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

Ineedtostopforgetting and disruptive editing

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have given Ineedtostopforgetting a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, including lying about the warnings on their talk page. If the disruption continues, the next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Update: Just to note that the user has continued his disruptive practices like repeatedly adding Japanese translations of names to articles where it is not justified [1], and has been blocked a second time by User:Cullen328. Let's not close this yet, since the issues with this user have not been not resolved. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Topic ban proposal

The behavior seems to be continuing his/her tendentious editing, this time at Singapore-related articles. (See [2] and [3].) 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 [4] starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Retired"

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

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

Not to mention the self-admitted use of a sock while their main account was blocked: [5]. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• On June 23 the user said he is retiring from Wikipedia [6] - although note the unrepentant tone of his reason. And as noted he then immediately reinstated one of his controversial edits. I was going to suggest we close this discussion with no action - keeping an eye out to see if he returns, and if he resumes his disruptive activity. But now I'm not so sure. Should we let his supposed retirement render this discussion moot? Or proceed with the information we have? There were several people in this discussion calling for a block and others for a topic ban, but none of the suggestions seemed to generate a focused discussion or consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: I actually saw another case of something quite similar (though not undermining a live ANI thread) just now. But as I said there's no live ANI thread, and I doubt SS would say it counts anyway, since actions taken by our enemies are disruptive but the same actions when taken by our friends are fine.[7] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles01 behaviour

Extended content

I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me. Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content: Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [8] Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [9] 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" [10] Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [11] The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [12] [13] His reply to the template message [14] Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [15] Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [16] [17] Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [18] One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [19] [20] 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. [21] [22] [23] 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)

[24] 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)

[25] 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: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

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

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

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

When I first read the words 'vanity project', 'Vauxfordy' etc. I did not know, what the others meant. I'm not someone who bullies someone and I will never use such words. But after a while working side by side with Vauxford, I can understand the others. And to be true: Since a few days, I'm looking at your and Charles01 edits. But I do not side with anybody! I'm following different users on Wikicommons, who upload (car-)images regularly. And if I'm convinced by an image (as I was for the new Fiat Panda image), I share it on Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter if it's from me or another user. I think this isn't a problem. It seems to me like Vauxford is creating his own rules and if someone says something against him or his edits, it's ending like this. As I mentioned above, I do not prioritise anybody here. I also vote for his images ([45]) or implement them in some articles ([46]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([47]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([48], [49], [50]), but your behaviour is different to others. You do not assume good faith and do not respect the work of other users!

As El_C mentioned before: Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. And just because English is not my native language and I'm also active in the German Wikipedia, I shouldn't do that in your point of view? I think you have to be careful with statements like this! Your problems in other Wikipedias are not my fault! In the German one there is the guideline to use mainly LHD-vehicles, since 99% of the vehicles in the DACH-countries are delivered with the steering wheel on the left side. And since you didn't stick to that rule, the German users had a problem with your edits. If I see it right, nobody here without you has a problem with some of my edits. But you have a problem with many edits, since I think you are making your own rules - and if I see it right, I'm not the only one thinking about you in this kind of way. So I do not care about your statement, that I should not use the English Wikipedia!--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, while I don't know the full depths of this dispute as it's been mostly outside of my sub-topic area, I've noticed a few things. Your photographs generally range from decent to less-than-passable, but you don't seem to understand that. You also don't seem to understand that replacing one adequate image with another adequate image isn't particularly productive. Whether your intention is to fill Wikipedia with your own pictures or not, your editing pattern gives other editors the impression that you are. I suspect these issues are where Charles01's frustration comes from, and that repeated attempts to get you to see that have left him believing he has no alternative but the unpleasantries you mention above.

If someone wanted to make a measurable improvement in terms of illustrating automotive articles, one would identify articles where an existing image is lacking and seek out opportunities to replace it, rather than taking photos in mass quantities whether they will be helpful or not. The goal should be to replace poor images with adequate ones; replacing adequate ones with excellent ones is icing on the cake (but in the vast majority of cases, a curbside shot like those you have access to is never going to be at that level). The point of having images in the articles is to provide the reader with a reasonable idea of what the vehicle looks like. As long as an existing image does that, ad nauseum discussions of whether a new image is a 1% improvement or a 1% detriment are wholly unproductive. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 Knowing a picture that need replacing is completely subjective towards the viewer. I have every right to do make these bold edits and I clearly understand why I do them and the repercussion I could get because of it. How the heck could I tell if a image could truly be replaced with something else or vice versa and thinking like that is just mind numbing. A person could replace a picture something they consider the absolute best but there always going to be someone who said otherwise. It doesn't matter if Charles01 is expressing frustration over me, it beyond unacceptable accusing others for "edit warring" when they have done whatsoever! It just harassment in general, it really patronising to be labelled as the "Vauxford Problem".. --Vauxford (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, you have a conflict of interests when it comes to adding your own images. You should really be suggesting that on talk pages, instead. El_C 16:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

But I'm not getting paid to do these edits or doing it out of my interest. I know that hard to believe but that's the truth and I understand why people mistake that. --Vauxford (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you're not getting paid, you cannot be presumed to be neutral regarding your own images in the event these are objected to, so you should let others add them instead and limit yourself to proposals on the talk page. That sounds like a sensible solution to me. El_C 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Hopefully it's only for the quarter and no longer. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I eagerly await a page entitled 'RuPaul Riding In Cars With Wrestlers.' JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the reason why this was ignored twice is a lot of people looking at maybe thinking, Mmmmm, not sure this is all that one way. At this time I am going to suggest that this is dropped before a boomerang ensues.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is one way because I did nothing to make Charles01 like this. This was all his choice, if was actually giving me advice of how to edit productively none of this would happen. --Vauxford (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing to edit more constructively would be to stop going to ANI about everything. No, not everyone is a puppy, unicorn, or eternally happy, and some of these people will make you upset. But if that happens, back away for a bit, maybe delete the message they sent to you if it's not applicable, stop reverting them. If they continue, for a long time, then maybe you can report them. MAYBE. You probably shouldn't. Unless they are making definitively uncivil statements or reverting several people, you probably shouldn't. The reasons people are against you right now are that for one, you opened this less than a month after that YBSOne mess, and two, you are reverting far too aggressively. Stop reverting people for a while and people should feel less animosity. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A lad insane That YBSOne wasn't started by me, it was started by U1Quattro which got myself involved in when I shouldn't have. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Aight, great. Now don't get involved in any more, and no reverts, and everything will be peachy. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Per wp:brd once you are reverted it is down to you to make the case, not down to the other user to give you advice. You are being told here what you did wrong, and your response is "I disagree".Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I been doing that this whole time though. I been discussing my edit on the talkpage instead of reverting all the time. Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI, so I went to the ANI and then E1_C told that this sorta stuff should be discussed in the talkpage section. It just seem like no matter what I do I get shouted and scolded for it. I'm at the brink of just giving up because at this rate I feel like every thing is all falling down on me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you had been doing it the whole time you would not have reverted even twice. It does not matte if you sometimes do it (and to be honest we all forget sometimes). What matters is you are here over this mater (it does not matter who started it, or who was reported) and have now re-started this twice, when you did not get your way (when I saw you first re-post I was going to say "maybe they have not commented because they see nothing to comment on"). Please note that sanctions are not punitive, they are preventive. At this time you are the disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't re opened this because it wasn't going my way I re opened it because nobody said anything and the bot automatically archived it before anyone could, all I'm doing is addressing the issue, I haven't reverted more then twice recently and I have been taking to talkpage discussion instead of that. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong here. --Vauxford (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am troubled by a lot of the stuff here on a number of different levels, but I was repeatedly dissuaded from intervening (1) because initially I couldn't think of anything I could add that would be helpful and (2) as the thing has dragged on and the temptation to jump in has periodically returned, I have been dissuaded from commenting by the belief that anything I wrote/write was/is likely to be savagely reinterpreted beyond recognition. So I bit my tongue and stayed silent here. But I am particularly taken aback by the statement "Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI...." I have no recollection of having "told" Vauxford that or anything that could have been construed as that. I really think he is ...um .... mistaken with his statement here. Either that, or my mind is going. (Of course, those two possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.) He is, as far as I understand the rules, entitled, as we all are, to write whatever he wishes here. But I think I would have been borderline insane to have "told" (or even recommended) him to do it as he has chosen to. I wonder what you are / he is thinking of with this. Charles01 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 I don't even know at this point. I think need a breather from all this because in my head I think I see something someone said but haven't actually said it, I just end up accuse them for no reasons. Even looking back to what I said it starting to not make any sense. Edit: [51] This what I meant. I might of misinterpeted in a way that I thought you were telling me to take my concern about Typ932 to the ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an all too predictable response to someone complaining about being hounded by another editor. Personal attacks are not justified by being "frustrated", are a clear violation of wikipedia policy, and need to be stopped. Conflicts of Interest can be reported to the COI Noticeboard. Period. ♟♙ (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More cases of using the "Vauxford Vanity Project" and belittling my own work over someone else. All because of a a short thought about someone else proposal. --Vauxford (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here I don't completely understand this whole COI thing. I been reading about it since but the way it describe doesn't fit the type of edits I do. I'm not closely connected or associated to anything or anyone. I just really love cars of all type and photographing them and thought they be good use in the article. I started this ANI because of the user's behaviour in the long-term. If their more I need to know about this subject please do explain it to me. The diffs I have provided shows he has accused me of edit warring, using wikipedia as some sort of "vanity project" which upsets me each time he uses that term because I know myself that isn't true, he calls my good faith contribution "toxic and delusional" and that I am "degrading Wikipedia". These are the type of comments I get whenever am trying to solve a dispute on the talkpage which is why people could take this as a COI (if am using that correctly) and became a more serious issue then it should to be. --Vauxford (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

COI is different to WP:COI. That sounds silly but the addition of WP: references it to the encylopedia's take on conflict of interest. Editors above that mention COI (without the WP:) are talking about one's conflict of interest when it comes to one's own work. Of course we are going to be biased towards our own contributions, we're going to think that it's great and defend it (to the death for some, figuratively speaking). And this is where editors lose perspective. They get so caught up in defending their work, they get blinded to all else. They start seeing any sort of constructive commentary as attacks on their work, people pointing out areas for improvement become bullies, harassers or hounds (sometimes this is true but for the most part, people generally do act with the best for the project at heart, you know, good faith and all that) and round and round it goes. I mostly restrict myself to copy editing because I'm pretty confident in my writing skills (quite a few of the articles I've copy edited have gone on to pass GA and even 1! FA), but I always keep in mind that at the end of the day no matter how well I think I write, someone else will no doubt come along and improve it, and that's the take home message. Don't get too enamored with your contribution to the article. Blackmane (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[52] As much as I wanted Charles01 take his time fine tune his testimony against me and I been making my counter defence one in the process but, I was too shocked the fact he even suggested that I was even using sockpuppet accounts. Apparently people other then him has suspicion that I been using sockpuppet account, for starters I have NOT used any alternative accounts for abusive purposes, the only two accounts I ever created was this one which was orignially Makizox, and Vauxford2 for mostly uploading files from Flickr to Commons with one accidental edit on Wikipedia because I forgot to log in to my main account. I did made some accidental log out edits which I got admins remove them because they revealed my actual IP address and that's it. I tried asking him on his talkpage about where he is getting these so-called suspicions from but it clear he is ignoring me. Along with the many assumption and accusation he has made against me on his testimony just shows the determination he has to throw myself and whatever reputation I ever had on here away. Why am so shocked from this is from my own impression on Wikipedia (which you might think is a bit exaggerating), being known as a sockpuppet user is equivalent to being a known sex offender, people will instantly change the way they think of you and would not have a second thought of what they think about you. --Vauxford (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung

I'm not quite sure of the standard procedure here, so I apologize in advance if there are issues with how I've handled this or if this would be more appropriate on a different noticeboard like NPOV or DR. I've begun to become worried about POV-pushing behavior on some of the Xinjiang related articles by user:Alexkyoung. It started for me when I noticed some misused citations and OR on the article History of Xinjiang, which made me feel that it read like propaganda in some places. In the discussion on the talk page that followed (Talk:History of Xinjiang#Citation misuse), user:Tobby72 brought it to my attention that there's apparently been a pattern of biased editing on a number of Xinjiang related pages from Alexkyoung: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff.

I was also worried by ownership-like behavior from Alexkyoung, particularly this post: [53]. I wasn't able to find anything that indicated that consensus had been reached, so I wrote a note saying as much, only for it to be deleted and responded to with the accusation that I was trying to start an edit-war [54]. I initially thought it was just a problem on one article or perhaps an extreme response during an argument; at one point I felt really guilty about having potentially misconstrued Alexkyoung's behavior and apologized to him on his talk page. Since then I have reviewed the edit history and been somewhat disturbed by edits made with edit summaries like this: [55]. I'm not really sure what to do because I hate to write all this negative stuff about an individual editor's behavior, especially as in my view, Alexkyoung has been largely civil with me. However I've become increasingly concerned that there's a greater pattern of POV-pushing and page ownership and was hoping others would be able to look into it. Darthkayak (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

First it is more productive to edit wikis yourself than to complain about others. I've had to annotate your response to pinpoint exactly which places are of dubious concern. I helped better organize the Xinjiang article, fixing many grammatical and stylistic articles. Most people have thanked me for my edits, and even you would have to admit that my edits have made the wiki much better on the whole. If there are remaining places where you would like to improve the article, then DIY. If you make general accusations and targeted attacks like those above, then it becomes hard for me to help you improve this wiki, which in the end is the ultimate goal for all of us (that is, I hope your main motive is to improve wiki and not discriminate against a specific user).

Second if you really hate writing bad, untrue things about your fellow wiki users, then do not. There is no 'pattern', and most of those edits were from more than a month ago. As I have told you before, the 'misused citations' were there before I made the edits, and I still fixed them for you (and the earlier editor, whoever it was). Most of my edits deal with fixing style and formatting and grammar. Most of the info I have added has been cited or deal with neutral topics.

Sirlanz stopped reverting so that was taken as a sign of consensus, since the original requests were made by him, which I fixed for him. Furthermore you pointed out specific lines and sections where the article could be improved, and I answered your call. In both cases, I welcomed you to make specific edits yourself; and in both cases, I ended up fixing the specific critiques for you. So who is the one making the positive contributions to the article? Moreover, I have been thanked many times for my contributions to this wikipedia. My contributions benefit this wikipedia and make it a better place. Darthkayak, if you provide specific feedback to exactly which lines of an article need to be fixed, rather than make general accusations, then I can help you improve the existing articles. Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The political agenda [specify] pursued by the subject editor is patent but generally skilfully executed so as to divert attention or to make targeted re-editing a major chore (who has that sort of time to spare? [if you have no time, then why waste your time complaining]). Admin(s) were easily duped [are you implying the admins are stupid?] when I crossed paths with this editor [specify] and I decided to leave the scene, notwithstanding the ongoing infection [specify] of the encyclopaedia. sirlanz 02:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no political agenda. Sirlanz left the scene, so that was taken as a sign of consensus, since the original requests were made by Sirlanz. He gave me specific feedback, and I responded. In general, if you guys give me specific feedback, like which sources to fix or which specific lines to fix, I will respond. I thank Sirlanz and Darthkayak for pinpointing specific lines or sources that needed to be fixed, and I did fix those in front of your very eyes. But if you emptily accuse me of very general things, it is hard for me to help you.Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The obvious [weasel word] anti-Uyghur [this is your pov] POV-pushing [unfounded]: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. File a report at NPOV noticeboard per WP:NPOVD. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't get delusional. There's nothing anti-Uyghur about that. Read about the 2014 Kunming attack or other terror-related incidents in China. Look I'm all against any discrimination against minorities, but as per wikipedia guidelines, it is best that all of us stick to the neutral viewpoint, rather than regurgitate what you read in tabloid journalism.

