Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

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

"Retired"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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: [51]. I wasn't able to find anything that indicated that consensus had been reached, so I wrote a note saying as much, only for it to be deleted and responded to with the accusation that I was trying to start an edit-war [52]. 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: [53]. I'm not really sure what to do because I hate to write all this negative stuff about an individual editor's behavior, especially as in my view, Alexkyoung has been largely civil with me. However I've become increasingly concerned that there's a greater pattern of POV-pushing and page ownership and was hoping others would be able to look into it. Darthkayak (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The obvious [weasel word] anti-Uyghur [this is your pov] POV-pushing [unfounded]: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. File a report at NPOV noticeboard per WP:NPOVD. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexkyoung's beahvior is troublesome:

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

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

edit-summary ‎Enough

• 28 june he removed another comment from Darthkayak,

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

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

• 28 june he removed a response from Darthkayak:

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

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

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

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

"it is probably best to stick to your pages; and then I will stick to my own" [60]. History of Xinjiang is not your page, Alexkyoung. That is an incredibly blatant claim of article ownership - I'm just shocked. I didn't initially blame you for the mistakes of others, nor did I claim it was you who was responsible for the citation misuse - I didn't accuse you or anyone of being responsible for the issues with the article, I simply said they were a problem. It was only after I was shown the diffs that I learned that there were long standing concerns about POV-pushing.

I am not trying to "screw you over" [61], or make an "empty claim because others have" [62]. What I am now disturbed by is the way your conduct regarding the article has turned increasingly towards policing. Sirlanz no longer reverting isn't necessarily a sign of general consensus without agreement on the talk-page, but even if it was, consensus can change. You recently told Citobun "stop, you're late to the party, this was resolved a long time ago, and remaining pov was in this article before the edits" - not only is it not resolved, but why should he not get involved simply because he was several weeks late? Not that I am saying a revert is necessary, but to try and look at it from his point of view, sometimes material isn't fixed in a quick fashion. That information on a page is long-standing has no impact on whether it should stay - I recently performed a revert on a page where the intro appeared to have been edited to read like an advertisement roughly a year ago. Statements like "moving forward only existing content shall be edited or added to" [63] are against the spirit of a wiki.

For those interested in looking to the talk page, I should mention that Alexkyoung keeps deleting people's comments on the History of Xinjiang talk page, claiming they are libel or irrelevant [64][65].

Lastly, I should note that I am trying to be helpful [66] - raising concerns about an article's contents on the talk page without editing (particularly when it is so long), is a vital part of the process, and one of the things which prevents the cycle of edits and reverts that compose an edit war from occurring [67]. No one here is being a "complainer" and it makes me sad that someone would accuse anyone of that. Darthkayak (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I just realized User:Alexkyoung heavily edited my signed comments on this page with his own "annotations" and rebuttals in parentheses. I'm trying to find the words for how upset I am by this behavior. [68][69] I also would like to ask him why he chose to leave this unsigned comment on this page in the third person, [70]. Darthkayak (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I strongly urge you to read through my response again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Alexkyoung: Since you are actively canvassing numerous administrators to address alleged "harassment" by Nickm57 ([71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]), can you please provide some detailed citations (in the form of diffs) that show the stalking/harassment/bullying/abuse that you referred to, above? You have stated that Nick is just a really bad person, however, I don't see any evidence either in this ANI discussion or in the message you're canvassing admins with to support Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. or Nickm57 is stalking me around. More, the concerns that Joshua Jonathan quoted above are troubling. ST47 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Include the more recent update

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

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

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

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

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

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

compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that was before I read the edit summary at [77]. I'm blocking Alexkyoung for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, he's welcome to re-engage when the block expires, or if people want to propose a community-enforced topic ban/actual ban, that's fine too. ST47 (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I note that User:ST47 blocked Alexkyoung for only 31 hours, citing the specific personal attacks made in recent edits as a reason. From my reading of the situation, including the edit-warring, the tendentious edits, and the persistent battleground mentality, I was considering something substantially longer, possibly up to an indef. Alexkyoung's latest reactions, including his "free speech" rant on his talkpage [78], as well as the earlier attempt at passing off as a "compromise" a proposal that would keep him in full control of his preferred version of the contested article [79], have not improved my impression. ST47, would you mind me increasing the block length, or do we have a realistic hope this user will improve their behaviour when they come back from this short block? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [83]
• [84]

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 ([85]) 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)

Of course the editor is right. I mean, what kind of reviewer or music critic, whose job it is to have many opinions in order to review music, won't be opinionated? The point was that, as WP:FORUM says, "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." The editor's personal feelings and insinuations about the subject of the article were not discussion on "how to improve" the article. Now that I've spelled it out for you, again, do you get it? Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The talk page comments like this [86] regarding Christgau are BLP violations and must be removed for that reason. ♟♙ (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do in this situation is just "take the meat and leave the bones". The discussion that the IP user started on the article's talk page is mostly just him/her stating their personal opinion, but also states briefly that "the 'standard reference' statement in the article can't really be backed up." I'm not sure what that means exactly; searching the article for the word "standard" doesn't come back with any content that means anything close to what he/she is stating... If any of the involved editors here know what that statement refers to, simply respond to the IP user's comment and that statement only, and ignore the rest of it and don't acknowledge it in your response. If you don't know what the user is referring to in that statement I quoted, then just respond and politely ask the IP user for clarification. Again, ignore and don't acknowledge the rest of the comment in your response... Take the meat and leave the bones. Simple... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 29 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. [[87]]. 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 [88], 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 [89], 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: [90]. Is there a possibility that in addition to an IBAN, P would volunteer in some mentoring program? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced additions (Michaelgabrielo)

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

This user has been a constant problem when it comes to adding unsourced content (usually their own interpretations and speculation) to articles, as well as regularly removing 500-1000 bytes of sourced content without explaining why. This started in February and March with warnings for edits for removing content and unsourced content/WP:OR. They were blocked for a week, see here. After the block they left this message. They recieved a warning for removing content again in May and then blocked again the following day, this time for 72 hours [91]. 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)

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

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

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 [92][93][94] they argued interminably on the talkpage, complete with backhand insinuations that I am somehow protecting the page due to some affiliation with the company.[95]

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,[96] and my talkpage[97] 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[98] 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. ([99]) 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[100], 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 [101][102]) 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)
• Support block per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT. Further, I would suggest a topic ban regarding public transit articles for a minimum of 6-months after any block is lifted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion

An encyclopedia or encyclopædia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge from either all branches or from a particular field or discipline.[103]

I don't know what is going on here. Possible I am wrong that I am trying to add this data from the verifable sources. I see only reason to block it - it is not adding a good PR for the company. I don't know how many incidents need to change the editors mind. Another trivial one today: [104]. --Ashafir (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

[Comment moved here from previous section] 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• One more "trivial incident"[105]. Of course "it is not a system". Another "dirt" about this bus company.. "fake news" almost...--Ashafir (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the proposal, other than proving the point above, Ashafir? Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for the records. You can find many policies not to list this information on the encyclopedia. It is easy for you. You are anonymous. No shame. But for me it is a shame that i can't help people that clearly needs help.--Ashafir (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You do realise that every time you post in this thread you prevent it from being archived with no direct sanctions imposed on you, and increase the chance that someone will get bored or irritated enough by your continued refusal to drop the stick to either topic-ban or block you? Just checking. -- Begoon 13:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Done with this. The editor doesn't get it, has an axe to grind with the company and is only interested in righting great wrongs. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Being wiki-hounded, disruptive edits from 24.47.152.65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

1. Accuses me of stalking them. [106]
2. Same. [107]
3. Accuses me of bad-faith edit. [108]
4. False report filed against me while shopping for a venue. [109]
5. I want to link to some posts he left here on May 22nd, where he made aggressive demands that I be "looked into" and blocked because of a content dispute with him, but these diffs have been removed for some reason.

There are also plenty of examples of them being snarky or rude to other editors[110], but I think you want just the ones where he is uncivil towards me.

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

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

Look, you're just making my case for me when you bring up Jessica Parker Kennedy. You removed two plain facts [111], ostensibly because you wanted better citations. I took you at your word, restoring them with reliable sources, and yet you're still complaining about it. Same thing happened on Brooklyn Technical High School, where you removed someone's good-faith attempt to list the specific year[112], when it didn't take me a whole minute to find a reliable source with the correct number.

