Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Setenzatsu (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 10 July 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    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" [1]

    Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [2]

    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" [3]

    Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [4]

    The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [5] [6] His reply to the template message [7]

    Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [8]

    Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [9] [10]

    Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [11]

    One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [12] [13]

    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. [14] [15] [16]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Try to change the consensus by getting wider input, taking advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm not sure. That, indeed, depends on the depth and breadth of your dispute. El_C 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [17] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    My mistake then, sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    [18] 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)[reply]

    Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

    [37] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 ([38]) or implement them in some articles ([39]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([40]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([41], [42], [43]), 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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: [44] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    As you can see, the evidences just keep on stacking, sorry if I made this ANI a bit too lengthy for your taste but I really think something must be done. --Vauxford (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    [46] It seem Charles01 have made a influence on a user from the lengthy paragraphs he wrote. I reverted the edit telling them that he it not a valid reason to shadow revert a edit over something they weren't involved with. --Vauxford (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

    Off-topic
    That looks like an IBAN violation, as does this [[47]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    as does this [[48]]. So in fact the pair of you have not taken a blind bit of notice of the IBAN, I would suggest a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven Wait, I never had a IBAN from U1Quattro. That one done by Sable was revoked wasn't it? I know there was a IBAN propsoal between YBSone and U1Quattro but the one proposed by me and U1Quattro was revoked by a admin over some reason. I really wasn't aware the IBAN was official or not since it was done by Sable. Then he closed it and got reopened by a admin and it just got postponed. Then a separate IBAN was created based on the ANI U1Quattro created which I didn't get involved in. --Vauxford (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it, when? I see nothing on your talk page to indicate that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't retrieve the diffs where one of the admins reopen it because they all got suppressed over a unrelated incident. This is why users shouldn't close ANI because it confusing to know which of these mental barriers are active or not. --Vauxford (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=900659991&oldid=899776308}}, "two-way interaction ban implemented between you and U1Quattro.". I can find nothing that says this was overturned.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven [49] Here it is, and then after that nothing got declared and was automatically archived, I think me and U1Quattro made up by ourselves by not speaking to each other until now. "Apart from the very obvious fact that there is no consensus for any sanctions here, in which case only administrators are in the capacity to impose sanctions" --Vauxford (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it got disputed and buried, how am I suppose to know if it in place or not? Unlike the second IBAN proposal where it was only towards U1Quattro and YSBone which was actually in place and the two already got a 2 week block for breaching it. --Vauxford (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected, the message on your talk page causes confusion and should have been removed. Its a shame the pair of you could not resist speaking to each other.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven Well this talk I had with them today was for once was a lot more friendlier then the others and we came to a agreement that the edits was fine. --Vauxford (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you raise them here?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I presumed he jumped on the bandwagon from Charles01's ramble nonsense about me. I was just logging anything that is related to this incident I created and providing as much evidences and diffs as I can. --Vauxford (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [50]. 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 [51]. 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: [52]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The obvious [weasel word] anti-Uyghur [this is your pov] POV-pushing [unfounded]: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. File a report at NPOV noticeboard per WP:NPOVD. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    User:Citobun, they do not appear to have been reverted. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Alexkyoung's beahvior is troublesome:

    : 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

    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)[reply]

    "it is probably best to stick to your pages; and then I will stick to my own" [59]. 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" [60], or make an "empty claim because others have" [61]. 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" [62] 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 [63][64].
    Lastly, I should note that I am trying to be helpful [65] - 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 [66]. 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)[reply]

    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. [67][68] I also would like to ask him why he chose to leave this unsigned comment on this page in the third person, [69]. Darthkayak (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Perhaps best to give this editor a little vacation to reflect on things.--Moxy 🍁 04:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Add diff diff for History of Xinjiang. WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this can't be serious! diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Touche, it goes both ways. Try to understand my points as well.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Watch the language, and read through my response.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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/enwiki/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)[reply]

    • @Alexkyoung: Since you are actively canvassing numerous administrators to address alleged "harassment" by Nickm57 ([70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]), 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Include the more recent update

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

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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/enwiki/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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    Well, that was before I read the edit summary at [76]. 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)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the leadership on this. Appreciated. Nickm57 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hi Nickm57 and talk. Following your statements above, I have reverted the user's edits here and here. I am still learning about the rules of Wikipedia as I did not join that long ago so please let me know if this kind of edit is actually allowed. But from what I have read, I think a revert like this is okay given how disruptive this editor has been. Likuu (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that’s right. And I said I would return to this matter and will do so on my return from China next week.Nickm57 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 [77], 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 [78], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Alexkyoung reached out to me on my Talk: page, which I appreciated, but unfortunately the way he described his issues did not match at all what I was seeing. I also suspect that his edits to Racial discrimination and the Holocaust were intended solely to bring me into his conflicts as a sympathetic administrator. His description (or implication) regarding the editors he was in conflict with on those articles being "antisemitic" and "holocaust deniers" was unconvincing at best, misleading and defamatory at worst. I am also seeing serious issues with WP:NPOV; almost every edit made until he was brought to AN/I appears to have been for the purpose of boosting China or its government and/or denigrating the United States. Even edits like this, which are not pro-China per se, are clearly inflammatory (and with an edit summary that appears to hide the true purpose of the edit). I am surprised a longer or even indefinite block was not applied. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I note General Lincoln has suddenly turned up to continue this user’s editing practice. (And how amazing the two never edit at the same time) But I’m pleased to see the appropriate wheels are in motion elsewhere Nickm57 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for topic-ban

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

    Another suspicious account

    Sven Karmanova is a new account, restores Alexkyoung's edits at History of Xinjiang. Sven Karmanova also restored diff a comment made by new user Steph Goodwin diff. And Doug Weller: have a look at Talk:History of Xinjiang#Indo-Europeans. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung for the follow-up. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose topic ban from U.S. foreign relations

    This edit, specifically the first paragraph, is one of the most disgustingly POV edits I have ever seen written on Wikipedia. I would like to propose an indefinite topic ban for Alexkyoung from all articles related to U.S. Foreign relations until such time as he can demonstrate proper understanding of wikipedia's NPOV policy.

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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]
    • 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. [[79]]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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 [80], 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 [81], 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: [82]. 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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    Please don't close this. I am prepping a shortened version of the promised Boomerang, to ask the community to ratify P's own request for indef. I may not have it ready until next week and I won't edit article space in the meantime. Meanwhile please note that P did a similar maneuver to avoid a TBan sanction in 2016. Please don't close thisNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm here anyways, so I'll ask: would you comfortable with a voluntary no-fault 2-way IBAN with this user? That can probably be either in addition to, or in lieu of, the proposed topic ban. Please ping response (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mechanical problems have delayed my departure.... short answer "no", see "alternative closing idea" below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative closing idea

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

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

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

    Then P repeatedly demanded Diffs
    So I promised to supply them and seek a Tban
    Gaming to avoid that scrutiny, P does his fourth Rage Quit/Wikibreak.
    The guidelines for LEAVING suggest a way foward....

    (C) POSSIBLE CLOSING

    Per WP:LEAVE Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned.. I am OK with closing this and granting P's indef request, conditioned on any future UNBLOCK provide a list of DIFFS where P thinks I followed him "for no costructive purpose", plus an explanation of the issue that I raised and the outcome. So an admin might impose the following condition on his right to LEAVE (but not to escape criticism)
    By your own request you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. Since this is a retirement in lieu of facing a Topic ban boomerang request in AN case "Interaction ban", future unblock requests will only be granted after resolution of that dispute. Your complaint about the other editor, NewsAndEventsGuy, is based on our policy about [{WP:HOUNDING]] which presently says in relevant part The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. To renew your case filing, (1) Indicate your intent at ANI, and (2) provide DIFFS you believe show HOUNDING by NewsAndEventsGuy as described in the quoted text, (3) Provide a short summary of any article changes that resulted, (4) provide DIFFS that show NewsAndEventsGuy intended to cause distress or engaged in tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior,

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

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

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

    1. Accuses me of stalking them. [83]
    2. Same. [84]
    3. Accuses me of bad-faith edit. [85]
    4. False report filed against me while shopping for a venue. [86]
    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[87], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Look, you're just making my case for me when you bring up Jessica Parker Kennedy. You removed two plain facts [88], 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[89], 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)[reply]
    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. [90] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    I didn't expect implicit and completely unfounded claims from you that I was also hounding him, when if anything it is the other way round (not that I'm saying that). The "hounding" claim is actually pretty thin. One of the articles mentioned was edited by another ip who he associates with this one on no evidence, then there's:
    • " Four Arrows - This edit in isolation is fine, but just proof of them hounding me. I did a substantial cleanup of this article and along the way removed some unsourced items, this was one of them." - jesse removes an uncited statement, the ip cites and restores it, and that's hounding?!!

    Then there's:

    • "Edolphus Towns - Another edit where 24.47.152.65 is undoing my work just to undo it." - another MOS:HYPOCORISM case, where Jesse just removes the nickname completely, as at Suzi Leather, which is not what the MOS says to do. Jesse's edit summaries run straight away to pretty wild language, as he does here. In fact the nub of the issue seems to be a dispute at Lee Carter (politician), which Jesse has long edited and appears to be where the two first ran into each other, and where there has been considerable edit-warring between the two. The handful of other articles involved seem just to be spillage from that. It looks to me like a content/edit-warring dispute which Jesse has chosen to package as a hounding one; rather cleverly he doesn't mention that article at all in his complaint, but it is actually [That is] where the bulk of interaction between them has been. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    John, the Lee J. Carter article is mentioned in the first sentence. You literally just summarized my complaint as your own brilliant deduction when I said that the IP is hounding me after the content dispute from that article and all the other articles are completely unrelated to that subject area. That's the entire basis of the ANI and grounds for hounding. You've made no contributions here but wildly inaccurate summaries, personal attacks against me, and more than a few obvious misrepresentations of fact. I would appreciate it if you struck your grossly uncivil lies about me (e.g. "Jesse has chosen to package as a hounding one; rather cleverly he doesn't mention that article at all in his complaint", because as an experienced editor your conduct has been just as bad as 24.47.152.65's. Also, read the history: the hypocorism issue is not what this is about at all, that's just another random edit of mine that 24.47.152.65 has chosen to glob onto as an area to undo me on -- that's what hounding is. JesseRafe (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, missed that, now struck it. Your language here is more disproof for Sasquatch's fond belief that you can discuss things reasonably. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't discuss things reasonably when you're still are telling outright lies about me, such as "One of the articles mentioned was edited by another ip who he associates with this one on no evidence" -- did you read the complaint? In my opening incident report I clearly and unambiguously state "I want to note that I am not accusing any of the other IPs I mentioned above of being socks or otherwise involved, they are just random other users that I believe 24.47.152.65 was taking advantage to disguise their reverts." 24.47.152.65 just latches onto to other users' edits and fights those edit wars just to harass me, not based on any topics or interests. You are one of the other users, the "another ip" you mention is another... that is the whole MO, you don't even realize the nature of what you've inserted yourself into. The fact that you "overlooked" this, as your previous claim that I tried to hide the connection to the Carter article, demonstrates you are either not actively involved in this conversation or even know what it's about, or are intentionally ignoring the key facts at issue and are solely interested in piling on claims about my supposed mendacity. Like I said, you are acting in bad faith in almost every comment you've contributed here. Please familiarize yourself with the issue, rather than come up with supposed "gotchas" on my behavior that only serve to illustrate you have not been paying attention. I've been reasonable in the face of your unreasonableness throughout this whole affair. JesseRafe (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Huh? Diffs, please, without any more wild abuse. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not, this isn't about you. Since the above post the IP is still besmirching me and casting aspersions all over the encyclopedia. They were given a clear final warning last week and have not slowed down their rampant abuse and harassment at all, in fact, casting a wider net of false claims. Can their behavior and edits please be addressed? JesseRafe (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "They're still at it, FYI, and moving on to additional articles than the ones cited above and continuing their attacks on me...". Who is "they" if not the ip and me? Get a grip, please. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? Singular they. It's an anon IP, what other pronoun should I use? Like I said, you've been acting in egregious bad faith in every interaction on this board. Please let the admins respond to the actual issues instead of you just making things up. JesseRafe (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That was certainly not how I read it, and I doubt anyone else did either. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you would be dead wrong, twice. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod: Go start a RFC if you want to resolve the issue. You keep saying that but yet again you keep showing up in ANI without actually taking any steps in that direction. Again, this thread was never about resolving the dispute on how the manual of style should be interpreted. I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for inappropriate personal attacks here and at Johnbod's user talk page. I suggest everyone here figure out a way to deescalate and learn to work together more productively. Sasquatch t|c 19:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep getting new attacks here from Jesse. I don't know why you think we need "to work together more productively". As I've said above, I'd be delighted never to run across Jesse again, and hope he will follow your advice above re the wide world of wiki. I'll do the Rfc in my own good time, which I'll have more of if Jesse stops abusing me all the time. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Renewed hounding by 24.47.152.65 after block lifted