The user's edits to this article Foreign interventions by the United States are amongst the most extraordinary I've ever seen on WP.Nickm57 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'most extraordinary' but Jamez42 appreciates them. Citobun destructively reverted my edits (which organized the article better), but then Jamez42 reverted Citobun back to my edits. DavidMCEddy even thanked me for my edits.Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have also encountered this user's POV-pushing, on the article Gui Minhai. He was purposely misconstruing the content of several reliable sources to make it appear like they depicted the allegations of the Chinese government as fact, and continually edit warring over the issue despite three separate users (myself included) objecting to his dubious contributions. Citobun (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nickm57:, I just reverted those edits diff. This user is obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an impartial encyclopedia, but to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government. Citobun (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Citobun, they do not appear to have been reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes Jamez42 reverted back to Alexkyoung's original version diff, and DavidMCEddy thanked Alexkyoung for the edits. Alexkyoung has certainly been appreciated for his positive contributions to the wikis many times before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 28 june 2019 (UTC)

What a blatant lie and targeted smear-campaigning. I had a conversation with OhConfucius about this, and he thanked me for my edits. In the end OhConfucius took a middle ground between me and Citobun. Citobun, it is in your best interest to stop attacking and retaliating. You made a series of destructive reverts that were not appreciated.Alexkyoung (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It is against the collaborative nature of wikipedia to target a civil user who has been thanked many times for their contributions to improving wikipedia. I would suggest that we can all work together to improve the existing encyclopedia, but the first step would be to stop blaming each other and state very specifically which places, lines, sources need to be amended. We each have certain similarities and differences in interest, so in the end it is probably best to stick to your pages; and then I will stick to my own. Alexkyoung (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have read into what kinds of issues merit being posted here, and this one does not deserve to be. This is not chronic, nor is it urgent. I have stated repeatedly that if you pinpoint specifically and exactly which sources and lines need to be fixed, then I can help you fix that. I have also repeatedly invited others to make edits themselves, but they continue to complain rather than contribute to this wiki. If anything their behaviors should be examined more closely. Some of the things like 'citation misuse' do not even belong to me, but to some other wiki user. I still gladly fixed it for them, but to my irritation, these users continue to harass me by blaming me for other people's mistakes. Lastly, it must be emphasized: many of the mentioned edits are from nearly two months ago and form a small fraction of all of my wikipedia contributions. Many users have personally thanked me for my edits, and on the whole, I have made wikipedia a better place. So to the admin reading this, this case should be discarded as it is clear that these other users are not teamplayers, whose main objective is not to improve wikipedia but to take down another civil, positive-contributing user. I will not let them bring me down, and I will continue to make positive edits to improve this wiki; many of my fellow wiki users support me, and I trust the admins of good faith and judgement to support me as well. Alexkyoung (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung's beahvior is troublesome:

• 22 may he removed a comment by Sirlanz from Talk:History of Xinjiang, without any explanation
• 20 june he removed a comment from Darthkayak from Talk:History of Xinjiang:

: I'm really sorry to be bringing this up late, but this is really inappropriate. I cannot find anything on this talk page that indicates that consensus has been reached other than the proclamation here. Darthkayak (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

edit-summary ‎Enough

• 28 june he removed another comment from Darthkayak,

I don't think my specific points have really been addressed. In addition to the Hultvall stuff, the question of original synthesis still remains. Perhaps we should take it to a noticeboard for discussion? Darthkayak (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

edit-summary [[tq|remove unproductive, irrelevant libel as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines}}

• 28 june he removed a response from Darthkayak:

Why was my comment above deleted? That's not really ok, unless it's established to not be in accordance with WP:TPO, and even then, standard practice is to leave it up as documentation of my errors for potential dispute resolution. An unsigned comment declaring consensus achieved without summary, particularly considering that there was no closure of the discussion, reads like a statement of article ownership, and in that sense, I felt it was inappropriate. Darthkayak (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

edit-summary removed off-topic material as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

• 28 june JimRenge warned you; you removed the warning, edit-summary I gave two very good reasons already: libel and off-topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Please read my edit summaries next time.
• 28 june JimRenge gave you another warning; you removed that watrnong too, edit-summary gave two very good reasons already: libel and off-topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Please read my edit summaries next time.

I utterly fail to see how I don't think my specific points have really been addressed. In addition to the Hultvall stuff, the question of original synthesis still remains. Perhaps we should take it to a noticeboard for discussion? could be considered libel, nor how Darthkayak's questions about Alexkyoung's behavior could be considered off-topic. On the contrary, his behavior is WP:DISRUPTIVE, and should stop immediately. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"it is probably best to stick to your pages; and then I will stick to my own" [62]. History of Xinjiang is not your page, Alexkyoung. That is an incredibly blatant claim of article ownership - I'm just shocked. I didn't initially blame you for the mistakes of others, nor did I claim it was you who was responsible for the citation misuse - I didn't accuse you or anyone of being responsible for the issues with the article, I simply said they were a problem. It was only after I was shown the diffs that I learned that there were long standing concerns about POV-pushing.

I am not trying to "screw you over" [63], or make an "empty claim because others have" [64]. What I am now disturbed by is the way your conduct regarding the article has turned increasingly towards policing. Sirlanz no longer reverting isn't necessarily a sign of general consensus without agreement on the talk-page, but even if it was, consensus can change. You recently told Citobun "stop, you're late to the party, this was resolved a long time ago, and remaining pov was in this article before the edits" - not only is it not resolved, but why should he not get involved simply because he was several weeks late? Not that I am saying a revert is necessary, but to try and look at it from his point of view, sometimes material isn't fixed in a quick fashion. That information on a page is long-standing has no impact on whether it should stay - I recently performed a revert on a page where the intro appeared to have been edited to read like an advertisement roughly a year ago. Statements like "moving forward only existing content shall be edited or added to" [65] are against the spirit of a wiki.

For those interested in looking to the talk page, I should mention that Alexkyoung keeps deleting people's comments on the History of Xinjiang talk page, claiming they are libel or irrelevant [66][67].

Lastly, I should note that I am trying to be helpful [68] - raising concerns about an article's contents on the talk page without editing (particularly when it is so long), is a vital part of the process, and one of the things which prevents the cycle of edits and reverts that compose an edit war from occurring [69]. No one here is being a "complainer" and it makes me sad that someone would accuse anyone of that. Darthkayak (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I just realized User:Alexkyoung heavily edited my signed comments on this page with his own "annotations" and rebuttals in parentheses. I'm trying to find the words for how upset I am by this behavior. [70][71] I also would like to ask him why he chose to leave this unsigned comment on this page in the third person, [72]. Darthkayak (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This behaviour is indeed troubling. @Darthkayak: would you mind restoring your postings to their legitimate form? You can probably figure out more quickly than I could what they should look like. @Alexkyoung: Do not ever do that again. I'm looking some further into these diffs, but at the moment I tend towards the view that a lengthy block for tendentious/disruptive editing may be required here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've restored my initial post as best I can tell, though I might have left something in by accident - those interested in what Alexkyoung added to my post can check the two diffs above. The comments from @Sirlanz: and @Tobby72: were also similarly annotated by Alexkyoung - as the annotations are crossed out they may have already seen, but I'm pinging them just to be sure. Darthkayak (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The behavior of Alexkyoung seems to be part of prolonged edit-warring at History of Xinjiang: diff diff diff diff diff. He's claiming a consensus for his edits, where actually there is a consensus that his edits are unacceptable. Deeply disruptive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Note also the edits at South Korea–United States relations. This type of POV editing renders the WP project useless in my opinion. Some of the cited sources are selectively used and are personal blogs. A number are not available in English - so difficult to check. One thing is admirable about this user however - the speed with which she or he is working their way through wikipedia. Nickm57 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read through my response again.

As I have said, I will be happy to help you improve the wiki if you pinpoint specific places where the article should be improved. When I am being accused of things like this, it is hard for me to help. As the above discussion shows, people are more focused on finding excuses to attack me rather than to actually improve the content of existing articles. That is why I labeled these personal attacks as off-topic and libel. But if you wish to keep it there go ahead.

When I say 'my articles' I do not mean it as a sign of ownership. What happened is that after I accused Citobun of disruptive edits on Gui Minhai, Citobun just retaliated and disruptively edit-warred many of the articles that I had recently edited.

If you believe History of Xinjiang is not resolved, then tell me: exactly where should it be improved. If it reads like propaganda, tell me where it reads like propaganda. If there is OR or synthesis, tell me exactly where there is OR or synthesis. If you read satan or the PRC in between the lines, tell me which lines, and I can help you purge it out. Darthkayak and Sirlanz gave me specific feedback, and I responded, even though I did invite them to edit the article themselves. I never claimed ownership; I always invited others to edit when they had complaints. What ended up happening was that they just waited for me to edit for them. And when people make general claims without specifying where in the article things should be fixed, how does one even begin to help?

I have asked many times to point out where exactly in the article I can help you fix. Isn't that what your goal is? To improve the wikipedia?

Lastly I repeat again: many of those diffs were from nearly two months ago, when I was just getting started with wikipedia. And those only form a small fraction of my contributions to wikipedia. Try not to be so selective about your sources. I only recently made my 1000th edit, and I've been thanked many times already for my positive contributions. I really do want to help improve these articles, since I believe deep down that is what you really want, but we should discuss civilly how exactly to improve these articles. Alexkyoung (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I ran into this editor at the Australia page where he was trying to edit war in his desired content concerning fringe theories of early Chinese arrival - (see Talk:Australia#Speculative Chinese Arrival). On that occasion too his technique was to edit war against clear consensus as much as possible, perversely claiming BRD because "nobody had replied" instantly to his walls of text in the "discussion" he was solely prolonging. On that occasion he did not "back down" until it was made clear that sanctions would otherwise be the likely outcome. The behaviour described above is therefore familiar, and I tend to agree with FPAS that a block might be necessary to prevent this tendentious editing pattern from continuing. This style of disruption exhausts other editors and is extremely damaging to the collaborative process. -- Begoon 01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is your point of view. I was just adding well-sourced info from reliable resources, and the fact that you bring this up clearly shows that you never listened or even understood my main argument: I never said the Chinese arrived to Australia; I only said that it is a hypothesis, and it is well-covered in the news (anybody who reads the talk page can find sources).

What you are accusing me of is equivalent to saying that the Altaic languages page should not exist since it is a controversial hypothesis. It is not about whether it is right or wrong or 'fringe'; it is still a hypothesis that scholars have written about. And to bury that in wikipedia reeks of censorship. Begoon and Nickm57 (both from the Australia debate, who have been stalking me simply because they disagree with whatever doesn't conform to their Eurocentric world view) in this case are no different from the PRC when it comes to censorship of well-cited content.

I have no doubt you guys would censure the pants off the PRC for the Xinjiang conflict or the Tiananmen square massacre. It is just so much easier to criticize others. Unfortunately that is not so balanced, to criticize the governments of other countries without stomaching well-documented criticism of our own. This is what DavidMCEddy has been arguing for on foreign interventions by the US, why Jamez42 undid Citobun's reverts and restored my version, why OhConfucius thanked me for my edits on Gui Minhai, etc. We all want a neutral point of view, not just pov's that are more sympathetic to our own country but less sympathetic to others. Otherwise, you guys are defeating your own purpose, the whole purpose of wikipedia to be a neutral encyclopedia.

On Australia, I was shocked that so many would disagree with well-sourced info just because it didn't fit in with their chauvinistic point of view. And let's be honest: others started edit-warring me by reverting my contributions. Still I stated my case and left the scene, realizing that the Australia page had such a toxic environment. This was from more than a week ago, and I have moved on. Alexkyoung (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No sign of reflection or change in this editor at all. See his comments at my talk page and on Racial discrimination.Nickm57 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best to give this editor a little vacation to reflect on things.--Moxy 🍁 04:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Add diff diff for History of Xinjiang. WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, this can't be serious! diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Touche, it goes both ways. Try to understand my points as well.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Quit the anti-semitism crap and other accusations and join the talk in a productive manner Talk:Racial discrimination#A silly introduction. As of now your rants are not conducive to what's going on.--Moxy 🍁 06:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Watch the language, and read through my response.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to draw people's attention to what's going on here: others deliberately harassing and smear-campaigning me and clearly not listening to my replies. These are lies. Nickm57 is just harassing and edit-warring me this time. I call administrators to investigate his abusive behavior and put an end to it. To quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nickm57&oldid=903966217#stop_edit_warring

It is clear that Nickm57 is stalking me around, and I do not appreciate his harassment. It is shocking that he didn't know 100 years ago Jews were considered non-white in the USA. He should find something more productive to do than to follow my user contribution page and revert everything he disagrees with. If anything Nick needs a vacation himself. It is unhealthy to stalk a single user for so long. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse. Alexkyoung (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Alexkyoung: Since you are actively canvassing numerous administrators to address alleged "harassment" by Nickm57 ([73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]), can you please provide some detailed citations (in the form of diffs) that show the stalking/harassment/bullying/abuse that you referred to, above? You have stated that Nick is just a really bad person, however, I don't see any evidence either in this ANI discussion or in the message you're canvassing admins with to support Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. or Nickm57 is stalking me around. More, the concerns that Joshua Jonathan quoted above are troubling. ST47 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure referring to those that are concerned with your additions as anti-Seimitic holocaust deniers helps your position ...considering what was said on the talkpage.....time for a long weekend in my view. --Moxy 🍁 05:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Include the more recent update

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&type=revision&diff=903972649&oldid=903816936 Alexkyoung (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @ST47: Gladly. In fact, examining the history of:

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

It appears that Moxy, Nickm57, and Begoon have come back to talk smack about me. They are all from the Australia article and simply didn't like the stuff I was adding, about Menzies theory. So at least Moxy and Nickm57 decided to look through my user contributions and revert my edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&action=history

One hundred years ago, Jews were not considered white in the US census. The non-Jewish Christian majority of the US and Europe discriminated against them. The Holocaust is just one example. Nowadays, Jews are considered white but it took years for that to happen. This is just the fact, and I don't see what points Moxy, Nickm57 are trying to promote by denying this fact.

And lastly, the fact that all three have reported on this ANI notice and Moxy, Nickm57 continue to post here shows that they are stalking me around. Just reading their posts it is obvious what their intent is. Yes I have reached out to Joshua Johnson as well. I am open to civil discourse, but I request that Moxy, Nickm57 to stop their disruptive harassment. (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

compromise

@ST47: @Joshua Jonathan: I admit I am new. When coming to wikipedia, I became accustomed to the idea of editing existing content on the article pages, so for some reason it didn't cross my mind that editing other people's responses was inappropriate: to me it was just the same as editing article content. Reading Joshua's and other people's comments, I say thanks for letting me know. In the future I will not modify people's messages on the talk page, and I have already stopped doing that. In my defense I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines but it seems that if the person's request is 'legitimate'; it should be kept there. This is all fair to bring up.

So I outline a compromise: 1. I will not edit or modify people's responses on talk pages. 2. Retain my existing version on the History of Xinjiang. This is not just my version, but many other editors. 3. If you would like to improve Xinjiang, do not revert but pinpoint specific places (exact lines) where you would like the article to be improved, and I will be happy to help you. 4. We should all avoid following each others' user contribution pages and edit warring each other from now on. We need to keep distance. This is best to avoid retaliation.

Lastly, I have already let Nickm57, Moxy keep their edits on the Racial discrimination and Australia articles. In compromise, I would politely request them to not post anything further on this talk page as I want to first hear back from the administrators. Thank you Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexkyoung: You have come very close to being blocked for at least three different reasons. In addition to your long term WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, you are involved in several edit wars and have made personal attacks. While I appreciate your offer to disengage from the areas that seem to get you into trouble, we won't be negotiating to keep your preferred version of any article as any form of "ransom" in exchange for your good behavior. Let me make an alternative offer:

1. You accept a voluntary WP:TOPICBAN from areas related to the present conflicts. I would phrase this as "areas related to ethnicity and race, broadly construed", but if other editors have better suggestions, I'm open to hearing them.
2. You accept a voluntary WP:1RR probation in all topic areas, with the usual exceptions that reverting vandalism or WP:BLP violations are not subject to this restriction.
3. These restrictions are indefinite, you may request at WP:AN for them to be lifted after no less than 6 months, at which point the community will decide based on your conduct.

During these restrictions, you would be free (and encouraged) to use talk pages and requested edits to discuss these topics. However, this would hopefully prevent the disputes that are likely to get you blocked. Note that there's nothing in here about modifying other people's posts on talk pages, or related to WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. That's because those are prohibited regardless, and you would be blocked for disruptive edits or personal attacks regardless of whether there's a ban on you. In any event, please indicate whether you'd be willing to accept these restrictions, so we can hopefully put this matter to rest. ST47 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was before I read the edit summary at [79]. I'm blocking Alexkyoung for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, he's welcome to re-engage when the block expires, or if people want to propose a community-enforced topic ban/actual ban, that's fine too. ST47 (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the leadership on this. Appreciated. Nickm57 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And just for the record, I had been about to make some edits on South Korea–United States relations including some made by Alexkyoung under a new heading of "Incidents of US abuse" that are quite inappropriate. However, in the circumstances I'll leave it alone for a week or so.Nickm57 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nickm57 and talk. Following your statements above, I have reverted the user's edits here and here. I am still learning about the rules of Wikipedia as I did not join that long ago so please let me know if this kind of edit is actually allowed. But from what I have read, I think a revert like this is okay given how disruptive this editor has been. Likuu (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes that’s right. And I said I would return to this matter and will do so on my return from China next week.Nickm57 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So apparently while waiting for the second unblock request to be decided, Alexkyoung chose to get on their soapbox and declare the entire ANI case was just a pretext to get them blocked, and accuse Nickm57 & Moxy of censorship. I don't think this user is here to contribute constructively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I note that User:ST47 blocked Alexkyoung for only 31 hours, citing the specific personal attacks made in recent edits as a reason. From my reading of the situation, including the edit-warring, the tendentious edits, and the persistent battleground mentality, I was considering something substantially longer, possibly up to an indef. Alexkyoung's latest reactions, including his "free speech" rant on his talkpage [80], as well as the earlier attempt at passing off as a "compromise" a proposal that would keep him in full control of his preferred version of the contested article [81], have not improved my impression. ST47, would you mind me increasing the block length, or do we have a realistic hope this user will improve their behaviour when they come back from this short block? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, given this user's lack of any previous blocks, my hope was that a short block in combination with a very short leash for future edit warring or civility issues would allow them to contribute productively. It does seem like they have made some substantial contributions to other articles, and it's just this one area where their POV-pushing gets them into trouble. The rant on their talk page does not fill me with confidence, but can we see what happens after the block expires? ST47 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'm not particularly optimistic though. (And the cynic in me still grumbles he doesn't believe in this concept of "educating" POV-pushers to become good wikipedians anyway, but maybe that's for some other discussion...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is for another discussion, but I confess that this particular editor's history, both before and during the short block, doesn't lead me to suppose that your inner cynic will be proved wrong on this particular occasion. I hope we are wrong. -- Begoon 00:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung reached out to me on my Talk: page, which I appreciated, but unfortunately the way he described his issues did not match at all what I was seeing. I also suspect that his edits to Racial discrimination and the Holocaust were intended solely to bring me into his conflicts as a sympathetic administrator. His description (or implication) regarding the editors he was in conflict with on those articles being "antisemitic" and "holocaust deniers" was unconvincing at best, misleading and defamatory at worst. I am also seeing serious issues with WP:NPOV; almost every edit made until he was brought to AN/I appears to have been for the purpose of boosting China or its government and/or denigrating the United States. Even edits like this, which are not pro-China per se, are clearly inflammatory (and with an edit summary that appears to hide the true purpose of the edit). I am surprised a longer or even indefinite block was not applied. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I note General Lincoln has suddenly turned up to continue this user’s editing practice. (And how amazing the two never edit at the same time) But I’m pleased to see the appropriate wheels are in motion elsewhere Nickm57 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I notice the article Han–Uyghur intermarriage, written entirely by User:Alexkyoung. Except the article isn't actually about Han-Uyghur intermarriage. It's just an attack page written after most of this thread. The article strikes me as rather strong evidence that User:Alexkyoung is not here to contribute productively, at least not in that particular area. I'd suggest, at a minimum, a WP:TOPICBAN from Xinjiang and Uyghur-related articles. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Editor NewsAndEventsGuy has a history of following my edits, makes frequent claims about my edits and violations, has a dedicated section on his talk page where he collects selectively from our communications. I've noticed that I edit pages where he is also known to be more active less so, e.g. at global warming/sea level rise where I in the past was among the most active editors. But even when I edit pages he never touched before, he follows me around. Yesterday, editor Sean Heron posted on my talk page in regards to my edits at climate emergency in a constructive consensus finding way. But immediately NewsAndEventsGuy had to show up (even though I asked him to take such matters to article talk), reverts my edits, and made a point about a POVFORK violation. Sean Heron noted subsequently, Then someone else (in this case you NewsAndEventsGuy :P ) blankets the page. That's not exactly courteous - not to Prokaryotes nor to me :/ .