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

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

And if you want another example of incivility, look no further than the link Johnbod posted, where Jesse removed legitimate, civil comments from me and JohnBod from his talk page instead of responding on the content/policy issue. [113] How are we supposed to work with you when you do this sort of thing? You've been editing for years; you ought to know better by now. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV pushing on Pallava Dynasty page by user Lovslif who was recently blocked for using socks

Hi,

I would like to bring to your notice that LovSLif (talk · contribs) is engaged in an edit war on the Pallava dynasty article. He used an alternate account RViN341 (talk · contribs) to support himself in the content related discussion on the Pallava talk page recently [114]. RViN341 (talk · contribs) was found to be his sock and Lovslif was blocked for this reason [115]. He has now returned from this block and is now engaged in edit war and POV pushing on the same article. So request admin intervention regarding this issue. Also, how come he was let off with a one week block when other users are usually blocked indefinitely? Nittawinoda (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect to the socking issue only, socks are indefinitely blocked. However, sockmasters are blocked for varying periods of time (up to indefinitely), especially after a first offense.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23,

I request you to go through the ongoing discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pallava_dynasty#Origins_section. when the discussion is already underway, User Nittawinoda tried to add POV content in the same disputed area.
My only concern is not over the addition of content rather should be NPOV and user is trying to push POV based on secondary thesis and this is against what moderators concluded on talk page.
Also user tried to alter the position of most favored thesis by placing the same at bottom.
Hence I had asked him to first conclude the discussion.
I even did not revert the 'etymology section' which he added purely on POV.
This notice raised by user over here purely to suppress the ongoing discussion.

Nittawinoda was blocked for personal attacks only for certain period of time.

Also, I request you to clarify on the below query. I use shared IP in Singapore. My entire building works on same IP. In such case how can another user being on same IP be called SOCK. When I did not involve in such stuff , how will I accept such blame? What can I do from my end to prove? By LovSLif (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Nittawinoda and LovSLif: As Bbb23 noted the lasttime this topic was here 10 days back: none of the involved editors have clean hands. So instead of trying to weaponizing that troubled history to get each other eliminated from the discussion, focus of sources/content, follow the guidance Kautilya3 is offering at the article talkpage, and for goodness' sake be concise and limit the length and number of your posts (see your respective talkpages for more specific advice). If the current battleground and WP:IDHT-conduct continues, article restrictions or topic bans are likely to be necessary.

Pinging Liz, who has previously been involved, to see if they have anything to add before this section is archived. Abecedare (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare ,Kautilya3 As we are aware the discussion ongoing on the talk page of pallavas, in Meantime Nittawinoda has again altered the content in origins section by removing sourced content.If he alters the same as per his will then what is the core point in discussing the same on talk page with the help of moderation?Kautilya3,has already mentioned that he would come up with initial draft and these sort of actions in meantime do not sound rational By LovSLif (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Abecedare:, As mentioned previously [116], I removed K.R Subramanian after moderator Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) labelled it as unreliable [117]. Now the other user has reverted my changes and reinserted this unreliable source [118]. What is your take on this behavior? Nittawinoda (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

IP user censoring MH17

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

---

User 2001:D08:D9:7FEA:A5F5:E665:3A31:DC1E keeps on removing content about MH17 on any page that mentions MH17 happening, saying that it was "unrelated". Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for removing this report twice. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI I blocked the range, since he's been doing this for months at least. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

94.67.133.161 and subtle pseudo-text pastes

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

---

94.67.133.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (OTEnet S.A., Greece) is indulging in a little vandalism (block-ready), but as it's complex and subtle, it's unlikely to be tied to just one IP, or to stop with a block.

Large paragraphs of semantically-valid boilerplate text, heavily over-linked and without valid sourcing (some inlined ELs) are being added to existing articles. They make apparent linguistic sense, except for being meaningless. Either someone with an obsession and a finely-sharpened green crayon, or else someone polishing an AI script. Keep an eye out for more. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Since reporting this IP user here, it looks like things have staled out... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threats?

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

---

Could an admin please kindly have a quick look at User talk:DuvellsCat where the more recent edits appear to perhaps breach WP:NLT? The sad thing is that it looks like DuvellsCat has failed to get any attention for their concerns because they are doing it all on their own Talk page, not the talk page of John Christodoulou, which article is where their concerns lie. They may or may not have a point, I wouldn't know, but at the moment it just looks like a textbook example of BLP issues not going well for an angry newcomer. Hoping for a peaceful resolution, 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:DuvellsCat has been blocked indefinitely by User:NinjaRobotPirate. See [119]. AryaTargaryen (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

In fact, it looks like I did that 7 minutes before this report was opened. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you entirely sure you should have? That looks like something that should have been placed elsewhere festering, leading the frustrated writer to keep escalating his rhetoric. rolling back the last couple of edits with a brief explanation of where he should have expressed his concerns might be better. Qwirkle (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the timing. Obviously he wasn't already blocked when I started, but by the time I'd faffed around looking up NLT and reading his essays and what have you ... yup. I won't comment on the rest – it's now moot (AmE sense) and I'm not an admin. Thanks, all 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Further oops - I regret that I forgot to notify the editor. Sorry: I'm not a regular at ANI. Should I do so now or just "let it lie"? it does seem a bit stable doorish etc ... but if I should, do say, and I will. Thanks 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d let it go now, things have moved on. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Yosakrai

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

---

I would like if an administrator could look into this. There were previously blocked sockpuppets doing similar edits at the Sukavich Rangsitpol article and talk page. I think that the other editors including myself have tried to be patient with this particular incarnation and there is an ongoing RFC. When the RFC started, I archived the messy talk page. However, the same spam gets reposted there over and over like used to happen before, even as the RFC is in progress. Similarly, contested edits at that article are restored. Although I could provide diffs, looking at Special:Contributions/Yosakrai, page history and talk page history are probably obvious enough. Previous warnings were also posted at their talk page as well as at WP:BLPN#Sukavich Rangsitpol. The possibly related SPI page but CU results were inconclusive. Considering the previous socking and IP address editing, page protection may also be needed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to what I see the consensus on the talk page is and protected it for now. Sasquatch t|c 19:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I have just upped it to extended confirmed protection to allow more experienced editors who have been working on the page to keep doing so. Sasquatch t|c 19:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Terrorist propaganda

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

---

Hi

In 2017, some IPs have added links to websites of Al-Bayan_(radio_station) and Amaq. The websites have been blacklisted in Meta-Wiki. Since September and November 2017, we have not IP who add terrorist links to the articles. Now, should we purge the history to remove links to terrorist propaganda? I don't know if some links are still valid (it is also possible that some links who became invalid could be repaired by the terrorists).

And I am not able to check if the websites are down or not because I wouldn't like to have problems with authorities.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The one that was on Al-Bayan appears to be down [120]. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is a crime to merely link to terrorist propaganda. I guess this is a question for the oversighters. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

After taking a look into the details and the information reported here, I can conclude that the revisions in concern do not contain content that the oversight policy approves the use of suppression for. While the addition of URLs that contain terrorist propaganda can definitely be considered disruptive editing, be removed from the article or page in response, and actions taken against the user as a result, the visibility of those revisions can remain as-is. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Hammelsmith

