Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

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)

"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)

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)

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" [7] Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [8] 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" [9] Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [10] The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [11] [12] His reply to the template message [13] Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [14] Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [15] [16] Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [17] One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [18] [19] 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. [20] [21] [22] 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)

[23] 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)

[24] 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: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

[43] 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 ([44]) or implement them in some articles ([45]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([46]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([47], [48], [49]), 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: [50] 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)

IP hopping ban evader

Over the past few days someone (I don't know who) has been repeatedly showing up on my talk page to evade their ban. They seem to have some sort of axe to grind regarding the Fram situation and also seem keen on editing the article about Bethnal Green.

The IPs used on my talk page have been (starting with the most recent):

• 46.208.211.200 (talk)
• 92.31.137.218 (talk)
• 188.220.244.103 (talk)
• 82.69.5.58 (talk)
• 2.28.164.171 (talk)

I'm going offline for a few hours now, so this is a request for others to be aware. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It's WP:LTA/VXFC, and yes, the have an axe to grind with much of Wikipedia and many of its admins. They using the Fram situation to piggyback their main campaign, which is against Future Perfect at Sunrise I believe. WP:RBI is pretty much the established response  :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Best thing is for admins to watchlist Thryduulf's TP and indef the IPs who post super-massive rants. Or semi-protect Thryduulf's TP and watchlist WP:FRAM and indef the IPs who post "Oppose" with snarky edit summaries. The IPs all geolocate to the London general area. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ugh, no. Don't indefinitely block IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Even long blocks of these IPs serve no purpose (note the title of this thread). Thryduulf can protect their own Talk page if they wish, and the wonderful Fram ban page is protected (I had protected it before, and another admin continued the protection).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf, NinjaRobotPirate, Bbb23, and El C: 92.31.137.218 (talk) was only blocked for 31 hours and is at it again; needs to be reblocked for much longer. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 72 hours this time. I can do it for a week or two if they come back on this IP address again. I used to know this ISP better, but I haven't blocked anyone on it in a while. I just need a little time to remember how long their IP addresses stay allocated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and Sanction Gaming in Supernova Article

In the Supernova article, a new Section Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements? was introduced by Attic Salt here[51]. This contains a false editing accusation, as explained here[52].

1) An attempt to fix some of these issues[53] was then reverted by Lithopsian with the uncivil PA "Undid revision 902199003 by Arianewiki1 (talk) not what the sources say, and of course complete rubbish".[54]

They then decided to remove an entire paragraph actively being discussed on the talkpage, using the excuse by saying: "address the accumulation of edits into the lead without any mention in the rest of the article - create a grab-bag section for now, and summarise it briefly in the lead"[55] Their statement is untrue (they are discussed) and is clearly disruptive editing.

Parts of the paragraph and end paragraph was again restored here.[56], then added two new references supporting the statements.[57] (Quoting the exact text from the source.) But instead of using the article's talkpage, Lithopsian reverts with the dismissive : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot."[58] The removal of this paragraph took out all the references remaining in the Introduction that inhibits the process to gain consensus.

Are these not are examples of avoiding scrutiny, talkpage discussion (BRD) or in attempting to gain consensus?

Yet when a discussion does appear, they instead goes to Attic Salt's User talk:Attic Salt#Supernova edit clash, knowing full well than Attic Salt doesn't want me to interact with them on their talkpage.[59] (Exclusion?)

2) Some additional recent revert edits by Attic Salt now claim: "As explained in edit summary and in paper by Johnson, much of the nucleosynthesis occurs before the supernova phase"[60] makes little sense. Edit summaries are hardly the place to justify changes, it is supposed to explain the edit. If challenged, it should follow BRD not a revert.

They make a 2nd revert claims: "Well, I all we can do is invite you to read Johnson and look at the periodic table in this article."[61] (the "we" pretends they have more support; inferring presumable Lithopsian.)

A further 3rd revert edit here[62] for the following sentence, had it instantly reverted because: "Please read the Johnson source"

Yet, this paper does not seemingly appears accessible and the abstract does not state what they contend[63], and even the available abstract contradicts the edit. Even Lithopsian tells them this here[64].

This is surely sanction gaming because another editor cannot verify the source: with the available information already contradicting it.

There is no justification for this kind of behaviour and it is plainly gaming the system. It is seemingly intended as a means of excluding another editor, by using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position by 'muddy the waters.' None of this is constructive editing.

Note: On the page Supernova was restored a likely undetected vandalism [65] and explained the reasoning on the talkpage here[66]. This clearly shows intent in trying to improving this article. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This indenting style is confusing. I had to look it up in the page history. It was all written by Arianewiki1. El_C 04:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks to me like a garden variety content dispute that does not belong at this noticeboard. Arianewiki1, you need to state clearly what you are asking administrators to do here. We do not adjudicate content disputes. Before coming to this noticeboard, which is for discussion of intractable behavioral incidents, you should first exhaust all of the other options listed at Dispute resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Again. Lithopsian saying : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot."[67] is now acceptable practice? Repeatably being pummeled in articles is unacceptable. Being berated for every minor slip up is unfair. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Turning this back around to look at your own behavior, Ariane, you may not have access to scientific journals, but I do. And I can see that not only does the Johnson source say precisely what the article already said it did (and contradict your own version), but also your other addition based on a quote from Sciencedaily actually contradicts the scientific article that the news piece was about. It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate. Otherwise I agree with Cullen that this is an ordinary content dispute with no apparent need for administrative attention, but the way you are making contributions here will be a matter for administrative attention if it continues. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Might be true, but this my edit [68] was justified, because "nitrogen" or "heavier than nitrogen" in relation to an element is mentioned only once in the Introduction but not in the main article at all. Even looking at the figure in the article "Periodic table showing the origin of each element" shows Carbon with exploding massive stars. Again quoting the article under Supernova#Other impacts#Source of heavy elements "...supernovae are a major source of elements from oxygen through to at least rubidium." (with the Johnston cite). Which is it? There are problems with the statement which is why it might be to generalise it. Yet how can it contradict a simpler version that tries to make a more generalised statement? But even if that is justified, gravitational waves or cosmic rays are unlikely appear in Johnston article at all. Even Lithopsian change this comment here[69] to oxygen saying: "Start with oxygen which is included in the list, instead of nitrogen which isn't (or start with carbon, if "significant but less than half" is considered to be covered by "major"" Yet Johnston cite "about nitrogen" was not likely accessed by Attic Salt at all, because he says: "the Johnson article makes it clear that this should be qualified as "about nitrogen" given her Figure 1."[70] I've since accessed the article, and "about nitrogen" does not appear in the document. I can only conclude this is original reaseach. As you have read this article too, please point out where this appears in the paper, as I can't find it.

Yet the negative portrayal of me here "It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate.", but I didn't do that. I responded on the talkpage under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements?, where a cite already appeared[71] that was introduced by another editor, WAFred.

If anything, Attic Salt is doing what you accuse me of.