Generally the user reverts me then drags me into long talk page discussions where he usually argues I violated NPOV, OR, POVFORK or a combination of those. The first interaction I had with NewsAndEventsGuy was around 2014, at the article polar amplification, the user since made 20 edits, added 336 bytes of text, deleted 5,786 bytes of text in article space, on the talk page he made 829 edits, added 235,847 bytes of text. He usually is not acknowledging when he makes a failure, instead doubles down. I am happy to provide more examples where the user interferes with my edits in a not so constructive manner, but basically I ask the community here to enact an interaction ban between him and me, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope you do understand that this potential interaction ban would be effecting you just as much as NewsAndEventsGuy. I say this as I see that you have reverted one of his edits as late as just a few hours ago.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted his revert of my edit, which wouldn't have happened if we have this ban. I am aware that I would no longer interact with him (including his edits, unless they are in gross violations). prokaryotes (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To sum up, you've offered as evidence of recent problematic behavior one diff in which NAEG made an obviously correct decision to restore a redirect, that has been well supported by numerous editors on the article talk page. --JBL (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reply by NAEG To sum up, I'm accused of WP:Hounding in which The important component... is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Say again, "no constructive reason". Prokaryotes editing merits following because they often inject two kinds of problems into our articles. The first is an over-reliance on WP:Primary sources which he is likely to mis-interpret. He is especially likely to do this with scientific papers on climate change and global warming. This problem was discussed in August 2018 at WP:AN in this thread where Boris (recently deceased, alas!) concurred with my observations and mentioned WP:CIR. The second problem is Prokaryotes climate alarmist POV, e.g., in his own words Unfortunately humanity is to dumb to understand the implications. [[82]]. That has been P's approach to climate articles for a long time. For example, in May 2012 at Fermi paradox#It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, P made an edit with edit summary Adding climate change to the possible list of self destruction. P used a different name, as explained [here]). Similar RIGHTGREATWRONGS editing on P's part led to vaccination Tban in 2013 and a GMO Tban in 2015. Since I'm not seeking a boomerang, I'm going to stop now. I just wanted to say NPOV and proper use of PRIMARY sources are constructive reasons to follow someone around, when they have a troubled track record in those areas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That's all you could find, my block log, a spot on edit summary, a talk page comment, who reads in full, The agreement is 1.5-2C while the Arctic warms at least twice as much (which should be somewhere in the article). Unfortunately humanity is to dumb to understand the implications. Guys, can we please have this interaction ban, or do I have to show you how lots of editors have similar problems with this editor, and that he often is plain wrong in his argument? I am mis-representing the sciences my edits have an alarmism bias, I ask you to retract these claims without merit. NewsAndEventsGuy, is the only editor who makes these claims about my edits, he usually did not read the science studies I add to article space. I have literally added thousands of science papers to the Wikipedia, if there was room for improvements I discuss on talk, that's about it. prokaryotes (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

P's reply is (yet another) CIR like tantrum of which the ANI and related pages have plenty to choose from. No P it is not all I can find, but as I stated my only purpose was to show there is a constructive reason to follow your edits, and I provided diffs for that purpose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that the real CIR issue is on your side, otherwise you would provide diff's which show mis-representing and alarmism POV (whatever this is). prokaryotes (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who is (more) at fault, or if the edits of one (both) of you are indeed inappropriate per policy, but given your current feelings, an interaction ban between the two seems absolutely warranted as a minimal step even if my first two questions are answered in the negative. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we please hold NewsAndEventsGuy accountable for his baseless accusations that I mis-represent the sciences, is reluctant to provide evidence (other than an accurate edit summary from 2012)? And if this is not moving you, remember he has a creepy special section on his talk page about me, above wrote he follows me around - YES, I feel harassed by this user that's why I came here for help. If yo u have specific questions, want more difs, please ask me and I will provide, thank you! prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There has been a previous discussion on the matter (to which NAEG has linked), in which others editors do side with him so I do not think his accusations are baseless. "Reluctant to provide evidence" also seems inaccurate given the post he made in reply to you; and the fact that other editors right here seem to disagree with your assessment of his editing. I also fail to see how a discussion on his talk page where he invited you to participate is "creepy". You might be taking this a bit too personally - maybe you should take some distance and let cooler heads prevail? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes:@NewsAndEventsGuy: Alright you have both said your piece, now stop arguing with each other. NAEG: Would you be amenable to a 2 way voluntary (yet quite enforceable) IBAN? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Having interacted with both users quite a lot, I think that a IBAN might be quite fruitful. I do worry a bit about the edits made by P still though, which make me suspect a passion for the topic which makes it more difficult for P to write up facts in a balanced way. An example is [83], where P added a line about global warming to a very generic physics article in the lede, for which I had to extensively explain how this contained errors and was unbalanced. Further examples are [84], where P added a full paragraph about a new alarmist study to global warming, a top-level article where this led to quite some unbalance. One study for which P seems to have interpreted as having a more extended application that the studies implied themselves: [85]. Is there a possibility that in addition to an IBAN, P would volunteer in some mentoring program? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• NewsAndEventsGuy, now canvassing, he also broke ANI protocol when starting a topic discussion without informing me. prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Complaining about procedural errors in a discussion from last year now seems misplaced and only hints at the animosity (reciprocal or not) between you two. Note that you are also a party at the discussion you linked where NAEG supposedly canvassed... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate to get into the weeds, but just to answer his accuastions briefly.... (A) The place I supposedly canvassed is the venue of the original content dispute, and I didn't pick and choose editors, I simply alerted all the witnesses who might have insight to offer. (B) His bit about ANI protocol is another example of CIR. It was a question about procedures, not a complaint, and I didn't name him since I wasn't seeking action. But P interjected and tried to convert my education-seeking post into a complaint.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A great example of CIR challenged editor not being careful what they ask for. OK, I am voluntarily NOT editing anywhere but user space until I post a full account and ask for P to be topic banned from science articles and anything to do with climate change. But I am real life busy and this is one of those that will take days, probably, to properly assemble. So bye for now. I'll be back when I am ready to give the DIFFS I didn't want to assemble but P just keeps demanding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC) See updated comment below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

While other editors in the mentioned discussions noted my good faith edits, I can't see this in what you write, and you just keep ignoring the call to provide actual article space diffs. And please stop threatening me with a topic ban, not exactly what this community has written up under WP:AGF. prokaryotes (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't have the time and passion to continue this venue here, to make it short and help you guys I request an indef block, thanks, good bye and thanks for all the fish. prokaryotes (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested Closing Since P wants to be indeffed instead of facing my promised Tban complaint, I can agree with that outcome and this should be closed accordingly. However, I would like the closing to specify unblock criteria for the future. This isn't P's first retirement after controversy. In 12 months, when this has all blown over, he will probably again ask for unblock. A great irony in this thread is that the opening post he says of me, above, the user reverts me then drags me into long talk page discussions where he usually argues I violated NPOV, OR, POVFORK or a combination of those. He wants action against me but does not provide diffs. In contrast I did not want action against him so only provided diffs to defend myself. This is a classic boomerang deal. But he wants to dodge a CIR based TBan review, so he's asking for indef to kill that before it happens. OK I can let it go. However, as a WP:BOOMERANG request, please grant his voluntary indef and condition any return on his documenting where I have inappropriately "reverted and dragged" him into long talk page discussions where he usually argues I violated NPOV, OR, POVFORK or a combination of those. That's what he's mad about and that's why he wanted me sanctioned. So if he wants to be unblocked down the road, let's make sure he takes the time to document all that before unblock is granted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bye NAEG, bye Wikipedia community, I mostly loved the way how WP encourages you to provide reliable peer-reviewed science, enjoyed editing during my time here, but my work is done here I realize. No bad feelings. Over and out XD prokaryotes (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In any case, without any bad faith, and quoting myself from above: "Saying "I am retired" to get away from facing a sticky wicket is surely WP:GAMING, and has been looked down upon in previous ArbCom cases)". I am also unsure whether this would be an acceptable case of WP:SELFBLOCK. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the IP mentions GAMING possibilities here, it made me realize I may have inadvertently suggested prior GAMING also. I apologize for poor writing. P's prior indef request was in good faith, because at that time the controversy was over. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that if an admin chooses to enforce prokaryotes self-requested indef, any later unblock be conditional on a 6-month topic ban from climate change articles, broadly construed. This gives the community a buffer to evaluate their editing capability before returning to a topic of contention. If you don't want that prokaryotes, just withdraw your request and avoid the topic area from now on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm unfamiliar with procedure here, and only posting since I too was made aware of the discussion by NewsAndEventsGuy. I just want to point out that I can see some of where both of the two "Loggerheaded" Users are coming at each other from. I've not been involved in (practically) any editing yet, but there are points both Users make that I agree with. I would disagree with Topic Banning Prokaryotes - many (if not most) of the contributions made by the user are good faith edits as far as I can tell. I can't say I support or oppose an interaction ban - I can see that the two were not interacting in a constructive fashion, but my hope was that some structured discussion might have helped to resolve the issues (part of my motivation in suggesting the Wikiproject Climate Change ). Seems that seems to be out of the question for the moment though, unfortunately :/ . Regards Sean Heron (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

BTw, Above, P complains about a "creepy" thread on my talk page. This is GREAT example of the WP:Competence is required problem with Prokaryotes. That section is nothing more than threads he started on my talk page, all collected for convenience under a neutral section heading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't close this. I am prepping a shortened version of the promised Boomerang, to ask the community to ratify P's own request for indef. I may not have it ready until next week and I won't edit article space in the meantime. Meanwhile please note that P did a similar maneuver to avoid a TBan sanction in 2016. Please don't close thisNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm here anyways, so I'll ask: would you comfortable with a voluntary no-fault 2-way IBAN with this user? That can probably be either in addition to, or in lieu of, the proposed topic ban. Please ping response (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Mechanical problems have delayed my departure.... short answer "no", see "alternative closing idea" below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternative closing idea

(A) Fact correction... It's not true that I follow P, in general

I monitor climate change articles in general. P is prolific and sometimes errs, but he can't handle disagreement over his errors. Evidence that this is not a personal dispute is that despite our 2014 content disputes I did not pile on during his two failed Vaccination Tban appeals (ending in his first RageQuit. Then in 2015 when he adopts GMO as a secondary passion I did not interfere with his work there, nor did I pile on during the dramatic AN/ANI/AE cases that led to his TBan and second retirement (full thread since diffs were revedeleted), Then when he tilted at the Cryptocurrency windmill in 2017/2018 I did not follow him there even as matters crescendoed with his third Rage quit/retirement (see also). So it's not exactly true to say I have it out for P, in general. I started on climate in 2011, P in 2012. I work for great climate articles. P has a prolific contrib history in this area, and like any editor imperfect edits. He just can't handle having them called out and, given time, I will show this.

(B) This case is evidence that I don't have it "in" for P because I only wanted to defend myself and did not pull the Boomerang trigger.....

Then P repeatedly demanded Diffs

So I promised to supply them and seek a Tban

Gaming to avoid that scrutiny, P does his fourth Rage Quit/Wikibreak.

The guidelines for LEAVING suggest a way foward....

(C) POSSIBLE CLOSING

Per WP:LEAVE Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned.. I am OK with closing this and granting P's indef request, conditioned on any future UNBLOCK provide a list of DIFFS where P thinks I followed him "for no costructive purpose", plus an explanation of the issue that I raised and the outcome. So an admin might impose the following condition on his right to LEAVE (but not to escape criticism)

By your own request you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. Since this is a retirement in lieu of facing a Topic ban boomerang request in AN case "Interaction ban", future unblock requests will only be granted after resolution of that dispute. Your complaint about the other editor, NewsAndEventsGuy, is based on our policy about [{WP:HOUNDING]] which presently says in relevant part The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. To renew your case filing, (1) Indicate your intent at ANI, and (2) provide DIFFS you believe show HOUNDING by NewsAndEventsGuy as described in the quoted text, (3) Provide a short summary of any article changes that resulted, (4) provide DIFFS that show NewsAndEventsGuy intended to cause distress or engaged in tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior,

If I'm blowing smoke about CIR, he should have no problem fulfilling those conditions, and my own behavior will be the one under scrutiny. I'm OK with that.

Now I really do need to continue truck repairs... overdue at inlaws! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced additions (Michaelgabrielo)

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

This user has been a constant problem when it comes to adding unsourced content (usually their own interpretations and speculation) to articles, as well as regularly removing 500-1000 bytes of sourced content without explaining why. This started in February and March with warnings for edits for removing content and unsourced content/WP:OR. They were blocked for a week, see here. After the block they left this message. They recieved a warning for removing content again in May and then blocked again the following day, this time for 72 hours [86]. However that did not help. In this edit and this one this month, they added unsourced content and after that on Chad Gable (diff) they added "Originally a heel [villain] tag team, their fighting spirit, and resiliency against their larger opponents won them many fans and began a gradual face [good guy] turn". This is entirely their own personal analysis of a storyline. They also removed around 800 bytes of content in the same edit without reason. For this they recieved a final warning again. Then today in this edit they changed a tag team's article to say they were now disbanded. They gave no source for their change, again just their personal analysis of what is going on. I searched online for a reliable source saying this and could not find one. This was also in disregard of a hidden note placed in the article for this reason. I have left multipe messages including in my own words and nothing helps. Refuses to respond to 90% of messages. StaticVapor message me! 08:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being wiki-hounded, disruptive edits from 24.47.152.65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

1. Accuses me of stalking them. [87]
2. Same. [88]
3. Accuses me of bad-faith edit. [89]
4. False report filed against me while shopping for a venue. [90]
5. I want to link to some posts he left here on May 22nd, where he made aggressive demands that I be "looked into" and blocked because of a content dispute with him, but these diffs have been removed for some reason.

There are also plenty of examples of them being snarky or rude to other editors[91], but I think you want just the ones where he is uncivil towards me.

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

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

Look, you're just making my case for me when you bring up Jessica Parker Kennedy. You removed two plain facts [92], ostensibly because you wanted better citations. I took you at your word, restoring them with reliable sources, and yet you're still complaining about it. Same thing happened on Brooklyn Technical High School, where you removed someone's good-faith attempt to list the specific year[93], when it didn't take me a whole minute to find a reliable source with the correct number.

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

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

And if you want another example of incivility, look no further than the link Johnbod posted, where Jesse removed legitimate, civil comments from me and JohnBod from his talk page instead of responding on the content/policy issue. [94] How are we supposed to work with you when you do this sort of thing? You've been editing for years; you ought to know better by now. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there's:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renewed hounding by 24.47.152.65 after block lifted

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

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

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

Hammelsmith

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

Adding informations from unreliable sources. [95],[96], [97] Adding information which contradicts those in citations.[98],[99]. Adding WP:OR and WP: synthesis.[100] He also deletes the content from the well cited sources to his convenience and cherry picking the content to push his point of view.[101] Warned him before that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it A lot of users also pointed out these things over the days, [102], [103]. But he is still continuing with his WP:Advocacy Michael Jackson related articles [104]. Directions of senior editors to revert the edits made in pages and reach consensus by discussing in talk pages has also been ignored.[105],[106],[[107] During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM. Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts until there are multiple editors to revert him.This user also noted for spamming and WP:Votestacking on different users talk pages. [108], [109] ,[110],[111], [112],[113],[114], [115],[116]. These [117] ,[118],[119], [120],[121] activities shows that this user have some kind of  "conflict of interest" in this subject and its proving that they are WP:NOTHERE. His actions warrant a topic ban or a permanent block".Pinging @Moxy:, @Flyer22 Reborn:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Partytemple:, @Israell: who all know this story already. --Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rant about black people? LOL. I just love how you are subtly suggesting racism on my part by continuing to stress that "Flyer talked about black people," when black people are directly relevant to the Simpson topic I brought up for reasons I mentioned. As if you even know my "race"/ethnicity. And do save me any denial that you are suggesting racism on my part. I must be racist against Anthony and Weinstein, two white people, as well. If you are going to try to insult me (laughably, my intelligence of all things), then make sure your insults make sense. I have no patience for your snippy and/or passive-aggressive nonsense because I'm not stupid enough to believe your "I've had no other Wikipedia account" claim, and because I don't worship Jackson, and because I don't buy you as a neutral editor on Jackson topics, and because I'm not on board to topic ban or indefinitely block the actual newbie or actual significantly inexperienced editor -- Hammelsmith. Rants? It seems you are not familiar with reasoned discussion, in which similar cases may be compared. Trial articles or similar and how we cover them have been compared all over Wikipedia. For some, their WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are flawed. For others, their OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are valid. As noted at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, such arguments can be valid or invalid. In this case, you were talking about what we do and don't do on Wikipedia, as if you are the more experienced editor. Gee, I wonder why you talk like you are more experienced than me. You aren't a newbie, but I doubt that your knowledge of how this site is supposed to work is superior to mine. I pointed to other criminal and sexual abuse allegation cases as examples of what we indeed do on Wikipedia. No one stated a thing about allowing tabloid text/tabloid sources.

