Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

False edit summaries by User:Froid

User:Froid likes to edit disambiguation pages with edit summaries about changing "category/ies", when these edits have nothing to do with categories as that term is used on Wikipedia. (Some diffs: [1], [2], [3]; there are dozens more in the User's contributions.) These inaccurate summaries have the effect of reducing the attention drawn to Froid's often extensive reorganizations of dab pages.

Froid has been asked (and warned) to stop using these inaccurate summaries, first by me in September 2018, then by User:Uanfala in November 2018, and again by me on May 3 and May 7. Froid has almost entirely refused to respond to these requests/warnings, and apparently believes they may be ignored, having repeated the behavior just in the last day, after the most recent warning. (EDIT: And yet again, after being alerted to this ANI discussion. I now believe a block is in order. 14:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

I would like Froid to be informed by the admins here that false edit summaries constitute disruptive editing, and as such may lead to sanctions if repeated. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disruptive. What do you advise is be the appropriate description for the renaming table of contents levels, and the promotion or demotion of some of those levels? Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You've of course been told this before, and had plenty of chances to get it straight before now, but: you can call them headings, headers, sections, or subsections as appropriate. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 20:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• If they have already been warned I think a short block may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've encountered Froid on numerous pages over the past few years, usually after they've "copyedited". Many of their edits improve articles, but they also exhibit a frequent carelessness, or unfamiliarity with actual grammar, such that the edits can result in the introduction of errors, which Froid has no qualims about edit warring to maintain. They also occasionally engage in what can only be considered disruptive editing. Their talkpage is littered with warnings about edit warring, deceptive edit summaries, and enforcing idiosyncratic organizational rules on disambiguation pages that don't seem to be rooted in anything other than Froid's preference. Froid is a valuable contributor and a net positive, but they really could stand to be more collaborative. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Unfamiliarity with actual grammar?" LOL! No one (including this editor) is perfect, but I also happen to be well versed in grammar. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Unfamiliarity" was meant to give you an out. The point isn't that any editor should be perfect, but that editors should listen when their edits are reverted and learn from their errors, instead of continuing to do the same thing over and over. This ANI report is primarily relying on your edits at disambiguation pages, but the overarching problem is one of not adjusting your editing behavior in response to feedback or engaging with the community at all, much less in a positive manner. Grandpallama (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Froid has continued to make the same edits that prompted the filing of this report, but hasn't bothered to participate here. That's not a great sign. Grandpallama (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Here I am. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Showing up only because you were told you would be blocked otherwise is not overly inspiring, either. Grandpallama (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Inspiring other editors is of no interest to me. I recommend you don't quit your day job, because psychoanalysis is not your forte. I didn't show up here because I was told I'd be blocked; I showed up only in response to an explicit request to do so posted on my page.

I showed up only in response to an explicit request to do so posted on my page or else be blocked. When confronted with the community's lack of patience for non-collaborative behavior, your response is to continue to double down with a non-collaborative attitude and begin attacking. I'm not sure what you think is happening at this thread, but choosing to insult the editors who have serious concerns instead of listening and determining that you need to adjust your approach is not a winning strategy. Grandpallama (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I have requested that Froid cease editing until they are prepared to address the concerns raised here. If their intent is simply to let this thread die out and continue on as they have done, I will likely block the account until they agree to communicate, as is required to edit here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• The issue is Froid's apparent determination not to take feedback on board. I've encountered them on dab pages, where they sometimes do good work, but sometimes introduce unhelpfully complicated structure. I mentioned this on their talk page some time last year, then had to bring it up again in February, then raised the general question on a project talk page in March (a couple of people participated and there was agreement that the edits weren't helpful), then again this month I asked Froid a little bit more firmly to please either gain consensus or to refrain from making such edits. All the while, they haven't responded to any of the messages or participated in the discussion, and they've carried on making such edits again and again. – Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Same comment I made above, to Grandpallama. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored Bizarro (disambiguation) and Barbarella, since the ordering by Froid made no sense. Any edit with a deceptive edit summary should be reverted at will as far as I'm concerned. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your second statement reflects a throwing the baby out with the bathwater mentality but results in disruptive edits, when you don't like the edit summary and don't review whether or not the edits improve the page. Sadly, not an uncommon mentality on Wikipedia. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your first statement and actions regarding the two articles you mentioned reflect a preference for pages that lack organization, as well as a disregard for or lack of comprehension of the MECE (Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive) Principle, which many Wikipedia pages, especially disambiguation pages, would benefit from following. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This principle can be quite helpful if applied with common sense and tempered with considerations of usability. If you believe disambiguation pages should formally adopt this as a new principle, you can propose that on the talk page of MOS:DAB. And regardless, if you make certain types of edits and other people disagree with them, then the burden is on you to gain consensus for these types of edits. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Xezbeth did not express a preference for "lack" of organization, but for proper organization. There is consistent agreement here that you often err at that, and more importantly, that you refuse to acknowledge or improve when specific errors are pointed out to you. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 21:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverting edits wholesale, to restore lack a setup lacking organization w/o improving that page in any way, reflects, in my book, a preference for lack of organization.Froid (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't read from your book. We read from the book of consensus, where editing is a privilege. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated on alphabetizing dab pages. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#User:Sweepy for an example of why that is a bad idea, especially if you continue to do it when challenged. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't noticed the alphabetisation, the main issue with respect to dab pages has been the breaking up of the page into tiny sections and subsections, to the point where the table of contents becomes comparable in size to the rest of the page. This is an example from today. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Froid is largely responding to the complaints here with a continued basic refusal to listen or accept them, which is the basis of the original complaint. Responding to concerns that they should leave proper edit summaries or else accept that their edits are likely to be undone, they claimed that doing so would actually make the other users disruptive ( Your second statement reflects a throwing the baby out with the bathwater mentality but results in disruptive edits, when you don't like the edit summary and don't review whether or not the edits improve the page. Sadly, not an uncommon mentality on Wikipedia ), and that the reverting of their edits, which do not conform to consensus, equates to a preference for lack of organization. Not sure what the next step is, but it's clear that Froid is no more interested in listening here at the ANI thread than they have been throughout the rest of their editing history. They've also been continuing the very editing behaviors that elicited this thread even while the discussion is ongoing, instead of ceasing the behavior until the issue is resolved, which is about as clear as WP:IDHT gets. Grandpallama (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, they've changed their approach to edit summaries. Froid, thank you for that, you new edit summaries are excellent! As for the second concern – the organisation of dab pages, I don't think I'm seeing enough to know whether you've taken that on board or not. The third, and probably most important issue, is the past refusal to engage constructively with the rest of the community. I don't feel like this has yet been addressed or acknowledged. – Uanfala (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole

I am raising a concern of WP:HOUNDING against User:Slugger O'Toole. On 9 May they directly reverted two edits I had made to the article on Brian Sims despite not previously being active on this article - (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Sims&type=revision&diff=896291899&oldid=896291690) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Sims&type=revision&diff=896290264&oldid=896277211) to change protest to prayer, and reciting to prayer. Only a few weeks earlier on 18 April I had raised concerns with them about hounding when they followed me to the article on the Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) to revert and change my edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Hill_Mob_%28gay_activist_group%29&type=revision&diff=892968980&oldid=892966698 is just one of these). I have previously raised these concerns with administrators to flag how in October 2018 this editor (when called BrianCUA) reverted my edits to Reinhard Marx and admitted that they had never visited that page before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slugger_O%27Toole/Archive_5#Reinhard_Marx - admission on their talk page). It is my belief that this editor is passionately supportive of issues pertaining to the Roman Catholic church, and that they do not like edits which are critical of the Catholic church, its members of organisations - even if the material supports this reading. They are particularly defensive when the matter of homosexuality or gay rights conflicts with official Church teaching or actions. I feel I am constantly being inhibited from editing - I am trying to improve articles in good faith and accept instances of where things can be improved or errors corrected. But I am being chased around and being made to feel like I have to justify every edit I make until this editor is content with the outcome from their point of view. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is almost silly. If you read the conversation we had in August 2018 about Reinhard Marx, I clearly explained why I was there, and Contaldo responded: "That's great. No offence taken." Now, eight months later, he is using it as evidence that I am hounding him? As for the Lavender Hill Mob article, he linked to it in an article in which we are both very active. That's how I came across it. I wasn't monitoring his edit history and then chasing him around, trying to inhibit his editing. If you look at his edit history, in fact, you will see many, many articles in which he is active and I am not. When Contaldo adds relevant content that is reliably sourced, he gets no push back from me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reinhard Marx and the Lavender Hill Mob are examples that show this is a repeat and sustained pattern. Would you like to explain why you visited the article on Brian Sims and changed my edits specifically? And I would ask that you don't dismiss my concerns as "silly". Your intention is simply to intimidate and WP:HOUND. Administrators I ask you to check the article on Brian Sims and consider whether it is acceptable for this editor to come and remove my wording after never having been at that article before. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Regarding Reinhard Marx, you yourself said "I'm sure that it wasn't your aim at all to hound me and your edit changes seem a sensible one." 2) I have already explained how I came to the Lavender Hill Mob. 3) Yes, please check out the Sims article, and particularly the talk page, where I engaged in a civil and rational discussion and came to a consensus with another editor before moving the prose to the main page. Sims was in the news recently, which is how I presume you got there. 4) Your last 100 edits include Damares Alves, True Cross, Macarius of Jerusalem, Helena (empress), List of sexually active popes, Donatello, and Frederick the Great, all of which relate to Catholicism and/or homosexuality. I have not been active on any of them. That's a pretty weak pattern. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't come to this board to have a debate with you (another example of your hounding style); I have come to make a complaint and have asked administrators to look into that. With regards to Marx it was clear to me that you were hounding but I decided to overlook it in attempt to reduce conflict (my comments were an ironic warning and should be read that way). You can say what you like about discussion on the Sims talk page but I think your argument that "it was in the news" is disingenuous and dishonest. You specifically targeted my edits because you didn't like them - that was your main motivation for visiting the page. This is hounding; this is not acceptable. There is a persistent pattern. And thanks for pointing out that you've had a good look at my recent editing history! I've made my complaint and I don't intend to justify it further to you. If people have concerns then it doesn't help to harass them and intimidate them in the hope they will simply shrink away.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators may also want to look at the edit warring noticeboard where Slugger is trying to intimidate again and risks abusing the process. Four editors have expressed a view contrary to Slugger on inclusion of material on the Lavender Hill Mob; despite this Slugger decided to report me for edit-warring as a way to silence me even though the overwhelming consensus is against them on this point. Are these sort of behaviours really the ones we want to see on Wikipedia? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: No violation)) Contaldo80 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

When I reported Congtaldo for edit warring, the dispute was just between two people. Now that a consensus has emerged, I have abided by it. I would also suggest that the consensus emerged because I put out a RfC. I am not trying to silence anyone. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You may suggest that but it has no bearing in reality. That consensus was there before your RfC. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you may wish to check the timestamps. I asked for the RFC at 10:49 am on May 14, 2019. After I hit save, I saw your comment and responded a minute later. At that point you Contaldo and I were the only people who had commented. I don't think I would call that a consensus. A few new people came after that, I presume that as a result of the RFC, and then a consensus was made clear. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's not easy to prove hounding from a limited set of diffs. The explanation for how they got to Sims might well be correct. But at the same time, did Slugger O'Toole really use the Daily Caller as a source in a BLP? And I am familiar with their supposed "civil and rational discussion" on talk pages from a minor dispute at Talk:Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group), where the talk page presents an editor who doesn't really care much about consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did use it. And then, if you read the talk page, you will see that I apologized for using it as I didn't know it was a prohibited source. Once that fact was pointed out to me, I didn't use it again. You will also see from that same dif that I explicitly told the editor who reverted me that I wanted to work with him to develop a consensus and then did exactly that. We worked out compromise language on talk and now the article is stable. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• HOUNDING allegation notwithstanding but I noticed the name come up and I have a slightly different concern that his username may be a WP:UPOL violation as it seems to imply association with the Slugger O'Toole newsblog. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That issue was addressed previously. A fictional character was the inspiration for both my name and that of the blog. Nice catch, though. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies @Slugger O'Toole:. I had missed that one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No need for an apology. I miss far more than that (as has been alluded to above!). --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right to raise concerns The C of E. Slugger O'Toole previously operated under the username of BrianCUA - but changed it after it was pointed out that this implied association with the Catholic University of America. As you will see there is a pattern of far from ideal behaviours. Frankly I'd like to see some sort of topic ban in relation to articles on Catholicism.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone raised a concern about my username. Upon reflection, I determined that the concern had merit. I then took steps to rectify the situation. I'm not sure how this is poor behavior, much less demonstrative of a pattern of the same. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the articles leading to the current WP:HOUND concern, but I concur with the need for greater attention to be paid to Slugger's tendentious editing on Catholicism-related topics. I have previously noted his tendency to edit against explicit consensus in this topic area and make false claims about the views expressed by other users, with the aim of pushing a non-neutral point of view. Contaldo posted on my talk page about this issue, but it's not what brought me here; I watchlist ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page for Talk:The Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) is a classic example of this frankly. Slugger ignored the consensus established by 6 separate editors concerning the mention of the death of Marty Robinson by AIDS (the individual was active in his opposition to the teachings of the Catholic church regarding the non-use of condoms); and continued to remove the material despite editors agreeing it should stay. User:Drmies quite rightly called him out. They then went to the trouble of creating a new article on Marty Robinson so that they could remove the AIDS-related fact from the earlier article - and making a very poor job of creating a new article at the same time and creating more work for editors such as User:Yngvadottir to fix. Highly disruptive and issues around neutral editing. I accept the point that it's difficult to demonstrate HOUNDING and not coincidental editing of a page on an item in the news - but the fact is that one of the immediate things Slugger did on the Brian Sims page was to specifically revert my edits in relation to Catholic religious practice. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have stated multiple times on that page that I respect the consensus. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Single-purpose editing / Conflict of interest?

