dismissive and attacking other editors. Not a net positive for the project, in my humble opinion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know this editor from my time editing azwiki. I think this topic ban proposal misses the mark. Aykhan Zayedzadeh was generally more cordial in my interactions with him on Meta and Azwiki, but I can't approve of how they treated Wikaviani and others per those diffs (Aykhan, you need to apologize for that). However, the pro-Azerbaijani Turkish edits did not seem all that terrible besides Aykhan not using an edit summary. He makes a decent point that if our coverage is lacking on a topic, then it shouldn't exclusively be on him to fix that. So long as he doesn't edit war, it's fine in of itself to make those additions imo.
  I would ask we propose a civility restriction banning Aykhan from making anything that could be reasonably construed as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I'd also impose a topic ban to be a one-year ban on Iranian topics. I don't see why we would want to ban Azerbaijani editor from being able to edit any topics related to his home country/language/culture when there is no evidence he's been disruptive in that topic. Keeping him away from Iranian topics though, would be more likely to stop Aykhan Zayedzadeh from making unproductive edits because it'll stop him from getting too heated.
  Either way, I can confirm for him: Me not replying means that I do not object those warnings. That really is a thing on Azwiki. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL:, yeah, I don't stand by what I said to Wikiviani few months ago. I broke my own rule in online debates and exhibited Keyboard warrior-like behavior. Apologies for acting few years (or age I guess) immature. The discussions about the history of Azerbaijan will always get heated, because what Azerbaijan-based sources and Perso-Armenian+Western sources are literally opposite to each other. And English Wikipedia, at least on topics related to Azerbaijan's history, do not have neutrality and doesn't respect the other side's (in this case, 10.000.000+ ppl and hundreds of scholars) perspective. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 21:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aykhan Zayedzadeh: [Thank you for the ping] I think it might be helpful to direct you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but also to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's important to keep your cool when getting into these debates. Tendentious editing is never okay here. I know I get where you're coming from and recognize things are more nuanced than Western media tries to portray it, but that is only because I decided to immerse myself with Azerbaijani culture and language through Azwiki. You can't expect everyone else to share your perspective, though (especially if you aren't in line with WP:Consensus).
Either way, it might be frustrating, but you have to abide by enwiki's policies on reliable sourcing and the like while editing here. The best way to do things is by practicing the BOLD and having a chat with the folks at the Teahouse whenever you need help. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per @Aykhan Zayedzadeh:--Maqamedd (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: User:Maqamedd has made two edits in total.[451] - LouisAragon (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment & Question - Most of these edits don't actually break our rules - neither edit summaries nor citations are obligatory in many situations. Some of the edits are in articles with no relevance and thus indicate disruption. Obviously the personal attack is way out of line. I'm tempted towards the Iranian-only TBAN (note, this could be a bit blurry - broadly construed could sweep much of azerbaijani articles. Question: Can the community issue "reasonably construed" TBANs? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Can the community issue "reasonably construed" TBANs – NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO! If you think the Fram thing has Arbcom jammed up, wait until we start "reasonably construing" topic bans. The point of a Tban is: There are a million (actually 6 million) other article that need improving. Stay far, far away from this trouble spot. EEng 15:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per @Aykhan Zayedzadeh: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qızılbaş (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note: User:Qızılbaş[452], who posted this (^) comment, is another account similar to "User:Maqamedd". Both accounts, though operated by two different users, have basically made zero edits on the English Wiki, yet are somehow aware of this ANI case. Interestingly, they both also left the exact same one-line comment in favor of Aykhan Zayedzadeh. Both accounts are very active on the Azerbaijani Turkish wiki.[453]-[454] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• @LouisAragon: basically, it's been an ongoing issue trying to explain WP:CANVASSING and WP:NOTAVOTE to users from Azwiki. Both of those aren't a thing over there. I know this personally for a fact because I've seriously nominated multiple articles for deletion with no more than the words "Not encyclopedic." That being said, we're on enwiki now. @Aykhan Zayedzadeh: did you inform any users of this AN/I discussion, or are we to believe these two are just part of your absurdly dedicated Fan Club. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL:, I make Facebook posts about any development regarding AzWiki and its active users on regular basis. It was one of them. Fun fact, I was one to inform the Wikicommunity on AzWiki about that whole meta thing :) --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 00:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Aykhan Zayedzadeh: Yeah, so that's a potential violation of our policies here. Can you please update the Facebook post to either: (1) Remove the link, or (2) to tell people not to comment. I get the two users who commented here meant well, but honestly their "Oppose per Aykhan Zayedzadeh" comments really hurt you a lot more than they could've ever helped. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• " And English Wikipedia, at least on topics related to Azerbaijan's history, do not have neutrality and doesn't respect the other side's (in this case, 10.000.000+ ppl and hundreds of scholars) perspective" this kind of sentences shows that you don't understand how English Wiki works. This is not the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, where you can claim that Sarmatians were Turks and where the Armenian genocide article's is labelled as "the so called Armenian genocide". The hundreds of Azerbaijani "sources" you're referring to are the same ones supporting the above nonsenses i pointed out. When it comes to reliability, Azerbaijani sources cannot stand any comparison with high quality Persian, Armenian and western sources. Just take a look at how things are going on on Azerbaijani Wiki, where all admins are on the eve of losing their tools because of repeated misuse of the said tools. Curiously, now that you're reported here, and probably because you're afraid of being blocked, you apologized for your behavior, but at that time, even after having been warned by Kansas Bear you did not apologize ... Also, in your above statement, you just confessed that canvassing is one of your habits and this is, as MJL said, a clear violation of our policies, thus, the two users coming here and saying "oppose per Aykhan zayedzadeh" will clearly not help your case and their opinion will not be taken into account here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Wikaviani: I really like pings btw especially because I don't check ANI except when it's relevant to me. I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but I feel the need to bring a few things to your attention. (1) I said potential violation rather than clear violation. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying, "Darn it! I just got taken to ANI for being a loon. [link]" but there is something wrong with saying "Darn it! Someone reported me for changing the spelling of an article from American to British. Vote [link|here] to support UK spelling!!" Both are bad form, but one is a policy violation. (2) The AZwiki-admin situation has been mostly resolved. (3) Aykhan Zayedzadeh was literally the first user to cast a vote in against the "So-called Armenian Genocide" title. (4) As for the statement on the Azerbaijani sources, that is more of a question for WP:RS/N than here. (5) I do agree with everything else you said though. Aykhan doesn't quite understand how English Wikipedia works, but I don't know if I'd personally blame them for it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I respect any editor i interract with here, on Wikipedia, including you, of course. The admin issue on the Az-Wiki may be almost solved, however, it's quite puzzling that this kind of stuff occurs on that language Wiki rather than elsewhere ... Your remark about Azerbaijani sources is correct, this is not the place to discuss about them, but my above remark was a reply to Aykhan Zayedzadeh's comment about the neutrality of English Wikipedia, nothing less, nothing more. I'm quite surprised that Aykhan Zayedzadeh dares to criticize the neutrality of En-Wiki about some topics while he's mainly editing the Az-Wiki, knowing what we know about that Wiki. Judging by the evidences provided above by LouisAragon this editor is here on a POV-pushing mission. Also, i striked the part where i said "according to MJL" since it was not exactly what you said. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: What I'm saying is you're much appreciated! All communities have their biases and problems. I know I've certainly heard much said about enwiki's many critical problems both here and from throughout. Hywiki is currently using this map in their article about Azerbaijan. It isn't exactly subtle what message is being sent there.
Regardless, the truth is that we don't have good coverage of Azerbaijan related topics, but not for the reasons Aykhan stated. Let's try to help this user find the right rather rather than casting him out. They've been honest and such to us and have demonstrated a willing to learn. Wouldn't you agree that is a better option moving forward? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: The En-Wiki is probably the most reliable one among all Wikis, but let's not discuss this here.