Moving on.... Looking at the case filed against Hammelsmith in this forum and Hammelsmith's edits, and different editors who have reverted Hammelsmith, it is partly a WP:Due weight issue. Since I spoke to Hammelsmith about poor sourcing and was pinged above because of that, it is not like I am unaware of sourcing problems that have come with Hammelsmith's editing. Looking at your arguments about Jackson (via your contributions), it's quite clear that your idea of "informed enough to make an intelligent opinion" differs starkly from mine. Unlike you, not only do I have significant knowledge of all of the cases I mentioned, I am extremely knowledgeable on child sexual abuse and rape topics (as many at this site know). But that's not relevant here unless we are going to get into talk about our personal opinions on these cases, which, of course, we shouldn't. I'm certainly not interested in Israell's commentary below about why so many people believe Jackson is guilty and that everyone was just out to get Jackson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn has made her point, and this issue will be dealt with (without her involvement) in due time (depending on Hammelsmith's behaviour). Yes, many believe Jackson was a child sexual abuser but just as many if not more do not believe so. Detractors have a tendency to be very loud and vocal, and it may give the impression someone or something is more despised than it actually is. It's true in the fields of politics, soap operas, music, etc.

I agree w/ Partytemple that Wikipedia is not a place for endless tabloid reports. Plenty of ludicrous rumours about public figures were published, and it's a known facts tabloids sometimes pay people thousands of dollars for stories that may completely be false and libellous. Why is there a public opinion that Jackson was a sexual child molester? Because of 26 years of incessant allegations, rumours and tabloid reports (there are now hate sites as well) that went in that direction. And the current #MeToo movement encourages the public, the media, organisations and political bodies to fully believe accusers no matter what.

Did you know James Safechuck at all? No, but I know people who do. His problem is that he can’t keep his story straight. They just have a platform now and they have a movement that they’re utilizing -- a movement where we believe the victims no matter what. I can’t go with that. I agree with listening to everyone, but I don’t blindly believe anyone because that’s a dangerous place to be.

Yes, quite some believe Jackson guilty, but he was never officially found so; all the rest is and will always be speculation. Israell (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your view on why many believe that Jackson is guilty is your belief. Many rabid Jackson fans, who can't even consider that Jackson might have been guilty because of their idol worship (and, yes, reliable sources have talked about this), have stated the same thing. For many, it's not about what you cited at all. And the Me Too movement is about many things, including being more willing to believe accusers/victims instead of dismissing them or acting like "no physical/direct evidence" automatically means "your story lacks credibility" or "you're lying," especially considering that most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. The Me Too movement has shown times over that society believing the accusers/victims is a good thing. False accusations of rape are rare. False allegations of child sexual abuse, also a rape matter, are rare. Of course, we also live in an "innocent until proven guilty" world, and that's a good thing too. But "innocent until proven guilty" is about the law; it's not about public opinion. And, like I stated above, we do cover public opinion on Wikipedia. We do this with "Legacy" and "Public image" sections, and similar. Jackson's legacy is affected by child sexual abuse allegations. We cover it. It should be covered with due weight. Of course, tabloid sources should be avoided. No need to ping me in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is not a belief but a plain fact. Besides reasons I've listed, the media have grossly misrepresented Jackson's sleepovers; girls and parents also took part in those sleepovers that were basically pyjama parties during which they'd all watch movies, play video games, chat, laugh and then fall asleep. Members of Jackson's family such as Brandi and Taj Jackson also did partake in those sleepovers. (Brandi had been Wade Robson's girlfriend for seven years, and that includes the time the alleged abuse took place, and Robson made no mention of that in 'Leaving Neverland'.)

Jackson had a two-storey bedroom, and there were several large beds available, and he often slept on the floor. On occasions, as Brett Barnes (who still defends him) explained when he was a teen (at the time of the first allegations), Jackson would sleep on one side of the bed, and he'd sleep on the other side.

The media perverted it all into something grotesque and salacious, making it sound like there were only boys there and Jackson was sexually abusing them. I recently spoke to a friend that told me he believed Jackson was guilty just because of the bed thing. That's the very argument LaToya Jackson used when accusing her brother of child sex abuse (asking what 35 yr-old would share his bed w/ little boys and spend weeks with them).

LaToya later (repeatedly) retracted all such statements (explaining her ex-husband Jack Gordon had threatened and forced her to say all those things, and that Gordon would keep her a prisoner and beat her up). Right there! Jackson's own sister was led to make such false claims, and she seemed and sounded very sincere when making those claims like she was an Oscar-winning actress! (I'm referring to those who say Wade Robson & James Safechuck could not have lied since they aren't Oscar-winning actors.)

No wonder why many people at the time believed those claims! LaToya's old allegations have just recently come back to the surface once again, and I've read comments from people (that had just seen 'Leaving Neverland') that take those old allegations as the ultimate proof they needed. Some argued she only recanted because she wanted to get back in the Jackson family's good graces... And someone even (sickly) wrote on Twitter that Jack Gordon was right to beat her up so she'd tell the truth about her "paedo" brother. I'm not making any of that up! I'm just typing this here to demonstrate how gullible some of the public (which includes public opinion) may be.

And what about that 'Hard Copy' story by Diane Dimond herself? A 15 yr-old Canadian boy from Toronto once accused Jackson of sexually molesting him and a friend, also in teenage. Though he was able to describe Neverland, it was all a lie! At the end of the news report, he admitted to have lied and made it all up! Turned out he had been coached by an adult named Rodney Allen. Allen was reportedly later found guilty of child sex abuse...

I have just provided evidence that abuse victim LaToya Jackson and that Toronto boy both falsely accused Michael Jackson of child sex abuse under the pressure of woman beater Jack Gordon and child sex predator Rodney Allen. Why is it so hard to believe other accusers (incl. ex-employees) may also have lied, have been pressured to lie, esp. when all those accusers were challenged and either caught lying or deemed not credible. The following article explains in detail how those Neverland insiders were deemed not credible: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-allegations-staff-friends-family

As for Jordan Chandler, he could not even tell Jackson was not circumcised after all that alleged sex abuse incl. frequent baths and masturbation sessions. Jackson's autopsy report stating he was not circumcised: http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0208_mj_case_report_wm.pdf

The rabidness of those Jackson fans is an opinion you and others share, not a fact.

You can use rabid to describe someone who has very strong and unreasonable opinions or beliefs about a subject, especially in politics.

With due research (like mine above), one can reasonably conclude that in Jackson's case, false allegations of child sex abuse are definitely not rare. Israell (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

To no doubt a number of people, you just showed your rabidness with your long defense of Jackson above. And just so you know, many people (both children and adults) are protective of their sexual abusers. And for a number of reasons, including shame and/or fear. It is not uncommon for boys to deny being sexually abused, especially given notions of masculinity and the false belief that a boy or man being raped by a man makes one gay. You want to believe that every accusation against Jackson was just an "out to get him" matter, that's your belief. But I'm not interested in debating Jackson's supposed innocence or guilt on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22, in my observation, Akhiljaxxn hasn't been anywhere as problematic as some implied. It is common for editors to make a few mistakes; it's the only way to learn. One editor deemed Akhiljaxxn incompetent because of his written English when it's just fine! He's actually quite good at it, and grammar/syntax mistakes can quickly and easily be fixed.

What proof socking do you have? Many of us (me included) have been on Wiki for years and contributed to non-MJ articles. None of us here is pushing POV but Hammelsmith who has constantly and repeatedly ignored warnings and kept making plenty of disruptive edits that then had to be fixed. As Partytemple explained it on a Talk page, Hammelsmith seems to believe each one of those accusers even though the very source articles challenge their credibility. Who's pushing POV?

As I pointed out, Hammelsmith once wrote "I think a consensus has been reached and I do accept that, although I am heartbroken." after consensus was reached to exclude a list of accusers from the 'Renewed sexual abuse allegations' section of the main Michael Jackson article. Flyer22, why would Hammelsmith be heartbroken about it? Why would they take it so personal? That's something he himself admitted!

I, for one, am just going w/ the facts. An allegation remains an allegation and only becomes a fact when there is sufficient evidence, especially evidence produced in a court of law followed by a guilty verdict. As for the 1993 allegaions, two grand juries refused to indict Jackson for a reason—lack of evidence. It's not the article's mission to imply that Jackson could have been guilty; it just needs to state the facts—there were allegations, here are the details, and two grand juries refused to indict due to lack of evidence. Israell (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Flyer22 Reborn, I've been neutral for a few years, now. I was blocked for sockpuppetry in 2017. But I was later unblocked since I convinced the admins that I was unaware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and assured them that I would refrain from indulging in such activity. Since then, I have never been involved in any such activity. But a few months ago, Yamla asked me to refrain from making these kinds of edits [122][123]. The edits I made were reinstated by other user, even though they were later removed by another senior editor. I haven't edited that page since then and removed it from my watchlist. It is not fair to hold what I did in 2017 against me. Since then, I've been trying to learn more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I became an administrator of the Malayalam Wikipedia. I would like to ask you to show me the problematic edits that you believe I have made to Michael Jackson-related articles since August 2017. If you show me that I made any problematic edits that violate our WP:NPOV policy, I'll simply stop editing Jackson-related articles. I have other things to do (here and elsewhere) than editing those pages. I understand from your words that you believe Partytemple to be my sockpuppet. No, he isn't, and I welcome a sockpuppetry investigation in this regard.-- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I stated nothing about that editor being your sockpuppet. Nor was I implying that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see the points that everyone is making. I suppose the most significant issue is doubt. I did happen to know some reported facts that would introduce this, so I started editing. Certainly some of my edits have been less than perfect and I apologize for offending peoples' deeply held beliefs if it caused you anger or hurt. Absolutely Wiki is not the place for POV pushing and that is part of what makes this resource so important. Good faith comrades. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Israell that the ones doing a lot of POV-pushing are those who tacitly, or sometimes openly, believe Jackson is guilty of child molestation but are never able to provide a source that claims or proves this without going to the tabloids or distorting a reliable source. This is deeply sinister and dishonest. Flyer22 Reborn is still claiming she finds POV-pushing on both sides, but I don't see it and other users here agree with me. Partytemple (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the POV-pushing from the "Jackson is great side" has been dealt with, such as this case I cited above. Other, less problematic POV-pushing persists. Your "other users here agree with me" claim consists of Akhiljaxxn (a known "Jackson is great" POV-pusher) and Israell. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I voted not in favor of adding a section called "Discrepancy" which I believe was originally submitted by Awardmaniac. I can't speak for other editors. I do not think that what Awardmaniac wrote was impartial enough and it read like OR, hence I altered the "Jackson supporters" section in the Leaving Neverland article into "Issues regarding credibility and Jackson supporters" to provide a more impartial representation for those who disagree with the film, meaning it wouldn't sound like WP is arguing against the film but a section of the public is. I think Israell agreed with me at the end there. So no, I didn't push that section forward for the same reasons I disagree with some of Hammelsmith's edits, a disruptive editor which you tried defending. Partytemple (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"A disruptive editor which [I] tried defending"? Sighs. Do not act like I've supported any disruptive or other problematic edits by Hammelsmith. Not supporting a call to topic ban or block Hammelsmith -- an actual newbie or actual significantly inexperienced edior who is still learning -- is not the same thing as supporting that editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. WP is not a soapbox for tabloid media, rumor mongering, or any other kind of unreliable source, many of which are blacklisted or deprecated from WP. The sources that write salacious stories about Jackson's alleged pedophilia prove to be in this category. I have not read a reliable source that outright says or proves Jackson was a child molester. I have read many reports on simply the facts of the allegations, investigations, lawsuits, etc. Accusing someone of a serious crime such as pedophilia without credible reason is highly unethical and potentially libelous. First, the tabloids were introduced to Jackson related articles as supposedly reliable sources. Now, Hammelsmith has tried to distort or manipulate an actual reliable source into something to fit his beliefs about Jackson. This is unacceptable in any other article on WP and repeated offense will be duly reported. The fact that we are having this discussion about reliable sources proves Charles Thomson right. Perhaps Jackson was indeed a victim of tabloid smearing. As for Fly22 Reborn who thinks I'm a sockpuppet, presumably because he thinks I'm too familiar with WP for a newbie, no, I am not a sockpuppet. —Partytemple (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Presumably because he thinks I'm too familiar with WP for a newbie." Well, you said it. And I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything you write is correct, except that I have never tried to "distort or manipulate an actual reliable source." I'm sorry, but that is your opinion. I am happy to discuss sources and work with absolutely anyone to improve an article without prejudice. Good faith comrades. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Your errors in editing are already listed above. I'm not absolutely certain you're doing it intentionally, but they are in effect distortions and misrepresentations of the source article. WP:CIR. Partytemple (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyingd

User:Flyingd keeps adding an number of irrelevant shootings to the article List of airliner shootdown incidents. No matter how many times there was a consensus reached on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents, he fails to see them and/or ignores the. Discussion, including a RFC, are persistently polluted with endless side paths.

Flyingd is clearly pushing those attacks on the BOAC777 in a very disruptive manner. His failure to see any consensus of its irrelevance, gives severe concerns about WP:CIR.

On the Dutch Wikipedia he has already a topic ban regarding the attacks ( = the attacks on BOAC Flight 777 on 15 November 1942 and on 19 April 1943.) Seeing his disruptive behaviour, I know call for a topic ban on ENWP, broadly construed, regarding the mentioned attacks. The Banner talk 16:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

And more proof of his disruptive behaviour here. The Banner talk 16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Restored edit removed by Flyingd.

@Editors Please read Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#Solution? to get and idea. The rest of the talk page will give a good indication of Banner's adverse behaviour. Flyingd (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also please note that I did not add items to the list as Banner states but only added a small, one sentence, note to the existing item 1943 BOAC 777 in the list. Flyingd (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read correctly, as I state that you added irrelevant shootings. Not that you added new items/planes to the list. The Banner talk 22:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Having read the talk page, I don't see consensus. I see the same editors talking over one another and several references to "previous consensus" without links or other identifying characteristics that would allow someone to locate the discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing that clearly. Flyingd (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777

Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents#Requested move 22 September 2018 (attempt to widen the scope to include the attacks)

Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents#revisited: Mentioning two earlier attacks on the same airliner on the same route / BOAC 777

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#RFC: are earlier attacks, not resulting in a shoot down, relevant

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#Move to rename article to 'List of attacks on commercial passenger aircraft' (second attempt to widen the scope of the article to include the attacks)

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#Solution? (third attempt to widen the scope to include the attacks)

The Banner talk 18:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So I didn't miss any then? They were all on the current version of the talk page? Because across all those, I count 7 unique participants. Three oppose inclusion, three support inclusion, and one was a single sentence from User:Chris troutman that cited prior consensus, which depended on a conversation from a year prior among the same participants. Sorry, but I'm not seeing consensus anywhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: My involved opinion is that this is an attempt to use administrative action to win a content dispute that has gone south. As The Banner noted, this is a multi-wiki dispute. Flyingd and The Banner are both active both on Dutch Wikipedia and here. Flyingd does seem to have a history of tendentious editing, looking at the bottom few sections of nl:User talk:Flyingd (translation). He was topic banned by the Dutch ArbCom back in August, but as you can see had resumed editing the topic by early June of this year, for which reason he was blocked on 5 June; apparently, he was under the impression that his ban should have expired earlier this year, an impression that appears to have been mistaken. (ArbCom was apparently supposed to re-evaluate the ban, but whether or not they did is another question, and a re-evaluation does not mean the ban was supposed to be lifted.) He continued to advocate for his revisions on his talk page, resulting in talk page access being disabled on 8 June.

At that point, he returned to English Wikipedia and began championing his revisions here. (Or other revisions? I'm not really sure whether they were the same edits, but they were within the same topic.) Most of that drama has played out on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents, beginning in section revisited: Mentioning two earlier attacks on the same airliner on the same route / BOAC 777. As you can tell from the section header, this issue has been raised before; The Banner, flyingd, and a few other editors argued this same question last year, apparently around the same time as the events that precipitated Flyingd's topic ban on Dutch Wikipedia. As for the current discussion, there are about four sections consisting of Flyingd and The Banner shouting past each other, apparently both unable to communicate in a way that made mutual sense, with the occasional, more-sensible input of Robotje and, to a lesser extent, MilborneOne, although their greater sensibility did not actually help the conversation go anywhere. At some point, a (very biased) RfC was called, and five days and scores of revisions after this argument began, I was summoned by LegoBot to the talk page. That was 12 June.