• 109.151.109.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP seems to be editing almost exclusively on behalf of a film critic Barry Norman. All of their edits except for one are adding his reviews into the Reception section of film articles. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Whereas this is likely correct, I do not see what could we do about it (and whether we should do anything at all).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way, as their edit count is small (albeit recent). That being said, persistent single-purpose COIs are usually blockable to avoid damaging the neutrality of articles (though in the case of IPs, escalating blocks are more appropriate if this continuously occurs over a short period of time). DarkKnight2149 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

They are all Youtube clips from an account called "VHS Vault", and look rather like they could be copyright violations- They are from old VHS tapes by the looks of it.Curdle (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This editor is going about things in slightly the wrong way by citing bare Youtube URLs rather than the original places where these comments were made, but there's nothing wrong with citing Barry Norman in general. He was one of the foremost film critics in the UK in the last decades of the 20th century. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly single-purpose editing. Please guide me to the WP in order that I can more fully comprehend why this would be a concern. My understanding is that single purpose accounts are only a problem if they push a POV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof: WP:COI, most pertinently. The user edits almost exclusively on behalf of a single film critic (definite WP:Neutrality concern there), using unreliable sources from YouTube that go against WP:VIDEOREF. A user above also raised a copyright concern. DarkKnight2149 17:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That being said, I definitely agree that this is not the most dire situation ever brought to ANI. But nonetheless, something that administrators should know about (especially while the editor is just getting started, presumably). I'm not too invested whatever outcome is decided, and haven't been checking this thread often. DarkKnight2149 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, agree that it does seem dire. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want him to stop making false accusations against me.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would get this Wiki Editor off my back. He has publicly libeled me with claims that I have engaged in DISRUPTIVE editing because I deleted an improper OR statement that was false and which was not found in the articles that were cited to support that statement. He also made the public accusation that I had done so out of a motive of REVENGE simply because I did not like him, that I have engaged in EDIT WARRING, and then also implied I might be a SOCK. He has posted on my own talk page twice, and I removed his comments twice. I do not want him putting anything on my talk page and I want him to cease making libelous accusations against my good name. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

[[]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aron_Manning

[[4]]

[[5]]

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

       "...the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.[5]" (This is the statement that I removed from the article)

   I removed it because it was pure OR from the editor that put it there. There is no such statement in those cited sources. It is entirely appropriate to remove statements in the article that are not actually found in the sources cited to support such statements. OR opinion of some Wiki Editor (in this case, in the form of a false statement) is contrary to WP:OR rules. 

It was improper for Editor Aron Manning to restore such an OR statement, that was not only OR, but also false. Higher aerodynamic forces on the elevator CANNOT PUSH the HS in ANY direction. The HS can move ONLY when the jackscrew turns in one direction or another. That requires electric power to the jackscrew motor. High aerodynamic forces cannot cause the jackscrew to turn all by itself.

I then politely requested Editor Aron Manning to "Please revert your own improper revert." EditorASC (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC). He did not do so, but other editors did revert his reverts, without my personally requesting them to do so.

I am NOT seeking arbitration; nor do I want to negotiate anything with him. I simply don't want anymore conversation with Editor Aron Manning. I want him to leave me alone and to cease and desist from posting libelous statements against my good name. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of making "libelous statements" — we have a no legal threats policy which we enforce harshly. I don't see anything in those diffs that besmirches your good name. How can you possibly work to resolve this dispute if you don't interact? Who gets to edit the article if you two have, say, an interaction ban applied. El_C 23:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't immediately obvious what happened to the Reuters source cited (one possible match is now 404) but the sentence about aerodynamic forces is consistent with what I'd seen elsewhere, such as here: "As pilots would pull on the jet’s controls to raise the nose of the aircraft, the aerodynamic forces on the tail’s elevator (trying to raise the nose) would create an opposing force that effectively paralyzes the jackscrew mechanism that moves the stabilizer, explained Lemme, ultimately making it extremely difficult to crank the trim wheel by hand. The condition is amplified as speed — and air flow over the stabilizer — increases.". So EditorASC should also be careful about OR. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss article content. El_C 00:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I try to be sympathetic to everyone's complaints of ill treatment. Lots of people on Wikipedia are grumpy, cynical and not so nice. But, in my experience, editors are always talking smack about each other. It's part of internet culture. As long as it is not defamatory, it is best to brush it off and not take it so seriously. Or you decide you've had enough and leave (plenty of people do).

And how can anyone have a "good name" here when 99% of Wikipedia accounts are anonymous? Summary: Tell the editor not to post on your talk page ever and get on with editing. I know you didn't ask for this but forced apologies are meaningless and, at best, you can avoid each other. That's how most editors here get on with people they disagree with which is so common to almost be a cliche. Collaborative editing is not always harmonious. </soapbox> Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Liz and El C here. You are free to ask the editor to refrain from posting on your talk page, and they should respect that. (Barring reasonable exceptions like compulsory notices. And noting of course if you ask someone to stay away from your talk page, it also means you need to stay away from theirs and avoid stuff like talking about their conduct in places where they can't respond.) However there's no point demanding an apology or anything of that sort. You should also avoid using terms like "publicly libeled me" given our strong NLT policy.

Also while the editor should stay off your talk page, as long as you 2 are editing the same articles, you cannot expect no interaction. The editor can still revert your edits if their reverts are within our policy and guidelines. They can still discuss your edits in the context of improving the article on the article talk page (e.g. explaining problems they see, why they reverted, possible improvement). Noting though that all editors, even without such interaction concerns, should always avoid unnecessary references to an editor (whether direct or implied) and should keep editor conduct concerns out of article talk pages.

Further if you refuse to discuss improvements or concerns regarding article content on the article talk page, it's likely to be difficult to achieve consensus and so unless others share you view and express them on the talk page, it's likely WP:SILENCE etc will be mean consensus will be towards the other editor's POV. Note also even if an editor probably shouldn't have made whatever edits they made, if no one explains to them what's wrong with their edits because you're refusing to interact with them and no one else see's the problem, there's a fair chance a complaint to ANI will result in no action other than perhaps someone else talking to the editor.

In other words, if you want there to be no interaction at all, you will likely have to cease editing any articles they are also editing, but of course WP:hounding means they shouldn't be following you to articles or otherwise taking advantage of you voluntarily staying away from them.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've received an invitation to this discussion ;-) I'd like to make a case about the ongoing content dispute and questionable conduct. Please advise, how I should go further, whether I should present claims here, or in a new section? Thank you — Aron Manning (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Questionable conduct — right here. Content dispute — on the article talk page. El_C 05:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"So EditorASC should also be careful about OR. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)"

Show me where I ever put any OR statement into the article? I never did and I never will. Like Editor Aron Manning, you are failing to see the crucial difference between stalling or "paralysing" the jackscrew and forcing it to move in the OPPOSITE direction (which is what the false OR statement said and was the reason why I labeled it "OR" and removed it -- in addition to the fact that no such statement was made in any of the cited articles, which claimed to support that false statement). Those strong aerodynamic forces can stall the jackscrew, but they cannot force the jacksrew to turn in any direction. It takes electric power to the jackscrew motor to do that. I explained that almost three years ago, on the Flydubai Flight 981 Talk Page. Manning's problem is that he seems to be trying to present himself as an expert on how the systems and SOPs work during the conduct of an Airline flight, but he gets it wrong time and time again and then when anyone quite properly corrects his erroneous statements, he launches into personal attacks, charging deliberate disruptive editing, edit warring, acting out revenge, and he may be a sock. All of those scurrilous charges amount to false, personal attacks and I think I have a right to complain about such personal attacks. EditorASC (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to hear about the jackscrew anymore. Any accusations of misconduct (personal attacks, socking, etc.) need to be backed up by evidence in the form of diffs. Thank you. El_C 16:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to El_C: I posted them above, but here they are again:

[[9]]

[[10]]

[[11]] In this one, at the bottom section ("2.3 Third message") [[12]] you will find all those false allegations in the form of insulting/pejorative phrases:

• -- "...end to WP:EDITWAR;" ​
• -- "...looks like WP:REVENGE aka;"
• -- "WP:Overzealous_deletion;"
• -- "Dislike_of_the_creator;"
• -- "To justify the revert I added in the comment this is WP:disruptive editing;"
• -- "One and a half hour later 2 anonymous IP addresses from the same btcentralplus.com network, that have never contributed to this article, reverted the 2 edits a 2nd time."
• -- "This is WP:BRR ("Do not edit war."), and possible WP:SOCK:"

Every one of those insults are FALSE. I did not engage in any "EDITWAR," nor were my normal and proper edits motivated by "WP:REVENGE," nor by any desire to engage in "WP:Overzealous_deletion," nor were they done because I did not like the "creator." I didn't know who put those statements in the article, when I deleted them. By his own admission, Manning accused me of "WP:disruptive editing," as a means of justifying his reverting of my deletions. If any "Edit War" began, it was when he reverted my legitimate deletes. Since I did not turn around and revert him back, I was not guilty of engaging in any "EDITWAR." Other Editors then went on to revert him, apparently because they agreed with my reasons for those deletions. I do not know them and I did not consult with them, but he used that as a basis to level his scurrilous charge that I was acting as a "WP:SOCK." EditorASC (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Aron Manning, how do you answer to all this? (Briefly, please.) Because EditorASC, indeed, does not appear to have edit warred, nor is there evidence of revenge-motivated edits, or socking (the place for that latter claim ought to be limited to WP:SPI). El_C 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute: EditorASC

I'd like to show the recent deletions from the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 article, the discussion before, and the resulting edit war by WP:SPAs. The deletions were preceded by a heated argument (12:06, 10 May 2019 post, diff) that ended an off-topic discussion mingled with the review of the "Expert analysis" section (Discussion: Analysis section). There have been previous civil discussions with EditorASC, his opinion as life-long Boeing pilot is respected.

The section Expert analysis was already being discussed and reviewed in Discussion: Analysis section. Two sentences have been deleted from the article by EditorASC (talk · contribs) unexpectedly, without any preceding discussion (20:52, 10 May 2019 diff 1, 21:17, 10 May 2019‎ diff 2).

I've started a content dispute (original) at 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC), then I reverted the deletes (diff 3, diff 4). I believe this was a disruptive revenge, and indicated this in the comments.

Edit war: SPAs

This was followed within 2 hours by re-revert (WP:DRR) of both from 2 previously uninvolved dynamic ip WP:SPAs in the same btcentralplus.com network (07:45, 11 May 2019 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs) diff 6).

I suspect sockpuppetry, maybe not personally by EditorASC. The discussion (2 weeks' stats) and editing (2 weeks' stats) of this section has been ongoing for weeks, around 5 registered editors contributed and participated in talk, with the occasional ip editor inserting flags or changing a few words. These re-reverts happened swiftly within 2 hours, in a very targeted manner.

Two hours later at 09:50, 11 May 2019‎ the whole "Expert analysis" section has become collateral damage, removed by another editor in bit of a WP:RUSH (diff 7), before entering the discussion at 09:58, 11 May 2019‎ (diff 8), without mentioning the section blanking.

Discussion with contributing editors in the content dispute seems to be coming to a consensus. Note: I've requested page semi-protection for a few weeks to stop SPAs, the page is now fully protected for 3 days (response).

Two messages to EditorASC's talk page to complain/resolve/negotiate about the dispute (First message, Second message) has been deleted, the Third message is on my own talk page. There was no answer.

Conduct dispute

This is a conduct dispute as well: it is very difficult to cooperate with EditorASC without yielding to his POV, in fact I and many other editors failed to do so. This has a strong influence on the atmosphere between editors in this and associated articles.