My revert was this edit[72] because the deletion by an IP didn't seem helpful. (Attic Salt has made false accusations of me, refuses to acknowledge the mistake. This editor continues to do this kind of behaviour and is unwilling to change even if the evidence is against them. e.g. User Talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations Everytime there is a dispute, you have to climb another mountain to fix the mess. e.g. [73],[74], [75], [76] or this.[77] It ils called sanction gaming Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (EC) If I'm counting correctly, this is the 4th time since April that Arianewiki1 has complained about some editor here at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request [78], Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Attic Salt [79], Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian [80]. I think 2 of those 4 have been about Lithopsian and 2 of these have been about Attic Salt (including this thread). AFAIK, none of these have resulted in any real action. (From the initial discussion, it doesn't seem like anyone feels any is warranted here either.) Also from what I can tell, no one has brought up Arianewiki1 in that time not counting any discussion that followed one of the threads they started. (And I think a long time before their April post.)

  It's possible that Arianewiki1 is right and the the other editors are big problems and we've just missed it. But most of the time, when an editor keeps complaining about other editors, especially the same editors and nothing happens, it starts to become disruptive. To be clear, this doesn't mean there is no fault from others involved, but for better or worse, editors do have to find a way to deal with some degree of non-ideal behaviour from their counterparts without taking them to ANI every time.

  I'm not suggesting any action at the moment, but I would strongly urge careful consideration before another thread is opened lest a WP:Boomerang results.

  As a disclaimer in one of the previous discussions I strongly criticised Arianewiki1 for referring to themselves in the third person in their complaint. I believed I also commented either at ANI or in one of the talk page discussions or both, that people needed to cut out the personal commentary. I also found their refusal to use edit summaries disruptive especially since it seemed to come close to a WP:POINT violation in my eyes. And I have to admit, when I looked into I think 2 of these disputes, my impression from a quick overview was that while there was non-ideal behaviour from several people, Arianewiki1 seemed to be at biggest fault. So I'm not unbiased. Although I don't believe I've otherwise been in a dispute with Arianewiki1.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Also as a final comment, it's IMO easy to shoot yourself in the foot whatever the merits of the general concerns if there are serious flaws in your complaint. Referring to yourself in the third person was a previous example. Part of your complaint seemingly boiling down to "I don't have access to the scientific journal article" would IMO be another. There are plenty of possible solutions for that including asking at WP:REX or simply asking the editor with access for a direct quote of the relevant sentence or paragraph. While paywalls may be annoying for article improvement, paywalled sources can be an important part of an article. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  And as a final point, I should say it's unlikely I'll ever propose (as opposed to !vote in other proposals) action against Arianewiki1 in the near future even if they do open more of these threads. I've said why they seem to be a problem, if no one else shares my concerns enough to propose action if they keep happening then there's nothing to worry about and apologise for even bringing this up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  I share your concerns. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

  @Bishonen and Nil Einne: I recommend you have a look at the reams of notes at Talk:Rigel, which is Arianewiki1 disagreeing with just about everybody there about different issues, and also started up at Talk:Antares#Magnitudes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more, I have two comments specific to this particular dispute. User talk page discussion are generally a bad place to discuss article content especially in depth. Notably if editors made a decision on their talk pages and implemented it and then when challenged said 'we came to consensus' and referred to a user talk page discussion and refuse to discuss it again, this would almost definitely be a problem. But still for various reasons editors do have reason to use them at time. And in any case, there's no need to complain about every user talk page discussion over article content. I can understand it may be frustrating there's an article content discussion you cannot participate in but the simple solution to that is to initiate a discussion on the article talk page explaining your POV on how to improve the article and wait for others to join in. (Please don't get into pointless debates over who should initiate the article talk page discussion.) If already done so then just wait. On non urgent issues like this, editors should give others a reasonable time no matter what these others may have said or done elsewhere. And that's my other point. I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it. And given their lengthy disputes with both editors, they probably shouldn't looking at the 2 editors' contrib histories except when actively investigating the editors to bring a complaint to an appropriate noticeboard. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a very interesting point asking: "I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it." What about looking at Lithopsian discussions? Also I found their discussion just before I posted the ANI notices to Lithopsian and Attic Salt's talkpage. I then modified the ANI again before posting it. Was that wrong?

It is also notable that the (Attic Salt) "ban" is likely being made as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Also the entire reason why this ANI turned up was because I reverted an edit by an IP, where Attic Salt launched into their attack accusing me of "...so one can interpret Arianewiki1's sentence as meaning..." and "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." They refuse to retract these statements when asked.

In summary, what is going on is (as said here): "But even if this is acceptable, it is clear that you targeted this part of this only only because of my revert of an IP edit, and you thought it was a chance "to nail me" on some esoteric point just to frustrate the editing process. You were pushed on by Lithopsian pointy edits here[81] and here[82], especially when they claim "…and of course complete rubbish." (Then to make sure of this, they then delete the cites, making certain the burn their bridges behind them[83] on a unrelated pretext.)" As you've already point out, this kind of tactical behaviour is not the only time (over several ANIs now).

What is disturbing in the way gaming works. They see a weakness, like an 1RR, and exploit it. They force discussion onto talkpages, then either ignore it, make an accusation (like above) or attack the premise or a simple mistake on the talkpage or attack it in the edit summary; or now it seems do it where they can't be touched.

When challenged, like in this ANI or previous ones, they either target some 'mistake' (like no edit summaries), but avoid the actual problem. Or in this ANI, don't respond at all, and watch the complainer get picked apart by their past actions or transgressions. Easy. When the ends or disappears, you get the repeated attitudes, like Attic Salt's: "The ANI turned out to be a waste of time."[84] Another is Lithopsian's response on User talk:Lithopsian#Reflist dropping down of sources/cites : "And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world."[85] (the assertion doesn't match the response.)

The current justification appears here[86] by Attic Salt, which continues to ignore the problem, even when the problem is explained to them by multiple people. Instead of an admitting any mistake, they finally partly capitulate with this series of edits[87] when they already previously reverted it here[88]. If this full explanation here[89] shows multiple problems with even basic policies regarding editing. And yet they believe "I honestly don't see why this is controversial." (Worst, they are just explained by another editor the basic problem[90], but still do it anyway.