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

Adding informations from unreliable sources. [121],[122], [123] Adding information which contradicts those in citations.[124],[125]. Adding WP:OR and WP: synthesis.[126] He also deletes the content from the well cited sources to his convenience and cherry picking the content to push his point of view.[127] Warned him before that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it A lot of users also pointed out these things over the days, [128], [129]. But he is still continuing with his WP:Advocacy Michael Jackson related articles [130]. Directions of senior editors to revert the edits made in pages and reach consensus by discussing in talk pages has also been ignored.[131],[132],[[133] During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM. Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts until there are multiple editors to revert him.This user also noted for spamming and WP:Votestacking on different users talk pages. [134], [135] ,[136],[137], [138],[139],[140], [141],[142]. These [143] ,[144],[145], [146],[147] activities shows that this user have some kind of  "conflict of interest" in this subject and its proving that they are WP:NOTHERE. His actions warrant a topic ban or a permanent block".Pinging @Moxy:, @Flyer22 Reborn:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Partytemple:, @Israell: who all know this story already. --Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flyingd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that Flyingd and The Banner were utterly failing to communicate with each other was obvious to me, so I began trying to distill the real issues in section Re-gathering of issues. The Banner was the first to respond (indeed, Flyingd took a four day break from Wikipedia at this point), and so I began discussing with him, if we can really call it that. During that conversation, The Banner repeatedly engaged in behavior designed to thwart discussion of real content issues and thus prevent the building of consensus. I would encourage you to read section "Re-gathering of issues" and all subsequent discussions, or the ones above as well, to get a full picture of what has been going on, but I'll provide some examples. An easy one is casting aspersions [148][149][150][151] (among many others) and other ad hominem arguments [152][153]. Another common behavior is moving the goalposts, which he uses in combination with wiki-lawyering and other irrelevant arguments over semantics, typically in a pattern of stubbornly pointing to one procedural detail to stonewall discussion, then retreating to another redoubt when someone demonstrates the irrelevance of the procedural detail. See this chain of diffs, where The Banner explains that the discussion, at its core, is about how the Flyingd is attempting to add entries to a section that are irrelevant to the list [154]; I explain why I think they provide relevant context [155]; he diverts to arguing that they are irrelevant to the RfC [156][157]; I reply that what the The Banner raises in the RfC misrepresents the issue Flyingd was trying to raise [158]; The Banner continues to shelter behind the RfC [159]; I point out that I was initially discussing the topic of the RfC [160]; he now retreats to hiding behind the (rather dubious) previous consensus [161]; I point out that consensus can change and that he can’t avoid my new arguments by hiding behind prior consensus [162]; and having apparently run out of things to hide behind, The Banner disengages from that conversation, still having not offered any kind of response to my initial argument about why I believed the content was relevant.

I can point to more diffs: for example, other instances of trying to hide behind consensus, e.g. [163], but I’ll spare you most of them. There is one other chain I should note, however. Otto ter Haar and I have argued that including attempted shootdowns in the list (because there aren’t enough to make a separate list) would benefit the reader. This morning, The Banner made a strawman simplification of our arguments and asked for real content-related ones [164]; I pointed to previous diffs where we made those arguments [165]; he insisted they weren’t content related [166]; I responded that arguments explaining why content benefits the readers are definitely content-related, noted that we had done this senseless arguing over semantics before, and asked that he just respond directly to Otto’s and my arguments or raise some of his own [167]; and then The Banner, apparently exasperated, threatened to take the whole thing to ANI [168]. So here we are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know very well that I reacted to you here: [169] (right bottom) Flyingd (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Nenoniel

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

---

Editor Nenoniel is engaging in disruptive editing on the Richard Pervo article, inserting wisecracks about the subject's surname, despite several other editors removing these jokes and leaving warnings on his Talk page. Nenoniel has also left inappropriate WP:NOTSOCIAL comments on my personal Talk page. Muzilon (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Nenoniel for 48 hours. Any administrator is free to block them for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks. Please also note the anonymous Finnish IP addresses vandalizing the Richard Pervo article, which are likely to be WP:SOCK. Muzilon (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I've put the page on my watchlist. If they resume editing and I'm not on-wiki, you should contact another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:AttticusRex

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

---

Editing since 24 May 2019. 11 Edits with a clear pattern of vandalism, POV pushing, and defamation. Overall, the contributions of this editor appear to indicate that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Misogynist and transphobic banter with fellow Wikipedian[s]

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

---

The Wiki Loves Pride content drive has been running for five years, but this year has been sadly targeted with off-wiki canvassing resulting in significant homophobic vandalism and abuse on Commons and elsewhere. As a result of the LGBT+ user group investigating suspected canvassing, we came across the following transphobic and misogynistic comments or "jokes" by long term Wikipedian Giano which were directly targeted at Wiki Loves Pride, and so members of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, given the link to c:Commons:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2019 that Giano used in the same thread:

• Then surprise, surprise, the judges will all need counselling because half the photos are pornographic and the health concerns too harrowing, they’ll all have PMT stress disorder or whatever it’s called and will sue Commons. I think I will send in my wedding photos and say Mrs G is actually man in drag and tell them about the very nasty chesty cold she gave me last month. Then I can win all the money. diff

The remark is homophobic, misogynistic and transphobic. Attacks like this should be unacceptable for any Wikipedian to publish on their Wikipedia talk pages under the guise of "banter" with fellow Wikipedia contributors. It was highlighted at meta:CentralNotice/Request/Wiki_Loves_Pride_2019#Discussions_elsewhere_about_this_notice that six Wikipedia administrators were part of that same discussion thread, and though all may have missed Giano's comments as they were a few weeks after their own edits, they were pinged in that meta discussion and invited to comment. So far Iridescent has commented, to make it clear that the transphobic "joke" is "nothing to do with me" and has taken no action, presumably finding the transphobic joke below whatever threshold the Wikipedia community currently finds acceptable as fun. The remaining administrators have yet to comment and were @RexxS, Johnbod, Bishonen, Ritchie333, and Jo-Jo Eumerus:.

At a time when the inclination and authority of Administrators and Arbcom to take action against abuse and harassment is under scrutiny, and current procedures and policies are being defended as sufficient and not requiring WMF employee interventions, including being defended by myself, I hope that this case of the use of Wikipedia to maintain a laddish lockerroom environment by making misogynistic and transphobic jokes is not acceptable. This must include long term Wikipedia contributors like Giano and Administrators, even where our only error is to tacitly sit back and chose ignore fellow contributors when they act badly. A failure to take action sends a clear message that LGBT+ Wikipedians must expect to be mocked and abused for their gender and sexual orientation, and those with trusted status who could help, are just as likely to prevaricate and circle the wagons to defend "old boys", rather than maintain a non-threatening and non-hostile environment for all contributors.

Thanks! Fæ (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Lighten up, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The predictable response. cygnis insignis 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It was a queation, not a statement. FWIW, if I came running to mummy every time I saw some comment about people with a disability, you'd soon start accusing me of seeking drama and looking for problems. Unless directed at an individual, it usually isn't worth the aggravation. In this instance, it is obviously satirical. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm reading your response as satire, to continue assuming good faith. cygnis insignis 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I am not known for satire, nor too fussed if someone ABFs regarding me: take it as it is written. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll state that I do not condone – and never have – misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, even under the guise of humour, and I hope you know that, Fae. However, given the current situation where the Trust and Safety team has arrogated the authority to accept complaints about abuse and harassment, and then act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner without allowing defence or appeal, I won't be taking any actions related to those sort of issues. I suggest you contact the T&S team to see if they are willing to act on your complaint. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The only action needed to be taken is not to be silent when ones mates cross the line. cygnis insignis 14:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, that's the most asinine take on the T&S situation I've seen so far. Abrogating all responsibility because the T&S team felt the need to step in once is a very "taking my ball and going home" attitude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. May I remind you that I'm a volunteer here, the same as the rest? I have no obligation, morally or contractually, to take any particular action, and I won't be doing so with regards to these sort of issues, until T&S accepts this community's right to play a part in resolving them. If T&S insist on stepping in once, they can damn well step in all the other times and I can get back to producing content. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

For those unaware, RexxS and me have been real life friends for years, and have very similar viewpoints on open knowledge. In this case old pal, you are shooting yourself in the foot and managing to take out several bystanders with the ricochet. Don't end up looking like one of the donkeys that when you are called on washes their hands, rather than getting them dirty. Cheers Fæ (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have a favorable opinion about the effectiveness of these campaigns (and Commons) but that joke is in downright poor taste, in today's world. Warn and move-on, may-be? I don't know whether he has a history of such stuff, though and that might affect the results. ∯WBG^converse 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Homophobic, misogynistic and transphobic comments should never be tolerated or go unpunished, even to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  This is not about punishment, find another thread Slater. cygnis insignis 15:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Already addressed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Keerrist. I have a transgender niece, and was once engaged to a lesbian (who told me that before we decided to marry). Sitush is right. The climate of seeking out evidence of 'deviancy' from some abstract ultra-politically correct line, and making a case for abuse that steamrolls over everything else the indicted editor actually does 99% of the time is witch-hunting. Giano said just before that:

What on earth all this has to do with writing an encyclopaedia God alone knows. People should remember it is an encyclopaedia not a vehicle for editors promoting their individual sexuality, politics or creed. Wikipedia should be entirely neutral on all subjects. A divorce from Commons is long overdue.