He did not contribute to the article in effect, but expressed his view as the "focus" the article should follow (diff), while discrediting other views as "hordes of media articles", with a strawman argument of an unrelated accident. Another discussion of his view and my trial to include a different view (diff, more readable at the end of section). This opinion was expressed in a discriminatory manner earlier (diff).

This weighs on editors with his activity in talk pages talk. Sadly, his expertise is not used to contribute in articles.

It seems to be a long-time pattern, there has been previous heated POV discussions on his talk page (1, 2), and suspected sockpuppetry, not investigated.

Per WP:NPOV my talks and article edits.

It has been very difficult to communicate with him, as he often misinterprets things, ignores the point, while focusing on minor details. His responses are often strawmans and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This would not be a problem, if it did not turn into uncivil communication. We need more WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, WP:LISTEN from him to positively cooperate. With this I wanted to highlight that despite his expertise, his actions negatively influence editorial work, continuously. If needed I will collect the diffs that illustrate my impression presented above. To address his last claims: imo Psychological projection.

I understand this is hard for EditorASC. I've tried to be factual in this report, non-offending. I'm sorry if it offends someone.
— Aron Manning (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, honestly, this is all a little vague. They may not be especially touchy-feely, but Where is the evidence of edit warring or revenge-edits by the user? "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? Where is a recent SPI report? You're making a lot of assumptions that I'm not really seeing matched by the evidence. El_C 22:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

EditorASC effectively did not contribute to the article (2 sentences: +600 byte, -4 KB) until he needed to delete two sentences, added 1-2 weeks ago, not recently, that was part of the "Expert analysis" section being reviewed and discussed (Discussion: Analysis section) in the thread where he posted off-topic, distracting, strawman arguments in great length about parts of the source that was never cited. It was too much and disrespectful, which I pointed out. In response he posted his WP:ANGER post. He has not made editing suggestions, nor mentioned he challenges the deleted content. Nobody wanted to answer, 9 hours later he deleted the 2 parts from the section. He basically was not editing the article before, this was a WP:REVENGE. His destructive action was so destabilizing, that in a few hours it ended in the non-consensual blanking of the whole section. This sequence of events is against the purpose of wikipedia.

His delete (diff 1) was a WP:BOLD action (although the Bold policy supports constructive actions, not destructive), that I reverted (diff 3), which then was re-reverted within 2 hours (diff 5), this is when WP:BRR starts: Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". If my purpose would be to prove by all means this is editwarring, then I would have reverted, and another ip would have done it again, thus destabilizing the article even more. This was not my purpose, I prefer the WP:1RR rule.

The whole ordeal seems to be caused by a misunderstanding. The reasons he mentioned in his last post here, suggest he interpreted my wording as I'm stating a physically impossible event. I've written the explanation to the content dispute thread.

" "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? "

Search "third world" (diff).

— Aron Manning (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

They are entitled to speculate that 3rd world standards may be more lax than in the developed world — that isn't discriminatory. I would appreciate sources for that, but as far as an article talk page comment, there's nothing wrong with that. Sorry, I might be a bit thick, but revenge for what? And edit warring where? El_C 00:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Ok, not discriminatory in this community.

2) Revenge for disagreeing. In the "Analysis section" discussion, he's very forceful. I think his image and his influence of the POV of the article seems to be very important. He's been POV-pushing in his talks (eg. diff 1, diff 2) and attacking reliable sources when he disagrees with it (diff 3). The editing atmosphere in that aviation bubble is steered very strongly towards the status quo, working for a neutral POV destabilizes his influence, this is part of the reason for the revenge.

3) The re-revert is by WP:SPASOCKs/WP:IPSOCKs: look at the contributions 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs).

4) The article is edited 1-5 times a day by only a few editors. There are very few, occasional ip editors on the article, not involved in discussions or disputes. The SPASOCKs are very up-to-date with 2 hour reaction time, and seem to be strongly motivated to get involved in the dispute, and to prove a point in the edit comment. (history)

5) I believe I explained the disruptive edit satisfactorily, as that has not been questioned. The revert comment makes it clear the deletes are treated as disruptive edits, and include the link to the appropriate talk page discussion. Reverting a revert when a discussion is clearly pointed to, is editwarring. Not by WP:3RR rule, but by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others".

6) The re-revert is also WP:VAND: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content". The removed content has been present for a few weeks, reviewed and edited for conformance with WP policies. This also applies to the original delete, suspected OR is not a reason for deleting content. Suspecting OR after a week of passing reviews is a sign of bad faith imo.

7) The reason for suspecting OR is that EditorASC misunderstood the sentence, as I explained before: [content dispute] (diff). Storm in a teapot.

8) The [content dispute] is coming to a consensus with the contributing editors. The "suspected OR" sentence will be reworded to avoid such misunderstanding, the "Speculation" section will be merged to another section. No deletes are necessary.

— Aron Manning (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. In what community would it be seen as discriminatory?

2. You fail to demonstrate revenge-edits, still.

3. Then file an WP:SPI about it.

4. What does that have to do with the user in question?

5. Still no diffs of edit warring or disruptive editing.

6. Re-revert by whom? That's not made clear.

7. Okay, so there may have been a misunderstanding — what does that have to do with misconduct?

8. Okay, I hope that all works out. El_C 04:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Not in this one. In every community. Question is off-topic.

2. He deleted content that I created or modified, after he became very angry with me. If that does not sound like revenge, then please describe how to demonstrate revenge-edit.

3. Will do so, I was not sure where to start... May I assume, you see now, the editor of those re-reverts is intentionally hiding behind (07:45, 11 May 2019 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs) diff 6)?

4. It points out that only an editor of the article or the talk page would have it on watchlist, and have an interest to interfere. This editor is likely the very angry EditorASC.

5. All diffs are in the original post, systematically listed: WP:DISRUPT by EditorASC. 20:52, 10 May 2019 diff 1, 21:17, 10 May 2019‎ diff 2. Let's leave WP:EW aside for a bit.

6. You are just making this up :-D WP:WAND WP:DISRUPT WP:SPASOCK Re-revert by obvious 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs) 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) (07:45, 11 May 2019 diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 diff 6).

7. It helps to understand a misunderstanding in an effort to untangle the tangled mystery of who understands what, without misunderstanding what was understood by whom in this mysterious misery.His misunderstandings turn into uncivil behavior, resulting in this dispute.

— Aron Manning (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with all of that. El_C 05:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into this dispute but from a brief skim agree with El C on two major points. First the revenge accusations seem largely unsupported. EditorASC seems to be an editor highly interested in the topic area based on previous edits to similar pages and heck they've edited the specific article or it's talk page before this dispute. I mean even their name suggests an interest in the area. Accusing them of editing in revenge basically because they edited an article in which their interest was fully expected is just dumb. I suggest it is dropped because it's also very likely a personal attack as a claim made without evidence. Likewise for the IP edits, while I can understand editors naturally being suspicious when IPs show up supporting the "other side" in a dispute, in an article with as much interest as this, 1 or 2 IP edits are never likely to be enough to demonstrate socking based on behavioural evidence barring exception circumstances, especially in an article with as high a profile as this one. CUs cannot connect IPs to accounts. So while it's understandable to personally have suspicions, you also need to accept you may be wrong and in any case lack the evidence so should limit or just avoid any claims and drop them ones they are disputed. Continuing to make claims of socking without sufficient evidence can also be construed as a personal attack. Ultimately it doesn't really matter much. You should be concentrating on coming to a consensus what's best for the article, not on what 1 or 2 IPs may have done. In the event it comes to an RfC or similar, the IP views are likely to be given minimal weighting when it comes to accessing consensus remembering that such things are not a vote. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. One thing I would say is the discussion raised as "discriminatory" was actually IMO a minor problem. It comes across as WP:Soapboxing and off-topic since it's largely the editors personal opinion on various things, rather than concrete suggestion on how to improve the article. Some off-topicness is sometimes tolerated on article talk pages, and the editor is far from the only one to do so on that talk page, but still such discussion should be limited especially when it's divisive or could be offensive. (The comment was fairly questionable anyway since whatever flaws may or may not exist with aviation regulation in South Korea, it's not considered a third world country nowadays whether by the original definition of third world, or the more modern one.) So while such commentary should be cut out, I don't think anyone is going to support a block based on a few offtopic comments especially since as I said they're not the only one. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:

1. "First the revenge accusations seem largely unsupported."

Is this how it comes down? Maybe I misinterpreted. Words read from a screen can be understood in many ways. No problem, not important to claim or prove it's revenge. It is how it felt, I'll let it go. Please investigate 2 aspects only: the disruptive deletions, which caused great setback in editing, and his talk page posts, which exhibit POV-pushing, offensive manner, strawman arguments, and gaslighting. Thank you.

2. "an editor highly interested in the topic area"

I'd like to note he contributed 2 sentences altogether to the article page. [see his edits]. He has no intention to improve it. I stand by this claim.

3. "drop them ones they are disputed."

Dropping claims of revenge, WP:WAND. I accept we have a different reading of WP policies. I'm new here, that's my source of guidelines. Practice and consensus might differ.

4. "Continuing to make claims of socking"

I never claimed "socking" by ASC, that was yet another misunderstanding by him. @El C: this is why it's important that this dispute started with his misunderstanding. Communication with him is a struggle because of his misunderstandings.

I reported possible SPASOCKs, in relation to this incident, without any kind of personal attacks. I'm not sure it was EditorASC. WP tooling should confirm or deny this.

5. "in any case lack the evidence"

Yes. I explained why. I hoped WP has its tools to compare user IPs to the ip range of the SPAs. I'm not 100% sure it is EditorASC behind those 2 ips. It can be some other editors too related to the article.

6. "even their name suggests an interest in the area"

Please elaborate, EditorASC means something?

7. "You should be concentrating on coming to a consensus what's best for the article, not on what 1 or 2 IPs may have done. In the event it comes to an RfC or similar, the IP views are likely to be given minimal weighting when it comes to accessing consensus remembering that such things are not a vote."

Thank you for the good advice.

8. I state again, a personal attack is not my intention. I'm asking for the resolution of disruptive editing, POV-pushing, offensive actions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aron Manning (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: How do I start an SPI if the puppeteer is unknown? — Aron Manning (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't. 158.106.203.154 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Aron Manning Go to WP:SPI, click on "How to Open an Investigation." Then, type the username (or IP) of the oldest of the accounts you think are linked into the field. You don't need to be able to say "X is the master, Y is the sock," just consider the oldest account to be the master. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: Provide the usernames of everyuser who has contributed to the page within the last week. This is known colloquially as carpet bombing here on Wikipedia. Also provide the IPs of the suspected puppets, as well as diffs purported to show the sockpuppetry. A CheckUser will perform his magic, and (hopefully) you will have been vindicated.

A note on verbosity: Admins don't like it. Try to be concise and to the point in AN/I discussions. You may omit vowels from your sentences, thy'r slss nywy. This is called wikispeak. Best regards, Guywan (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guywan: That's dreadful advice. You might want to take a look at the garbage Aron created in the list. The best advice he got was from the IP, who told him not to create an SPI without a master. As for the carpet bombing and wikispeak, you're not serious? The only thing useful you said was the concision, and that's hopeless for this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, first time here...

List of editors in one week: SPI list — Aron Manning🍁 [➕] 23:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: I'm impressed. That's very good work. I'm sure Bbb23 would be honoured to take a look at that for you, and carry out whatever actions they deem necessary.

 Bbb23: 'm vry srs. 'ls, dnt bt th nwbs. Rgrds, Guywan (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

With a pie chart that looks like this, I'm not sure Guywan is really experienced enough to be giving advice on ANI. --Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Closure

After a few days of silence, this thread seems to have run its course. I've realized these evidences were not presented in the way it was expected. These weren't supposed to be taken as accusations of 3RR and SPI, or another wrongdoing that requires immediate punishment against OP, but as observations of negative actions partly by OP, partly by unknowns, that need to be looked at. To give a chance to wrap this up, I do not ask for any action or judgment against OP in this thread. WP:DRN might be more appropriate to humanely resolve the conduct issues presented, without jumping to harsh punishments. To finish with, I will briefly answer OP's claims:

EditorASC (contrib) complains about words taken out of context. My intention was to resolve a dispute, thus in line with wp:conductdispute, [ I messaged ] OP 3 times to ask for a resolution. The messages were deleted without answer, even in the [ content dispute thread ] he does not answer to my request to "wp:negotiate", but continues off-topic arguing. The messages contain links to the preceding heated post, and the edits that necessitated a dispute.

 Aron M🍁(➕)  04:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"but as observations of negative actions partly by OP, partly by unknowns..."