A Supernova article TBAN warning might just wake them up based simply on competence. Might be nice too, to hear a defence. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Foxhound03

• Foxhound03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Foxhound03 was asked, on numerous occassions, to provide reliable sources that state that the Hazaras are an Iranian/Iranic people. He has ignored that call on numerous occassions, including messages on the talk page.[91]-[92]
2. Instead of finding reliable sources which prove that the Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic, Foxhound03 has tried on no less than six occassions to shove in the material into the Iranian peoples article through sheer edit-warring.[93]-[94]-[95]-[96]-[97]-[98]
3. On 12 June 2019, "Foxhound03" received a 1 week block as he created a sockpuppet[99] in order to continue his same disruptive agenda on the Iranian peoples page. As soon as the block ended, he resumed edit-warring.
4. As of today (20-21 June 2019), Foxhound03 has also violated the 3RR rule, as he made 5 reverts within 24 hours:

• 14:59, 20 June 2019 Rv #1[100]
• 21:55, 20 June 2019‎ Rv #2[101]
• 07:54, 21 June 2019‎ Rv #3[102]
• 09:26, 21 June 2019‎ Rv #4[103]
• 09:53, 21 June 2019 Rv #5 [104]

"Foxhound03" has not only violated WP:SOCK, but also WP:WAR, WP:CON and WP:BRD. Yesterday, he posted his unblock request (exact copy![105]-[106]) on the talk page of the article as "response". Not only does the text not address a single thing; in the text "Foxhound03" denies any wrongdoing as well. Admin Yamla also voiced his concerns about this when he declined Foxhound's unblock request.[107] Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This editor started editing the English Wiki on 18 november 2018, after a look at the reported user's contribs, one can conclude obviously that he/she is here on a single purpose mission about Hazara people. The last mainspace edit of Foxhoud03 that was not related with that people was on 13 april 2019, from then on, this editor has exclusively tried to push his POV on Iranian peoples by the mean of edit-warring. As far as i can see, he has not improved the project in any way during his 7 months of editing history. Sounds like not being here to build an encycopedia, rather, to push his ethnic agenda.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reply: If you were to look at previous rendition and talk history, I have replied and added citations proving my point so the statement "Instead of finding reliable sources which prove that the Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic, Foxhound03 has tried on no less than six occassions to shove in the material into the Iranian peoples article through sheer" is not entirely accurate as I had provided citations on them, at the moment ,currently undone, there are total of five citations. In addition, this 'material' I am adding is simply putting Hazara people to the list of people who speak an Iranian language and all these undos were unwarranted and I had addressed them when I reverted , this one piece of material which was agreed on (Hazaras being speakers of an Iranian language) had not been successfully challenged on the talk page once!. Upon looking at the history and the talk page, you can see me clearly pointing out that Hazara people are Iranian speakers yet people are accusing me of disruption even though I cite sources which are the same as that appear on the official Hazaragi wikipedia page. I also added a summary of my edit which was dismissed by someone over it being a 'POV' and accused me of vandalism while the title clearly stated 'People that speak an Iranian language'. One such person started talking genetics which were irrelevant,for example: Balochi people are not genetically very similar to the Ossetians and if genetics were the case, why aren't groups claiming descent from Eastern Iranian people such as the Jatts included? The reverts I made were all justified and I had added an edit summary on each point and refuting it; it is not just mindless reversion as I had given my reason. Any disagreement in regards to their linguistics can be addressed by kindly visiting my talk page. Also the unblock request was actually my appeal which was not replied to by any moderator so my copy and paste was merely to defend myself from such allegations. The accusation that i am pushing an 'ethnic agenda' by pointing out linguistics is not true and having knowledge on a particular subject is not a crime, and if people think talking about a certain ethnic group and adding information based on it is bad and putting Hazaras as Iranic in terms of language is now pushing an 'agenda' then they are misunderstood. If adding cited and correct information is suddenly considered to be disruptive, then Wikipedia is now a disruptive platform. This issue seems to be getting ridiculous as everyone seems to be unanimously agreeing of their Iranian linguistics and Hazaragi being an Iranian Language is an established fact, I've provided my citations proving that it is in fact an Iranian language. May I also add the allegations have suddenly changed but delivered in the same style, indicating that the previous allegations seen on the talk page: "Foxhound03 has therefore not only violated WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:CON", is in fact false allegations against me. I would like whoever reads this to launch an investigation on this as well as all the false allegations of disruption which I have addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As I seem to see being pointed out on the talk page, speaking a language is not the same as having an ethnicity. Also I have no idea what "Official statement on the matter:" is supposed to imply or mean. Thus makes me think not only are there not here issues but maybe COI too.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Slatersteven, the table which I had added Hazaras in did not read ethnicity, it was about peoples who spoke an Iranian language. And yes, you are correct in saying ethnicity does not necessarily mean native language but also history and culture, hazaras also share some ethnicity with other Iranic peoples such as the Tajiks and Pashtuns. The definition of ethnicity according to the dictionary on google is: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition", not genetics. However saying that partial ancestry is irrelevent is not intellectually honest as the genetics of an Iranian Speaker from the Caucuses and one from Pakistan will surely be different. Had this not been the case and all were ancestrally the same, there wouldn't of been such a difference in Y-DNA haplogroups present such R-Z93 and J2 and many others. Finally, the 'official statement' was just a response to allegations. Hope you found this useful, Cheers! Foxhound03 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If RS do not say they are Iranian neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Slatersteven Research says they speak an Iranian language and the table's title originally said: "List of peoples that speak Iranian languages". Probably changed when the individual found out I was correct in judgment but didn't want to tell me after all those accusations XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The "individual" who changed the lead was me. I did that because the lead's sentence was not correct and confusing for our readers. Example, take a look at Turkic peoples, there is no mention of "speakers of the Turkic languages" in the lead about this ethno-linguistic group. Also, your above statement "the individual found out I was correct in judgment but didn't want to tell me after all those accusations" is totally baseless, does not assume good faith and thus, can be qualified as a personal attack.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikaviani No, it was not a personal attack as it doesn't meet the criteria and neither was it an accusation as I said "Probably", also I find it strange why you wanted me to assume good faith when It was you who accused me of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Admin needed: He (Foxhound03) just reverted once again.[108] That's the 7th attempt. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: No, i re added it with another citation from another theses so now we have two theses, wasn't much of a revert. Visit the talk page. Foxhound03 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Theses are not necessarily RS. What is frustrating is that they do make reference to works that might be RS for the claim, but I cannot verify it. So Foxy may have a point, but they should still not be edit warring over it, but rather making a better case at the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I also note you are (in effect) a wp:spa, all of your edits seem related to the hazaras.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Foxhound03 two weeks for edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-promoting issues on Nathan Rich

Moved from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Self-promoting issues on Nathan Rich

 – The more appropriate board and the one better able to assess whether this has crossed the outing line. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

‎Ur and En Wiki Helper

Ur and En Wiki Helper (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

Seems to mainly be interested in POV category labelling. Repeatedly inserts Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent into BLP articles where it is unsourced, and edit wars over it: [109], [110], [111] are examples on one of many articles. The rest is readily seen from the relatively short contrib history. No response to multiple warnings -- Begoon 10:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the same user as these two:

• En Wiki Helper (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)
• قیومونٹ (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