The fact that Flyingd and The Banner were utterly failing to communicate with each other was obvious to me, so I began trying to distill the real issues in section Re-gathering of issues. The Banner was the first to respond (indeed, Flyingd took a four day break from Wikipedia at this point), and so I began discussing with him, if we can really call it that. During that conversation, The Banner repeatedly engaged in behavior designed to thwart discussion of real content issues and thus prevent the building of consensus. I would encourage you to read section "Re-gathering of issues" and all subsequent discussions, or the ones above as well, to get a full picture of what has been going on, but I'll provide some examples. An easy one is casting aspersions [124][125][126][127] (among many others) and other ad hominem arguments [128][129]. Another common behavior is moving the goalposts, which he uses in combination with wiki-lawyering and other irrelevant arguments over semantics, typically in a pattern of stubbornly pointing to one procedural detail to stonewall discussion, then retreating to another redoubt when someone demonstrates the irrelevance of the procedural detail. See this chain of diffs, where The Banner explains that the discussion, at its core, is about how the Flyingd is attempting to add entries to a section that are irrelevant to the list [130]; I explain why I think they provide relevant context [131]; he diverts to arguing that they are irrelevant to the RfC [132][133]; I reply that what the The Banner raises in the RfC misrepresents the issue Flyingd was trying to raise [134]; The Banner continues to shelter behind the RfC [135]; I point out that I was initially discussing the topic of the RfC [136]; he now retreats to hiding behind the (rather dubious) previous consensus [137]; I point out that consensus can change and that he can’t avoid my new arguments by hiding behind prior consensus [138]; and having apparently run out of things to hide behind, The Banner disengages from that conversation, still having not offered any kind of response to my initial argument about why I believed the content was relevant.

I can point to more diffs: for example, other instances of trying to hide behind consensus, e.g. [139], but I’ll spare you most of them. There is one other chain I should note, however. Otto ter Haar and I have argued that including attempted shootdowns in the list (because there aren’t enough to make a separate list) would benefit the reader. This morning, The Banner made a strawman simplification of our arguments and asked for real content-related ones [140]; I pointed to previous diffs where we made those arguments [141]; he insisted they weren’t content related [142]; I responded that arguments explaining why content benefits the readers are definitely content-related, noted that we had done this senseless arguing over semantics before, and asked that he just respond directly to Otto’s and my arguments or raise some of his own [143]; and then The Banner, apparently exasperated, threatened to take the whole thing to ANI [144]. So here we are.

I hope all of these diffs have helped you gain some context. My own personal (again, definitely involved) reading of the events so far is that while Flyingd has indeed displayed tendentious behavior, The Banner's behavior is far more problematic. He has repeatedly engaged in WP:POINTy behavior, stubbornly sheltering behind procedural details and consistently retreating from one to another when I’ve demonstrated their irrelevance. He has repeatedly framed other editors arguments’ inaccurately to try to gain the advantage. When he runs out of erroneous logic to hide behind, he rage-quits, essentially, disengaging from the conversation until he can find another illegitimate objection to raise. Over the past 16 days of conversation with him, he has raised zero arguments addressing how taking one course of action or another would help or hinder our readers. Has Flyingd engaged in disruptive behavior? Given his repeated refusal to disengage, I would say so. I am, however, convinced he is making a good faith effort to improve this and other articles. He engages with me and other editors, makes real suggestions, and is willing to concede the point when he's been convinced. That’s more than I can say about The Banner. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

*This was much longer than I expected it to be. My apologies for burdening you with this, but I do think it is all relevant. For anyone not wanting to read the entire thing, the meat of my argument is the last three paragraphs; the others are context. Anyone with suggestions on how I might trim or refactor this is encouraged to mention them. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

True, I indeed disengaged a bit as you wandered into every side road Flyingd opened without going back to the issue at hand. I know that I am not well (depression) at the moment and disengaging is one thing I do for self-protection. The Banner talk 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand that depressive episodes suck (I have the disorder too), but that is not a satisfactory answer for the behavior I just described. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If I look at the last 185 edits of Flyingd on en-wiki almost all of them are directly or indirectly related to BOAC Flight 777 and prior incidents involving that airplane. As far as it is on the article BOAC Flight 777 that is off course OK. For other articles his behaviour is more like a kind of name dropping; trying to squeeze in some (extra) information on the flight in articles about pretty unrelated topics. In at least one case he started pushing on making the scope of the article extra broad by changing the article title so he could squeeze in some extra information on the incidents on that airplane in that article. After a discussion that was turned down so he just waited another year and started trying it again probably hoping the others would not notice or just give up. When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there. The 185 edits I mentioned above were done over a time span from 30 September 2012 until now. So over the last 7 years his focus on en-wiki was mostly on incidents that airplane was involved in. Adding information on the article about that flight is perfectly OK with me. I suggest a topic ban on en-wiki for him on anything about that airplane and the incidents including talk pages (maybe with an exception for the BOAC Flight 777 article and talk page for that article). After pushing for 7 years it is now enough. - Robotje (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where I am/was "trying to squeeze in some (extra) information on the flight in articles about pretty unrelated topics."? Can you also point out where I have ignored your arguments? Flyingd (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Douglas DC-3, [KLM, section The 1940s and 1950s, [KLM, Section Incidents and accidents for example. The Banner talk 08:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The addition to this section Notable incidents without fatalities in the above mentioned article seems perfectly in place and related. If you have another opinion on that please explain it. Flyingd (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it seems odd that in the edit of the 19 April attack ([KLM, Section Incidents and accidents]) there is no mention of the final shootdown allowed. This is just an example of how 'some editors' would remove such info without any normal discussion other then saying it's irrelevant with some ban/tban request threats, start an editwar and arrange for a TBAN and several bans for some days as has happened on the Dutch wiki.

I insist such a mention where any other attack on the Ibis is mentioned could be relevant to many readers. The Ibis is the only airliner in the world that was attacked 3 times (in 7 months). I see no reason to obfuscate this fact to the reader by not allowing a short one sentence mention of previous cq. later attacks when one of the attacks is mentioned in an article or list. Flyingd (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that mentions of the two non-fatal attacks and the last fatal attack on the Ibis have been removed from KLM#Incidents_and_accidents. Does this serve the Wikipedia? Flyingd (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyingd, as for your question for examples of you trying to squeeze in that kind of information in en-wiki articles The Banner already gave some examples and if you really interested, I can add more. Just let me know. Then about ignoring. I guess your question is related to my remark "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." I was referring to your 'Ah, there you are' edit. - Robotje (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You know very well that I reacted to you here: [145] (right bottom) Flyingd (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. - Robotje (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

sorry, fixed Flyingd (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

After my remark "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." you asked me: "Can you also point out where I have ignored your arguments?" I explained where that was based on and now your response is "You know very well that I reacted to you here ..." As everybody can see, your first reply was the 'Ah, there you are' edit where you were importing a problem from nl-wiki but ignored the whole point I was refering to. Only after I pushed for it you finaly responded and again you were importing the problem from nl-wiki. That underscores "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." Now clear? - Robotje (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and there wasn't much to begin with. Restarting a discussion after a year seems extraordinarily patient to me. Also, if nearly all of his edits over the last 7 years are about this plane, isn't proposing a TBAN effectively a ban? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but a TBAN would still be preferred (because he might theoretically find something else to work on). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

After waiting for a year this was his first edit. He did not try to resume the discussion to find out if the situation was changed or not, he just started adding text in that article he likes to spread all over in articles that could be a tiny bit related to his favourite topic. To me it is obvious he is not doing that for the readers. BTW, he did in the beginning edit on other items on en-wiki. - Robotje (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that previous attacks on the same airplane on the same route within 7 months are a 'tiny bit related' to the last fatal attack? Are you deciding this for the readers? Flyingd (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyingd, next time please try to read more carefully. I wrote "... articles that could be a tiny bit related to his favourite topic." so not incidents but articles that are a tiny bit related. Take this edit of you about an air race. The Ibis airplane (DC-3) had nothing to do with that race. You seem to have mixed up with the Uiver airplane (DC-2) that did participate in that air race. It was DragonFury not me who decided it was not relevant for the readers. - Robotje (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

*This is going to sound like I am trying to cast doubt on the motives of Robotje's comments above, which I am not, but because I am currently the only one providing any information on the happenings on Dutch Wikipedia, I believe I should, for comprehensiveness's sake, note that Robotje and Flyingd also have a history with each other there. I would simply add this information to my own comment, but it's been too long to do so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: As an involved editor I concur with Compassionate727s opinion that while Flyingd has indeed displayed tendentious behavior, The Banner's behavior is far more problematic. Otto (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I also concur with Compassionate727's opinion except the part about my alleged 'tendentious behavior'. I do not know where I have displayed such behaviour. Just in case: I don't regard the countless reverts of Banner's undo's of my edits, without any relevant discussion from Banner's side, as tendentious. Flyingd (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

How many times have you reverted my edits without a single word of explanation or without any relevant discussion from Flyingd's side. I call this pushing, tendentious and disruptive. The Banner talk 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You know it is exactly the other way around. I have never reverted any edits that you initiated. I don't follow your edits. I did revert countless undo's on my edits from you. Could you please try to focus on the discussion above where you answered a question that I had directed to Robotje? Flyingd (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• a question to Banner, Robotje and MilborneOne: at Leslie_Howard#Death the previous attacks on the Ibis are described (not by me). Do you believe mentioning the earlier attacks in this article is correct? Or would you say the previous attacks had nothing to do with the last attack (in which Howard died) and mention of the previous attacks are irrelevant and should be removed (as per your logic which you have been using to undo my edits)? Flyingd (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your long term obsession with the subject but this is not the place to discuss content issues. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue why I ended up here and your reaction will give admins a good idea on how any relevant discussion is avoided. The only obsession I see is the obsession of a few editors (including yourself) with me. Flyingd (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Claiming that the above is a content issue and using this as a reason not to give a relevant reaction is ridiculous as it is obvious I mentioned the Howard article as an example closely related to the reason Banner requested a TBAN for me. Flyingd (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This, opening up another side discussion to confuse the main discussion, is a perfect example of the way you disrupt discussions. The Banner talk 15:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't this discussion about a closely related example touch on the reason you requested a TBAN on me: Adding other attack info where one attack is mentioned? Isn't that why you got us here in the 1st place? Hardly a disruptive side discussion. Yet another example of not reacting to/avoiding the issue at hand. Flyingd (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyingd, After August 2012 you made more than 200 edits and by far most of them were about the incidents that airplane was involved in, squeezing (extra) information about those incidents in a lot of (almost) unrelated articles, trying to justify that you did so on talk pages, etc. The fact that you bring up just another similar topic (seems like you want to justify your behaviour because somebody added that information in ONE article) is just underscoring the issue with you. In the discussion abobe you blamed three coworkers to be obsessed with you. I was hesistating to use the word obsession/obesessed/etc. but to me it is becomes more and more clear you are obsessed with those incidents and your main purpose for being active on Wikipedia (including but not only en-wiki) is to get information about those incidents in a lot of articles on Wikipedia. For the article about the last flight (and the talkpage for that article) adding information related to that airplane and having related discussions about that is OK. For the rest this behavoiur became more and more troublesome. I think a topic ban for you on this issue is a good sollution, the sooner the better. - Robotje (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of these edits have been reverting undo's from the same few editors and trying to discuss (to no avail) on talk pages. Flyingd (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Involved but I would support the original proposal by User:The Banner that we need a topic ban on Flyingd on anything related to BOAC Flight 777 as per a similar ban on Dutch wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Admins please note I started the Dutch BOAC Flight 777 article back in 2010 (translating bit by bit from the english article). Banner endlessly editwarred me there with among others his opinion that any reference to the previous attacks were irrelevant in an article BOAC 777 and should only be mentioned in a page about the airplane itself behind the wikilink PH-ALI. According to the Banner the airplane was the only common ground for the 3 attacks so the 3 attacks can only be mentioned together in an article about this airplane. Flyingd (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Indeed I received a TBAN from the Dutch ARBCOM for a very similar case and I have stated that the Dutch ARBCOM is either corrupt or incapable. I hope the latter, not enough manpower/time to sift through endless non-reactive discussions and just taking a one-person extensive description of my 'misbehavings' as the truth. Flyingd (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

During World War 2 between 50 million to over 80 million died.[146] In 1942 and 1943 millions of poeple were murdered in extermination camps or killed at battle fiels, bombing of cities, etc. In 1942 and 1943 millions of others got severly injured/handicaped. In november 1942 an airplane was involved in an incident when flying from Portugal to England. It looks like nobody was hurt or killed, only some damage to the airplain that still could fly hunderds of kilometers from Bay of Biscay to England and safely land there. In april 1943 something similar happened, nobody was hurt or killed, only some damage to the airplain that still could fly hunderds of kilometers from Bay of Biscay to England and safely land there. For Flyingd both minor incidents were such an extremely important part of World War 2 that he added these minor incidents in the article about 1942 [147] and 1943 [148]. Flyingd also thought quite a lot more (almost) unrelated articles had to be modified to add some (extra) information about his favorite topic. Similar behaviour on nl-wiki caused him to get a topic ban by the arbcom there and now he thinks that unless they were incapable people they must have accepted some money or so in order to have a topic ban imposed on him. Soon after he was blocked there for one week for violating that decision of the arbcom, he resumed his troublesome behaviour here. - Robotje (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not yet convinced of the necessity of a topic ban. I've only seen two diffs here where Flyingd added information to pages where it obviously did not belong (the two Robotje supplied earlier today), and that was less a disruptive "this is completely irrelevant" than a simple editorial issue (all items in those year lists should be notable, i.e., have their own articles). So far, I've seen a lot of shouting, finger-pointing, accusations of tendentious editing, etc. Can I see 1) more diffs of Flyingd adding information to clearly irrelevant articles, in order to establish a long-term pattern, and 2) diffs where someone calmly, clearly explained to Flyingd why adding that information did a disservice to the reader or was bad for the Project? Unless we can establish both that there is a long-term pattern of misbehavior and that previous attempts to address the behavior in a more constructive manner have failed, I do not believe that the need for a topic ban is demonstrated.

I am, however, of the opinion that no-fault interaction bans are warranted at this stage. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Compassionate727, it turns out you did your edit while I was still working on my last edit. In that edit I wrote to Flyingd: "Take this edit of you about an air race. The Ibis airplane (DC-3) had nothing to do with that race. You seem to have mixed up with the Uiver airplane (DC-2) that did participate in that air race." I think that is just another example of adding text about his favourite topic in an article about an unrelated topic. Togehter with the other two that makes 3, already enough for a pattern I would say. I will try to find a few more of this kind of edits. - Robotje (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do. I am not convinced, and I think you will struggle to convince most uninvolved editors, that three edits from 7 and 11 years ago warrant a topic ban. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What about edits like [149] and [150]. The first one was undone soon after his edit so a few years later he just tried it again. The topic of the article is a type of airplane made by the Douglas company. Both perfectly fits the pattern of adding info about his favourite topic in articles about basically unrelated topics. The problem becomes now more clear? - Robotje (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1

• Arianewiki1
• Attic Salt
• VQuakr
• Editor interaction analyzer

I couldn't tell you why, but Arianewiki1 has had it in for this editor, from the get-go and for approaching two years now. Their first interaction appears to have been on Plasma (physics) in September 2017, within a week or so of Attic Salt creating their account. Arianewiki1 more or less immediately jumped to bullying, casting aspersions, attacks, and requests for administrative action ie "those who have aimed to cause disruption", this baseless sockpuppetry investigation, openly mocking the newbie's confusion, reverting and striking and striking again and reverting again and involved-closing and involved-closing again their attempt at dispute resolution, and attempting to enforce the temporary retirement induced by Arianewiki1's own assaults via reversion on Attic Salt's user page. This was all within two weeks of Attic Salt's start here.

So it goes on, month after month with frivolous accusations, unnecessary posts to noticeboards, and invitations that they quit editing:

Following a final warning, [151] and their acknowledgement of the warning, user's very next article talk space edit was to continue the same attacks by accusing Attic Salt of violating WP:POINT, [152]. Enough is enough. I am proposing that a one-way IBAN be applied to Arianewiki1 to prevent additional attacks on Attic Salt.

Since both editors work in similar topic areas, I realize the proposed restriction on Arianewiki1 will be significant. Less significant, though, than a site ban, which I view as the only other viable alternative at this point.

