Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Persistent disruptive editing by user SBS3800P

User:SBS3800P has been editing pages without proper citations. I observed on his talk page that other editors have previously tried to engage him about this disruptive and destructive behaviour, but he chose to ignore it.

For example, he made very odd claims about fare rules for a train station on this page without citation. I have since removed the false information he added.

He is recently on an editing spree, again, many without verified citations. He used words including "probably" without solid substantiation, is worrying and will damage the integrity of information posted on Wikipedia. One example is on the page this, he made a claim and used the word probably without citing any sources. Trust me, I have lived in the country for very long and have never heard of this claim before. Another absurd and not cited claim is of a train station with the least amount of climbing and walking. Where does he get these information from!? — Preceding unsigned comment added 17:08, 28 May 2019‎ by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs)

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

This issue was previously raised at ANI here on 10 May 2019 but it was archived with no action taken.

Since that discussion, further editors have raised issues with page moves, including @MYS77: here. Ortizesp said he would start using RM here, but he hasn't, and MYS77 had to raise the issue again with him here. Today I have had to revert another undiscussed page move involving the Rubén García Rey article.

Based on the above, given the number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted his page moves, and given the number of broken promises to stop, it is clear that Ortizesp lacks the competence to make page moves. As such, we need an indefinite topic ban from making any undiscussed page moves, and he can only nominate using WP:RM. GiantSnowman 07:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban: Ortizesp is not reaching any compromise when it comes to moving pages, and has not kept his promise of using RMs to raise opinions over the page moves. MYS77 ^✉ 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN with v. minor exception - repeated issues despite agreement otherwise seems to warrant a TBAN. I've spotted a few things in your edits that look like they will turn either into AfC drafts or articles. If this generates any 1-off redirects that should be fine, but otherwise it needs to cover all pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, an exception of moving from user space into mainsapce is fine. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply disagree that moving Rubén García Rey needed nomination from WP:RM. Rubén García Rey is simply not his common name, and all external links and references state that. Most of my moves follow this logic, and i believe are valid. Obviously you and MYS77 disagree with my moves, but they are generally uncontroversial. I haven't used WP:RM because I'm leaving those pages for later, for actual controversial moves. In case you guys haven't learnt, it is recommended to be bold - and not the other way around.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As @SMcCandlish: said at the last ANI, "Hint: If people are controverting your moves, then they are controversial". The fact you still cannot see that is very concerning, and raises WP:CIR issues. GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• This runs the risk of going stale and being archived again, despite a clear problem. Can somebody please comment/close with implementation of the topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 09:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I've tagged this thread with a DNAU so it won't be archived until 18 June. Blackmane (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Blackmane: amazing, thanks! GiantSnowman 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I would say topic ban would only work if the user know if they violate, then it have some consequence. I would support the TBAN or just straight temp block. Most of the time except typo, WP:RM of real person are rarely not controversial, especially now there is some dispute in the disambiguator such as Alisson (footballer, born 1992) v. Alisson Becker. Matthew hk (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Breach of a topic ban would lead to blocks. GiantSnowman 10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, there is no formal TBan, but this issue was raised in ANI for a few times. I am not sure enforcing a formal TBan and delivered the TBAN statement to his user talk page, has any change, if he seem did not know what is happening. But anyway, lets give him a final chance by giving him a formal Tban. Matthew hk (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

While there's no definition over the subject, he's still doing the same thing (i.e. Jaime Asensio de la Fuente and Fidel Chaves de la Torre). Not a single compromise, and for every new page I create, he's moving it. I would add a WP:HOUND on this too, aside from the TBan. MYS77 ^✉ 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I was also reading the old ANI about him, and I've noticed that he thinks "it's normal to make errors and learn from them, and at least it's not the same kind of error being made continuously". The thing is that his mistakes are quite the same since the old ANI until now. MYS77 ^✉ 14:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There is ongoing disruption, an editor refusing to listen to concerns about their conduct and competence, and a clear consensus for a topic ban. Please can an uninvolved admin review and implement? GiantSnowman 09:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I would. But the issue for me, and I suspect others assessing this, is that you have five editors supporting a ban; one of those with an exception and one with what read to me like significant reservations. That's a pretty thin thing to call consensus, especially given the traffic to this page. Don't get me wrong, I think the ban is warranted and I'll do my bit and support a ban; but I don't feel like I can, in good conscience, close this as 'consensus for a ban' at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Six editors now... GiantSnowman 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive anti-China editing from Syopsis

Previous AN/I report

• On China–United States trade war and talk

Related discussions

• RFC on restarting article from scratch due to subversion of NPOV
• Talk:China–United States trade war#Article concerns

Warning given

• Special:Diff/900966515#Talk page guidelines

Report

Let me preface this with saying that I was told I should stay away from the dramaboards, and since then I have followed that excellent advice for the most part. Also, most of this report refers to the bolded conversation linked above except when mention is made to the RFC.

This report comes about from an off-wiki conversation that occurred at WP:Discord. Viztor asked for some feedback on the situation and was advised to take it to AN/I. Instead of getting involved with that*, I made a few edits to the article. ^{[1] [2]}
*I later did though.^{Diff unavailible}

Since then, most of my substantial edits besides one were removed. ^[3] It's hard to get a diff for this because of edits like this, though.

What was the one edit? A tag I put on the article citing my concerns with WP:GLOBAL. ^{[4] [5]}

Now, despite Nyttend saying there was significant undue weight in the article at ANI, ^[6] an RFC being started on completely re-writing the article ^[7] with multiple editors agreeing in said RFC ^{[8] [9]} (Well, it's only 2/3), and my repeated explanations... Syopsis has insisted that the tag be removed. ^[10]

In the conversation that labeled "Article concerns" (which concerns the tag), this user has made personal attacks against editors, [11], doubling down on those attacks, [12] [13], WP:SHOUTING [14], and has even stated "I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive."

This is on-top a general habit of ownership of the article in general. ^{[15] [16] [17] [18]} I have additional concerns about their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. ^{[19] [20] [21]} Even more concerning is their propensity to follow Viztor around to undo their edits. ^{[22] [23] [24]} or give them unneeded warnings ^{[25] [26]} (this second diff alerting them to an ANI thread that Viztor started! That might have to do with this edit, though?). On its own, these edits would be fine, but taken together I have to include a mention here.

I know I have lost patience at least more than once and have had my own fault in this mess. I tried resolving the dispute on my talk page, but as mentioned before Syopsis doubled down. I don't have any recommended action to take, but I would prefer to see a resolution into this matter. I really hate spending more time on this than I need to.

I don't watchlist ANI, so ping me when needed. Thank you all, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• His POV is another question, the more serious one is his behavior: (1)persistent blatant attacks at multiple other editors (2)hounding them around, (3)tracking and reverting their edits in a systematic manner, so to scare (4)the editors from contributing (5)in the attempt to own the article in question. None of which is an acceptable behavior in this community. Viztor (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to request help with Syopsis. I can't even tell you if I agree or disagree with their POV because the content issues we are trying to discuss are being obscured by Syopsis' personal attacks against other editors. For example after my very first post at Talk:China–United States trade war, [27], Syopsis responded with this — and keep in mind this is also our first interaction on Wikipedia [28]:

"It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"

I thought I had only been recommending measures for article improvement, so I objected [29] to Syopsis' rude response, and they quickly came back with this [30]:

"let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position"

Syopsis has been ever more rude to MJL, for instance supposedly repeating their concerns using a kind of pidgin spelling, mockery and insults [31]:

"I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning... it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling... what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing..."

This is really distasteful and I hope something can be done to stop it. Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be editorial boards: more or less professional environments. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Since @MJL: was the one who filed this request I am going to respond to directly to that user and i am not going to bother wasting my (or anyone else's) time by responding to the borderline personal attacks by the other two users here; everything i have to say to Darouet i will say on the related talk page and I am not even going to address the comments Viztor made because it will just degenerate into a useless back and forth. But i will say at the outset I absolutely, 100% stand by the things that i wrote which that user quoted ("mediocre," "dog's breakfast" "pseudo-intellectual dog whistling") - they were attacking arguments. That is obvious to anybody who actually read the whole conversation...in full. They were not personal attacks because they were not even directed to a user. I've never made a derogatory personal comment since I started using Wikipedia and I will never make a derogatory personal comment so long as i use this encyclopedia. If that is what you call a "personal attack" then I would hate to see what an actual "personal attack" looks like. It certainly pales in comparison to some of the other things i have seen on wikipedia.

"...their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. " Ah so there it is. Your point-of-view to attack "anti-China" (what ever that means) POVs or defend a "pro-China" (again, I have no idea what means) POV. Little wonder that the user contacted you for help on discord (which seems very much like a case of tag-team editing aka Wikipedia:Tag team. Why even bother editing the article in the first place?). yes if things were only that simplistic. Whatever. Of course the label is just nonsensical, there is for starters a difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, and there is a difference between attacking the views of a political party and attacking the culture of a particular place like some mindless idiot. No different than the difference that exists between, say, attacking a religion (christianity, Islam, judaism) and attacking its believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews). I have to say i do find it very curious you did not cite my most recent edits about Hong Kong here, here and here as evidence of my (non-existent) "anti-China" views - probably because you finally figured out the truth of what I just said.

Please stop misrepresenting things. I didn't remove the material you edited, i rearranged them and I left the tag in there as a compromise gesture - hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. By the way, you and anybody else who is reading this should also be aware that the changes I made which included reverting your edits have stayed almost entirely in place - again, hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. I challenged you multiple times on the tag issue with the aim of actually resolving it and all I got from you were just mediocre, sub-standard arguments - that isn't a personal attack, that is just stating a fact. I asked you how the tag isn't a form of discrimination and all i got from you basically was "because it just isn't". And that is before we even get to your allegations of bias in the content. And about the RFC...that was before the people involved in it made massive changes to the article to rectify the bias and whatever else the RFC initiator complained about, which in any case it must be said was decisively rejected.

Okay I will admit: I have to tone down the language. Going forward, i will do my best to refrain from using profaniies and just using general insults. I and like most of the people on the encyclopedia (including everybody involved in this request) are passionate about things, but at some point you have to draw a line and say enough is enough. Fair enough. As for the hounding accusation - that's not accurate. There was one edit that was hounding (the one about Xinjiang) but the one about the anchor was to revert a hound edit by the other user and then the third one is not even an example of hounding. That said, I apologize for that one edit and haven't done anything like that since.

It's pretty simple. My position is that these are content disputes which should and can be resolved...between the two of us. If it helps, I am willing to shift the basis of my argument so that we now focus on the hard evidence that you have that the sources are "biased". This is a further compromise by me because I am downplaying the fact that it is wrong for you to discriminate the sources on the basis of nationality. Involving the two other editors is just going to drag this out way longer than it should and they aren't adding anything to the debate that we don't already know anyway. I don't know why you are trying your hardest to railroad this conversation and turn it into a conduct dispute when it isn't. Syopsis (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only should you not curse, don't insult people at all, let alone in "general"! Argue over content, not editors, on talk pages. And in terms of POV, it /must/ be neutral. Overall though, from these edits I see serious attempts to WP:OWN the article, and little effort put into building consensus. Syopsis is clearly very difficult to work with. In terms of resolving the issue, I would support a carefully worded warning on conduct, or a post 1932-American politics T-ban. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: post-1932 politics t-ban seems a little much. Maybe a subset that has to do with US-Chinese relations, but I would not support such a broad topic ban for a relatively new editor.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Syopsis: response incoming. Let me start with what is good about you. I think you are genuine person who takes criticism better than most. I appreciate your contributions so far to this project, and I hope nothing that occurs as a result of this ANI report discourages you in anyway from being a part of this community.
That being said, your tone can be very off putting at times. As CaptainEek pointed out, you really shouldn't be insulting anyone nor anything. It's a bright line violation of our WP:civility guidelines. The sorts of language you tend to use has a negative effect on people.
In that regard, I must address the tag team allegation because that most certainly is something I aspire to never do on Wikipedia. I believe I have been, from the beginning, the most transparent I could possibly be with you in regards to any offwiki communications I have had with Viztor. As previously said, Viztor had general conduct concerns that were brought up on discord (which is fairly common among editors there). I personally took notice of the article (it covers a subject I care about- namely trade) and made the edits. I never even knew Viztor before this interaction, and they had no reason to believe I would get myself involved.
I said I had concerns about a bias on your part, and then I provided diffs to substantiate this claim. I did not review every single edit you made and only reviewed significant additions or subtractions to Chinese-related articles. Also, China in this case was shorthand for People's Republic of China (the government). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Listen, I really, really, want to work constructively with you, but just take a look at some of the changes you made which concerns sourcing. ^{[32] [33]} That second diff was really bad in my opinion because you removed something cited by Reuters but left a statement that was cited to a tweet by Donald Trump. It's hard for me to make sense of that.
I appreciate your ability to own up in the places you know you were wrong. I also like your passion for the subjects you cover, but I don't like it when that gets in the way of the group's ability to cooperate with one another. We're all on the same team here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is not the first time concerns of his questionable behavior has raised, This editor responded in a similar way last time and stated it was just content dispute. When he said that what he is really saying is that we should neglect his conduct issue because this is just a content dispute, that is denial of problem for me. If he do not acknowledge his problem, this will just keep happening, until everyone just get too tired. This is not "the debate just got too heated and I lost control" kind of situation. He was literally throwing words at people who he just met, on first encounter, people who showed gestures to reconcile the difference. That is beyond content dispute that I have no plan to dive into, for that would just be exactly what he want.Viztor (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Syopsis, you cannot continue engaging with Wikipedia in this way. If this is, as you say, a content dispute, then you need to focus on the content and avoid commenting on other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment and these types of remarks degrade the experience for everyone. I would not support a topic ban at this moment, given the lack of a prior formal warning, but going forward I would consider that an applicable remedy if Syopsis doesn't change their behavior. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. To give admins time to review this.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, can an admin formally warn Syopsis about conduct, and remind them that if the behavior continues they will find themselves escalatingly blocked? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

^An acceptable outcome to me (just as much as saying, MJL, there is nothing actionable here. would potentially be). I'd like to see some sort of response from an uninvolved admin. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Facilitated communication articles

I am here to dispute actions being made by User:Wikiman2718. This user is currently removing large portions of articles that contain quotes from non-speaking autistic people, as well as the biographies of non-speaking autistic people, on the premise that facilitated communication is discredited (including removing portions of Neurodiversity, Lucy Blackman, Sue Rubin, and removing nearly all of Benjamin Alexander (writer)). I have provided extensive evidence to the contrary, but regardless of one's position on FC, completely removing every reference to it and every person who has been purported to use it cannot be the appropriate action to take. Please assist in this matter. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not removed every reference to Facilitated communication: only those that fail to recognize that it is a psudoscience. I would appreciate administrative assistance in this matter. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: User has now removed nearly all of Amy Sequenzia. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. We discuses in the article the counter claims about FC. There may well be arguments for a re-write, not wholesale deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Per NPOV, each claim must be given due weight. That means that scientific consensus is stated as fact while psudoscience is called out as psudoscience. Giving science a chance to make a counterclaim against psudoscience is a violation of NPOV. I deleted all information that implied or depended on the proposition that FC is science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you re-write, you do not just blanket delete (including removing the criticism of the procedure).Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the "criticism of facilitated communication":

According to skeptic Steven Novella, a professor at Yale University School of Medicine, Sequenzia's writings under FC are unusually eloquent for a nonverbal autistic individual. He additionally stated that there is no given explanation for how she spontaneously learned to read and write at an advanced level when she was eight years old. Novella also said that he would have to personally meet her understand better. In response to this and other studies that found the facilitator and not the facilitated are doing the communication, Sequenzia has said that critics of facilitated communication do not understand how a neurodivergent brain works or how their body responds to internal and external output; that organizations such as ASHA have a financial interest in people needing oral speech to communicate; and that skeptics don't meet FC users, care about the learning process, or acknowledge studies of authorship. She has labelled most of those critics as bigots who have fear and disdain for those they believe are intellectually disabled.

This passage fails to communicate that the technique is psudoscience, and I don't see how it is salvageable. I don't see how any of the information I deleted could be useful in an article which reflects the psudoscientific nature of FC. For instance, it makes no sense to include quotes from a person who cannot communicate. If the article cannot be re-written, it may have to be deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You are making the claim that FC is pseudoscience based on incredibly tight goalposts. Again, I have provided [extensive evidence] that it is not. There are many, many qualitative studies confirming authorship that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Now it has to be "medline indexed" in order to be reliable, apparently. I will wait for admin intervention. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain which bit of that "Extensive evidence" you link to is the bit we should read to show us that this is not pseudoscience? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All of it does. The idea that FC is pseudoscience is predicated on an antiquated version of what autism is (which is why that page includes research on autism being a neuro-motor condition and presumption of competence.) However, I did provide a specific journal article on the Amy Sequenzia Talk page when I was asked to provide something from within the last five years. (This one.) And I know that you saw it, because you responded. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Was That when you carpet bombed us with a couple of pages chock full of refs? And that one has been superseded. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I presented other evidence to the people I was debating, and it was ignored before that point in time (of which you were not a part of, so I'm not sure why you say "us"). Then I made a comprehensive list of my information because I wanted to show that there was a lot of evidence, not just a few articles that supported my view. You call it "carpet bombing." I call it being thorough. I then took a break for a while, because I was offended by your comment to "put in the work" as if I hadn't just spent hours debating people and then a good while formatting and arranging a list that would be easy to read, and then you just showed up and refused to look at any of it.

Then you did the same thing when you glanced at the article I posted, apparently misread the date on it, and responded condescendingly, ("What part of 'in the last five years' don't you understand?"), which I thought was completely uncalled for. I have not mentioned that to this point, but I will now, because I don't know who you are or why you're being so dismissive of me.

The issue is complicated, but you're all pretending it's cut-and-dry, as if human competence isn't complex and our understanding of it isn't ever-evolving. These are human beings. I'm not pretending that FC is never used incorrectly, because it is, and people who have used it to build motor control and have gone on to type independently (which is the actual end goal of FC) have talked about the potential for ethical violations. Removing FC as learning method entirely isn't the answer, though, because some people need physical support to start. Regulation of the profession is the answer. However, we can't regulate the profession if this idea of it being pseudoscience keeps persisting.

To those outside of the debate, it might look like I'm some nut who was falsely convinced by the "ideomotor phenomenon" or whatever and is now trying to break science by including falsities on Wikipedia. I'm not. I'm only saying that there's enough evidence of FC that you can't, in good conscience, act like everything that was ever produced via FC should be discarded entirely. (I haven't touched the facilitated communication article because I'm not ready for that mess yet, but it does not present a comprehensive understanding of FC and the history of its research. Even the first line saying that it is also known as "hand-over-hand" is wrong; there are dozens of versions of facilitating and only one of them is hand-over-hand.)

Anyway, I disagree that the article provided has been "superseded." I think there is no way to win this debate due to the other side's shifting goalposts. First, it's "well, there's no evidence," then it's "too much information," then it's "well, it has to be in a peer-reviewed journal", then it's "well, there's no review", and now it's "oh, it has to be medline indexed." My point is that removing large swathes of information on living people because you refuse to acknowledge qualitative studies on the efficacy of their communication method due to whatever your arbitrary rules are on what is or isn't considered proof of authorship is, I think, inappropriate. Thus the request for admin intervention. --Anomalapropos (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

We defer to Wikipedia's guidelines on medical referencing. Qualitative case studies hold no status against reviews published in reputable journals, and neither do editorials. It is common and encouraged for review articles to omit low quality sources from their analysis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And I would suggest that someone's method of communication not be held to the same standards as those governing the provision of medical advice.

[Addition: To provide an example, to say, "Amy Sequenzia said these words [using FC]" is not the same thing as saying "FC is appropriate and successful for every single non-speaking autistic person." Unless you have a particular reliable source that says that Amy Sequenzia *specifically* could not have possibly communicated using FC because of whatever reason, I don't think that referring to a literature review that ignores qualitative evidence of FC being used effectively is a good enough reason to discount everything that could have been communicated via FC and excluding it from Wikipedia articles. And repeat this argument for every other specific person who uses it.] --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The general does prove the specific. There is no need to debunk the same pseudoscientific claim each time it is made. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For the convenience of the administrators, here is a list of pages related to this discussion.