They're not socking as there doesn't appear to be any deceptive intent here (they seem to start a new account after completely stopping using the previous one, conceivably after forgetting their password). They've also edited from various IPs. POV is a concern, but there are also really really massive CIR issues and no willingness to listen to feedback. A drain on the community's resources without any visible benefit. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a mass-rollback of their edits and, if at all possible, a mass deletion of the redirects they've created: almost all are either just wrong or are to articles without mentions and the one or two exceptions are too vague to be any use. – Uanfala (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought they might be قیومونٹ because they edited a draft begun by them, and edited by no-one else. I noticed them because people abusing categories for POV labeling, particularly ethnic/religious, is a pet dislike of mine. Category:Film censorship in Pakistan seems to be another favourite. Now I look more closely, and at the other accounts, the general CIR issues are pretty stark though, yes. -- Begoon 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mass rollback sounds reasonable. I changed one redirect (Old Urdu) from the target Hindi, which seemed rather pointy and in any case not very helpful, to History of Hindustani, but it would probably be best to just delete it with the rest. I don't know whether "Old Urdu" is a term that's used at all. --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Now it's framed in CIR terms, I admit that it does seem that the "basis" for a good lump of their Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent additions appears to be "because Khan"... -- Begoon 11:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is probably a young user, and their grasp of English seems to be a bit shaky. Maybe they ignore the talk page warnings because they don't understand them. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You're possibly right. Even so, if the net result is that they are wandering around slapping incorrect ethnic categories on BLPs, then edit warring them back in when removed, that needs to be prevented fairly quickly. If they don't, or can't communicate then our options are pretty limited. -- Begoon 15:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely, and came here now to ask admins for a CIR block. I posted this to their talk page 45 minutes ago and since then, they have added unsupported ethnic categories to a BLP, created another inappropriate redirect, and created a draft of a BLP for an apparently completely non-notable person - what they haven't done is react to the post on their user talk page asking specifically for a response. --bonadea contributions talk 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've recently reverted the usual addition to Arbaaz Khan, but this time from an IP, which I've warned. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I just realised that this is almost certainly the same user as User:اردو کے ممالک، ثقافت، وغیرہ. That account was username blocked so they are not actually socking, but it is worth noting that they were already warned multiple times about the same kind of edits (unsourced additions, inappropriate page creations) on that account, as well as on the accounts listed above. I can't see that they have ever engaged in any kind of discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this account is the master, the subsequent accounts would be socks. The master was hard-blocked. Permission to create new accounts would have been required.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Now obviously the same user or meatpuppet at 119.153.41.251 (talk · contribs), their English seems ok Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• All the accounts have now been blocked: after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi (sami). Anybody want to unleash mass rollback and G5? – Uanfala (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd support that - it's rather a lot of edits to undo manually, and I don't believe anything of any value would be lost. -- Begoon 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mass-rollback is  Done. Home Lander (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing that. I guess that just leaves the G5s of the (mostly) redirects - unless anyone thinks any of them are useful enough to keep. -- Begoon 03:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think they've returned as Tiger MUQA. Very similar edits. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Promptly blocked by JJMC89. Created page also deleted per G5 by same. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Loose Women

A persistently disruptive editor is finding Loose Women immensely attractive. They remove starring characters/presenters from the infobox, contrary to WP:TVCAST, and sometimes from the article body, only ever using "Good" as their edit summary, if not omitting the summary entirely. Since the editor often changes IP (in the past 24 hours he's had at least 4,[112][113][114][115] and if you look through the article history, you'll see many more. Most of the IPs are from BSKYB-BROADBAND-V6. Because the IPs are only ever used for a short period it's impossible to communicate with the editor so I've gone to some lengths trying to get their attention, leaving notes in the infobox but they are always ignored. Other than reverting the changes, I don't know what I can do so I'm after suggestions. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Range blocked by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• A persistently disruptive editor is finding Loose Women immensely attractive – I really don't feel we should be passing judgment on our fellow editors' sexual predilections. I also note that the article says that the show underwent a "revamp" [116], which seems like not the kind of language we should be using; references to "gold diggers" might be more appropriate. EEng 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion at AB de Villiers

IP 122.179.223.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reinstating the same edits as a blocked user, which makes it almost certainly a case of block evasion or some form of sockpuppetry; a ban or maybe a range block could be in order. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, highly likely to be User:Shntn 007 dodging their block. Reyk _YO! 08:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Zefr on bacopa monnieri

User:Zefr refuses to acknowledge three WP:MEDRS sources in favor of his personal opinion. He cites irrelevant FDA warning letters that do not even address the disputed claim in attempt to refute it. He has successfully edit warred to maintain his version of the article. He has acted similarly on nootropics in the past. This dispute dates back to two months ago when my account was new, and I was not aware of the rules. It was my first ever disagreement on Wikipedia. I have been reluctant to report this user because I violated some guidelines myself, but I can stand his smug stonewalling no longer. If I get boomeranged, so be it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Uninvolved editor: 1. regarding content: The sources provided do indeed seem to pass all criteria of MEDRS. The FDA could potentially be a valid source per WP:MEDORG; but it isn't listed there, though I guess it's regulations are borderline acceptable since it is a national regulatory agency; though again MEDORG suggests that both the scientific litterature and the guidelines should be discussed (and compared if there are RS which do so). This of course to be taken with a grain of salt since the FDA letters only seem to warn against advertising claims; and I am unsure if they imply that the products are ineffective, or only state that they have not gone through regulatory approval - which is a different thing, and in which case WP should probably defer to the consensus of topic-specific reliable sources (which I have not read so I cannot comment).

2. regarding behaviour: indeed an editing dispute, page history does seem to show a slow paced edit war over some days in May, though I am unsure if there was any violation of WP:3RR, and in any case there was discussion on the talk page so probably not warranting any action on those grounds. User:Zefr might be a case of WP:IDHT since, reading rapidly, the only point I see being made on the talk page by him is that "FDA notices are 'state of the science'"; claims that 5-6 year old research is entirely outdated seem unlikely, though that is not my area of expertise so I don't know. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to say the FDA is our best source here. But this is a content dispute and so not appropriate here. Why not ask at WT:MED? Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The FDA sources do not even address the disputed claim. They would not be relevant even if they were position statements rather than warnings about unapproved advertising claims. If you want to join Zefr in his stonewalling, we can add you to the list of POV pushing IDHT editors. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex and Zefr are quite right. Personal attacks like that are naughty!-Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my uncivil tone. I still think this is more a matter of editor behavior than a content dispute, as the lede was formed without consensus by edit warring to push a POV opposite that of WP:MEDRS sources. But I know that it is best practice to only comment once when filing a complaint on this forum, so I will refrain from further comments unless directly addressed. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported at WP:AN3. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And IDHT behavior? —Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Here - but "IDHT behavior" would be be evidenced by a long-term refusal to accept the obvious prevailing consenus. Here, what seems to be happening is that two editors disagree about which source(s) take precedence. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis, and so does 107.190.33.254, but I think I have run myself out of comments. I'm off to edit other things. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:I might have been quick with the IDHT tag, but I've been involved in similar disputes where one editor keeps rehashing the same arguments over and over again (obviously, if it continues long-term, then it does become IDHT), so in any case everybody involved should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground.@Wikiman2718:As for the FDA sources, see the point I have made over content. This seems right now to be a content dispute which has excited people's temper, in any case discussion should be continued in a civil manner on the article talk page (which is the more constructive approach too), and you should really only come to WP:DRAMABOARD if there is a clear breach of policy (which remains an open question here). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason that I thought (and still think) that is a case of IDHT behavior is because the disputed claim (that bacopa is a nootropic) is not referenced in the warning letters. There is simply no way that the FDA warning letters can be a valid source if they do not address the disputed claim. I have brought this point up several times since the beginning of the discussion, and have still not received a response. Instead, Zefr repeatedly responds that the three WP:MEDRS sources are quackery because the herb is used in traditional medicine. If User:Zefr or User:Alexbrn could address this point now, perhaps we could get to the root of the problem. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:TomohiroKatoconfrontedbyPolice.jpg