Notifications: [153], [154]. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. [155] is alarming, and that it comes immediately after this exchange suggests to me that nothing less than an IBAN will address this pattern of harassment. ST47 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - if not Attic Salt it will be someone else. Have a look at Talk:Rigel for starters. Also look at interactions with Lithopsian. I support this BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Some of the diffs were, imho, not particularly uncivil, and not even bad enough to factor into my calculation. However the aggressiveness of things like dropping a final warning while simultaneously demanding they leave him alone, along with abuse of RfCs and repeated involved closings, show both personal hostility and abusively mis-using process against Ariane Nosebagbear (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Just how many restrictions can we layer upon an editor without banning them? I recall they are already under restrictions as a condition from lifting their last indef ban. And we've seen them here at ANI repeatedly this year, drumming up drama which goes nowhere. Attic Salt has certainly received a lot of abuse, but that seems mostly an indication of survivability on Attic Salt's part. (As an aside, isn't this T&S's remit these days?) Tarl N. (discuss) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tarl N.: I don't see anything at WP:EDR. ST47 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, they're under 1RR and BLP probation. I think that's supposed to get logged at EDR for searchability, but in any event, it doesn't look like they've violated it? Are you proposing a ban? ST47 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If we're at the point of taking further action against Arianewiki1, I would suggest a ban, not just an IBAN for one of their targets. I've made a point of avoiding them this year, to the point of walking away from discussions when they drop in. They are knowledgeable in their field, but don't seem to understand "collaborate". It's their way or no way - now that edit wars have been precluded, it seems venom and ANI drama substitute as techniques to achieve victories. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Pinging @Ritchie333: who was the original admin involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As with others, I'm not certain this is the best solution or enough. For starters we probably should include an iban on Arianewiki1 against Lithsopian at a minimum since as per my comment in Arianewiki1's most recent thread Lithsopian seems to be just as much a target of Arianewiki1 as Attic Salt. But I wonder whether even that will be enough. That said I would support this if nothing else is proposed, as another step in trying to convince Arianewiki1 that they seriously need to modify their behaviour if they are going to edit here. 06:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)

After more consideration, I've decided to support the cban as my preferred option with the one way iban as my second choice. I'd also support a one way iban on Arianewiki1 against interactions with Lithsopian. Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban. Looking over the provided diffs, Arianewiki1 clearly has a serious attitude problem, and an IBAN will not cut it. Someone else besides Attic Salt will definitely be the recipient of this. - DoubleCross (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have invited Arianewiki1 to join this discussion. They've not edited since June 29. Taking what I have read here at face value, it's obvious an IBAN may not be enough. We will need some honest and frank discussion and some answers. Soon.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 07:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban First Litopsian, now Attic Salt, next someone else. A community ban is probably insufficient for this type of aggression but it’s the best we can do unless Arianewiki1 wants to harass someone who has high-level connections at the WMF. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban, or failing that the one-way IBAN. Per WP:CIR, where "C" might be replaced by "collaboration". The type of collaboration Arianewiki1 envisions is well-represented by their answer to that thread.

I would add to the file Attic Salt's talk page, starting here, where I nudge them toward kicking Arianewiki1 off their talk page (with the least inflammatory wording I found) and they do so. This diff and that diff are clear violations of WP:NOBAN to my eyes; the first one was immediately after the talk page ban and might be excused as a hot-temper edit, the second one not so much. I would also argue that this and that are fairly spurious warnings chosen to get around the talk page ban. The most generous explanation is that Arianewiki1 thinks Attic Salt and me (at least) are conspiring against them and invented a non-existing rule of "stay off someone's talk page when they ask you to", so they decided to ignore that rule without asking for clarification.

The problem with an IBAN (beyond possible gaming / "finding another victim") is that Arianewiki1 edit pretty much only topics in which Attic Salt edits as well (astronomy) so the IBAN would severly constrain their ability to contribute. As the IBAN is one-way, and Arianewiki1 does not produce stellar (no pun intended) content, the best-case scenario is a cycle of Arianewiki1 edits some article, Attic Salt corrects something they wrote, then Arianewiki1 cannot edit again due to the IBAN; rince and repeat until all astronomy articles have been exhausted, which would probably not take that much time. I believe we do not dish out TBAN for problematic editors who have only one area of editing, we ban them outright - same thing here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I've read your response here and this needs much better clarification. The point about this edit[156] regarding the WP:NOBAN is somewhat trivial, only because I didn't understand the intention to why they didn't consider possible alternatives.

However, you point with this edit is quite possibly valid[157]. My understanding was that notifications were OK. The cause was this rv edit[158], which I reverted.[159] Knowing I was on 1RR, I wanted Attic Salt to be informed that I did so with that notice. I was particular annoyed with this, because they had seemingly followed me to directly to this page. As pointed out below in Response 2: " Velocity article about a month ago with this edit here[160], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[161]. (VQuakr too was involved here[162] and here[163], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[164] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) " Attic Salt dismissively responded here [165]. (they should have done this on the article's talkpage), especially saying "Regarding your accusation of unconstructive editing, consider what you write. It isn't very good." They also claim "The sentence needs to be reconstructed if you want to work in "or vector". Maybe you could do that." (then why not fix it instead of an rv edit?) Yes. I should not have responded, a simple mistake that will now likely cost me dearly. I have to openly give my apologies to Attic Salt for doing that. (How do I do that without breaking policy? )

As for the "spurious warnings" the were regarding notices of templates the were active is on going edits of article pages, notifying what I had done. The Rigel on was I think because there was a tagging problem/bug in the software as discussed here User talk:Arianewiki1#Templates on Rigel. I thought it proper to help understand the edit in case of rv.

You state: "Arianewiki1 thinks Attic Salt and me (at least) are conspiring against them…" I have no problem with you at all, and I cannot recall interaction very often. (I pinged you after Attic Salt's 'ban' to be open in what I said. Din't think it a problem.) Attic Salt isn't necessarily conspiring, they are likely looking for faults to make anothee point.

A concern I do have however, is that under User talk:Attic Salt#Supernova edit clash is acting outside article pages and having discussions where I cannot respond because of WP:NOBAN. (I'm pretty aggrieved that I pointed out the supernova nucleosynthesis to them, fixing some of that article's structure[166], which Attic Salt made some minor fixes[167] I even added an explanation of what I did on the talkpage.[168] I wrote: "IMO, this article is far too complex and looks like original research.", but the discussion to improve was on Attic Salt's talkpage. Enough clarification?

As for the rest, your logic is fine, however the bigger issue is the differences in the level of knowledge. e.g. The astronomical word and meaning of "dredge" or "dredging", they revert the edit, you explain it on the page then won't listen nor acknowledge the mistake. (Thinking about it, I cannot seem to recall any positive encouragement at all. If I make an obvious error, I usually admit that. e.g. Here[169] or thank editors. They have never seemingly posted to my talkpage.) Simply the problem is balancing context versus "stellar content." Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt. The comment made by Trigaan regarding my Velocity article response on your talkpage should not have occurred. It was a mistake to do that there, so my sincere apologies for doing that. I have been trying my best to avoid such interaction as you have requested. Why I did that there I can't explain, except perhaps I thought I was somewhere else, like the article's talkpage. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• SUPPORT COUNTER SANCTION : Attic Salt : Attic Salt has admitted to harassment (below) in saying:"Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual. In this way I found one of your edits at velocity to be problematic, [170]. I undid it [171], and then you undid that [172], You accused then me of vandalism and not understanding textbook material [173], though I think it comes down to you not writing clearly. The problematic edit was then undone by VQuaker [174]."

This is by, their own words is plainly wikihounding, which states; "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.". Saying "Honestly, I don't think this is unusual." It is against policy, and they were told that multiple times. Arianewiki1 in their other responses below confirm this before Attic Salt made this statement,

Evidence and Consequences

HOW HOUNDING IS DAMAGING Seeing a User 1's recent edit in an article found by tracking them, User 2 going to the same article, but modifying an unrelated part of the article to get User 1's attention, then later go to User 1's first edit and making a modification to it in the hope that User 1's responds. If User 1 reverts it, User 2 jumps in with another revert or modification, then makes as much disruption as possible. (Easier if User 1 is on an editing restriction) Other outside Users then see the disruption, seeing User 1 responses, then judges them by their reaction. If this escalates, User 2 achieves their goal by not only gaining other User's support for them, but further inhibiting User 1's contribution. Furthermore, User 2 then makes other changes, frustrating User 1 even more, they then go away for awhile, waiting for User 1 to make another edit in the same article, and finding User 2 modifying it again (or another part) supported by other Users who now think User 1 might be a troublemaker. When things finally get to a crescendo (nearing some level of edit warring or possible sanction) User 2 suddenly goes away, and go to another article page that User 1 edits, and repeats the cycle, often within several weeks or months. This all started because just one User has tracking another. Every time, User 1 either becomes frustrated, made out as being disruptive, makes a mistake and is blocked or banned, or in the end, gives up contributing altogether. If isolated, they are claimed to be not collaborating or notthere. Evidence suggests the methods are being employed here by Attic Salt : Example 1: On Supernova by this edit[175] (an IP edit that wasn't correct nor cited in the reference), this innocuous edit then appears here, an d under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements? with the accusation ownership, then the main article edit here[176], followed by these edits[177] In this section they say: "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." I modify it here[178], it is reverted in the next edit by another user here[179] (claimed because "not what the sources say, and of course complete rubbish", then the article's chaos begins - all because a User tracked me to a page they never edited before just because I restored an IPs deletion. Example 2: In the article Ion on 4th December 2017 10:07, I did these edits[180], but the next day on 5th December 2015 11:01 later turn up on the page with this edit here[181]. Anyone else looking at this appears utterly trivial, but it now appears on my watchlist, showing me that I now being watched on this page. Then you do this edit 18 days later[182] followed by this edit 07 January 2018 [183], which I partial reverted on the same day here.[184]. Example 3: The same kind of thing on Supernova. It has happened on other pages too. e.g. Velocity article about a month ago with this edit here[185], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[186]. (VQuakr too was involved here[187] and here[188], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[189] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) First Edits Ion 04 December 2019[190] Velocity 02 June 2019[191] Supernova 17 June 2019[192] Before this, Attic Salt had never edited these articles. CONSEQUENCES I don't think Attic Salt has got the whole implications of what they have disclosed above and the kind of damage this tracking of my edits has done - both to me and to other editors - especially VQuakr who has defended them here. Those considering this IBAN need to balance the evidence of undermining where each instance of hounding gains further support against the target. If the hans are tied by some Combined with suspicion of sanction gaming, makes the target more vulnerable. If they react by speaking out of their frustration or lash out, it is the target's fault. If they make a little mistake they are cornered and blamed. If they challenge the attacker, the target is called out for harassment, while outside observers never see the origin of the angst (hidden behind the implementation of the tracking.) They longer the process goes on, the higher the stakes,

If we do read this ANI it seems to show multiple problems has caused the great support behind some IBAN on Arianewiki1. On the face of a sanction might be appropriate. However by Attic Salt's own statement confirms they are following them. It is clear from some responses reading past points are actually true. e.g. VQuakr's response here[193] and the response and plea "Go away. Leave me alone. You have been told before. Attic Salt has been targeting my edit and won't back off."

User ST47 said here[194] saying:"...suggests to me that nothing less than an IBAN will address this pattern of harassment." WP:Boomerang? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianewiki1 (talk • contribs)

• COMMENT For me, the level of distress and wasted time already placed on me cannot be understated, making the whole editing experience unpleasant and hindering my contributions. (My four responses below explain this.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to yourself in the third person and claiming to be the victim of attacks aren't the trump cards you seem to think they are, and your attempts at deflection are transparent. Viewing your editing history is not harassment, and real victims of harassment don't follow their harassers around. The interaction report posted in the OP of this section shows numerous examples of you editing an article for the first time (or returning to edit after a long absence) shortly after Attic Salt made an edit; one egregious example is [195]. Your claim that you are the victim here is trivially falsified by anyone reviewing the report. VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt has been shown to be wikihounding. Fact.

Yes. "Viewing your editing history is not harassment", but targeting or following another editor by repeatably reverting or disrupting their edits then start engaging in punitive arguments IS HARASSMENT.

Again harassment (or sanction gaming) is difficult to prove.

However, Attic Salt admits to doing wikihounding (harassment).

They were asked to stop doing this. They ignored it. Fact.

"...real victims of harassment don't follow their harassers around." Prove it. My edit summary (yes there is an ES) says "On watchlist. Actually relevant. Unconstructive "this takes us off track." rv " e.g. This article was on my watchlist not Attic Salt. (Writing this now, only three users appear on my watchlist. Arianewiki1 and Attic Salt (as explained since this ANI became active.) The third is User talk:71.212.15.213, to whom I post a welcome message on 22nd June 2019 here[196] (in case they replied) 'Electromagnetic radiation' appears is on my watchlist, as I added it when doing edits on various magnitude articles. I presently have 662 pages on my watchlist. No other User has appeared on my watchlist that I can recall for many years.

If I reverted an edit, THAT DOES NOT SAY I AM WIKIHOUNDING. Such harassment is can only be true if a User persists with the engagement with a second user and then undermines or inhibits the editing process. e.g, Sanction gaming. There is no further discussion on the talkpage, and no further interaction between Attic Salt and me. It was reverted by Chetvorno here[197], who says in the edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Arianewiki1: I agree with Attic Salt; I don't see that this unrelated comment is relevant. It is WP:OFFTOPIC and not WP:NOTABLE". Nothing else happened.

So according to you here: "Your claim that you are the victim here is trivially falsified by anyone reviewing the report." is also falsified.

Saying "...and claiming to be the victim of attacks aren't the trump cards you seem to think they are, and your attempts at deflection are transparent" is not only avoiding good faith it is perpetuating a falsehood without any real proof.

Deflection is too easy. I have responded in good faith to all the demands being made within this ANI, and defended myself without personal attacks. This is looking more and more like simple personal retribution; probably stemming because a personal obsession with me not writing edit summaries and the previous rejection in an earlier ANI enforcing policy for me to do so. The pretext (by your words) in seeing one missing edit summary, was enough to set you down track to the position as it is now. This is made worst because I did add many edit summaries in the same Supernova article - possibly even because of I might have reconsidered my position based on what you have said. (Of the 99 edits done in June a total of 44 had edit summaries (48.9%) But you are still point pushing. You apparently still think I deserve to be further sanctioned, or better still, permanently banned. The problem is not me or Attic Salt is it. It appears to be a continuing grudge and you want to see me punished for it. (I don't care why.)

You have said in the very first statement that: "

I couldn't tell you why, but Arianewiki1 has had it in for this editor, from the get-go and for approaching two years now.

" You got your answer. Attic Salt has been proven to be wikihounding and tracking me for most of that time. My responses are caused by increasing frustration because they continue to do it even when asked to cease. It is no being done to improve the project notthere it is being done to inhibit the contributions of another editor. It is against policy. This situation was not manufactured up by me, but by Attic Salt's own words without an trickery or coercion. Worse. They don't see it is a problem. Fact. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE This is near impossible to defend adequately in a short number of words, especially when exposed to what is presented is like a collected FBI dossier. It is likely an example of a very complicated series of gaming that is near impossible to prove or disprove. However, VQuakr saying: "I couldn't tell you why, but Arianewiki1 has had it in for this editor, from the get-go and for approaching two years now." is interesting, because it isn't (and can't be) just one way. Even a partial two-way IBAN (or even three-way including VQuakr, on the repeated excuse to revert edits just based on missing edit summaries) might help. (Both do this in edit summaries like here[198] or [199].) I'm acting within policy, and have now done so when it matters.

Most of this ongoing angst I think is because of a problem with Attic Salt's editing approach across many articles, especially when it comes to context. (See the many examples be me and others throughout their talkpage. Please read this discussion User talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations which shows the problem.) I do feel that they are specifically targeting my own edits and are sanction gaming. After experienced this many times, I've had to repeatably asking them to leave me alone and stop following my edits but they keep undermining the process by sticking to a POV until the evidence becomes overwhelming. I am not imposing OWN here.

I can't deny that most of the responses selected by VQuakr do show a real escalating level of frustration (as the recent edits on the Supernova article is yet another example, as explained below.) I also feel that on 1RR is likely being exploited by reverting my edits on some minor pretext (like edit summary, punctuation or elaboration), forcing me onto the talkpages to present and endless ignoring open advice or improvement. e.g. Spelling out in this recent edit[200] but having it reverted for the reason "No, it doesn’t say “all” white dwarfs, but rather “a” white dwarf." Even though this is being discussed on the article's talkpage, and leaves the opportunity for others to improve it.

I'm just a little confused as to what VQuakr's involvement actually is here, as far as I know I rarely interacted with them in the articles I've been editing. They once prosecuted a case about the lack of edit summaries in a previous ANI, which seems over-the-top considering in contentious edits. I've since been adding them.

I'm more disturbed by VQuakr claiming in this edit[201] is somehow badgering, when it only points out policy, especially when the 'ban' came out of the blue. I responded in case there was a misunderstanding, and then did as they wished.

Another is quoting this response[202] in a negative light, but failing to point out the had previously had accused me of "being a troll" and a "jerk." Reading the initial post hereUser talk:Attic Salt#Towards Happier Times..., and then saying: "Clearly, I was totally wrong in my initial assumptions. I sincerely extend my apologies regarding the comment on socking. I might be sometimes over zealous, but believe me, it was never personal." or saying: "I have looked at some of your edits, but the vast majority are positive and useful contributions. Keep it up!" Does that really look like someone acting improperly?

Though, much to my better judgement, an equal WP:IBAN of all Users here might be justified - just to stop the disruption. This might be difficult with some related astronomy articles, but it would stop the monitoring and executing of reverts.

Some may claim that I am notthere, but contributions like Photometry (astronomy) [203] (even with this sandbox), Photographic magnitude [204] or even Apparent magnitude[205] shows collaboration and improvements as it should be.

Extended content

Examination of the current editing issues with the content dispute on Supernova shows that Attic Salt has made 53 edits on this article page, the first being on 16 June 2019.[206] The next day they make this edit[207] and then add this query[208], where I'm accused of "Arianewiki1 inserted (without edit summary) the following sentence into the lede." and that "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." Yet when explained the original text was not mine[209], and asked to retract the accusations[210] - they instead ignore it. It seems the only reason they went to this page was my edit made solely by this single revert edit made on 13th June[211] made by an IP, whose removal looked like vandalism or an incorrect reason. Rather than discuss this further, they keep pushing the POV on 16 June 2019 with these POV edits[212]. This is then followed by a series edits trying to justify the adding of the words "heavier than nitrogen" (This is further discussed in detail in the ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian) Yet instead of trying to get consensus, they ramp up the discussion even further Stellar nucleosynthesis vs supernova nucleosynthesis, and the problems are explained with their view was then give by me and Lithopsian. Yet even when this appears, they still believe they are right against reasonable and informed opinion/evidence. This next edit by Lithopsian adds 'or white dwarf'[213], which I restored the version here[214]. Attic Salt then reverted this text here[215] because "Unexplained (no edit summary) removal of “white dwarf”, from lede but which is discussed in body of this article." I detailed why this was unnecessary here[216], then I next went to the talkpage with Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained explaining these original restorations here[217] The reasoning for this appear from 12 April 2016 under Talk:Supernova#Introductory sentence and in 2017 Talk:Introduction Explanation (again), with this problem being explained. This latest issue with this seems to come from me restoring the text under Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph as it looked like missed vandalism made in September 2018. (Before Attic Salt's editing of this page as it was made 29 May 2019.) Yet doing this now, as now claimed by VQuakr, launches into this response[218] claiming; This is "a broken-ass edit" Again whinging about edit summaries, saying " Of course it was reverted." to justify it. Claiming "Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban." ('messes' are irrelevant to any harassment, but repeatably pointing out some lack of edit summary is harassment under rehash and hounding them for it.) Accused on own saying: "You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work." (Anyone surely would reading this section is not expressed as OWN e.g. Me saying "It is perhaps imperfect, but it has been stable for sometime and is a reasonable compromise." or "...IMO there needs to be a better or fuller explanation for any further modifications." and "Further changes should be again discussed on this talkpage if gaining a newer consensus is required." Saying that: "It doesn't appear there is a stable version despite Arianewiki1's self-reference above."(most of this text existed since December 201 Saying that: "I am fine with removing "white dwarf" per this section", but then say "Rmv "white dwarf" per Arianewiki1's comment on talk"[219], but now say to Attic Salt comment "" that it "Works for me." So which is it? As I point out, Attic Salt refuse to acknowledge basic mistakes. They continues to do this kind of behaviour and is unwilling to change even if the evidence is against their views. e.g. User Talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations Every time there is a dispute, you have to climb another mountain to fix the problem. e.g. [220],[221], [222], [223] or this.[224] In the end it just becomes tedious.

IMO, the picture that VQuakr is painting seems to be only in the worst light, especially with the apparent obsession with them trying to force me by a further sanction to use edit summaries. As far as I know I have rarely interacted with them in the articles I'm editing. They once prosecuted a case about the lack of edit summaries in a previous ANI. Also why they responded this way in Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained when this shows opening up a reasonable discussion to get some sort of consensus. It is unjustified based on the given content.

What I would like to suggest before any judgement, is that Attic Salt might also respond here to get the other side of the argument without an intermediator speaking for them. I don't think VQuakr has the full picture here. If I've made unintentional mistakes anywhere here, then I'm sorry, as this took me sometime to organise and be consistent with the complaint. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There isn't much point in my responding to Arianewiki1's response, here, since they have so often responded with hostility and insults. Attic Salt (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE 2 @Dlohcierekim: Good. So Attic Salt you are not denying anything stated by me above?

The question is have you been sanction gaming? (As evident because the discussion given the previous ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian), that do suggest you have, and in which you also didn't defend.)

Also in the recent Supernova article does look like you are following my edits. I think you saw my changing the first paragraph, was because I restored a possible vandalism that went unnoticed? Or was it because Lithopsian added 'white dwarf' to the statement and thought it a good idea to defend it? Is this true? Even after a reasonable explanation appears here[225] But you did this rv edit[226], where you justify it as "removal of “white dwarf”, from lede but which is discussed in body of this article." Another is the rv edit defense: "This really is ridiculous. The article discusses SN from both massive stars and white dwarfs. So, the defining first sentence can't mention one without mentioning the other."

Yes, "white dwarf" appears 34 times in the article, but the problem is that you still don't seem to understand is that very few white dwarfs will go supernova. The current editing improvement in Supernova (not made by me) says "...massive star or when a white dwarf is triggered into runaway nuclear fusion." Saying only certain kind of white dwarf can go supernova. Isn't adding "white dwarf" ignoring context?

This example (among many) is not the only issue with context or editing e.g.

• Defending "about nitrogen." assumed by just by looking at some graph in a cite but not actually stated in the text. (Only later to find the source says "oxygen")
• Another was "Western" versus "western" claiming this was usage was given in MOS (It turned out it wasn't.)
• This edit[227] or this Deneb edit[228] (where you didn't realise 'dredging' was the correct astronomical term, but said in the edit summary that ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor") or even this unnecessary rv edit[229].

I posted you on the talkpage about one several of these issues in detail here on 23rd September 2018 under User talk:Attic Salt#Request, but instead deflected it by saying the unrelated: "Readers might peruse the rest of my talk page (above) for several other contributions provided by Arianewiki1."

Proving sanction gaming is occurring

Whilst anyone looking at these issues might say that they look trivial, there seems a long cumulative history of this kind of editing style. Other editors do see this in isolation, and it looks as a whole like acting against policy, but from my perspective, this continuous little niggling becomes very frustrating. I cannot absolutely prove this is an imaginary or a deliberate provocation, because when it get to the brink of breaking editing policy, finds it just moves onto to somewhere else in the project, and start again.

Is following Arianewiki1's edits possibly true?

I often feel that someone like Attic Salt (or even VQuakr) is always looking over my shoulder with everything I contribute. (Sure there needs to be scrutiny by others, but if one or two editors keep reverting on some pretext, while most random editors are not doing this, it highlights there might be a problem.)

Some Examples

If I go to an unrelated page, I find you following it. e.g. In the article Ion on 4th December 2017 10:07, I did these edits[230], but the next day on 5th December 2015 11:01 later turn up on the page with this edit here[231]. Anyone else looking at this appears utterly trivial, but it now appears on my watchlist, showing me that I now being watched on this page. Then you do this edit 18 days later[232] followed by this edit 07 January 2018 [233], which I partial reverted on the same day here.[234].

Isn't this a problem? It might be just coincidence, sure.

But I have already shown above, this same kind of thing on Supernova. It has happened on other pages too. e.g. Velocity article about a month ago with this edit here[235], which you reverted here just 1 hour 16 minutes here[236]. (VQuakr too was involved here[237] and here[238], and they also had not previously edited this page.) I first edited this Velocity page here[239] on 16th January 2016 and made 20 edits prior to either of them.) All three were not edited by Attic Salt prior to this.

Summing Up

So how does this quasi-claim of tit-for-tat undermining be prevented and stop being disruptive?

Perhaps it might be better to post to MY talkpage that you see a problem with some edit I have made, pointing it out and let me attempt to fix it or even explain why. Not once have Attic Salt discussed any problems on my talkpage. Instead we just see repeated rv with my edits. Is this true?

In the end there are three possible options here. I get an IBAN (or banned all together), we both of us get an IBAN, or the problem between can disappear. Alternatively, we can just mutually agree just to stop interacting at all with each other's edits? I leave you alone, and you leave me alone (as I've already repeatably requested). Is this unfair? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that I am "sanction gaming"" I know that you are under a 1RR restriction. I'm not under any such restriction. Am I supposed to change my behaviour because you are under sanctions?

Regarding your suggestion that I am following you: You might recall that you have accused me of following you to the article on Deneb, of "harrassing" you, of "hounding" you, and of being a "grammar nazi": [240]. But, as I noted [241], your first edit on Deneb came three days after my first edit on that article -- doesn't this mean that you followed me?. To top it off, as I also noted, 5 of the 6 edits you seemed to find so problematic on Deneb were made by you (not by me) [242] -- and yet, ironically, you also accused me of being incompetent.

Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual. In this way I found one of your edits at velocity to be problematic, [243]. I undid it [244], and then you undid that [245], You accused then me of vandalism and not understanding textbook material [246], though I think it comes down to you not writing clearly. The problematic edit was then undone by VQuaker [247].

I suppose I might respond (yet again) to your problems with the Supernova article. You seem to think it is acceptable, in the defining first sentence of the article, to mention that a supernova can result from a the explosion of massive star, but not to mention that a supernova can also result from the explosion of a white dwarf. The supernova article discusses both sources. So, to mention one source in the first sentence without mentioning the other is, to me, unacceptable (the reader would be confused). And, contrary to your confusion, to say that a supernova can result from an exploding white dwarf doesn't mean that all white dwarfs explode, just as saying that a supernova is a stellar explosion doesn't mean that all stars explode.

Still, you pour it on -- just look at your many derogatory responses on the supernova talk page: You accuse me of insulting you [248] because I refer to a sentence you restored as "Arianewiki1's sentence". I apologised [249], but this wasn't good enough for you [250]. I note that the supernova article appeared to be conflating stellar nucleosynthesis with supernova nucleosynthesis [251], and while Lithopsian responds in civil terms [252], you certainly didn't [253] --and, as far as I can tell, you don't seem to understand the point I was trying to make. Anyway, I could go on and on. Interested readers can just read through Talk:Supernova to see what is going on.

I hope this claifies things, Attic Salt (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE 3@Dlohcierekim:

I do appreciate your response above, and read it a couple of times to understand what you are saying before a reply. However, importantly I do disagree with several of your points, and will counter some of them.

• I did not track you to the Deneb page. I did this because of the ongoing discussion with Rigel on the brightest ACYG variable, which Deneb is sometimes considered as the brightest. My first edit was this[254], which I did reading the article and never looked at the article's Watchlist. (My edit was unrelated to your previous edits, which were made later.) Further modifications in the article affected my own edits and some other pages that I also edited.

How do I know of your changes? Either through my Watchlist or through Contributions. If it is one my watchlist, the change is noted in the list. In contributions, it says "(current)" or is blank - indicating another. I don't have you on my watchist for sometime nor do I know exactly what you are editing. (I currently have you on my watchlist switched on for this ANI so I can be highlighted you may have placed a new submission. You could highlight the ANI page, but are swamped with too many edits.)

• SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM You are openly admitting to: "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual." OK, but didn't I ask you not to do this? When you placed your 'ban' from your talkpage, I requested this, but the article on Velocity was after this action. As Tigraan advised me not to have you on my watchlist, but now it is OK for you to do that? Can't you see that this is a big problem because it might be seen as targeting as I've stated. It is against policy. You are admitting you are following me. (So my previous ANI, in which you didn't respond BTW, my assertions were likely correct.)

• You still don't see "white dwarf" might need some additional qualification. Massive stars make massive white dwarfs and normal stars make small white dwarfs. Nearly all Type I supernova are created by massive/ heaviest white dwarfs. Small white dwarfs cannot make supernova (except merging binary white dwarfs - and very rarely.) If you remove "white dwarf", it still logically means that all massive stars go supernova. I and Lithopsian already told you that on the article's talkpage. Context is everything, and even if your logic were true, you just reverted the text but never attempted consensus.

• You made the claim under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements? on 13th June, but made the apology under Talk:Supernova#Stellar nucleosynthesis vs supernova nucleosynthesis on 23rd June - ten days later. Yet you realised I made a revert on 14th June here,[255] (worst you removed "inserted (without an edit summary)" in the previous edit, which seems to be part of the problem with VQaarkr.) There was a good opportunity just to 'keep the peace' by admission of the mistake.

Now we are only left with issue stated in "Summing Up", which hasn't be addressed. Can we instead come to a mutual agreement between us here to solve this? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree not to look at your edit summary and not follow your talk page. Attic Salt (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE 4 @Attic Salt: @VQuakr:: No, this isn't good enough.

I want the harassment and sanction gaming to finish.

The requested was that ...we can just mutually agree just to stop interacting at all with each other's edits.

I don't think you have got the whole implications of what you have disclosed above and the kind of damage your tracking of my edits has done - both to me and to other editors - especially VQuakr who has defended you here. (Did VQuakr even know you were hunting down my edits?)

The level of distress and time that your targeting edits has had on me personally cannot be understated.

You have now openly admitted to been doing wikihounding : THIS IS HARASSMENT

Wikihounding says: "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Quoting directly from there:

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, following another user around, if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Attic Salt, you have now done this multiple times (as shown above) in: Ion 04 December 2019[256], Velocity 02 June 2019[257] and Supernova 17 June 2019[258] (and many others, like Asterism, Constellation, etc.)

As for saying above. "I agree not to look at your edit summary and not follow your talk page."[259] shows a problem in understanding editing.

• If I (or someone else) make an edit summary that you see, then READ IT.
• If I (or someone else) don't leave an edit summary DON'T JUST REVERT IT (I've either made a mistake leaving it out means I probably consider the change as trivial.)
• If you (or someone else) make an obvious mistake, like a word duplication e.g. "and and" or a missing bracket, then FIX IT. (I'll thank you for it.)
• If in doubt, ask on some talkpage without inferring they are to blame or wrong. e.g. Pose a open question and/or an offer an alternative.
• If nothing happens, or they disagree, then LEAVE THE EDIT ALONE, and let some other future editor decide. Else provide supporting evidence.
• If you decide to REVERT, then be prepared to follow BRD, and get consensus.

THIS AGREEMENT

You are free to look at my or any other edit summaries, BUT YOU WILL NO LONGER REVERT IF THERE IS NO EDIT SUMMARY. (and not point that out. OK VQuakr?)

In your talkpage "ban" you were also asked this: "In return, I expect you to avoid all of my edits in the future, and remove me from your watchlist (if applicable), so I don't have to bother about responding here at all."

Attic Salt replied: "I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page."

We now know you have been targeting another editor which is Wikihounding. Now not some accusation or aspersion by me. It is now by your own words. So perhaps I may of had a good reason to be frustrated and aggressive?

All this needs to end here and now, else admins will step in. Without a mutual agreement, this or another new ANI will then conclude this situation by sanctions or a ban: me, you. or both.

You've already said in the same place: "I'm curious as to how deep the hole will be dug." Are we not still digging? Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I'm not sure why you pinged me. Not sure I'm needed here at all. And I must say, at a glance, you've handled all this quite well.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

VQuakr's own Involvement here

@VQuakr: Could you please explain your own involvement here?

Exactly how does Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained initial statement deserve this response[260] followed by this ANI.

What is wrong is saying:

"Attic Salt is yet again reminded that edit summaries are not a requirement to edit, and using revert edits (rv) is no justification to revert. It is against policy. Repeatably doing this is now violating rehash and wikihounding, all seemingly done just to cause distress to another editor in the hope of 'nailing them' on some esoteric point. They are also openly reminded of the WP:BRD policy, especially if there is consensus in the community against some specific change you'd like to make. Please break away from this unpleasant repeated cycle of pointy (Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) behaviour. "

It was in response to this edit[261], where Attic Salt used as a reason to rv contained "no edit summary".

The invective response by you was "Oh. Good. God. You are seriously defending this broken-ass edit…", referring to[262] when the reference to the quote above was this[263] It is then said: "….with its faulty capitalization and punctuation…" (neither any of these edits have capitalisation or serious punctuation problems)

Then we return back to the seeming obsession with my edit summaries, saying: "….and (due to the lack of an edit summary) complete lack of context that might have otherwise helped another editor figure out what the hell you were trying to do? " (Again, H:ES edit summaries are not mandatory.) The suggest that: "Of course it was reverted." is a justification. This followed by the off-tangent response here.[264] Either way, this is personal attack, isn't it??

Yet you come to my talkpage and say that I'm the one doing a personal attack[265] . It seems to indicate that you took exception to me saying you making "new false accusations" but it is OK for you to do them?

Yet incredibly, you now place this ANI proposing IBAN and about an interaction of another editor, but evade what caused your own issues.

My objection was that: "Attic Salt is yet again reminded that edit summaries are not a requirement to edit…" and by them keeping on and/or reverting edits for this reason is against policy. "Repeatably doing this is now violating rehash and wikihounding," because a previously made long debate. (Note: Rehash says "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. " and Wikihounding says: "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.)

How is this exactly a personal attack if it is points out policy?

It is also interesting about these continuing edit warring issues above, especially after Proposed editing restriction: incident here and under this broader ANI here.

There are other wider questions here beyond this current ANI. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So, your response to a discussion about how you habitually make frivolous claims of attacks as a proxy for discussion, is to make a frivolous claim of an attack. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it? You did this rv edit[266] and this edit[267]. (I gave a edit summary). This is 'frivolous'? You were involved.

Ultimately the question come down to the response [268] and this edit[269]. (and those on my talkpage) What PA is here for you to respond as you did? Reading Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained please show where there is any PA in this section.

Saying "Oh. Good. God. You are seriously defending this broken-ass edit…"[270], Your's isn't PA?

Your own edit summary on my talk page says "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Supernova."[271]. Reading my response has no PA of any consequence, considering you own accusations.[272].

I think there is a misunderstanding or overreaction here. Who is the "specific editor" here? Reading this has a whole heap of accusations that has little to do with Attic Salt but your own issues with me - especially edit summaries. Yet the initial edit in this ANI above is all focussed on Attic Salt. Your own issue was an interaction with you not Attic Salt, but it have been used as springboard in defending Attic Salt. (It possibly looks like a tactical move making one problem unrelated to another issue,)

Simply how do we go from what is in my first two responses in Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained to this:

Oh. Good. God. You are seriously defending this broken-ass edit to the lede of a FA, with its faulty capitalization and punctuation and (due to the lack of an edit summary) complete lack of context that might have otherwise helped another editor figure out what the hell you were trying to do? Of course it was reverted. Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban. You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work.