    24.47.152.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- adding user links to aid sifting.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm sorry to say that Jesse is being dishonest. To see for yourself, take a look at Talk:Julia Salazar, where I posted links about the Hernandez issue in direct response to Aquillion's request for these sort of citations and we're talking about how much to include. That's exactly the sort of behavior that's productive: citing sources and having a civil discussion. But Jesse's not part of that discussion. Instead, he came here (once again, without notifying me as he is expected to) to get me banned. There is no reasonable interpretation of their actions that makes them look like they're acting in good faith. He's going to keep this up until I'm banned indefinitely. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they're also accusing me of being other people. If there's a way this can be checked, please use it, because it turns out not to be true. Yet again, another bad-faith accusation against me. I'm disgusted. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to delve into this but as a point of order - it is not necessary for Jesse to re-notify you just because the ANI complaint is ongoing. Only if an entirely new complaint were opened would you have to be notified again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As a point of order, this is a new complaint. The old one was settled in his favor, after I was blocked explicitly because I pointed out that Jesse has shown a pattern of political bias. Now they're back, looking for more excuses to have me blocked, and I wouldn't have known about it except that someone helpfully pointed it out to me. Apparently, I'm not the only one concerned about Jesse's behavior. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As a point of order, this is a new complaint.
    Incorrect. This is still part of the same complaint, just new information added with regard to your activity after the block expired. The fact you were blocked did not conclude this ANI report. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not new information because information has to be true and this is not.
    For example, Jesse makes it sound as if I followed them to Knives Out (film) and removed their changes. In fact, I restored the text that Jesse edited after someone else removed it (along with all other character descriptions). Likewise, I was in the middle of a discussion on Talk:Julia_Salazar before Jesse attacked me here, and I'm continuing that discussion. My edits to David Keyes and T. J. McConnell had nothing to do with anything Jesse might have changed in those articles and were entirely uncontroversial.
    WP:HOUND says I must not "repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" but that's clearly not what I'm doing, yet Jesse is falsely accusing me of it. Meanwhile, I've continued to edit articles that, as far as I can tell, Jesse never touched or otherwise expressed interest in, such as Ugly Americans (TV series) and The Umbrella Academy: Dallas, so I'm not an SPA.
    As for my block, the stated reason was a "personal attack", except that it wasn't one. [91] Apparently, it's not a personal attack for Jesse to post stuff like this, but if I even talk about apparent bias, that's forbidden. This makes zero sense. Either way, I was not blocked for hounding.
    Moreover, I find it disturbing that Jesse continues to try to get me banned by using false claims that he figures you won't bother checking. He's also tried to identify me as other editors, which is nonsense on stilts. In short, he is guilty of hounding me. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to come across as canvassing, but it looks like I messed up the formatting and this didn't get any renewed admin attention. They continued to follow me to various unrelated pages, and very obviously toeing the line so instead of reverting me, just hassling me and questioning my work everywhere just as a point of harassment.
    For example, at Richaun Holmes, I removed an IP's edits that they signed a contract, which isn't official until 7/6. Everyone who follows the NBA or the NBA Wikiproject knows we don't update those parameters until they are official. 24.47.152.65 posts a random blog on the talk page (the diff above) and claims it's official. It's obviously a blog and not official, 24.47.152.65 is only doing it to question my work. They also make a big stink about Julia Salazar and uncivilly accuse me of attacking them there, forgetting that either 1) they hounded me to the Salazar page, or 2) they are one, if not both, of the two named user accounts posting the exact same articles on the Salazar talk page.
    Now, just to take ammunition away from further accusations, whiles still hounding me, they are just choosing random articles to make superficial edits to so they can say "Look, I'm not an SPA!". More tellingly, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that they were blocked specifically for personal attacks, and still claim that they were blocked because they believe they discovered a bias that disqualifies me from editing. Why? Because I made 57,000 edits on 31,000 discrete pages and two of those are DSA members! So, obviously I'm a shill. Tagging some previous commenters because either the holiday or the formatting didn't get the attention that this user did not abate the behavior for which they were blocked and continued harassing me: @Rosguill, Sasquatch, Calton, and Dlohcierekim:. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JesseRafe: Looks like you are saying 24.47.152.65 is a sock. You might want to send that part to WP:SPI. It might be if you listed specific difs for each instance of harassment/hounding. The pertinent information is lost in the sheer volume of text. Hopefully someone can help you sift this, but I'm just checking for messages and CAT:unblock today and for the foreseeable future.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I didn't feel like gathering the whole set of diffs and history to make an SPI and it only occurred to me as the first block was imminent when they started on the Salazar page. Also, related to the ODDoom99 account, which curiously posted in ANI at the same time 24.47.152.65 was being blocked, led you to "re-block" 24.47.152.65 from using logged-in accounts as well, if I read your edit summary correct. I know I would have to bring up a whole nother case for an SPI, but as this editor was already blocked for personal attacks and harassment and continued to do those actions after the block expired, I thought bringing it back up in the same place would be the most expedient way to get the behavior noticed and addressed. Thanks for your time. JesseRafe (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, you can't be bothered to follow through on your accusation that I'm actually all these other people because doing so would show that it's simply not the case, and that would put the focus back on your motivation. But you already did that when you carefully changed your admission that you "didn't feel like getting into" the details. Of course you don't feel like it; this isn't about the details, it's about throwing a bunch of random accusations against the wall to see what sticks. That's why you tried to get me blocked through false claims of vandalism before you successfully got me blocked by lying here.
    But you have to avoid details, because the truth is not on your side. For example, contrary to what you said, the article I linked to on Talk:Richaun_Holmes wasn't some "random blog", it was sourced to a reporter at The Atlantic. You also forgot to mention that, while I asked about whether it's sufficient basis to restore the known fact that Holmes has signed with the Kings, I didn't edit the article itself. So, essentially, you're asking that I be blocked for asking a question in good faith and being careful not to edit the article until there's a consensus. Wow, I am clearly a deadly threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.
    The rest of your accusations are just as empty. You've shown that this is personal for you and that you're willing to canvas and make accusations in bad faith to get your way. The truth is that I don't run around Wikipedia opposing your edits; I oppose any edit from any person that's bad, and some of your edits are. The difference is that nobody else has worked to get me blocked. You're special; you have a grudge. But you lack the power to act on it directly; you have to lie to get someone to do your dirty work. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can these constant personal attacks be addressed then? I don't think I need to provide a diff of them, they're right here. User was blocked for repeated personal attacks, has continued the attacks, and despite claims to the contrary, they are the ones with the grudge and still hounding me, I have nothing to do with them and only want the attacks and hounding to cease. JesseRafe (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was blocked for pointing out that you appear to have a particular bias. If that's a personal attack, then everything is. In contrast, when you LIE about what I'm doing, that's just fine, right? 24.47.152.65 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why this is allowed to continue. 24.47.152.65 is WP:ICANTHEARYOU-ing over the fact that they were explicitly blocked for their personal attacks on me and is keeping the attacks up, and is accusing me of bias and lying (which is rich). Is this not the appropriate venue for reporting this behavior? JesseRafe (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Flyingd

    Even for WP, this is an exceptionally unnecessary content disagreement. There is no principle involved; there is no bias on either side; there is no general precedent one way or another; there is no harm to the encyclopedia or the historical record if we leave the somewhat peripheral information in, or leave it out -- ot's not essential background, but neither is it wholly irrelevant or confusing.. I find it enlightening that this arose elsewhere than the enWP--I was under the impression the enWP was particularly prone to this sort of needless arguement, and I see I need to take a broader view. I have an idea for possible compromise--since we can't control what another WP might do, whatever the nlWP decides to do, let the enWP do the opposite--that way both views will be represented. That's just a suggestion--the actual decision is that Flyingd and Robotje are both topic banned from this article and from similar issues in other aircraft articles at the enWP for the next twelve months, including the talk pages . The Banner is probably under the impression that he is just reporting the dispute, not participating in it, but in fairness it would be better if he did not participate either, so I'm giving a twelve month topic ban restriction, but for this article only, and not including the talk page. . DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    And more proof of his disruptive behaviour here. The Banner talk 16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Restored edit removed by Flyingd.[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Thank you for seeing that clearly. Flyingd (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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 [92][93][94][95] (among many others) and other ad hominem arguments [96][97]. 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 [98]; I explain why I think they provide relevant context [99]; he diverts to arguing that they are irrelevant to the RfC [100][101]; I reply that what the The Banner raises in the RfC misrepresents the issue Flyingd was trying to raise [102]; The Banner continues to shelter behind the RfC [103]; I point out that I was initially discussing the topic of the RfC [104]; he now retreats to hiding behind the (rather dubious) previous consensus [105]; I point out that consensus can change and that he can’t avoid my new arguments by hiding behind prior consensus [106]; 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. [107], 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 [108]; I pointed to previous diffs where we made those arguments [109]; he insisted they weren’t content related [110]; 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 [111]; and then The Banner, apparently exasperated, threatened to take the whole thing to ANI [112]. 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)[reply]

    *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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You know very well that I reacted to you here: [113] (right bottom) Flyingd (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That link doesn't work for me. - Robotje (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, fixed Flyingd (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After my remark "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." you asked me: "Can you also point out where I have ignored your arguments?" I explained where that was based on and now your response is "You know very well that I reacted to you here ..." As everybody can see, your first reply was the 'Ah, there you are' edit where you were importing a problem from nl-wiki but ignored the whole point I was refering to. Only after I pushed for it you finaly responded and again you were importing the problem from nl-wiki. That underscores "When I tried to have a discussion with him he tried to ignore my arguments and instead started importing problems from the nl-wiki about similar problems he encountered there." Now clear? - Robotje (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hello Flyingd, next time please try to read more carefully. I wrote "... articles that could be a tiny bit related to his favourite topic." so not incidents but articles that are a tiny bit related. Take this edit of you about an air race. The Ibis airplane (DC-3) had nothing to do with that race. You seem to have mixed up with the Uiver airplane (DC-2) that did participate in that air race. It was DragonFury not me who decided it was not relevant for the readers. - Robotje (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    *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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hello Flyingd, After August 2012 you made more than 200 edits and by far most of them were about the incidents that airplane was involved in, squeezing (extra) information about those incidents in a lot of (almost) unrelated articles, trying to justify that you did so on talk pages, etc. The fact that you bring up just another similar topic (seems like you want to justify your behaviour because somebody added that information in ONE article) is just underscoring the issue with you. In the discussion abobe you blamed three coworkers to be obsessed with you. I was hesistating to use the word obsession/obesessed/etc. but to me it is becomes more and more clear you are obsessed with those incidents and your main purpose for being active on Wikipedia (including but not only en-wiki) is to get information about those incidents in a lot of articles on Wikipedia. For the article about the last flight (and the talkpage for that article) adding information related to that airplane and having related discussions about that is OK. For the rest this behavoiur became more and more troublesome. I think a topic ban for you on this issue is a good sollution, the sooner the better. - Robotje (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these edits have been reverting undo's from the same few editors and trying to discuss (to no avail) on talk pages. Flyingd (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Involved but I would support the original proposal by User:The Banner that we need a topic ban on Flyingd on anything related to BOAC Flight 777 as per a similar ban on Dutch wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins please note I started the Dutch BOAC Flight 777 article back in 2010 (translating bit by bit from the english article). Banner endlessly editwarred me there with among others his opinion that any reference to the previous attacks were irrelevant in an article BOAC 777 and should only be mentioned in a page about the airplane itself behind the wikilink PH-ALI. According to the Banner the airplane was the only common ground for the 3 attacks so the 3 attacks can only be mentioned together in an article about this airplane. Flyingd (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Indeed I received a TBAN from the Dutch ARBCOM for a very similar case and I have stated that the Dutch ARBCOM is either corrupt or incapable. I hope the latter, not enough manpower/time to sift through endless non-reactive discussions and just taking a one-person extensive description of my 'misbehavings' as the truth. Flyingd (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    During World War 2 between 50 million to over 80 million died.[114] In 1942 and 1943 millions of poeple were murdered in extermination camps or killed at battle fiels, bombing of cities, etc. In 1942 and 1943 millions of others got severly injured/handicaped. In november 1942 an airplane was involved in an incident when flying from Portugal to England. It looks like nobody was hurt or killed, only some damage to the airplain that still could fly hunderds of kilometers from Bay of Biscay to England and safely land there. In april 1943 something similar happened, nobody was hurt or killed, only some damage to the airplain that still could fly hunderds of kilometers from Bay of Biscay to England and safely land there. For Flyingd both minor incidents were such an extremely important part of World War 2 that he added these minor incidents in the article about 1942 [115] and 1943 [116]. Flyingd also thought quite a lot more (almost) unrelated articles had to be modified to add some (extra) information about his favorite topic. Similar behaviour on nl-wiki caused him to get a topic ban by the arbcom there and now he thinks that unless they were incapable people they must have accepted some money or so in order to have a topic ban imposed on him. Soon after he was blocked there for one week for violating that decision of the arbcom, he resumed his troublesome behaviour here. - Robotje (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With his remark Indeed I received a TBAN from the Dutch ARBCOM for a very similar case and I have stated that the Dutch ARBCOM is either corrupt or incapable. Flyingd makes clear that no compromise whatsoever is acceptable to him. So restrictions need to be enforceable. A topic ban is the most friendly way to let him change his ways. The Banner talk 21:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not yet convinced of the necessity of a topic ban. I've only seen two diffs here where Flyingd added information to pages where it obviously did not belong (the two Robotje supplied earlier today), and that was less a disruptive "this is completely irrelevant" than a simple editorial issue (all items in those year lists should be notable, i.e., have their own articles). So far, I've seen a lot of shouting, finger-pointing, accusations of tendentious editing, etc. Can I see 1) more diffs of Flyingd adding information to clearly irrelevant articles, in order to establish a long-term pattern, and 2) diffs where someone calmly, clearly explained to Flyingd why adding that information did a disservice to the reader or was bad for the Project? Unless we can establish both that there is a long-term pattern of misbehavior and that previous attempts to address the behavior in a more constructive manner have failed, I do not believe that the need for a topic ban is demonstrated.
    I am, however, of the opinion that no-fault interaction bans are warranted at this stage. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Compassionate727, it turns out you did your edit while I was still working on my last edit. In that edit I wrote to Flyingd: "Take this edit of you about an air race. The Ibis airplane (DC-3) had nothing to do with that race. You seem to have mixed up with the Uiver airplane (DC-2) that did participate in that air race." I think that is just another example of adding text about his favourite topic in an article about an unrelated topic. Togehter with the other two that makes 3, already enough for a pattern I would say. I will try to find a few more of this kind of edits. - Robotje (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do. I am not convinced, and I think you will struggle to convince most uninvolved editors, that three edits from 7 and 11 years ago warrant a topic ban. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What about edits like [117] and [118]. The first one was undone soon after his edit so a few years later he just tried it again. The topic of the article is a type of airplane made by the Douglas company. Both perfectly fits the pattern of adding info about his favourite topic in articles about basically unrelated topics. The problem becomes now more clear? - Robotje (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The first diff was reverted with the summary "too much detail". The second diff, added four years later, has less detail. Seems like a good faith effort to me. It also went uncontested for four years until you removed it without comment. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deep state in the United States