Hi! I don't know If I'm on the wrong place (my English is not that really good), because the image has not been deleted, but I am asking it to be deleted, as the one who uploaded it since I reformed the fair use rationale template but it seems to not satisfy or be enough for Wikipedia fair use of images. Feel free to delete it. Kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi LLcentury. The file has been tagged for speedy deletion which means you can just do nothing and it will probably be deleted in a few days per WP:F7. However, since you uploaded the file, you can also add {{db-g7}} to the top of the file's page and it will be deleted per WP:G7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 23 June 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: [117]. 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 (on revert), responded to with the accusation that I was trying to start an edit-war [118]. 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: [119]. 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)

The political agenda 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?). Admin(s) were easily duped when I crossed paths with this editor and I decided to leave the scene, notwithstanding the ongoing infection of the encyclopaedia. sirlanz 02:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The obvious anti-Uyghur POV-pushing: [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125]. File a report at NPOV noticeboard per WP:NPOVD. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. 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)

Ujin-X: NOTHERE?

• Ujin-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know it is rather early to be bringing a user here, particularly as I have not yet specifically mentioned to them the possibility of a block over this, but I'm looking for admin assistance as this user seems to not get the message, which has been repeated several times, that Wikipedia isn't a forum for original research, and (especially as the mathematics community here has firmly rejected their ideas) they should find somewhere else for "angular vectors" or whatever they want to introduce. Thus, while a block is probably not needed yet, I would like assistance in getting Ujin-X to understand this.

A year or two ago, the WikiProject discussed this editor's edits and overwhelmingly found them to be problematic. What I believe crosses the line in this situation is that they have ignored everyone's comments and advice since that discussion. They don't seem to be able to drop the stick on this subject in spite of the overwhelming consensus to move on. It's getting to the point where I consider their ideas to be crank mathematics which I seldom use to label anyone's mathematics, with this really putting it into WP:IDHT territory.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Explanation. I stopped creating or changing pages, as required by the mathematical society. But I think that I have the right to contribute to the "talk". I submit my comments exclusively on the topic of the page. This ad appeared because I responded to a comment Jasper Deng on his personal page.--Ujin-X (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The whole point that everyone’s been making to you is that you do not have that right; unless you have very specific suggestions for improving the article, what you’re posting there is off-topic per WP:NOTAFORUM (which has been linked to you at least three or four times now). In this particular case, your content can’t be useful for improving the article since it has been overwhelmingly rejected. I don’t consider it rude to call out blatant hand-waving.—Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia users should know not only about the essence, methods of finding, history, and other information written in books, but also about the problems in this work. About the problems in the books do not write. Therefore, if you value Wikipedia as a source of information, then change the article, add a section that tells about the inconsistency of the cross product. And add two simple proofs that I gave you. By the way, a lot of mathematicians tell me that they knew or guessed about this problem and the evidence. --Ujin-X (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• To be very blunt so that I am clear, Wikipedia does not care about your opinions or your original research. If you continue to use talk pages to present your theories on why published sources are wrong, you will be blocked from editing. Please know that this is not a verdict on whether you are right or wrong, or an attempt to suppress knowledge, or in any way driven by animosity towards you specifically. Regardless, Wikipedia exists for a very specific purpose, and that is to present readers with significant information on notable subjects that is verifiable to published reliable sources. What you are doing is outside of that purpose, and thus a waste of everyone's time here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Ujin-X: You've been told exactly what is wrong with your "examples" (maybe you're being blinded by your only considering orthogonal vectors; you also need abstract algebra background if you want to invent new mathematical objects) and in any case, even without those problems, your work is inadmissible on this project as original research.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Ujin-X: As others have tried to explain to you, article talk pages aren't intended to be a place for you to teach others what you think they need to know. They're intended to be a place to discussion concrete specific suggestions for how to improve the article. This would apply even if what you were saying was well supported. As others have also said, we cannot add your own personal opinions or research to articles. If you want to add content, please find sufficient reliable secondary sources to support what you are trying to add. Not explanations for why you're right and everyone else is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson BLP

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

---

Toa_Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to reinsert material which appears to be in violation of WP:BLPPUBLIC If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

• 23 June reverted my deletion

• 22 June reverted my deletion

• 18 June reverted my attempt to attribute material to Snopes, and add Attkisson's denial of allegations

The Snopes piece was added by this user on 10 June.

Snopes' allegations are not supported by any neutral WP:RS and should not be included in her bio, but this user has reverted all my attempts at a remedy. petrarchan47คุก 21:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think Petra understands policy and I think his report here is a sign of that. He's repeatedly goalpost shifted to remove content that views Attkisson unfavorably - first his justification was that Snopes is unreliable (which is false - it is a reliable source and has been reaffirmed 12 times at RS/N), and now that it violates other policies. It seems he keeps fishing for any policy he can look at to justify removing this content, but the talk page does not back him up on any of this. Discussion is currently ongoing (Petra started an RfC, in fact) on the talk page for this content, but the consensus seems to lean very much in favor of including it. Just read the talk page: this has been discussed before and is being discussed right now. His repeated attempts to force the removal of this content over the viewpoints of other editors is beginning to verge on disruptive.

My first revision was backed by User:Ahrtoodeetoo, who noted that Petra's edit was "confusing, not obviously relevant, and arguably misleads readers into thinking that fringe views are accurate". The second revision was even less justified and claimed to be "following policy" - but it clearly wasn't, as Snopes is reliable and this content is notable. The third was the same as the second except it incorrectly cites BLP public - which clearly refers to incidents like divorces or affairs, not legitimate criticism of reporting; there is no standard to give equal time and validity to incorrect information - like, say, a report that falsely alleges the government covered up research that proves vaccines cause autism.

