Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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" [1] Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [2] 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" [3] Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [4] The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [5] [6] His reply to the template message [7] Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [8] Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [9] [10] Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [11] One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [12] [13] 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. [14] [15] [16] 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)

[17] 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)

[18] 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: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

[37] 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 ([38]) or implement them in some articles ([39]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([40]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([41], [42], [43]), 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: [44] 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)

[45] 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)

Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung

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: [46]. 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 [47]. 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: [48]. 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]: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. 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" [55]. 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" [56], or make an "empty claim because others have" [57]. 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" [58] 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 [59][60].

Lastly, I should note that I am trying to be helpful [61] - 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 [62]. 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. [63][64] I also would like to ask him why he chose to leave this unsigned comment on this page in the third person, [65]. 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 ([66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]), 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 [72]. 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)

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 [73], 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 [74], 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)

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)

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)

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. [[75]]. 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 [76], 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 [77], 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: [78]. 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)

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 [79]. 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)

Being wiki-hounded, disruptive edits from 24.47.152.65

24.47.152.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – This user has been stealthily harassing me for months since a conflict on Lee J. Carter. I had no idea it was the same IP until they hit revert four times in a row last night and I saw it was the same person from the Carter article. They periodically show up to undo my edits on seemingly random articles, actors, politicians, writers. It's textbook harassment and wiki-hounding, I walked away from the conflict on the Carter article and there were other ANIs here, and I made numerous allegations about their bad faith arguments and uncivil attacks, but note that they are undoing substantive changes just to undo them, often piggybacking on another "undo" or "revert" that I did - potentially to hide as a random or moving IP so I wouldn't notice. Rather than diffs, the case can be best seen in the history view as they are a series of edits that make the pattern:

• Labor theory of value - here, IP 47.200.26.187 removed an explanatory sentence from the lede with an edit summary showing they did not understand the reason it was included and a link to YouTube. I reverted, and 24.47.152.65 showed up to take up the mantle. I assumed I was dealing with 47.200.26.187's continued insistence, no idea it was the same person from Carter.
• Ed Asner - here 198.252.228.3 makes the unnecessary claim about the frequency Asner plays Santa, and I removed it. 24.47.152.65 shows up and keeps re-adding it, despite different editors insisting it does not belong in the lede. Again, assumed it was the original IP, no indication to expect it to be the editor from the Carter article.
  • Relatedly, and insidiously, the IP even went on the [Talk page] to accuse me of wiki-stalking them! 24.47.152.65 used this same bullying strategy on the Carter page, by making threats to have me blocked and then accusing me of having made threats to them.
• Tim Robinson Another seemingly random page on my watchlist had an IP, 38.142.80.130, add what looked like a joke or redlink that was not ever going to be a page, I reverted and an IP responded. I again just assumed that the same individual had a new address as happens. Obviously has nothing to do with Lee J. Carter, so no reason to notice it was the same 24.47.152.65 IP still following me.
• Four Arrows - This edit in isolation is fine, but just proof of them hounding me. I did a substantial cleanup of this article and along the way removed some unsourced items, this was one of them.
• Edolphus Towns - Another edit where 24.47.152.65 is undoing my work just to undo it.
• Center for Popular Democracy - Another edit just demonstrating that they are following me.

Lastly, I don't know if this is related, but it's not the first time an IP suddenly appeared that took umbrage with just about anything I edited:

• a 2016 SPI on a few different IPs reverting me across the encyclopedia
• and an earlier in 2019 ANI of the same, or similar tactic

I want to note that I am not accusing any of the other IPs I mentioned above of being socks or otherwise involved, they are just random other users that I believe 24.47.152.65 was taking advantage to disguise their reverts. JesseRafe (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesse has been uncivil to me and is reverting my edits on assorted articles for poor reasons, edit-warring, and violating MOS:HYPOCORISM. I don't know Jesse and I have nothing against him (or her?) but I do not like being attacked for good-faith edits, especially not being called a stalker by someone who appears to be stalking me. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that they violated ANI policy by failing to notify me. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." They didn't do that. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

IP, please provide diffs demonstrating the uncivil behavior that you are alleging (other than the failure to notify you), as they will assist uninvolved editors in assessing the situation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, it is completely unfair to allow the IP to accuse me of stalking them when I provided the page histories of their obvious harassment. They have done nothing but accuse me of everything under the sun, and I couldn't get a word in edgewise on the previous ANI because I have other commitments, I walked away from that conflict and they are now on every other page on my watchlist (for years! I've been editing and watching Ed Asner since 2011) and they get to accuse me of uncivility and stalking with impunity? Is that really how this forum works? Why is my constructive editing undone and these attacks left to stand? JesseRafe (talk)

JesseRafe, welcome to the drama board I was merely informing the IP editor of the proper procedure when making allegations. My request for diffs was an attempt to make sure that the discussion here stays grounded in concrete concerns that can be evaluated and addressed by third parties, as opposed to deteriorating into baseless name calling that is impenetrable to anyone who hasn't been following the conflict from the get go. I empathize with your plight, and now that the IP has provided diffs, it seems pretty clear to me that their accusations are pretty petty, considering that their prime example of "bad faith" behavior on your part is you accusing them of stalking you...while they're stalking you.