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

    Article definitely needs a WP:FULL lockdown. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think BMK is describing their own behavior. A comprehensive conduct review is probably overkill, but full protection may be in order. Btw I didn’t receive a notice of this report, even though it’s clear BMK is complaining about me. R2 (bleep) 02:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit.Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I was more than a little surprised by this report. I only knew about it because of this comment on the talk page. I kind of thought that the discussion was moving forward productively and don't know why this needed to be escalated so drastically. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (still asleep). If we are all in-good-faith discussion, do we have to get out the DS-hammer. This would probably require more careful thought than I'm capable of awake, but, yeah. Oh, and happy Fourth of July to all who celebrate it.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we want to celebrate the Fourth of July, the best way would be to uphold Wikipedia policies and not allow people to remove sourced material from articles without a consensus to do so simply because it disagrees with their own political opinions. That is both disruptive and opposed to basic Wikipedia policies and practices. I'm appalled that no admin has stepped in to put a stop to this practice on this article. Is everyone too distracted by the Fram mess to deal with ongoing disruption and policy violations? Come on, people, this isn't rocket science, people are skewing an article to reflect their own POV in spite of numerous reliable sources which support the opposite, NPOV, viewpoint. It's basic stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm busy celebrating Amexit Day, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You know. The day Americans left a European community.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Must've been a little thick there, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that BMK has only cited content policies is an indication that this thread should be closed. R2 (bleep) 17:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confused. Violation of any Wikipedia policy is a behavioral problem and is proper to be dealt with on ANI. What you're thinking of is a content dispute. Yes, a content dispute is behind the behavioral problems I would like admins to examine, but that is the case for a large majority of ANI reports, since content disputes often give rise to behavioral issues. That is the case here. I'm not asking an admin to rule on the content dispute, they simply don't do that, I am asking them to look at things like your removal of sourced content from a DS article without having a consensus on the talk page to do so, or your WP:IDHT behavior in insisting that articles that clearly call the "deep state" concept to be a conspiracy don't say what they inherently say, or the various stalling behaviors you have used in your attempt to move the article to reflect what is obviously your personal point of view, instead of what reliable sources say. Those behavioral issues are the meat and potatoes of what ANI deals with.
    And yes, @Dlohcierekim:, the DS hammer does need to come out, because there cannot be a "good faith discussion" when one party to it insists that black is not black when reliable sources explicitly say that it is. That's WP:Disruptive under any circumstances, and especially when the article is under sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you think is “stalling” is probably me trying to enjoy a long weekend. Happy 4th. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BMK has recently reverted all of my conspiracy-category removals with the summary "POV edit". Their refusal to self-revert on their talk page is an example of the OWN behavior, esp. when Trump never promoted Qanon, and I am in fact being gaslit when I start adding detailed rationales for cat removals that I get reverted with zero rationale. BMK has shown no regard for any category PAG whatsoever and a block or a TBAN are the only solutions IMO. wumbolo ^^^ 14:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course you think that. I, on the other hand, think you ought to be site banned for making edits in furtherance of your distinct political POV, but neither of those things is going to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: I am talking about edits on several articles, which includes the 1st edit at the deep state article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wumbolo: [Thank you for the ping] Oh, my apologies then. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be resolved, but just noting that there's both a 1RR and a BRD-enforcement page restriction already on that article, so after BMK reverted, right or wrong, that should have been the end of it. Ahrtoodeetoo, you violated the page restriction by reverting a reversion, period. The page restrictions effectively mean that there is zero tolerance for edit warring—a dispute arises, it does not play out in the article, it goes straight to the talk page until it gets resolved. Please be more mindful of the page restrictions going forward. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm, I discussed this with Awilley on his user talk. In fact, it was BMK who violated Enforced BRD, not me, but I have no interest in pressing the matter. R2 (bleep) 01:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm, R2 is correct here. (The BRD rule on the page does allow for reverts of reversions either by third parties, or after 24 hours and discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awilley: Okay, I figured that was a letter-vs-spirit issue, and erred on the side of WP:BROADLY. Apologies to R2 for my mistake, I was unaware that you consulted with the relevant admin, and good on you for that. Awilley, can you clarify how this rule was established? Was it unilateral on your end, or was there a discussion. Don't mean to criticize, but this is a good example of how silly "BRD enforced" sounds when you literally exempt everyone who is not the original editor. There was no BRD to be seen here, and the article suffered for it. It may be worth tweaking the wording of this clause. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's extremely paradoxical that a third party can legitimately overturn the BRD process, leaving the reverter powerless. The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. It's basically a toothless sanction that's all-but-redundant to the 1RR. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: I can reply in more detail on your talk page (or mine if you like) but the short answer is: there has been a lot of discussion in various forums (WP:ARCA, WP:AE, Template talk:American politics AE, WP:AN, and a couple of user talk pages) and I have actively solicited feedback from editors in the topic area, but the sanction was applied unilaterally by me. Part of its purpose is to be a "correction" to 1RR to prevent the following scenario: 1. Editor A makes a change to the article. 2. Editor B reverts the change (using their 1RR). 3. Editor A reverts the revert (using their 1RR and leaving the article in a non-consensus state, with Editor B unable to do anything). In the interaction above it took two editors (Wumbolo and R2) to move the article away from the status quo over the objection of a single editor (BMK). Now all three editors are required to engage in discussion before making any more reverts. I don't see that as a bad thing. ~Awilley (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to point out that as soon as R2 informed me that my revert was in violation, which I hadn't realized previously, I immediately self-reverted, and reported that I did so on Awilley's talk page. My actions from that point on were strictly in conformance with the restrictions on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, and I don't see any problem in BMK's actions in that regard. ~Awilley (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are we doing here? BMK has had six days yet has identified no specific policy violations, provided no diffs, and never notified me of this report. Can someone please close this thread? R2 (bleep) 21:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feeling guilty about something? In posting my report, I made no accusation against you or anyone else in particular, I asked for admins to look in general at the recent editing on the page, so there was no requirement to notify you -- who, in any case, contributed to this thread 2 hours and 5 minutes after I posted it, and have made 4 comments to it, so you can hardly claim that you weren't aware of it. However, I have no objections to the section being archived, now that the errant behavior on the article has ceased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are confused again. WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the purpose of notification is to let the person who has been accused of something in a public forum known about it, it's not to check off a box on an official form. I didn't need to notify you when I started the thread because I made no claim against you at that time. After the thread had started, and you had joined the conversation, it would be entirely redundant to notify you of the existence of the thread, since you were already involved in it. Once you were involved in the discussion, notifying you that there was a discussion would have just been silly, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Aykhan Zayedzadeh

    Inserting pro-Azerbaijani Turkish material into articles:

    • Added "Azerbaijan" without source to the Bidet shower article. No edit summary/explanation either.[119]
    • Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Supra (feast) article without source. No edit edit summary/explanation either.[120]
    • Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about a Georgian administrative province even though the article makes zero mention of any relationship with the Azerbaijani ethnos or Azerbaijani Turkish language.[121]
    • Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Wudu article without source. No edit summary/explanation either.[122]
    • Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Akhalkalaki article even though the article makes no mention of the city's relationship with Azerbaijani Turks/Azerbaijani Turkish langauge.[123]
    • Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about an Armenian monastery. No edit summary/explanation either.[124]
    • Added the Latin Azerbaijani script in an article to the Blue Mosque, Tabriz article, even though the Azerbaijani Latin script is not used on an official level in Iran.[125]
    • Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to Iwan, even though the article demonstrates no relationship in relation to the Azerbaijani Turkshi people/Azerbaijani Turkish language.[126]

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

    • "There are lot of Persian users interrupting the factuality (...)"[127]
    • "Iranian nationalist Shia (which is pagan at this point) who shouts "Ya Hossein", instead of "Allahu Akbar"[128]
    • "Dear LouisAragon, I understand being bit anti-Azerbaijan (...)"[129]

    Ignoring personal warnings:

    Ignoring WP:AA2 warning:

    Copy-vio violation:

    Topic ban proposal

    Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user's editorial pattern has been disruptive on numerous levels for an extended period of time. Said user has been warned on numerous occassions (incl. by admins)[134], but to no avail unfortunately. I therefore propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Caucasus region, the Middle East and the Iranian/Turkic world. -