As to the idea it has no backing outside of Snopes: other sources have commented on Attkisson's anti-vaccine piece on Full Measure, including Salon, which noted the sharp criticism it faced from several professors and medical doctors and scientists as well as its widespread promotion on anti-vax websites. Regardless, the content is clearly notable for inclusion as it fits the general finding that Attkisson is, at best, a poor reporter on vaccines and, at worst, is perpetuating anti-tax myths. This program is just another example of that, per Snopes. Toa Nidhiki05 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Oncologist and writer David Gorski published an article about this controversy, coming to the same conclusion as Snopes. See his piece at Respectful Insolence, under the pen-name Orac: "Sharyl Attkisson is back, and she’s flogging a new-old antivaccine conspiracy theory". I think Attkisson's biography should include the information and scientific conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Binksternet - I've gone ahead and added this to the article. Toa Nidhiki05 22:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a blog. Editors are using Snopes and a skeptic's blog to make exceptional claims about a living person - this is against policy even if three people on the talk page think it's fine. petrarchan47คุก 23:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have a much different view regarding BLP & NPOV policy, beginning with strict adherence to our 3 core content policies, that exceptional claims require multiple high quality RS with in-text attribution for contentious statements. Based on the banter that has occurred on the TP, there is reason for concern that WP:BLPCOI may be applicable in this situation as there does appear to be a bit of acting out in retaliation over Attkisson’s criticism of the way her BLP has been handled. Attkisson has been accused of being anti-vac and right wing, which she adamently denies. She has attempted to be accommodating by expressing her views on the article TP, but I think perhaps her comments were seen more as criticism than being helpful. Her comment in this diff mentions Tao and demonstrates part of her frustration over the difficulties she has encountered. Does the material in her article strictly adhere to BLP & NPOV? The short answer is no, not as well as it could. Is there noncompliance with policy - I believe so. There have been instances where statements in the BLP have been challenged as noncompliant with NPOV/BLP policy as evidenced by the diffs provided by the OP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

• This is a routine BLP content dispute and doesn't belong at WP:ANI. Toa Nidhiki05's edits have been supported by talk page consensus. The only conduct problem is Petrarchan47's edits against consensus, though that problem has been manageable so far. R2 (bleep) 23:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Diffs

• [126]
• [127]
• [128]
• [129]
• [130]

IP's talk page

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

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

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

I've stricken irrelevant and inappropriate remarks ([131]) Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

88.147.36.93 is back at it again

Hello,

A week ago I came here looking for help as my talk page keep getting vandalised by 88.147.36.93, user is a well known vandal who went by MySuperBelt85 who vandalised not only the Mafia III article in the past but my talk page as well. 88.147.36.93 was blocked but after the block expired still continue to vandalise and harress my talk page, he has also vandalised my CityOfSilver ‎talk page multiple times as well. The user has a long history of block evasion and sockpuppetry and this is an obvious sock of MySuperBelt85. Can someone really help me? I just getting really annoyed at this guy and short term blocks aren't helping, can some block him for a longer period? Also could someone watch my and CityOfSilver talk page during the block period for obvious block evasion by user since the user has a history of block evasion. This would be really helpful, Thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month by NJA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 24 June 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. [[132]]. 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 , 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 , 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: . 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)

King of troy and WP:SEEALSO

King of troy (talk · contribs) is a recent editor who has been mostly been adding to See also sections. Unfortunately, many of the insertions violate WP:SEEALSO; they're often already linked in the article (sometimes duplicates of existing See also items), or of unclear relevance/relationship, and in no discernible order. Several editors have commented on KoT's user page and/or reverted KoT's edits, with no response or apparent change in behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

user:Bbb23 has blocked indefinitely. Bbb23, can you provide some information around this? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I tagged the sock so you can see the SPI case it belongs to if you want to read about the behavioral patterns.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that certainly makes short work of this editor. But even if this were not a sock, with his additions of see also's that are not related, or are already linked in the article, and then not being responsive on their talkpage, this was going towards a block in any case. Somebody should undo all his edits... Debresser (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj topic ban violation June 2019

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

---

Here and here was editor @Jzsj: again editing in the field of education where he is banned from. Shortly before, he was extensively editing on Milošević-Rugova education agreement. And as usual (...)yes, it escaped me that this pertained to the schools ban broadly construed.

Clearly, he flouts the whole community and fails to get the point. His recent attempt to his topic ban lifted, nearly got his community banned (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive309#Jzsj_topic_ban). And now he violates his ban again. The Banner talk 14:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The Banner keeps twisting the truth. The one who proposed the Community Ban got only one person to support him, while the rest, including two administrators, opposed it. As I pointed out there, I have made a few completely inadvertant slips against this ban "broadly construed", amidst my many thousands of edits in the past nine months. Here I was focused on the Jesuit's support of this person, not on the fact the issue was raised at a school. And what the Banner describes as two places really pertain to the same place. I will redouble my efforts to notice when incidents pertain to schools. @The Banner: Jzsj (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

1. There was a proposal for a community ban. And not by me.
2. Your topic ban violations are seemingly always "inadvertant slips".
3. And about twisting the truth: I had withdrawn my support before the discussion ended. But please not to other editors that supported the CBAN.

The Banner talk 15:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• The language of the TBAN (see [133]) is: "... indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed." The offending edits, to a paragraph on individuals losing their jobs at Catholic schools specifically for being in non-heterosexual relationships, added text of an incident where a particular Jesuit school was deconsecrated by the local bishop because of its refusal to dismiss a gay teacher. How it could escape one's attention that this is an edit "related to education or schools" is bewildering. Jzsj was last blocked for a month for violating this ban, this time it's three months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll have to concur with Ivanvector this seems an obvious violation of the topic ban there is no way I could see any reasonable person failing to realize that this would fall under "education or schools, broadly construed", when editing an article which covers an issue pertaining to a teacher. I'd endorse the block for what it is worth.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

UponAShiningStar

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

---

I am concerned about the conduct of UponAShiningStar (talk · contribs). They have very little activity on Wikipedia (their first edit to this encyclopedia was apparent vandalism, and their other six mainspace edits seem to be low-value rewordings), but recently they have begun sending emails to administrators that I find suspicious. Specifically, I was sent an email from this account, which I had never previously interacted with, stating only "Hello, I have a request involving the English Wikipedia. Would you be willing to take one at this time?" It is apparent that I am not the only recipient of such emails, because UponAShiningStar has blanked a series of responses on their talk page made by other admins (specifically Surjection and El C) who received such an email and responded on the editor's talk page. After I suggested that use of the email system to contact administrators should be reserved for instances in which an editor is being stalked or harassed, UponAShiningStar emailed me again and wrote, "You've got it exactly right. I am actually being stalked and harassed on Wikipedia, and do fear to place it in a public sphere. In fact, I received a harassing message just yesterday mocking me for getting blocked. All the requests I mentioned were on that subject"; and "Several admins can attest to this". To me, this suggests that several admins have been made aware of stalking and harassment of UponAShiningStar, and have done nothing about it. The entire thing sounds fishy to me. Are there, in fact, any other admins who are aware of the conduct that UponAShiningStar now asserts? bd2412 T 18:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I found the user's insistence that I provide to them my email address in order for them to report their concerns to have been quite puzzling and rather suspicious. But I suppose there's a chance I'm missing something pivotal. El_C 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and lack of consensus-seeking at Wikipedia:Office actions

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

---

There is an edit war around whether WP:Office actions is currently a Wikipedia policy.