We are here to write articles not bicker over attitudes. I'd rewrite the Inferno article with Satan if his assistance was available, but kick the shit out of him if he visited me à la Adrian Leverkühn. This is the sort of thing the scandalous WMF project is going to incentivate. More denunciations, less hands-on-article time.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• OK and for those who wish to try and deflect criticism of bigotry and vileness, Homophobic, misogynistic and transphobic comments should never be tolerated or be allowed to disrupt (which is the purpose, to make it uncomfortable for certain types of people to be here the project), even to make a point. I am frankly disgusted if this is permitted to go with out even a warning...and that is the nicest thing I can say about the attitude being shown here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven You are radically misreading. This is an encyclopedia. People are supposed to be here to work articles, ensure their neutrality and press for quality, not scour and parse the words of editors one collaborates with to see if they agree with you on religion, politics, sex or whatever. It is not a social forum for endlessly nagging about the proper attitudes editors should have. There are a million other forums for that. Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

They are also supposed to be able to do so outside of an atmosphere of intolerance, bullying and nastiness. Now the fact that no one claimed has this was not Homophobic, misogynistic or transphobic, but have rather resorted to "tough get a thick skin" or "well I won't do anything, because I do not want to" meas they accept it is and they accept that as a reasonable way to communicate and that is pretty shocking. No one should face being deliberately insulted, ever, not even on an encyclopedia. And frankly this now looks to be deliberate provocation. No a warning is not enough. If this is about sending a message that "WE WILL NOT BE BOWEd, by the ..." then it is not going to go away and a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is any of those - homophobic etc - and have said so above. It was satire. I also suspect that you have not read the entire comment: no person was deliberately insulted, although doubtless those with well-developed antennae for such things might consider themselves to be insulted. I really should report here next time I see someone giving a favourable mention to that awful Trump man, whom I loathe. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: A good tip for comedians is to punch up rather than down. If a marginalised group is the punchline of a joke then the person poking making that joke is contributing to their marginalisation. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No idea what you mean sorry. Punch up? Punch down? Anyway, gone for 24 hours or so now. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Off it was a joke, ohh thats OK then, jokes can never be Misogynist or transphobic. Its clear from context they are "satirizing" gay pride (as in their previous comment about being proud of their wife). Yes this was a dig at gays, it may have been humour so are jokes about how many IRA fundraisers were killed on 11/9 or jokes about the pink triangles. It can be a joke and still be aimed at causing hurt.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The function of humour is to defuse tensions (while offloading at times one's own). Everyone in the world, in some part of their multiple identities, belongs to a minority. Every ethnic or social minority makes in-jokes, excoriating comically aspects of their own culture or group identity/culture. It is not coincidental that, in Western terms, the most viciously persecuted historical minority, Jews, have the exuberantly richest patrimony of such hilarious in-jokes about themselves. The worst caricatures of the Irish are nothing compared to what the themselves say of themselves ('Why are the Irish like mushrooms? They're raised in the dark (Catholicism) and flourish when fed on bullshit.' I heard that from one of our own in childhood). This is also true of the communities alluded to here. Faceless technocrats with some social bee-in-their -bonnets about good form will be the death of us. The ability to laugh, even against ourselves, is the oil of healthy societies, and modern trends to clamp down on it spell, seriously, the death of civility, which is not worth-perfect euphemizing, but tolerance. The violence is elsewhere, omnipresent and largely ignored, beyond our 'civilized first world borders'. Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? telling racist jokes diffuses racism (for example)? It does not matter if people make in Jokes (they are mocking themselves), it matters if those who are outside make jokes at others expense. Gays tell gay jokes, blacks tell n... jokes, does that mean it OK to wear a white hood and tell N... jokes if your white? You really cannot see how humour at the expense of minorities is a form of (and expression of) oppression (that is the purpose of this kind of humour, to show the target their place, and to keep them there)? No wonder WMF have had to act over this kind of issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh for Chrissake. Think at length, slowly ponder, don't snap back. I've spent most of my wiki working life combating systematic racism, by article creation. Giano's remark was not racist. Full stop.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And you are fully aware them being racist is not the issue, it was just an example. He was making snide comments about gay pride and how silly it is (that was the gist of at least two posts). That is not laughing with people, it is laughing at them. This was making fun of peoples desire for self worth, against a historical atmosphere of persecution and illegality (one that is making a comeback, in churches and in laws), within living memory.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The lack of action by the community and the responses here ("it's no big deal, it's okay, write more articles and stop pearl clutching") is exactly why the trust and safety team is needed and exactly why there is no faith that the enwiki community can police itself. This is a seriously shitty thing to have said, one that greatly damages the morale of other editors and intentionally excludes people (which is a violation of the pillars, but hey, who care, he's popular). Saying things like "we can't do anything about this now because of the current drama" smacks of "thoughts and prayers, but it's too soon to talk about gun violence so soon after this shooting" style deflection. There will always be some crisis. Failing to act is an abdication and cowardly.--Jorm (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Any evidence to support your claims, Jorm? Was the morale of more editors improved than was damaged, for example? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

^Q.E.D.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jorm, you are one of the most "politely uncivil" people here, with your consistently dismissive, uncollaborative "cool story, bro" schtick. You have no more room to talk than I. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a very cool story, bro, trying to make this about me instead of the behavior on the table. --Jorm (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Which I have said over at "mymategotbannedgate", this kind of dismissive attitude is why we have a bad image. It OK dear its only a joke, for fuck sake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I was puzzled by being pinged on this - firstly I've never been an admin, and secondly my only contribution to the section, 4 days before the joke or the section mentioning Pride at all, was: "There isn't really a procedure on Commons to rename a file - though I think an admin can do it. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)". Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• We have to pick sides between Giano and Fae? 8-( Well, one might be crying wolf rather often these days, but for comments like that I would happily throw Giano to those same wolves. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm on the record for well over a decade saying Giano should consider treating all editors with respect and have been well-abused for my pains. This is the sort of "joke" that went out ages ago, and it has no place here. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Giano should retract his comment, or perhaps this is a situation where do need to defer this to T&S.--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Per my previous comment on Meta, I have no idea how or why Fae thinks I'm involved in this. My sole connection is that the comment in question was made on a talkpage on which I'd commented three months ago (with a piece of dry technical advice about how to use intentionally non-Commons-compliant GFDL licensing for images one doesn't want transferred to Commons under any circumstances to ensure the bots don't try to copy it, not anything related to gender or sexuality). It's not my or anyone else's job to monitor every page on which I've ever commented in any capacity. ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• In an ideal Wikipedia, we would not be here. In an ideal Wikipedia, Fae would say something like "Giano, what you said there is really hurtful and contributes to an atmosphere that many people don't feel comfortable/safe in", and Giano would say something like "I didn't think it was so bad, but I didn't intend to hurt anyone with it, so I'll remove it" and then everybody moves on. No ANI, no sanctions, no WMF. Again, that's an ideal. Perhaps there's some history between these two that I don't know about which makes Fae feel unsafe leaving such a message or makes Giano doubt Fae's motives -- I don't know. It's just depressing to see these ANI threads, which so often make relationships worse rather than resolve things. If we really care about civility, a hundred talks with WMF isn't going to resolve an often broken style of interaction whereby (a) people go to noticeboards instead of having a conversation with someone, and/or (b) people dig in their heels when confronted with the knowledge they've said something that hurt someone else. Those are both dysfunctional strategies to foster civil discussion in the community. Again, I don't know what backstory there is that might complicate things -- it's just the latest example which, in the light of the trust and safety discussions going on, seems illustrative of something we have the power to fix ourselves. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I and the other people mentioned here were pinged in a meta discussion and invited to comment? Pinged in a meta discussion? That's fairly ridiculous. If admins (and non-admins like Johnbod) are now expected to follow meta in order to discover any pings there — I suppose, for me, there may be a meta ping once every five years — on pain of being dragged to ANI and implicitly accused of being complicit in homophobia, misogyny and transphobia, not to mention accused of being one of the "lads", I give up. I just give up. Meanwhile, I will not comment on what Giano said in a thread in which I had posted three months earlier (with a piece of dry technical advice, just like Iridescent). I decline to comment on it.