"Regardless, the truth is that we don't have good coverage of Azerbaijan related topics, but not for the reasons Aykhan stated. Let's try to help this user find the right rather rather than casting him out. They've been honest and such to us and have demonstrated a willing to learn." Every POV pusher troll here needs to learn and educate him/herself, this is not a reason to let them alter the quality of this encyclopedia, right ? This is what it's all about here, Aykhan needs to learn and educate himself before editing this encyclopedia and a topic ban will give him the time for that. I don't say that as a punition, i say that because i want to help him to be a net positive to the project.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Woah there, that seems a little harsh and way unnecessary. What you say also goes against WP:BOLD to the nth degree. I'm of the same mind as Nosebagbear, the underlying edits in question weren't that bad. Btw, Nosebagbear, reasonably construed is unnecessary so long as broadly construed isn't used AFAIK. A 6-month topic ban that broad at this stage just seems so WP:BITE-y to me. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Being bold does not mean "go ahead, add any POV to any article you want without citing reliable sources and engage in edit warring". WP:BITE has nothing to do here, Aykhan has been editing the AzWiki for about 4 years, not really a newbie. You and me have already blowed this thread with our opinions, now, please wait for other users' input and admins to decide. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Per the numerous PAs, comments on other editor's race/ethnicity, and ignoring the warnings from violations [10/2018]~(warned 10/2018),[2/2019]~(warned 2/2019). Clearly this editor is not here to help build a community encyclopedia.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Stevo66666 and their IP 88.212.37.151

Continued disruptive edits using both Stevo66666 and IP address to falsify various stats at Metallica articles. Here (1 & 2) you can see how both made the same edit at more or less the same time, thereby connecting the accounts. Talk pages of both (1 & 2) also show an ongoing cycle of warning/final warnings.

Examples of Stevo66666 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (Tip of the iceberg!)

IP 88.212.37.151 1, 2, 3. (Also an exhaustive list of false info)

I would be grateful if an admin could look into this. Thanks. Robvanvee 19:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: Wouldn't this be more appropriate for SPI? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Robvanvee, most admins are not checkusers and are not able to confirm your suspicions. As Compassionate727 says, it's appropriate to take complaints like this to SPI. However, checkusers will not link a created account to an IP address so you might be disappointed. But that is the location to file reports on suspected sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I wasn't really reporting them for sock puppetry as much as I was reporting them purely for their continued introduction of deliberate factual errors to the articles. Thoughts on where I should report this instead of here? Robvanvee 04:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: Regardless of whether these accounts are related or not, I've looked into these edits, all of them are factual errors all related to changing some of the metrics around awards and sales of Metallica albums, and this seems to be the only purpose for these two accounts. The accounts have failed to respond to repeated warnings, so to prevent further disruption, I've blocked the registered account indefinitely and the IP address for a significant length of time. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My point exactly! Many thanks I JethroBT. Robvanvee 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2

• MaxBrowne2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would a sysop please look at the recent behaviour of this editor in relation to History of chess? It is a protected article and there is an IP who wants to add a point about the possible origin of chess which is already documented in Ludus latrunculorum#Chess. A discussion between the IP and myself began at Talk:History of chess#Greco-Roman origin of chess and, as the information is reliably sourced, I agreed with the IP that we should mention Ludus latrunculorum in the history. The question then was how to do it so I revised the opening paragraph and asked the IP to review it.

Before the IP could respond, User:MaxBrowne2 reverted my paragraph and left a message at the talk page which included a sarcastic comment that breaches WP:CIVIL. Although he went on to claim that he was abiding by WP:BRD, the fact is that the discussion was already ongoing and BRD discourages reversion, so he should have joined the discussion without reverting. I replaced the edit because I believe reversion was wrong in the light of the discussion already under way and he reverted again to effectively invite an edit war. I decided to leave the article be while the discussion continued, especially as the IP rejoined it. I consider Mr Browne's actions to be out of order, as he reverted reliably sourced content that was under discussion with no opposition at that time, so I warned him about removing content.

I was unavailable all day yesterday and this morning I found that the discussion has moved on in the meantime. I became aware that members of WP:CHESS had joined it, as they have every right to do, but I then found the invitation to them by Mr Browne which breaches WP:CANVAS because: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior". In Mr Browne's invitation, he talks about fringe theories and a complete lack of evidence. The latter is untrue as he knows because the discussion has been mainly about the evidence and the former is an attempt to denigrate the case for inclusion of the theory which, the IP and I both acknowledge, is a minority view but nevertheless relevant. As WP:CANVAS considers such action to be disruptive, I warned him about disruptive behaviour and explained that he should invite using the Please See template.

I replaced Mr Browne's invitation with the accepted template version that simply invited interested editors to join the discussion, as recommended by WP:CANVAS. He has reverted that and told me to piss off.

I am posting a link to this discussion on Mr Browne's talk page, as required. If I need to do anything else or if I can provide any extra information, please let me know. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point getting into the rights and wrongs of BRD when someone reverts but joins the existing discussion within 3 minutes and there is no pressing reason why your version must stay (e.g. BLP). Just discuss and come to a consensus. The incivility also seems way too minor to worry about especially with only one examples. The canvassing may be more significant I don't know I didn't look. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The canvassing issue at least deserves an undo. I've done that. @MaxBrowne2: Is there a reason you're being intentionally antagonistic here? Do you have a reason to be a dick or are you just having a bad day?--v/r - TP 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: You've reverted my undo. You are in violation of a guideline, WP:CANVASS. How about you come here and discuss it before earning yourself an edit warring block?--v/r - TP 14:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:TPG very clearly states that legitimate talk page discussion should not be edited or reverted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: WP:CANVASS very clearly states not to post what you did, but you apparently like to cherry-pick guidelines. WP:EW doesn't make an exception for WP:TPG. I suggest you revert yourself.--v/r - TP 14:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking in to this more, have to agree it was clearly canvassing and replacing it with a neutral message clearly justified so I have reverted back to the neutral version. Frankly I find this an extremely dumb dispute. I don't believe the result would have been any different without canvassing. Yet MaxBrowne2 canvassed creating unnecessarily ill feeling and perception the result is tainted. Okay people make mistakes, and when someone points it out you fix your mistake and move on. I mean if you're really so fixated on being the one who signs the post, then replace the canvassing with your own neutral message and sign it. I doubt No Great Shaker would have given a damn even if that's actually fairly WP:OWN like behaviour. If No Great Shaker had bothered to open this dispute and the only problems where the BRD and mild incivility they would have rightfully been told to not waste our time with content disputes and minor incivility. Instead we have a valid but extremely pointless thread because an experienced editor is refusing to abide by our canvassing guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I also think the antagonistic behavior wasn't called for. I don't see what No Great Shaker did to trigger it other than discuss a topic MaxBrowne2 believes to be fringe.--v/r - TP 14:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I would add that frankly I think given the nature of the location, dispute etc, by the time No Great Shaker had gotten to it, it was actually somewhat pointless. I strongly suspect any possible damage was done as most likely few new editors are going to be joining from the chess wikiproject. This is why it's important we get it right in the first instance. However it doesn't mean there's no justification for removing the canvassing. And maybe more importantly, even if it was fairly late, the longer the canvassing stays up there the more the damage is done. Therefore this isn't the sort of thing that is conducive to raising with the editor and asking them to revise it. Instead dealing with it straight away and informing the editor what you did and welcome them to replace your message with their own neutral message if they wish is probably the best course of action.

Looking at MaxBrowne2's talk page, I do think it was wrong for No Great Shake to leave both templates messages. The reversion dispute was as I said just silly and definitely not worth of a templated messaged. And while there were legitimate concerns over the canvassing, it would have been better as I said to politely inform MaxBrowne2 of what was done and remind them of our canvassing guidelines. Still while I can understand the annoyance upon receiving the templated messages, this still doesn't justify the canvassing and the instance on keeping it.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @TParis: and @Nil Einne:. As you said, I would never have come here over the BRD or the silly sarcasm alone but it did seem to me that canvassing by making a non-neutral point is unacceptable and when he reverted my replacement I thought I should report that with the rest mentioned as background. The other people from WP:CHESS are being very constructive so lets hope we can now move on with the discussion and decide what should or should not be written. Thanks again for your help and, this being the first time I've used this page, for providing some good advice and learning points. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 24 hours by User:Bbb23 per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me remind you-- there is no cabal.  Dlohcierekim (talk)

No evidence of any "influence" because there isn't any and wouldn't be any. All WP:CHESS members who saw his post know Maxbrowne2 had a concern over a likely WP:SNOW-close issue. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If Maxbrowne2 posts his opinion, does it exert influence on any active WP:CHESS member's view re the history of chess having theoretical foothold in Rome? Not even remotely likely.) It may on surface have looked like WP:CANVAS to uninvolved non-project members. But not really. --IHTS (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You should take your knowledge of WP:CHESS and write an exemption into WP:CANVASS. Or don't, because the policy exists to avoid not just undue influence, but also the appearance of undue influence. It's meant to keep consensus clean and reduce to appearance of a cabal. But, if you want to come here and tell everyone that WP:CHESS all think the same way and openly coordinate inputs to discussions, maybe we really do need to take a look to see if there is a cabal.--v/r - TP 22:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Yeah it's a particularly silly suggestion. If you really all think alike, then WTF do you need canvassing? Just learn to write neutral messages, or use the template and no one would have concerns and we would not be here. If you're so sure you don't need canvassing to make up your minds, prove it! The only reason you would be afraid to write neutral messages is if you think you do need canvassing to influence your opinions. So either there is no reason for you all to fail to follow the policies and guidelines the rest of the community follows and successfully use to build a great encyclopedia. Or there is a reason and that reason is because you want to formulate opinion in semi-private to get your way, and so you should all be blocked and your wikiproject shut down. I said at the beginning in my opinion there would have been no difference if there was no canvassing. While I still believe that, the way @MaxBrowne2: and IHTS keep insisting they need to be allowed to canvas is starting to make me wonder if I was wrong. Why else would people be so insistent they need to be allowed to canvas? Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think IHTS is "insisting they need to be allowed to canvas." I think IHTS is saying that with the particular example of MaxBrowne2's message, whether it was neutrally worded or not doesn't really matter given the context. I tend to think he's mostly right about that. Was it still canvassing? Sure. I tend to agree with TP that, effectively, canvassing (whether or not it's effective) taints the consensus-building process. Doesn't seem like there's much more to be done, though. I worry that the longer this is left open, the worse things could get. Hopefully Max will try to make any sort of notification of a discussion neutrally worded in the future, for appearances if nothing else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My point was that in spite of Max adding his opinion in his notice at WT:CHESS, there was no intent to "influence" other project members, so he can't be accused or charged w/ same. And I'm right ... I just looked and this is right out of the beginning of WP:CANVASS: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. In lots of cases of jurisprudence *intent* is important factor and also here. (So TParis, your "the policy exists to avoid [...] the appearance of undue influence" isn't there; it seems to be an expansion of the jurisprudence in your own thinking or desire that it be there. So you're the one who needs to consider whether you should modify WP:CANVASS, not me!) --IHTS (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cydonia (The Face on Mars)

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.

---

Can we please have an uninvolved admin take a quick peak at the slow-burn edit war going on with this article?

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

Last month this account showed up to add fringe ideas about the famous rock formations on this part of Mars. Their user name is a reference to this diagram that they have tried to add to the article multiple times.

When they didn't get their way, they did a PROD[455], and then tried to alter the timestamp so it would look like it had been uncontested for a week[456].

On their talk page they've been warned a few times. To their credit, Since being warned, I think they've stayed below 3RR, but they keep at it. They even used edit summaries to accuse Wikipedia of being part of a conspiracy to suppress The Truth.[457]

Tonight their strategy is to remove all mention of how the scientific community dismissed believers in The Face. [458][459].

I'm not even sure what resolution I'm hoping for here, but this is getting rather tedious. Maybe DiagramOfSymmetry could be encouraged to focus on other topics for a while?

Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I was going to indef this account as nothere, but NRP beat me to it by a minute. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it kind of weird that the situation got to this point. Someone faked the timestamp on a prod and wasn't blocked? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. ApLundell (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2019 (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.

Hateful edit summary left

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.

---

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.

---

Can an admin check out this diff over on Women and video games. While the edits made are not actually disruptive, the name of the user is questionable and edit summary is inappropriate. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Edit summary and username hidden, and user blocked. In future please use WP:OVERSIGHT. GiantSnowman 12:48, 10 July 2019 (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.

@Koncorde, GiantSnowman, and Nosebagbear: Sorry to add to a closed discussion but I can see the offensive username here by hovering over the link in the second sentence in Koncorde's comment. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:C076:90F0:84EA:62CE (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed. GiantSnowman 15:34, 10 July 2019 (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.

Mark Dice meatpuppet legal threats

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 wanted to make other admins aware of the legal threats by Granitehope, a meatpuppet of Mark Dice, in case other meatpuppets make similar threats. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe you have done the right thing. Deb (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone reading this should add Mark Dice to their watchlists, as I did some time ago. Monitor that page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 10 July 2019 (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.

Triggerhippie4

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.

---

The user Triggerhippie4 is repeatedly deleting comments on their talk page, and I do not think they care what people are saying. I posted a comment [460] asking them to stop deleting everyone's comments on their talk page, and they deleted my comment. I'm pretty sure this is not allowed, since I have been blocked in the past for screwing with other people's comments. Their edit descriptions when they delete other people's comments are always about something unrelated, just to make it seem like they are deleting things for a reason. When they deleted comments, they did not archive any of them, and this makes it look like they are avoiding scrutiny for discretionary sanctions and when they were blocked twice. Bill Williams (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

LilBillWilliams, you might find WP:BLANKING helpful in this instance. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

As Schazjmd says, I would encourage you to read the that policy and consider removing this post. I will also say it is unclear what remedy you seek. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Now this user is accusing me of being a sock puppet of some random person. They are just angry that I asked them to stop deleting talk page comments. I don't even live in the same country as the other user, and I disagreed with their policies. Bill Williams (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING, users are expressly allowed to delete comments on their own talk pages. I might be somewhat annoyed too. Dumuzid (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if they are allowed to delete everyone's comments on their talk page, this user is making blatant accusations that are obviously false. They are accusing me of being a sock puppet of some random Israeli man, immediately after I posted a comment on their talk page asking them to stop deleting comments. I don't even live on the same continent as that guy, and I disagreed with his policies. Bill Williams (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I certainly do not condone untrue accusations, but there was some provocation from your side with regard to the talk page. Is there a reason you can't simply steer clear of this person? Moreover, I just realized you haven't notified the editor. I will do so now @Triggerhippie4: Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I notified them on their talk page, but they deleted the comment. Of course I could steer clear of the editor, but they just did something that is very annoying. They shouldn't be allowed to go around making false accusations as they did with me. Bill Williams (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I believe you re: notification, but making doubly sure can't hurt. I'm sorry you're annoyed by their behavior, but I think you'll find online there is a good deal of behavior that is very annoying yet expressly tolerated. I'm not sure what you think would solve things; an interaction ban? Dumuzid (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a ban, but they need to be warned not to make serious accusations without a lot of evidence. The Israeli man lived on across the Atlantic from me (I am in the US), uses a different writing style, disagreed with my opinion, and is at least 20 years older. If they actually investigated at all, they would have immediately known that we are different people. Bill Williams (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4 opened SPI, the dispute is continuing there. Schazjmd (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll quit there -- Bill, I would highly advise you to let the investigation run its course and ignore all of this to the best of your ability. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2019 (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.