• Xeno downgraded the page to an "information page"
• The change was then reverted by Pigsonthewing citing a lack of consensus for the action
• WJBscribe then restored Xeno's change
• Adam9007 then reverted the change again citing a lack of consensus for the change
• Serial Number 54129 restored the change
• I reverted the change again and started a discussion calling for consensus to be reached before reinstating the change
• Serial Number 54129 once again reinstated the change
  • I then warned Serial about edit warring on his talk page

I am not sure what the recourse is here but the complete absence of any attempt to build consensus before making this change is unacceptable. Anne drew (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)f

Consensus for the change already exists: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The page cannot be considered a policy as it was not developed by the community, which is a basic requirement for something to be considered a local policy. The fact that it carried a policy tag until my change was simply an error. –xeno^talk 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: This was a unilateral change on xeno's part based on the recent Fram hullabaloo here [134]. The change needs to be discussed. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for the change already exists Where? I don't recall anyone even proposing such a change, let alone agreeing to it. You even said yourself that basically the change was bold. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I already explained: local policies are developed by the community. OA, in its current state was not. Coincidentally, your comments also apply to the Feb 2019 changes which had no basis in consensus. –xeno^talk 22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected for 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

28bytes why was the page locked on the current contested version rather than the stable version of the page before this dispute took place? Anne drew (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume that 28bytes protected the page in the version that he found it, consistent with longstanding practice. As to the last stable version, surely that was this one? WJBscribe (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: WJBscribe is correct. The page was protected in the state it was found. Work out what the correct version should be on the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please, everyone follow the WMF's lead and only change "policy" by "consensus". Like, for example, here and here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • LOL. WJBscribe (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for the page being an enwiki policy following the major revisions in February 2019? WJBscribe (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is this even here. Regardless who did what (outside of straight out edit warring, if it occured) xeno just corrected a mistake and made it correct. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime, It's been marked as policy since 2006. I find it somewhat hard to believe that it's taken 13 years for someone to spot a mistake like that. Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There were large scale, undiscussed changes pushed to the page by an external organization. It is no longer a local policy, per our policy on policies. –xeno^talk 22:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• There's a ton of consensus at the Framgate discussion page that the present iteration of office actions does not reflect community consensus, and there is no consensus that it is an en-wiki policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  A handful of editors agreeing on something does not community consensus make. Anne drew (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• A "handful"?! You've got to be kidding. There's more consensus in the discussion at WP:FRAM than one usually sees in 99% of consensus discussions. You're letting your POV get in the way of your judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• This will probably escalate the drama; However, I've proposed that the article in question be redirected to either Meta or Foundation, just as the Terms of Service or other foundation matters would be. Promethean (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• In the interests of not escalating the drama, I'm not going to comment.
  Except to suggest that Anne drew Andrew and Drew is reminded exactly what both edit warring and consensus mean, and, more to the point, when they do and do not apply. As a lesson in precision, it could be useful. ——SerialNumber54129 22:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you explain it to me then? Use small words, I'm not as bright as you. Anne drew (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You must be fairly bright for your first 20 edits to be to your own .JS pages and then using Cite News and Cite Journal straight away. Don't be so hard on yourself. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a professional software developer. Javascript and wiki markup aren't exactly challenging for me. Anyway, if you're trying to make a point please be explicit about it. Anne drew (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Correcting a long-overlooked error does not require a consensus. A "policy" which was never approved by the community is not an en.wiki policy. It might be a WMF policy, but that's different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: all else aside, edit warring normally involves a small number of wikiteurs going back and forth; most often just two, but sometimes you see a tag-team. Here, we have on one side at least, multiple individuals each making edits. Why would only one be warned, aside from the obvious (tactical) reason? Qwirkle (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Is Atlantic International University eligible for a G4 speedy deletion?

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

---

Can an administrator please take a look at Atlantic International University and let us know if it is eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article? An article with the same title has been deleted and recreated a few times but non-administrators can't easily tell if the current article is substantially similar to deleted versions. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would not delete it under G4. The current version reads way less like an advert than the versions that were previously deleted, and it has quite a few more sources now than the old version did. (No comment on the quality of those sources, just noting that it looks like more work has gone into the current version than any of the previous deleted versions.) ST47 (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and helpful reply! ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

TGODJonJanez

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

---

This user, despite repeated warnings and personal pleas continues to add "their name" to music label pages. Just after the 2nd final warning and my personal plea for then to refrain and to rather play in their sandbox, the disruptive editing continues. I would appreciate an admin taking a look please. Robvanvee 05:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Deacon Vorbis, User:Railfan23

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

---

Last night I made some small formatting changes to a few articles. In one case, I rewrote some text that appeared to have been copied and pasted from somewhere, with no attribution, thus likely a copyright violation ([135]). Two users have undone my changes, and both have falsely accused me of vandalism ([136],[137][138][139]. Neither has given any explanation of their actions. I left both users messages on their talk pages asking for an explanation; both users deleted the messages ([140],[141][142][143])

Undoing an edit is not a problem for anyone, if the reasons are given. Repeatedly undoing an edit without giving a reason, making a false accusation of vandalism, and simply deleting all attempts to communicate, strikes me as highly disruptive behaviour. So, I thought it may be useful to invite an administrative eye on it. 37.152.231.90 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The text that you rewrote was quoted from the source, which is permitted (see WP:QUOTE), provided it is not excessively long. The quote that you rewrote is within a typically accepted length of a quote. Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a possible WP:BKFIP sock or for just being disruptive. Take your pick. Sasquatch t|c 05:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Unsourced speculation (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 [144]. 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)
• Wrestling. Again. EEng 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Anon Disruptive Edits

I am involved in a edit war on Marriageable_age The anon is posting old news about saudi arabia from 2009 "In relation to proposed Saudi marriage reforms in 2009, it was observed that "although girls can marry even before reaching puberty, they cannot terminate the wedding contracts according to the Hanbali legal school, one of four major schools in Sunni Islam, which gives complete control over the female to the male guardian" However the saudi goverment have reformed this law and banning all marriages under the age of 15. "However in 2019 Members of the Saudi Shoura Council in 2019 approved fresh regulations for minor marriages that will see to outlaw marrying off 15-year-old children and force the need for court approval for those under 18. Chairman of the Human Rights Committee at the Shoura Council, Dr. Hadi Al-Yami, said that introduced controls were based on in-depth studies presented to the body. He pointed out that the regulation, vetted by the Islamic Affairs Committee at the Shoura Council, has raised the age of marriage to 18 and prohibited it for those under 15." (https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1540156/saudi-arabia-introduces-new-regulations-early-marriage) the user has left the new information but still puts in the old one which is redundant.