By the way, I just went to meta to look, and I can't find that I was even pinged. Are you sure I was, Fæ? Checking... no, that explains it: you didn't actually ping any of us. Adding a template with a list of users, as you did here, only works if you start a new line and sign anew. See WP:PING. Your indignation against those of us who "have yet to comment" is apparently misplaced on several levels. Never mind, don't worry, the ping rules are quite complicated and often trip people up. May I ask what your edit summary with your ping attempts meant — "add, with a few meaningful pings, rather than desysop requests"? Are you saying the desysop requests will come next? Be my guest. I was already getting quite tempted to join the line at WP:BN. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

I did not recall the edit comment on meta, it was over dramatic.

This thread is about Giano's transphobic remarks, and whether one sysop out of hundreds will take transphobic abuse as seriously as the WMF PR machine has the general public believe. We can probably all draw the same conclusions now, so that's a step forward. --Fæ (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, you think your attacks on me and the other "fellow Wikipedian lads" [sic] for failing to respond to malformed pings on meta were too incidental to matter, and your threat of desysop requests was merely "over dramatic". Noted. "This thread is about them, not me" is a common reaction from new editors when their report leads to comments about their conduct, but most experienced editors know such comments are a normal feature of ANI. We've had little contact, Fæ, but as far as I know it has always been pleasant, and I don't feel I or my fellow lads have deserved your attitude here. I'm done. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

• The comment itself was beyond the pale, with the "trans women being mentally ill dangerous men in drag" the exact kind of rhetoric that was responsible for the widespread discrimination and murders of trans women. This is the exact reason LGBT Wikipedians still feel unsafe despite years of pride campaigns. Being written as a joke does not give it immunity from the consequences for being downright ignorant, derisive and hurtful. We already face an extreme level of women Wikipedian shortage resulting in a systematic bias affecting our reliability, and WMF research has indicated that we do have a straight-male-dominated toxic atmosphere. (See Meta:Research:Communicating on Wikipedia while female) Allowing this kind of "joke" to exist is a serious expense to our project. The user should at least be warned and ensured that such comments never happen again. Go complain elsewhere. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 17:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would say the comment is sanctionable, but falling within the realm of a warning rather than more severe outcomes - unless someone has other identifications of unpleasant posts (if so, please post). The editor may well have actually viewed it as a joke, rather than disguising it as banter (etc), I'm unable to tell. However that is not enough to move it to acceptable standards. I would note to all those saying "we should inflict more severe punishments post-Fram" - doing so unless we're going to notify the community of such would be unfair, even if it might appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it is part of a series [[170]], going through this [[171]] onto this [[172]], its hard to see that series as a joke, so much as passing judgement about "promoting" gay pride.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• We give users wide latitude on their own talk page for freedom of speech. None of you ever need to look at that page. If something horribly offensive is there, don't go there. Additionally, I have asked the user to strike the offensive remark. I tried to close this thread, but my colleague Mackensen asked it to be reopened, so here we are. Civility blocks generate more incivility. Please don't make that mistake. I'm going to leave you all to do what you will. Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think you're trying to push a camel through the eye of a needle with that logic. --Jorm (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  I sympathize with Jehochman's belief that this discussion won't go anywhere productive, but I cannot agree with the sentiment that users are free to behave in such a manner on their own talk pages. To rephrase something I believe he once said to me, in another context ages ago, how does it help the encyclopedia to make crude, offensive, and possibly transphobic jokes on one's talk page? I can turn that around and answer that I know how it hurts the encyclopedia: by sending a message to marginalized editors that they're second-class citizens who are unwelcome in certain corners of the project. Mackensen (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly this, and thank you.--Jorm (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Jorm I've asked Giano to remove the remark. If he does, that is the best result and we can hopefully end this and consider it having been a success to teach somebody something. Some topics should never be joked about on Wikipedia. Please give Giano time to think it over. Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Some topics should never be joked about on Wikipedia. – Bullshit. There's a time and a place for humor about anything (not that I think the specimen under discussion in this thread has much merit). EEng 21:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair, as long as they remove it, and do not do it again.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good outcome. Let's hope that's what they do.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we keep this open for 24 hours to give them time to respond.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Jehochman Didn't you just say to Katherine, "If we've failed to solve problems related to online harassment, that's not because we're inept or unwilling, but because the problem is hard and nobody has solved it yet"? How does saying "trust us, we can handle it" square with "well, I asked him not to be a homophobic?" Do you really think that's a good solution, especially given Giano's history? Is that proving that you guys can handle this, and the WMF doesn't need to step in? This looks like both ineptitude and unwillingness.--Jorm (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Jorm, you are at risk of being sanctioned if this matter goes to ArbCom, which seems fairly likely. Please tone it down and stop head hunting. We want the simplest solution which is for Giano to remove the content. If he agrees to do that, then we will have some assurance it won't happen again. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Is that a threat? "Shut up or you'll be at arbcom getting sanctioned for being angry about a lack of action?"--Jorm (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

NO, quite a few of use expressed unhappiness over this, we do not need to shout "fuck you and the pig you rode in on".Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And this [[173]] is the response, they do not get it. It also makes it clear it was not a joke, that is was making a point about sexual politics. Which strongly tells me they will make the same point again.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just block and ban the lot posting in this thread, and let <deity> sort it out. This is childish on all sides, and I do not condone Giano's (frankly flippant) comment, but threads and comments like this DO NOT HELP A FUCKING THING, especially in a situation where the policies around incivility and harassment are already being abrogated by the WMF because we can't enforce them. We're proving their point for them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Let's not give up hope. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

They did not, the blocked one admin in one case where the community failed to act. Yes in that respect very similar to this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• In general, and not at anyone in particular, this is my frustration. A short answer might have been 'I was unaware of that comment', or, 'I ignored it' for all the reasons that people do. Those pinged have every right to remain uninvolved, but there is a lot of experienced users watching others testing social boundaries and this is not a time for silence or sharp criticism of those who do not remain silent. cygnis insignis 18:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC) This is the second time a comment of mine was removed in this thread, the first was stating this is not about punishing those who think this okay. cygnis insignis 18:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have seen multiple claims of history, what history, lets see it. What I see is one series of comments about gay pride this week.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it matters nothing that around the same time, one editor, who had many sensible things to say in the Fram case, threw in the towel out of a sense of neglect, solitude, being treated indifferently, and asked Bishonen to lock their page, and, of the 866 wikipedians who have it on their watchlist, only Giano was moved to express deep sympathy. I didn't because I wrote to offer assistance if they returned only to cancel the post on realizing that since I have decided to not edit in content for a period commensurate with Fram's ban, I couldn't honour the offer (not out of solidarity with F. Out of outrage for the WMF's kangaroo court encroachment). If you are prepossessed by a single identity issue, you will find something offensive regarding it in nearly everyone you interact with outside the pale of that identity. The flaw of this cognitive fixation is summed up in an old 'joke'.

:‘Five men of five nations. . went elephant hunting in Africa, each of whom wrote about upon his return. The Englishman called his book ‘The elephant, his life and habits’; the Frenchman, ‘Étude sur l’éléphant et ses amours’; the American, ‘In Favor of Bigger and Better Elephants’; the German, ‘The Metaphysics and World Weariness of the elephant’; the Pole, ‘The elephant and the Polish Question’.’ Geoffrey Wolff, Black Sun: The Brief Transit and Violent Eclipse of Harry Crosby, Random House, New York, 1976 p.124

If you strongly identify with one ethnos, or nation, then you'll read everything in the light of that, and find something that looks like proof of enmity in the words of someone whose profile will then be nothing but that utterance or remark, whatever the complexity of the 99.999% of the person, unknown to all, who said it. Are they agin or for us? If with just your own gender, everything takes on a sexist cast; if colour, then you are ever on the watch for anything suggestive of prejudice against your own. It is rumoured Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite? You got 20% of his page reporting intense trawling to find proof of it. A whole community was dragged into thinking of one side of British politics exclusively in terms of that suspicion, how it might threaten them. For me, all this is all political and tablolid-driven paranoia, ballistic hyperbole, emblematic of an utter failure to see life in the round, a culture of social grievance (a good part of it legitimate) which, rather than act politically, thrives on the hermeneutics of suspicion and worst-case inference, and is probably an index of how digital cultures lead generations not to live through in depth contact with real people in the round, in the real world, but feed off virtual soundbites with hectic intensity as if they were under perpetual threat or attack.