    • Support As nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose article of Bidet shower had already country names mentioned without citations, and articles of Supra and Wudu had already transliterations in other related languages without any citations. Kakheti was strongly related to Azerbaijan and has a Azerbaijani population (at least since early modern ages). 9.8% of Kakheti is inhabited by Azerbaijanis[135] "From the early 16th century till the early 19th century, Kakheti and its neighboring Kartli came under intermittent Iranian [a.k.a Turkic dynasties] rule." The region was exposed to Persian rule, and ultimately, Azeri-speaking Azerbaijani population.[136] The reason behind that name is same as here. The name is even mentioned here. No one is making irredentist claims here. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to an article about an Armenian monastery", actually no, it was an Armenian monastery located in AZERBAIJAN, in a town with majority Azerbaijani population. "* Added the Latin Azerbaijani script in an article to the Blue Mosque, Tabriz article". No, I added transliteration of the Perso-Arabic script. There is a big difference. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to the Akhalkalaki article even though the article makes no mention of the city's relationship with Azerbaijani Turks/Azerbaijani Turkish language." The town historically had close cultural relations with Azerbaijan.[137][138] If an article in enwiki doesn't mention something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It is only the fault of enwiki to exclude that information, as other wikis have added it. "Added the Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to Iwan, even though the article demonstrates no relationship in relation to the Azerbaijani Turkshi people/Azerbaijani Turkish language." No, it has. It was an important part of Azerbaijani-Persian architecture of the early modern era and is still used to describe balconies to this day[139]. "Warned on two occassions for violating WP:PERSONAL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Never replied." What was I supposed to reply? Me not replying means that I do not object those warnings. I hope I was able to clearly explain everything. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 18:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The Turkish and Azerbaijani transliterations of Iwan removed right after I added the Azerjani transliteration of it. I did not oppose it, believing that it was a rightful removal. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 18:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "article of Bidet shower had already country names mentioned without citations, and articles of Supra and Wudu had already transliterations in other related languages without any citations."
    So because these articles lack citations, you are given a free pass to add more unsourced content?
    • "No, I added transliteration of the Perso-Arabic script. There is a big difference"
    You added the transliteration written in the Latin Azerbaijani script, which has letters such as "ə"[140] and is only officially used in the Azerbaijan Republic, not in Iran.
    - LouisAragon (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (even if, given the above evidences, i would prefer a topic ban for a longer period of time). This editor seems to be here on a single mission, trying to "Tukify" the greater number of articles he can, edit warring and being dismissive and attacking other editors. Not a net positive for the project, in my humble opinion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I know this editor from my time editing azwiki. I think this topic ban proposal misses the mark. Aykhan Zayedzadeh was generally more cordial in my interactions with him on Meta and Azwiki, but I can't approve of how they treated Wikaviani and others per those diffs (Aykhan, you need to apologize for that). However, the pro-Azerbaijani Turkish edits did not seem all that terrible besides Aykhan not using an edit summary. He makes a decent point that if our coverage is lacking on a topic, then it shouldn't exclusively be on him to fix that. So long as he doesn't edit war, it's fine in of itself to make those additions imo.
      I would ask we propose a civility restriction banning Aykhan from making anything that could be reasonably construed as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I'd also impose a topic ban to be a one-year ban on Iranian topics. I don't see why we would want to ban Azerbaijani editor from being able to edit any topics related to his home country/language/culture when there is no evidence he's been disruptive in that topic. Keeping him away from Iranian topics though, would be more likely to stop Aykhan Zayedzadeh from making unproductive edits because it'll stop him from getting too heated.
      Either way, I can confirm for him: Me not replying means that I do not object those warnings. That really is a thing on Azwiki. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL:, yeah, I don't stand by what I said to Wikiviani few months ago. I broke my own rule in online debates and exhibited Keyboard warrior-like behavior. Apologies for acting few years (or age I guess) immature. The discussions about the history of Azerbaijan will always get heated, because what Azerbaijan-based sources and Perso-Armenian+Western sources are literally opposite to each other. And English Wikipedia, at least on topics related to Azerbaijan's history, do not have neutrality and doesn't respect the other side's (in this case, 10.000.000+ ppl and hundreds of scholars) perspective. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 21:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aykhan Zayedzadeh: [Thank you for the ping] I think it might be helpful to direct you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but also to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's important to keep your cool when getting into these debates. Tendentious editing is never okay here. I know I get where you're coming from and recognize things are more nuanced than Western media tries to portray it, but that is only because I decided to immerse myself with Azerbaijani culture and language through Azwiki. You can't expect everyone else to share your perspective, though (especially if you aren't in line with WP:Consensus).
    Either way, it might be frustrating, but you have to abide by enwiki's policies on reliable sourcing and the like while editing here. The best way to do things is by practicing the BOLD and having a chat with the folks at the Teahouse whenever you need help. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per @Aykhan Zayedzadeh:--Maqamedd (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User:Maqamedd has made two edits in total.[141] - LouisAragon (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment & Question - Most of these edits don't actually break our rules - neither edit summaries nor citations are obligatory in many situations. Some of the edits are in articles with no relevance and thus indicate disruption. Obviously the personal attack is way out of line. I'm tempted towards the Iranian-only TBAN (note, this could be a bit blurry - broadly construed could sweep much of azerbaijani articles. Question: Can the community issue "reasonably construed" TBANs? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Can the community issue "reasonably construed" TBANs – NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO! If you think the Fram thing has Arbcom jammed up, wait until we start "reasonably construing" topic bans. The point of a Tban is: There are a million (actually 6 million) other article that need improving. Stay far, far away from this trouble spot. EEng 15:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per @Aykhan Zayedzadeh: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qızılbaş (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: User:Qızılbaş[142], who posted this (^) comment, is another account similar to "User:Maqamedd". Both accounts, though operated by two different users, have basically made zero edits on the English Wiki, yet are somehow aware of this ANI case. Interestingly, they both also left the exact same one-line comment in favor of Aykhan Zayedzadeh. Both accounts are very active on the Azerbaijani Turkish wiki.[143]-[144] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LouisAragon: basically, it's been an ongoing issue trying to explain WP:CANVASSING and WP:NOTAVOTE to users from Azwiki. Both of those aren't a thing over there. I know this personally for a fact because I've seriously nominated multiple articles for deletion with no more than the words "Not encyclopedic." That being said, we're on enwiki now. @Aykhan Zayedzadeh: did you inform any users of this AN/I discussion, or are we to believe these two are just part of your absurdly dedicated Fan Club. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @MJL:, I make Facebook posts about any development regarding AzWiki and its active users on regular basis. It was one of them. Fun fact, I was one to inform the Wikicommunity on AzWiki about that whole meta thing :) --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 00:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Aykhan Zayedzadeh: Yeah, so that's a potential violation of our policies here. Can you please update the Facebook post to either: (1) Remove the link, or (2) to tell people not to comment. I get the two users who commented here meant well, but honestly their "Oppose per Aykhan Zayedzadeh" comments really hurt you a lot more than they could've ever helped. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • " And English Wikipedia, at least on topics related to Azerbaijan's history, do not have neutrality and doesn't respect the other side's (in this case, 10.000.000+ ppl and hundreds of scholars) perspective" this kind of sentences shows that you don't understand how English Wiki works. This is not the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, where you can claim that Sarmatians were Turks and where the Armenian genocide article's is labelled as "the so called Armenian genocide". The hundreds of Azerbaijani "sources" you're referring to are the same ones supporting the above nonsenses i pointed out. When it comes to reliability, Azerbaijani sources cannot stand any comparison with high quality Persian, Armenian and western sources. Just take a look at how things are going on on Azerbaijani Wiki, where all admins are on the eve of losing their tools because of repeated misuse of the said tools. Curiously, now that you're reported here, and probably because you're afraid of being blocked, you apologized for your behavior, but at that time, even after having been warned by Kansas Bear you did not apologize ... Also, in your above statement, you just confessed that canvassing is one of your habits and this is, as MJL said, a clear violation of our policies, thus, the two users coming here and saying "oppose per Aykhan zayedzadeh" will clearly not help your case and their opinion will not be taken into account here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wikaviani: I really like pings btw especially because I don't check ANI except when it's relevant to me. I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but I feel the need to bring a few things to your attention. (1) I said potential violation rather than clear violation. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying, "Darn it! I just got taken to ANI for being a loon. [link]" but there is something wrong with saying "Darn it! Someone reported me for changing the spelling of an article from American to British. Vote [link|here] to support UK spelling!!" Both are bad form, but one is a policy violation. (2) The AZwiki-admin situation has been mostly resolved. (3) Aykhan Zayedzadeh was literally the first user to cast a vote in against the "So-called Armenian Genocide" title. (4) As for the statement on the Azerbaijani sources, that is more of a question for WP:RS/N than here. (5) I do agree with everything else you said though. Aykhan doesn't quite understand how English Wikipedia works, but I don't know if I'd personally blame them for it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: I respect any editor i interract with here, on Wikipedia, including you, of course. The admin issue on the Az-Wiki may be almost solved, however, it's quite puzzling that this kind of stuff occurs on that language Wiki rather than elsewhere ... Your remark about Azerbaijani sources is correct, this is not the place to discuss about them, but my above remark was a reply to Aykhan Zayedzadeh's comment about the neutrality of English Wikipedia, nothing less, nothing more. I'm quite surprised that Aykhan Zayedzadeh dares to criticize the neutrality of En-Wiki about some topics while he's mainly editing the Az-Wiki, knowing what we know about that Wiki. Judging by the evidences provided above by LouisAragon this editor is here on a POV-pushing mission. Also, i striked the part where i said "according to MJL" since it was not exactly what you said. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikaviani: What I'm saying is you're much appreciated! All communities have their biases and problems. I know I've certainly heard much said about enwiki's many critical problems both here and from throughout. Hywiki is currently using this map in their article about Azerbaijan. It isn't exactly subtle what message is being sent there.
    Regardless, the truth is that we don't have good coverage of Azerbaijan related topics, but not for the reasons Aykhan stated. Let's try to help this user find the right rather rather than casting him out. They've been honest and such to us and have demonstrated a willing to learn. Wouldn't you agree that is a better option moving forward? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: The En-Wiki is probably the most reliable one among all Wikis, but let's not discuss this here.
    "Regardless, the truth is that we don't have good coverage of Azerbaijan related topics, but not for the reasons Aykhan stated. Let's try to help this user find the right rather rather than casting him out. They've been honest and such to us and have demonstrated a willing to learn." Every POV pusher troll here needs to learn and educate him/herself, this is not a reason to let them alter the quality of this encyclopedia, right ? This is what it's all about here, Aykhan needs to learn and educate himself before editing this encyclopedia and a topic ban will give him the time for that. I don't say that as a punition, i say that because i want to help him to be a net positive to the project.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikaviani: Woah there, that seems a little harsh and way unnecessary. What you say also goes against WP:BOLD to the nth degree. I'm of the same mind as Nosebagbear, the underlying edits in question weren't that bad. Btw, Nosebagbear, reasonably construed is unnecessary so long as broadly construed isn't used AFAIK. A 6-month topic ban that broad at this stage just seems so WP:BITE-y to me. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Being bold does not mean "go ahead, add any POV to any article you want without citing reliable sources and engage in edit warring". WP:BITE has nothing to do here, Aykhan has been editing the AzWiki for about 4 years, not really a newbie. You and me have already blowed this thread with our opinions, now, please wait for other users' input and admins to decide. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per the numerous PAs, comments on other editor's race/ethnicity, and ignoring the warnings from violations [10/2018]~(warned 10/2018),[2/2019]~(warned 2/2019). Clearly this editor is not here to help build a community encyclopedia.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing against consensus after RfC

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

    Editor is refusing to accept consensus as determined by Talk:George_Washington#RfC:_Cooper's_abolitionist_tract and edit-warring (though not breaching 3RR) to insert the statement that was challenged by that RfC. The rationale given for doing so is argumentative, with claims that the "so called" RfC lasted only a week when it actually ran for a month, and, apparently, that it is invalid because it garnered "only" three !votes and two of the them were by "involved editors". Factotem (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The activity in the RFC in question lasted only a week; It was initiated on May 31st, while the last edit was made on June 7th. Yes, it was finally closed on July 4th, as no one else was interested in such an opinionated issue apparently. During all this time this RfC only garnered three votes, two of which did not involve  outside  editor's opinions, including a vote by the editor who initiated it. The RfC claim of "unanimous consensus" is wrong, as I clearly did not submit my vote, as Factotem has, as I thought it was only for outside opinion. WP:RFC : "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." Two of the votes were submitted by involved editors. Only one vote was made by an outside editor. As such, this RfC should be dismissed. As for edit warring, as Factotem mentions, no breach of 3RR occurred. In my 12+ years of editing here at Wikipedia I've never violated 3RR. I've been working on the George Washington article for more than a year, trying to get it to FA, and have been trying to include important context, per FA criteria, covered by a number of sources. As an act of good faith, I will delete my own edit and try to achieve a better consensus. Please accept my apologies for any issues I may have caused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The response above and the activity on the article TP seem to indicate the editor is heading down the path of WP:LAWYERING and WP:IDHT. Please, could an admin look into this and, if that is indeed the case, nip it in the bud with an appropriate warning? Factotem (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The 'response' above contains a legitimate complaint about Factotem voting in his own RfC, that, after well over a month, it contained only one outside vote. As can be seen, my response also includes a second reminder, with a link, about the primary rule concerning RfC's, with my statement indicating that the edit in question would be (and has been) deleted by my own initiative, along with an apology. Yet he's still at it. The same could be asked that he be given a warning on the same basis, given his rather incessant activity, as he has initiated, contested and dragged out the debate surrounding the one, factual, well sourced, statement in question on the Talk page, and now here, for well over a month. The second sentence in the edit in question was originally written by and added to the article by Factotem, btw. All things considered, it seems he is now pursuing this affair and hounding me for personal reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC.
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding
    Not sure where you got the idea that involved editors cannot respond to an RfC. Its primary purpose is to bring in outside comment, but there is nothing against involved editors commenting. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said involved editors can not respond. It was the voting that I had issue with. The voting was considered as a "unanimous consensus", when in fact two editors who did not vote said the statement in question could be covered keeping due weight in mind, as was outlined above. The first sentence on the RfC page says WP:RFC : "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." Perhaps I've interpreted this wrong, but there was not a "unanimous consensus". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the root of the problem here is that Gwillhickers objects to the closure. Without having read through the RfC in detail I can't say whether or not the objection has merit, but at a glance it seems plausible that Gwillhickers' (and another editor?) declining to formally vote may have given the closer a false impression of consensus. At any rate, I'd suggest that instead of editing in opposition to the closure, Gwillhickers should follow the process described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (i.e. take it up with the closer first, and if that doesn't resolve satisfactorily escalate to a formal review). signed, Rosguill talk 07:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I asked the closer to strikethrough(remove) the word unanimous from closing statement and he has agreed to do so. CBS527Talk 12:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cbs527 and Rosguill: - Thanks, as I said above, to show compliance and good faith, I reverted my own edit a couple of days ago and will wait for any further developments. In the first sentence on the RfC page it says WP:RFC : "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." This lead me to think that only uninvolved and impartial editors were allowed to vote. It seems the RfC page needs to be more clear on that. Anyway, I've gone along with the RfC, such that it is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Shinealittlelight with egregious personal attacks, serious WP:IDHT at Antifa (United States)

    The Antifa (United States) article is regularly a hot zone of dispute, particularly whenever there's a conflict between antifascists and right-wing extremists in the streets of battlegrounds such as Portland. This week has been a week like that. This time, these disputes have led to an editor (Shinealittlelight) accusing another (Tsumikiria) of sponsoring political violence. Shinealittlelight is casting aspersions, citing WP:NOT on the basis of a userpage infobox alone, failing to WP:AGF and then, when repeatedly cautioned by multiple editors, evincing astounding levels of WP:IDHT, telling the concerned editors that their claims that another editor shouldn't edit articles on antifascism because "they support political action by any means necessary, including violence" don't constitute a personal attack. Diffs with description below.

    Shinealittlelight calls attention to Tsumikiria's antifa support infobox [145] Shinealittlelight claims this equates to a CoI and cites WP:NOT with the claim that it means Tsumikiria will attempt to achieve political goals by any means necessary [146] After being challenged over their statement, Shinealittlelight doubles down on WP:NOT claims, again based only on a user page infobox [147] After being asked to retract their personal attacks, Shinealittlelight refuses [148] Shinealittlelight cautioned by me, Doug Weller and Objective3000 at user talk where we ensure they're aware that their personal attacks, on a page under discretionary sanctions, would likely lead to a block, and we caution them to strike through their statements. They reply with further personal attacks against Tsumikiria while simultaneously denying that the statements are personal attacks. [149]

    Both Shinealittlelight and Tsumikiria will be informed of this discussion momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They have both now been notified. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor calls another editor a supporter of Antifa because that editor has a user box on their page mentioning they are a supporter. This of course is cause for suspecting conflicted editing. So what is the problem? Where is the diff where the editor, as per you, has purportedly said, "they support political action by any means necessary, including violence". Specifically, where is the diff which shows they said "including violence". On the contrary, I see your edits like this one where you end up calling someone a "racist blogger" Well, if you want to post rubbish at ANI, better be prepared to back up your statements. I'll await your reply before proceeding to either warn you or block you or to commend you and eat my words. Lourdes 15:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [150] Here's where they make specific reference to support of violence. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And this dif, previously provided, is, I think, the first reference to "by any means necessary" which they clarified includes support of violence. [151] - as for my Ngo comments - they were not directed at any Wikipedia editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that support of antifa equates to a CoI but only that it raises concern, just as vocal support of the RNC would raise concern about an editor editing the article on RNC. I did not say that Tsumikiria will attempt to achieve political goals by any means necessary, but that the user's support of Antifa means that the user believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible in the present situation. Believing something is permissible is not the same as intending to do it. I do believe that support of Antifa tends to undermine the ability of other editors to assume you're here to follow the rules and build an encyclopedia (when it comes to political issues). I do not regard this point as a personal attack. If I believed what Antifa supporters believe--that the political situation has become so dire that violence is called for--I would not be here to build an encyclopedia. It would be the reasonable consequence of my assessment of how dire the situation had become. I thought that other editors should know that this editor was a supporter of Antifa for the reason I mentioned. If that earns me a ban, then so be it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There does seem to be a lot of WP:ADVOCACY issues on that page. I would not go so far as to say a COI issue but something to keep an eye on. People supporting a cause probably should not be editing pages about it or closely related subjects. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Should a women editor, who supports women's cause and rights, edit Women's suffrage? Is that even a question? And has the advocacy happened? Without concrete evidence on external canvassing, recruiting, or paid editing, this is just another attempt to derail the content discussion and discredit the majority of experienced editors whom you happen to disagree with. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 16:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally speaking, Wikipedia maintains WP:NPOV by attracting comments from editors with all kinds of views on a topic, from fanatic support to vocal opposition to true neutral to "just don't care". Saying that only editors with a neutral or negative view on a topic are the only ones who should be allowed to edit it is very perilous to neutrality. Excepting Nazis, they can get the hell out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Should a women editor, who supports women's cause and rights, edit Women's suffrage? That is a straw man argument but I will answer anyway. If they are violating NPOV then yes they should not edit the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a straw man argument; in fact it's not an argument at all, it's a question. Specifically, it's a perfectly reasonable request for clarification re the baffling claim you made above, which flies in the face of policy, established consensus and common sense (outlined by Tsumikria and Ivanvector above and by me elsewhere). I'm glad, though, that you're now acknowledging that WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI are not applicable and that WP:NPOV is the relevant policy. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      PackMecEng, your argument is absurd. If feminists should not edit articles about feminist topics, perhaps you should not edit articles about motorcycles? After all, you indicate on your userpage that you ride a motorcycle, so by your own argument you cannot edit neutrally about that topic. (This, by the way, is a straw man). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh what the heck are you talking about? I said If they are violating NPOV then yes they should not edit the subject do you disagree with that? Where did I say feminists should not edit articles about feminist topics? You are being absurd. PackMecEng (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Your concession already imply that editors exercising their right to express their views have tendencies to violate our NPOV guidelines, which is already a statement that fly in the face of our civility guidelines. It creates unwarranted suspection defeating the purpose of the project. Such accusations much be served with firm evidence in the form of diffs and posted on noticeboards like this one. I expect you to retract your statement. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 00:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      With all due respect you are completely mistaken. Please read WP:ADVOCACY as I linked before. I will not be retracting my statement. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not concerned with the blocked IDHT attacks, I'm more concerned with behaviors like this where the majority of editors who disagree over a preposition are casted as "defending terrorists" by a experienced member of the community. Sure, it's one thing that discussions may get heated and one's free to have wild beliefs, it's another thing to cast delusions to derail against other members of the community. And its troubling to see that toxic comments unhelpful to our community get overlooked. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia's "policy" on editors expressing political views on their userpages is largely - and unfortunately in my view - absent. However, if you are going to include them, especially controversial ones, you should not be surprised if that results in some of comments made here, whether they are justified or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, which is why i buried them under entertainment userboxes. And more ridiculous forms of this discussion happened before, so I'm not too concerned either. I'm comfortable being the "disdain to conceal my views and aims" type. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 17:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally prefer to be transparent about my POV. Truly neutral people don't exist. We may (as I most certainly do) see value in a neutral body of knowledge such as Wikipedia. But that will only arise due to the dialectic process between editors of various POVs coming into contact. As such, asking editors not to edit articles on politcal systems, practices or ideologies just because they have strong opinions on them is actually counter to the objective of WP:NPOV. Of course, this is prefaced by WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS because once you start advocating genocide, your opinion is no longer of value to anyone. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some would argue that starting the line at 'advocating genocide' is quite a bit too late. Arkon (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah, but I think even this notoriously fractuous board can agree that pro-genocide POVs are not of use to the dialectic of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread is confusing as hell. Editor A is blocked because they mention Editor B supports political violence (more accurately supports a group that does so) as a possible COI. Editor B has a userbox stating support for said group (Antifa) that (from the article) states: the label "antifa" should be limited to "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries,". Seems rather like the normal run of the mill 'Hey, your POV is showing' to me. Arkon (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not necessarily on board with the block either, but it should be noted (and a look through Shinealittlelight's contributions to the talk page in question will make clear) that the diff Lourdes provided is only one instance of a broader pattern of commenting on contributors rather than content, which they doubled down on rather than ceasing when the inappropriateness and irrelevance of these comments was pointed out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors must feel free to be themselves, and their personal biases and beliefs must not be used against them by claiming it indicates they edit in a biased manner or have a COI. Only proof, with diffs from actual edits, can be used to make such accusations, and that should be done at the appropriate noticeboard. Discussing and editing are two different things. Expressions of personal belief and bias in discussions and in userspace is allowed, but biased editing is not. Keep that neutral.

    Using an editor's affiliations and/or personal beliefs against them is a serious personal attack[1] that rebounds on all editors who express their own points of view in discussions, and such accusations create a chilling effect that would mean the mere holding of a point of view automatically means the editor has a conflict of interest preventing them from editing any related subject. That would never work and such accusations are forbidden personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    1. ^ WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."
    Agreed, but just a day or two ago someone called SNAAAAKE!! was indefinitely blocked by an AN report which based a lot of the initial argumention on the fact that he had stated support for Gamergate in Wikipedia. So, obviously there are more accepted "potentially controversial views" and then there are some which will be considered "NOTHERE" by most. However, the explanatory supplement WP:NOTNOTHERE also states that expressing extremely unpopular opinions is allowed in a non-disruptive manner. As for Tsumikiria, I was mostly amused by their description NYT and WaPo's bourgeois journalists and their owner capitalists has always been against progressive movements[152] on RS/N. Showing some old-school colors is fine. --Pudeo (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pudeo, I'm not familiar with that situation, but there is an area where persistent expressions of a type of personal opinion does come into conflict with policy, and that is advocacy of fringe POV. We don't allow the pushing of POV that are clearly in conflict with RS. (An example would be denial that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections.) Stating fringe POV and figuring out how to deal with them is okay, but pushing them, as in advocating belief in them, is not allowed. When someone advocates fringe POV, a warning should be enough. If they keep doing it, then sanctions come into play. If those POV affect their editing they need some stronger advice. Since such personal views are not a one-time thing, topic bans may be appropriate. So expressions of certain types of POV, as well as editing in accordance with those POV, is problematic. Does that make sense? (I'm sure that could be worded better.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pudeo, I just read over that entire discussion, and the old HH and Niemti pages, and you are seriously misrepresenting the case: it is not built on their GG support. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not the block that resulted, but the AN report rhetorically is. The third paragraph is about his support for Gamergate and once that is established as a background, his "narrow worldview" or "anti-women" views are then referenced several times. I think it it's clear it was used as a device to establish him as a bad guy, whether it's deserved for a Gamergater or not. BTW I too remember disliking "HanzoHattori" in Russian military topics back when I registered. --Pudeo (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BullRangifer hits the nail on the head. This is an academic project. Personal commentary is prohibited. It is never acceptable to discredit someone solely based on beliefs expressed on their personal user page. Everyone has beliefs, and often times conflicting beliefs are the direct cause of opposing perspectives in a content setting. The relative morality or correctness of opposing views is irrelevant, we focus on content on objective scholarly standards, period. Support for or opposition to a subject is not the same thing as a COI, period. Also, examining Pudeo's case study, it's exceedingly clear that SNAKE was not banned due to his ideology, but for an extreme problem with personal attacks and incivility going back over a decade, as well as actual POV-pushing. There is the caveat that the more extreme a user's views, the less they will be tolerated by the community, but that's probably more of an inherent aspect of social psychology than a hard rule. Gamergate-sympathy expressed on one's user page is, in theory, not going to get you banned. But when you declare yourself to be a proud harasser of women, and you're obviously pushing misogyny in your editing, then yeah, it's worth a mention, and you can't really claim you're being persecuted for "controversial views". ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      While slips are human and happen and an attack against a particular editor is different, I think that the spirit also expands to more general statements on article talk pages like "You guys are obviously leftists", or "Since you are creationists..." and even "We don't discard a source because you don't like it" versus concentrating on sources, assessing their reliability, seeking consensus and working on content... —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously we all have opinions. (I have two or three.) Personally, I looked up this German wallpaper hanger with a toothbrush mustache who caused a kerfuffle 80 years back, and don’t much like him, even if he does like dogs. Doesn’t mean I can’t edit his article. Might be easier if editors didn’t add their beliefs to their user pages. But, unless they nail a list of 95 grievances onto the door of a chapel; we should be able to handle it without declaring them unfit to edit certain articles. In any case it’s all too simple: Attack the argument, not the editor. OTOH, if you insist that red traffic lights mean go; there’s a problem. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an issue from "80 years back". This is a wedge issue that is currently active . Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone recently said relating to this issue; a pa is a pa is a pa. And your response on the UTP that I shouldn't have responded to a question[153] is based on no guidelines. The editor has been blocked, the block has expired, and the editor says they understand. We all make mistakes in early days. Time to close this. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of Antifa (United States) is a currently active hot-button issue. I'm restating that in case I was unclear in my previous post. By way of contrast you are talking about a "German wallpaper hanger with a toothbrush mustache who caused a kerfuffle 80 years back". Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So restate it in a new thread somewhere. Let us leave the subject of this AN/I thread alone. When you get to a certain age, everything is RECENTISM. O3000 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Objective3000—I am not so much concerned with your age. I am concerned that you are comparing apples to oranges. Why are you wasting our time by rambling on about German wallpaper hanger with toothbrush mustache? Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tsumikiria, are Fascist and Nazi userboxes forbidden? They are arguably much worse, at least for Americans, as Americans not only took the same side as Antifa, they actually fought a war and killed Nazis, not just protested against them in the streets. (I am not justifying their violence in the streets, just their opposition to neo-nazis, fascists, and anti-democracy forces. The two sides are not equal. There are not "good people" on both sides.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sock and revision deletion

    Hi, the article Otto Brixner consists of lots of libelous content as a IP told USer:78.26 today ([154]), e.g.:

    • "who sentenced the justice victim Gustl Mollath into a forensic hospital" - when do you have a justice victim???
    • "once hiding in bushes along with other undercover investigators" - suggests that he is very interested in putting people to jail
    • "As a supervisor, he eliminated the fee demands of the supervisor which in his opinion were excessive. As a result, those affected had complained about him in a protest march to the president of the judiciary. Although Brixner was transferred to another position, he was regulated the supervisor by law" - suggests that he should not be supervisor any longer
    • "ever made use of communication in criminal proceedings (So-called. Deal on penalty), that is, a practice widely used in criminal justice" - in German law this Deal is something suspect, but the article suggests that Brixner acted rather unusual
    • "considered a judge that is a 'tough dog' ("Judge Mercyless")" - insult
    • "Mollath had presented the court, as proof of his black-money allegations, with a 106-page folder with receipts to accounts in Switzerland and other evidence documents. In his interrogation before the committee of inquiry of the Bavarian state parliament said Brixner on 17 May 2013 that he had never read this folder" - libel, especially since according to German law the court maybe wasn't allowed to read this folder (because the accused has to give his statement orally only)
    • "The revelations to Gustl Mollath and Otto Brixner" - I mean "revelations" ...
    • "In addition to demands for reforms in psychiatry and justice, it was required to hold those responsible to account. Above all, the former judge Otto Brixner was named.[15] In its final report, the committee of inquiry stated that it was refusing to punish Brixner." - libel, the article says that Brixner should have been punished
    • "Otto Brixner had interrupted the defendant Gustl Mollath each time loudly and threatened with a reference to the room if [...] Literally, Brixner, addressed to Mollath, had shouted: "If you keep this up, you'll never come out again" (referring to the psychiatry department) [...] Brixner had shouted at Mollath for over eight hours without interruption.[17] [...] Brixner had acted like a "dictator."[18] [...] when you call Otto Brixner, you have to be prepared to barely speak one sentence to the end. He speaks in a very harsh tone." - a lot of irrelevant information, overinterpreting the cited sources and libel
    • "Brixner had determined the appointment of the court on his own initiative, refrained from hearing the accused and operated a willful falsification of the facts with the documentary material available to him" - libel taken from a text of a lawyer that has never been proven. Even the article itself says "appealed in advance for a possible retrial, in particular to a blog entry[24] the former prosecutor Gabriele Wolff" and Gabriele Wolff was never involved into this case.
    • "outrage against Brixner was ignited by the fact that it is the fundamental obligation of all German courts to take full note" - as I said, according to German law the accused has to give his statement orally
    • "Brixner is also already in the run-up to the criminal proceedings in a telephone conversation with the financial management caused Mollath's allegations concerning the black money allegations to be discontinued by the tax investigation authorities" - libel that has already been proven to be not true

    These contents where imported and translated from German Wikipedia, where they have been removed since and where the article is now blocked. According to this hints User:Xaosflux removed the imported revisions from deWP. Remaining are still further revisions with the same contents until this version. Unfortunately today a obvious sockpuppet of Hans Haase who translated this article reverted these improvements, so that we again have this libelous revision. That Wikicare-en is a sockpuppet can be seen from his argument "Undo whitewashing" ([155]) which is used by Hans Haase too ([156]). So I would ask you to delete the revisions prior to [157] as well as younger than [158]. Maybe it would make sense to block Hans Haase and his sockpuppet. Thank you --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Acknowledging I'm aware I was mentioned above. I'm not following up on this beyond having already reversed my own transwiki-import as the dewiki article is under review. While we do not require imported history, it is customary to do so with dewiki to meet their normal processes. If technical assistance is required regarding history imports once the other factors are resolved please feel free to let me know. — xaosflux Talk 19:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep out German users and users with possible bias in the case, have only American or English users review the artcle. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ... since American or English users have a better understanding of German Law and of the crimes you accuse Brixner?! --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dont assume others for supid, there are enough German speakers in America. By the way You blamed me for a "obvious sockpuppet ", dont assume this! --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC) The word "whitewashing" was already used in the German discussion on 1 July 2019 (CEST) at 23:54. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Domitius Ulpianus is talking about an old revision before 19 March 2019. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm talking about all old revisions before 16 June 2019 and all revisions after 3 July 2019! Don't assume me for stupid AND it is not about understanding German language but about knowing German criminal law. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute and does not belong here. I see some discussion on the talk page so a WP:RFC is the next step there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a content dispute but a dispute about revision deletion and sockpuppet-abuse. I am not interested in the content of this article but I want illegal content to be removed that claims a living person has commited crimes!" --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise that when you say "I am not interested in the content of this article but I want illegal content to be removed that claims a living person has commited crimes!" you contradict yourself in the same sentence, don't you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is a signifiant difference whether someone abuses an article to claim a living and named person had comitted crimes or someone says that this action of a -not personally known- user is problematic. I apology for my wording; it was due to my -perhaps exaggerated- anger. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the unintelligible English alone, if not the painfully obvious RIGHTGREAT, the article needs to go back to some last good version. EEng 00:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear. An article on the Gustl Mollath judge? This is not going to end well...

    I'll see what I can do (as a content editor and/or mediator) as I was extremely interested in this affair when this judge's victim was still locked up in a closed psychiatric ward. Maybe we can get rid of the article. I am not sure the judge is notable independent from the Mollath affair, but then I haven't looked at the article and the judge-specific guidelines yet.

    In any case, get prepared for years of disruption. Hans Adler 16:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I hope not. I welcome your contribution. Part of the problem here, as can be seen above, is stuff that is not very good English; using the wrong words and saying things other than what is actually intended. I believe that you'll be able to help with that, if nothing else. And the explanation that we do not do these things in the form of biographies is a good one. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      So far there has been almost no feedback to my wall of text at Talk:Gustl Mollath#A vision for dealing with this topic. I take this as a good sign, for now, though it could also make things difficult if some players with strong opinions are hard to reach. Currently I would prefer writing an article about the whole affair from scratch on my own rather than starting with the contentious articles that were imported from the German Wikipedia. Maybe this is possible, after all.
      Sooner or later we are also going to get an article about a certain prominent German psychiatrist whose role in this affair wasn't glorious, either. Maybe the German Wikipedia takes the heat off these articles, but if not, our only chance is to get neutral articles on the complex before the fighting breaks out here as well and neither side is happy with a neutral article. Hans Adler 08:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I am not an admin. Even if I were able to make revision deletions, I would still not see this as my job at Otto Brixner and Gustl Mollath. I haven't even looked at the mess that is currently lying around there, and am not planning to. Hans Adler 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to revert many edits

    User:2605:A000:1327:618E:146:11D3:F12D:9338 unilaterally decided to remove all links to the Science Fiction Book Review Podcast in external links in many articles about science fiction books, calling them “spam”. From the first several edit notes, they found it objectionable that the creator of the podcast, Luke Burrage, inserted those links eleven years ago into about 15 articles. But the IP removed way more than that.

    Those links are actually very useful to readers, and should not have been systematically deleted like that. I reverted a couple, but the list of the IP’s edits is too long to tackle one by one. I did try to reach the editor on their talk page, but they’d no doubt long since been switched to a different IP. I’m hoping admins have a better tool to revert all the edits. No picking and choosing needed; their edits consist only of deleting these links. Ping me with any questions. — Gorthian (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the IP is cleaning up spam to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt most editors of those articles would consider those links spam. — Gorthian (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What is so special about Luke Burrage or The Science Fiction Book Review Podcast that it should appear as an external link on the article of everything Luke ever read? Sounds like spam to me. It looks like this is, what, Luke Burrage's audio blog? IP is doing good work afaic. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The podcast is well known in science fiction circles as an intelligent, cogent review of books. It is not spam, especially in the "External links" sections, which is where it is used. Even if Burrage added the links to some articles more than a decade ago, enough editors have found them useful to have added them to many, many more articles. — Gorthian (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That viewpoint seems unlikely to be compatible with WP:EL. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone trying to remove the use of a celebrity autopsy program as an WP:RS where the host ME never met any of the subjects and might as well be typing trivia into IMDb with their unauthorized 'reports' of how said celebrities died...we've reverted spammers for the same type of keyword spam into articles and their YouTube commentary on something regularly. I have to do the same all the time on television network articles involving illegal websites streaming their content. This is clear WP:SPAM. WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't an argument here, and I wouldn't continue any reversions. External links should be limited to things like the publisher's site for the book and websites about the book from the writers or others. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, thanks for taking the time to read my plea and respond, anyway. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MaxBrowne2

    Would a sysop please look at the recent behaviour of this editor in relation to History of chess? It is a protected article and there is an IP who wants to add a point about the possible origin of chess which is already documented in Ludus latrunculorum#Chess. A discussion between the IP and myself began at Talk:History of chess#Greco-Roman origin of chess and, as the information is reliably sourced, I agreed with the IP that we should mention Ludus latrunculorum in the history. The question then was how to do it so I revised the opening paragraph and asked the IP to review it.

    Before the IP could respond, User:MaxBrowne2 reverted my paragraph and left a message at the talk page which included a sarcastic comment that breaches WP:CIVIL. Although he went on to claim that he was abiding by WP:BRD, the fact is that the discussion was already ongoing and BRD discourages reversion, so he should have joined the discussion without reverting. I replaced the edit because I believe reversion was wrong in the light of the discussion already under way and he reverted again to effectively invite an edit war. I decided to leave the article be while the discussion continued, especially as the IP rejoined it. I consider Mr Browne's actions to be out of order, as he reverted reliably sourced content that was under discussion with no opposition at that time, so I warned him about removing content.

    I was unavailable all day yesterday and this morning I found that the discussion has moved on in the meantime. I became aware that members of WP:CHESS had joined it, as they have every right to do, but I then found the invitation to them by Mr Browne which breaches WP:CANVAS because: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior". In Mr Browne's invitation, he talks about fringe theories and a complete lack of evidence. The latter is untrue as he knows because the discussion has been mainly about the evidence and the former is an attempt to denigrate the case for inclusion of the theory which, the IP and I both acknowledge, is a minority view but nevertheless relevant. As WP:CANVAS considers such action to be disruptive, I warned him about disruptive behaviour and explained that he should invite using the Please See template.

    I replaced Mr Browne's invitation with the accepted template version that simply invited interested editors to join the discussion, as recommended by WP:CANVAS. He has reverted that and told me to piss off.

    I am posting a link to this discussion on Mr Browne's talk page, as required. If I need to do anything else or if I can provide any extra information, please let me know. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there's any point getting into the rights and wrongs of BRD when someone reverts but joins the existing discussion within 3 minutes and there is no pressing reason why your version must stay (e.g. BLP). Just discuss and come to a consensus. The incivility also seems way too minor to worry about especially with only one examples. The canvassing may be more significant I don't know I didn't look. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The canvassing issue at least deserves an undo. I've done that. @MaxBrowne2: Is there a reason you're being intentionally antagonistic here? Do you have a reason to be a dick or are you just having a bad day?--v/r - TP 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaxBrowne2: You've reverted my undo. You are in violation of a guideline, WP:CANVASS. How about you come here and discuss it before earning yourself an edit warring block?--v/r - TP 14:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TPG very clearly states that legitimate talk page discussion should not be edited or reverted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaxBrowne2: WP:CANVASS very clearly states not to post what you did, but you apparently like to cherry-pick guidelines. WP:EW doesn't make an exception for WP:TPG. I suggest you revert yourself.--v/r - TP 14:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking in to this more, have to agree it was clearly canvassing and replacing it with a neutral message clearly justified so I have reverted back to the neutral version. Frankly I find this an extremely dumb dispute. I don't believe the result would have been any different without canvassing. Yet MaxBrowne2 canvassed creating unnecessarily ill feeling and perception the result is tainted. Okay people make mistakes, and when someone points it out you fix your mistake and move on. I mean if you're really so fixated on being the one who signs the post, then replace the canvassing with your own neutral message and sign it. I doubt No Great Shaker would have given a damn even if that's actually fairly WP:OWN like behaviour. If No Great Shaker had bothered to open this dispute and the only problems where the BRD and mild incivility they would have rightfully been told to not waste our time with content disputes and minor incivility. Instead we have a valid but extremely pointless thread because an experienced editor is refusing to abide by our canvassing guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholeheartedly agree. I also think the antagonistic behavior wasn't called for. I don't see what No Great Shaker did to trigger it other than discuss a topic MaxBrowne2 believes to be fringe.--v/r - TP 14:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) I would add that frankly I think given the nature of the location, dispute etc, by the time No Great Shaker had gotten to it, it was actually somewhat pointless. I strongly suspect any possible damage was done as most likely few new editors are going to be joining from the chess wikiproject. This is why it's important we get it right in the first instance. However it doesn't mean there's no justification for removing the canvassing. And maybe more importantly, even if it was fairly late, the longer the canvassing stays up there the more the damage is done. Therefore this isn't the sort of thing that is conducive to raising with the editor and asking them to revise it. Instead dealing with it straight away and informing the editor what you did and welcome them to replace your message with their own neutral message if they wish is probably the best course of action.

    Looking at MaxBrowne2's talk page, I do think it was wrong for No Great Shake to leave both templates messages. The reversion dispute was as I said just silly and definitely not worth of a templated messaged. And while there were legitimate concerns over the canvassing, it would have been better as I said to politely inform MaxBrowne2 of what was done and remind them of our canvassing guidelines. Still while I can understand the annoyance upon receiving the templated messages, this still doesn't justify the canvassing and the instance on keeping it.

    Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, @TParis: and @Nil Einne:. As you said, I would never have come here over the BRD or the silly sarcasm alone but it did seem to me that canvassing by making a non-neutral point is unacceptable and when he reverted my replacement I thought I should report that with the rest mentioned as background. The other people from WP:CHESS are being very constructive so lets hope we can now move on with the discussion and decide what should or should not be written. Thanks again for your help and, this being the first time I've used this page, for providing some good advice and learning points. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MaxBrowne2 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 24 hours by User:Bbb23 per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me remind you-- there is no cabal.  Dlohcierekim (talk)

    No evidence of any "influence" because there isn't any and wouldn't be any. All WP:CHESS members who saw his post know Maxbrowne2 had a concern over a likely WP:SNOW-close issue. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If Maxbrowne2 posts his opinion, does it exert influence on any active WP:CHESS member's view re the history of chess having theoretical foothold in Rome? Not even remotely likely.) It may on surface have looked like WP:CANVAS to uninvolved non-project members. But not really. --IHTS (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You should take your knowledge of WP:CHESS and write an exemption into WP:CANVASS. Or don't, because the policy exists to avoid not just undue influence, but also the appearance of undue influence. It's meant to keep consensus clean and reduce to appearance of a cabal. But, if you want to come here and tell everyone that WP:CHESS all think the same way and openly coordinate inputs to discussions, maybe we really do need to take a look to see if there is a cabal.--v/r - TP 22:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ihardlythinkso: Yeah it's a particularly silly suggestion. If you really all think alike, then WTF do you need canvassing? Just learn to write neutral messages, or use the template and no one would have concerns and we would not be here. If you're so sure you don't need canvassing to make up your minds, prove it! The only reason you would be afraid to write neutral messages is if you think you do need canvassing to influence your opinions. So either there is no reason for you all to fail to follow the policies and guidelines the rest of the community follows and successfully use to build a great encyclopedia. Or there is a reason and that reason is because you want to formulate opinion in semi-private to get your way, and so you should all be blocked and your wikiproject shut down. I said at the beginning in my opinion there would have been no difference if there was no canvassing. While I still believe that, the way @MaxBrowne2: and IHTS keep insisting they need to be allowed to canvas is starting to make me wonder if I was wrong. Why else would people be so insistent they need to be allowed to canvas? Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think IHTS is "insisting they need to be allowed to canvas." I think IHTS is saying that with the particular example of MaxBrowne2's message, whether it was neutrally worded or not doesn't really matter given the context. I tend to think he's mostly right about that. Was it still canvassing? Sure. I tend to agree with TP that, effectively, canvassing (whether or not it's effective) taints the consensus-building process. Doesn't seem like there's much more to be done, though. I worry that the longer this is left open, the worse things could get. Hopefully Max will try to make any sort of notification of a discussion neutrally worded in the future, for appearances if nothing else. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that in spite of Max adding his opinion in his notice at WT:CHESS, there was no intent to "influence" other project members, so he can't be accused or charged w/ same. And I'm right ... I just looked and this is right out of the beginning of WP:CANVASS: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. In lots of cases of jurisprudence *intent* is important factor and also here. (So TParis, your "the policy exists to avoid [...] the appearance of undue influence" isn't there; it seems to be an expansion of the jurisprudence in your own thinking or desire that it be there. So you're the one who needs to consider whether you should modify WP:CANVASS, not me!) --IHTS (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Stevo66666 and their IP 88.212.37.151

    Continued disruptive edits using both Stevo66666 and IP address to falsify various stats at Metallica articles. Here (1 & 2) you can see how both made the same edit at more or less the same time, thereby connecting the accounts. Talk pages of both (1 & 2) also show an ongoing cycle of warning/final warnings.

    Examples of Stevo66666 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (Tip of the iceberg!)

    IP 88.212.37.151 1, 2, 3. (Also an exhaustive list of false info)

    I would be grateful if an admin could look into this. Thanks. Robvanvee 19:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robvanvee: Wouldn't this be more appropriate for SPI? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Robvanvee, most admins are not checkusers and are not able to confirm your suspicions. As Compassionate727 says, it's appropriate to take complaints like this to SPI. However, checkusers will not link a created account to an IP address so you might be disappointed. But that is the location to file reports on suspected sockpuppets. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback guys. I wasn't really reporting them for sock puppetry as much as I was reporting them purely for their continued introduction of deliberate factual errors to the articles. Thoughts on where I should report this instead of here? Robvanvee 04:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robvanvee: Regardless of whether these accounts are related or not, I've looked into these edits, all of them are factual errors all related to changing some of the metrics around awards and sales of Metallica albums, and this seems to be the only purpose for these two accounts. The accounts have failed to respond to repeated warnings, so to prevent further disruption, I've blocked the registered account indefinitely and the IP address for a significant length of time. I JethroBT drop me a line 14:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My point exactly! Many thanks I JethroBT. Robvanvee 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian bots?

    Hello, can you see the edits of this person Ermenrich. He's written on his talkpage that he is German, but most of his edits on Wikipedia are connected to Russia and Russian-Ukrainian war, Crimean crysis and so on. See for example these edits [159], [160], [161], [162]. I think that the other edits that are not related to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict are being made for a close-up. I ask you, administrators, to carefully consider this request and evaluate the actions of the participant. I am not very experienced in Wikipedia and my level of English is not too high to describe everything fully and accurately, so excuse me. --Devlet Geray (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pretty laughable. Most of my edits are related to medieval and classical history and literature. If anything this post just shows how much pro-Tartar anti-Russian POV Devlet Geray has. He has repeated tried to remove any mention that the Crimean Tatars were involved in the slave trade, in spite of it being reliably sourced. His entire talkpage is covered with warnings templates about edit warring for precisely this reason, and he's repeatedly accused me and other users of being "Russian bots".--Ermenrich (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because I WP:Assume good faith and am attempting to get you to stop your disruptive behavior.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, please, check these people (especially their edit-history):

    --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see any wrongdoing by Ermenrich in the diffs provided by Devlet Geray, as they appear to just be switching the spelling of "Kyiv/Kiev" and other similarly contentious names. I'm not up to date on the latest debates on how MOS should handle the names of Ukrainian locations, but given the title of the page Kiev I'd take a stab and say that not only were Ermenrich's edits not POV-pushing (or any other sort of violation), they're actually the correct edits to make in order to preserve consistent spelling. If I were to be as charitable as possible to Devlet Geray, this seems like a content dispute at most, which should be addressed at a relevant talk page before being escalated to this noticeboard––I see no evidence that this has been done. I haven't looked at the other editors accused (please provide diffs if you're going to make accusations against someone diffs were provided after I wrote this), but given how this was opened I really don't think there's much to do here unless someone wants to check for WP:BOOMERANG also, calling another editor a bot is a laughable accusation. I wish we could have bots who could be as constructive as Ermenrich, but we are years if not decades away from that sort of technology. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 22:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, having reviewed the extra diffs...what exactly is the accusation here? The edits seem reasonably sourced, neutrally worded, and if anything paint Russia in a negative light. I would say that the IP does look a bit suspicious, although I would note that its edits appear to have preceded Ermenrich's involvement on that page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend getting acquainted with their edit-history better and then drawing conclusions about whether they work for the Russian government or not. They can make million neutral edits, but one totally pro-Russian, and nobody will pay attention to it. --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Devlet, by all appearances you are simply accusing other editors of wrongdoing for disagreeing with you. Evidence of common interest or even focused interest is not evidence of misbehavior. In fact, your evidence is so inadequate that this ANI thread is a borderline personal attack. I strongly recommend that you simply drop this matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Devlet Geray has been fairly disruptive for a while now. See these repeated pages moves without any discussion and despite being reverted by various users [171], [172], [173], and accusations against Srnec for restoring sourced information [174], [175]. See also his repeated insertion of the same text to Assassination of Boris Nemtsov [176], [177], [178]. This latest bout of accusations started after he tried to remove the same sourced information again at Crimean Tartars [179] and I reverted him, and he reverted me [180] and he, without any discussion, tried to move Russo-Crimean Wars to Crimean Russian Wars [181], which I reverted. I've tried to reason with him, but at this point I honestly think he should be sanctioned. He has a major problem with POV and does not seem to be able to work collaboratively.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think a plausible connection can be established from behavioral evidence, and I doubt a CU will use their tools to check. This looks like a contentious topic; I would expect multiple people to appear making similar edits. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pi314m

    My first discovery of what I consider to be an unacceptable practice by User:Pi314m in connection with the "Backup" article is discussed in the first paragraph of my article Talk page section-starting 19:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC) comment here. I later discovered an additional—much worse—case of the same unacceptable practice for that same article, as discussed in my 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC) comment in the same article Talk page section.[reply]

    In response to those, as well as to Pi314m's within-article edits that I concede are acceptable practice (although IMHO erroneous), I requested a Third Opinion and started this section on the article's Talk page. In my 06:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC) comment in that section I reported my discovery of a much-more-extensive case of Pi314m's same unacceptable practice in what he did to the "Outsourcing" article from January to April 2019. In the immediately-following 01:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC) comment I reported that he had followed the same unacceptable practice for other articles in January 2017 and January 2018. In January 2017 Pi314m was cautioned by Diannaa; in January 2018 he was more strongly cautioned about a possible block for "vandalism" by Matthiaspaul.[reply]

    Pi314m did not make any response to the 3O, so I made three attempts to put in an RfC. Other editors told me that my first two attempts were badly written, but my third RfC was accepted. I limited that RfC to the question of whether the final "Enterprise client-server backup" section of the "Backup" article, which Pi314m had IMHO substantially vandalized in his moves and subsequent gross simplifications into earlier sections of the article, should be split off into a separate article. All participants agreed in the Survey that the split-off should be done—which it subsequently has been. I agreed because, as I immediately stated in the [[Talk:Backup#Discussion|Discussion], "There is evidence that having a single article with sections aimed at audiences with different levels of IT knowledge is confusing for some readers [meaning Pi314m]". Pi314m's 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) response in the Survey was "Agree. Split - hands off, while the author of the (new) Enterprise article obtains the courtesy and full opportunity that comes with 'In use'/'Under construction' (honoring it, whether or not it's physically there). Shortly thereafter, With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge.' As for the present Backup article, I'd also be hands-off for a while, to facilitate his work. Is this the statement you're seeking?"[reply]

    No, that's not the statement I was seeking, because Pi314m's "hands-off" period could expire any time at his discretion. I'm seeking some enforceable ban on his merging without prior discussion the split-off article back into the "Backup" article. I'm also seeking an enforceable ban on his merging without prior discussion the "Continuous Data Protection" and "Information repository" articles into the "Backup" article; these are the two articles he destructively merged-in and that I had to re-establish. I don't have any confidence in Pi314m's promise, because his personal Talk page and Contributions show he develops an "urge to merge" every January—and does it again as in 2019 if he is not cautioned. If you want to institute a similar enforceable ban on his following the same unacceptable practice for other articles, I'd be in favor of that—but it's probably too late to reconstruct the 9 articles he destructively merged without prior discussion into the "Outsourcing" article in early 2019. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry Dovid, but I will not be looking into the full history of this, and I think a lot of other admins won't either. Starting off from your very first link, it appears that your reaction to an edit conflict is to just write endless walls of text, making comment after comment before the other party has made a single response. A lot of these comments are very confusing by their vague references to past comments with unclear context. Basically, I don't fully understand what you're going on about (I get that he did some merging that you don't like, but not quite why this requires administrative intervention rather than ordinary dispute resolution), and I'm not inclined to figure it out, since it seems like it would be an excessive amount of reading. I strongly recommend that you try to refactor your complaint into a very straightforward, "What he did, why its wrong, here are the diffs". Write it all out here - don't send us to an old discussion that is equally confusing to figure out what your argument is. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Brevity is your friend. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've never put in an ANI before, because I've always been able to get other editors to discuss editing disputes—even though they have complained about my being wordy. In this case Pi314m absolutely refuses to discuss any edits he makes. And in this case the edits he has made involve merging—without prior or subsequent discussion—articles into other articles and then deleting much or substantially all of the merged-in content. I don't think that's acceptable under WP rules, and other reputable editors cautioned Pi314m about it on his personal Talk page in 2017 and 2018. At a minimum I'm asking for an enforceable ban on his doing similar destructive merges of other articles into the "Backup" article, which he already did last month and which I had to reverse.
    As far as "What he did, why its wrong, here are the diffs" is concerned, by linking to "Backup" article Talk page comments I was trying to spare you folks extra reading effort. I don't have trouble following links to specifically-dated comments in Talk pages; is Someguy1221 saying he'd rather read those comments as Talk page diffs so he doesn't have to do easy Web-browser Finds to the specifically-dated comments? If that's what you folks want, I can edit my section-starting comment to do that. If OTOH for "what he did" Someguy1221 actually wants diffs of the two articles that Pi314m merged into the "Backup" article, I'd have to give you diffs of the "Backup" article just after he merged-in each of the other articles and after he deleted much or substantially all of the merged-in content. That would substantially expand what you'd have to read, which is why I didn't do it. And on top of that, for "why it's wrong" I'd have to prove a negative by pointing you to dates in the View History of both the merged-in articles and the "Backup" article to show lack of discussion by Pi314m. Please let me know which of these two kinds of diffs you want. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi DovidBenAvraham. I'll try to frame a sort of example report. So your allegation is that Pi314m has a habit of making contentious merge/redirect changes without consensus, and then refusing to discuss. I would expect to see a report like this: User:Example redirected a whole article [diff of replacing article with redirect] to put it here [diff of material being added to another article], and in the process deleted a whole bunch of stuff [diff of stuff being removed, if not already obvious from the previous two diffs]. I tried to engage with User:Example here [diff of talk or user-talk comment], but he did not respond in X days despite being active (or alternatively, gave an unhelpful response [diff of that response, and reason it was not helpful]). User:Example should have suspected this merge/redirect would be controversial because [reason (if reason is that it had been discussed before, link discussion, and link/diff/explain proof that User:example would have been aware of it)]. User:Example was warned about this before [diffs of warnings, and diffs of previous bad merges/redirects]. IF APPLICABLE: User:Example has reverted attempts to undo his deletions [diffs of reverts], but does not discuss on talk page despite efforts to engage [diffs of messages or whatever else would evidence that the problem was one-sided]. I hope that helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So the short version of that is "what you wrote after 'OTOH' in the second paragraph of your 06:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC) comment, only more so." Thanks. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Backup" article, as it stands now after the split-off of the ""Enterprise client-server backup" section, remains substantially the same "indigestible mess" as it was written by 2011. All I did to those 7 screen-pages was—in the past 14 months—to modernize the "Storage_media" section and "Live data" sub-section, and to harmonize some inconsistent terminology. All other edits were made since 21 May 2019 by Pi314m, except that last week I renamed and corrected the "Continuous_data_protection" sub-section he created when he merged-in the separate article and erroneously eliminated the distinction between true CDP and near-CDP that had been in that article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On every weekday, there was an average of about 670 pageviews (as eyeballed by me) of the "indigestible mess". That was true a year ago, and it was true until Pi314m started editing it. Now, with "Enterprise client-server backup" split off into a separate article, the combined weekday average is down to about 585 pageviews (again as eyeballed by me). How does Pi314m feel about this readership drop of about 13%, when presumably his edits were intended to make the article more readable? We'll probably never know, because he doesn't respond to comments about his edits.DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DovidBenAvraham, you write above "... Pi314m had IMHO substantially vandalized ..." and here "... before the specific other editor started vandalizing it ...". Please provide diffs to support your accusations of vandalism, or immediately withdraw them. But – please read carefully! – for pity's sake provide ONLY the diffs; the last thing we need here is yet another indecipherable wall of text. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Justlettersandnumbers, I'm not making a formal vandalism claim for Pi314m's within-the-article "simplifying" moves—because AFAIK those are permitted by WP rules (even though IMHO they show that Pi314m didn't really understand the subject matter of the "Backup" article he was editing). However here's an understandable diff of Pi314m's 21:16, 26 May 2019 "simplifying" moves, where I've made the after-text understandable by doing the diff from before he started the moves to after he fixed his resulting ref syntax error. In case you suspect me of chicanery, here's the immediately-after diff that still has the ref syntax error—where the after-text unfairly to Pi314m obscures what one of his "simplifying" substitutions was. Notice that that cut-down substitution was only for the synthetic full backup feature; here's another diff just showing his one-day-later cut-down insertion for the automated data grooming feature. Pi314m's deletions of full descriptions of both features are shown in the first and second diffs. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dovid. You might not be aware, but administrators do not evaluate content disputes. We don't look at two versions of the article and decide which one is better. In the context of a content dispute, administrative intervention is used to solve behavioral problems. It's not a behavioral problem when two editors disagree about how to write an article or set of articles. The behavioral problem, if it exists, would be in how those editors approach the problem. Are there assumptions of bad faith? Poor communication? Edit warring? Deliberate controversial actions without prior discussion? Editing against consensus? Obvious policy violations? Etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, DovidBenAvraham, please strike those remarks here and at Talk:Backup (use the syntax <s> ... </s>) and leave an appropriate (but short!) note of apology on Pi314m's talk-page; you might leave a link to that apology here too. Accusing people of vandalism when they have not vandalised is a form of discourtesy, no more acceptable than discourtesy of any other kind. Please be careful not to do it again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cydonia (The Face on Mars)

    (non-admin closure) User indeffed per NOTHERE (including attempting to corrupt the system) by the speedy NinjaRobotPirate Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can we please have an uninvolved admin take a quick peak at the slow-burn edit war going on with this article?

    Last month this account showed up to add fringe ideas about the famous rock formations on this part of Mars. Their user name is a reference to this diagram that they have tried to add to the article multiple times.

    When they didn't get their way, they did a PROD[203], and then tried to alter the timestamp so it would look like it had been uncontested for a week[204].

    On their talk page they've been warned a few times. To their credit, Since being warned, I think they've stayed below 3RR, but they keep at it. They even used edit summaries to accuse Wikipedia of being part of a conspiracy to suppress The Truth.[205]

    Tonight their strategy is to remove all mention of how the scientific community dismissed believers in The Face. [206][207].

    I'm not even sure what resolution I'm hoping for here, but this is getting rather tedious. Maybe DiagramOfSymmetry could be encouraged to focus on other topics for a while?

    Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I was going to indef this account as nothere, but NRP beat me to it by a minute. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it kind of weird that the situation got to this point. Someone faked the timestamp on a prod and wasn't blocked? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. ApLundell (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I wanted to make other admins aware of the legal threats by Granitehope, a meatpuppet of Mark Dice, in case other meatpuppets make similar threats. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you have done the right thing. Deb (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone reading this should add Mark Dice to their watchlists, as I did some time ago. Monitor that page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJMC89 behavior

    The issues here have been resolved. This is not the time or place to review the promotion of an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've encountered the unusual situation, one that I've not seen in 12 years on Wikipedia, of an editor who has taken it upon himself or herself to look at individual user pages and then to "boldly edit" them [208]. I responded with a warning to the editor's talk page [209], but I would not be surprised if the editor is doing this to the user pages of other editors, and feel that this is a practice that should be discouraged. The editor's identified status as a Wikipedia administrator might deter other editors from objecting to a rather heavy-handed, if not arrogant, invasion of their own user pages.

    Perhaps this editor is correct, perhaps not, that use of the image, identified with a public domain tag [210], is a violation of WP:NFCC; that's irrelevant for something that hasn't moved to the point of being displayed as an article. Once it is an article placed on "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", then anyone can edit it. On a personal page, however, I think it easily qualifies as aggressive behavior. It's somewhat disturbing that there's an individual who is scanning through other editors' user pages in his or her spare time, and then quietly "correcting" them. It's bad precedent to allow this type of intrusion to become acceptable behavior. Mandsford 17:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot is doing it's job to remove NFCC content from non-mainspace (WP:NFCC #9)... What's the issue? The image is clearly tagged as NFCC, and even has specific warnings not to copy to commons because of its non-free derivative nature. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Mandsford, you need to read the policies, that you cite. WP:NFCCP#9 is quite lucidly written. FWIW, I have not seen you either, prior to this thread which smacks of an assumption of bad faith. Also, are you coming across a bot, for the first time, in your 12 years of wikilife? ∯WBGconverse 17:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It must be a mistake. The image is not in public domain.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as an innocent misunderstanding arising from a technical issue: the public domain tag (relating to the underlying source material) is presented by the image previewer, misleading people about the images' actual status. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)…[reply]
    (edit conflict) I understand Ferret's response. I think WBG's comment is unnecessarily snarky. I don't quite understand Ymblanter's comment, although I suspect it's just too brief for me. Putting aside that Mandsford is wrong on the merits, I don't understand why they didn't discuss the issue with JJMC89 first. The one comment I can see that they posted on JJMC89's Talk page was more of an attack than the opening of a dialogue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP clearly thinks (and says this) that the image is in the public domain, hence possibly the misunderstanding. But, indeed, the talk page of JJMC89 must have been the first stop here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I figured it was me being dense.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it's not clear yet, for Mandsford: JJMC89 is not scanning through other editor's user pages in his spare time. This action is being performed automatically by an approved bot, not a human. -- ferret (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BBB:- Mandsford's responses over his own t/p, JJCM89's t/p and this thread smacks of a default assumption of bad faith. From his stating that he had not seen JJMC over his 12 years of editing (which I read in a patronizing tone) to his so-called warnings. I genuinely suspect that he does not know about how bots work or you need to additionally consider the prospect that he is intentionally accusing JJMC89 of invading user-pages in spare-time. Incidentally, he became a sysop in 2010 and there are 2 admin-actions after 2013. ∯WBGconverse 18:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a misunderstanding related to this being a bot. He left the message, JJMC89 bot (who the OP thought was JJMC89 himself) removed the image again without responding to the message, and he came here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate most of the responses. I drew the wrong conclusion from the image, but the labels on it are ambiguous; perhaps the label on it should be clarified. Mandsford 18:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see what is ambiguous about: "Re-users of this content … need … a fair use or similar legal claim to use the depiction of the copyrighted work." Please explain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to this edit, the file was displaying some PD tsg.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that was clearly incorrect then. Thanks for clarifying. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most frightening thing about this episode is that the original poster has administrator rights. Should that really be the case for someone who doesn't seem to know what a bot is, and who has such a basic misunderstanding of our copyright policies and WP:OWN? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, the closing statement on Mandsford's RfA says, in part, "While there are several valid reasons given by those opposing this candidacy, the reasons basically boil down to 'he doesn't completely understand all the policies and guidelines'.. The closer brushed that off, but maybe that wasn't such a good idea. Perhaps 'crats shouldn't promote when there are serious concerns over the candidate's knowledge of our policies and guidelines? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hateful edit summary left

    Username revdel done, should be done here. (non-admin closure) — MRD2014 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (non-admin closure) Name & edit summary issues resolved and user blocked Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin check out this diff over on Women and video games. While the edits made are not actually disruptive, the name of the user is questionable and edit summary is inappropriate. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Koncorde: Edit summary and username hidden, and user blocked. In future please use WP:OVERSIGHT. GiantSnowman 12:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    @Koncorde, GiantSnowman, and Nosebagbear: Sorry to add to a closed discussion but I can see the offensive username here by hovering over the link in the second sentence in Koncorde's comment. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:C076:90F0:84EA:62CE (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. GiantSnowman 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Neurorel pattern of edits VS Ramachandran

    I have been advised at the BLP noticeboard, that WP:ANI is the place to get help with @Neurorel:'s disruptions, starting in 2010, of articles related to VS Ramachandran.

    I first went to BLP:N for quick help about this July 6 edit:[211]

    Consistently, N removes positive or simply descriptive material, while adding to the talk page, edit summaries, the article itself, and sometimes the article lead, unflattering material. For example:

    • Removing from the bio (many times) the statement that R is director of Center for Brain and Cognition, while using the Talk page to criticize the CBC.
    • Removing and wikilawyering about various honors that RS say R has received (Talk:V._S._Ramachandran gives a good sample of some of N's ideas.)
    • "Shortening" parts of the bio that describe R's research and achievements.[212][213]
    • Expanding material, cherry-picked and cited to primary sources that criticizes R's work. For example, V._S._Ramachandran#Mirror_visual_feedback_/_Mirror_Therapy, on R's most famous work, has one short paragraph about that work followed by a much longer paragraph criticizing--not Ramachandran's work (which is pretty widely honored in RS) --but the efficacy of mirror therapy for phantom limb pain.
    Many of N's edits, in isolation, seem harmless. That is how he survived as an editor, nearly a decade--but the sum of edits has cumulative effect. N has successfully driven off several editors who were not regular editors here but wanted to undo the slant he was introducing. By definition, of course, that makes them SPAs. I am not an SPA, and I have worked on many bios of scholarly people. (Thanks to Gerda Arendt for noticing!)

    The diffs below show N's pattern of removing positive or simply descriptive stuff, while trying to add varied unflattering stuff:

    Apotemnophelia[214] (removing a paragraph describing evidence from R's group for neurological explanation)
    Mirror box[215] (Talk page demonstration of N's using quotes out of context to attack R's work.)
    Sleep paralysis[216] (Removing cited work by R's group on neurological basis of sleep paralysis. Note that RS does not agree with N's POV[217])
    Tell-Tale Brain[218] (Misrepresents (and does not link to) Brugger's actual review, which N also uses in R's article as criticism of Ramachandran.)

    Neurorel has a similar interest Roger Bingham, who has some connection to Ramachandran:

    Bingham bio[219]
    Science Network[220]

    I respectfully request that Neurorel be blocked from editing articles related to VS Ramachandran and Roger Bingham. Neurorel is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The good news is that the current version of the Ramachandran article is in good shape. However, I think it might be a good idea to block further editing for a few months. So the participating editors have arrived at a good set of compromises, in my opinion. The Ramachandran entry is a challenging and frustrating entry to work with. There are two very different versions of Ramachandran's importance and accomplishments. Some editors see Ramachandran in the light of his books, talks and TED talks. Other editors see quite a bit of misinformation that keeps replicating itself when editors cite sources that were incorrect or misleading to begin with. The classic example would be Ramachandran's claim to be the director of the Center for Brain & Cognition at UCSD. There are dozens of references to it. However it is not recognized by the Vice Chancellor for Research as a research center. Wikpedia would call this original research and take the position that Ramachandran's claim to be the director of a research center UCSD can not be challenged on the basis of information that is in the public domain on UCSD websites. This creates a credibility problem for Wikipedia. Some medical schools are now offering courses on how to use Wikipedia. So, can students trust the information from an encyclopedia that cannot fact check the sources it uses. This is a dilemma that Wikipedia should address in some forum.Neurorel (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Hateful edit summary left

    Loginnigol still hasn't notified Govvy properly. Govvy undid Loginnigol's addition of arguably disruptive templates to Tottenham Hotspur F.C., calling Loginnigol a "troll" in the edit summary. When Loginnigol warned Govvy about it on Govvy's Talk page, Govvy undid the warning, again calling Loginnigol a troll. Loginnigol, if you're going to post to ANI, follow the instructions at the top of this page. Govvy, don't call other editors trolls or you risk being blocked for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In this article, a poster named user:Govvy has left an unprovoked incendiary personal attack in an edit summary today in response to a single edit. Would you remove it (not the edit but the edit summery itself) please? Thank you. --Loginnigol 15:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Loginnigol: You haven't notified the other user as you are required to do. I won't do it for you. Also, WP:SIGN your posts properly so there are links to your userpage and your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Loginnigol: It would have been better if you had first discussed your complaint on the article's- or the user's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically WP:SIGLINK only requires a link to one of the user page, user talk page or contribs page. But a link to the user page and user talk page when the user page isn't empty is the norm and in any case no link is a definite no-no. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bbb23:, @Fowler&fowler:, @Nil Einne: It is done but the poster removed it from his talk page. --Loginnigol

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    @Bbb23:, done according to ANI. --Loginnigol

    Dunwoody, GA

    A user has, over the last few days, been changing the location of the Perimeter Mall, Perimeter Center and Dunwoody station from Dunwoody, Georgia to Sandy Springs, Georgia. They have used two IPs (99.153.141.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.180.48.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) and have now created a user account and are making the same edits there (see [221] and [222]). This despite many warnings on all three talk pages. I have provided sources for these locations being officially in Dunwoody. This is not straightforward vandalism, but does appear to me to be disruptive editing, so I have brought it here rather than WP:AIV. Could an uninvolved admin take a look? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Setenzatsu

    Yesterday I prodded Davis Cup comprehensive statistic at NPP for a WP:NOTSTATS failure (it was also tagged as vandalism by the new pages script, but I could not confirm that, even though the statistics table is several competitions out of date.) I logged back in to find User:Setenzatsu had posted a potential personal attack and general threat against the encyclopaedia on the article's talk page [223], and then followed up by blanking my talk page with an interesting edit summary [224]. I'm concerned this user may actually follow through with this if the article gets deleted. Best result IMO would be to get reassurance nothing will happen regardless of the outcome of the article's deletion, second best result is probably a block of some sort. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If they persist in blanking pages like they did with your talk page they'll be quickly blocked for vandalism after creating some brief nuisance. If they start making spurious AfDs or Prods I would trust they will be quickly banned from making more, and blocked if they persist. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a warning on their talk page. Rlendog (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wopr

    (non-admin closure) Soapboxing user (Wopr) indeffed by Bbb23Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am concerned about this users edits, namely their contributions which appear to be soapboxing. As it is their userpage amounts to WP:UPNOT as it is nothing but ranting. I fully respect other's political views, but this editor seems intent on shoving his WP:POV into other's faces. [225] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted the userpage and blocked the user as NOTHERE, which is a bit of an understatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans

    See archived link at wp:ANI: [226]

    The same people are attacked again. Please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked these three IPs, but if some can identify and block the range, it would help--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I also confirmed the act of impersonation, please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SportingFlyer

    The users contributions are just nominations for deletion for some time now. No constructive contribution. Now I am one of his targets. I feel like I am being followed and persecuted. It turned into a personal attack it seems, that has nothing to do with objectivity. He has dual criteria, obviously, as the same type of page exists but he choose one specific article to push his beliefs. Setenzatsu (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=905704190"