That pretty much sums up the problem here: namely that he is incapable of admitting he was wrong in the way he responded to my edits of the article. There was nothing "NEGATIVE" or improper about my edits. It was proper for me to remove a statement in the article that did NOT accurately reflect what was actually said in the citation that was used to support that statment.

IMHO, my edits did improve the clarity of the article. If he did not agree, then it would have been better to try and rewrite it so that it became consistent with the citation article -- while improving clarity -- and/or discussing how it could be improved even more, on the Talk Page. Instead, he did a wholesale revert which he then tried to justify with a pile of false insults as if what he wrote was somehow sancrosanct; as if he owned the article and no one else had any right to seek to correct or improve the article.

That other editors appeared to agree with my initial action, by reverting his improper reverts, without my consulting with them, seems to imply I did not act out of bounds of Wikipedia's rules on editing. I see no rational arguments offered by him in his piles of commentary above. Which is why I think it impossible to "NEGOTIATE" with him. EditorASC (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation. @EditorASC: Could you show the Talk Page post, where You started a discussion on how to improve the parts, before deleting those? Thank you.

— Aron M🍂(🛄📤)   00:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And now, I just found a scurrilous allegation by an Administrator on my Talk Page, which claims I made a post without logging in first. Turns out Editor Manning went ahead and filed a Sock Puppet report against me, even though he was advised not to do that.

Totally in BAD FAITH! He is just trying to vindicate and justify all the vicious allegations he has made against me, because I dared to edit his article. This is quite disgusting in my book. Payment for all the years I have spent in genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia articles?

I have asked that Adminstrator twice, on both his and my own Talk Pages to give me a link to the alleged post without signing in first, but I have not yet received any reply. I was not able to find any such post by searching my own IP number. EditorASC (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to tone it down, EditorASC. Arm yourself with some patience and conduct yourself with greater moderation. Hopefully, this all will be resolved soon. El_C 00:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Incivility by User:2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:94

2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being abusive and incivil. Mikemyers345 reported them as a vandal. I don't think that they are a vandal (since it isn't obviously vandalism), but I do think that the IP needs to be reviewed. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked for 72 hours for harassment by El_C. aboideau^talk 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple other IPs have also been blocked for the same behaviour. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you think they're socking? Rockstonetalk to me! 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• User is back and doing some socking: 209.232.226.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Rockstonetalk to me! 20:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• User is back again. 12.246.149.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rockstonetalk to me! 22:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• And again. 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:4E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Looks like he earned a ban.Rockstonetalk to me! 23:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock applied to Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:800:0:0:0:0/60 for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Rockstonetalk to me! 18:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Wearisome accusations from 87.88.187.158 at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit

• 87.88.187.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (more in the link below)

An IP-hopping anon, who has a bizarre personal vendetta against me for implementing a consensus of an AFD is now at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit, openly lying about my actions. That article is, frankly, a mess of fringe science and almost certainly WP:BLP violations. I understand that nobody wants to touch that kind of thing, and I'd really rather avoid the drama-boards during the closing weeks of the semester, but the lack of outside involvement is really becoming a problem. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that they habitually edit their own comments after they've been replied to, which makes the simple task of having a conversation remarkably frustrating. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why haven't you list the whole bunch of IPv4 adresses, XOREaster and asked to ban them all? Isn't your claim ridiculous when you mix and confuse things in order at the end to censor only sourced facts but opposed to your opinion ? Why is it so difficult for you to understand fringe science can be listed on WP when suitable criteria defined in WP policies are met (and they are met)? Why are you bringing wearisome accusations against me? --87.88.187.158 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you mention I edit my own comments only to correct typos? Isn't this typical of your misleading behaviour? --87.88.187.158 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Because that would be a lie. You edit your own comments to make your walls of text even bigger, this being the most recent example. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

An older example. And another. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And despite your attempts to muddy the waters by insisting otherwise, I have no problem whatsoever with fringe science being covered on Wikipedia. (I have explained that to you explicitly.) I have never said, for example, that the article on Jean-Pierre Petit himself should be deleted. Nor do I think that an article on the man should omit mention of the "Janus cosmological model". Its occasional appearance in the pop-science media is enough to support that. The current state of that article is, however, an absolute mess. That in and of itself would be a content-dispute matter not suitable for ANI. Your conduct, though, is not helping. Whatever your problem with me is, I advise you to let it go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you precise that the edits you mentioned are simply in relation with the sentence I put in my beginning : "I'm going to add below sources to prove Notability of Janus model" ? Because you are not reading me seriously? Did you really expect I add all these sources in a single shot ? Who are you trying to misleading here (again) ?

If you have no problem (now) with the content of the "fringe science" section, please go back to the Talk page and write that again, and that you accept the creation of a dedicated article about Janus model. Will you do that? --87.88.187.158 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you precise that the edits you mentioned are simply in relation with the sentence I put in my beginning — because I was pointing out a long-term conduct issue of yours, which has persisted across three Talk pages now.

If you have no problem (now) with the content of the "fringe science" section, please go back to the Talk page and write that again — that's not what I said, and I'm pretty sure you know it. I have plenty of problems with the entirety of the article Jean-Pierre Petit, as do other people trying to fix the mess (pinging @Deacon Vorbis).

and that you accept the creation of a dedicated article about Janus model — your attempts at imperious dictates were entertaining, two Talk pages ago. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For starters, XOR'easter and the IP: stop bickering back and forth here. You're not helping anything by flinging attacks at each other. While we certainly can cover fringe topics on Wikipedia, I find Jean-Pierre_Petit to be very misleading and poorly written. I think it needs a major rework. Much of the fringe stuff is presented as fact, and the coverage is way past WP:DUE. In terms of the IP's conduct, the IP needs to not edit their comments, not level personal attacks on XOR'easter (or anyone for that matter), not try to WP:OWN articles and be civil. But considering that this has gone to ANI before, it seems the IP has not learned a lesson. I'd support a rangeblock for the IP. The level of disruption shows that the IP is WP:NOTHERE and is simply trying to push a WP:POV. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize for not managing my exasperation as well as I should have. (Stressful time of year, etc.) I'll take a trout on this one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You're chill, I understand how annoying it can be in these situations :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: That's very kind of you to say. I think I've said everything substantial on the topic that I can. I tried to find evidence of scientific sources and came up with pretty much zilch, which of course doesn't rule out writing an article based on pop-science media interest (French Gizmodo or what-have-you), but I don't think I'm the best person to do that. So, if others want to try, I'll probably stay out of the way. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Rangeblock is warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You support a rangeblock for the IP, but you're not even sure I'm the same person than the previous ANI and you didn't even asked (anything "probable" is not relevant here). You do not want to consider XOR'easter's personal attacks, his violations of WP:OWN and civil, his record of total lack of useful contributions to enhance the contents (deleting full sections without consensus is not considered an improvement). Sad. --87.88.187.158 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I see no violation of NPA or OWN by XOR'easter, and they have been very civil given the circumstances. I see from their history of edits to the page and the talk page that they have been actively working to improve a very substandard page. IP, you should do well to remember that it is your actions that are being scrutinized here. Even if XOR'easter did something untowards, that doesn't absolve you of your actions. Work to defend your own actions, not attack XOR'easter. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please present diffs to back up all of these accusations. SQL^{Query me!} 22:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't edited Jean-Pierre Petit at all, only posted on the Talk page. Back in January, I reverted Bimetric gravity to an old version per consensus at AFD. And I later reverted the anon's edits to that page because the anon was trying to override the AFD consensus — they said so. (The addition was also WP:SYNTH-y POV-pushing.) More recently, there was some back and forth on that page which didn't look very consequential and which I didn't pay much attention to (if I'm trying to own anything, I'm doing a pretty bad job). Also, back in January, the anon wanted to add to the semi-protected page black hole, to which I objected. @WolfmanSF said, The whole proposal comes across as a ploy to generate views of some of the "secondary sources". (It seemed to me that promoting Petit was a primary goal of the addition. Their habit of editing their posts after being replied to makes it harder to tell, but here's the original.) @DVdm wrote, I agree that this thing is based on bad sources (wp:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE), and the valid sources are abused to create a new synthesis ("This debate is not closed since...") and thus amount to wp:original research — see wp:SYNTH. The whole thing then kind of petered out. The only edit I have made to black hole had nothing to do with this and was to streamline some awkward phrasing and remove a link to a web forum per WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinged – sorry, been kinda MIA all day. So, XOR's fine, especially given all the craziness that's going on. A couple folks, including at least one IP (it's awfully hard to keep track of who's who here), have certainly been filibustering with mostly useless refs, often misrepresenting them. I tried to step in and clean it up a little, but this isn't really my strong suit and I don't know how much more stomach I have for this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I find the debate pretty clear, if we concentrate on the last edit of the IP, deleted by CaptainEek 1 mn later : given all the provided sources for NOTABILITY, does Janus model deserves a dedicated article ? If you think no, you would be required to explain why in details, not with a pretty limited "unreliable and/or primary sources" like XOREaster wrote. According to WP:NOTABILITY, these are secondary sources with diverse level of reliability, from weak to strong, and it is enough to create a new article on this topic. This decision will resolve any conflict. --145.242.20.220 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly the same person (and top of the list of the IPs I noted already) making a transparent attempt to refer to himself in the third person. Can we close the sock drawer now? XOR'easter (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly yet another attempt to avoid an embarrassing question for you, XOREasster. The question asked is the most relevant posted in this thread. You may find whatever counter-fire to avoid at any cost the creation of an article you hate as a professional physicist (according to your WP EN user page, whichh makes you a probable suspect of COI), this question is still on the table, and it will be there until it is answered by anyone who cares about creating an encyclopedia. We have perfectly understood the game you are playing here,

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

. --145.242.20.220 (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Being a physicist doesn't give me a "conflict of interest". It means I'm knowledgeable enough to evaluate writing about physics. (I haven't accused you of having a conflict of interest, since I know that people can become avid promoters of their fandom even without a financial stake. I am, however, starting to wonder if your jumping to COI accusations is a bit of projection on your part.) The absolute best "source" you have ever offered is a passing mention in the reply-to-viewer-comments spiel at the end of a YouTube video. That's not a foundation for an article. Strangely, you boast that the "sources" you have provided include the unreliable. This is, at least, convenient, for it saves the rest of us the trouble of evaluating your walls of text. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will add that I have (somewhat unwillingly) been following the Jean-Pierre Petit article - having become involved when I responded to an RFPP request by full-protecting the article for a few days. That talk page is a hot mess, with a dozen or more IPs chiming in, some of them evidently the same person with a floating IP, some of them quite possibly socks on both sides of the debate. And plenty of accusations and bad blood from the IPs on both sides. I have a list of possible suspects which I have shared with a checkuser, but I think it will be a day or two before they can get around to it. IMO User:XOR'easter and User:Deacon Vorbis are the two voices of reason and Wikipedia policy at that article, and I hope they stick around to improve it after we figure out, and possibly deal with, the tangle of IPs pushing one side or the other. I have considered semi-protecting the article and talk page, but I don't quite see the situation meeting the requirements for such a step. At least not just yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Now having seen the response above from 145.242.20.220, which was added while I was typing: this is another of the floating-IP combatants at that article talk page who has been aggressively pushing a particular POV. And a good illustration of the kind of problems that article has been having. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

XOREaster, being a physicist is not enough : do you work on cosmology, string theory, quantum loop gravity, MOND, or dark matter detection?

Why are you trying to avoid systematically to answer simple question : I provided 34 different sources proving NOTABILITY, and the only feeble answer from you is "a passing mention in the reply-to-viewer-comments spiel at the end of a YouTube video"... but where, which one? You're trying to dismiss the whole proofs with "wall of text" and bla-bla. We have all noticed that you have a strong problem with NOTABILITY. You still cannot answer what are reliable source for you :

You say the proposed sources are not enough. Please answer these questions :
1) where is written that the present article should be considered with different rules than others WP articles ?
2) to clarify Notability, give us a precise list of the minimum mandatory criteria (qualitatively and quantitatively) to add the proposed sentences in the article, according to yourself (for instance: the authors must received Nobel Price, one of them has to be named Time's magazine Man of the Year).
3) map each criteria with a WP rule (not a guideline)
If you fail to provide 3) in a few days, then this would mean your approach is arbitrary. Such approach, a.k.a censorship, has no place in WP. --80.215.195.0 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And no, you're lying, I never boast that the "sources" I have provided include the unreliable. You're misleading once again. Really, how can someone here support and foster your blatant censorship behaviour, instead of banning you for life? All your past "contributions" on cosmology (Black hole, bimetric gravity) was to promote deletion of Jean-Pierre Petit peer-reviewed papers exclusively and entirely under false pretexts. You could very well promote a new AfD for the article about Jean-Pierre Petit because you have decided, alone, that nothing related to him can be notable. No need to argue on the deep, because any mockery is enough. I'm so sad for you. --80.215.230.102 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It does indeed look like there has been a sustained, concerted effort by a group of socks or collaborating IPs to promote Petit and associated POVs across a group of articles; in my view, using some form of protection on the articles in question seems appropriate. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ouch - I've just looked at the article and it's an utter horror - huge piles of fringey original research built on primary sources - could do with a severe hair cut. I'd support blocking the WP:PROFRINGE IPs (and/or semi-protecting the article) so that there's a chance to assert some sort of WP:PAG-based sanity over this content. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --JBL (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you say it is " fringey original research built on primary sources " without bringing any evidence?