That is what one is getting here, thanks to the WMF.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• The offending remark is gone, and if it doesn't reappear, I think we are done with this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I note you had to remove it, and there is no acknowledgment it was out of order, far from it. I say give it till tomorrow to see if it re-appears.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Important Wikipedia and life tip I learned from Bishonen: never demand apologies. I removed the remark because he asked "which one", and I had to show him which one. He has left it off, thus far, even though I gave him the free choice to restore it if he disagreed with the removal. We leave this thread for 24 hours before closing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You could have just said "the one at the ANI", as I said this shows he does not take this seriously. That would have then left him to make the choice to delete it, and not have it for for him. As I said, this proves to me he does not get it. But I will wait to see what happens now, but I suspect we will be back here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the thread will deadlock and then go to ArbCom because the question will be "what to do about it?" That's always the question. We can't usually sanction highly productive contributors without taking them to ArbCom or else it creates a storm. That's a statement of how it is, not how it should be. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh, so are you going to be censoring anyone else's talk pages for homophobic or misogynistic jokes?

Giano's reply to you was to continue to be offensive diff. All your actions have done is to hide blatant transphobic abuse and protect the person wanting to use Wikipedia like 4chan. --Fæ (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Then take it to T&S. They'll be more than happy to grant your request. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh ffs. "Take it to T&S"? Why? So they can come back and say "See, you can't be trusted to run en.wiki yourselves". These comments are going to make it that much harder for anyone to take our "constitutional crisis", as Jimbo puts it, seriously. There needs to be a coupling of simultaneously telling the WMF to back off and handling of these issues ourselves. We will not have one without the other. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What else would you expect Fae to do, file an Arbcom case? They raised an issue about a statement made, the statement was 86'd, and they're still complaining because Giano did not issue a mea culpa. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes It might be best to report this to T&S and see if they will intervene.Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are sufficiently incompetent to handle this. There is nothing suggestive of 'blatant transphobic abuse', an insinuative reading that itself does not assume good faith. That remark was critical of what its author considers misuse of company funds, diagnosing a potential for abuse by the end-users, who could very easily pretend to be what they are not in order to be beneficiaries. Like the rest of us, Giano is not paid, and it is natural to look keenly at the way Wikipedia uses its money to get people to edit (to me a contradiction in its principles). The abuse he mentions is a chronic problem, reported daily, in my part of the world. The fact that this relates to a transgender project, which the author illustrated by giving a private example of how he could organize just such a scam, is contingent. The objection would hold, if he maintains the principle Wikipedia should not be funding any specific identitarian group to write articles, whatever community might be the beneficiary. This is the plain intent of the text.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Fae, I looked at the comment a few hours ago, and now again, and I also find it in poor taste, very poor, and worthy of a warning and all that. I didn't do anything but read the threads earlier because it's Saturday and I had to clean the house and get groceries. And now that I look at this again, I'm just so sad that you see this as an opportunity to stir yet another shit pot: I don't have faith that all this is being done, and all those supposedly *ping*ed admins and editors being complicit and all that--and I'm even more sad that I didn't notice the first time that you attempted to smear them all with this "lads" shit. I mean, I think you know that Bishonen is of the female persuasion, and you pinged her, and so "lads" must mean something like either lad culture or Proud Boys. Either way, I am not going to defend Giano's tasteless if somewhat ambiguous joking, which does not seem to me to be blockable at this time--but I would like for you to stop smearing, because that's what I think this is. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the comment at all however I feel a simple message to Giano would've sufficed and it would've saved all this pointless dramah, Unwatch their talkpage and move on. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been solved there. Thanks.

To avoid or quickly resolve such future ANIs some history may help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#F.C3.A6_banned

Bows Zezen (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1

• Arianewiki1
• Attic Salt
• Editor interaction analyzer

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

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

Following a final warning, [174] and their acknowledgement of the warning, user's very next article talk space edit was to continue the same attacks by accusing Attic Salt of violating WP:POINT, [175]. Enough is enough. I am proposing that a one-way IBAN be applied to Arianewiki1 to prevent additional attacks on Attic Salt.

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

Notifications: [176], [177]. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. [178] is alarming, and that it comes immediately after this exchange suggests to me that nothing less than an IBAN will address this pattern of harassment. ST47 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - if not Attic Salt it will be someone else. Have a look at Talk:Rigel for starters. Also look at interactions with Lithopsian. I support this BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Some of the diffs were, imho, not particularly uncivil, and not even bad enough to factor into my calculation. However the aggressiveness of things like dropping a final warning while simultaneously demanding they leave him alone, along with abuse of RfCs and repeated involved closings, show both personal hostility and abusively mis-using process against Ariane Nosebagbear (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Just how many restrictions can we layer upon an editor without banning them? I recall they are already under restrictions as a condition from lifting their last indef ban. And we've seen them here at ANI repeatedly this year, drumming up drama which goes nowhere. Attic Salt has certainly received a lot of abuse, but that seems mostly an indication of survivability on Attic Salt's part. (As an aside, isn't this T&S's remit these days?) Tarl N. (discuss) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tarl N.: I don't see anything at WP:EDR. ST47 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, they're under 1RR and BLP probation. I think that's supposed to get logged at EDR for searchability, but in any event, it doesn't look like they've violated it? Are you proposing a ban? ST47 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If we're at the point of taking further action against Arianewiki1, I would suggest a ban, not just an IBAN for one of their targets. I've made a point of avoiding them this year, to the point of walking away from discussions when they drop in. They are knowledgeable in their field, but don't seem to understand "collaborate". It's their way or no way - now that edit wars have been precluded, it seems venom and ANI drama substitute as techniques to achieve victories. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Pinging @Ritchie333: who was the original admin involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As with others, I'm not certain this is the best solution or enough. For starters we probably should include an iban on Arianewiki1 against Lithsopian at a minimum since as per my comment in Arianewiki1's most recent thread Lithsopian seems to be just as much a target of Arianewiki1 as Attic Salt. But I wonder whether even that will be enough. That said I would support this if nothing else is proposed, as another step in trying to convince Arianewiki1 that they seriously need to modify their behaviour if they are going to edit here. 06:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)
• Support ban. Looking over the provided diffs, Arianewiki1 clearly has a serious attitude problem, and an IBAN will not cut it. Someone else besides Attic Salt will definitely be the recipient of this. - DoubleCross (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have invited Arianewiki1 to join this discussion. They've not edited since June 29. Taking what I have read here at face value, it's obvious an IBAN may not be enough. We will need some honest and frank discussion and some answers. Soon.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 07:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban First Litopsian, now Attic Salt, next someone else. A community ban is probably insufficient for this type of aggression but it’s the best we can do unless Arianewiki1 wants to harass someone who has high-level connections at the WMF. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE This is near impossible to defend adequately in a short number of words, especially when exposed to what is presented is like a collected FBI dossier. It is likely an example of a very complicated series of gaming that is near impossible to prove or disprove. However, VQuakr saying: "I couldn't tell you why, but Arianewiki1 has had it in for this editor, from the get-go and for approaching two years now." is interesting, because it isn't (and can't be) just one way. Even a partial two-way IBAN (or even three-way including VQuakr, on the repeated excuse to revert edits just based on missing edit summaries) might help. (Both do this in edit summaries like here[179] or [180].) I'm acting within policy, and have now done so when it matters.

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

I can't deny that most of the responses selected by VQuakr do show a real escalating level of frustration (as the recent edits on the Supernova article is yet another example, as explained below.) I also feel that on 1RR is likely being exploited by reverting my edits on some minor pretext (like edit summary, punctuation or elaboration), forcing me onto the talkpages to present and endless ignoring open advice or improvement. e.g. Spelling out in this recent edit[181] but having it reverted for the reason "No, it doesn’t say “all” white dwarfs, but rather “a” white dwarf." Even though this is being discussed on the article's talkpage, and leaves the opportunity for others to improve it.