Yet you have accused me of "faulty capatalization", but the edit you point out has no changes in that at all.[273]. You complain about a "lack of context", but even though this is discussed in the article's takepage already. I changed back an edit, sure, but I followed BRD, and introduced this Section. The rest of these accusations cannot be related to this Section nor the edit. You say "your requests for others to not modify your work. I didn't. I invited further discussions, and pointed out previous discussions. (I think you might have misread this.

As for the lack of edit summaries, well let's look at the Supernova edits of mine. e.g.[274]. Feel free to read my contribution page here.[275] if you think no edit summary appears in this article, I have now been adding Sections to the article's talkpage. e.g. here[276] Yes, I did leave off one edit summary. A mistake. Yet you pounced on that as seen within the blockquote above. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Arianewiki1's summary of the revert [277] and justification for his paragraph (quoted above) is incomplete. My edit that seems to have prompted this is summarised and makes it clear that he both 1. didn't provide an edit summary, so the rest of us are left with no understanding of why the edit was made, and 2. the content that he removed, "white dwarf", needed to be in the defining first sentence so long as "massive star" was also was also in that sentence. This has been explained several times, such as here: [278], and is the subject of an RFC that Arianwiki1 has called: [279]. Why we are going around in circles on this is unclear to me. Attic Salt (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a diversion. When called upon about their actions, this editor flails around trying to splatter blame, any blame, elsewhere to avoid scrutiny. Witness above dramatic There are other wider questions here beyond this current ANI. Anything to avoid dealing with their own conduct, which initiated this current round of drama on ANI (as I recall, this is the 5th round triggered by this editor this year). We should avoid being diverted - the issue before us is Arianewiki1's behaviour. Is it sufficient to require action? If so, should we try to layer on yet another round of restrictions, or just decide they are a net negative to the project? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it? VQuakr is involved here. True or false? Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Can you provide the list of people you have banned from your talk page, and the list of people who have banned you from their talk pages? I believe such lists are significant. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have "banned" no one from my talkpage (that I can recall). I see no reason to do so, because I can read and delete anything thing posted there as per policy. I rarely do deletions unless there PA. I have one person who has 'banned' me from their talkpage. None of them appear related to VQuakr issue here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This case is not about VQuakr, it's about you. I notice you still haven't provided the list, which you say is a single individual (I'll go back and check, because I was under the impression I knew at least three). The reason I ask for the information about people who don't want you on their talk pages is because we are considering an IBAN - it at a minimum should include people who have already told you to go away (and any you told to go away, although you say you've never done that). Tarl N. (discuss) 05:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Umm… I answered your previous question. This is not a court. The "case" is also about VQuakr because they are involved and not just an uninvolved observer. Also you've asked about "banned" or "banned you" from talkpages, but now you ask for wider "go away"? Isn't this fishing? By saying "I'll go back and check" looks problematic and might be likely against policy. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Tarl_N. VQuakr. I 've not interacted with either of you for sometimes now (except Quakr on Supernova, that now looks like ). While I understand there might be some slights that may have occurred with either of you in the past, a simple behaviour analysis now looks like you also have been on your watchlist, and are also likely wikihounding, especially because pertinent as Tarn N. and Quakr is repeatably chipping in on my previous ANI each time. Tarn N says "This case is not about VQuakr, it's about you." No. Like Attic Salt, you almost certainly have me on your watchlist. This on-ging gaming needs to end and end now. Admins now have a global picture of what is going in the background here, and frankly, all participants display foibles. They are in their rights to come down hard on future breaking of policy. Rethink what you do in the future - that equally applies to me. OK. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Arianewiki1: - regarding your time at Wikipedia, the die is probably cast at that point, but I will still give you again the advice I gave during last year's block, which might be of use off-wiki. Try to contemplate the possibility, no matter how remote it seems, that your view is incorrect.

There is no editor on Wikipedia that you got along with. Not a single one. In the "best" case people gave up dealing with you, in the worst case they contested your edits and gave you trouble at ANI (often after you initiated such threads, BTW). I do not think you contest that. The interpretation you make of it is that every single person whose path you crossed is malevolent towards your person: see your reply above directed against Tarl_N., VQuakr and Attic Salt, see your comments about Nick-D in last year's unblock request, and a thousand other instances.

If you truly believe that a dozen strangers on the internet all hate you for no objective reason, I would advise getting medical help. Seriously. You tick all boxes of Paranoia#Paranoid_social_cognition. Do not think they will lock you in an asylum (they won't) and do not think only wusses seek help (if you start coughing blood, you don't wait it out, you go see a doctor - at least I hope).

On the other hand, you might see the wrong in your actions. Not in a "I kinda remember I might have been wrong at times but it was mostly others' fault" way as you said above (and in your unblock, and...), mind you, but with knowledge of clearly-identified errors ("I did X, it was wrong because of Y; I did Z, it was wrong because of W; etc.). In that case, I suggest to work on a concrete plan to avoid making the same errors in the future. At this point, I highly doubt you can convince any of us that you saw the light, but there is a life off-wiki where you should not reproduce the behavior you displayed on-wiki. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you for your comments. I disagree. The portrayal here has little to do with understanding VQuakr involvement here. This ANI is about VQuakr interceding on behalf of Attic Salt, based on some VQuakr own perceived problem within Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained, then using it as pretext for a springboard for some IBAN based on a broader history. I have defend my position and addressed the accusations, where Attic Salt admits to have been following and targeting my edits on their watchlist and then surgically reverting edits they disagree with. This is against the policy because it is wikihounding and they have been likely using sanction gaming to obstruct the editing process. It is also likely both VQuakr and Tarn N. have me on their watchlists too, and are using some mistake or complaint to attack me or defend another user. Either way it is harassment. Fact.

VQuakr first paragraph in Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained several assertions towards me are untrue, and when basically asking them to refute them, don't do so. Instead. VQuakr thinks: "So, your response to a discussion about how you habitually make frivolous claims of attacks as a proxy for discussion, is to make a frivolous claim of an attack." The whole pretext of the launching of this ANI, is based on something within this[280] or this[281]. They still have not adequately explained this. What this has to do with Attic Salt? Do you see a problem in this Section to deserve an IBAN?

Finally, I'm very disappointed that you 'hate' me or that you think I also 'hate' you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Cantonese again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bold edit without consensus and reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Hyde1979

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

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

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

• comment [[283] changed DOB to one not supported by cite source.] @Hyde1979: Care to explain? As this has been slow mo edit warring I am inclined to block for 2 weeks or a month, just to give others some rest.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 00:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Like the last time Hyde1979 was blocked, Hyde1979 has reverted it once again [284] --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Gemofadeal and Gordon Mydland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unknown attack on me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These might be related:

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

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

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

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

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

Continued edit warring

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

---

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

Two weeks ago this user made an edit on this page [285] basically saying "because X happened Y must happen." Both myself and another user explained to them that this is WP:OR [286]. I pointed out to them that not only had two people mentioned it on their talk page, they have been reverted by others for the same thing before. In addition I pointed out to them a previous discussion when the same thing happened, that they were clearly aware of because they participated [287], and that discussion went against what they claim always happens. Rather than actually discussing why they felt we were incorrect or actually trying to have a policy based discussion they claimed its always been done that way, and then claimed the discussion was WP:Harassment.

Once again this user made the same type of edit today using the same argument [288]. I reverted this user and reminder them of the discussion [289], however they reverted me saying that its how it is and if I revert again I will be blocked [290]. They also then left me a message on my talk page saying I am being a disruptive editor [291] and reiterated their OR stance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dlohcierekim: There already was a discussion on this same situation and this user conceded during that discussion [292]. This is discussion is no different, they used the same "because X happened Y must happen" argument in that discussion, therefore I do not believe dispute resolution is the correct place, since there has been a conversation about this on the articles talk page and a consensus was reached, that this user "could live with". I intentionally came here rather than edit warring. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

(edit conflict)@Dlohcierekim: Although I disagree that it doesn't show it settling the matter, I have opened a RFC on the talk page [293]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

---

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

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

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

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

LisaTaz

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old account with odd activity

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

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

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

Disruptive editing at Rape during the Bosnian War

User:Žurnal is trying to push an extremist Serbian nationalist agenda at the article Rape during the Bosnian War. He is attempting to demonize Bosnian muslims and glorify the actions of the Serbian nationalists during the Bosnian War. Žurnal is using "sources" such as Serbian nationalist YouTube vidoes and extremist websites like [294] to include some extremely biased edits. He has been reverted by multiple editors, including myself, but continues to edit war to include these (IMHO) disruptive edits. Could someone take a look and decide what action, if any, would be appropriate in this case? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

question: IS IT ENOUGH CREDIBLE? — Preceding

IS THIS POV?

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

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

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

Serpentza keeps editing his own homepage

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia being used for hate propaganda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dlohcierekim:[295]

This is the diff. As I said thid article although a true local minor tiff incident but the intention to make it has clearly arised from propaganda mindset. First this article was made,no problem, then this article was tweeted by the writer saying if muslims get wikipedia pages, why cant we. (Clear propaganda). And he asked them to make account to make this article publsihed. We can leave this sockpupetting for now. But still there is lot of hate and communal agenda hidden behind. The article continuously use the terms like violent muslims, muslim extremists, muslim mob. And terms like attackin temples, hindu. Which clearly shows how the article was stitched to develop hatred between communities. A lot of people start editing. Fake news were getting edited by A lot of people who had started to make accounts. Check here[296] Then after removing a lot of hate content which is my duty regardless of any religion or thought, the author started alleging me for vandalism. I said to him with repsect in my every edit to use the proper sources. But he keep using propaganda site opIndia as source. You can check the status of this article in reliable sources WP:RS archive number 248. I kept telling him that this is propaganda site, but he keep citing this site and add all the fake news which are being spreaded by this site. So the problems are despite knowing that the sources are unreliable the writer keep editing and add the fake and unreliable hate news as a part of communal propaganda. The language of the article was made so as to fill hate in Indian society. Still conspiring and sockpupetting on twitter with other people but I guess that's outside wiki. So I want @Dlohcierekim: to curb such practices which are involved with filling hate in otherwise normal society as a lot of young youth in India is online amd this type of propaganda is very harmful for a good society. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTHERE and DUCK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:AIV is backlogged

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

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

Single-purpose account

User Obsidian Soul is a Single-purpose account. He has strong nationalism interests. He only focused on Austronesian expansion or anything related to Filipinos. (Austronesian people may be the ancestors of Filipinos. Hence, these editions are actually same area. ) His editions tried to make every achievement belong to Austronesian people and every regions inhabited by Austronesian people. Currently, 79% of the edition in page Austronesian people was made by Obsidian Soul. See statistics: [297]. His editions made every crop originated from Austronesian and every region inhabited by Austronesian people. Check these editions: [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.244.137.231 (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit-summary removed

The full summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See archived link at wp:ANI: [308]

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

• ‎82.132.245.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 25 June 2019 with [309], [310]
• ‎82.132.238.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 3 July 2019 with [311], [312]

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

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

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

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

• 82.132.225.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with [313] and [314]

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

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

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

Repetitive vandalism on Ivan Gundulić by IP 93.138.159.254

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leeds Male Voice Choir

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

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

Here are some diffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constant disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

Well that's definitely not true [319] [320]. And in this case we're not talking about Olympics - where we have a clear consensus to keep them separated from Serbia anyway. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

References

Deep state in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betsy Ross flag

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

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

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

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

Vandalism on Ivan Gundulić by Mm.srb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism from a Welsh government source

Contributions from 159.86.182.0/17[321] are basically, at least the recent ones I checked, all vandalism. This[322] is the owner of the range, "The Public Sector Network for Wales." I guess it might be just one school. I'd like someone with more expertise to suggest what to do. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Aykhan Zayedzadeh

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

Inserting pro-Azerbaijani Turkish material into articles:

• Added "Azerbaijan" without source to the Bidet shower article. No edit summary/explanation either.[323]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Supra (feast) article without source. No edit edit summary/explanation either.[324]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about a Georgian administrative province even though the article makes zero mention of any relationship with the Azerbaijani ethnos or Azerbaijani Turkish language.[325]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Wudu article without source. No edit summary/explanation either.[326]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Akhalkalaki article even though the article makes no mention of the city's relationship with Azerbaijani Turks/Azerbaijani Turkish langauge.[327]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about an Armenian monastery. No edit summary/explanation either.[328]
• Added the Latin Azerbaijani script in an article to the Blue Mosque, Tabriz article, even though the Azerbaijani Latin script is not used on an official level in Iran.[329]
• Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to Iwan, even though the article demonstrates no relationship in relation to the Azerbaijani Turkshi people/Azerbaijani Turkish language.[330]

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

• "There are lot of Persian users interrupting the factuality (...)"[331]
• "Iranian nationalist Shia (which is pagan at this point) who shouts "Ya Hossein", instead of "Allahu Akbar"[332]
• "Dear LouisAragon, I understand being bit anti-Azerbaijan (...)"[333]

Ignoring personal warnings:

• Warned on two occassions for violating WP:PERSONAL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Never replied.[334]-[335]

Ignoring WP:AA2 warning:

• [336]

Copy-vio violation:

• [337]

Topic ban proposal

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user's editorial pattern has been disruptive on numerous levels for an extended period of time. Said user has been warned on numerous occassions (incl. by admins)[338], but to no avail unfortunately. I therefore propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Caucasus region, the Middle East and the Iranian/Turkic world. -

• Support As nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose article of Bidet shower had already country names mentioned without citations, and articles of Supra and Wudu had already transliterations in other related languages without any citations. Kakheti was strongly related to Azerbaijan and has a Azerbaijani population (at least since early modern ages). 9.8% of Kakheti is inhabited by Azerbaijanis[339] "From the early 16th century till the early 19th century, Kakheti and its neighboring Kartli came under intermittent Iranian [a.k.a Turkic dynasties] rule." The region was exposed to Persian rule, and ultimately, Azeri-speaking Azerbaijani population.[340] The reason behind that name is same as here. The name is even mentioned here. No one is making irredentist claims here. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about an Armenian monastery", actually no, it was an Armenian monastery located in AZERBAIJAN, in a town with majority Azerbaijani population. "* Added the Latin Azerbaijani script in an article to the Blue Mosque, Tabriz article". No, I added transliteration of the Perso-Arabic script. There is a big difference. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Akhalkalaki article even though the article makes no mention of the city's relationship with Azerbaijani Turks/Azerbaijani Turkish language." The town historically had close cultural relations with Azerbaijan.[341][342] If an article in enwiki doesn't mention something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It is only the fault of enwiki to exclude that information, as other wikis have added it. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to Iwan, even though the article demonstrates no relationship in relation to the Azerbaijani Turkshi people/Azerbaijani Turkish language." No, it has. It was an important part of Azerbaijani-Persian architecture of the early modern era and is still used to describe balconies to this day[343]. "Warned on two occassions for violating WP:PERSONAL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Never replied." What was I supposed to reply? Me not replying means that I do not object those warnings. I hope I was able to clearly explain everything. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 18:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. The Turkish and Azerbaijani transliterations of Iwan removed right after I added the Azerjani transliteration of it. I did not oppose it, believing that it was a rightful removal. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 18:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support (even if, given the above evidences, i would prefer a topic ban for a longer period of time). This editor seems to be here on a single mission, trying to "Tukify" the greater number of articles he can, edit warring and being dismissive and attacking other editors. Not a net positive for the project, in my humble opinion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know this editor from my time editing azwiki. I think this topic ban proposal misses the mark. Aykhan Zayedzadeh was generally more cordial in my interactions with him on Meta and Azwiki, but I can't approve of how they treated Wikaviani and others per those diffs (Aykhan, you need to apologize for that). However, the pro-Azerbaijani Turkish edits did not seem all that terrible besides Aykhan not using an edit summary. He makes a decent point that if our coverage is lacking on a topic, then it shouldn't exclusively be on him to fix that. So long as he doesn't edit war, it's fine in of itself to make those additions imo.
  I would ask we propose a civility restriction banning Aykhan from making anything that could be reasonably construed as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I'd also impose a topic ban to be a one-year ban on Iranian topics. I don't see why we would want to ban Azerbaijani editor from being able to edit any topics related to his home country/language/culture when there is no evidence he's been disruptive in that topic. Keeping him away from Iranian topics though, would be more likely to stop Aykhan Zayedzadeh from making unproductive edits because it'll stop him from getting too heated.
  Either way, I can confirm for him: Me not replying means that I do not object those warnings. That really is a thing on Azwiki. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL:, yeah, I don't stand by what I said to Wikiviani few months ago. I broke my own rule in online debates and exhibited Keyboard warrior-like behavior. Apologies for acting few years (or age I guess) immature. The discussions about the history of Azerbaijan will always get heated, because what Azerbaijan-based sources and Perso-Armenian+Western sources are literally opposite to each other. And English Wikipedia, at least on topics related to Azerbaijan's history, do not have neutrality and doesn't respect the other side's (in this case, 10.000.000+ ppl and hundreds of scholars) perspective. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 21:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aykhan Zayedzadeh: [Thank you for the ping] I think it might be helpful to direct you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but also to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's important to keep your cool when getting into these debates. Tendentious editing is never okay here. I know I get where you're coming from and recognize things are more nuanced than Western media tries to portray it, but that is only because I decided to immerse myself with Azerbaijani culture and language through Azwiki. You can't expect everyone else to share your perspective, though (especially if you aren't in line with WP:Consensus).
Either way, it might be frustrating, but you have to abide by enwiki's policies on reliable sourcing and the like while editing here. The best way to do things is by practicing the BOLD and having a chat with the folks at the Teahouse whenever you need help. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per @Aykhan Zayedzadeh:--Maqamedd (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN

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

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

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

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

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

• This looks highly problematic to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)