The anon has reverted my edits the reliance of the travler whose reference cannot be accessed seems to be dispaly false information regarding the age of marraige in the shafi juriprudence the source cannot be accessed then I found the online pdf of the book which can be accessed and that information completly different to what was written:

The false information currently on the wiki page whose reference cannot be accessed:

The Reliance of the Traveller, frequently considered the definitive summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, states in the chapter on marriage as follows:

       32.2a. A father arranging the marriage of a virgin daughter: A father can arrange the marriage of his virgin daughter without her permission even if she is beyond the age of puberty. It is up to him whether he consults her or not.
       32.2b. Someone other than the father arranging the marriage of a virgin: However, if anyone other than the father is arranging the marriage of a virgin, such as a guardian appointed in the father's will or anyone else, he cannot give her in marriage unless she is beyond the age of puberty and has given her consent. In this case her silence is taken as consent.[257]

The reference which can be accessed and which has been reverted by this anon states: According to the Shafi book of Jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveler:

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission. As for the non virgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7). If the Islamic magistrate is her guardian, he may not under any circumstances marry her to someone who is not a suitable match for her.As for the non virgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7). If the Islamic magistrate is her guardian, he may not under any circumstances marry her to someone who is not a suitable match for her. No one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7).go to page 213

The anon is alos deleting information regarding hindu scriptures which are referenced and the annon appears to be using two anon accounts as well. Arsi786 (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2019

1. for content: The old information should be kept as a historical record of how things were, if there is a WP:RS to support it; and you should not copy-paste directly from the source as that would be copyright infringement - rather, paraphrase in your own words; and avoid long quotations such as this unless they are strictly necessary. In any case, regarding the book, it appears to me more like a set of rules/laws and thus may be WP:PRIMARY - on Wikipedia, we prefer when sources further removed (i.e. not directly involved in the topic matter) are used as they provide a more reliable and independent commentary.
2. for behaviour: it is wrong of the IP to change the reference of the book to make it appear as only a web page - if what you are citing is just an online PDF of an otherwise published book (and it is), then it's a book and should be cited as such - of course, if the online PDF is a copyright infringement then it should not be linked to. It is also wrong of the IP to describe sites as "personal websites" when that is not the case. Nevertheless, it is wrong of both of you to keep reverting each other without engaging in more constructive dialogue on the talk page - even if you think you are righting a grave error. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

On further inspection, the IP also appears like a WP:SPA, for what it's worth (probably something in this kind of situation). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing by Alwaysrightman

Alwaysrightman is a SPA that has been at disruptive presence at Stephen Hendry for around a couple of months. The problems are too numerous to recount fully here, but I will list some that are typical of his edits:

• [145]
• [146]
• [147]
• [148]
• [149]
• [150] (note the edit summary)
• [151]
• [152]
• [153]
• [154]

The rest of the edits are more or less versions of the above.

He has been reverted on numerous occasions by a total of five editors: Rodney Baggins, Lee Vilenski, Larry Hockett, SFC9394 and myself. There is broad agreement on the talk page not to describe Hendry as the "greatest player": Talk:Stephen_Hendry#Is_Hendry_the_greatest?. Alwaysrightman's only interaction at the discussion was to delete it: [155].

I was hoping that the editor would either go away or perhaps the message would get through and his editing would become productive. Unfortunately neither seems likely at this point. It is starting to look like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Note - User was blocked back in April for this same issue, and breaking 3RR Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked him for disruptive editing. We need him to address this continual disruption before he can return to editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Flixbus/Ashafir

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

User appears to be an WP:SPA with the sole purpose of adding as much "dirt" about this bus company as they can. In the previous ANI they groundlessly accused SoWhy of "biased administration". After having a couple of massive dumps of trivial incidents removed from the article for POV, RS and COPYVIO [156][157][158] they argued interminably on the talkpage, complete with backhand insinuations that I am somehow protecting the page due to some affiliation with the company.[159]

When I pruned their latest contribution of trivial content concerning timetable/booking disputes etc their reaction was to directly accuse me on the article talkpage,[160] and my talkpage[161] of having an "affiliation with Flixbus". Some assistance would be appreciated. -- Begoon 11:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What on earth are you talking about? Anyone who looks at the diff[162] can see that I corrected your poor grammar in the content which I retained. Ashafir - when you are in a hole you really ought to stop digging. -- Begoon 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Diannaa, please check the initial submission and especially the reverences/links added. ([163]) The situation is far from "Having to wait for a bus". Even after the wait the company has not provided any replacement buses, no accomodation and tried to object plainly the bus no show-up at all. This is the exact reason why the 15 ticket holders contacted the newspaper and the story was published. And this is not an isolated and not a worst case of the FlixBus related incidents. This case is listed alone just because all the other incidents listed on my initial submission was deleted and this is one of the few that has formally verified source. I also added a related question to the talk page but it is ignored up to now: Based on the discussion above it makes sense to clarify "triviality of incidents" to avoid further edit wars. Let's imagine a situation, when a group or family is traveling as usual. It knows the transportation laws etc. It expects a bus on a stop ... but it does not stop. It expects to solve the incident with a transport company ... but it plainly ignored. It reads the relevant reviews and finds out that it is a very stable pattern of the company handling. Is it a "trivial incident" for the family/group? Certainly not. Since it disrupts the whole holiday plans, costs more than most of the trip etc. Is it trivial for a company? Certainly yes if it care only about court cases but not about the customers. The question is it a "trivial incident" for the readers of the encyclopedia. I assume, not only a company and it's fans reads it by regular readers. So, as i stated above, if an accident has been noticed and published by a news agency it is more than "merely being true, or even verifiable". I can say that "true and verifiable" is applicable for the way more incidents than published in the news. So a news publication can be a trashhold level for "non-triviality". How does it sounds? Is there any specific policy for such "triviality"? -- Ashafir (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PraxidicaeI am very sorry but you are again twisting the point. For the record: the reason why this article was published on the newspaper because it was not "shit happens" but totally wrong handling by the German (Bavarian) company FLiXBUS which is managing the customer support. According Praxidicae and Begoon it must be "chronic and reported". And in fact it is. It is CHRONIC indeed. This is not an isolated case. Hundreds reports with the booking IDs, names, pictures[164], videos across Facebook, Tripadvisor (yes!) and other sources are clearly indicating it. Keeping it from the enciclopedia will make more passengers in troubles since there is no indication that the way FlixBus will handle it will change.--Ashafir (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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

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

• Support a block per WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. Editor seems clearly to be a WP:SPA and persistent bad-faith accusations (such as [165][166]) show a lack of mature behaviour and ability to engage in proper discussion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a block due to IDHT, NOTHERE and SPA. - Donald Albury 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

174.18.78.210

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

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

Gregotheus 01 round 2

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

---

Approximately 2 weeks ago I asked for help regarding this editor who repeatedly adds unsourced info to articles despite ongoing final warnings. El C blocked for 72 hours after I pointed out the severity but apparently this person didn't get the message. Their recent contributions are full of the same disruptive unsourced edits. I gave another final warning a few days ago and haven't bothered today, they merely disregard them. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Robvanvee 14:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm having a look. ST47 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now reverted but here are the edits since the last block:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4 Here removing the sourced genre and replacing with one of their preference. Robvanvee 15:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Blocked, for the above as well as [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] but most especially [176] ST47 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again! Robvanvee 15:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

It appears that User:Geo_Swan is going around harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz because they don't agree with Wikipedia's fair use policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grunnah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vwanweb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Felixishim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shaowiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Omar_Mohammed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Gadon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.255.26 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Last time you did this, you got blocked for block evasion. @Bbb23:, is this user still evading whatever block you blocked them for last time? ST47 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• IP, you are required to notify users when you mention them on this noticeboard. I've done this for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've CU-blocked Special:Contributions/129.100.255.0/24 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)