That having been said, they actually are allowed to bring accusations against you here, per WP:BOOMERANG. Which is good practice in general, because otherwise ANI would be full of people rushing to report someone over petty disputes and then claiming immunity from retaliation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I can confirm that JesseRafe has an understanding of MOS:HYPOCORISM (aka MOS:NICKNAME) that is completely against the plain sense of the policy, and continues to break MOS with his "correction" edits, and defend his actions against multiple editors on his talk page - see User_talk:JesseRafe#MOS:NICKNAME. That may be at the root of the issue here. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually you can't see that talk page section, because he's removed the comments of editors disagreeing with him, with a misleading edit summary - "archived" indeed. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • John, stay on topic please. WP:OWNTALK applies, I don't like to archive, feel free to archive your own page if that is of interest to you. I am allowed to remove bad faith whining about lack of archiving if I so choose. I ask any reviewing admins to hide this tangent so the conversation stays focused on the abusive behavior of 24.47.152.65 being reported here. JesseRafe (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Accuses me of stalking them. [80]
2. Same. [81]
3. Accuses me of bad-faith edit. [82]
4. False report filed against me while shopping for a venue. [83]
5. I want to link to some posts he left here on May 22nd, where he made aggressive demands that I be "looked into" and blocked because of a content dispute with him, but these diffs have been removed for some reason.

There are also plenty of examples of them being snarky or rude to other editors[84], but I think you want just the ones where he is uncivil towards me.

Bottom line: Jesse has a bad habit of erasing things that are easily supported by citations, not to mention a misunderstanding of MOS:HYPOCORISM. They generally avoid talk pages, preferring to just revert, and even when they do talk, they're hostile. I'm not an experienced editor -- this is my second month -- but I've had nothing but unpleasant experiences with Jesse from the start. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This absurd now. Look at their history, they are following me to new pages. The Jessica Parker Kennedy is a perfect example of WP:BOOMERANG as I removed non-reliable sources (YouTube and IMDb) and said it was an unreliable source, that editor added it back saying "that user [me] has difficulties to read" so I was maybe a little snarky returning the comment, but hardly meets UNCIVIL. 24.47.152.65, of course, immediately restores the unreliable sources. Also, look at Talk:Ed Asner#Santa, they are being confronted by multiple editors there and in the mainspace that their addition is no good, but continuing their diatribe against me when it's actually been undone by four other editors. And of course 24.47.152.65 has a sudden interest in Brooklyn Tech or HydroSacks? And they are allowed to accuse me of stalking them? I come here with a serious allegation and the IP's whims are catered to instead of the facts I've presented? JesseRafe (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, you're just making my case for me when you bring up Jessica Parker Kennedy. You removed two plain facts [85], ostensibly because you wanted better citations. I took you at your word, restoring them with reliable sources, and yet you're still complaining about it. Same thing happened on Brooklyn Technical High School, where you removed someone's good-faith attempt to list the specific year[86], when it didn't take me a whole minute to find a reliable source with the correct number.

Twice, you damaged Wikipedia by removing facts that are easily verified. Twice, I fixed it. And yet, here we are, with you painting me as some sort of monster for correcting your mistakes. And it's not just twice; you do this all the time.

Don't want me to fix your errors? Stop making them! The problem here is you, not me. That's why people like Johnbod are here complaining about your behavior. That's why nobody's taking your claims about me at face value. They want to see for themselves, judge for themselves, and I'm fine with that. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And if you want another example of incivility, look no further than the link Johnbod posted, where Jesse removed legitimate, civil comments from me and JohnBod from his talk page instead of responding on the content/policy issue. [87] How are we supposed to work with you when you do this sort of thing? You've been editing for years; you ought to know better by now. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is any admin ever going to respond? This is a constantly moving goalpost with this editor. The Brooklyn Tech incident is the complete opposite of how the IP relates it, as the other editor had changed it to a different year than the one ultimately cited by IP... making my edit, wait for it... correct. I did not have any conflict there. This person is still harassing me all over the encyclopedia. The complete inaction here is galling. The "two plain facts" on Jessica Park Kennedy were (and still are because I stopped undoing your edits) unreliably sourced, as it's a BLP, they get removed. It's that simple. They are even undoing my perfectly allowable removal of their nonsense on my usertalk page, and since they know they are being watched their "civil comments" are sanctimonious Eddie Haskell BS, look at their normal phrasing on the Lee J. Carter talk page. Please, I need admin attention on this issue, what else can I do here? I'm playing by all the rules and making thousands of constructive edits and this person just gets to run roughshod over me and make complete lies and accuse me of their own bullying and threats with impunity? This has been an incredibly negative experience. Someone please do something. I did not post the ANI on their talk page because they are an incredibly toxic person, I did not forum-shop because I moved my post on the vandalism page on my own, everything I have done has been in good faith and they are rewarded for their harassment and attacks and I am penalized? Is this how this process is supposed to work? This person is intentionally goading me, harassing me, attacking me, besmirching me, and stalking me. I've laid out the diffs and explanations, but they are allowed to continue unabated. Disgusting response after 30 hours of bringing this issue up, truly. JesseRafe (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

24.47.152.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): What you are doing is WP:HOUNDING and completely inappropriate. I suggest you find other areas of Wikipedia to edit in a constructive manner without borderline harassing one user. JesseRafe and Johnbod: I believe you two can sort your differences out on how to interpret MOS:HYPOCORISM in an appropriate manner as between yourselves or otherwise seek community comment on how to deal with them as a separate issue unrelated to what this IP user is doing. Sasquatch t|c 20:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't unrelated. I can't be bothered to go into all the diffs, but at least some of the ip's complaints relate to exactly the same MOS:HYPOCORISM issue. I have no great expectation of being able to sort anything out with JesseRafe, as he seems incapable of discussing anything rationally, as the above demonstrates. Of course if an editor is making mistakes one is likely to look at his contributions to see if this is repeated. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't unrelated. So you think it's a good idea to align yourself with a Wikihounding campaign, just so you can get your licks in against an opponent? Not the best course of action. --Calton | Talk 03:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What a silly comment! I'm just saying they are related. At least some of the alleged wikihounding is the ip trying to follow MOS, against JesseRafe insisting only he has the key to understanding MOS:HYPOCORISM, which is a pretty clear guideline. I've never come across either of them before, and hope I never do again. Or you. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I flatly reject the notion that working to fix real problems caused by an out-of-control editor makes me a "stalker". If I had made a single edit in bad faith or done anything with the sole (or even primary) goal of hurting Jesse, then the claim wouldn't be so ridiculous. As it stands, though, this is a fine example of blaming the messenger.

I'm going to share that message again: Jesse is making a mess of these articles due to some combination of incomprehension, inflexibility, and oversensitivity. That's not on me, so their attempt to shift the focus away from their errors is unconvincing. I stand by each and every edit I made, both on merit and intent. I've left all of their reasonable changes alone, and will continue to do so. In contrast, Jesse has reverted some of my reasonable changes out of what looks like spite, has been hostile and uncivil, and has refused to join in the discussions about content. It seems that all they want to do is make things personal and play the victim while ignoring the reason that "their" articles are being fixed.

This is an ongoing problem. For Jessica Parker Kennedy (not "Park"), I was easily able to find a citation confirming her training as a singer, from a source that's used all over Wikipedia without controversy. For the fact that she's Jewish, I updated the interview link so that it goes directly to where she repeatedly mentions this. If she's not a reliable source about her own beliefs, who is?

These are content issues, but Jesse wants it to be all about their feelings getting hurt and how much I deserve to suffer. This turns it into a behavior issue, but the troubling behavior is Jesse's. You can see that multiple editors are struggling with the difficulty of getting Jesse to act reasonably and cooperate, instead of attacking on multiple venues.

Ultimately, it all comes down to whether you want Wikipedia articles to be better or worse. If you choose "worse", ban me now. Otherwise, leave me alone so that I can contribute positively. I'm still learning the rules, and I'm not sure if I even want to make an account, but for now, I'm making things better. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• And he's still at it in blatent contravention of both WP:COMMONSENSE and the MOS! To quote him above "This has been an incredibly negative experience. Someone please do something." Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Johnbod: JesseRafe is clearly right in this instance. The manual of style clearly says:

With initials, it is not necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. For example, H. P. Lovecraft has that title, H. P. Lovecraft appears in his infobox, and his lead sentence just gives Howard Phillips Lovecraft ... was an American writer ..., without "explaining" to the reader what "H. P." stands for. Initials are not nicknames; do not put them in quotation marks or insert them in mid-name, as in John Thomas Smith better known as "J. T." Smith or John Thomas (J. T.) Smith.

This is the last warning for both Johnbod and 24.47.152.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Wikipedia is a vast place. If you literally can't bring yourself to find anywhere else to edit other than where JesseRafe is editing, that is clearly WP:HOUNDING and will be dealt with accordingly. If other users see problems with that user's edits, let them discuss and deal with them. Sasquatch t|c 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You must be joking (and it's a first warning)! In recent days two articles on my watchlist (as I have edited them in the past) have been messed about by JesseRafe, Suzi Leather and J.M.W. Turner. He is just a drive-by on these. By your book, this presumably means he is hounding me. In the Suzi Leather case, despite his outraged squeals of protest, he has not reverted my reversion of him, probably realizing (but not of course admitting) that the article was entirely MOS compliant before his edit. I won't go into Turner now, but will launch an RFC, as the best way to sort that. I'll just say he is not "clearly right", but we will see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: You are the one who decided to come to this ANI thread and start airing your grievances about something that could have been sorted out without latching onto an editor that is hounding down another user. And then you go against what the manual of style quite clearly says while mocking another user's legitimate complaints. I don't know what you expected with that kind of behavior. Sasquatch t|c 23:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't expect implicit and completely unfounded claims from you that I was also hounding him, when if anything it is the other way round (not that I'm saying that). The "hounding" claim is actually pretty thin. One of the articles mentioned was edited by another ip who he associates with this one on no evidence, then there's:

• " Four Arrows - This edit in isolation is fine, but just proof of them hounding me. I did a substantial cleanup of this article and along the way removed some unsourced items, this was one of them." - jesse removes an uncited statement, the ip cites and restores it, and that's hounding?!!

Then there's:

• "Edolphus Towns - Another edit where 24.47.152.65 is undoing my work just to undo it." - another MOS:HYPOCORISM case, where Jesse just removes the nickname completely, as at Suzi Leather, which is not what the MOS says to do. Jesse's edit summaries run straight away to pretty wild language, as he does here. In fact the nub of the issue seems to be a dispute at Lee Carter (politician), which Jesse has long edited and appears to be where the two first ran into each other, and where there has been considerable edit-warring between the two. The handful of other articles involved seem just to be spillage from that. It looks to me like a content/edit-warring dispute which Jesse has chosen to package as a hounding one; rather cleverly he doesn't mention that article at all in his complaint, but it is actually [That is] where the bulk of interaction between them has been. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

John, the Lee J. Carter article is mentioned in the first sentence. You literally just summarized my complaint as your own brilliant deduction when I said that the IP is hounding me after the content dispute from that article and all the other articles are completely unrelated to that subject area. That's the entire basis of the ANI and grounds for hounding. You've made no contributions here but wildly inaccurate summaries, personal attacks against me, and more than a few obvious misrepresentations of fact. I would appreciate it if you struck your grossly uncivil lies about me (e.g. "Jesse has chosen to package as a hounding one; rather cleverly he doesn't mention that article at all in his complaint", because as an experienced editor your conduct has been just as bad as 24.47.152.65's. Also, read the history: the hypocorism issue is not what this is about at all, that's just another random edit of mine that 24.47.152.65 has chosen to glob onto as an area to undo me on -- that's what hounding is. JesseRafe (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, missed that, now struck it. Your language here is more disproof for Sasquatch's fond belief that you can discuss things reasonably. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't discuss things reasonably when you're still are telling outright lies about me, such as "One of the articles mentioned was edited by another ip who he associates with this one on no evidence" -- did you read the complaint? In my opening incident report I clearly and unambiguously state "I want to note that I am not accusing any of the other IPs I mentioned above of being socks or otherwise involved, they are just random other users that I believe 24.47.152.65 was taking advantage to disguise their reverts." 24.47.152.65 just latches onto to other users' edits and fights those edit wars just to harass me, not based on any topics or interests. You are one of the other users, the "another ip" you mention is another... that is the whole MO, you don't even realize the nature of what you've inserted yourself into. The fact that you "overlooked" this, as your previous claim that I tried to hide the connection to the Carter article, demonstrates you are either not actively involved in this conversation or even know what it's about, or are intentionally ignoring the key facts at issue and are solely interested in piling on claims about my supposed mendacity. Like I said, you are acting in bad faith in almost every comment you've contributed here. Please familiarize yourself with the issue, rather than come up with supposed "gotchas" on my behavior that only serve to illustrate you have not been paying attention. I've been reasonable in the face of your unreasonableness throughout this whole affair. JesseRafe (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, I have a crystal ball, so let me tell you what the future holds. Sasquatch will ban me and this will embolden an already out-of-control Jesse, leading to further articles being mangled by his eagerness to delete what can easily be cited and rigidly apply rules without understanding them. If you object to this, you'll get banned, too.

The end result is that Sasquatch will help Jesse make Wikipedia a worse place, and scare away a new editor. You don't have to like it, but my crystal ball does not lie. Welcome to Wikipedia, where this sort of nonsense happens literally every day. It's why I didn't bother creating a named account and I won't bother editing at all after I'm banned. It's why I'll share this experience far and wide, so that others don't won't be surprised.

Clearly, these people 'want Wikipedia to suck, or suck more, to be precise. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I think an RFC on the nickname question is needed, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

They're still at it, FYI, and moving on to additional articles than the ones cited above and continuing their attacks on me and other uncivil comments. All after what appeared to me to be a clearly worded last warning. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Diffs, please, without any more wild abuse. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this isn't about you. Since the above post the IP is still besmirching me and casting aspersions all over the encyclopedia. They were given a clear final warning last week and have not slowed down their rampant abuse and harassment at all, in fact, casting a wider net of false claims. Can their behavior and edits please be addressed? JesseRafe (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"They're still at it, FYI, and moving on to additional articles than the ones cited above and continuing their attacks on me...". Who is "they" if not the ip and me? Get a grip, please. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? Singular they. It's an anon IP, what other pronoun should I use? Like I said, you've been acting in egregious bad faith in every interaction on this board. Please let the admins respond to the actual issues instead of you just making things up. JesseRafe (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That was certainly not how I read it, and I doubt anyone else did either. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Then you would be dead wrong, twice. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Go start a RFC if you want to resolve the issue. You keep saying that but yet again you keep showing up in ANI without actually taking any steps in that direction. Again, this thread was never about resolving the dispute on how the manual of style should be interpreted. I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for inappropriate personal attacks here and at Johnbod's user talk page. I suggest everyone here figure out a way to deescalate and learn to work together more productively. Sasquatch t|c 19:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I keep getting new attacks here from Jesse. I don't know why you think we need "to work together more productively". As I've said above, I'd be delighted never to run across Jesse again, and hope he will follow your advice above re the wide world of wiki. I'll do the Rfc in my own good time, which I'll have more of if Jesse stops abusing me all the time. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Boldly reblocked 24.47.152.65 with autoblock of logged-in users from editing from this IP address. See here. Feel free to undo if you think this undue.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Renewed hounding by 24.47.152.65 after block lifted

24.47.152.65 is still hounding me, recommencing right after block expired. T.J. McCpnnell, Richaun Holmes, Pat Croce, David Keyes, Knives Out, Julia Salazar -- these are not high traffic articles, but all ones I edited yesterday and that they did last night. As seen on Talk:Julia_Salazar, User talk:JesseRafe, and User talk:24.47.152.65 - 24.47.152.65 has very similar predilections as Special:Contributions/Knowitall369. So the initial dispute did not start at the Carter article, but they followed me to Carter from Salazar. I know this isn't the place for SPIs, but I only have time for one post today. They love collecting massive lists of dirt on Salazar and posting them indiscriminately (Knowitall369 and 24.47.152.65), Knowitall369 and ODDoom99 both refer to her as "Ms. Salazar", and 24.47.152.65's use of ODDoom99 (talk · contribs) is quite evidently seen elsewhere on this very page. I think a much stronger block is necessary than 31 hours, this is an ongoing and well orchestrated. That's a lot of other very similar edits and turns of phrase on just these three accounts, but I don't have time to collect all the diffs and post an SPI today. I should think the unambiguous hounding issue should be enough though. JesseRafe (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that Jesse is being dishonest. To see for yourself, take a look at Talk:Julia Salazar, where I posted links about the Hernandez issue in direct response to Aquillion's request for these sort of citations and we're talking about how much to include. That's exactly the sort of behavior that's productive: citing sources and having a civil discussion. But Jesse's not part of that discussion. Instead, he came here (once again, without notifying me as he is expected to) to get me banned. There is no reasonable interpretation of their actions that makes them look like they're acting in good faith. He's going to keep this up until I'm banned indefinitely. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like they're also accusing me of being other people. If there's a way this can be checked, please use it, because it turns out not to be true. Yet again, another bad-faith accusation against me. I'm disgusted. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to delve into this but as a point of order - it is not necessary for Jesse to re-notify you just because the ANI complaint is ongoing. Only if an entirely new complaint were opened would you have to be notified again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As a point of order, this is a new complaint. The old one was settled in his favor, after I was blocked explicitly because I pointed out that Jesse has shown a pattern of political bias. Now they're back, looking for more excuses to have me blocked, and I wouldn't have known about it except that someone helpfully pointed it out to me. Apparently, I'm not the only one concerned about Jesse's behavior. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

As a point of order, this is a new complaint.

Incorrect. This is still part of the same complaint, just new information added with regard to your activity after the block expired. The fact you were blocked did not conclude this ANI report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not new information because information has to be true and this is not.

For example, Jesse makes it sound as if I followed them to Knives Out (film) and removed their changes. In fact, I restored the text that Jesse edited after someone else removed it (along with all other character descriptions). Likewise, I was in the middle of a discussion on Talk:Julia_Salazar before Jesse attacked me here, and I'm continuing that discussion. My edits to David Keyes and T. J. McConnell had nothing to do with anything Jesse might have changed in those articles and were entirely uncontroversial.

WP:HOUND says I must not "repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" but that's clearly not what I'm doing, yet Jesse is falsely accusing me of it. Meanwhile, I've continued to edit articles that, as far as I can tell, Jesse never touched or otherwise expressed interest in, such as Ugly Americans (TV series) and The Umbrella Academy: Dallas, so I'm not an SPA.

As for my block, the stated reason was a "personal attack", except that it wasn't one. [88] Apparently, it's not a personal attack for Jesse to post stuff like this, but if I even talk about apparent bias, that's forbidden. This makes zero sense. Either way, I was not blocked for hounding.

Moreover, I find it disturbing that Jesse continues to try to get me banned by using false claims that he figures you won't bother checking. He's also tried to identify me as other editors, which is nonsense on stilts. In short, he is guilty of hounding me. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hammelsmith

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

Adding informations from unreliable sources. [89],[90], [91] Adding information which contradicts those in citations.[92],[93]. Adding WP:OR and WP: synthesis.[94] He also deletes the content from the well cited sources to his convenience and cherry picking the content to push his point of view.[95] 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, [96], [97]. But he is still continuing with his WP:Advocacy Michael Jackson related articles [98]. Directions of senior editors to revert the edits made in pages and reach consensus by discussing in talk pages has also been ignored.[99],[100],[[101] 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. [102], [103] ,[104],[105], [106],[107],[108], [109],[110]. These [111] ,[112],[113], [114],[115] 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)

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 [116][117]. 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)

Flyingd

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 [118][119][120][121] (among many others) and other ad hominem arguments [122][123]. 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 [124]; I explain why I think they provide relevant context [125]; he diverts to arguing that they are irrelevant to the RfC [126][127]; I reply that what the The Banner raises in the RfC misrepresents the issue Flyingd was trying to raise [128]; The Banner continues to shelter behind the RfC [129]; I point out that I was initially discussing the topic of the RfC [130]; he now retreats to hiding behind the (rather dubious) previous consensus [131]; I point out that consensus can change and that he can’t avoid my new arguments by hiding behind prior consensus [132]; 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. [133], 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 [134]; I pointed to previous diffs where we made those arguments [135]; he insisted they weren’t content related [136]; 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 [137]; and then The Banner, apparently exasperated, threatened to take the whole thing to ANI [138]. 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: [139] (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.[140] 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 [141] and 1943 [142]. 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 [143] and [144]. 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)

Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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, [145] 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, [146]. 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: [147], [148]. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. [149] 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[150] 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[151]. My understanding was that notifications were OK. The cause was this rv edit[152], which I reverted.[153] 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[154], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[155]. (VQuakr too was involved here[156] and here[157], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[158] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) " Attic Salt dismissively responded here [159]. (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[160], which Attic Salt made some minor fixes[161] I even added an explanation of what I did on the talkpage.[162] 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[163] 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, [164]. I undid it [165], and then you undid that [166], You accused then me of vandalism and not understanding textbook material [167], though I think it comes down to you not writing clearly. The problematic edit was then undone by VQuaker [168]."

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[169] (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[170], followed by these edits[171] In this section they say: "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." I modify it here[172], it is reverted in the next edit by another user here[173] (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[174], but the next day on 5th December 2015 11:01 later turn up on the page with this edit here[175]. 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[176] followed by this edit 07 January 2018 [177], which I partial reverted on the same day here.[178]. 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[179], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[180]. (VQuakr too was involved here[181] and here[182], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[183] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) First Edits Ion 04 December 2019[184] Velocity 02 June 2019[185] Supernova 17 June 2019[186] 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[187] 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[188] 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 [189]. 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[190] (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[191], 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[192] or [193].) 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[194] 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[195] 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[196] 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) [197] (even with this sandbox), Photographic magnitude [198] or even Apparent magnitude[199] 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.[200] The next day they make this edit[201] and then add this query[202], 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[203], and asked to retract the accusations[204] - 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[205] 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[206]. 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'[207], which I restored the version here[208]. Attic Salt then reverted this text here[209] 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[210], then I next went to the talkpage with Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained explaining these original restorations here[211] 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[212] 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"[213], 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. [214],[215], [216], [217] or this.[218] 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[219] But you did this rv edit[220], 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[221] or this Deneb edit[222] (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[223].

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[224], but the next day on 5th December 2015 11:01 later turn up on the page with this edit here[225]. 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[226] followed by this edit 07 January 2018 [227], which I partial reverted on the same day here.[228].

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[229], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[230]. (VQuakr too was involved here[231] and here[232], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[233] 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": [234]. But, as I noted [235], 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) [236] -- 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, [237]. I undid it [238], and then you undid that [239], You accused then me of vandalism and not understanding textbook material [240], though I think it comes down to you not writing clearly. The problematic edit was then undone by VQuaker [241].

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 [242] because I refer to a sentence you restored as "Arianewiki1's sentence". I apologised [243], but this wasn't good enough for you [244]. I note that the supernova article appeared to be conflating stellar nucleosynthesis with supernova nucleosynthesis [245], and while Lithopsian responds in civil terms [246], you certainly didn't [247] --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[248], 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,[249] (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[250], Velocity 02 June 2019[251] and Supernova 17 June 2019[252] (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."[253] 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.[254]. Similarly, VQuakr, also having me on their watchlist, again reverted this here[255]. Looking at the history listing[256], 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[257]. 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.[258]

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[259] claiming "correct usage of magnitude as a unit".[260]. 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[261] 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[262], 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[263] when the reference to the quote above was this[264] 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.[265] 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[266] . 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[267] and this edit[268]. (I gave a edit summary). This is 'frivolous'? You were involved.

Ultimately the question come down to the response [269] and this edit[270]. (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…"[271], 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."[272]. Reading my response has no PA of any consequence, considering you own accusations.[273].

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.[274]. 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.[275]. Feel free to read my contribution page here.[276] if you think no edit summary appears in this article, I have now been adding Sections to the article's talkpage. e.g. here[277] 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 [278] 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: [279], and is the subject of an RFC that Arianwiki1 has called: [280]. 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[281] or this[282]. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

User Hyde1979

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
• [283] --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• comment [[284] 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 [285] --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. 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. 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 [286] 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. 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)

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)

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

See archived link at wp:ANI: [287]

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 [288], [289]
• ‎82.132.238.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 3 July 2019 with [290], [291]

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 [292] and [293]

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)

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 [294] [295]. 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

Deep state in the United States

This article is under discretionary sanctions. It is being subjected to POV editing, including the removal of sourced and relevant information without a consensus to do so on the talk page, and deliberate IDHT blindness to the content of information which supports a NPOV. I request that the recent editing and talk page discussion be examined by an admin for any policy-violating behavior -- I'm out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Article definitely needs a WP:FULL lockdown. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think BMK is describing their own behavior. A comprehensive conduct review is probably overkill, but full protection may be in order. Btw I didn’t receive a notice of this report, even though it’s clear BMK is complaining about me. R2 (bleep) 02:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit.Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I was more than a little surprised by this report. I only knew about it because of this comment on the talk page. I kind of thought that the discussion was moving forward productively and don't know why this needed to be escalated so drastically. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(still asleep). If we are all in-good-faith discussion, do we have to get out the DS-hammer. This would probably require more careful thought than I'm capable of awake, but, yeah. Oh, and happy Fourth of July to all who celebrate it.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• If we want to celebrate the Fourth of July, the best way would be to uphold Wikipedia policies and not allow people to remove sourced material from articles without a consensus to do so simply because it disagrees with their own political opinions. That is both disruptive and opposed to basic Wikipedia policies and practices. I'm appalled that no admin has stepped in to put a stop to this practice on this article. Is everyone too distracted by the Fram mess to deal with ongoing disruption and policy violations? Come on, people, this isn't rocket science, people are skewing an article to reflect their own POV in spite of numerous reliable sources which support the opposite, NPOV, viewpoint. It's basic stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm busy celebrating Amexit Day, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

??? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You know. The day Americans left a European community.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Must've been a little thick there, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that BMK has only cited content policies is an indication that this thread should be closed. R2 (bleep) 17:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You are confused. Violation of any Wikipedia policy is a behavioral problem and is proper to be dealt with on ANI. What you're thinking of is a content dispute. Yes, a content dispute is behind the behavioral problems I would like admins to examine, but that is the case for a large majority of ANI reports, since content disputes often give rise to behavioral issues. That is the case here. I'm not asking an admin to rule on the content dispute, they simply don't do that, I am asking them to look at things like your removal of sourced content from a DS article without having a consensus on the talk page to do so, or your WP:IDHT behavior in insisting that articles that clearly call the "deep state" concept to be a conspiracy don't say what they inherently say, or the various stalling behaviors you have used in your attempt to move the article to reflect what is obviously your personal point of view, instead of what reliable sources say. Those behavioral issues are the meat and potatoes of what ANI deals with.

And yes, @Dlohcierekim:, the DS hammer does need to come out, because there cannot be a "good faith discussion" when one party to it insists that black is not black when reliable sources explicitly say that it is. That's WP:Disruptive under any circumstances, and especially when the article is under sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think is “stalling” is probably me trying to enjoy a long weekend. Happy 4th. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• BMK has recently reverted all of my conspiracy-category removals with the summary "POV edit". Their refusal to self-revert on their talk page is an example of the OWN behavior, esp. when Trump never promoted Qanon, and I am in fact being gaslit when I start adding detailed rationales for cat removals that I get reverted with zero rationale. BMK has shown no regard for any category PAG whatsoever and a block or a TBAN are the only solutions IMO. wumbolo ^^^ 14:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Of course you think that. I, on the other hand, think you ought to be site banned for making edits in furtherance of your distinct political POV, but neither of those things is going to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Wumbolo: What? BMK didn't revert the category removals, I did. I said I was going to do as much on the talk page. Why are you both being unnecessarily hostile? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I am talking about edits on several articles, which includes the 1st edit at the deep state article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: [Thank you for the ping] Oh, my apologies then. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:13, 6 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)

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[296] are basically, at least the recent ones I checked, all vandalism. This[297] 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)

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.[298]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Supra (feast) article without source. No edit edit summary/explanation either.[299]
• 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.[300]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Wudu article without source. No edit summary/explanation either.[301]
• 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.[302]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about an Armenian monastery. No edit summary/explanation either.[303]
• 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.[304]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to Iwan, even though the article demonstrates no relationship in relation to the Azerbaijani Turkshi people/Azerbaijani Turkish language.[305]

Using the race/ethnicity card and general violations of WP:BATTLE and WP:PERSONAL:

• "There are lot of Persian users interrupting the factuality (...)"[306]
• "Iranian nationalist Shia (which is pagan at this point) who shouts "Ya Hossein", instead of "Allahu Akbar"[307]
• "Dear LouisAragon, I understand being bit anti-Azerbaijan (...)"[308]

Ignoring personal warnings:

• Warned on two occassions for violating WP:PERSONAL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Never replied.[309]-[310]

Ignoring WP:AA2 warning:

• [311]

Copy-vio violation:

• [312]

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)[313], 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[314] "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.[315] 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.[316][317] 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[318]. "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"[319] 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.[320] - 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[321], 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.[322]-[323] - 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 forbyour 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)

Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN

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

I accept. Thank you. Moneyspender (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Shinealittlelight with egregious personal attacks, serious WP:IDHT at Antifa (United States)

The Antifa (United States) article is regularly a hot zone of dispute, particularly whenever there's a conflict between antifascists and right-wing extremists in the streets of battlegrounds such as Portland. This week has been a week like that. This time, these disputes have led to an editor (Shinealittlelight) accusing another (Tsumikiria) of sponsoring political violence. Shinealittlelight is casting aspersions, citing WP:NOT on the basis of a userpage infobox alone, failing to WP:AGF and then, when repeatedly cautioned by multiple editors, evincing astounding levels of WP:IDHT, telling the concerned editors that their claims that another editor shouldn't edit articles on antifascism because "they support political action by any means necessary, including violence" don't constitute a personal attack. Diffs with description below.

Shinealittlelight calls attention to Tsumikiria's antifa support infobox [324] Shinealittlelight claims this equates to a CoI and cites WP:NOT with the claim that it means Tsumikiria will attempt to achieve political goals by any means necessary [325] After being challenged over their statement, Shinealittlelight doubles down on WP:NOT claims, again based only on a user page infobox [326] After being asked to retract their personal attacks, Shinealittlelight refuses [327] Shinealittlelight cautioned by me, Doug Weller and Objective3000 at user talk where we ensure they're aware that their personal attacks, on a page under discretionary sanctions, would likely lead to a block, and we caution them to strike through their statements. They reply with further personal attacks against Tsumikiria while simultaneously denying that the statements are personal attacks. [328]

Both Shinealittlelight and Tsumikiria will be informed of this discussion momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

They have both now been notified. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor calls another editor a supporter of Antifa because that editor has a user box on their page mentioning they are a supporter. This of course is cause for suspecting conflicted editing. So what is the problem? Where is the diff where the editor, as per you, has purportedly said, "they support political action by any means necessary, including violence". Specifically, where is the diff which shows they said "including violence". On the contrary, I see your edits like this one where you end up calling someone a "racist blogger" Well, if you want to post rubbish at ANI, better be prepared to back up your statements. I'll await your reply before proceeding to either warn you or block you or to commend you and eat my words. Lourdes 15:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

[329] Here's where they make specific reference to support of violence. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And this dif, previously provided, is, I think, the first reference to "by any means necessary" which they clarified includes support of violence. [330] - as for my Ngo comments - they were not directed at any Wikipedia editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that support of antifa equates to a CoI but only that it raises concern, just as vocal support of the RNC would raise concern about an editor editing the article on RNC. I did not say that Tsumikiria will attempt to achieve political goals by any means necessary, but that the user's support of Antifa means that the user believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible in the present situation. Believing something is permissible is not the same as intending to do it. I do believe that support of Antifa tends to undermine the ability of other editors to assume you're here to follow the rules and build an encyclopedia (when it comes to political issues). I do not regard this point as a personal attack. If I believed what Antifa supporters believe--that the political situation has become so dire that violence is called for--I would not be here to build an encyclopedia. It would be the reasonable consequence of my assessment of how dire the situation had become. I thought that other editors should know that this editor was a supporter of Antifa for the reason I mentioned. If that earns me a ban, then so be it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours per this diff; pa is a pa is a pa... Lourdes 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Just driving by to suggest that maybe an editor that "connects the dots" in this fashion maybe should not be allowed to edit WP:ARBAP2 topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• There does seem to be a lot of WP:ADVOCACY issues on that page. I would not go so far as to say a COI issue but something to keep an eye on. People supporting a cause probably should not be editing pages about it or closely related subjects. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Should a women editor, who supports women's cause and rights, edit Women's suffrage? Is that even a question? And has the advocacy happened? Without concrete evidence on external canvassing, recruiting, or paid editing, this is just another attempt to derail the content discussion and discredit the majority of experienced editors whom you happen to disagree with. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 16:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, Wikipedia maintains WP:NPOV by attracting comments from editors with all kinds of views on a topic, from fanatic support to vocal opposition to true neutral to "just don't care". Saying that only editors with a neutral or negative view on a topic are the only ones who should be allowed to edit it is very perilous to neutrality. Excepting Nazis, they can get the hell out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Should a women editor, who supports women's cause and rights, edit Women's suffrage? That is a straw man argument but I will answer anyway. If they are violating NPOV then yes they should not edit the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's not a straw man argument; in fact it's not an argument at all, it's a question. Specifically, it's a perfectly reasonable request for clarification re the baffling claim you made above, which flies in the face of policy, established consensus and common sense (outlined by Tsumikria and Ivanvector above and by me elsewhere). I'm glad, though, that you're now acknowledging that WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI are not applicable and that WP:NPOV is the relevant policy. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, your argument is absurd. If feminists should not edit articles about feminist topics, perhaps you should not edit articles about motorcycles? After all, you indicate on your userpage that you ride a motorcycle, so by your own argument you cannot edit neutrally about that topic. (This, by the way, is a straw man). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Huh what the heck are you talking about? I said If they are violating NPOV then yes they should not edit the subject do you disagree with that? Where did I say feminists should not edit articles about feminist topics? You are being absurd. PackMecEng (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Your concession already imply that editors exercising their right to express their views have tendencies to violate our NPOV guidelines, which is already a statement that fly in the face of our civility guidelines. It creates unwarranted suspection defeating the purpose of the project. Such accusations much be served with firm evidence in the form of diffs and posted on noticeboards like this one. I expect you to retract your statement. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 00:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  With all due respect you are completely mistaken. Please read WP:ADVOCACY as I linked before. I will not be retracting my statement. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• While I'm not concerned with the blocked IDHT attacks, I'm more concerned with behaviors like this where the majority of editors who disagree over a preposition are casted as "defending terrorists" by a experienced member of the community. Sure, it's one thing that discussions may get heated and one's free to have wild beliefs, it's another thing to cast delusions to derail against other members of the community. And its troubling to see that toxic comments unhelpful to our community get overlooked. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's "policy" on editors expressing political views on their userpages is largely - and unfortunately in my view - absent. However, if you are going to include them, especially controversial ones, you should not be surprised if that results in some of comments made here, whether they are justified or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I know that, which is why i buried them under entertainment userboxes. And more ridiculous forms of this discussion happened before, so I'm not too concerned either. I'm comfortable being the "disdain to conceal my views and aims" type. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 17:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I personally prefer to be transparent about my POV. Truly neutral people don't exist. We may (as I most certainly do) see value in a neutral body of knowledge such as Wikipedia. But that will only arise due to the dialectic process between editors of various POVs coming into contact. As such, asking editors not to edit articles on politcal systems, practices or ideologies just because they have strong opinions on them is actually counter to the objective of WP:NPOV. Of course, this is prefaced by WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS because once you start advocating genocide, your opinion is no longer of value to anyone. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Some would argue that starting the line at 'advocating genocide' is quite a bit too late. Arkon (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well yeah, but I think even this notoriously fractuous board can agree that pro-genocide POVs are not of use to the dialectic of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This thread is confusing as hell. Editor A is blocked because they mention Editor B supports political violence (more accurately supports a group that does so) as a possible COI. Editor B has a userbox stating support for said group (Antifa) that (from the article) states: the label "antifa" should be limited to "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries,". Seems rather like the normal run of the mill 'Hey, your POV is showing' to me. Arkon (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily on board with the block either, but it should be noted (and a look through Shinealittlelight's contributions to the talk page in question will make clear) that the diff Lourdes provided is only one instance of a broader pattern of commenting on contributors rather than content, which they doubled down on rather than ceasing when the inappropriateness and irrelevance of these comments was pointed out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors must feel free to be themselves, and their personal biases and beliefs must not be used against them by claiming it indicates they edit in a biased manner or have a COI. Only proof, with diffs from actual edits, can be used to make such accusations, and that should be done at the appropriate noticeboard. Discussing and editing are two different things. Expressions of personal belief and bias in discussions and in userspace is allowed, but biased editing is not. Keep that neutral.

Using an editor's affiliations and/or personal beliefs against them is a serious personal attack that rebounds on all editors who express their own points of view in discussions, and such accusations create a chilling effect that would mean the mere holding of a point of view automatically means the editor has a conflict of interest preventing them from editing any related subject. That would never work and such accusations are forbidden personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Agreed, but just a day or two ago someone called SNAAAAKE!! was indefinitely blocked by an AN report which based a lot of the initial argumention on the fact that he had stated support for Gamergate in Wikipedia. So, obviously there are more accepted "potentially controversial views" and then there are some which will be considered "NOTHERE" by most. However, the explanatory supplement WP:NOTNOTHERE also states that expressing extremely unpopular opinions is allowed in a non-disruptive manner. As for Tsumikiria, I was mostly amused by their description NYT and WaPo's bourgeois journalists and their owner capitalists has always been against progressive movements[331] on RS/N. Showing some old-school colors is fine. --Pudeo (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Obvious sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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[332] - 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. 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 ([333]), 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" ([334]) which is used by Hans Haase too ([335]). So I would ask you to delete the revisions prior to [336] as well as younger than [337]. 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)

User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning - breaking Archive URLs

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

User:Superfriend223 calling editors racists

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[338] 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)

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 [339] they apologised [340]. 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

Backlog at WP:AIV

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

Beyond My Ken

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

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)