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

I'm more disturbed by VQuakr claiming in this edit[182] is somehow badgering, when it only points out policy, especially when the 'ban' came out of the blue. I responded in case there was a misunderstanding, and then did as they wished.

Another is quoting this response[183] in a negative light, but failing to point out the had previously had accused me of "being a troll" and a "jerk." Reading the initial post hereUser talk:Attic Salt#Towards Happier Times..., and then saying: "Clearly, I was totally wrong in my initial assumptions. I sincerely extend my apologies regarding the comment on socking. I might be sometimes over zealous, but believe me, it was never personal." or saying: "I have looked at some of your edits, but the vast majority are positive and useful contributions. Keep it up!" Does that really look like someone acting improperly?

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

Some may claim that I am notthere, but contributions like Photometry (astronomy) [184] (even with this sandbox), Photographic magnitude [185] or even Apparent magnitude[186] shows collaboration and improvements as it should be.

Extended content

Examination of the current editing issues with the content dispute on Supernova shows that Attic Salt has made 53 edits on this article page, the first being on 16 June 2019.[187] The next day they make this edit[188] and then add this query[189], where I'm accused of "Arianewiki1 inserted (without edit summary) the following sentence into the lede." and that "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." Yet when explained the original text was not mine[190], and asked to retract the accusations[191] - they instead ignore it. It seems the only reason they went to this page was my edit made solely by this single revert edit made on 13th June[192] made by an IP, whose removal looked like vandalism or an incorrect reason. Rather than discuss this further, they keep pushing the POV on 16 June 2019 with these POV edits[193]. This is then followed by a series edits trying to justify the adding of the words "heavier than nitrogen" (This is further discussed in detail in the ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian) Yet instead of trying to get consensus, they ramp up the discussion even further Stellar nucleosynthesis vs supernova nucleosynthesis, and the problems are explained with their view was then give by me and Lithopsian. Yet even when this appears, they still believe they are right against reasonable and informed opinion/evidence. This next edit by Lithopsian adds 'or white dwarf'[194], which I restored the version here[195]. Attic Salt then reverted this text here[196] because "Unexplained (no edit summary) removal of “white dwarf”, from lede but which is discussed in body of this article." I detailed why this was unnecessary here[197], then I next went to the talkpage with Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained explaining these original restorations here[198] The reasoning for this appear from 12 April 2016 under Talk:Supernova#Introductory sentence and in 2017 Talk:Introduction Explanation (again), with this problem being explained. This latest issue with this seems to come from me restoring the text under Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph as it looked like missed vandalism made in September 2018. (Before Attic Salt's editing of this page as it was made 29 May 2019.) Yet doing this now, as now claimed by VQuakr, launches into this response[199] claiming; This is "a broken-ass edit" Again whinging about edit summaries, saying " Of course it was reverted." to justify it. Claiming "Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban." ('messes' are irrelevant to any harassment, but repeatably pointing out some lack of edit summary is harassment under rehash and hounding them for it.) Accused on own saying: "You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work." (Anyone surely would reading this section is not expressed as OWN e.g. Me saying "It is perhaps imperfect, but it has been stable for sometime and is a reasonable compromise." or "...IMO there needs to be a better or fuller explanation for any further modifications." and "Further changes should be again discussed on this talkpage if gaining a newer consensus is required." Saying that: "It doesn't appear there is a stable version despite Arianewiki1's self-reference above."(most of this text existed since December 201 Saying that: "I am fine with removing "white dwarf" per this section", but then say "Rmv "white dwarf" per Arianewiki1's comment on talk"[200], but now say to Attic Salt comment "" that it "Works for me." So which is it? As I point out, Attic Salt refuse to acknowledge basic mistakes. They continues to do this kind of behaviour and is unwilling to change even if the evidence is against their views. e.g. User Talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations Every time there is a dispute, you have to climb another mountain to fix the problem. e.g. [201],[202], [203], [204] or this.[205] In the end it just becomes tedious.

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

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

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

Iistal

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

---

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

Iistal was previously indefinitely blocked and was unblocked with a topic ban from making any edits related to a living person (diff). Iistal has been skating around that ban for a while now, adding information on dead celebrities' marriages and information about their children, most of whom are presumably still living. Even worse, the edits, when Iistal even bothers to add a source, are cited to the IMDb (diff and restoring it) or self-published blogs (diff 1 and diff 2). Some of these edits are completely unsourced (diff and restoring it). I think it's clearly time to restore the indefinite block. I've been reverting Iistal across several articles for months now and trying to explain why these edits are problematic, so I'm too "involved" to do it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked indefinitely. Please feel free to unblock or modify the block at your discretion. This seems a perennial issue with this user.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Consolidate the account or IP with the same motivation as this Greek IP

Since 13 June 2019

• 2a02:214C:801e:eC00:713d:57bc:f319:c289
• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:5ca4:5e99:1a6e:961c
• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:9438:e8c6:6eba:e6d3
• 2a02:214c:8272:d00:64d0:c532:2eca:aac0

The move was made as part of a larger effort to distance the country from Maoist politics.  Specifically, Deng and the other members of the CPC leadership wanted to prevent another leader from rising above the party, as Mao had done.

Persevering in this paragraph, a paragraph that has a negative narrative to Mao Zedong.Delete this paragraph repeatedly.

Since 19 June 2019

• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:713d:57bc:f319:c289
• 2a02:214c:801e:ec00:5ca4:5e99:1a6e:961c
• 2a02:214c:801e:4f00:9c7a:3f72:e724:d9c2
• 2a02:214c:824f:800:7883:26b1:54a4:dd1b

Although such actions were sanctioned by Mao Zedong himself, the Communist agents and cadres involved were nonetheless persecuted decades later during the Cultural Revolution. Li may only have escaped such a fate because he died in 1962.

Persevering in this paragraph, a paragraph that has a negative narrative to Mao Zedong.Delete this paragraph repeatedly.

Analysis

According to preliminary analysis, users of this IP should be extremely admired by Mao Zedong and interested in China's military information, and it may be a user of China Wikipedia.

Other findings

Because the editorial tendency is obvious,the IP range should be 2a02:214C:801e:eC00:713d:57bc:f319:c289/38 . In Inner Mongolia, it said that per WP:COMMONAME. The country's name is "People's Republic of China", NOT "Mainland China", and is referred to as such, including here in Wikipedia . 2a02:214c:824f:800:7de5:3f55:e747:2ea6 make editing war for this matter. In Wang Dongxing and Zhongnanhai, it said that minor fixes in correct translation from chinese to english and expanded bio and added sources, from his Guardian obituary and from Chinese Wiki. I think this Greek IP range should be being abused or need to be observed for a while.61.224.19.112 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

PS:I just watched it, recorded it and commented on it, but I refused to provide further comments because there is no more evidence. 61.224.19.112 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What is this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This (the above) was first posted at AIV, alleging several IPs of a coordinated effort to rewrite China-related articles with a POV slant. I advised them that ANI was one of their avenues to discuss this. — Maile (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me explain this to others.Next, I should have to escape. The recent political incident in Hong Kong made me feel terrible. I found that he spent a lot of energy to monitor the pages he wanted to control. This makes me worry that I am his next goal.@El C:I just want to tell you that there may be a problem with that IP range. But I am not sure if it is the same person in Molecular biology.--61.224.19.112 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, they also reported at RFPP, another avenue I suggested. From what they posted there, I believe they are asking for a Range Block, in addition to individual articles protection. I don't do range blocks, and I'm not familiar with recent events in Asia, but this editor seems to be trying to alert us to what they see as a larger/spreading issue of POV. — Maile (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem is we had no diffs, so cannot see what these edits are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I ran into this IPv6 user vs another user using a multitude of IP addresses and very wide ranges to edit war across multiple articles such as Jia Chunwang, Chen Shutong, Li Kenong, Zhang Dingcheng, Just war theory, and others. I've blocked all of the IP addresses that were involved in the dispute and the edit warring. I haven't dug in-depth with exactly what was going on dispute-wise and with the content itself, but I had to take action in order to stop the high magnitude of disruptive editing that was occurring and across numerous articles. Given that both users were engaging in back-and-fourth reverting, I felt that it was necessary to block the both of them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