May I remind you that fringe theories are acceptable on WP?

May I remind you that peer-reviewed articles are acceptable on WP as primary sources?

May I remind you, at least, that the question asked here is NOT about the quality of the current article, but on the proposed creation of a new article based on 34 (34!) provided secondary sources to proove NOTABILITY? This new article will help a lot to clarify the content on the current article. How can you dismiss all of the 34 provided secondary sources without discussing each of them?

Is censorship the new normal on WP EN ? If yes, please update the WP policy accordingly. If no, please answer my questions before doing anything else. --80.215.130.91 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Petits models are not widely accepted, are highly speculative, and are non-standard cosmological models. While they may warrant some coverage, the majority of the article being based on Petit's own works in pay to publish predatory journals is hardly a good foundation for an article. Beyond Petits works, the article has rather few reliable secondary sources. Fringe theories are acceptable for coverage, but must be covered in a manner which shows that they are fringe theories, and to not overstate their acceptance or notability. As written, the article grossly overstates the Janus model and the page has a great deal of puffery. This is not at all censorship, we are still covering the Janus model and Petit, but the coverage must be neutral and reliably sourced per WP:BLP. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

At least Captain Eek there is a first common basis : "Petits models are not widely accepted, ... and are non-standard cosmological models... they may warrant some coverage... Fringe theories are acceptable for coverage". But I'm sorry the question was more precise than that: "the question asked here is NOT about the quality of the current article, but on the proposed creation of a new article based on 34 (34!) provided secondary sources to proove NOTABILITY." Do you agree with this creation, yes or no? (The content will be discussed in the Talk page of this future article). If no, please explain precisely why.--145.242.20.219 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Content doesn't get discussed on ANI only conduct. You're asking for the wrong thing in the wrong

place. The wall-of-text spam on that talk page is eye watering. --Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question has been given by a number of editors : No. Far from splitting off a new article, the current article should be drastically reduced.

You don't need to keep asking. It's been answered. ApLundell (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you say "it's been answered : No" and say "Content doesn't get discussed on ANI" and say this is not censorship? How can you justify to reject 34 secondary sources for NOTABILITY without a single word to discuss them and say this is not censorship?

How can you reject the question asked with "You're asking for the wrong thing in the wrong place" without explaining WHERE is the right place : am I talking here with administrators or what?

How can you simply call all relevant questions here supported with 34 secondary sources for NOTABILITY a "wall-of-text spam" without bending heavily towards censorship?

At least, be honest and show me the right page for launching a procedure against you for blatant censorship. --145.242.20.221 (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no procedure because this is not censorship. Wikipedia is not a blog page for you to post whatever you wish.

This is not the right place because ANI is for behavioral issues, not content disputes. The place to discuss content disputes is the article's Talk page.

At least two admins have responded to this section, SQL and MelanieN. You never answered SQL's call to substantiate your accusations, and MelanieN has indicated your behavior is problematic. So I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that the 34 "secondary sources" to which the IP insistently refers include Petit's own publicity appearances, like promotions for his book OVNI et armes secrètes américaines (UFOs and Secret American Weapons). There is also this gem, which is as good as a confession of non-notability: For the very first time since decades in french science, a team of most prominent french experts on relativity and cosmology, including Thibault Damour, published a public paper dedicated to Janus model. A model that has been ignored for decades is not a notable model. (It also wasn't written by "a team". It's the sort of brief note that physicists write sometimes, when they get too many letters about the same perpetual motion machine and want to save time on replies.) This misrepresentation of sources, repetition of demands and general eagerness to waste the community's time has gone on for months, and has long since crossed the line from a content issue to a conduct one. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter at least you try to analyze the provided sources, thank you. But you're still misleading here, what a bad a constant behaviour:

1)Promotions of Petit's books were NOT PRODUCED by him, but by others, prominent journalists on french and Canadian national TV channels. According to the definition of secondary sources for NOTABILITY, they are valid secondary sources! At the opposite, no Janus videos on YouTube are included in the 34 provided sources because they are produced by him.

2)you say "A model that has been ignored for decades is not a notable model" : plain wrong. Instead you should have say A model that has been ignored for decades by Damour is not a notable model for Damour. The 34 provided sources proove Janus was NOTABLE for OTHERS than Damour. Whatever Damour might think, he does only participate to define what is NOTABLE from an academic point of view. But there are many others way to be NOTABLE, which you refuse to consider. JANUS is and was notable in others ways, as the 34 provided sources demonstrate clearly. How can you confuse these simple notions and be a physicist? (and you refuse to answer clearly to the question of your speciality: isn't that suspect of COI and a bad collaborative behaviour?)

3)you say the paper wasn't written by "a team" : plain wrong. It is signed by 1 author, but the last sentence says: "I thank Nathalie Deruelle, and Luc Blanchet, for their commentaries on the first version (2 january 2019) of this text". The final version took into account their commentaries and so we can say the paper was written by a team, even if Damour wrote the most part of it.

4)you say "It's the sort of brief note that physicists write sometimes, when they get too many letters about the same perpetual motion machine": please give us one single instance of such 7 pages (or more) paper written by a theoretical physicist (your domain as you claim) exclusively about the research of another person in the field, published only on the website of their own institution (not arxiv) in the last 20 years, anywhere in the world. If you succeed at least I would have learned something interesting from you. If you fail once again, you would have demonstrate you're a liar only interested in censorship at any cost.

Please don't forget: you have to make a rebuttal for each of the 34 provided sources for NOTABILITY in order to demonstrate Janus model is not notable. If you fail, Janus is then notable and deserve its own article. We will then move this discussion on the new Talk page to define content. I'm confident we will find a way to collaborate. You're a physicist, don't you? --89.85.254.67 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Giving someone a long list of nonsense and demanding that either they sort through it, or let you do what you want, is not civil behavior, nor is it a legitimate form of logical debate. ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree some admin action to protect the article and editors from disruption would be helpful here. Leviv ich 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I feel myself to be somewhat involved so I don't intend to take any admin action unless carrying out a decision by others. But I would really like a checkuser to evaluate the various players on that talk page. If someone is willing to do this I can give you a list, preferably by email, of the IDs and IPs involved and how they align, so that you don't have to pick your way through the talk page (what a nightmare). I suspect at least meatpuppetry if not outright sockpuppetry. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading the latest missive from 80.215.230.102 (apparently a floating IP; this is the fifth incarnation from a range that has been fulminating at the talk page) prompts me to wonder: at what point is this kind of behavior perfectly described by WP:TEND? Example: Please don't forget: you have to make a rebuttal for each of the 34 provided sources for NOTABILITY in order to demonstrate Janus model is not notable. If you fail, Janus is then notable and deserve its own article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I heartily support a rangeblock, per above's excruciating discussion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, other IPs posting similarly to this one include 80.215.230.39, 80.214.75.69, 80.214.125.23, and 80.215.195.129. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc.

A user in Queensland, Australia, has been routinely adding empty "History" sections with "{{Expand section}}" templates to hundreds or possibly thousands of articles. When they do add content, it's always unsourced, and in many cases a copyright violation. They haven't responded to the many warnings, previous ANI reports, and blocks they've received, and are continuing nonstop at a furious pace...

They edit mainly from several IP numbers and ranges, and at least one account, the most recent and currently active being:

• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 (since 1 May - this is the main range currently)
• Special:Contributions/120.153.192.228 (since 30 April)
• Special:Contributions/202.53.36.43 (8-9 May)
• Special:Contributions/124.19.16.206 (since 8 March)
• Special:Contributions/58.96.59.233 (since at least October 2018)
• the account Special:Contributions/JohnLickor372 shows exactly the same patterns of behavior.

Thousands of older edits are mainly on these ranges, but there are many on various other IPs:

• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700::/64 (20 January- 30 April)
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:4000::/64 (26 October - 28 December 2018)

ANI reports - I found a couple of previous reports, but nothing much came of them. I don't think people realized the extent of the disruption:

• Question about an odd series of changes - March 2019 - Pinging Laterthanyouthink, BlackcurrantTea, and EdJohnston from the discussion.

• Edits by IP 121.222.88.51 - January 2019

Warnings and blocks: They were blocked at least once for the empty "History" section edits, 21 April: User talk:2001:8003:E405:F700:FA:9C5B:12C7:B651 - but I believe they've been blocked several times before, and are currently evading an active block - more on that below. There are dozens of warnings on various IP talk pages (eg. [13], [14], [15], etc.) and in revert edit summaries. The JohnLickor372 account has ignored warnings, and I've left a fourth "final warning" for them about the empty sections, referring to MOS:BODY. In addition to the blank sections, they often create a "History" section then demote other sections (eg. "Heritage listings") to subsections of it. They also regularly rename existing sections to include the word "history". Sometimes these are helpful, but most often it's pointless and doesn't improve the article. Not every single article needs a "History" section!

Copyright violations and warnings:

• Special:Diff/895313632/896209061
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800:A14F:9A69:D22A:BB0F
• Special:Diff/895839452/896008464
• Special:Contributions/120.153.192.228

etc...

Unsourced contributions: ofthen they will add some material along with a "History" section, but it is invariably unsourced: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. etc. Longer additions often turn out to have been copypasted from other web pages, if not copyright violations then unattributed and uncited freely-licensed text: [21], or this addtion to Easter: [22], copied from the New World Encyclopedia: [23].

Other disruptive behavior includes repeatedly inserting undue-weight material about child murders in various articles, see [24], and [25], etc.

Block evasion: in addition to the expired block that was specifically about the empty sections, there's a currently-active block on Special:Contributions/120.151.0.112, set by NinjaRobotPirate in December. Although the edits look rather different - mainly adding "adventure film" categories, and editing "visa requirements" articles, I suspect this is the same person. Here are some "smoking guns" of IPs adding blank "History" sections etc., and at the same time adding "adventure film" categories, "visa requirements", editing "year" articles, etc.:

• Special:Contributions/220.101.5.165
• Special:Contributions/124.150.90.69
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700:D9D6:15D3:496F:6ECF
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800:796D:2C57:851E:3BA2
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700:D4F8:E432:F3A7:3677
• Special:Contributions/58.96.59.233 - especially around 22 March
• Special:Contributions/58.161.80.53 - see 4 & 12 March, leading to block for block evasion
• Special:Contributions/121.222.65.53 - see 22-25 January (history/heritage sections, adventure films, visa requirements, and child murders, all mixed together)

There's a related expired 1-month rangeblock in March on the above-mentioned Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700::/64 range, several on the other Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:4000::/64 range, and various others. There were some responses to the blocks, indicating that their English is about the same level as JohnLickor372 et al. They were somewhat unclear on the concept of being blocked: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Should I file an SPI report? If so, what should I use as the master?

Cleaning up: I've been removing the empty "History" sections, as have many others. I'm not quite sure what to do in the case where they've also added a "main" or "see also" pointing to a related history article, as I suppose that could be helpful. I guess renaming, or moving existing sections to subsections of a new "History" section, should be dealt with case-by-case. Probably most of the unsourced text should be removed, especially if it constitutes block evasion.

--IamNotU (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some further cleaning, IamNotU, and good work for documenting all of this. I did some clean-ups a while back and it's very tedious. I reported JohnLickor to WP:AIN earlier today in the hope that at least that one would be blocked, but it would be good if all of the others could be blocked too - preferably forever. Such a waste of so many people's valuable time! (I don't know enough about SPIs to advise there, but hopefully an admin will be able to help.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I did some clean up after this user just now, and only part of the mess Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 made. A quick block would be warranted especially if alternate accounts already have been; adding empty section headers is not contributing to the project. Reywas92^Talk 06:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the research and documenting this so thoroughly, IamNotU. More examples of unsourced history sections they've added: Bernesq, Hýskov, Stašov (Beroun District), and Bykoš. This is obviously the same person who was editing disruptively in March. I spent a fair amount of time deleting their empty history sections and other unhelpful changes then, as did others. They may have good intentions, but very few of their edits contribute to the project, and the amount of time other editors spend cleaning up makes them a net negative. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In between the time I left a notice about an unsourced addition on their talk page and posted here, they re-added the unsourced material. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I deleted a dozen or so empty sections, to see if I could get their attention - it hasn't worked. But it's only a drop in the bucket. It looks like they've been at this several hours a day for many months. I also took a closer look at a few of the hundreds of unsourced history sections they've added. Some are obviously close paraphrases of un-free websites (copyright violations) for example these additions to Iya Valley, taken from japanvisitor.com, a self-published travel site, or to Çiğ köfte, taken from a Turkish "foodie" blog. I think a large number are unattributed copy-pastes from WikiVoyage (not a reliable source), such as the one to Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, taken from: [30]. Others are clearly "urban myths" and other nonsense taken from who-knows-where: [31]. I think we have to assume that every unsourced contribution from them is potentially a copyright violation, and likely taken from some unreliable source such as a blog, wiki, travel or recipe website, etc. My opinion is that we should just delete them all, as the effort needed to track down the sources and verify whether each edit is legitimate or not - with the expectation of "probably not", given their behavior - isn't practical.

Since they're continuing to edit, and undo reverts, and show no signs of slowing down despite all efforts to communicate with them, I think a block of the account and the IPs is in order. --IamNotU (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There's evidence of repeated copyvios in the revision history of Cardamom starting with the edit at 1:00, 18 April 2019 and ending at 00:16, 19 April 2019‎: they added copyrighted material, it was removed by Sphilbrick, they readded it, Sphilbrick removed it again. I removed unattributed text translated from fr.wikipedia from Velaux. You can add Special:Contributions/211.27.132.105 and Special:Contributions/193.116.197.55, too. They sometimes return to the same article under different IPs. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just removed another copyright violation they added a few minutes ago to "aioli": [32], and also found several more of the larger copyright violations, and copypastes from eg. New World Encyclopedia, from the past two weeks: [33], [34], [35], [36]. I'm sure many of the smaller edits are copypastes or close paraphrases too, but I didn't check them all. And yes, there are many other previous IPV4 IPs too, I didn't list the older ones I found, only the main IPV6 ranges, and there are a few more IPV6 ones as well. I guess it would be good to compile a list somewhere, if people want to go back and check them. I imagine it would take several person-weeks (or months) to clean it all up.

If they continue on without communicating, which seems to be the case (they just removed the copyvio-revdel template from aioli) then the numerous IPs might make blocking difficult. But I think a block of the account and the main 2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 would be a good start, and go from there. --IamNotU (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely time to start blocking, in my (non-admin's) opinion! I've just done an AIV on JohnLickor again - hopefully that will result in a block. It really looks as if this person is just intent on deliberately and systematically vandalising - they've had the chance to prove good intentions and not responded, IMO. I'm not sure how best to tackle this but an admin will no doubt have a good suggestion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think they honestly believe they are improving Wikipedia, but are going about it in the wrong way, so it's not vandalism - though removing a template that says "Blatant copyright violations - do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it" I'd say crosses the line... In any case, there's now a temporary block on the JohnLickor372 account. I've started reverting the ongoing IP edits on Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 as sockpuppetry/block evasion, probably we could use a rangeblock on that too, since they seem to have no intention of stopping or discussing the situation, which they're surely aware of by now. --IamNotU (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this on my watchlist but didn't realize how widespread it was, and just want to say thank you to the editors here for tracking this down and fixing it. I'd support admin action here to prevent further disruption. Leviv ich 20:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Attic Salt

• Attic Salt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is persistently and provocatively reverting multiple edits on Rigel to be pointy. This edit[37] is especially worrisome, stating "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit.", and the following edit here[38]. There may of been possibly some excuse for such reaction, but they had been immediately prior told beforehand[39]: especially "Again. When you don't understand something, don't edit, and don't revert unless it is clearly vandalism." This follows policy, and suggests motive as a deliberate tactic to interrupt the editing process. PARTR says: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." The discussion regarding these edits already previously appeared under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section and the issues of ES here[40]. Other examples of similar everts and behaviour include[41][42][43][44][45]

Each of these matters were all properly discussed in length on the article's talkpage. An example is again pointed out under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section about following policies under summaries in disputes and H:FIES.

There is a futher pointy issue under Talk:Rigel#Brightness and parallax, after the removal of this Rigel text here[46]. Discussion on why brightness was related to distance was explained to them in this section by two editors. Yet when asked here to restore this removal here[47], they instead reverted my edit here[48], they then again modified the article here[49], which was not what was requested to be restored.

Possibly suggest either a Rigel article ABAN and/or a warning for this individual to keep away from me and my edits when ever feasible. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, "when they had been told"? Don't you mean, "when I told them"? You were chided at the last ANI thread you opened for talking about yourself in the third person, so you thought repeating it a few days later would really be a good idea? This may come as a surprise to you, but Attic Salt is not beholden to your requests. Changing [50] to [51] looks like reasonable WP:BRD to me, so mebbe back off with the jumping to calling for an ABAN. You are editing a collaborative encyclopedia; your edits will sometimes get edited or reverted (particularly since you continue to refuse to use edit summaries). Get over it and assume a LOT more good faith. And quit pestering them on their talk page; they've asked you to stop. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the only question here is whether the aboriginal weapon should be used. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Little of this seems to be particularly relevant.

• The statement "when they had been told" does not appear in the text above nor in the given link here.[52]
• If there is a third person issue, it is minor. If i've done so, my apologies. (I've been as careful as possible and tried to heed the advice.)
• Saying: "Changing [53] to [54] looks like reasonable WP:BRD to me," looks reasonable, but the change was about brightness not the parallax error. They say in their edit summary "Restore sentiment of an edit by Arianewiki1.", but this ignores the earlier request here[55] to restore "brightness and" or "and the star's brightness". Asking a question is hardly disruptive behaviour.
• Saying: "You are editing a collaborative encyclopedia; your edits will sometimes get edited or reverted." But in this instance them saying in the edit summary: "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." is far from collaborative. Worst, the "sometimes" is in fact "most of the time" in this Rigel article, as exampled.
• Lack of edit summaries is not relevant here, as it is about using edit summaries against other editors by being pointy. The statement "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." is not behaviour expected by anyone, and is against policy. Is this factually wrong?
• Complaint of "pestering them" is rather flimsy, when all[56] advises the adding of templates and guiding them on policy. They have been warned about the rules of notification here[57]. My advice is far from controversial, is far from harassment. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon Please explain what "...the only question here is whether the aboriginal weapon should be used" means? Its usage implies an abstract concept which reflects on editors based not on fact but by inference. If you mean "payback", then please explain why "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." in an edit summary is an acceptable behaviour or practice here? If a "Reasonably acceptable" edit exists. then why revert it, then go on to place an alternate version? I'm interested to hear the justification for this action in light of discussions already made properly on an article talkpage. How am I supposed to react here? Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It means WP:BOOMERANG, that being a hunting weapon used by the indigenous inhabitants of Australia. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see how reverting an edit by saying "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." could WP:BOOMERANG on me. This is their reasoning not mine at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not anything anyone else did that could boomerang, it is your decision to open this ANI thread that could do so. VQuakr (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 routinely harasses me, often with walls of issues, seemingly hoping that I will respond to each one of them in detail. For numerous examples of this harassment, see the Rigel talk page: [58] and my talk page: [59]. Here, in particular, are a couple of interesting examples: [60] and [61]. Another continuing problem is that Arianewiki1 does not use edit summaries, even when reverting edits. Attic Salt (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Saying: "...often with walls of issues, seemingly hoping that I will respond to each one of them in detail." is in fact the opposite. When an edit is made, it's quickly reverted, and even after it is explained as to why - mostly because of a misunderstand context - it is just removed again. If someone reverts an edit, it is the responsibility of the reverter to explain themselves either in the edit summary on a talkpage. What is disturbing here is acting like a policeman trying enforcing a likely incorrect viewpoint or perception of policy. Even when the actual policies or guidelines are pointed out, finds attitudes like here.[62] Evidence shows when stating "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." looks like policing. Another example is saying "As I explained in my edit summaries (see, I use edit summaries)" Repeatably doing this is frustrating and interrupt the editing process. A quite detailed summary of this kind of frustrating the editing process is here[63]

Clearly when reverting any edit, there must be some justification. It might be unclear, but if is an editor is one you know that has a good knowledge of the subject, their edit is likely to be reasonable. It is quite unlikely they are vandalising. My complaint is by removing a word that has context, and even when it is explained in detail, finds continuing the angst to make a "point." e.g. A deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point." It is against policy and I would like you to stop this behaviour. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Question: –. If the edit summaries problems are being used to justify reverting an edit, then how can "often with walls of issues, seemingly hoping that I will respond to each one of them in detail." on any talkpage ever be an issue?

If I make some edit, and someone disagree with it and reverts it, BRD suggests the reverter needs to be prepared to say why they reverted it and justify it. If I make and edit, and has explained it fully on a talkpage, but someone disagrees and reverts it, BRD suggests the reverter needs to be prepared to say why they reverted it and justify it. Either way, it makes little sense that original editor is writing their edit just to force the (possible future) reverter to respond to them in detail (except, perhaps, if they were a vandal.) If it were on a User talkpage, there is no actual obligation to respond as pointed out here You can even just delete them. However, general notifications on your talkpage like here can hardly be described as harassment when they just point out related policy. Moreover, since your declared 'ban' of me from your talkpage, and the continued reverting of my edits on Rigel, leaves no where else but article talkpages to sort article revert or article matters out. It seems me doing so is now being deemed as this 'harassment' too?

If you have doubts about any edits, there is no harm asking a question, and there are some who will answer you quite well. e.g. The whole section of Talk:Rigel#Brightness and parallax. Yet even when given the facts nicely and accurately by me (and another editor), but then seeing this pointed hostile reaction[64] or this edit[65] by another ISP, then do this[66], then this[67], then this[68].

I feel most of the problems here would evaporate if you just stop all the 'pointy' reverts, and consider a little more kindness, perhaps. Is this unfair? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism continues

So, the user blocked Jahmalm is continuing its vandalism through two IP's and have reverted two dozens of articles (for now I've only reverted one[[69]) but think that action needs to be taken from administrators. Look at the two IP's histories [70][71]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ahmedo Semsurî, I see no evidence whatsoever of socking, nor do I see why the IP's edits are vandalism. You need to present actual evidence if you want us to do something--and if you start reverting, it will have to be on the basis of either a. solid evidence of socking and b. some indication/proof that the edit is somehow disruptive or vandalism. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The specific question is whether it's appropriate to push for the notion that every present-day and historical Yezidi settlement is part of Ezidkhan. Now as seen in the talkpage[72] and the main page, Ezidkhan is not even defined geographically (nor does academia). So, to continue re-adding stuff like this is inappropriate[73], especially after a discussion which included various admins and settled the question. Most of the users (incl. IP's) who do these reverts get confirmed to be affiliated to Jahmalm[74] and admins block them. (His sockpuppetry case). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Users Shashank5988, article Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier AfD

Hello I'd like some help please. The above article which dealt with racism in India has been nominated for deletion by a user who appears to also be issuing threatening templates when instructed not to delete content within the article nominated. The deletions also appear to remove content providing context to the notability of the incidence and appear quite strongly of being guided by PoV due to sensitivities in being accepting of issues such as racism in India (the AfD will be self evident) The article appears to be being edited by two editors both with Indian user names who have twice now deleted the same content, and it is heading towards an edit war. I would appreciate some admin oversight and page protection may be an appropriate step. Please review. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Links and diffs please. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• The DS alert was not a threat, many perceive it to be - because once you've been informed, you're eligible to be sanctioned. But, I do agree Shashank and RaviC have strong nationalistic point of views, and have been warned repeatedly in the past for their questionable edits. Furthermore, their tag-teaming at Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier to remove sourced information (the part where rueben_lys claims it precipitated the tensions is OR, it should just be included as history) is very, very questionable. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  You also did not inform the editor, as the big, red box on the top of ANI shows. I did it for you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

ZebraDX3.1 WP:NOTHERE

• ZebraDX3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has used talk pages as a forum multiple times in the last few weeks. I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted.

• Special:Diff/895089160 - "Btw 4 days to day till my b day"
• Special:Diff/896983801 - "Holy Crap What a dream match! You guys ready for Undertaker and Goldberg to clash! Who will be Next or Who will Rest In Peace!"
• Special:Diff/897038949 - "In the beginning it should say 'Goldberg vs The Undertaker is a dream match for some fans..' btw who do you think will win."

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:ZebraDX3.1, you need to shit or get off the pot. We're here to edit, not to chat about rassling or birthdays. This is not a gift-giving community anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Warn. Behavior is not malicious, or fit for ANI. @ZebraDX3.1: this isn't really what Wikipedia is for. Would you actually like to contribute to our articles in a way that meets our policies and guidelines? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Honestly if this continues they need to be blocked, the majority of their edits are forum-like talk page posts. The few to mainspace are unsourced for the most part. Probably needs to be warned once more though, only has one warning at the moment. StaticVapor message me! 05:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:ZebraDX3.1 Hello and I want to apologize for what ever I did is there anything I can do to get of this I just started editing and I did not know so please is there anything I can do to get off of this.

More eyes on 109.157.32.223

Need more eyes on 109.157.32.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - tripped a pile of edit filters and I can't tell if it's a vandal or gnome so far. Was reported on AIV, bringing here for more potential reviewers. They're editing a whole pile of English Police Department articles. Possible pattern someone else may have seen before? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't look gnomish. Removing the number of employees as "sensitive disclosure", and removing the homeoffice reference used elsewhere in the article? This strikes me as bizarre. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by editor of Lenoir–Rhyne University

Can someone please have a word with the editor who most recently used 12.216.172.245? We are having a run-of-the-mill content dispute but he has sent me an off-Wikipedia e-mail threatening to "contact my superiors at [my workplace]" if I don't stop "vandalizing our Wikipedia page." He also includes his name and title in his latest edit summaries which also are also harassing and make clear claims of ownership over the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'll leave this mainly to someone else (because I'm just going out now), but I've rev-deleted the personally identifying edit summaries, as we have no idea whether this IP really is who they claim and it could be damaging to the named person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it matches up with the information in the e-mail that he sent to me (twice, actually, to two different accounts; neither e-mail was sent through Wikipedia so he actually looked up several of my e-mail addresses). And the e-mail appears to be genuine so I think this is a case of harassment and not impersonation. ElKevbo (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I was incorrect about this editor threatening to contact my employer; he did contact my employer. I overlooked the "cc:" line in his e-mail which includes two e-mail addresses of colleagues with whom I work. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this and warn this editor? ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned. All the best, Miniapolis 23:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thanks but I hope that someone has also warned this person about the e-mail that he sent to my employer accusing me of vandalizing his employer's article. If it's now acceptable for editors to send messages to other editors' employers, please let me know so I can update our harassment policy. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• @ElKevbo: That sucks. I'm not sure there's much admins can do about off-wiki emailing. If I were you, I'd forward the emails to ArbCom, who are set up to deal with more private info. I'm not sure what more they could do beyond blocking the IP address, but it's probably more than we can do. Especially since it looks like that IP is for a hotel. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the expression of sympathy and the suggestion for additional action. I contacted ArbCom yesterday but haven't heard anything. The only administrative actions taken have been to (a) remove the harasser's personal information from his edit summaries (understandable as part of our policies against outing but still feels a lot like an action taken only to protect my harasser) and (b) to warn him against incivil comments in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, no one has said or done anything to at least tell this person - whose name and e-mail address we have! - that this behavior is unacceptable.

I work with great people and it's clear to them that this is just a crazy person so my career isn't threatened. But this is bullshit beyond the pale and I'm baffled that no one here seems to think it's even worth telling this person that this behavior is unacceptable. I know that we can't control what other people do, especially off-wiki, but we can control how we react and how or if we support one another. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Harimua Thailand

Harimua Thailand (talk · contribs) has been engaging himself in an edit war in several tokusatsu articles, specifically in these articles:

• Kamen Rider Series
• Super Hero Time
• List of anime distributed by TV Tokyo

The user insists that the Kamen Rider Series will move from TV Asahi to TV Tokyo this year, despite showing no proof of this happening. Furthermore, he has ignored all warnings from other users on his talk page. - Areaseven (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

IP block evasion/LTA

Not sure exactly who this is or what they're trying to do, but 121.140.88.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is clearly block evading from 121.140.250.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is cross-wiki blocked for vandalism/LTA. If it helps, 121.140.88.101/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a compatible range. (Not notifying IPs of discussion.) Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I went back through 7-8 days worth of netblock's contributions, same pattern. I rangeblocked 121.140.88.101/16 (more properly should be 121.140/16) for 72 hours. I think regular patrolling of the date / history articles they frequent may show them coming back after that (they're persistent). May need reblocking for longer if so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, thanks. In doing a little searching, it could be related to Brookerbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seemingly has an obsession with date-related articles. I could be way off on that, however. Home Lander (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation at AfD on John Smelcer

I have some concerns about the nominating statement Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) in the AfD re: John Smelcer, a living person a who may, or many not, be a member of a native American tribe, as he claims to be. Nom, User:Dennis Bratland calls Smelcer "a pathological liar or suffer of Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" accuses him of "crimes" and listed [75] the page as a "Crime-related deletion discussion. I BOLDLY removed the "crime" listing. Smelcer is a poet and novelist who claims to be a native American - his father denies it, but a tribe has registered him. His "crime" is to have published work that he claims has been written by a native American, himself. This may be a lie, but it is not a crime. The reasons I bring this here are 1.) I cannot find that any sort of criminal charges have been laid against him, let alone a conviction, and 2.) labeling a living person "pathological liar" with "Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" seems slanderous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty damn clear cut to me, I have now asked the user in question to read our polices on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, this is an article that has already been deleted once. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've redacted the BLP violations, and revdel'd them too, although there are enough crumbs out there now that it would be pretty easy to reconstruct, and I'm not going to redact and revdel this ANI report nor redact other comments at the AFD. That was pretty unacceptable. I wonder if a topic ban from BLP is in order? At the very least I suppose I need to figure out how to issue discretionary sanctions discretionary sanction alerts, so if this happens again individual admins would have DS at our disposal. If I find out DB has already had a DS notice posted in the last year, I'm sorely tempted to issue a BLP topic ban myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Whilst a serious breach I am going to play devils advocate and point out they may not have been warned before. But it was serious enough for a warning to not be enough, I think a short block would (hopefully) send the right message.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've issued a {{DS/alert}}, perhaps that's enough for now. In Admin 101 they beat it into our heads we're not supposed to issue short blocks to send messages... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was hoping I left strong enough hints for editors to be motivated to fully research this topic. I didn't want to rehash the dirty laundry out on Wikipedia again, as in the previous AfD. The subject himself had become involved, and the whole thing was a trainwreck. Deleting the old article's talk page and the prior versions was a mercy. It looks like editors today are reading sources no earlier than around 2007; the ones easily turned up at Google. The issues date to the 1970s and 1980s, requiring digging in less easily accessible local Alaska and Washington newspaper archives. With Highbeam gone, finding those sources has become harder than it was in 2011.

  I won't participate in this topic any further. I'd suggest digging a little before reaching conclusions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Read our polices on BLP's, you do not get to call people names, at best you can call them the names RS have. You can never say anyone is a criminal unless they have been prosecuted (even if RS do). But I am glad you are going to disengage, but I really do advise you to take this all on board and not use the same language about others. If you do I am going to suspect you will get a TBAN on BLP's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

For someone who has been around so long, this is a pretty amazing misunderstanding of WP:BLP. I'm particularly unimpressed by your saying that you should get to make really serious unsourced claims about a living person, and when called on it, complain that others need to do the research to follow up on your hints(?!) That's a ... really ... amazing thing to say in public. I'm grudgingly OK dropping this for now, as long as this is not a long term pattern of behavior, but @Dennis Bratland:, if you do something similar again, you'll be topic banned from BLPs for at least a month as an WP:AE action with little or no further discussion. And if others think a community-based topic ban is already justified, I specifically do not oppose that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

All editors interested in protecting BLPs should add John Smelcer to your watchlists. This person is both notable and highly controversial. Dennis Bratland, I truly hope that you now understand that you cannot state anywhere on Wikipedia that a person is a criminal unless that person has been convicted in a court of law. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This person is both notable...

Not based on his article he isn't. Did a whole bunch of actual evidence of notability get redacted or something? --Calton | Talk 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen328, "state anywhere on Wikipedia that a person is a criminal"? Did I state he was a criminal? Now this is just going overboard. I referred to the WP:PERP notability criteria because they relate both to accused and convicted criminals. Not to mention that there is an actual conviction in this story too, if one were to look, but I see that ain't happening.

  But why exactly the need to belabor this? Everyone keeps repeating the same assertions and utterly ignoring the reasons I gave. I get it: nobody will research this themselves. And I'm not willing to re-post the precise list of allegations and facts behind it. Because I'm as concerned with the spirit of BLP as the letter. We have an author whose books don't meet WP:AUTHOR and someone whose alleged and proven transgressions, while somewhat scandalous or salacious, are ultimately very local and minor in scope. The broader world didn't take much notice, because the actual impact was zero, other than on the life of the person himself. So now it's certain that someone who is essentially a low-profile individual will be immortalized and made more notorious by Wikipedia. All out of strict obedience to the BLP policy.

  So you won't trust that I know what I'm talking about, and you won't go research it yourself. Great. That puts us at an impasse. The bottom line is that I have been firmly warned that I'll be topic banned if I do anything of the sort again. Fine. If one wants to go on lecturing me, perhaps find a way to say it in a new way with new facts. Facts are out there if one cares to find them. Otherwise, it's wabbit season. I got it the first time so it doesn't need to be repeated. I understand what I've been told not to do and what will happen if I do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that mention a crime that the subject was accused of or convicted for, by all means, share them. Saying "do your own research" will get you nowhere. Nanophosis (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"do your own research" isn't precisely what I said, is it? I said I wasn't going to post the details of the earlier events behind all this, but that if you wanted to know what they are, you can find them with a little more work than a mere Google search. Because if you did that you might better understand what motivated me, even if you don't agree with my actions. If you're only going to skim what I say and respond with flip rejoinders based on a crude, oversimplified interpretation, where exactly do you think that will get you? It mostly wastes everyone's time as we have to keep going back and correcting misstatements about previous statements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nanophosis—you can't suggest by the use of quotation marks that you are quoting another editor when you are not. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You listed the deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime which says "This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Crime. " so if he did not commit a crime how is his article about crime? I think a Tban is in order now, the user is not listening (and I am being polite).Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I reckon a topic ban for Dennis Bratland is not needed. He says that he "understands what he has been told", and per WP:AGF, I see no reason not to believe him. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think their last reply here indicates they do not get it. I think what they have said is "fine I know I will get banned, you all wrong but I have no choice". OK lets AGF and I withdraw my request of for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We can drag on this debate if there is some purpose to that, but for now all I'll say is that you should try reading my words more closely. I didn't say "you are all wrong". Not even close. I didn't explicitly deny the accusations against me. I explained what my reasoning was, and suggested one might understand better by fully researching the bio topic here. Because the alternative is that I've completely lost my marbles and forgotten everything I've learned about BLP in 15 years. How plausible is that? If you don't care to explore the basis for my reasoning, fine. You have better things to do. But please refrain from hysterics and hyperbole. I've been officially warned, acknowledged receipt of the warning, and affirmed I'll steer clear of any further possible violations. What more do you want? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne and Tommy Robinson (activist)

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

---

Nil Einne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have a bee in his bonnet about keeping a tabloid source (the Daily Mirror) on the BLP article Tommy Robinson (activist). I've replaced it with a better source as agreed in talk but the user is now edit-warring to keep the source. Can someone have a gentle word please? Thanks a lot. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have protected the article to stop the edit war. Hopefully, this will help to further facilitate the discussion that's already taking place on the article talk page. El_C 08:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think the user may also need a nudge that their edits were harmful. Also, you've protected the Wrong Version. Any chance of putting it back to the one which uses the BBC source meantime? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Both versions provide a non tabloid journalism source, so there's no justification for such a change under BLP grounds. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not realise until now that MarchOrDie had started to add a new source to replace the Mirror. If I had, I would not have reverted so apologise for my 2 recent reverts and agree they were a mistake and it's my failing for not looking properly. I would note that this is yet another example of the harm of misciting a policy to support an action. If it had been said "replacing Mirror with BBC" or "replacing Mirror with BBC for BLP reasons" rather than claiming the source must go, or vandalism this would have better explained what they were doing with their 2 most recent edits and it would have been easier to see even without looking carefully at the diff. I agree it's not unreasonable to replace a more tabloidish source with a better one for BLP reasons, but as I said, there are no grounds under BLP policy for automatic removal of tabloidish sources just because they are tabloidish and legitimate discussion could take place for keeping the tabloidish source whether instead of, or in addition to the tabloidish source, depending on the circumstances and all allowed under BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tommy Robinson and the article Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)#Daily Mirror. So far, MarchOrDie is the only person who alleges a BLP concern. The claim is that BLPsources prohibits sources that engage in tabloid journalism. But the cited section explicitly says only that material sourced solely to tabloid journalism is prohibited. 7 editors including myself agree that this means the source is not automatically a problem for BLP reasons, and there has been zero explanation from MarchOrDie why it is a problem under BLP grounds. As me and others outlined at BLPN and the article talk page, there may be reasonable grounds for removal of the source based on the ground it adds nothing not already provided by the other source. However as I've also pointed out, it's not simply a procedural point to object to the removal of a source in spurious grounds, whether BLP (or an incorrect claim of vandalism). It's an important issue since BLP matters, and editors who misuse BLP in ways that aren't supported by policy are harming legitimate efforts to deal with actual BLP problems. Further, they're also effectively trying to shortcut normal editing processes to get their way, by claiming that something is a BLP problem and therefore requires consensus and they do not have to discuss, when under normal editing, it's intrinsic on both sides to outline a reason why their edits improve the encyclopaedia. Note that the uncertainty over whether the source add anything does not in itself mean it must stay out. It could be consensus would be achieved, whether written or WP:silence if someone tries but that remains uncertain. I fully admit I likely would not have reverted if the source adding nothing was given as the reason for removal. Instead, I would have watched the discussion, if any, and participated if I felt I had something to add. In the end, I have no idea what I would have said, since there has been limited discussion over this probably in part because we are distracted by the pointless BLP issue. For this reason, I do not feel my editing is a WP:POINT violation, since I'm not disrupting to make a point. I'm trying to prevent a shortcircuiting of the normal editing processes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, not quite yet. Nil Einne, why was the BBC source removed in the first place? El_C 08:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now explained above in an EC, my mistake. I did not notice that MarchOrDie had started to replace the source rather than simply remove a source. I do not object to the reversion of my edits, and in fact if you unprotect I will not edit further since I feel that the replacement of the source sufficiently overrides my concerns over simply removing a source without a reason being given. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Atomiccocktail / Einfach machen Hamburg

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

---

Atomiccocktail (talk · contribs)
Einfach machen Hamburg (talk · contribs)

The editor who owns both the accounts Atomiccocktail and Einfach machen Hamburg is a paid editor who has been editing English Wikipedia since 2008. His proper contributions are sparse to say the least, if not lacking entirely. In the past ten years, he has created 15 articles, out of which none are proper articles. All of these articles are just plain advertisements. Two of his articles were deleted; one article was rejected before it made it to the mainspace, and seven of his still existing articles suffer from substantial flaws, and were tagged with article maintenance templates (The topics of this article, and this one may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations, this article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism, this article contains content that is written like an advertisement, this article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience, a major contributor to this article, this one and this one appears to have close connections with their subject). Only 5 articles were not tagged with any “issue badges”, but I doubt that these articles couldn’t be tagged with one.

In total, this editor doesn’t contribute to Wikipedia. He abuses it for advertisement purposes, even using a (known) sockpuppet. I doubt that we can expect any useful contributions from this user, but I fear that harmful contributions will follow, as the past ten years have shown. I therefore suggest an indefinite block for the accounts Atomiccocktail and Einfach machen Hamburg. --185.249.125.13 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefnite block --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all very funny here. An Austrian IP occurs and wants a blocking here. Two day ago the following happend at de.wikipedia.org:

• There was a tough argument about labaling article Ringo (Ballade) as "featured article". The discussions (in German) can be found here). In this context, completely baseless allegations were loudly made against this article (orginal research and missleading sources). These allegations were submitted by Johannes (see above). Steigi1900 showed that all these allegations were baseless and far fetched.

• Suddenly Kanisfluh, former name = Austriantraveler, indefinitely blocked at de.wikipedia.org, came around the corner and has evaluated the candidacy. He, an Austrian, decided AGAINST an award "featured article", although the course of the discussion was clear: The clear majority of the votes and their arguments spoke clearly FOR labaling as a "featured article".

• I crossed out this strange evaluation. Because Kanisfluh violated administrative warnings, he is now blocked for two weeks. The article in question was re-evaluated by two not involved Wikipedians. Result: "lesenswert" (featured article), see here.

Johannes was obviously upset and hinted that he wanted to leave de.wikipedia.org, see here. Now he arrives here and supports the this questionable application of an IP from Vienna...

To me this all looks like a cross wiki and cheap revenge action. Atomiccocktail (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefnite block. -- Bwag (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC) This moneymaker binds only manpower: [76]. Obviously, he gets paid by bytes. Look at the excessive references or does he want to push the Google ranking?

The evidence gives cause for concern. However, an immediate infinite ban from en.wikipedia is not a good idea: - The primary cause for concern are paid edits. Unless other problems are found, a ban from paid editing should be sufficient even if it has to be done - The user has not been blocked here yet, has been here for an extended amount of time. Talking about them why their edits are problematic(if they are) should be sufficient if they understand it properly.

The potential revenge aspect should also be evaluated. Lurking shadow (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• strong oppose: of course its a revenge issue on this problem on de:WP and following quarrels - and nothing but. I blocked the account Einfach machen Hamburg in de:WP once in 2015 [77], revised at "Sperrprüfung"[78] (similar to Wikipedia:Appealing a block in en:WP). Since than in de:WP he hasn't interacted between his two accounts in a wrong way IMHO. In opposite its obvious, that he managed to control the difference between his "paid editing" account and his editing as a normal user. Scanning his edits on en:WP with both accounts, I see no offense against project scope here. --Rax (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (please excuse my broken english)

• strong oppose, per Rax. This is an obvious try to get some sort of revenge by people who don't like Atomiccocktail on de.wp. Pathetic. Stefan64 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Close I am not willing to entertain a call for an indefinite block from an IP with no editing history on any Wikimedia wiki (global user contributions) and this should be swiftly closed down on that basis. Use your account. Insofar that this is a dispute that has been imported from de.wikipedia as has been alleged, we do not take kindly to that kind of behaviour. Keep your disputes to your own manor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

MarchOrDie

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

---

Ancillary to the above report about Nil Einne [[79]] user MarchOrDie has shown a marked disregard for other users opinions about what is or is not a BLP violation [[80]], [[81]] in essence (I suspect I am being generous) saying that everyone but them is wrong [[82]] and declaring the discussion over (in their favour, see below), edit warring (but making sure not to breach 3RR, just [[83]]. And now engaging in (what are) PA's [[84]]. It is clear this has now crossed over into tendentious editing and battleground mentality.

The users behavior is now being hugely disruptive, and I suspect is not going to go away. As it is clear they have decided what the policy is and everyone else is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at their user talk page yesterday + a few edits, due to an earlier report. They're certainly at the aggressive end of the spectrum. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Assertive maybe. But the real problem is that I was right and poor Slatersteven was wrong. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Being right does not give you license to be a prat. AFAICT the underlying content dispute has been resolved, this should be closed and everyone should shake hands & move on. GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No MarchOrDie, not assertive, aggressive, with a bad case of WP:IDHT. Cabayi (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In in response to this ANI [[85]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

OK if I am wrong and BLP forbids the use of tabloid sources I appoligise and ask for this to be closed. If not I would ask that the user in question is told this, officially. Otherwise (I truly believe) they will be brought here again, and they will end up with a far more severe sanction then just a warning. This is about cutting the rope before they take anymore.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• MarchOrDie needs to desist now. The discussion at BLP/N here clearly shows consensus against them, and the responses here do not exactly engender confidence that they will respect that. "You've gone off crying to mummy" - really? The consequences are inevitable if they continue to edit in this manner. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Desist what exactly? I was right on the content issue, it's all figured out, and I reserve the right to call out crybaby behavior from losers, just as I reserve the right to edit articles in compliance with BLP. Please take the time to read up properly before commenting here in future. Thanks. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did say the consequences were inevitable, and so they are. Blocked for a week for persistent personal attacks. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is sad, all I asked for is that they be told to listen to the consensus and that they were wrong, a block was never my intention. I will draw a line under this now, it went far further then I had intended.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

HelpMeStopSpam

HelpMeStopSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is an SPA claiming to be with VICE who has left a couple of bizarre messages on User talk:HelpUsStopSpam's talk page (including a request to interview them). I'm not sure what to do about it - definitely looks like WP:NOTHERE, but I don't know if they've violated any specific policies yet. creffett (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Have they only made a couple of edits? But, yeah—both usernames suggest WP:RGW even if they mean well with it. ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is VICE?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's a magazine or online publication of some kind. Reyk _YO! 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This all looks a bit stale, why raise it now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, 10 hours is stale?? Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I was looking at the talk page discussion as is, the ones you are referring to were removed, diff would have been nice. Yes these edits look like the user is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, didn't think about that. For other editors' reference, diff of the talk page commentary is at [86], and VICE refers to Vice Media. I agree, HelpUsStopSpam is here to WP:RGW and probably should be looked at closer, but HelpMeStopSpam is just WP:NOTHERE, I'm just not sure what the correct approach is to deal with it so I raised it here. creffett (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well as its an SPA, that clear has an agenda (and this a history) relating to digging up dirt I think a block, indef of coarse. Normally I would not go for the block straight away, but there is history here, and I doubt this is a new user.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Since he (HMSS) explicitly claims to be editing for vice there are conflict of interest and UPE issues. We are contacting suggests shared account issues. But... having not got the interview he was after, I guess we've probably seen the last of him. Cabayi (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to see if either of them HMSS would be willing to explain just what they're doing here? I can get if you're asking for an interview with someone, but I would imagine this should have been done far more discreetly and would be targeted to a specific known editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks creffett for already bringing this here - I would have done this myself now.

The whole "vice" thing is likely just fake. The "bizarre" requests already indicate that he is torn between trying to insult/attack me and trying to dox. Obviously, anyone looking into Wikipedia spam would be interviewing about the big cases such as Orangemoody and Wiki-PR, and I have no knowledge of these beyond what is written in their Wikipedia articles.

Most likely, this is another instance of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Letsstopwikidictators. In other words, I believe both belong to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Schekanov, as these accounts seem to be linked to DataMelt, Datamelt, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataMelt (and Draft:Sergei V Chekanov - I wouldn't be surprised if a checkuser detects that HMSS is the same IP that created that draft.). There were already a number of additional socks or meatpuppets involved in that deletion discussion, and often exhibit a similar "bizarre" style. The author of DataMelt clearly blames me for deleting his article, but as you know only administrators perform AfD deletions... I can flag (funnily, I did not even flag DataMelt back then), discuss, but I cannot delete. I can point out that the "reviews" he presented were copy and paste from the datamelt web page, and hence not reliable independent reviews. Given the way that deletion discussion "escalated", I am fairly sure the admins that handled this case took a careful look before coming to the conclusion that "The result was delete. A lengthy discussion including good faith efforts by experienced editors to find satisfactory sources has not resulted in such sources being found, and consensus is to delete."

Since the new copy of the same article now at Datamelt is also deleted, I am on his shit list again. Yes, I flag articles for deletion (feel free to study this case), and I revert a lot of link spam, and self-citation dropping: [87] [88] [89], and that does not get me a whole lot of friends (but also a few 'thank yous' though of those that also undo the constant influx of new paper spam). And one of his earlier IPs, 104.55.212.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did exactly that: spam his book [90] in 3+ articles... And I guess since then, our "relationship" has only been going downhill... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So based on this, he should be blocked for harassment and/or being a sock? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It clearly is a SPA to harass me. I cannot prove it is a sock, a checkuser may or may not. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"get out of your basement"

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

---

I can't possibly see how Lubbad85 (talk · contribs) could think this comment appropriate. (I'm going to be opening a CCI in the near future since it seems about 2/3 of their substantial mainspace edits are plagiarized, and I guess the research I was doing into that is what "follow" and "get a hobby" refer to. No need to explain why that's an incorrect interpretation of the policy[91] but more importantly I'd rather not discuss copyvio here; I'd just like for this editor to receive a stern warning or a short block for the above unambiguous personal attack.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG this editor has been WP:TENDENTIOUS. I see this ANI as another form of harassment. I ask the editors to look at Hijiri 88's behavior to see if WP:BOOMERANG applies. I was likely wrong to tell the editor to get out of his basement. However I am human and was tired of the behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)

Some evidence would be nice, if there is a background we need to see it, not take your word for it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This basement comment was posted on my talk page - not sure it is a personal attack. However this editor has a history of attacks and other editors have called them out. here. I have to get on with business now, but I can find more if the administrators need more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)

The users history (of which I am well aware) is irrelevant, two wrongs do not make a right. If he attacked or provoked you that is one thing. But if your defense is "but he does it to other people", then...well no PA's so there is not a lot I could respond with.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hard to see how that is not a PA, I think a warning is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Cam Howe

1subwoofer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was edit warring trying to insert non-RS material citing his organization's website at Patterson Lakes, Victoria. This resulted in a posting by duffbeerforme at WP:COIN#Cam_Howe. 1subwoofer has a history of creating autobiographical articles even after they'd been AfD'd and generating linkspam (further detail at the WP:COIN post). 1subwoofer declared the issue "resolved" and blanked[92] the whole WP:COIN entry. Not sure if a block or TBAN is the right approach, but something's needed here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)