• Autism rights movement
• Amy Sequenzia‎
• Lucy Blackman
• Sue Rubin‎
• Benjamin Alexander (writer)
• Neurodiversity‎

There are also other pages about facilitated communication and it's users, but I have only listed those pages that are in dispute. The other pages for the most part seem to reflect the psudoscientific nature of FC. This 2014 literature review concludes "Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity." I do not believe that any reputable source exists to challenge it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship." So this review ignores every qualitative study that has proven efficacy, and we're using that as the sole determiner for whether FC is pseudoscientific or not? Quantitative data isn't the only reliable source, particularly when you're trying to evaluate competence. Just because someone gets an "F" on a test doesn't mean they don't know the material. There are a lot of factors involved. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We defer to Wikipedia's guidelines on medical referencing. Qualitative case studies hold no status against reviews published in reputable journals, and neither do editorials. It is common and encouraged for review articles to omit low quality sources from their analysis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718, you've also been deleting material from Autism rights movement. Please add it to your list of pages related to the discussion above. CatPath (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless one can play the speech synthesizer like Hawking, it is extremely doubtful that FC would be effective. If the goal of FC is to teach people play it, then I agree that it is a worthy cause. Otherwise the S from CUDOS prevails. And, yes, always citing high-quality sources prevents Wikipedia from turning into a PR venue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Extremely doubtful that it would be effective by whose measure? How is it that applying your objective measure of someone's competence, without being inside of their head, determines whether or not they are capable of doing something? And how are you able to apply your measure to every single person who might use FC? What diagnoses do each of these people have? What is their measured IQ? What about the participants in whom the quantitative studies of FC were conducted? Do we know all of their symptoms? There are people who now type independently who got to that point by using FC to start. So I can already tell you you're wrong.

I'm not arguing that a psychic claiming that their words come from dead loved ones be presented as a fact on an online encyclopedia. I'm saying that unless you can objectively determine that an individual person is incapable of ever using FC to convey their thoughts, then you cannot be removing what they claim are their words on the basis that you think they can't use it.

One of these articles was about someone who attended college and became a writer. There are hundreds of people who have seen this person every single day and interact with them. And for a random Wikipedia editor to remove the entire article on the basis that they decided that it couldn't possibly have happened and that nothing in that article can be presented as fact... even though they presumably have never met this person, know nothing about who they are, what their story is, what their symptoms are, and whether or not they are capable of using a letter board or a keyboard to convey their thoughts, based on, what, a diagnosis of a condition that has an incredibly wide expression of symptoms? And then that person can just point to numbers as their proof?

This isn't medical advice, and it shouldn't be held to the standard of it. It's people talking about their own lives. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In the end science is about what can be measured. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Measurements without context are meaningless. Science is not always right. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you have just agreed that science is not on your side. And for qualitative evidence, the courts have consistently found that facilitated communication is not a valid communication technique. See List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but you've definitely misinterpreted what I said. When I say "science is not always right," I'm saying that the science you are relying on is wrong. (In particular, I'm saying that their interpretation of the results is based on an objective measurement of competence and that our understanding of competence, particularly in autistic people, is very different now than it was in the 90s. Also, the data shows that FC was unable to be validated in double blind controlled studies. It doesn't show that FC is never effective ever. And we know that it can be because, again, there are people who type independently now who once used FC. But these people are very inconvenient to your argument, so instead of addressing them, you just pretend I haven't mentioned them at all! And then you make up arbitrary rules for what further specific proof needs to be done first before you could accept that anyone at all could possibly need someone to brace their shoulder in order to be able to type something!

I'm not saying science is not on my side, because it is. I'm not the one denying science here. I'm not the one shifting the goalposts to make up excuses to ignore very obvious evidence of its effectiveness. I can see that it is not effective in some cases. I can see that there is evidence of facilitator influence on occasion. Yes, that's definitely a problem. However, I can also see that there is clear evidence that it does work for some people. The thing is, this argument starts with the premise that I'm some kook ignoring science, but I'm not. You're looking at biased past interpretations of people's levels of competence, and you're using them to make generalizations of other people's levels of competence. Like I said, without even knowing the people involved, the argument you're making is that scientists who measured competence and, with their own inherent biases, interpreted the results are a more reliable source than literally anyone in that person's life.

Criticizing a method is not admitting that science isn't in my side. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There's always one. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Y'all just keep eloquently proving my point. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Doing my daily bored ANI browse, but this appears to be a giant content dispute - not sure there's anything for ANI to really do here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Is there any way you could transfer this discussion to the proper place? Thank you. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiman2718: I'm not sure what the best place for the discussion would be, possibly the autism wikiproject? SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: I'm new here, so I'm not entirely sure how these sort of disputes work. The dispute has to do with autism, pseudoscience, medicine, and the biographies of living people. It's ok if you're not sure where to put it. I'm sure someone will come along who can move this to where it needs to be. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What he is saying is this is a content dispute, and thus should be talked about over at the articles talk page. This is for reporting disruption, and that is all you should be talking about, users conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• For archives, adding recent related noticeboard discussions:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 65#Facilitated communication
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive284#Amy Sequenzia
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#Amy Sequenzia

—PaleoNeonate – 07:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In light of these archived discussions, I think this dispute should be moved to the medicine noticeboards. The wikipedians there will be properly equipped to evaluate the evidence at hand. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is not a case of medicine. This is a case of a user unwilling to accept what is right in front of them. Whether you think facilitated communication can work or not, there are users who have technically graduated college and have diplomas in their names. There are users who have their names on published poetry and books. And there are users who now type independently. Whether you like it or not, these are incontrovertible facts that do not need to be established by a doctor. You can argue to the moon and back about this, but you can't be removing facts from Wikipedia just because the implications of it are contrary to a human interpretation of scientific data. That is why I brought this here. Your actions are entirely unreasonable in the grand scheme of things. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I am referring to edits such as these (but not limited to these): 1, 2, 3, and especially 4. I've had this debate about content before, but no one else was making edits like these, and that's still what I'm disputing here. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A consensus that FC is psudoscience would means that all statements which imply that such people can communicate would have to be removed. FC users are not activists and they are not authors; they are disabled people who are being taken advantage of. The pages of all FC users will have to be re-written to reflect this. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The review you linked did not conclude that "FC is pseudoscience." That phrase is meaningless because "facilitated communication" could potentially mean half a dozen different techniques. Further, it clearly does work, because there are people who are now at a level of competence that is widely accepted to be a valid method of communication (i.e., being able to independently type on a keyboard, i.e., like I myself am doing right now) who have used this widely-considered-valid method to confirm that FC helped them to get to the point they are at now. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The review addresses FC in general. A number of older reviews find the same, but we prefer to cite the most recent literature. FC was considered debunked in the 90s. There are claims of FC users learning to type independently, but much like FC itself, no such claim has ever been verified scientifically (or even by a reliable source). The mainstream media that reports on FC without acknowledging it's pseudoscientific status is not reliable. It is normal to find such media on issues of pseudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not yet seen evidence concluding it is "pseudoscientific" or "debunked." I have seen a review concluding that there is evidence of facilitator influence in some of the messages, and I have seen theories as to why. There is no evidence concluding that every message communicated via FC is influenced, so no, it is not "debunked." We are dealing with human beings, not "spirits" or "ghosts." It is not possible to "debunk" a method of communication. Presumably there is a point at which one is competent enough to use it; correct?

FC has, in fact, been verified scientifically and by reliable sources, just by ones that you refuse to acknowledge. In regards to independent typers, Ido Kedar's book, Ido in Autismland, contains a foreword written by Dr. Yoram Bonneh of the Department of Human Biology at the University of Haifa, Isreal that verifies his identity and abilities. This may or may not be considered a "reliable source" based on whatever goalposts you're using today, but you are wrong yet again. And this is only one example. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time a professor made false claims about FC. Anna Stubblefield made a similar claim, but the courts disagreed. She later revoked that claim. If your evidence is not a WP:Med review, it doesn't count. I think that consensus has been established. In light of WP:BLPRS, I have decided to remove all material that implies or depends upon the proposition that FC is effective from all relavent pages. This will include the near blanking of Amy Sequenzia and the re-titling of Benjamin Alexander (writer). @Slatersteven: We can discuss the potential for re-write or deletion on the talk page. I will help you re-build the page if we decide to keep it. @Anomalapropos: Please do not try to revert these edits. If you do, I will have to change them back per WP:GRAPEVINE. I believe that I am justified in making these changes. If I am not, I am sure the administrators on this forum will take appropriate action against me. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to produce evidence (or a consensus) that facilitated communication is never effective, and this response is exactly why I asked for admin intervention. You are interpreting data to fit your own agenda and refusing to accept anything else. It is a violation of neutral point-of-view. I hope administrative action is taken on these disruptive edits that are meant to obscure facts which for which reliable sources exist and for which no reliable source contradicts. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have produced evidence per WP:MED. You seem to be the only one who disagrees here, and your opinion is grounded in ignoring guidelines. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your "evidence" was not a scientific consensus. It was a review of quantitative studies. Which guideline am I ignoring? --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

See what scientists say at [34]. Otherwise, Wikipedia is very strongly biased against the promotion of WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

An article is not a scientific consensus either. I can quote scientists who disagree with those ones. However, we can only deal with very specific sources, according to the people here who think its pseudoscientific, so within those parameters, I want to see the scientific consensus that FC is never effective. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We have a WP:PAG, it's called WP:RS/AC. That's how we know what the scientific consensus is. Another source: [35]. Now, I'm not claiming that these are WP:MEDRS-quality sources, but from them you may Google further to what those professors published and have stated in court. Speaking of US courts, these have not recognized FC as true speech of the facilitated person. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718 shouldn't be deleting huge swaths of content without a consensus, but if the consensus goes in favor of writing BLPs from the point of view of the people using pseudo-science to exploit the BLP subject for their own benefit, then Wikipedia has gone crazy. ApLundell (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We also have a WP:MEDS quality source. concludes "Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity." Per WP:GRAPEVINE, consensus is not necessary to delete such contentious information. Reguardless, I do believe there is consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will again suggest that a person's competence cannot be measured by a random editor on Wikipedia by pointing at data sets for the method of communication that they used, that the competence of all people can be unreliable in controlled settings, and that the qualitative evidence for FC means that the only neutral action is to use reliable sources about the specific person. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, we don't want fringe POV pushers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The idea that the BLP subject is being exploited for someone else's benefit is your opinion, not a truth, as yet again, there is no scientific consensus that FC never works, and there is scientific proof that it can. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, you aren't a published scientist/scholar so it is all original research. Please see Howard Shane#Facilitated Communication. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

None of what I said is my opinion. I have referenced published scientists and scholars to back up everything that I have said. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest using other venues for WP:RS/AC denialism. Maybe you should try Conservapedia. Or your own blog. Here we are very biased for mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you review denialism yourself. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Denying that FC is WP:FRINGE/PS is a testimony that you lack an adequate understanding of the problem. There could be a WP:PAG-based dialogue if you admit that it is fringe, bereft of that agreement there can be no rational discussion with you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Denying incontrovertible evidence that FC can be effective, and then falling back on arbitrary guidelines for what counts as a fringe theory (and refusing to engage me when I try to clarify) indicates the same for you. I continue to be accused of being irrational for judging all of the evidence fairly (there is no reason not to, considering that evidence for FC outnumbers evidence against it) ... and yet you, and other users here, refuse to acknowledge other evidence at all, based on your belief that it is debunked, end of story ... which is easily contradicted. --Anomalapropos (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that:

• the rules which apply to debate championships (Debatepedia) don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to Academic Publishing Wiki don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to MBTI don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to Hindawi don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to the academia don't apply to Wikipedia.

To give you an example: for science experiments are decisive. For Wikipedia the scientific literature is decisive, not experiments. Wikipedia is in no position to perform its own scientific experiments. You might have the greatest discovery in natural science, if it hasn't been published with peer-review and accepted as mainstream science, it is useless junk for Wikipedia. We do describe scientific hypotheses, but we don't describe them as facts. So, if WP:CHOPSY derides it, it has to fulfill WP:EXTRAORDINARY in order to pass for accepted as science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You are again referring to guidelines and presuming a scientific consensus without offering evidence of this being the case. You are continuing to apply rules to this situation as if we have already established that point. We have not. The reason I am being interpreted as repeating my points over and over is because you are failing to provide evidence, but you keep engaging me as if you have done so already.

Re: WP:CHOPSY: "The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In matters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Wikipedia purposes." Great. This is what I'm advocating for. As per this journal article, "the preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills."

To me, this makes it pretty clear that the majority of evidence points towards some effectiveness. In response, I have been provided an article that quote scientists claiming that there is a consensus on the issue, and a literature review that excludes the majority of evidence for FC's efficacy and concentrates on data that was obtained 15-20 years ago. By all standards, I have not been provided with a scientific consensus. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are by default a person with a mission, so you will never agree to the WP:RS/AC or that you would have been provided with it. In the reality-based community the consensus is overly clear, and Wikipedia is not a front for renegotiating the medical consensus. You default to WP:IDHT. Your aim is to raise low-quality sources above high-quality sources (i.e. reviews indexed for the MEDLINE, a recent one which was told to you says the opposite of what you say). That is unacceptable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop presuming you know what my intentions are, and please also refrain from suggesting that I am removed from reality.

I am not trying to "renegotiate" the consensus; I am trying to get proof of it. You are referring to my sources as "low-quality" in order to discredit my argument. They are in peer-reviewed academic journals. These are not low-quality sources.

As I have already said, the review you are speaking of excluded the majority of evidence for FC's efficacy and concentrates on data that was obtained 15-20 years ago. This is not a consensus. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I meant: WP:IDHT—you have chosen to reject the medical consensus. That is just your choice, not ours. Also, the consensus claim does not stand or fall by only one paper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

How does WP:IDHT apply? I am asking you for proof of the consensus, not rejecting it. I am not pretending I didn't hear you; you literally are just refusing to provide evidence to back up your claim. That's you pretending you didn't hear me, not the other way around.

"the consensus claim does not stand or fall by only one paper" -- Exactly. There is no consensus because the data in peer-reviewed journal articles is conflicting. You are picking and choosing which evidence counts as acceptable, then treating me as if I am ignoring common sense when I ask for clarification, and ignoring the science that doesn't support it by claiming it doesn't meet the standard of a medical claim, even though "facilitated communication" is not a medical claim. --01:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not the place to educate you about WP:RS/AC. But speaking of WP:SOURCES, I have mentioned several, I have even translated quotes for you. You just don't take "no" for an answer. For a start, read the WP:RS of facilitated communication. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you gave me quotes from a web page that had a few scientists claiming there was a consensus. This does not constitute a consensus. The facilitated communication article violates WP:NPOV, and I don't consider it to be a reliable source on its own. The sources that were used for the article mainly criticize it. I'm quite aware of this.

However, there are more sources of the same quality that say otherwise (of which I have provided many, via the Amy Sequenzia Talk page). So again, we are looking at a curated list of reliable sources that make a number of claims about FC's efficacy (again, no consensus that it can never work; only that there is evidence of facilitator influence) versus another curated list of reliable sources, many of which support authorship in FC.

If I could draw an analogy, this argument is like trying to determine the scientific consensus on the use of a keyboard. There is no consensus, because people have individual capabilities that are a result of a number of factors. At some threshold of competence, a keyboard is useless, yes, and we can provide many studies of it not being effective, but none of it means that the "consensus" is that it is useless to everybody. Clearly, it can be useful to some people.

So I am disputing the use of quantitative data to make determinations of the competence of every person who uses FC. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To me the above sounds like you dig yourself into a hole. Also, are you a WP:SOCK or WP:CLEANSTART? You seem to remind me of some editor, although I don't know precisely who (there were fringe POV pushers at acupuncture and also at the GMO arbitration case). E.g. you sound much like [36], an editor who was also involved in discussions about autism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I have been pretty clear about my reasoning. No hole that I can see. Unless you have new information, I'll reserve further comments. I have never been to either of those pages. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To be sure, that's not a denial (as answer to my question). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a confirmation either. I'm not responding because I'm not obligated to. --Anomalapropos (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Outside opinion

OK, speaking strictly as an outsider to this little conflict, I have a few observations:

• Anomalapropos appears to be, based on a scan of their contributions by a non-admin, a single-purpose account focused on autism rights advocacy and closely related topics.
• The locus of dispute here appears to be a garden-variety content dispute; however, Anomalapropos appears to be pushing a POV that is not supported by sources that meet WP:MEDRS, while those on the other side of the dispute are attempting to enforce policy regarding the scientific consensus.
• Any time that someone disagrees with Anomalapropos, the response is, essentially, a recap of their current position and insistence that qualitative sources trump quantitative ones, that context trumps the weight of evidence, while remaining unfailingly polite.
• A full month ago, Bishonen already gave Anomalapropos good advice on their talk page, suggesting that they try working in a less-controversial area and try to build more consensus for their edits; this seems to have had no effect on their editing patterns.

My non-admin opinion, based on this information: Anomalapropos is a tendentious civil POV-pushing editor advocating a fringe theory regarding autism in general and facilitated communication in particular, who has engaged in WP:IDHT behavior towards advice intended to de-escalate the situation and demonstrated an inability to drop the stick and re-examine their behavior. They appear to be here not to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to right great wrongs against autistic individuals. Despite my own being on the autism spectrum, this doesn't give me any confidence that Anomalapropos is going to be able to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this point, and it might be time to start discussing a block. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am a new user, and I haven't edited other topics yet. You are correct. If any of my edits have not been neutral, please point them out in order to provide evidence that I am violating WP:NPOV.

Again, this is not a content dispute. I came here to discuss a user's disruptive edits. The user has blanked pages and removed large amounts of information without discussing his edits first (and when they are challenged, he simply reverts them and shuts down dissent). For example, after I reported his behaviour, he started a nomination for deletion of Amy Sequenzia's article by claiming that there was a "consensus" reached on this page to nominate it; there was not. He is disruptive because he is taking actions without discussing them when they are actively in dispute.

There is no scientific consensus that FC is not effective, and I have explained myself numerous times. Continuing to say it is does not prove otherwise.

Any time someone disagrees with me, I try to get clarification. I assume this is a normal way to respond, but I could be wrong. If you interpret my responses as restating my position, perhaps there is a misunderstanding that we are both missing. I'm not sure what me being unfailingly polite has to do with it, except that I can point out that, despite my unfailing "politeneness," several users involved have questioned my competency and good faith, but I have not reported any of these. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

The advice that was given to me had to do with making edits before discussing them -- exactly what is happening here, but on a grander scale.

My non-admin opinion is that if I am blocked for challenging the perception that FC can never work and proving incontrovertible evidence that it can, but [User:Wikiman2718] is not sanctioned for his extremely bold edits that remove facts backed up by reliable sources without being open to a discussion first, then perhaps we have very different ideas of what it means to contribute productively. --Anomalapropos (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your mistaken assumptions:

• • that we would have free (aka unstructured) debate (no, we don't);
  • that Wikipedia would be a level playing field between medical orthodoxy and altmed (no, it isn't);
  • that all opinions/sources are equal and should be treated equally (no, they aren't). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never implied any of those things. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you will have to acknowledge that the medical orthodoxy is that FC is WP:FRINGE/PS. As simple as that. Just stick to mainstream scientific sources, that's their final verdict about FC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have provided you with a mainstream scientific source that says otherwise. There is no "final verdict" as much as you want there to be. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Good, that's evidence of WP:IDHT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang

Per WP:BOOMERANG I request a topic ban for Anomalapropos for all topics that can be construed as WP:FRINGE. Yes, this includes mentions of fringe topics in articles about mainstream topics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I would note that this user is making this request based on our disagreement on interpretation of sources for a very specific subject and not as a result of any edits I have made. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's just your view. I will let others chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anomalapropos: It is clear that you have good intentions, and it must be hard to see so much of your work under threat. However, there is absolutely unequivocal evidence against FC, and we must obey WP:RS guidelines. If you cannot see that, it might be better for you to edit in another area. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The evidence proved that there was facilitator influence in some messages. Not all messages. Some. This is not "unequivocal evidence against FC." And when placed next to other reliable sources of similar quality, it is clear that there is unequivocal evidence for FC. There might appear to be a consensus based on the synthesis of information that you have cherry-picked, but this qualifies as original research, not proof of a consensus.

I continue to contend that there is no consensus due to the conflicting evidence that scientific studies have presented in regards to the use of FC, and again, these are not low-quality articles. They are peer-reviewed and in academic journals. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

For clarity:

> I came to report a user making disruptive edits; user says they were not disruptive edits because WP:FRINGE implies that every source is unreliable.

> I responded that WP:FRINGE does not apply, because there is no scientific consensus on the efficacy of FC.

> We exchanged sources. The evidence in said sources is clearly conflicting.

> There is a claim that specific sources outweigh mine because you have to go with guidelines for WP:MEDRS

> I have disputed this as well; I don't think that a method of communication constitutes Wikipedia:Biomedical information that needs to be governed by WP:MEDRS; this definition of "training" on the biomedical information page -- "how a person learns to do a job, or what tests they have to take to do that job legally, is not biomedical information" -- could apply.

> Further, like with every single method of communication, there is obviously a point at which facilitated communication can be effective 100% of the time (e.g., with a speaking person who has enough control of their body and can verify that it does work).

> If I am wrong on that point, please explain. But if I am right, then WP:MEDRS certainly doesn't apply to articles like Amy Sequenzia. Without an independent measure of her competence, one can't possibly claim that very specific sources have determined that she is too incompetent to use FC successfully (and that these very specific sources apply to the exclusion of all other sources that would otherwise be reliable).

> I say "otherwise" because the reliability of these sources is apparently challenged by WP:FRINGE

> Even though its inclusion in WP:FRINGE is what I am asking for a reliable source on in the first place (back to top and repeat)

Did I miss anything? --Anomalapropos (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have learned to perform qualitative analysis. But the professors told me upfront that "qualitative analysis is exploratory, not confirmatory". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Anomalapropos from all pseudoscientific topics. He has thoroughly demonstrated a willful disregard for Wikipedia's standards on fringe topics, and there is no point to allow him to continue editing in this area. His contributions and arguments are nearly certain to be rejected by any guideline-minded editor, and allowing him to even participate in dispute resolution on such topics will simply continue to waste everyone's time. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for fringe topics subject to MEDRS , but I think all fringe may be too broad. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't pseudoscience, as a topic area, under discretionary sanctions? (WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions) Unless I'm much mistaken, the DS in that area remain active. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from fringe topics subject to MEDRS. @Jéské Couriano: yes, pseudoscience is under DS, but Anomalapropos hasn't been alerted to them. @Anomalapropos:, you are not merely "being interpreted as repeating [your] points over and over", as you say above; you are repeating your points over and over, and thereby bludgeoning the discussion. Your debating technique is a waste of our most precious resource, which is constructive editors' time and patience. Meanwhile, I don't see our article Facilitated communication listed above. It states that FC is "a scientifically discredited technique" and puts it in the category pseudoscience. That might could have been a better original point of departure for this discussion, on WP:FTN rather than here. There was a discussion there in May, but quite short, and without input from Anomalapropos. But Anomalapropos has taken it here, to ANI, where a boomerang is always possible, in an apparent attempt to get an opponent sanctioned. One last point for information: Anomalapropos, you suggest above that "WP:MEDRS certainly doesn't apply to articles like Amy Sequenzia". Please note that if you should be topic banned according to this discussion, but continue to edit Amy Sequenzia and similar BLP articles according to your conviction that it doesn't apply to them, you can be topic banned from BLPs also, by a single admin, since you have been alerted to DS for those. Bishonen | talk 08:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC).

Perhaps you can tell me why WP:MEDRS applies to an individual's method of communication instead of telling me I'll be banned for questioning its application. --Anomalapropos (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Support I am not sure they do not have a mildly valid point, there does seem to be some recent research which supports FC, but in no one overturns the rest of the studies (partly because of methodology issues). But at the same time this has been taking up a lot of other users time, and does look very much like advocacy. Thus I am hovering between oppose and support, and would rather some other restriction was in place (such as a no edits without consensus ruling).Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And I did not here that is enough for me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on all Pseudoscience, Fringe and Project Med related articles for this user who refuses to follow Wiki Policy regarding sourcing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't necessarily oppose, but I'm not sure about "all fringe topics" - is the goal to allow editing in less controversial subtopics of autism? If there is an apparent conflict of interest, could it affect objective editing about autism in general? And another option may be mentoring, but this would require both a generous volunteer and Anomalapropos would have to accept and drop the stick whenever told by the mentor that a source or edit are not acceptable. Just food for thought for the future depending on the outcome. —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for all topics that can be construed as WP:FRINGE, as proposed by Tgeorgescu. I see no sign Anomalapropos is willing to abide by our policies. - Donald Albury 15:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to further clarify that the position you are all taking is that Wikipedia cannot refer to movies created by people who use FC (Wretches & Jabberers, Autism is a World, Deej) or books written by people who use FC (The Mind Tree, The Reason I Jump, Fall Down 7 Times Get Up 8) except in a critical light; must remove prominent figures (e.g., Amy Sequenzia, Lucy Blackman, Sue Rubin, Benjamin Alexander (writer), Tito Mukhopadhyay, Naoki Higashida) or otherwise blank their pages or downplay any "purported" achievements, because any source that validates their method of communication is automatically considered unreliable, including peer-reviewed academic articles (some of which were written by FC users themselves about their own experiences), because WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS? Because if that's the position, I'll just leave willingly. --Anomalapropos (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

you really are doing yourself no favours.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that a yes? --Anomalapropos (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Its a drop it now, read wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're misunderstanding me because, like half of the other people involved here, I'm autistic. If this is the correct interpretation of the rules, then I do not want to participate in Wikipedia anymore. So if the answer is "yes," then I am willingly going to leave, and you will literally not have to deal with me anymore.

I am asking for a "yes" or "no" answer. Is that the correction interpretation of the rules? --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the number of block votes should give you the answer, and there is now one more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You honestly believe that I'm not having trouble interpreting your meaning and that I'm trying to cause trouble. But I literally asked for a yes or no response here, and explained why I needed one, and you've again responded by essentially saying, "We already told you." Could you please just take my words exactly for what they are and respect that I really and truly just want someone to say, "Yes, this is the correct interpretation of the rules"? Or are you going to respond with another non-answer and then accuse me of being disruptive? --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We are not against people with autism. There is an essential decision as a Wikipedia editor: "Do I obey the rules and the decisions of the community?" Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, your statement suggesting that a whole set of articles that mention FC in some capacity need to be deleted is not a correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy. It's also not really relevant to the issue at hand, which is that you are continuing to argue your points even though it is clear that there is a strong consensus among other editors that these arguments do not hold water. You may personally disagree with that, but a key Wikipedia policy is that consensus must be respected––you can disagree with it, but endlessly repeating the same arguments and opening ANI cases against the editors you are disagreeing with is not the way to go about doing it. The appropriate way to have handled this situation would have been to state your case, and then step aside and allow other editors to weigh in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's actually completely relevant to the issue at hand, because this whole discussion started because those articles are being targeted in this way, and because that was the consensus. So you are saying that those edits are not a correct interpretation of the editing policy, but when I question those edits being made and try to explain why they're not a correct interpretation of the policy, I'm also violating a policy. I'm actually more confused now than before. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You're not getting a straight yes or no answer because that's the content issue. The issue in this section is the behavioral one - whether you're arguing in a disruptive way. Abiding by consensus can mean walking away even when you're sure you're right. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

At which point should I have walked away? --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

[Edit:] You're probably gonna say something like it doesn't matter. I mean, I've basically accepted there's going to be some kind of action at this point, so I just want to make sure I understand clearly. I brought this issue here to ask for intervention on edits of this kind, and it's clear there won't be any, and there won't be any because the consensus is that WP:FRINGE applies.

One of the editors who disagreed with me on this matter spent just as much time arguing the matter as I did, and then proposed that I be topic banned from WP:FRINGE, and the supportive comments for the ban are saying that I am not respecting the WP:FRINGE guidelines. That sounds very much like you agreeing with their interpretation of the content; they are respecting the WP:FRINGE guidelines for edits, and I am not. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Anomalapropos, the issue is that you're arguing against consensus and against policy. Yes, there are some editors you're arguing with who maybe have also been responding too much. But at the end of the day, there is a consensus, and you are the only editor arguing against it.

As for when to stop arguing, there were many points where you could have walked away and avoided sanctions. Before coming to ANI was one. After Wikiman2718 explained their position would have been another. The moment when a subsection was created for "Outside opinion" would have been an excellent time to walk away. Best behavior on ANI is briefly stating your perspective, and then stepping aside and letting uninvolved editors weigh in, only adding comments if someone specifically asks you for a clarification Although it can be noted that many experienced editors also fail to behave this way, usually to their own detriment. If other editors want to badger you endlessly, let them, it'll reflect more poorly on them than on you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The consensus in this case was that FC counts as WP:FRINGE, so I have to go with that, and trying to clarify how this became the consensus is when I should have walked away? --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. Once it's clear a consensus has been established, the best move is to accept that (even if you disagree with the consensus), and either work on the article within that consensus or move on to other articles/topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm with you up to that point. In this case, the editor I reported as well as the editor who requested my topic ban have both gone on to nominating articles for deletion based upon this consensus that I am meant to accept. (see here for example)

I think these are pretty major edits for something that I'm not sure should be fringe in the first place. But I'm outnumbered so I can't question them. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Context: This edit started everything. I brought it to the BLP noticeboard in mid-May. Someone alerted people who believe that FC qualifies to be treated as WP:FRINGE. Uninvolved editors showed up, ignored anything said at the BLP Noticeboard, and took the argument back to Sequenzia's Talk page.

I backed away for a bit. Two weeks later, User:Wikiman2718 begins deleting things relating to FC users, eventually leading to blanking Sequenzia's page and nominating it for deletion.

The reasons that User:Tgeorgescu (the person who requested this ban) and User:Ylevental (the person I had the original dispute with) give on the deletion page are both: "According to WP:LUNATICS and WP:FRINGE sources that endorse facilitated communication fail WP:RS as unreliable." At the bottom of the page, User:Wikiman2718 writes "I would love to have an article on her, but a brief google search did not return any reliable results. If anyone can find reliable sources (written from the view that FC is psudoscience) please post them here."

They are taking these actions based on what they have decided the consensus on FC is, and they believe no other sources can prove them wrong because those sources are immediately ruled unreliable per WP:FRINGE. If that is not the correct course of action, well, I hope anyone else who tries to explain why doesn't have it fly back in their face. lol. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In the reality-based WP:RS channeling isn't treated as valid/real (it is not taken at face value). Same story with FC. So we describe what Jane Roberts attributed to Seth, but we never say in Wikipedia's voice that there is a real spirit, Seth, who told her that. In the reality-based world some views won and some views lost. Spiritualism and FC lost. We simply take this at face value. It is not our job to renegotiate the medical consensus upon FC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support Doesn't seem much alternative, really... (and I love that WP:Disruptive editing has a redirect from WP:Tenditious, but WP:Tendentious goes to WP:Tendentious editing - how cool and mystifying is that?) -- Begoon 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marvin 2009

User:Marvin 2009's history shows that he's a single purpose account pushing a pro-FLG narrative on the highly contentious Falun Gong articles, which are under an arbitration case. He has engaged in soapboxing on the talk pages [37][38][39][40][41] where he attempts to discredit sources critical of FLG. He was also involved with edit warring, with User:Unicornblood2018 (now banned) [42] who he called a CCP apologist, and previously, he received several warnings for his disruptive editing [43], and was blocked for 48 hours for violating 3RR. In light of this I think a topic ban may be in order--PatCheng (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• None of the diffs you linked to seem to show problematic editing on the article itself- and the archive of his talk page only shows me that you and him have had past disagreements, going back 3 years. While verbose talk page walls of text are unpleasant, this strikes me as a dispute over sourcing and content, which ANI usually doesn't get involved in. Furthermore, his last edit to the Falun Gong article was around 2 months ago. I'm not sure this situation warrants a T-ban. Non-admin comment by: Rivselis (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciated User Rivselis's fair comments to User PatCheng. However, sock puppet account is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please use a legitimate account instead.

I paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article Zhang Jianhong (a poet who died of CCP's human rights abuse). FG topic is human rights related and I did some research in the area, so it became one focus. But I did edit other pages as well, refrigeration is one example. In my sand box, i started to work on a new page. I am going to work on many other areas as well.

As I notice the reason that human rights related pages often were not following WP:5P2 and showed poor quality, was mainly because there were some users who always promoted Pro-CCP narrative while disregarding Wikipedia policies. Sometimes I discussed with users on Talk Page. User PatCheng's contribution history showed the user was heavily involved in pro-CCP narrative in FG topic, such as Epochtimes. His complain against me here seems not to follow WP:COI?

As the link provide by PatCheng showed, I did not call the named user CCP apologist. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Marvin, I have not edited WP for years, and I am not an employee of any agency, so WP:COI can be more apt describing your edit patterns, which shows a distinctly similar pattern to User:Asdfg12345 and User:HappyInGeneral who are both topic banned from FLG articles per WP:FLG-A and have left WP as a result. Furthermore, a check on your edit history shows that the majority of your edits revolves around FLG related articles, with refrigeration at the very bottom, and have also spent quite a time sparring with User:STSC.--PatCheng (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

PatCheng: I asked whether your complain against me here seems not to follow WP:COI. Your answer regarding you "not edited WP for years" is not relevant. Your editing history included many evidence that led to my question on COI. Here let me only name a few.

• Your heavy pro-CCP bias plus your attack against CCP critics without using a reliable source If you can read the Reporters Without Boarders report China’s Pursuit of A New World Media Order, you will find out that the CCP critics you hated so much were not wrong.
• you framed one user's comment as vandal comment and removed it twice But many reliable source (one example - Report Cites Concerns About China's Influence On American Institutions) shows the comment you removed is a basic fact - CCP did infiltrate the world. In recent years, quite a few Chinese oversea engineers have been sentenced for spying on behalf communist party. May I know Why you attacked the user who discussed about CCP's oversea spy operation and removed his posts on talk page? Both you attack and your removal of his posts were against Wikipedia policy.
• you used CCP's cult label to attack and praised CCP's brutal crackdown. CCP's brutal human rights abuse was well documented. Please check a recent media report: Undercover video reveals brutal treatment of Falun Gong prisoners inside Chinese labor camps Your views and behavior on Wikipedia are against the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression, those pillars of modern civilization.

okay, yes, refrigeration is at the bottom of my top edited page list. As i said i cared about human rights, you can see the page 2008 Sichuan Earthquake and the page Zhang Jianghong are at No. 4 and No.6 of the list. I am not a FG single purpose user as you claimed.

I have no ideas on the two IDs you talked about. If you check users contributed to most FG related pages, you can see, over the years, many IDs who edited those pages were blocked. Those IDs showed similar editing pattern as yours: adding CCP propaganda content defying WP:OR or WP:RS, arguing with users who preferred any reliable sources that did not follow CCP party line. Those pro-CCP users were banned because of disregarding multiple Wikipedia policies. The blocked IDs on an arbitration case showed the similar editing pattern as I just discussed as well. You asked another user on his talk page for CU of me. Ironically, it seems that you are a user that needs to be CU. In my opinion, Wikipedia welcomes everybody, Pro-CCP user like you, pro-human rights user like me included. But everyone has to follow editing policies. I did feel sometimes my reply on Talk page were a bit long and unnecessary. I will try to improve in this area. BTW you had long/unnessary discussions as well, here is an example.

Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ivan Gundulić

Please block the user "Mm.srb" for a constant change of the page and write the falsehood about the Croatian poet Ivan Gundulić.Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gunduli%C4%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing conflicts are not decided by edot-warring and calling an opponent "vandal". They are decided by participation in talk page discussions and finding consensus. To help you to understand the point, I protected the page from editing for two weeks and reverted it to the pre-war state.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the editing page, but why did you leave the editing version that was not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not my role to discuss what is correct and what is not. My role is to push you and your opponent to look for consensus. Since you were changing IPs constantly and were blindly reverting your opponent calling his edits "vandalism", whereas they took the trouble to point you out to the talk page, this is the only way to push you going to the talk page. If, after the protection expires, I will see these edits continuing, I will start applying blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, but I have nothing to argue with him about his lies, everything is written in the article about who is Ivan Gundulić .Ragusa is an Italian name for the city of Dubrovnik, there is no nationality of Ragusian that does not exist as you left it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you do not have anything to argue, you will not be able to edit the article. As simple as this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, with a liar, there is nothing to discuss, let it continue to lie,I will not open and read lies on that page anymore.There is no justice here.Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is Croat and Croatian poet, you have to correct the page not to write Serbian propaganda and something that is not, here and proof https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-Gundulic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.107 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Read about why there is no "right version" when protecting a page.

Then read about our reliable sources rules for why we're not going to rely on Britannica as a source.

Then take your discussion to the Talk page and work out your issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to raise a couple of points here: 1) I was not notified about this thread, which is everything but okay. 2) I did not want and do not want to edit war with this IP adress. Most of my edits were constructive and neutral in nature, or at least that is what I gave my best to achieve. 3) A discussion about this issues was opened and opened on the same talk page for some time. 4) The neutral version, that is a poet from Ragusa, was the stable version for a lot of time. This can be checked when comparing histories of the article. 5) Most of other notable figures from the former indepenedent Republic of Ragusa are described in the same manner, per NPOV and historical facts (they had their own Slavic Catholic identity, separate from modern ethnicities). 6) I was labeled and insulted by the same disruptive unregistered user over several times... 7) I think that Ivan Gundulić should be made permanently unavailable for editing to unregistered useres prone to vandalism and offending other users. 8) The same page suffered quite a lot from editors like the one in question for quite some time and I have no doubt that the same behaivour will otherwise continue to take place. Thank you, Mm.srb (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the IP should have notified you of this discussion. As for the rest, there's no chance the page will get permanent protection. The community has been very clear that permanent protection is against the spirit of collaborative editing we want to foster here. That said, if this issue crops up again, make a request at WP:RFPP for a longer-duration protection. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, will do, ty. Mm.srb (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ineedtostopforgetting and disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have given Ineedtostopforgetting a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, including lying about the warnings on their talk page. If the disruption continues, the next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's make some decisions, shall we? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal 1: Temporary ban/block per WP:CIR and/or WP:DISRUPTIVE

• Support, accused user is blatantly lying about "only being warned once" when their talk page history disapproves that theory. Multiple warnings have been issued, but to no avail. I feel like a temporary block is thus necessary right now. However, the ban should not be permanent as the accused user currently has a clean block log, and such edits would probably not warrant an instant indefinite block. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Let the accused user go with a final stern warning

• Oppose, for reasons stated in my reply to proposal 1. Maybe place the accused user under some surveillance after their possible future block expires? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Place the accused user under some form of surveillance so this would hopefully not happen again

• Support, and this would be even better if both proposal 1 and 3 are carried out simultaneously. Placing them under some form of surveillance would hopefully hinder any other bad edits, and it could make the accused user more competent. This could, in the end, lead to very good edits being made by the accused user. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 19:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Topic ban proposal

The behavior seems to be continuing his/her tendentious editing, this time at Singapore-related articles. (See [44] and [45].) Japanese is not even an official language in Singapore. I propose, therefore, that Ineedtostopforgetting be banned from adding, changing, or removing translations or foreign names in articles, and from making edits related to Obayashi Corporation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: - that's not Japanese in the second diff. That's Standard Chinese, spoken in Singapore. you got the wrong second diff. Its [46] starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Refbombing

• Bishunpur-Jaunpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Spallahabad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Bishunpur-Jaunpur is ... remarkable. It seems to be the work of User:Spallahabad, an unfamiliar name to me. I went to their talk page and was surprised to see more (old) messages from me than from anyone else. I don't want to give the user the impression that I'm hounding them, I don't seem to have been successful communicating with them in the past, it's near my bed time, and ... perhaps I'm just a bit lazy. Could somebody else take a look, and, if appropriate, brandish the mop? (Who knows, perhaps I sleepily misunderstand, this user should be praised for diligence in referencing, and the mop should be brandished at me.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable request. Probably an 'objective' admin. should look into it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Everything cited seems to be connected to the Union Bank, except for one which possibly would have made a reasonable source for supporting the PIN in the infobox. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• I put a notice on the user's talk page to ask them to improve the referencing. If the article doesn't get improved, I don't think any administrative action would be needed, but in that case it might be better to revert the article to a version such as this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Kuru has stripped the article of its junk sources (though what's left is unsourced, and isn't even comprehensible; example: It is a village have internal relationship with the village Ramapur from ancients days while), and done the same to a second article, Ramapur. Metropolitan90 has left a message on the user's talk page. So the immediate problem seems to have been fixed. As for longer-term problems, try Talk:Ramapur and Talk:Bishunpur-Jaunpur for the battiness surrounding these articles -- battiness that continues to bring up the name Vivek Kumar Pandey. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 behaviour

Extended content

I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me. Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content: Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [47] Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [48] More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [49] Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [50] The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [51] [52] His reply to the template message [53] Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [54] Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [55] [56] Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [57] One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [58] [59] I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [60] [61] [62] The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me. I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC) It was archived as udea, and I am not sure that you deciding it should not be archived is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC) The archive was done by a bot. I provided diffs, evidences and everything, how can they not try and evaluate this? They can't just discarded this because it was created by me. This been going on way before anything else prior to that. I don't want to let this get sweep under the rug and forgotten. --Vauxford (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC) u|Oshwah I know I shouldn't really ping admins but I talked to you about this before. Please at least look at this, this is nowhere near worst then what I got myself into with the previous discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening this because he has been archived the 2nd time now since nothing has been done about this. Charles01 has reverted my edit after I replaced a picture that wasn't even discussed, it might of been in the talkpage discussion but it was simply ignored, YET again calling it my "personal vanity project". I'm going to blow a fuse if he going to accuse me of that one more time. Please something be done about this, I really think the talkpage discussion on the Audi Q3 wasn't justified (see Extended content for the original post I did). I tried talking to him, solving it on the talkpage discussion, but now he simply reverting anything I do because he calls it a "personal vanity project". I'm at a dead end here and doing anything else would just become disruptive. Please can this be look at that, I know I can a handful but still this has been going on for half a year now and I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit much; but you do also suffer from a conflict of interest when it comes to adding your own work. Best to try to argue for its inclusion on the article talk page rather than inserting it yourself. El_C 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I did discuss this on the article talk page, I added a alternative image but it was never discussed except for some opinion about the wing mirrors. I thought because it hasn't been discussed I could use that instead of the one which a consensus have been reached, but even the consensus I find unfair because 80% of the reason for why they choose the grey one over the blue was mostly personal rather then actually talking about the picture. --Vauxford (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Try to change the consensus by getting wider input, taking advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Which one should I pick for this sorta thing though? Also this incident isn't just about the Audi Q3 dispute it the overall misconduct Charles01 has been giving me all this time. --Vauxford (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. That, indeed, depends on the depth and breadth of your dispute. El_C 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

[63] Charles01 made another lengthy comment making personal remarks of me rather then the picture itself in another talkpage, this often happens when I start discussion on the talkpage or anything with my name on it and when he gets involved it the comments become personal very quickly. --Vauxford (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C I made a request for comment on the talkpage discussion and I reverted a comment by a user who has already had their said about the photo in the previous discussion. Charles01 reverted that with yet another lengthy comment which mention I have "destructive arrogance", "toxicity" and implying that I edit warring all the time which I don't. I thought RfC was made so users who aren't involved in the previous discussion can have their say? --Vauxford (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. You removing that comment was totally inappropriate. Please don't do that again. El_C 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake then, sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

[64] Now it seem one of the users (who is more active on the German Wikipedia) is favouring Charles01 photos over ones that were done by me, the fact isn't whether which one is better, the fact is this user is acting biased by siding with Charles01 on anything now. Alexander-93 was the one who created the Audi Q3 talkpage because he wanted the grey car (which he took himself) to be used. The thing that bothers me the most is he insert his OWN photos into articles both on English and on the many Wikipedia I personally thing their nothing wrong with that as long as it isn't disruptive but I'm the one who been getting all the hassle saying I'm a "destructive user" and is "degrading Wikipedia" by Charles01 and he doesn't. Now I'm predicting that Charles01 gonna revert the recent edits Alexander-93 done with another lengthy scolding about how much a problematic user I am. What I find unfair is the sheer hypocrisy this is becoming and all I am is a scapegoat simply because the photo or edit was done by me. --Vauxford (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]

[83] Alexander just made another talkpage discussion which is just gonna be the same bias outcome from Charles01 and I'm fearing he just going to continue doing this on any photos taken by me (whether I put them there myself or not) --Vauxford (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not priorise anybodys photos. I changed the image in the Fiat Panda article since I think it is better! After you reverted my edit I started a new discussion on the talk page. It is the same procedure as I already did for the Tesla Model S and the Audi Q3. It is getting stupid since every edit, in which a picture of you is replaced is endling like this. It seems like not even I have a problem with this behaviour.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexander-93 The photo was taken by Charles01, and recently you have been siding with him for any comment he post about me. I'm going to be honest, I know this may seem rude and unethical because you have every right to edit on here, same with me on the German Wikipedia, but you are mostly active on the German Wikipedia because that your native language, I haven't been making edits/replacement on your Wikipedia because people on there got upset with me because their manual of style for automobiles is different to here which I respect that so I leave them be, same thing happened with me and the Italian Wikipedia so I also leave them alone, As far as I'm aware, it not against any polices to do edits on other Wikipedias unless it disruptive but if people on their really oppose my edits I would leave them alone. Why do you insist of trying to get your own way on here when it not even your main Wikipedia? --Vauxford (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• The pictures-of-cars topic area is rapidly supplanting pro wrestling as the universe's #1 source of lame controversy. EEng 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Think of it as the flavour of the quarter. Blackmane (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Issue with a sock puppet

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

---

Resolved

Hello, I've been having a issue over the last few days with a sock puppet, user 88.147.36.93. He is known as MySuperBelt85 who been consistently been vandalising my talk page and as well as CityOfSliver's talk page. In 2017, MySuperBelt85 was consistently vandalising the article Mafia III by removing sourced information, he been blocked multiple times but every time he quickly returns with a new sock account (a new account he created or another IP address). Mafia III has been protected multiple times but he will resume vandalising the page as soon the page becomes unprotected, the page has been protected for nearly two years and he been quite since until this last month where he has been vandalising my and CityOfSliver's talk page stating that he will continue to vandalise the Mafia III article as soon the page become unprotected in November. I'm hoping that an admin can do something to stop his vandalism, Thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Ongoing feud with U1Quattro

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

---

U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user is not only reverting my edits at whim, he now begun to vandalise every article that I edited.
Enzo 3R: Special:Diff/901991464 Special:Diff/902027129 Special:Diff/902033825 (Me adding this content: Special:Diff/889119454)
F50 3R: Special:Diff/901990874 Special:Diff/902027079 Special:Diff/902033792 (Me adding this content: Special:Diff/889119404)
MC12 3R: Special:Diff/901992160 Special:Diff/902027172 Special:Diff/902033875 (Me adding this content: Special:Diff/883958808)
His reason: "They need not to be mentioned. This is an informative article, not a technical guide in which technical codes are written. "
And so he claims wikipedia for his own and deletes every code I added, just because He says so:
Special:Diff/902034549
Special:Diff/902034568
Special:Diff/902034590
Special:Diff/902034633
Special:Diff/902034665
Special:Diff/902034734
Special:Diff/902034779
Special:Diff/902034800
Special:Diff/902034826
Special:Diff/902034855
Special:Diff/902034882
Special:Diff/902034960
Special:Diff/902034977
Special:Diff/902035011
Special:Diff/902035032
Is this a person who seeks consensus? Is this a person who honours other people's work? Please do something about it. Do not let him bludgeon another thread. More proofs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Unacceptable_behaviour_by_Ybsone
YBSOne (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For those who managed to miss the wall of text from the last time these two users came here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Unacceptable_behaviour_by_Ybsone. It's clear that these two users are not capable of civil interaction, and at least one IBAN will probably be necessary here. creffett (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Out of 8 references on FXX page He decided to "fix" only mine: Special:Diff/901228740 Special:Diff/901624330 Bias.

Administration has failed to punish him and now his behaviour is unbearable
YBSOne (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Chassis codes don't form part of an informative article. There is a reason why articles on other cars from other manufacturers do not mention them. It is clear that the user does not understand the purpose of why the article is there and continues to add information which might not be understandable to the general public. The user as also been involved in breaking the IBAN imposed as a result of a previous ANI discussion. Moreover, words like these "can you not read with comprehension?" and "Don't delete edits you know nothing about!" suggest that this user is implying the impression of "owning" the articles while failing to reach a civil consesous on a talk page discussion.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite and manipulator. The reason You deleted this content was and I quote: "‎Ferrari F50 ‎ That is the engine type."

"Enzo Ferrari (automobile) ‎ This is the engine code name. "

" Maserati MC12 ‎ Added short description. Removed content without source. "

It had nothing to do with being "too technical" but with Your pitiful lack of automotive knowledge. You have mistaken a chassis code for an engine code not knowing that on some Ferraris the codes are the same. And twhen I have educated You You have changed Your offensive strategy to "oh, it's too confusing..." YBSOne (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/902039332 As this is going on he is still reverting my edits. Replacing a primary source with a secondary one. Can administration see he is out of control?! YBSOne (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS. A fact needs to be verified by third party sources. About the codes. Yes the engine codes are same. The engine type used in the F50 is F130 while you added "Type 130" the same is for the Enzo Ferrari. These edits are confusing to the general public. Your recent frustration on this thread also indicates that you fail to understand that this site is not a court of law where people are punished for disagreement. As far as I see it, you're trying to force your way here.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @YBSOne:, @U1quattro:: Do not continue this argument any further. Neither of you is "in the right" here and your continued bickering does not help either of your cases. creffett (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Admins: Given that both editors have an IBAN already (missed that part) and they have both violated their IBAN (YBSOne has reverted U1Quattro's edits as "VANDALISM," U1Quattro has reverted at least one of YBSOne's edits within the past day), I recommend short-term blocks for both, plus closer eyes on both of them to enforce the IBAN since clearly they . Please. Before this gets out of hand again. (Before either of you say it: it's completely irrelevant which one of you violated the IBAN first. Saying "but he started it!" just makes you look like a couple of five-year-olds) creffett (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't hane an IBANS actually, it was "given" by a user and he closed the thread and it was reopened. As I understand he did not have any competence to do either. YBSOne (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We actually do. An admin agreed with it.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

READ: " @Sable232: Reopening this thread. Please read WP:INVOLVED, you should never close a sanction discussion where you yourself participated. Apart from the very obvious fact that there is no consensus for any sanctions here, in which case only administrators are in the capacity to impose sanctions, in case of discretionary sanctions and conditional unblocks (classified as an unilateral sanction, different from a community sanction as being discussed here). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)"

Enough. We are not going through this again. I am imposing a binding 2-way Interaction ban on you both, with great prejudice. Please stay away from and do not comment on one another from now on. El_C 03:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there was no consensus for an IBAN in that previous report (not enough users participated), and since I now realize that I'm unable to impose such a ban unilaterally, I'm reopening this report. Let the sniping continue, I guess. Unless both users agree to an IBAN, in which case, we're fine once again. El_C 12:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Stuff me wit green apples, enough, IBAN for god sake.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Two-way IBAN

I propose that both of the users be indefinitely banned from interacting with each other. Exact wording below:
U1Quattro and Ybsone are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions as stated in WP:BANEX. This ban is only appealable to the community after a period of one year at the earliest, and every 6 months thereafter.
With thanks. Editors participating may be interested in reading prior discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Unacceptable_behaviour_by_Ybsone. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nom. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging all past participants
@Floquenbeam, Eeng, Vauxford, HandThatFeeds, Sable232, Slatersteven, A lad insane, RandomGnome, and Rosguill: --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC) @Oshwah, Nyttend, EEng, and WaltCip: --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support FFS, either IBAN or nuke from orbit, since neither one seems to be willing to drop the stick, even after posting massive wall-of-text screeds here that have repeatedly drawn very little external interest because of them turning into massive extensions of the existing squabble that tends to discourage people from wanting to respond. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I am against. I didn't seek administrative sanctions against U1Quattro to "give myself an interaction ban". I can refrain, which I do, from interacting with this user. I don't delete his edits out of spite or lack of understending of the subject. My edits were reverted by him at least 45 times over past months. Out of spite alone. By brushing yet another of his outbursts under the rug You are all responsible for him being out of control. Mark my words. YBSOne (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Quoting WP:IBAN: A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. You both need to understand that this action is borne out of desperation and not because we feel like it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic

you are at 3RR as well, and some of the content you added appears to be unsourced. Thus it is down to you to provide a source (not edit war without adding one). Did you try add a source or discuss this at the talk pages?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC) It was not only sourced but I also took it to the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferrari_F50#Tipo_130:_both_chassis_AND_engine YBSOne (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Proof of source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_F50#cite_ref-ferrari.com_11-0 YBSOne (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Why can't You understand that I will never win with him. I add a simple fact, he reverts it and demands a source. I provide a source, he reverts it claiming it is confusing. I add it again, he reverts it claiming it is not needed here, etc... YBSOne (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Well this should sum it up Special:Diff/902081574, take care, I'm fed up with this. YBSOne (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Editors are allowed to remove notices from their talk pages. It's a non-issue. I'm collapsing this before it gets out of hand. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC) You know very well I wasn't talking about the notice. YBSOne (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Comment about my last revert of U1Quattro's change of designer source. Here Special:Diff/902207569. Yes I did it for the n-th time but I would like to briefly explain why. It is extremely hard to find proofs of some of the designers work as manufacurers and especially studios activelly mask who designed what. Pininfarina took great lenghts to redact design sketches from designers' signatures. To find a portfolio website is like a gold. And I have tried to defend this find. (Very simillar case was with Enrico Fumia's website that was invaluable because he also included exact dates of his designs.) `YBSOne (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I am tired of the wasted time wading through their endless arguments. I see no signs that they will learn to interact peacefully. - Donald Albury 14:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support They are not going to tolerate each others edits so this is overall a net drain.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support per my earlier comment - it's abundantly clear that these two cannot have a meaningful civil interaction, and for the sake of my sanity I would prefer that we get this over with quickly so as to keep their feud from spilling onto AN/I again. creffett (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom Schazjmd Talk 14:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is still going on? If these editors cannot drop the stick, then yes, they need to be separated. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. Have mercy and please end this. RandomGnome (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This has gone on long enough. Nearly 2 weeks of ANI's time have been wasted on this. This could of been resolved in a few days, but it lasted nearly two weeks and became a mess. The ANI thread above is proof that neither of them can drop the stick. Thus, a IBAN is the best course of action. Thank you. The Duke of Nonsense^{What do you request fellow editor?} 20:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in the previous discussions and the clear intractable issues above. (As an aside - my sincerest apologies for my error in the previous AN/I that exacerbated this.) --Sable232 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support Things like this get out of hand too quickly. Nip it in the bud, now. Blackmane (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocks

• Comment I've blocked U1Quattro as clearly the aggressor here. I'm particularly focused on the fact that he has reverted Ybsone multiple times, but when Ybsone reverts him, it's an i-ban violation. No comment on whether anything needs done to Ybsone; it is 100% clear to me that U1Quattro needs a block, but I'm not sure what should happen to Ybsone. And support the 2-way i-ban, except I can guarantee one or both are going to game the i-ban about 3 minutes after it is imposed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Ybsone for the same duration as I do not feel this is one-sided. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption on the part of both of them requires a time out from the project. I thought we would try the IBAN without blocking first, but if you'e going to go that route, both parties' disruptive editing needs to be taken into account. El_C 15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as you're confident Ybsone is more or less equally to blame for the continuing disruption, I'm fine with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I took a 2nd glance at their contribs and am, indeed, confident that this long-running feud is 2-sided. El_C 15:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Zbgradina

Wikipedia policy says Don't bite the newcomers, but this newcomer has been biting me! He deletes my posts on his talk page and adds questionable information to articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Response

I’m so sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbgradina (talk • contribs) 03:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, please be aware that Zbgradina has every right to delete your messages from their talk page. The assumption is that they read and understood your messages. You asked them twice if they were from the Bowling Green area. You do not have the right to ask intrusive questions about another editor's personal information. That is creepy and unacceptable. Respect their privacy and focus on improving the encylopedia. As for the "questionable information", please provide diffs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Thunderchunder WP:NOTHERE

I'm bringing this back up again now the thread above has run its course and has been closed as a train wreck. Two of the proposals in that thread were created by Thunderchunder (talk · contribs), a user who has only 56 global edits on the project: [84] and [85]. I commented on the proposal here after reviewing Thunderchunder's contributions to the project and suggesting the user was not here [86]. I'm bringing this back up specifically because I checked to see what this user had done since I called them out for their odd editing patterns, and since then, they've gotten another user blocked indefinitely, have made a grand total of one arguably constructive edit, and have created a special userbox celebrating the number of WP:NOTHERE "allegations" against them. As I previously noted, I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the editing pattern here, but I have serious concerns about a user who has a relatively high percentage of their posts dedicated to indefinitely blocking other users (at least 2 of 56, by my count), and very few posts actually improving the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what is up with them. I would (at this stage) support a warning. I cannot help but wonder if he is a puppet of some kind, if so a ban would be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not !voting for anything at this point, but since their first visit at ANI I had the same impression. —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• If the community is not part of the encyclopedia, then I'll accept the warning to focus more on articles. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban. Obviously a returned banned editor. One doesn't mention "lede" in their first edit. [87] One does not post edit war warnings to other editors within their first ten edits. [88] One does not head to ANI quoting BOOMERANG and DUCK in their first fifteen edits. [89]. This wasn't a good try. starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a pretty bold conclusion to say "Obviously a returned banned editor." unless you're also going to say which one. Why not a WP:CLEANSTART? Sure, the pattern might seem suspicious, and disruptive is as disruptive does, and WP:CLEANSTARTs are supposed to avoid old conflicts, but still, if you don't know which old conflict this is... You can support a ban just based on behaviour regardless. -- Begoon 11:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Tip for anyone who's trying to CLEANSTART - ensure you make more than 10 edits to article space per year. No, I don't know which banned editor this is, and I don't particularly care. starship.paint (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This is why I am only really supporting a warning for now. There may be a number of reasons why this user may know so much about us (hell I believe there are even websites that tell you how to edit the project). I really would like to see a bit more evidence then a gut feeling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thunderchunder has acknowledged [90] that their edits were a botched WP:CLEANSTART, that they will commit to article improvements, and that they will stick to the Thunderchunder account. In that light, I'm willing to give them another chance, and have rescinded my vote to ban. starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Warning, could be a WP:CLEANSTART, like Begoon said. If the CheckUser is clean, then there is no need for a block. Maybe if Thunderchunder would kindly disclose his former accounts if need be. Would recommended they enrol in the adopt-a-user system in order to get better at editing. The Duke of Nonsense^{What do you request fellow editor?} 14:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. In the last few days, this user has gotten involved in thorny discussions like a proposed interaction ban for Hijiri 88. There's absolutely no way this is appropriate — undisclosed alternative accounts may not engage in internal discussions of this sort, and as noted above, clean-starts must step away from past disputes. Why would you get involved in such a thorny case if you didn't care about it beforehand? The only reason I didn't indef is the possibility that this is a CLEANSTART gone awry. Please continue discussing this case if you believe it useful (I'm not trying to shut down conversation), and feel free to ask questions here of Thunderchunder; at his talk I said if you wish to respond to anything there [this discussion], ping me and (assuming it's not grossly abusing) I will copy your statement to ANI. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Bad block – A preventative sanction would be an IBAN or a TBAN; this was purely punitive, with no warning, based on an admin's stated assumptions of bad faith. "You're editing the wrong parts of the encyclopedia, so I'm going to stop you from editing any of the encyclopedia for a week" does not make sense. – Levivich 16:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, it's logical. This is obviously not a new user, so it's a 99% chance it's either a blocked editor, a good hand/bad hand account, or a CLEANSTART. If it's either of the first two they should be blocked anyway, if it's the latter they shouldn't be diving into contentious areas (some of the other articles they've approached (i.e. Tartary, have been flagged up on ANI). I realise the account is over a year old, but it did nothing for the first 8 months of that. Waiting for CU data to go stale, possibly? I realise it's approaching ABF, but on the other hand if an account isn't going to be contructive there's little point in indulging it. Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• The way I see it, this block prevents further disruption in ANI discussions for 1 week. —PaleoNeonate – 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sure, and if the behaviour resumes, the sanction can increase, probably to indef. I support the block - it gives an opportunity to change course but makes it clear we won't be messed around. Good block, imo. -- Begoon 16:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Good block. A block is *never* not at all punitive. In fact, if someone didn't do something wrong, there would not be a reason to believe they will do anything wrong later (preventative block logic) in the first place. The editor needed the time away and it was enforced as administrators are allowed to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW I don't necessarily buy that this is just an accidental botching of a CLEANSTART. The fact that they chose to come after me specifically makes me suspect that they might be evading either a limited sanction or a site ban that their original main account was subjected to as a result of interactions with me. (Let alone the fact that a CLEANSTART account would be unlikely to remain dormant for eight months.) I don't mind if TC does not wish to disclose the name of their prior account publicly or to me specifically, but it would be best if he did so by email to Nyttend, some other trusted member of the community, or ArbCom, and said editor(s) could confirm whether the original account is subject to any unappealed blocks/sanctions, or "left the project" under any specific circumstances. (The editor I kinda suspect TC of being was not subject to any specific editing restrictions, but did storm off in a huff after being issued with a final warning about disruptive behaviour; such an editor making a "clean start" in order to avoid being subject to restrictions for violating said warning would be inappropriate.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn

The user acts as though s/he is a sort of moderator/ supervisor for the Gender article, and displays clear bias in supposed enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines to align the article with their personal opinion.

The user initially reverted my edit on March 25, stating that the source l supplied was bad. l changed the source from an online article to an original academic research on which the article was based, then sent thanks for the reversion.

The user then began to self-represent as a type of moderator/ authority of the article, both on the edit summary and Talk:Gender#"In_the_traditions_of_cultures_dominated_by_languages_in_which_there_are_gender_pronouns." At this point, another user began to participate in the discussion. After some discussion, the other user User:-sche made edits without citation, which User:Flyer22 Reborn neither discussed nor took any action upon. l called this out immediately, and when no actions were taken, l took further action on the talk page after 1 week. Note that at this point, neither myself nor Flyer22 Reborn made any further edits. -sche then made a feeble defense for the lack of citation, and proceeded to make further edits and added 2 citations. One of those citations was restated verbatim in the body of the article (more than once). 20 days after this edit, l checked the source and found that it is not reliable. Flyer22 Reborn, who is presumably vigilant of poor sources, took no action in this case as well.

l then copied and pasted the content of the other citation given and gave notices as well as discussed -sche's actions and the information in dispute on Talk:Gender. Since that time, -sche has made no further edits nor responded to my statements on Talk:Gender. The same day l made the edit and gave notice, Flyer22 Reborn made an edit to delete most of the information, leaving one fragment; a few days later, made further edits and a long statement on the edit summary. None of this was discussed on Talk:Gender. Edits (vandalism) on other parts of the article based on the non-authoritative source remain at present.

The user displays personal bias toward the subject at hand, and consistent efforts to steer the information in this article to align with that bias. Ellesmelle (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

1. This isn't the place for content disputes. 2. This report lacks evidence in the form of diffs. 3. You've failed to inform the user about this report, which is mandatory. El_C 18:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy close:(edit conflict) Why did you post this here and now? Flyer22 Reborn hasn't posted to the Gender article since end of May. The article and talk pages have had very little traffic since end of May. It's not good form to bring a content dispute that has been quiet for at least two weeks, here without so much as discussing the problems on the talk page or with the other editor during that time (if not longer). You have only made 4 edits in the last two weeks. In addition to the poor timing, I don't see anything that rises to the level of needing an ANI. You are claiming bias but I'm not seeing it. Springee (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• The OP also failed to notify -sche, which I've just done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. :) I think we can cut Elle some slack: they notified Flyer on her user page rather than her talk page, it's clear they're still learning how Wikipedia works. I see another user has weighed in now. -sche (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at that article now. It's going to take a bit to get up to speed here, but one immediate observation is that there is a significant amount unsourced content, and I've already spotted inaccuracies and unencyclopedic writing. There is definitely synthesis going on, though I'll need to go through the history to see who added it. Having worked in collaaboration with -sche on these topics before, I don't think they're who added it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

DanWarpp and Netherlands IPs

DanWarpp registered a username today for the purpose of continuing the extensive pattern of edit warring from a number of IPs from the Netherlands. DanWarpp explicitly connects himself to the previous behavior by saying "even though you removed my message from your talk page..." following my removal of comments from Special:Contributions/190.2.144.131.

Starting on June 3 at Life After Death, IPs from the Netherlands began edit warring over references, with five reverts within a 24-hour period on June 3–4,[91][92][93][94][95] and three more on June 6.

At OK Computer, DanWarpp showed up to resume the edit warring of Netherlands IPs. The disruption started on June 13 over a header style decision involving parentheses and years, with six reversions by Netherlands IPs in a 24-hour period.[96][97][98][99][100][101] Yesterday, the IPs from the Netherlands added rateyourmusic and changed a Library of Congress reference,[102] then reverted back their preferred version three times, followed by DanWarpp to make a fourth revert in 24 hours.[103][104][105][106]

The behavior of this person is tendentious. The constant edit warring is disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

In almost all of your edits, you never provide an explanation as to why you reverted. I politely asked you every time to discuss any concerns in the talk page but you never did. I myself have discussed the disputes regarding Life After Death and OK Computer with the other editors in in articles' respective talk pages. How are my edits disruptive? DanWarpp (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DanWarpp: Edit-warring is disruptive. Discussing your changes is fine, but you can't continue to edit-war on the article while you discuss them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I will try to limit the discussion only to the talk page from now on. DanWarpp (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 190.2.153.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.150.230 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.149.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.154.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.144.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.241.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.240.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.241.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.243.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.152.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.151.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.144.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.146.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.153.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.148.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.150.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.150.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.243.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.241.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.147.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.152.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.152.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.145.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User:Anomalapropos tendentious editing

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

---

I am reporting this user for tendentious editing on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Facilitated_communication_articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia. The noticeboard is highlighted for convenience.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As per the other conversation on this page, I will again suggest that a person's competence cannot be measured by a random editor on Wikipedia by pointing at data sets for the method of communication that they used, that the competence of all people can be unreliable in controlled settings, and that the qualitative evidence for FC means that the only neutral action is to use reliable sources about the specific person. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess we should just shut down science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We are talking very specifically about the competence of a person and its measurement in controlled settings. The proposal that competence can't be measured by observation in controlled settings is not anti-science. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If Anomalapropos wants to bash the scientific consensus that Facilitated communication (FC), supported typing, or hand over hand, is a scientifically discredited technique that attempts to aid communication by people with autism or other communication disabilities. he/she is well advised to find another venue for the promotion of WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Promoting a fringe theory" continues to be an interesting interpretation of what I'm doing. However, I've made it clear several times that your claims of there being a consensus on FC are not supported (due to the clear conflicting evidence), and that it does not qualify as a fringe theory, because it is not a theory or a medical claim. It is a technique invented to help people communicate. You have, indeed, provided evidence that it doesn't work sometimes. I've never denied this fact. Meanwhile, you have denied the evidence (in peer-reviewed academic journals) that it does work based on the standards of criteria for biomedical information.

So, again, determining a person's competence based on context-less data sets and ignoring any qualitative evidence to the contrary, and then relying solely on this interpretation of the data to govern what can be considered "fact" on Wikipedia is inappropriate. (e.g., I believe that to completely blank Amy Sequenzia's article with no evidence of her competence apart from her inability to speak is far more contentious than removing the information she produces via FC). --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I offered you a source about a woman who cannot speak, cannot write, isn't potty trained, but somehow earned a Bachelor's degree in the Netherlands due to FC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Being unable to control your motor functions does not mean that you are incapable of understanding anything. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

And the evidence that she understands something is...? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

References

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

Big Brother 21 (American season)

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

---

Hi,

There has been what seems like coordinated, though fairly childish vandalism to Big Brother 21 (American season) by multiple IP users for a little while now. Also a couple BLP issues (mostly insults and slurs). I've reached 3 reverts, so I'm not sure what to do now. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Forgery: Other editors write fake message alleged to be from me

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

---

Wikipedia users Sam Sailor, LauritzT and Dicklyon are engaged in forgery. They start a discussion that they know is doomed, but instead of their own signature, they use mine.

Here is the first diff.

• Signature reads: 5.219.86.66 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Actual editor is: Sam Sailor

Here is the second diff.

• Signature reads: 5.219.86.66 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Actual editor is: LauritzT

And here is the last diff. While perhaps the other two are just lazy and don't want to verify that I never wrote the original message in the talk page, Dicklyon actually knows this message is copied and pasted from elsewhere.

If anyone wants to start their own discussion, they are welcome; just use your own and your own sig.

5.219.86.66 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no "forgery" here, it is a contested RM/TR. Best, Sam Sailor 05:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And I never said the it was a money forgery or other forms of forgery. Do not start disscussions on my behalf. Start you own, use your own sig. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: User Baffle gab1978 has joined the harassment and forgery party. Diff. If anyone wants to move a page, they are more than welcome to start their own discussion, with their own words and their own signatures, not MY signature. 06:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Update 2: User Sam Sailor continues to harass me by posting template messages in my talk page, despite his knowledge that this discussion is in progress and the legitimacy of the message I am deleting is in question. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Here is the diff: [107]. Notice the time stamp. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @5.219.86.66: – Sam Sailor was transferring your original post from RM/TR to the article's talk page, which is where requested moves are usually discussed. Your comment, including your signature, was copied along with it. Apart from uncontroversial fixes (e.g. spelling and grammar, reverting vandalism), requested moves are generally discussed on article talk pages to determine whether or not there is a consensus in favor of renaming. RM/TR is intended more for situations where a page move is prevented by some sort of technical issue, such as the destination page being move-protected or already existing. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

• I forgot to add that moving pages is not technically restricted for editors to do without discussion, but if a page move is contested, a talk page discussion becomes mandatory. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  Personally, I think that's wrong. It would be better to just inform that person who filed the RMTR request that if they still want to move the page then they need to open a discussion. In this case, he did not want to, as it will clearly lose. Dicklyon (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  You'll get no disagreement from me. With only a handful of exceptions, I always favor getting people's thoughts on something before taking action that will affect multiple parties. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Querying User:Fences and windows to explain their actions and their closure above. (A) Under which purview did they remove the signature of another editor on Talk:Al-Tusi in Special:Diff/902192930? (B) Why did they leave the edit summary "Stop signing on someone else's behalf" when nobody had done so, and do they in hindsight understand why nobody had done so? (C) Why was the above closed on the notion that the signature was offending rather than addressing the facts that the IP editor (1) already had blanked the talk page discussion five times, four of these, in breach with 3RR, within 19 hours prior to filing above, and (2) had expressed a clear intent of returning and move the article in spite of the move being contested? Sam Sailor 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sam Sailor, the IP editor did not make that initial post on the talk page. You did. Your edit was done in good faith, moving their comment from elsewhere, but the IP editor objected. Instead of accepting their wish to not have it appear that they made that comment, you and others repeatedly reverted them. That escalated things, which could be defused by removing their signature. I could have blocked the IP editor, but I didn't need to be so harsh. If they move the page despite discussion, then we can revisit this. Fences&Windows 21:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, I hate to invoke BOOMERANG, but as another admin who was reviewing in real time, their request to not sign the post to them when then didn't make it was reasonable, and it was disruptive and harrassing to keep doing it, even if borderline policy compliant. It was very clear to me from the first thing they posted what they'd objected to. Sam Sailor, if you did not understand that, please go back and re-read their posts and replies. If you didn't feel that was a legitimate objection, please step back and reconsider. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone's been trying to hack my account

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

---

Over the past few hours, I've received several notifications – both here and via email – that someone from an unknown server had been trying to log into my account. I've gotten multiple "15 failed attempts" notices, and they also tried to do an email reset on my password (which I've changed as a precautionary measure, despite my original password being strong). The IP address from which this suspicious activity originates has never edited and geolocates to the United States. I can send the IP to an administrator via email if necessary.

Is this something I should be worried about? Thus far my account doesn't appear to have been breached, and my password is strong enough that anyone trying to hack it would have an extremely difficult time. It's not something that anyone could just guess. Even so, I feel a bit uneasy, so I'm bringing it here for advice. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Its most likely someone who has forgotten their username and is using yours by mistake. Actual hackers would only bother doing an email password reset if they have access to the email account. Just make sure your email account is secure as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. My email and Wikipedia accounts both use strong passwords, so there shouldn't be any concerns. Thank you. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There are also idiots who try to do a password reset, too dumb to realise it will be sent by email. And there are trolls who just want to mess with you. Someone trying a password reset is no reason to change it if it's already secure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Eh, my password was overdue for a change anyways. It's no big deal. Now it's even stronger than before. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can send details to WP:FUNC if you don't want to post them publicly. You can also enable two-factor authentication, but you'll need to request a special user right from Meta. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at 2FA before, and it seems like it would make logging in a bit of an ordeal. Then again, it probably just takes some getting used to. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Kurtis: I would take this seriously, and not ignore it. While it may be someone who has forgotten their user name, as Only in death suggests, the explanation offered by Boing! said Zebedee is just as likely. That has certainly been known to happen; for example, some years ago it happened to me, and I know who it was who did it. (By that I mean that I know what Wikipedia editor it was, not that I know their real life identity.) Even if your password is secure, it is likely that someone who has tried to hack into your account will hack into other people's accounts too. You said you would be willing to email the IP address involved to an administrator. If you are still willing to do that, email it to me, and I'll check for things such as edits from other IP addresses in the same range. You may also like to consider whether to ask a CheckUser to look at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's a pretty good idea. I'll email you the IP address shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtis (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

Sourcerery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edit-warring on multiple articles stopping just short of 3RR. In the three articles below, the editor attempts to force their text in opposition to multiple editors – usually all other involved editors.

Article Fascism:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3
• Edit 4

Article Carl Benjamin:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3
• Edit 4

Article Alex Jones:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3

Plus page blanking the FAQ for that article TP:

• Blank 1
• Blank 2
• Blank 3

This last article brought to AN3[108]. Closure was: “Declined, no 3RR violation. Sourcerery's conduct on the article and talk page might be worth a trip to ANI in the future, but Bishonen has already warned them about it, so no further action is necessary at this time." This comment was in reference to the article TP where the editor argued against seven other editors (I believe) with no support.[109]

Copyright problems:

• There is also a copyright investigation request concerning the editor’s contributions to four articles.[110]

• Also, this morning three copyright violations by the editor were revdeled at article Postmodernism. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For Carl Benjamin, the editor did not "stop short" of exceeding 3RR... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If I'm counting correctly, I think they actually go past 3RR at Carl Benjamin - I was looking at the history there just as you posted this, and the diffs you've posted above show four reverts within a 24-hour period. To be fair, this editor does use the talk page as well as just edit warring, but the discussion at Talk:Alex Jones (now hatted by Guy Macon) descended quickly into WP:SEALIONING. This editor needs change their attitude towards collaboration and consensus-building, perhaps by spending a bit of time editing in less contentious areas.GirthSummit _(blether) 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They also substantially over-tagged History of the Jews in Italy and when I reverted on the basis that it was clear over-tagging, they just reverted their tags back in. The article could use a few more refs, and I didn't want to kick off an edit war over something as trivial as over-tagging, but it's yet again part of the same disruptive pattern.

See also Call-out Culture - where there was more of the same. Particularly noteworthy was this edit, where they erroneously accused me in the edit summary of having broken WP:3RR after my second revert. (I was getting frustrated as they'd been showing up all over my watchlist and was tired of them ignoring WP:BRD and logged off for the weekend shortly thereafter, otherwise I would have likely not even done the second revert.) Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

With regard to fascism, they misinterpreted a key source, and when consensus on talk was clearly against their inclusion of their preferred edit, they just inserted it anyway, stating the sources supported their position .Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Good luck seeing that as disruptive editing when I'm just following what sources say, if anyone is being disruptive it's those reverting to versions not supported by sources.Sourcerery (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcerery Would you care to explain why you just restored WP:COPYVIO content that was rev-delled earlier today here? Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's properly attributed and therefore not a copyvio?Sourcerery (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Even with a ref in the middle, we don't copy entire paragraphs from somebody else's book. I urge you to self-revert that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's couple of sentences, on Populism entire book is in the article Mudde, Cas; Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The copyvio issue I'm referring to is in Postmodernism and has to do with a youtube-popular philosophy professor's discussion of Heidegger. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And I'm telling you there is no copyvio with proper attribution, in regard to "we don't copy entire paragraphs" I'm noting examples of entire books, so that appears to be false claim.Sourcerery (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If an administrator has reviewed the content and revdelled it as copyvio, reinserting it without discussion with the deleting admin might not be a good approach.GirthSummit _(blether) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think this is a case of hounding, they have never edited certain pages yet now certain editor appear there only to revert my edits with very weak claims.Sourcerery (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You should be specific about which editor you mean, and which article you are talking about, if you are going to make an accusation of WP:HOUNDING. As for the strength of the claims, you have demonstrably gone beyond 3RR in the diffs above, and the material added to Postmodernism has just been revdelled for a second time as COPYVIO - these are not 'very weak claims'. You seem to be getting into a lot of conflicts at various different pages in very quick succession - instead of pointing the finger at other people, you might want to think about your own approach to editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They're probably referring to me, as I have challenged their edits on several articles. But I should note that this is because they have edited several articles that I either am a regular on or have been passively watching due to my participation in WP:NONAZIS or due to my interest in existentialist philosophy. I have plenty of pages on-watch that I would only edit if they become a hot-button. However when the same name that I know is causing disruption at Fascism also turns up with multiple edits related to Postmodernism and Call-out Culture - I don't have to go to their user contributions to see a pattern. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I should note that Alex Jones is also on my watchlist though I've not involved myself there, as the drama on that page largely passed before I got involved, thanks to the efforts of other editors.Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are lying so much it's not even funny. Why are you not editing Modernism, where were you when discussion was raging at Frankfurt School, when was last time you edited anything related to existentialism and philosophy? Disgusting, but here you are now to revert my edits on all page, I would like interaction ban between me and this liar. O3000 as well, do not want to hear from me or his spams of my talk page.Sourcerery (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please strike through the claim that I was lying. It violates WP:CIV quite unambiguously. And no, I don't actively edit existentialist articles, although I occasionally toy around with doing some work on Simone de Beauvoir, but as I said previously, I don't actively edit the majority of the articles on my watchlist. Postmodernism is on my watchlist rather than other articles related to philosophy because, thanks to popular far-right public speakers like Jordan Peterson a lot of white supremacists are weird about postmodernism. Now when a user shows up, tries to revise the definition of fascism and then inserts a copyvio breaking paragraph about Nazi-party-member Martin Heidegger into the article on Postmodernism which fits Occam's Razor better, that I am deliberately hounding you or that I saw a disturbing edit pattern that ended up with an obvious copyright violation and intervened? Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not striking factual claims and was involved in Fascism article from my Wiki start, so that runs counter your dubious claims. Was involved in discussions on Postmodernism but again, you were nowhere to be found, Frankfurt School as well.Sourcerery (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Since you've been spending so much time in my edit history you should notice that until the Fram situation blew up I'd been almost entirely inactive for several months. As my user page notes, I tend to regularly take extended breaks from Wikipedia before returning to an active state. Now, yet again, this is WP:SEALIONING and I'm done here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, be your usual self and when exposed for lies you peddle say "I'm done here". Postmodernism article had major rewriting, not only you didn't take part in it, you didn't even discuss it.Sourcerery (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I see no evidence of hounding. Many editors, including me, do watch what eother editors do. Sometimes they do that because they are friends, other times because of the reasons given at WP:HOUND "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Doug Weller talk 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've warned Sourcerery on their talk page about personal attacks, including bad faith accusations of lying against other editors. freshacconci (✉) 15:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The user has been warned more than once recently about edit warring, but their response was to blank their talk page and continue with exactly the same behaviour. I'd like to see some sort of acknowledgement from them that they understand what is problematic about their editing, and a commitment to improve. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Their response to the warning WRT WP:NPA was to put a personal attack about me up here. Are we at WP:NOTHERE yet? Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to keep the diffs in one place, I had previous NPA issues with this editor, the discussion of which they removed from their talk page here and here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block for copyright violations

• I recommend indeffing this editor until/unless he/she shows some proper understanding of copyright and of our local copyright policy. The complete lack of understanding demonstrated just on this page is alarming, and the history of repeated copyright violation after warnings (1, 2, 3, 4) and even after notification of a CCI request (5) is wholly unacceptable. As for re-adding the same copyvio again at Postmodernism after it had already once been removed and revdeleted ... well, I'm out of superlatives. I'd do this myself, but have already been in various altercations (e.g., 6) with this user and so cannot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support until such time as the editor is able to accept that their approach to editing (the edit warring, the bludgeoning/sealioning, the personal attacks, and the copyvios) is not acceptable. I'd also support a 1RR editing restriction with a final warning against personal attacks and copyright violations as an alternative solution. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Thpeeni and MOS:ERA

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

---

Thpeeni (talk · contribs) appears to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of converting BCE to BC and CE to AD, in contravention of MOS:ERA. He has been advised that this is inappropriate, but has indicated that he intends to defy this advice. I submit that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Already indeffed by Doug Weller. Deor (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That was their only purpose here and it was clear they were not going to stop. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Andy Dingley again, & more false charges

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

---

User:Andy Dingley made this claim, evidently about this edit. Do I even need to call this a lie? Not to mention apparent stalking, since he's turning up to comment every time I'm involved in any kind of dispute. Can I expect something to actually be done this time, or is that still a forlorn hope? Or should I just expect to be falsely accused by anyone for any reason forever? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• This goes back to 2008, and the very first time I recall encountering you on WP: Talk:Land_speed_record/Archive_1#Why_not_rail?

You have some problem with the idea of Donald Campbell having set a land speed record and you persistently remove it (as you've been doing here). This is simply false, and there is vast sourcing to back it up. But once again, everything else, on and off WP is a conspiracy against you and you demand freedom to spout off your inaccurate nonsense here (search ANI for his record of howlers). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be substantial evidence that Campbell set a WSR on that day, including contemporary Pathe newsreel footage [111] [112] which somewhat undermines Trekphiler's umbrage at being called out for edit-warring. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Calling a single edit an "edit war" does you no favors. The issue in't Campbell's effort. The issue is, was it a record? Since it had been exceeded months before he made the attempt, it's not. The LSR page is for absolute records; read the lead for the page. Every other effort recorded produces a speed higher than the one before, except this one. This is Andy, yet again, still, refusing to accept Campbell didn't actually set a new record. You'll also notice, Campbell's effort is recorded here, under the wheel-driven records, where it actually was a new record. And this is just another attempt to shut me up when you can't win on the facts, just like the Malta Convoys dispute, or the London Auto Show dispute--false accusations of vandalism & disruptive editing, which the hypocrites in charge ignore. Of course, the lies about edit warring won't draw any sanction, either, will they? Unless I'm being accused of lying about somebody else, in which case it'll draw an indef block, right? And what I say here will make not the slightest difference, will it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:32 & 16:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I imagine "false accusations of vandalism & disruptive editing, which the hypocrites in charge ignore" will greatly assist in getting you a sympathetic hearing; abusing those to whom you're appealing for an intervetion normally does the trick. Good luck to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, wandering into the local police station and screaming "Why don't you lazy, corrupt, incompetent pigs do something about those kids on my lawn?" generally works a treat. Good show. -- Begoon 16:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Abuse or not won't make the slightest difference, based on my past experience with this kangaroo court. I've come here before facing obviously false charges & gotten express desire for an excuse to block me for my trouble. Tell me again why I should expect fair & equitable treatment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Bryant & Stratton College

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

---

On June 17, 2019, I received an email from a legal representative for Bryant & Stratton College (BSC). The person added that "We expect that you refrain from editing our institution's Wikipedia page and rectify (i.e. revert) all of your contributions by Thursday, June 20 2019, 02:00 pm EST. Should you fail to follow our request, we will take legal action." The lawyer added that other parties may be involved in the lawsuit against me.

The specific allegations were:

• Adding material which strongly suggests BSC is a diploma mill although it is accredited.
• Linking terrorists to BSC.
• Representing BSC as a failing business.
• Adding statements that BSC engages in unethical and fraudulent activities.
• Publishing private and intimate details about BSC's executives and owners.

I believe I can refute each of these specific claims.

• BSC has been mentioned in a scholarly book (by AJ Angulo) about the history of for-profit education.
• Timothy McVeigh, an American domestic terrorist, attended and dropped out of BSC. I did not add any additional terrorists, but one crime boss was already listed under "Notable Alumni".
• Most BSC's campuses have been losing money, at least from the most recent NCES data. However, I do not recall posting anything on Wikipedia about this.
• I'm not sure I understand what the lawyer means by "personal and intimate" details about the institution's executives and owners. I do know that the President of BSC has a DM from University of Phoenix. Anything that I have written is based on publicly retrieved information.

In addition, I have added a great deal of positive and updated information about BSC. WP:Free speechCollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The legal representative for Bryant & Stratton College has given me three options before filing a class action suit against me in three days.

• 1: You provide us with your Wiki account login details and a member from our IT team will do the revision.
• 2: We will attempt to give you instructions.
• 3: We could enforce the revision on Wikipedia. This may mean the revelation of your identity on Wikipedia as well as the conflict of interest you have in the matter. WP:Free speechCollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything we can do on-wiki about off-wiki lawsuit threats. Do you know what the username that sent the email was? Additionally, you may want to notify legal@wikimedia.org that you received a legal threat. Sasquatch t|c 19:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, legal threats ON Wikipedia are absolutely unacceptable. But off wiki threats? Thats a grey area. Whatever you do, absolutely do not give anyone your login info, even if they threaten you. Not sure how the college could reveal your identity here on WP, and even if they did they would be immediatly blocked for WP:OUTING your identity. If you do have a conflict of interest, you should declare it per WP:COI, but don't declare your identity or any information that may hint st your identity unless you really do want it out there. For now, if your edits do conform to Wikipedias standards, the info should stay. If BSC does actually sue you, the Wikimedia foundation's legal could possibly get involved? Editors should not be scared to edit because of scare lawyering tactics. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

My only concern is that a user is using Wikipedia's email interface to email users to threaten them. If that is the case, then some admin action can be taken, but otherwise there's not much any admin can do. Sasquatch t|c 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Report it to the WMF (legal@wikimedia.org) and contact a lawyer, under no circumstances give your login details to anyone. Be warned, they (the College) could force the WMF to disclose the information about your identity that it has (IP address etc). The exemption the WMF has for not being responsible for content is that individual editors are. The WMF are almost never going to hand over personal information about yourself without a court order to do so, however they do have some experience in editors being sued and may be able to offer some advice/help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sasquatch and Captain Eek, Thank you for all the good information. The legal threat was sent to my email. They may have gotten it through Wikipedia, but I have no way to be sure. The "warnings" I received were from a dynamic IP that did not identify themself. The dynamic IP wrote the "warnings" on my talk page and the talk page for Bryant & Stratton College. Anyone could figure out my identity from my talk page, which is not a problem. I just don't want them to start a doxxing campaign against me.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@CollegeMeltdown: if was sent through the Special:EmailUser function, there will be a line in the footer that says: "This email was sent by user "Sasquatch" on the English Wikipedia to user "Sasquatch". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents." You may have to expand the footer if you are using gmail or other webmail interfaces. Sasquatch t|c 20:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

IPs cannot use Wikipedia to e-mail users.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown: it is trivially easy to identify you (and subsequently a simple internet search for your email address) just from the basic information on your userpage, so no one would need the email-this-user function. I suggest you contact WMF legal and your own lawyer. But in this case if they should choose to get litigious, they have no need to contact the WMF at all for your identity. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Maby it's a hoax??? Try to Email or find the college on facebook and ask them if they sent you an Email.... Jena (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This would not work. Regardless of if they did send a legal threat via email their lawyers will tell them not to respond on Facebook about a potential legal matter. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still thinking it's a Wikipedia user who wants there own way Jena (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

While it's quite true that an entity would not comment on a pending legal matter, it's not a bad idea to call or investigate to see if the purported sender is, in fact, associated with said entity. It's an easy and telling indicator. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid (and Jena). Also, they’re filing "a class action suit against [you]"—an individual—seriously? Sounds to me like someone playing lawyer, who didn’t bother going to Wikipedia to look up class action suit first. What would the plaintiff’s aggrieved class be—the class of all colleges and university administrations which didn’t like the content of their Wikipedia article? Don’t make me laugh. I’d ignore the email, but that’s just me. Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this Ted talk explains how I’d really be tempted to respond, but I can’t recommend this approach for everybody. Takes a lot of persistence, and a good sense of humor. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ted Kaczynski is listed at Harvard_College#Notable_alumni and you don't see Harvard getting all bent out of shape about it. (I note that Jared Kushner isn't listed, though, and I suppose if he were then Harvard very well might sue us for ruining its reputation.) EEng 22:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• @CollegeMeltdown: An actual "legal threat" from a lawyer would likely be written in a basic formal letter format, be addressed to you by name, be signed by the lawyer personally (i.e. using their full name), and be sent by an official email address associated with the relevant school or legal firm. It might also contain an official boilerplate header or footer. Does the email you received check any of these boxes? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid,Swarm, EEngs, Jena Fi, Jéské Couriano, Mathglot, Sasquatch, ElKevbo (who directed me here)and everyone else that contributed to this conversation. Thank you so much for your input. It is heartwarming to see this community assist in what I consider a 1st Amendment issue. I'm still not sure how to assess the legal threat, but I don't intend to fold due to undue fear. The company does have record of trying to silence people, but the emails appear so unprofessional that it could be a hoax. I'll add something here when I get more substantive informationCollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@CollegeMeltdown: My advice would be to not respond to the email directly unless you can authenticate the email address was sent by either (1) the institution, (2) a barred attorney, or (3) an employee of a law firm. If it is not one of those three things, then replying could potentially have harmful effects were this a scammer. Answering Swarm's question above would alleviate these concerns. Either way, excuse me as I go contribute to that article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is genuine, it seems to me even if the 'email this user' function was not used, the WMF will have definitive interest in one particular aspect of this namely the request to hand over your account details. If it's not a clear violation of the ToU, I strongly suspect they'll still be interested in banning this third party from attempting to access wikipedia via someone else's account that they were forced to hand over. In terms of the more general point of assistance see Meta:Legal/Legal Policies#Defense of Contributors Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, if this is really the IP on your talk page, I'm fairly surprised that a lawyer or someone on their staff will get that involved in the nitty-gritty of wikipedia editing. I don't just mean the random policies and guidelines they threw out, but also the fact they're referring to things like automatic article talk page archiving. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Without seeing the original email, it is hard to know if this is a hoax. It might be routine crap from an IP editor, but it *might* be genuine in which case it is an extraordinary legal threat. There is a need to contact the alleged legal representative directly, as the "email this user" feature can be abused by trolls.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, before responding, you need to verify that the email was sent by a real attorney representing that organization. If it is, contact WMF Legal ASAP. This is absolutely a first amendment issue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the first amendment about US government suppressing free speech? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: A lawsuit is a request to the judiciary to take government action. Even if a lawsuit is initiated by a private citizen as part of a private dispute, the court must obey the first amendment in any action it takes. This can seem a bit quirky because generally it is not a first amendment issue for the owner of a website (or his volunteer site administrator) to ban someone or delete a post. But the difference is that in the latter case, the property owner can take action without involving the government, while in the former case, someone is asking the government to intrude upon some else's private property and do something. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, as very recently re-affirmed by the SCOTUS: see here GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You guys. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Obviously Wikipedia is a private entity that can regulate and suppress free speech within its own platform—it's literally a policy. That's not the point. It's still protected by law. Legal threats to suppress information invoke US law, all of which is ultimately and inviolably subject to the first amendment. Wikipedia content that does not violate Wikipedia policy and United States law (such as libel), cannot be suppressed simply because it is negative, critical, or objectionable. Not by a judge, not by Trump, not by anyone else. Not even if it is illegal in another country. It is protected from such legal challenges by the first amendment. Wikipedia content that is allowed by US law and Wikipedia policy, at the most fundamental level, is protected free speech that cannot be suppressed with frivolous legal threats. The US government can't make laws that restrict free speech. Thus, it's hard to claim under US law that objectionable content is "illegal". See WP:General disclaimer and WP:Content disclaimer. Free speech protections extend very far in the US, which means that actual legal challenges have a very high bar to meet, which is why the few legal threats that we do see aren't credible, and in the greater scheme of things, why defamation suits are so hard to win in the US. IANAL. That said, there should be no mistake that Wikipedia content is protected by the first amendment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Any lawyer would understand this. Attempts to suppress policy-compliant content on Wikipedia over the first amendment would be next to impossible, as Wikipedia's standard of verifiability inherently invalidates the notion of defamation. One would have to prove in court that an allegation is untrue, which does not work with sourced content, and unsourced content can be removed unilaterally as a matter of policy. AFAIK, the only other form of speech that is not protected is that of immediate threats of harm that meet the "clear and present danger" standard. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It has become painfully obvious that there is something wrong with this so-called lawyer. This morning he sent me an email at 3:42 am. He tells me that I have an agenda and showed me that he knows about the research I have done, which is fine for me, but a little creepy. He wants me to call a call center that is identified as Switzerland. The warnings on my talk page from the Dynamic IPs were also from Bern, Switzerland. I am extremely curious about any party that would make such a concerted effort.Is there any way to identify the source or at least the country this is coming from? When I checked 411.com it says "Spam/Fraud Potential: Low" Risk (UTC)CollegeMeltdown. I tried Search.ch but the number does not come up. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@CollegeMeltdown: This situation is highly suspect, but please address my questions above. Was the letter sent in a formal format? Was it addressed to you by name? Was it signed by the lawyer's full name? Was there official boilerplate in the header or footer of the email? Was the email address associated with a law firm or the college itself? I don't know why you didn't address this issue before, and if these concerns are applicable, you should already be in contact with WMF Legal. Why are you still commenting here without addressing the relevant concerns? If you fail to do so further, this thread will be formally closed and archived. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Swarm. If you intend to verify the veracity of this legal threat, then you must do the due diligence that Swarm is advising, if not just call a lawyer outright. Otherwise this is just a meaningless exercise. Wikipedia editors are not in a position to give legal advice.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So, everyone, I just wanted to briefly follow up. I contacted CollegeMeltdown off-wiki because I was concerned about this, as many of us were, and the issue sort of dovetailed with my off-wiki life. CollegeMeltdown shared some details with me, and I have reached the conclusion that there is no genuine threat. That is for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the e-mail address from the purported lawyer mentioned Bryant & Stratton in the local part of the address, but was from the "mail.com" domain; (2) when the purported lawyer gave a telephone number to contact it was an international number; and (3) Bryant & Stratton is headquartered in Buffalo, NY, but the "attorney" does not appear to be registered in New York, even as in-house counsel. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Swarm and Waltcip, the emails did not have Bryant & Stratton College letterhead, but the NDA they wanted me to sign used the school's logo. The emails did address me by my last name. The signature says "Harvey Clouston, Legal Affairs Division, Bryant & Stratton College" and the email address is legal.bryantstratton@mail.com. I cannot afford a lawyer. Should I still contact WMF legal?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! There is no reason a university's legal department would be sending you mail from a free email account service. This is pretty much unquestionably a scam at this point. creffett (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed, it's unlikely that a first contact from a bona fide lawyer to a stranger would be by e-mail at all. You can contact WMF Legal, but it doesn't sound like Wikipedia is involved in this at all, but they might still give you some advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If they're offering you an NDA, what information are they offering to disclose to you? They supposedly don't want to give you information, they want to shut you down, and I doubt they're offering you money for your silence. That name doesn't return any relevant hits when searched with either "lawyer" or "stratton". Anyone can slam a logo into a PDF. This is not walking nor quacking like a duck. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest also looking at the path of the "Received:" message header lines and IP addresses/domains/envelopes. Spam and scams are easy to forge to look legitimate but may originate from anywhere (and that's why tools like PGP are awesome), even "mail.com" there can be misleading, unless you see that IP address reverse-resolution (see tools like host, nslookup) correspond. —PaleoNeonate – 14:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have at least partially discovered the culprit. It was someone who had a friend in enrollment at Bryant & Stratton College in Buffalo.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There's probably not much more to be done here. The email is clearly not a real letter from the school's legal department, and Bbb23 has blocked the IP who was likely responsible. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would give some people comfort to know that impersonating a lawyer is a crime in most or all states, and possibly in Switzerland as well. R2 (bleep) 18:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• +1. It's probably BS and trolling, but it was good to discuss this. Also, there was no logical reason to offer a non-disclosure agreement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• No comment on the rest of it, but regarding the IP addresses and some background, there used to be a very problematic editor on the same network with an interest in certain education topics: Supervisor635. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Problematic IP

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

---

Please could an admin look at this IP's edits. Fresh from a block for vandalism, this is what he's up to now. Thanks. Robvanvee 19:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reblocked. You can also consider reporting obvious vandalism at WP:AIV next time. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Robvanvee 20:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

BLP violation and block evasion by User:Jaledel

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

---

A few hours after the IP 12.37.166.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for disruptive editing on the BLP Xifeng Wu, a long dormant account Jaledel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reactivated to repeatedly add defamatory information to the article, contrary to cited source [113] [114]. After I warned the user about BLP policies, they added more unsourced defamatory info [115]. This editor has numerous warnings on their talk page, was previously reported to ANI, and has been blocked three times despite having only about 30 active edits (and many deleted ones). A clear case of WP:NOTHERE (which was the conclusion of the last ANI), and I believe an indef is warranted this time. -Zanhe (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I've indeffed the user per NOTHERE. El_C 22:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:118.136.114.253

User:118.136.114.253 has been on an editing spree to change many Southeast Asian food articles into an Indonesian one. I am no expert on food, but I doubt that all food items that the user edited is solely Indonesian. For example, the user goes around deleting other countries' names. Please take a look at this. Thank you! William2001^(talk) 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have issued a 72 hour time out and am currently reviewing the edits. Sasquatch t|c 23:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated has been casting aspersions and had been a bit uncivil

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

---

At this page the user had called out several admins, who they disagreed with and said they should not be admins.

They had also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freelandia (2nd nomination) that I should "learn english" for not knowing the difference between it exists and it existed.

They had also created a page with a potentially offensive title: User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated/wiki/Slaves Of Shyam

They had also commented "fake news"! at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#News

Furthermore, they had called for me to be blocked for trying to be helpful by transcluding his "user page" to his actual user page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&oldid=901553715#User:Shyam_Has_Your_Anomaly_Mitigated_seems_belligerent User_talk:Shyamal#My_User_Page --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tyw7 is WP:HARASSing me. They've been editing my userspace; starting with making User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, even though my talk page made it abundantly clear I don't want it. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, I only edited out the line "Some Wikipedian administrators abuse their authority, and don't deserve to be administrators." from User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated/UP.

Also, for the user page, I assumed you made a mistake by not transcluding the "userpage" to your userpage. You never made any clear indication you did not want it prior to my transclusion of the "UP" user page. Based on you comments at User_talk:Shyam_Has_Your_Anomaly_Mitigated#Please_create_a_userpage I thought you forgot to make the transclusion so I did it for you. You didn't want it, so I blanked the page and an admin deleted it. But your additions of to your user page that casts aspersions to a number of admins are out of line. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I got pinged here. Wish I had some clue what was going on :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) RoySmith, well Shay tagged you in their comment here. So I thought I might ping you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I was wondering about the same til I read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Freelandia (2nd nomination). Well, I stand by my statement that "it exists" or "it existed" is not in and of itself a reason to have a Wikipedia page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated: Per SoWhy's warning, please accept Tyw7's apology [for editing your userspace] and stop your name calling and casting aspersions. Otherwise, you will indeed see a block but it will be against you. So bringing it up again here as evidence of harassment is a clear breach of that warning. Furthermore, you are not allowed to host polemical content in your userspace, and Tyw7 was right to remove it. Contrary to what you say on your talk page, no, you do not have the right to free expression on Wikipedia, as a matter of policy. I've gone ahead and removed it again. Lastly, the exchange you had on the Freelandia AfD looks like outright trolling. Consider this your last warning, if you engage in anything further that could be construed as personal attacks, aspersions or trolling, or anything else disruptive, I will block you indefinitely. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Although it has nothing to do with casting aspersions, Shyam apparently believed he could create a subwiki on his user pages where he had pages about the "Slaves of Shyam", called himself a God and other webhost nonsense. The pages have been tagged for deletion. I haven't evaluated the other evidence here but, currently, I don't think Shyam understands what Wikipedia is for. It isn't to be used for his own personal amusement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Liz, ps those pages had been deleted by an admin. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I tagged them for deletion. I also didn't notice that the Slaves page had already been mentioned. My mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's no further discussion, I am going to unwatch this page to avoid getting notified of every changes. Please ping me if I'm mentioned as I am not watching this page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:LilBillWilliams a.k.a. BobRoberts14

LilBillWilliams (talk · contribs) formerly BobRoberts14 (talk · contribs) has been editing for about a week and has accumulated nearly 700 edits between their two accounts. They claim to be a newbie, which...I'll take their word for it. My concern is that while Bill/Bob's intentions are clearly good, they are wasting a lot of other people's time with WP:Randy in Boise behavior. Their typical MO is to seek out an article about a controversial subject, make some BOLD controversial changes, reinstate those changes when they're reverted by another editor, and then engage in long, defensive, circular arguments on the talk page. I've already issued multiple warnings, topic-banned them from American Politics, and I suspect they may eventually be topic banned from the Abortion topic area as well ([116] [117]).

I'm not sure of the best approach to take with enthusiastic, overconfident, young (as in teen-age) users. I don't want to indef the next generation of Wikipedia editors, but I also hate to see so many current editors getting bogged down with monitoring their edits and trying to explain policy while being accused of harassment. I know I don't have the time to review their edits as much as they need reviewing. I think some kind of restriction would be helpful, maybe a global WP:0RR, or some kind of mentorship (if anybody's interested). Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. As one of the users who posted on their talk page at least a few times recently [ever since they made a botched AIV report (link], and as an newer editor who has been adopted, I feel like mentorship would be a great idea for Bill! I normally don't review their edits except as it comes up in my watchlist, so I thought I should make that clear. However, in getting the link for that AIV report, I found this MFD. Need I say more?
  They're very clearly new to Wikipedia and in need of some dire help to be productive. While it would be a lot of work in the short term for whoever takes on that task, in the long term the project would gain a really bright young editor. Bill has a lot of potential were they to leave their current path, so that is the scenario I would most like to see. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I've tried to help so far (haven't scrutinized every single edit though), but I fear I don't have much time in the future to do so. Certainly, a very WP:BOLD editor that definitely needs to learn more policies. That first abortion diff, yikes. Bill, you need a reliable source! Here's some advice, Bill. Pretty much everyone here is more experienced than you. If we're telling you you've done something wrong, you should be open to listening - because we're speaking from a place of much more experience than yours. starship.paint (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry for the intrusion, I'd just like to comment. Although I did make many mistakes at the start, I have not been involved in any edit wars with this current account. When someone reverted my edits, I instead took it to the talk page. So although you're right about me doing that in the past, I am reading over policies/guidelines and will try not to do that in the future. Also, I'm not just "claiming to be a newbie", I most certainly am. I've only been editing for a week and a day, so I don't know as much as you guys/girls do. Bill Williams (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  LilBillWilliams, You are on Gainesville, Florida. You just reverted a revert of one of your edits and I had to revert it back. You were asked to stop editing the lead without getting consensus in the talk page but you continue to do so. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 14:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - as one of the early editors to take notice of his behavior, I offered to help him but there is only so much one can do. It appears he is taking some of the right steps with the new account. I see the biggest issue being his unfamiliarity with community standards, and quite frankly prevailing ideologies and biases. How do we teach that from a NPOV? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This user (BobRoberts14/LilBillWilliams) has recently been discussed on the edit warring noticeboard and

here. Today LilBillWilliams made a bold edit to Gainesville, Florida, which I reverted and he then re-reverted without discussion. He does not seem to be learning WP:BRD. - Donald Albury 14:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your sentence was a run-on and had a total of 5 commas in it, so I removed the unnecessary end part of it. "Gainesville is the county seat and largest city in Alachua County, Florida, United States, and the principal city of the Gainesville, Florida, metropolitan statistical area," is a run-on sentence, and the last part about the metro area is unnecessary. I haven't seen any other city article saying that the city is in a certain metro area in the first sentence. Obviously it is the principle city in the Gainesville metro area. Anyone who can read would figure that out in a second, since it literally has "Gainesville" in the name. Trying to argue about that doesn't make any sense. @PopularOutcast: of course having that in the sentence is redundant. It says the Gainesville Metro area a few sentences later. Bill Williams (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This where you get into trouble. Five commas does not make this sentence a run on sentence. It is not a run on sentence. Donald did not edit that sentence to be a run on sentence; it has been the lead sentence for a long time. Comments like "anyone who can read would figure that out in a second" is one of the reasons that you are having so much trouble. This isn't an online game where we put each other down. We are trying to make this better and you just keep on editing based on faulty information about things that you think you know ... like if something is a run on sentence. I reverted you. Told you why and you come back arguing the same thing. It's exhausting. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 15:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It being a run-on sentence isn't even the main reason it should be removed. It's a long sentence either way, and I said ""anyone who can read would figure that out in a second" about it being in the metro area, so don't try to use my words for something else. Those words are perfectly accurate. Read the name of the metro area, and the name of the city. You can tell the city is in the metro area. It is stated three sentences later. There is no need to have that in the first sentence. Tell me one other article about a 130,000+ city that is the principle one in its metro area and includes that in the first sentence. Almost no articles are like that. Bill Williams (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I reverted a single person's edit one time. That's not a violation of the three revert per day rule, and wouldn't even be a violation if the article had a one revert policy. Bill Williams (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - it isn't just controversial articles. The editor has been editing Gainesville, Florida, and a few editors have spent a lot of time trying to educate him/her. Continues the same behavior. Just look at the talk page there. Has apologized at least twice to me but then does the same thing again. I know it has been a short while since the editor has started but in that time I've had little time to do any other editing since I've spent so much time dealing with this user. I ended up taking a wikibreak partially because this user has been tremendously frustrating and I feel that my efforts to educate are getting nowhere. The only reason I came back today is because I was alerted by email with a ping from the user. I am frustrated and I know it's coming across in my tone and my comments and I know that ends up not being effective. I am at a loss as what to do. I had already brought this user to AN/I previously but I had never reported anyone before and apparently did not do a good job of it. Still, the report did not help user with edits. I, too, welcome new and enthusiastic editors even if they make mistakes, but in an environment like Wikipedia I don't know how to assure that someone understands the basic tenets before allowing them to continue to edit. Anyhoo, my two cents. I am sure that the more experienced editors and administrators can come to a decision that works. THanks for helping out. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding - just based on the editor's comments here, I would suggest a time-limited IP ban so the editor has time to read through the educational material that Wikipedia provides. This behavior of being argumentative then showing contrition has been seen several times but the problematic behavior continues. A more permanent solution could be used if the editor comes back and exhibits the same behavior. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, since if me debating things is just causing more trouble, then I will just back off and not argue about anything at all. I guess if someone reverts my edits I'll just have to ignore that and move on. If I'm not able to ask questions or debate things, then so be it. Bill Williams (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The main problem with what I have done is that I know about the topics, so I think I am right too often. I agree completely that I am not always right, but I can go too far in trying to prove that I am. I promise that I am not at all biased ideologically or politically Atsme, it's just that I know a lot about the topics and try to prove that I am right by arguing. I am just not good at debating things, as you can tell. So because this is obviously a problem, I'll just have to stick to mainly copy editing or adding citations to articles instead of debating more controversial things. Bill Williams (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• You still don't get it. It is not what you know personally know that counts in Wikipedia, it is what you can cite reliable sources for that counts. How material supported by reliable sources is used in an article is subject to policies such as Neutral point of view, which includes due and undue weight, and to the editorial consensus of that part of the community working on an article. The community has consistently rejected claims of expertise about the subjects of articles from editors. - Donald Albury 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  LilBillWilliams - hope you can absorb Donald’s comment. starship.paint (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course I get it, but there was absolutely no need for that to be in the first sentence. Again, you didn't give me other Wikipedia articles where the Metropolitan Area is mentioned in the first sentence. You can't just say "you didn't provide sources" about anything and everything I do. I made the original edit, then you reverted it first, because you thought it was incorrect. Saying that a city is the principle city in it's metro are does not need to be in the first sentence. The sentence was already more than long enough. Bill Williams (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Here’s another comment for LilBillWilliams - it’s important you remember that Wikipedia today is the sum total of many, many editors edits, and some articles are even over 15 years old. Every well-meaning editor thinks their edits are correct. So, the more popular (or controversial) an article, the more eyes (and edits) there will be on them. Articles like Donald Trump, same-sex marriage, abortion, Israel-Palestine, Gamergate, I think editors have been ‘fighting’ over them for very long. There must be a reason why the articles are currently this way, and that is effectively the decision (consensus) of the community over a period of years. So if you happen to think something is really wrong about the article, and want to make a WP:BOLD change, don’t be too combative. Even in non-controversial articles like Gainsville, the leads of the articles are probably heavily scrutinised because they are of course the first things people read - so it’s not often that there are major errors in them. starship.paint (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's good point, and I am not stupid enough to think that I am more experienced or know more than every other editor. That would be really dumb. I definitely agree that many people edit controversial articles to try and make them the way they believe, which is normally just good overall, but sometimes in a biased manner. I just can be too argumentative when I think I'm right about something, so I'll try not to be in the future. Bill Williams (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Get used to being in "learn" mode for a couple of years. I've been at it heavily for six years and a lot of it still baffles me. For some things, I probably wouldn't understand if I had edited for a hundred years. It's all about consensus and the ability to defer to consensuses you disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Haven't read the above but just wanted to add Bob originally stated they'd only use one account however as of today they've used both accounts (which apparently was to get around the 4 day restriction on their new account)[118][119] - Anywho prior to all that I had redirected their Bob account back to the Bill one however if anyone disagrees with this they're more than welcome to revert my actions, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• This editor argued that imposing sanctions on Russia is one of Donald Trump's most noteworthy policies. His current inability to grasp our community standards aside, I disagree with MJL's assessment that this editor is "really bright" with "a lot of potential." There is a long-term CIR problem here, in my view. R2 (bleep) 18:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't try to misquote me. I never said "most noteworthy", that's a complete lie. I literally said "it is too minor to belong in the lead... I was just giving an example of one of his policies." Again, you were angry at me because I mentioned how you once told an administrator to "fuck off". I shouldn't have used that against you, but it doesn't mean you can lie. Bill Williams (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove "most noteworthy" and I can agree with the rest. Otherwise you're just insulting me and lying. Bill Williams (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The diff stands for itself. The CIR issue isn't so much your view on noteworthiness; it's your belief that increasing sanctions on Russia is one of Trump's policies. R2 (bleep) 19:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not as much of a "policy" as it is a minor part of the presidency. Again though, tell me what https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill-moscow-calls-it-trade-war.html is talking about. There are other sources as well. He did increase sanctions on Russia, but that was not a major policy of his. I would not say that it is "major" at all. Bill Williams (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And you edited my comment in this very thread--twice. [120][121] Yeah, I think this is hopeless. R2 (bleep) 19:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I still don't see why you are involving yourself in this. You've told administrators to f off, so you cant't just come here and say "it's hopeless". I edited out two false words from your statement, then realized you aren't supposed edit other people's comments, so I reverted it. What a deal changer. Bill Williams (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What seems hopeless is me asking is you to stop bothering me, but I guess you never will. Bill Williams (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is now the third discussion in which you've brought up that, six months ago, I told Awilley to fuck off. [122][123] After the second time, I warned you that I'd report you for harassment if you did it again. So here we are. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not the only thing you've done. What I am saying is that your blatant insults are just bothersome. They aren't necessary at all. This is about me and what I have done, but not for you to just lie and insult me. Bill Williams (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Since it seems as if I am not helping the community by debating things when people revert my edits, I guess I will just have to not ask questions or defend my edits. That's okay I guess, so I'll instead try to actually help the community starting in a few days (when I'm free from school work) by making less controversial edits about grammar, spelling, sources, etc. Sorry for causing trouble, I was just trying to help. But since it seems as if I am not helping, I should obviously do something else. Bill Williams (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I wanted to chip in here with Bill's activity on Fetal viability. He made a bold set of edits that I disagreed with comprehensively. I reverted and listed reasons on the talk page. He reinstated one of the edits immediately without consensus. This was at 0044 June 18th. This is a strong pattern. Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You mean I reinstated a part of the edit a single time because you said nothing on the talk page? Look at the time of the edit, and see that you hadn't said anything yet. Putting back a single part of an edit one time is not a major issue. Then when you reverted my edit for a second time, I spoke on the talk page. Bill Williams (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. I made a comment with my edit: "Reverting to last edit before LilBillWilliams made multiple edits; see talk page for description of multiple issues with edits." It took me eleven minutes to have my comment in the talk page, but it only took you five minutes to... I don't know? Assume that I wasn't going to say anything? Assume that my reason for reverting your edit was wrong? And reinstate an unsupported claim in the lede. Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

First, some people have told me that "lead" only applies to news stories, and that "lead" should be used for wikipedia. Second, I only reinstated part of my edit, and it was not "unsupported". It was sourced. I deleted something saying that the point of viability is 28 weeks, and replaced it with 24. I also provided a source, and offered more. How is that unsupported? Again, you reverted my edit twice, not the other way around. I reverted it once and then went to the talk page instead of reverting it further. Even if you disagreed, you could have just talked about it first. Bill Williams (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I would urge the new editor to recognize that a dash of humility, both epistemic and personal, goes a long way. I see many minor issues in this thread that don't particularly bother me, but I also see an overall attitude that strikes me as quite troublesome. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I agree that I haven't been a nice guy in this thread, and I am sorry for that. It's just bothers me somewhat to hear certain accusations that are false, and even the ones that are true still annoy me sometimes. I'm just very defensive, so when people revert my edits, I debate with them. That isn't the best attitude sadly, so I am trying to improve it. Thanks for commenting on this issue either way . Bill Williams (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

After giving this some thought, I'd like to propose a custom sanction to directly deal with what I see as the root problems.

LilBillWilliams is subject to the following sanctions:

*If an edit that LilBillWilliams makes is challenged by reversion, LilBillWilliams may not reinstate that edit without a clear consensus on the talk page.

*To prevent WP:BLUDGEONING, LilBillWilliams may only make one (1) edit per day to any article talk page. (Thank very carefully about what you want to say.)

This sanction may be appealed no sooner than 1-year and only with the approval of an experienced editor with whom LilBillWilliams has undergone a mentorship.

(Note: on the talk page sanction that's one edit per day, not edit per 24-hour period. It averages out, and counting that many 24-hour periods is too much of a burden. Also, that's one edit, not one post.) I realize there are admins who would sooner just indef-block than fiddle with custom sanctions, but I'd like to give something like this a try first, assuming I haven't lost patience and indef-blocked before this closes. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that not allowing me to reinstate my edits without getting consensus would work, but to do that I need to be able to talk a lot more than one message per talk page. How about, if I go on for too long in a talk page (which I will try not to do), any admin can tell me that I am not allowed to argue about that specific thing any longer? That way I can continue to participate in talk pages, but I can be stopped from arguing for too long. Bill Williams (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

One edit per talk page would just be way too low. If I proposed something, I would not be able to comment further on my proposal, or if someone asked about it, I would not be able to clarify anything. Bill Williams (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think that a year is too long of a period. If I am active and contribute to the community (multiple dozen edits per day on articles), how about an appeal is possible after a month? Bill Williams (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support Awilley's proposal, it seems amply justified. As Dumuzuid says, there's a troublesome attitude, in this thread and even more on his own talkpage. I'm not really impressed by BillWilliams saying that he's trying to improve it, because, well, it just doesn't seem to be working. He has posted a whole lot of badgering and bludgeoning and nagging today. But you're not saying he already has a mentor, are you, Awilley? More that in order to appeal the sanction, he needs to have a mentor at that time? OK. This may sound mean, but I'm not sure I'd recommend a constructive editor to use their Wikipedia time for mentoring this user, unless he really shows a different attitude, right now. The way he wore out BullRangifer's good will and attempts at advice on his own page reads like a terrible warning to any prospective mentor. As for your response just above, Bill Williams, saying "any admin" can always tell you to stop arguing, I understand your perspective there, but I'm afraid it's a dud. There aren't that many admins around the talkpages, and Awilley's point with an edit a day is to stop you wasting other users' time, whether or not there happens to be an admin watching. They should definitely not have to go ask an admin, either. But I actually agree with you that a year is a very long time for such restrictions. A month is a very short time, though. Awilley, would you consider an appeal after three months or six months? Bishonen | talk 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC).

You didn't make any mention of one edit per day on any talk page. That would not make any sense, since allowing me to not revert edits requires me to be able to access a talk page. Also, I did not tell BullRangifer to stop bothering me or say anything rude to them, so I didn't just "wear out" their good will. As for the months, I would say three months at max. Any more than that is a long time for sanctions on me. Bill Williams (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I know the one-edit-per-talk-page restriction seems harsh, but honestly, I think it might be a good thing. With all respect, I believe you really need to take some time to consider your responses. I absolutely think you are competent and want to improve the encyclopedia, but right now, you are choosing battles which are nothing but downside for both you and the editors with whom you interact. This response seems a good example of that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: For this specifically, I don't see what's wrong with commenting on what Bishonen said. I'm just responding and stating my opinions. The one edit per talk page doesn't make any sense though if you want me to be able to work with others on edits. Say someone suggests an edit to my proposal. I can't respond and work with them on said proposal. What could be done is if I obviously and just arguing at some point, call me out on it. If I don't stop then, I get blocked for some time. If I do stop after being asked though, then we can just move on. If I repeatedly have to be asked to stop though, then I could be blocked for multiple more days. Bill Williams (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As you said, I do really want to help out the wiki, and I agree that so far I have not done a good job by arguing. But how am I supposed to prove myself if I am not allowed to talk/collaborate on any talk pages? Bill Williams (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You "prove" yourself by following the restriction and learning to make your points clearly, concisely, and logically, instead of filibustering. ~Awilley (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate Awilley's thoughtful approach, though it seems quite cumbersome for Bill and the editors he interacts with. Enforcement could also get quite messy. I'm inclined to suggest something much simpler, that Bill be topic-banned from editing articles (and associated content discussions) until he's found a mentor. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: that could definitely work, but which topics specifically? I could understand politics "indefinitely", i.e. until I can prove that I won't argue as much. Bill Williams (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

All topics until you find a mentor. R2 (bleep) 22:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So I don't get to edit any articles, anywhere? What even is the point of talking about it then? If that's what you want, then (whoever agrees with you) just block me right now. Why waste time debating it if you just want to block me completely forever? I get that I made mistakes, but the other people who have been blocked permanently in this talk page were normally much worse. Topic banning is not banning me from all topics. One makes sense, the other doesn't. Bill Williams (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with Awilley's restriction, subject to appeal in 3 months, coupled with a topic ban on DS topics the user was warned about, also subject to appeal in 3 months. El_C 22:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mentorship also is definitely a good idea, if the user is able to swing that. El_C 22:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I would also be fine with an appeal in three months, me not being able to reinstate edits of mine that people remove without going to the talk page, and a topic ban on post 1932 American politics. But one edit per talk page would not allow me to reasonably get consensus for something or participate in any conversation. Mentorship would also be nice, I just hope I don't waste their time like I sadly have with some people already... Bill Williams (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd also include abortion to that list — not sure about BLPs. The talk page restriction is about your tendency to bludgeon discussions. El_C 22:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I do understand that, but could it at least be higher than one? Maybe just five? That way I wouldn't be able to go on for a long time arguing about something, but could explain my points clearly and concisely. Bill Williams (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Is sanction negotiation a thing? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything's a negotiation when you're a master with the bludgeon. R2 (bleep) 00:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with everyone else here commenting, but Ahrtoodeetoo needs to just stop. His comment above is just another insult. Most of his comments, such as "this is hopeless", saying that I have a "CIR problem", which literally means that I am incompetent, and others in different talk pages are just rude to me and not civil. They are just insults. Can you please stop Ahrtoodeetoo? Bill Williams (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

His editing interests are eclectic. He has been a problem at Gainesville, Florida as well. He has been a drain on time and energy for several editors there. I favor the tightest restrictions that the community is willing to impose on him. - Donald Albury 00:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be more lenient and grant two edits to talk pages per day. In case they need to make a correction. starship.paint (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, definitely more than one edit. If someone says "well what about we do ... instead" I would literally not be allowed to respond if I could only edit once per day. Bill Williams (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would be more lenient as well. Kid is off school and he has time and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt (no matter how personally frustrated I am) that s/he will be constructive. I would give two to three edits on a talk page with the restrictions going on for three to six months. I agree with the mentor part but if the mentor sees the behavior continue and not improve significantly, then maybe a block. For instance if s/he is seen significantly editing his comments or those of others, that would be cause for immediate block. No appeal until this shorter-than-a-year time period is over. I don't have an opinion on the topic ban. I don't know how troublesome all this is to implement so I will agree with whatever is the easiest, even if it goes against my suggestions. I do appreciate the thoughtful approach and everyone's help here. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 01:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@PopularOutcast: I completely agree with what you said. I think three edits per talk page would be less than what I want, but still enough to contribute a little bit. And about three months sounds like a good amount of time, so hopefully I can improve by then instead of six months. Bill Williams (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspected biased administration of the FlixBus page

Nothing to see here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Administrator SOWHY (Redacted) recently deleted updates about the German company named Flixbus (Flixmobility) on the relevant page. After the deletion there is no traces of the changes deleted on the "history" page neither it reffered on the "Talk" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashafir (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they haven't. El_C 08:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In more detail: Ahsafir, SoWhy didn't revert any contributions of yours. SoWhy was merely the person who left a standard welcome message on your page. Somebody else removed your contributions, evidently because they felt they were non-neutral and/or poorly sourced (and at a quick look, they were probably right in doing so). This is all visible in the edit history, so nothing was hidden from it. You should go to the article's talkpage and get some advice from experienced users about why you can't add material like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Manager27

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

---

Someone want to investigate Manager27 (talk · contribs) more carefully? I'm too annoyed (by their repeated undoing of my removal of sockpuppet edits) to do it fairly, and anyway I need to go to bed. But their edits largely consist of indiscriminate reversions of IP editors (some appropriate, others like this one less so) and indiscriminate welcome-new-editor messages left on others pages. I smell socks (and not the one I was just blocking and denying over on Kynea number), but maybe I'm just overly paranoid. I should mention that after they re-did the sockpuppet edits on Kynea number a second time and I suggested on their talk page that they self-revert, their response was instead to remove the message from their talk (as is their right) and keep going on doing other things. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Backing this request. This editor reverted perfectly valid alphabetical correction of the clients' list in Tox (protocol), and also removed additional comments to one of the entries, which were backed by a link to developers' statement. Judging from their contributions, it appears that Manager27 (talk · contribs) mostly removes and/or reverts edits from anonymous editors. I believe that such destructive and biased behavior should not be tolerated. 134.191.220.74 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• I support this request as well. I came back to Manager27's talk page to see if they had replied to my message after they removed information with a source and reinstated a broken version of the page with a poor edit summary only to notice that another user (the IP user above) had also left a message on the user's talk page about poorly explained removal of information as well. I was ultimately led to the Admin Noticeboard and noticed this case. A brief look at their recent edit history only shows me that they are mainly clicking "undo" and reverting IP user's edits. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:B838:C894:556E:E993 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC))
• Was there anything wrong with the sock puppet's edits? As much as I get annoyed when people encourage sock puppets to continue editing, policy allows them to "take complete responsibility for the content" they've restored. However, it looks to me like Manager27 may be indiscriminately reverting recent edits to get permissions. See, for example, this edit, where Manager27 restores blatant vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• The relevant sockpuppet edits are not completely terrible (i.e., not vandalism, BLP violations, etc.) but do not improve the encyclopedia. They are essentially adding enormous lists of trivia of a particular mathematical kind. --JBL (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Separately, Manager27 reverted David Eppstein a second time (with no edit summary, of course), after DE explained the issue: see [124]. --JBL (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've declined the PERM request. Someone else can go ahead and do a CIR block - long enough for them to at least understand they have a talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restored this from the archive, because after a 4-day case of flu, Manager27 is doing exactly the same things again. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your diff is from four days ago, and after that edit, Manager27 was blocked for 48 hours. Have they returned to the same pattern of editing after that block expired? I see they have edited yesterday and today, but from a quick glance it doesn't look like they have been reverting indiscriminately - I have not looked that closely though so I may very well have missed something. Unless they do start doing the same thing again, there doesn't seem to be any reason for administrative action. --bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have looked more closely. --JBL (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Conspiracy rants from User:Davidlwinkler

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

---

Could I have some more pairs of eyes on Special:Contributions/Davidlwinkler? This user has been spending almost his entire time on Wikipedia on a huge sandbox page that can only be described as a lunatic rant – conspiracy theories, wildly incoherent speculation, leaps of logic, pseudoscholarship and so on (it's all got something to do with fava beans though). He's made a few attempts [125] at editing mainspace so far; the edits I've seen were poor quality and confused, though not quite as obviously lunatic (I reverted these: [126][127]). Is this a case for a WP:NOTHERE block? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sandbox deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Let's see what they do from here... GiantSnowman 14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Did you think of just talking to the person? Xe has been trying to talk to us, and been met with indifference. It's now indifference plus a heavy-handed and uncommunicative outright deletion of an article draft for Cyamites being constructed in a sandbox. Rather than the feedback on how to write drafts that the editor asked for back in April. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Uhm, did you read that screed? Cyamites (/ˈkiːəmaɪtiːz/ was the central point throughout Ancient Greek Literature, History, and various mythologies throughout the world due to its role in the Greco-Roman mysteries because of its ability to transmogrify demigods into gods because of its definition, syllables, and intrinsic nature. This ability is due to the association between its definition and the definitions and etymological cognates of Olympian, Chthonic, and Primordial deities, as well as every deity from throughout the world who were historically the kings. Its name disappeared prior to 1,200 BCE when the Mediterranean was first attacked, but it's omission ruined poetry, could still be seen in art symbolizing mythological characters dating back thousands of years, and it was hidden from us historically by world leaders, religious leaders, and those purporting to care for mankind while hiding it was the sole purpose of the Christian Crusades, Catholic Inquisitions, and hundreds of other invasions, and wars throughout the world. However, their greed allowed them to keep the pieces, and they rebuilt a Greco-Roman mystery house in California. And so on, for dozens of paragraphs. Sorry, no, whatever that thing was, it wasn't "an article draft for Cyamites". Wikipedia is not therapy, and, not being a therapist, I wouldn't know what to say to a person who thinks that text made sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure what feedback one can be expected to provide to that sort of incomprehensibility. El_C 16:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another confused rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I, the user in question, reached out to another editor in March in hopes of getting help to stop me from making any any disjointed connections as shown here:[128]. In fact, another editor, a Linguist whom I personally know looked at it, and added a period. His entry was noted in its history where the sandbox is where we make trials and errors, had 170 citations, and more integrity than the vandalism done to it. The only area where I ventured to write any statement without a credible citation was in the lead section which Fut.Perf. has quoted in what appears to be a half-truth, usually designed to be deceptive. Maybe, as an editor, he didn't read it close enough to see the citation in the first paragraph of the article which states: "at a time when the earliest attested definitions of demigods had to do with humans who became gods through heroic acts.", and was properly sourced by a definition which states "a demigod is defined as a deity or god who was once mortal".[129] Cyamites, from κύαμος, is defined as Fava beansκύαμος, and is associated with a genetic deficiency that affects those of Mediterranean decent, and I gave supporting citations showing his role in the Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries while explaining its relation to a trip to the underworld. I go on to argue its association to the scythe said to have been invented no earlier than 500 BCE, yet we've found several hoards across Europe such as the Frankleben hoard containing hundreds of ax-heads, and 91 types of sickles where the Wikipedia page says this suggests a relationship to a ritual. Some of these were dated at 1,500 BCE whereas neolithic cave art is said to date scythes at 10,000 BCE,c:File:Neolithic rock engaving depicting scythes, Norway. Wellcome M0014997.jpg and this coincides with the disappearance of the Digamma which is too difficult to explain without quoting what I wrote. In the Cratylus, Socrates argued for a Folk etymology, "not from "unseen" but from "his knowledge (eidenai) of all noble things""[23] while answering a question as to whether names, and our language, are based on something in particular or are completely ambiguous.[24] Much of the read is spent discussing the origin of Hadês' name, Homer dropped the Digamma on verse 3 of the Iliad changing the pronunciation of it, purposely breaking the rhythm of his poem as if to make the Digamma the main point by way of Meiosis (figure of speech). Academically understood to be in regards to Agamemnon, the Epic form of ᾍδης (Hā́idēs) being Ἀΐδης was used rather than its variables of ᾍδης and Άδης,[4] (https://lsj.gr/wiki/Ἀίδης), but with the Digamma it becomes wanax (ϝάναξ) who was the head figure in Mycenaean Greece#Society_and_administration for over 500 years, but with only one possible example.[25] Zeus Anax ánax defined as tribal king, lord, (military) leader from (Greek (Zeus (Ἄναξ) lacks the proposed Digamma stemming from the Mycenaean Greek Ζεύς ϝάναξ , (wánax),[26] where at other times /wóînos/[27] English " wine ") was used when the Digamma was dropped. The name Fava beans was at one point changed to bean, possibly starting with the Sea Peoples, but they regained their name in 1492[31] concurring at the same time the conquerors said they were being grown with the corn of indigenous peoples of the Americas, [32] but this was hundreds of years before we discovered they were related to a Genetic disorder. Because of the countless historic references, it is argued that Favism, named for the Fava bean, was a known condition in Ancient Greece, [33]. As for my claim regarding a Greco-Roman mystery house, it is in reference to Hearst Castle where I've found more than half a dozen Orphic Eggs as shown here c:Category:Orphic Egg (Hearst Castle), as well as a fireplace in the Celestial Sitting Room with the following quote. In respect to it, there is decorative smoke on the North Tower, and deteriorating decor on the deteriorating decor at the Roman pool all of which have remained the same throughout repair work done to the castle as indicated by the images. I think the only reason my page was vandalized was because of its objective truth, and for no other reason. As shown here, it takes me a few tries to get my entries corrected. Feel free to fix that citation. Davidlwinkler (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC) References

David, as you've been told before, Wikipedia is not the place for your views on fava beans. Also, given the concerns raised about your lengthy blocks of incomprehensible text, I'd advise against responding with a lengthy block of incomprehensible text. See also WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I just need four words explained to me: it's [sic.] omission ruined poetry. El_C 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything in my sandbox was objectively cited, and none of had to do with my views, and I don't see where I was ever told that. I think @Uncle G and Uncle G: made a point that needs answering in regards to the indifference I've received when reaching out to your editors, and the deletion of my sandbox without due process, fair warning, or any discussion whatsoever, almost as if to hide what was in it. Not being able to read an answer to a truth claim which seemed to be a Gish gallop based on half-truths seems to be a bigger issue. Again, I think this is vandalism, and to pick on one particular out of the rest seems to aim for a hasty generalization, but this video seems to explain the exact thing I claimed.[130] yes, it can be disputed, but this point is argued by myself and others. Davidlwinkler (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So, that's a no, then? Understood (that much at least). El_C 19:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Davidlwinkler: While your sandbox may have been nominally cited, it appeared to be incomprehensible nonsense and wacky conspiracy theories. And please do not argue with us that it was not a conspiracy theory. It was clearly not content that would ever make it on to any Wikipedia page. Thus it was deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST, as Wikipedia's server space is not free and is only for use of the furthering of the Encyclopedia. Such blatant violations of policy can be deleted without further discussion, and thus your sandbox was. I invite you to edit meaningfully by staying out of your sandbox, and finding reliable sources and editing articles to improve them, or otherwise contributing to Wikipedia. If not you may find yourself blocked per the WP:NOTHERE clause. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed each question with rational and reasonable answers that are sensible, and instead of addressing my points, your responses are vague, ambiguous, and appear to use weasel words. When a person says an answer answer is A, after it has said it is B, it is usually because of Denialism, cognitive bias, or an inability to assess the works of another. If I am mistaken, please direct your attention to my points which gave answer to these charges rather than continuing with the smoke and mirrors. Davidlwinkler (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The only smoke and mirrors here seems to be David's wild answers. This is outright trolling. I think a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE indef is needed here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia editor, (Uncle G), said this was heavy-handed and uncommunicative outright deletion of an article draft, and anything I say in defense of this, as best as I can given my ability, is now said to be trolling. This is not the case, or at least by my own words, and unless something else is said by an admin in my defense, I will refrain from arguing my point, in case I am incorrect.Davidlwinkler (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have given Davidlwinkler an indefinite block as not here to build the encylopedia. Competence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Difficulties with an Editor

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

---

I am struggling with an editor. The editor insulted me the other day. They keep threatening and warning me, but they are mistaken. The first time there is a banner we both read differently. Rather than acknowledge that the banner could be read to ways and being conciliatory, she insulted me, calling me illiterate. Today, she accused me of something that the timeline of events in this history (essentially accusing me of a reverting war and not finding consensus in the talk page, despite me adding the text to the talk page almost 12 hour prior.) I'm truly at my wits end. I strongly suspect there are a group of jaded experienced editors that really are targeting me, and I think it needs to be researched and addressed. That said, I can't even put the editor's name here because I can't figure out the rules above and am literally in tears about how I've been treated. These horrible experiences with senior editors are a recurring problem; if Wikipedia were a real company I'm positive this would not be tolerated; in fact, I'm positive it would result in a harassment lawsuit. I think ultimately editors just assume that everyone is up to no good. But Wikipeida can't and won't survive if that continues. But that is a digression, and ultimately I'm asking for help with this editor, and possibly "these" editors as it feels coordinated. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Too much text, not enough evidence. El_C 16:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did not call you illiterate, I asked if you had bothered to read what you were being told. And you are edit warring, per the history on this article where bbb23 asked you at least twice to take it to the talk page and get consensus before reinstating the edits. I can say for certain there is nothing coordinated between myself and bbb23 and I certainly am not targeting you, nor have I threatened or harassed you. In fact, I've asked you twice to stop leaving tirades on my talk page. As far as your statement about Wikipedia being a real company and a harassment lawsuit, we're volunteers, we're not employees and we follow community established policies and guidelines. Sometimes hearing "no" sucks but it doesn't mean you're being harassed. Praxidicae (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Warned for legal threats, as well. Which may be moot, however. El_C 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We'll see. I've often found that editors who angry-retire come back, and that the so-called retirement is just a way to avoid the consequences of their problematic conduct. I could say more about this very difficult editor, who, ultimately, is NOTHERE and incompetent, but I have no time at the moment because of some RL commitments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve indef’d the OP for disruptive editing and either inability or unwillingness to engage in the communication needed to work on a collaborative project. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive editing

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

---

Persistent disruptive editing by User:Ahmedo Semsurî.[131][132] (According to the definition of Kurdification, the article also deals with areas, so the map is important. The map was also in article since 5 years without any disput [133], added by Spesh531) I think a topic ban for all Kurdish-related article is the best solution for the editor who deleted the map. Please look at his behavior. Uwaz (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Uwaz, you also reported this issue at WP:AIV. Problems should be reported to a single noticeboard only. But you haven't discussed this on the article's Talk page or the user's Talk page. You should try to resolve content disputes by talking to other editors. Schazjmd Talk 17:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Bold edits or reverts by very new accounts at the Kurdish set of articles are, at the moment, highly problematic. This is due to persistent disruption and socking over the last month or so. I've been semi or ec -protecting those articles pretty much on sight — talk page usage should be sufficient for those very new accounts, at this time. Tolerance for disruption as it pertains to these articles will be met with a far less lenient response because of that. It, unfortunately, is the price that has to be paid to keep these articles relatively stable. El_C 18:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy close this. This is outright hounding and block evasion by OP. At least 3 previous ANI reports have made against Ahmedo by the same socking user or group of users to try to get Ahmedo blocked on clearly false or trumped up accusations. Ahemdo has been making reasonable edits in a very controversial area and thus appesrs to have picked up an angry stalker. It is highly suspect that a brand new user comes here and not only reports Ahmedo for Kurdish issues but then asks for a topic ban (a somewhat obscure remedy). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) - massive removals of cited materials, editing restrictions are in place

Some massive removals of cited material at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 94.66.220.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 94.66.220.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 94.66.220.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) involved. There is an page notice prohibiting more than one revert in 24 hours, and I did this less than 24 hours ago. Please could Admins take a look>? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• DuncanHill, not an admin, but looking through the authors of the removed citations, Steven Béla Várdy, Justin McCarthy (American historian), and Elizabeth Özdalga, you may want to bring the sources at issue to RSN, incivility from IPs notwithstanding. McCarthy in particular is controversial; according to our Wikipedia article, he's both been repeatedly recognized for excellent demographic work, and criticized for Armenian genocide denial and pro-Turkish POV in his work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• I semi-protected it for a couple days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Violation of civil by a new user

Hello everyone!

There was a disruptive edit war on page Pallava_dynasty by Destroyer27 and the same was protected by an admin. A discussion was opened to discuss the same on article talk page. In the course of discussion, the user has viloated [Wikipedia:Civility|civil]] by posting sarcasm/uncivil/insult/disrespectful comments and deviated the discussion completely. Despite of remainding him not to use such comments he violated the same. Rather this user has opened a discussion on teahouse pointing I was involved in Personal attacks. But the same was disproved by the Teahouse moderators(as those were not personal attacks rather a few examples I quoted to explain). Below is the complete description of the discussion & comments used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Personal_attacks Upon the suggestion of Teahouse moderators to reach you, I am reporting this to you. Below are a few such comments made by Destroyer27

-'On a serious note, you must change your username from "LovSLif" to "HateSLif'.

-'That said this guy is absolutely bigoted, and obviously he has never been to school, and I urge you to somehow placate his ethnic fervour'.

-'After all, when one rummages through a dung heap even a plastic bead glimmers like pearl'.

-'If you have some sense of shame, do not engage with me'. By LovSLif (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, both of you need to tone it down a notch. Looks like you're both prone to long diatribes and attacking each other on occasion (e.g. here). If neither of you can behave, a topic and interaction ban may be considered against the both of you. I would consider toning down your attacks and sticking to editing the article. Sasquatch t|c 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sasquatch,

I haven't said absolutely anything defamatory now. In fact, nothing at all in a while. Even yesterday on the talk page LovSLif made an obnoxious comment and violated good faith with apparently sock accounts, as identified by Abecedare, to which I hadn't responded. Kautilya3 had a while ago pinged me on talk page, offering to moderate our discussion. I made a condition that Kautilya3 must opine on whether it is worth coming here on the noticeboard page with the dispute, so as to ensure that no one deliberately tries to draw out the discussion, thereby postponing the edits. LovSLif has complained about me here just after that. He had made the same complaint on the teahouse page, removing the context in which I made those comments, alleging that I'd made a personal attack, which the administrators gainsaid. Thank you for brushing it aside. I'd certainly follow your advice. But banning me for his activities would be grossly unfair. I've got nothing to do with him. Since this comment has been addressed to you, I'd only respond to you or any other authority, and no one else.

Yours truly,

Destroyer27 (talk) 5:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sasquatch, I request Destroyer27 not to ping me or address me again just like he did again(in above comment). If you look at the same , yet again used false or downgrading tone with self drawn allegations. I agree and I opine its of no use to speak with him and I ask him to follow the same such that he can no further mislead or deviate the core discussion. I have numerous valid sources to carry forward the discussion with admins and moderators and not let WP prey for POV. This is just a complaint on uncivil tone and not on the content which is already being moderated on talk page. Thank you! By LovSLif (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Everyone is socking. Destroyer27 is  Confirmed to Renamed user sgjut467ggf (talk · contribs · count). I blocked and tagged both. LovSLif is  Confirmed to RViN341 (talk · contribs · count). I have blocked and tagged RViN341 and blocked LovSLif for one week (the socking is much less pervasive than that of the other pair).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted block. Could someone please review this ASAP?

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

---

Scolaire (talk · contribs · logs · block log) appears to have been blocked for a week for editing warring on the Naomi Osaka article.

I can't see any reasonable evidence of discussion, intentional 3RR, and was taken aback at seeing an excellent editor blocked in some sort of misunderstanding. I've brought this to the ANI at his request after having spoken up on his behalf. Something has gone very wrong, and I'd appreciate it if a sysop/administrator other than the blocking admin were to review it. I'm sure there's an honest mistake at the bottom of this.

Thanks for the check in advance. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I have accepted the unblock request due to the strict conditions the user now places on themselves, so unless you object, I intend to follow through with it and unblock. Please let me know. El_C 08:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Iryna Harpy: You're supposed to inform the editor you make a discussion about (please see the big red box on top), I've informed Nyttend of the same. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• My apologies, Nyttend. I submitted this request on the fly & forgot to template you. Thanks, QEDK, for informing Nyttend of this thread. Uff, one shouldn't make dinner & open new ANI threads simultaneously. My bad! Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• @El C: For the record, note that Scolaire was edit warring to insert BLPVIOs, which should probably be addressed. ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm fine with accepting an unblock request, but this was not a mistake; see my response to a request that Osaka article be protected because of the ongoing edit war. Please remember that 3RR is a sufficient but not necessary condition for edit-warring — if you go past 3RR, you're definitely edit-warring, but it's possible to be edit-warring without going past 3RR, and the history of this article clearly demonstrates that Scolaire and another user had been slow-motion edit-warring since last month. Nyttend (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• What is this, a new standard for EW blocks? A 14-year editor with a clean block log, who was involved in a talk page discussion, gets a week-long block for a slow edit war, for the first offense, without even a warning? The golden standard in these situations has always been to protect the page first, and block the editors as the last resort. While, in fairness, you also blocked User:Sennen goroshi, if we'd apply such unreasonable standards we would have no editors left. Please reduce those to time served and point the editors to WP:DR. No such user (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: For another record, note that the wording has been contested on the grounds of relevance and MOS compliance, not as a BLP violation, and it has been duly sourced in the body of the article, so your crying BLP was not terribly helpful in diffusing the conflict. No such user (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• @No Such User: I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. Scolaire's shoe-horning of trivia—her shy, candid personality into the lead—is not what is expected from a 14-year-old account; knowing when not to edit war—whilst a discussion is actually taking place—on the other hand, very much is. Goodbye. ——SerialNumber54129 11:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• The fear is mutual, I'm afraid. There's quite a long way between "shoehorning of trivia" (which I could accept, although it was in the lead before the dispute emerged, and has been reasonably defended as relevant) and "inserting BLPVIO". Claiming that someone is "shy and candid" is hardly unflattering, let alone BLPVIO. Goodbye to you too. No such user (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistently disruptive anon 82.132.244.0/22

IP range:

• 82.132.244.0/22

Example IPs:

• 82.132.246.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.244.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.244.95‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.245.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.245.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.245.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎82.132.245.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.247.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.245.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.245.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.246.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.224.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), possibly another person

Deliberate errors, joking edits, pointless edits to targeted articles:

• Irrational number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): arguably, deliberate error, reverted by user Eyer (talk · contribs)
• Taylor series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): parody, but should not, reverted by user Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs)
• Square root (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): "arguably" nonnegative, approximately, error, error, "arguably" nonnegative, pseudonegative
• Fibonacci number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): labeling legit edit as vandalism, labeling legit edit as vandalism, protected by user EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
• Dot product (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): pointless, pointless, reverted by user D.Lazard (talk · contribs)
• Gaussian integral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), error, error, error, pointless, contradicting preceding sentence, pointless, contradicting preceding sentence, pointless, contradicting preceding sentence, article protected, ip 82.132.245.221 blocked by user NJA (talk · contribs)
• Sinc function (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): error, reverted by user Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs)
• User talk:DVdm (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs): retaliating vandalism warning
• Gamma function (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): see edits by IPs
• Holyoke, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): inappropriate comments in article, but possibly by another person

Actions other than mentioned above:

• Multiple warnings on IP's talk pages
• Reported twice at wp:AIV: [134] and [135]. Former resulting in comment by user Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs), latter resulting in 4 hour stale removal from AIV, and requests on multiple user talk pages ([136]) to create a username by user Entranced98 (talk · contribs)

Blocks, warnings, requests don't help after yesterday's warnings and requests — see 82.132.246.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Proposing long term block on relevant IPrange 82.132.244.0/22.

Notified recent IP on User talk:82.132.246.173. - DVdm (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling all this, DVdm; it's certainly been an ongoing problem. A couple pages have been protected, but that doesn't seem to be helping much, as this user just moves on to another one or several. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)