IP's who love Volvo engines

A series of Schleswig-Holstein based IPs have taken ownership of Volvo Modular engine and Volvo Engine Architecture. After six or seven months of attempting to communicate with this stonewalling editor, Citation talk page, Volvo Modular, Volvo Engine Architecture they insist on doing absolutely everything their way. So far five other editors have agreed that using both archivedate and accessdate is redundant (one diessenting editor has suggested that it is useful to have both in cases where a better archived page could be found, which is not the case here as both dates are added at the same time, and the archived version is the one used as the citation). The references on these pages are already hard to read, and with this set of duplicate dates it is simply a mess. There are other style concerns, but so far I have seen no evidence that this editor is amenable to conversation. I would request at least a temporary block of ips on these pages, in the hope of making this editor begin communicating.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked 2a04:4540:900:0:0:0:0:0/45 for one year for disruption. They've actually been at it since April 2018. Despite the width of the range block, I see no collateral damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope they'll start communicating.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats and threat of harm

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

---

• User:Palauanboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Special:Diff/904196612, Special:Diff/904201573 —PaleoNeonate – 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Block now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Cantonese again

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

Serious accusations, anonymously sourced

The issue of the Signpost out today has an article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report, which I don't believe meets standards for acceptable journalistic content. It has, in particular, a serious accusation against User:Fram, by an anonymous source. It starts like this: "It is difficult and embarrassing as a man to come to grips with being sexually harassed". Fram denies the accusations but the Signpost has refused to quote or link to his denial and Fram is currently unable to respond on Wikipedia. The Signpost makes no indications that it has verified the anonymous accusation before publishing it. Unverified anonymous accusations are not the way to go. The section was repeatedly removed when the article was in draft form but always restored [206] User:Smallbones accepts responsibility for the article and directs complaints to ANI.[207] So here I am. Haukur (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unsourced content about living persons is a Wikipedia policy. If this is true than the Signpost/author has violated BLP policy. Repeatedly re-inserting against consensus before "press-time" might violate the spirit of the Signpost.

What admin action is suggested?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please demonstrate the basis for the phrase "against consensus". ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Bri! What do you think about publishing serious accusations against a named person from anonymous sources verbatim without verifying them? Is that journalism to be proud of? Is it an article that should be retracted? Haukur (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• So, no diffs showing any consensus then? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed not, I don't think that's the real issue here. User:Smallbones accepts full responsibility for the article, it's not really a question of our usual collective decision-making. Haukur (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The author has quoted 9 editors that do not wish to be identified publically. Does that mean that their comments/quotes cannot be used or commented on since the author can supply the names of the editors in private to demonstrate the validity of the quotes? Not sure if that is enough for public statements, comments or questions on the signpost per the community's own policies and guidelines. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia standards for biographies of living persons has been violated with unverifiable sources. Content about a living person must have multiple, verifiable references. I'm not sure these quotes are considered references...in fact, I am sure they are not reliable sources for these claims on the Signpost. They are, at least, pretty weak and at worst, unsubstantiated accusations from a third party.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's sure interesting to see just how many Wikipedia editors are determined to prove correct WMF's assertion that we are incapable of handling credible accusations of harrassment with our own procedures, preferring instead to shield difficult but productive editors behind claims that any accusations against them must be uncivil and personal attacks. It's funny how their own behavior never gets characterized in the same way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By all means, take these accusations to ArbCom and if it can be credibly demonstrated that Fram was cruelly participating in the sexual harassment of another editor by repeatedly posting links to a sexual depiction like the one described in the "news" item then I am sure appropriate action will be taken. But as far as I can see this is a completely misleading account and so far the Signpost doesn't even claim to have verified it. If we want to clamp down on harassment then let's begin by giving no quarter to this false and vile accusation. Haukur (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. I do not have evidence to prove the accusation false (nor to prove it true). Do you? If not, why are you claiming that it is false? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be sure, to see the full story would need oversight access and probably database access to a particular external site. But public information which can be easily found is consistent with Fram's account and makes the accusation look like a gross exaggeration of a half-remembered incident. Or possibly I am looking at the wrong incident! (And Fram too?) It's hard to know for sure with anonymous attacks like this which reference no evidence. Accusations like that are generally seen as a low form of journalism and it is amazing to me when people seem to think that tolerance of this sort of stuff will move us to a healthier community with less harassment. Haukur (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

When you say "consistent with Fram's account" what do you mean? Although the Signpost piece contains responses from Fram, none of it constitutes a response to or account of the specific accusation that you find troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The transparently-anonymous source claims the edit was revdeleted. Fram does not have so many of those, and there's a filter to find them in Special:Contributions/Fram. If you do not have the evidence, it is because you are deliberately not looking for it. —Cryptic 00:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There are hundreds of revdelled contributions there, and I don't have access to many of them (the ones that were actually revdelled and not just version-deleted). In any case, we have rules against trolling through contribution histories fishing for something dubious, and I think they might be relevant in cases like this where someone explicitly attempted to be anonymous. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So in your mind it is preferable to level accusations of serious misconduct with no evidence than it is to trawl (not troll) through an editors contributions in search of that evidence. I s'pose I should have seen that coming from someone who also thinks that evidence to prove an accusation false is necessary, but not to make an accusation credible. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[ec] In my mind it is preferable to assume good faith that Smallbones is meeting the usual standards of journalism: that when there are serious accusations made by a source who wishes to remain anonymous, that Smallbones has gone to extra efforts to verify those accusations, and that the reason for keeping the evidence from us is that it would violate the anonymity of the source. I would expect no less from any newspaper reporter, their editor, and the newspaper's legal advisors. If this supposition is inaccurate, Smallbones really did take the word of an anonymous accuser without evidence, and the other Signpost editors allowed Smallbones to do so without oversight, then that would be a serious problem, but for exactly that reason I would expect Smallbones and the rest of the Signpost editors not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So any attempt to find the context of these accusations and substantiate or refute them is wrong? We should just take whatever vile anonymous accusations on faith? The Signpost refuses to link to Fram's reply because he provides some additional information and context (no names) which, sure, makes it slightly easier to identify the likely incident. But of course any defense is going to involve bringing in more information so this just amounts to denying him the right to reply to accusations against him. This is not fair and it conforms to no journalistic standards. Haukur (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is just excellent. The more whining and caterwauling by those who see their power threatened, the more attention is focused on the disputed parts of the report—by by our community and possibly the outside press. Thank you for this. Tony (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indef for Smallbones for blatant, continual WP:BLP violations, and for doing it over the concerns of other editors. If they wanted to take responsibility for it, then there's a clear way to do that. BLP policies are clear, and important, and it doesn't matter how controversial or topical the subject is, or whether or not the violations are being done under the guise of journalism. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been avoiding this conversation but I've been bombarded by emails on the topic. I'll read what's written above and respond in due course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I urge you to pull the article until these issues can be straightened out. Haukur (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, what people don't seem to realize is that Fram was given several chances to respond to this quote and didn't. He had the opportunity to respond to other quotes and to the whole article and did, as you can see in the article He cooperated very nicely with the investigation. Referring to the same quote that most people are talking about here he emailed me "No, feel free to post it (with that line removed as it was confusing, thanks)," where "that line" was a previous response where I thought that he had misread the quote so had informed him of it again. Fram's given me permission to post most of his emails, but there are a couple of exceptions. I'd be glad to continue this at ArbCom so that I can send them the emails confidentially. There's another issue on what looks to me like an attempted outing by Fram on another website. I'm not going to accuse Fram of outing or speculate on his motives. I'll only say that at The Signpost we do not intentionally link to anything even close to outing, so we will not insert that link into the story. Please be patient for further responses from me - more emails. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I will note that Fram's refutation of this source states that it was part of an Arbitration case, and that "ended without any comments about [him], while the admin involved was admonished for his behaviour." Do we know what Arbitration case this was? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The bit about targeting vulnerable editors is patently false, considering he blocked Gorillawarfare and filed an arb case against me once. Still, there were always gonna be people complaining here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Bold edit without consensus and reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:AustrianFreedom

I'm on a mobile right now. Would another admin kindly review this editor's recent contributions and edit summaries and act as appropriate? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE, attack userpage deleted. Various other contributions may need revdel, especially edit summaries, but I'm on my way to bed (falls off chair). Bishonen | talk 00:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC).