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 12:33, 11 July 2019 (→User:SportingFlyer). 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

    Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung

    User:Alexkyoung and several apparent sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

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

    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: [1]. 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 [2]. 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: [3]. 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]: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. 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" [10]. 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" [11], or make an "empty claim because others have" [12]. 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" [13] 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 [14][15].
    Lastly, I should note that I am trying to be helpful [16] - 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 [17]. 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. [18][19] I also would like to ask him why he chose to leave this unsigned comment on this page in the third person, [20]. 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 ([21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]), 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 [27]. 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]
    Note that Likuu is a blocked user for being the sockpuppet of Syopsis.General Lincoln (talk) 08:12, 11 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 [28], 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 [29], 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]
    So from what I understand, you're suspicious simply because I support Alexkyoung? Ridiculous.General Lincoln (talk) 08:20, 11 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]

    • Support - his edits are far from neutral; see Talk:History of Xinjiang#Tarim mummies and Talk:History of Xinjiang#Indo-Europeans, where attempts were made to WP:CENSOR the Indo-European origins of the Tarim Mummies, and the term "indo-European" misleadingly was framed as "European." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as a minimum, but I tend to think that something "wider" might be more appropriate, such as the "areas related to ethnicity and race, broadly construed", suggested earlier. I'm also not opposed to My preferred solution at this point, though, would be a longer/indefinite block/ban as suggested by FPAS, because the problems do seem likely to continue, and, in fact, are continuing. -- Begoon 05:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all China-related topics at a minimum (including, but not limited to, Xinjiang/Uyghurs). Prefer full indef-block, as the disruptive editing and the battleground mentality has spread out over additional topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support without prejudice also to imposing wider or different sanctions. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all China-related topics as second choice. I prefer an indefinite block because his edits suggest that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. JimRenge (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN Full disclosure, I came to this through the Han–Uyghur intermarriage AFD and didn't notice this thread until just now. Even if that ... pretty gross POVFORK is deleted, I've see no evidence that this user is capable of constructive editing in this highly controversial topic area. I've gone on record as opposing TBANs for SPAs in the past since it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy, but I also don't want the editors who have !voted keep in the AFD to start harassing me for attempting to pursue "the Wikipedia equivalent of the death penalty" for this particular editor at this particular time: if others think an indef is what is called for, I will not oppose it.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at a minimum. Not here to build an encyclopedia, as Jim says. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for the same reasons, and with the same disclosure, as User:Hijiri88. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on China-related subjects. Disruptive and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline: I welcome Alexkyoung's edits. They are quite informative and well-written. I know deep down Hijiri 88 will not support any type of ban on his edits. Also Adoring nanny should note that Han–Uyghur intermarriage was written originally probably by User:Milktaco and that Alexkyoung was copying it over to a new article in History of Xinjiang simply because the article was too big. Lastly, you should be honored to have a Harvard graduate helping you improve your articles.General Lincoln (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline: I don't trust any of those against Alex to be any better at writing neutrally about China, Russia, or the US for that matter. Bunch of hypocrites. Alexkyoung is one of the few editors on the web who at least makes sense and writes well enough that her contributions to wikipedia on the whole are beneficial. She even writes about math and is getting a Phd from Stanford. By the way, it does not seem that any of those who favored 'support' are admins. I'm on the side of ST47 that because Alex is new, she should continue to edit freely. It appears she hasn't made one in days. She probably has more to contribute to the world working on her Stanford Phd than dealing with all of this. This is one long case; just close it, and let her go! До свидания.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the above were two random racist trolls attacking those who support this proposal -- but it turns out they're both socks of Alex. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 11 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]

    Note that the checkuser has been completed, and no relation has been found between any of these users. Joshua you cannot just assume everybody who supports each other is like that. Otherwise what does that make you and JimRenge?General Lincoln (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    General Lincoln, please do not misrepresent the findings [30] of the checkuser in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung. JimRenge (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim are you a sockpuppet of Joshua? You two seem to have a lot of suspicious activities working on the same pages together and agreeing with each other all the time.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not a sock of Joshua Jonathan. JimRenge (talk) 09:15, 11 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.

    And another "new user" - Jarvis Maximus has now appeared, editing in the same way and on similar topics[31]! Wake me up when its all over! Nickm57 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline: I was brought to this page by Nick's recent disruptive pov edits. Anyways, I have to say that I support Alexkyoung's edits and that they are quite welcomed to wikipedia. He or she is a talented writer that has much to offer to this community and has created a number of articles on notable topics. To silence this one voice out of what appears to be sinophobia or anti-semitism (I don't know if he/she is Chinese or Jewish or both or whatever; it doesn't matter) is to defeat the purpose of wikipedia in the first place, to be an inclusive community.General Lincoln (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline: How do you think I feel when you Americans write anti-Russian things like that and call me communist pigs? That's one of the greatest first paragraphs I've ever read on this wikipedia, and I'm thankful that not everybody here is a US sycophant. And it's from an American herself! Am I sensing another Ed Snowden? By the way he's still living here in Moscow. I don't trust any of those against Alex to be any better at writing neutrally about China, Russia, or the US for that matter. Bunch of hypocrites. Alexkyoung is one of the few editors on the web who at least makes sense and writes well enough that her contributions to wikipedia on the whole are beneficial. She even writes about math and is getting a Phd from Stanford. By the way, it does not seem that any of those who favored 'support' are admins. I'm on the side of ST47 that because Alex is new, she should continue to edit freely. It appears she hasn't made one in days. She probably has more to contribute to the world working on her Stanford Phd than dealing with all of this. This is one long case; just close it, and let her go! До свидания.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to read more pro-US stuff, just go to WSJ or Fox news or whatever. You guys like to pride yourself in how free and unbiased your internet and media are, but look what you are doing trying to censor your fellow citizen. Even I wouldn't think the US would be this divided. It makes your democracy so easy to exploit, as with Trump's recent elections. Accuse Putin all you want. Alex is here to stay, and I fully reject any kind of ban against her.Sven Karmanova (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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. [[32]]. 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 [33], 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 [34], 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: [35]. 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. [36]
    2. Same. [37]
    3. Accuses me of bad-faith edit. [38]
    4. False report filed against me while shopping for a venue. [39]
    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[40], 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 [41], 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[42], 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. [43] 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. [44] 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]
    I didn't accuse you of lying, I refuted your dishonest attack against me by demonstrating that you are lying. You are here with the express goal of lying about me to get me blocked. This is not about improving Wikipedia, it's about "winning" by getting me blocked. That's why you throw your hands up and say you don't understand: you're frustrated that it's harder to fool the admins a second time.
    This is not productive. Focus on improving articles, and learn from your mistakes by not misapplying a policy about common names to uncommon ones, and more generally, being a bit less eager to remove what can easily be cited. It would also help if you were more cognizant of your political biases.
    That's my advice to you. Based on past experience, I fully expect you to ignore it and instead redouble your efforts to "win", but I had to make the effort, however futile 24.47.152.65 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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 [45] 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 [46] After being challenged over their statement, Shinealittlelight doubles down on WP:NOT claims, again based only on a user page infobox [47] After being asked to retract their personal attacks, Shinealittlelight refuses [48] 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. [49]

    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]
    [50] 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. [51] - 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[52] 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[53] 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 ([54]), 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" ([55]) which is used by Hans Haase too ([56]). So I would ask you to delete the revisions prior to [57] as well as younger than [58]. 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]

    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 [59], [60], [61], [62]. 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 [71], [72], [73], and accusations against Srnec for restoring sourced information [74], [75]. See also his repeated insertion of the same text to Assassination of Boris Nemtsov [76], [77], [78]. This latest bout of accusations started after he tried to remove the same sourced information again at Crimean Tartars [79] and I reverted him, and he reverted me [80] and he, without any discussion, tried to move Russo-Crimean Wars to Crimean Russian Wars [81], 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 deleted useful text 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]
    I've struck out and paraphrased the one instance in this section where I actually used the v-word, rather than quoting Matthiaspaul. I've done the same for three instances on the "Talk:Backup" page. However I reserve the right to later use the v-word in connection to what Pi314m did to the "Information repository" article, where he merged-in only the two-sentence lead and completely deleted the rest of the article—which contained (and now through my efforts contains again) a description of a type of application that has been implemented at least twice since the article was created in 2007. I've also written a brief apology on User talk: Pi314m, in the section where I notified him about this ANI discussion. Let Matthiaspaul write his own apology for what he wrote in January 2018 on User talk: Pi314m, if he thinks he should apologize—which Pi314m's admission then shows he shouldn't. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    accepted (publicly)

    First point, publicly for DovidBenAvraham and to those who've tried to help: I failed to respond on a timely basis for his "Sorry about that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)" on my talk page. When a person says "Sorry" it's time to respond - I didn't. Perhaps that would have given him a chance to not have to be "directed to apologize" {DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)} (Talk:Pi314m). It's better to freely apologize before being directed. Nonetheless, I consider it as a free will apology, backed by the above "Sorry."

    As for mention of Matthiaspaul - that can wait for another time. Perhaps my dispute with him is somewhat like BREAKTHROUGH To .. GEMORA (Z. Zobin) and its "What is a table?" {avoiding CopyVio .. he rejected "something to" eat from/off - that's a plate, and he deals with table vs. chair too} - and in the future, just as Laptop and Notebook now share an article, although at one time they were considered as different as Palmtop PC and Handheld PC, there should be a second chance.

    DovidBenAvraham: something is strange about this, done 15 minutes later without a new timestamp or strikethrough. Is this the "sorry" of Erev Yom Kippur and the "renewal" (or is the taking back of "sorry") after the Shofar sounds?

    Still, please don't worry - I stand by my subsection title.

    To recap: SaLachTi - apology (publicly) accepted. Pi314m (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Pi314m, what happened is that I realized after originally making my 22:51, 10 July 2019 comment that I had forgotten to include in it the link to my apology on your personal Talk page that Justlettersandnumbers had requested. So, thinking that you would probably not have yet read it, I added that link and decided to also add a link to the comment that Matthiaspaul had made there in January 2018. While doing it I read that comment, realized that you had then pleaded guilty with a promise to reform to his accusation that "As I told you already, don't carry out such edits without prior discussion or against consensus, as you did twice already", and revised the last sentence of my 22:51, 10 July 2019 comment accordingly.
    But in fact you haven't reformed. You did a 9-article-merge-in "simplification" without prior discussion to the "Outsourcing" article starting in January 2019. Nobody caught you for that, so you did a 2-article-merge-in "simplification" without prior discussion to the "Backup" article in late May 2019—and here we are with an ANI. What is your problem with doing a prior discussion; is it a sub-culture characteristic or a personal emotional hangup? As previously happened on the "Backup" article Talk page at 07:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC) and 07:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC), you only respond when someone else offers you an apology.
    Since you brought up the sub-culture problem (which I was trying to avoid) with your mention of Yom Kippur, I'll tell you my charitable guess as to your problem. The edits you made after your merge-in of the "Continuous Data Protection" article show that you had not thoroughly read references that you yourself had added; that's why I later added applicable quotes from those references. Moreover, before I corrected it you had written "Ideal continuous data protection is that the recovery point objective is unlimited in content [my emphasis—I corrected it to zero], even if the recovery time objective is not", which indicates that you didn't understand this definition "A Recovery Point Objective (RPO) ... is the maximum targeted period in which data (transactions) might be lost from an IT service due to a major incident." Looking at those mistakes in combination with what you have written on your personal Talk page and in some of your Contributions, I think that your problem is that in your sub-culture boys past the age of 13 are educated—without any math or science classes—almost entirely in a non-modern European language. Nevertheless every January for the past 3 years, and in May this year because nobody caught you in January, you have felt a compulsion to edit WP articles whose subject matter you don't fully understand (your Contributions don't show any evidence of IT involvement after 1995-2000—explaining how you could write the archaic "Tapes of disk archives from multiple backups of the same source(s) can be consolidated onto a single Synthetic full backup", when relational databases replaced the "4th generation languages" you seem to have past experience using). Your goal in these merge-ins seems to be to simplify articles down to your educational level. If I were doing that, I too would be afraid of engaging in subject matter discussions.
    And, being a third-generation Reformed Jew with a relaxed attitude towards the "closing of the books" tradition, I don't take back any repentance I make on Yom Kippur. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:04, 11 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[103], and then tried to alter the timestamp so it would look like it had been uncontested for a week[104].

    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.[105]

    Tonight their strategy is to remove all mention of how the scientific community dismissed believers in The Face. [106][107].

    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 [108]. I responded with a warning to the editor's talk page [109], 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 [110], 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:[111]

    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.[112][113]
    • 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[114] (removing a paragraph describing evidence from R's group for neurological explanation)
    Mirror box[115] (Talk page demonstration of N's using quotes out of context to attack R's work.)
    Sleep paralysis[116] (Removing cited work by R's group on neurological basis of sleep paralysis. Note that RS does not agree with N's POV[117])
    Tell-Tale Brain[118] (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[119]
    Science Network[120]

    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]

    @Neurorel: Multiple RS say R is director of the "Center for Brain and Cognition." No RS says, and the article does not say, and never said, that 1) the CBC is on some official list of the Vice Chancellor for research or 2) R is director a "a research center at UCSD."
    I admire the congenial tone that Neurorel can sometimes adopt. And yet this charmingly reasonable fellow, on July 6, added two paragraphs to the Ramachandran article, of which let me quote for you only the first paragraph;

    In 2004 Lisa Montgomery murdered Bobby Joe Stinnet. Lisa M. Montgomery, then 36, was convicted of strangling Stinnett from behind and then cutting the woman's unborn child, eight months into gestation, from her womb. Mongomery was convicted and she is now on death row. The trial received global news coverage.

    I deleted Neurorel's paragraphs, went to the BLP noticeboard for help or advice, and notified Neurorel on his talk page of that discussion. Then Neurorel warmly thanked me for deleting the paragraphs (2.5 hours after he posted them,) saying that only a technical glitch put them there. I welcome others to discuss useful proposals for the future. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The quote above is a small part of the material that you can find on the entry for Lisa Montgomery. I was considering adding a short section about Ramachandran's appearance at her trial as an expert witness. Ramachandran is one of a small a group of neuroscientists who have testified at criminal trials. I considered this option and then decided that the topic needed its own entry in Wikipedia. So I thought I was closing the page without saving the material. However I got a large rectangle filled with instructions about an editing conflict. I did not want to deal with the instructions so I simply closed the page (assuming nothing would save) I stopped working on the wikipedia article for some time. The first time I was aware that something had been saved was when I received a notification that HouseofChange had deleted the material.Neurorel (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Neurorel: You made clear on the article talk page that you hoped to introduce negative stuff in two different areas. (Neither R's statements at the trial nor the possible use of his early research on vision was ever a controversy discussed by WP:RS or by the public.) Your claim in that section about R's testimony was patently false.
    On July 6 you added two painstakingly edited two paragraphs about the trial to R's article: first by hitting the Edit button, then by creating a new section and pasting your paragraphs into the Edit window, and finally by hitting the Publish button for it. The mysterious wall of text for an edit conflict appears only after you have done all these things. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Neurorel: has repeatedly added negative material to articles about Ramachandran, Ramachandran's work, and an associate of R named Roger Bingham. At R's bio, Neurorel uses edit summaries and the Talk Page to belittle Ramachandran. Neurorel also removes information, based on RS, about Ramachandran's employment and various honors , wikilawyering on the talk page against them on various grounds. He repeatedly contradicts what RS say while claiming personal information about R and UCSD in a way that suggests possible COI. He is WP:NOTHERE to improve these encyclopedia articles. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:24, 11 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 [121] and [122]). 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]

    Even with the IP edits, this is clearly a brand new editor. Perhaps, Railfan23, you should attempt to engage them in actual discussion, rather than repeatedly templating them? Note there is nothing newer on the mall's talk page than 2007 and nothing newer than 2017 on the train stations. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added temporary semi protection to the Perimeter Mall and Perimeter Center articles. I agree with John from Idegon in that custom messages and attempts to help educate the user in good faith should be attempted. The protection I've applied should give you some time to help the new user. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, both. I've started a discussion at Talk:Perimeter Mall, and have left a note on User talk:DellComputersXP offering to copy their reply to the article talk page. I think it is more useful to have the discussion on the article talk page, if possible. Railfan23 (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [123], and then followed up by blanking my talk page with an interesting edit summary [124]. 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: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]

    They are a new page patroller. Of course they nominate a number of articles for deletion. It's part of the job. How, Setenzatsu, does that in any way justify your blanking of his userpage? John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Time to rename "new page patrollers" to "experienced page patrollers" to avoid any confusion here, eh? Lourdes 01:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
    "New-page patrollers" —Rutilant (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    John from Idegon - I don't see where Setenzatsu blanked SportingFlyer's userpage (unless I misread your reply above?) - where did this happen? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, I think John meant the user talk page, which was indeed blanked. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill - AHA! I see it now... Thank you! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    John from Idegon How being a page controller justifies subjectivity or to be more accurate uneven criteria??? This section is not about me, but about SportingFlyer, so lets not call out other usernames. I noticed that there exists double criteria on wiki and you in power have complex of higher value. I really don't give a fuck. If I blanked his page it would've been because I felt harassed. But he could've just hacked my account. Nobody thought about that. Users with no power who make real contribution are first victims and first to blame but fuckers who climbed their way up in power positions and make no significant contribution have fucking diplomatic immunity. Setenzatsu (talk) 12:33, 11 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. [125] - 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: [126]

    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 took a look at the IPv6 addresses, and the network CIDR is a 2001:D08::/32, which is wayyyy too wide to comfortably block without causing collateral damage. However, calculating a narrower range using the two IPv6 addresses listed here (as well as the list of IPv6 addresses from the archived ANI discussion) I get a range of 2001:D08:1000::/36, which looks much better to me. I've gone ahead and applied a block to this range, but added an ACC ignore comment, as the range is still very wide. I don't see a connection between the two IPv4 addresses listed here, so I left things be with those two users. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I also confirmed the act of impersonation, please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    See my comment above. I've applied a two-week block to the IPv6 range. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:P0G41oxepU

    That contributor needs a guidance or a block (see their recent edits). My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I reported them to WP:ANEW just as you posted that. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the edit warring, P0G41oxepU is blatantly violating BLP and going around calling people vandals. They have an extremely precocious editing history and a username that looks autogenerated. Quack. R2 (bleep) 21:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked for 31h, five reverts is 2 much.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes. [127], [128]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We are clearly moving in the direction of an indef block per WP:NOTHERE, but it is past 11pm in my time zone, and I will leave it to another admin to investigate.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nicoljaus is WP:NOTLISTENING over 2 weeks

    The RfC was only launched two days ago — indeed, you haven't really given it a fair chance to run its course yet. The failure on DRN is on Miki Filigranski. They are expected to at least check in to see what is happening and drop a note about when they could be available. If Robert McClenon and the other DRN volunteers have the patience, maybe give it another go. But, as mentioned on my own talk page, wasting administrative resources (and forum shopping also via AN3) on a content dispute was the wrong call. More patience and dispute resolution attempted in good faith is what's needed at this stage. El_C 01:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The editor, since started the discussion Talk:Rusyns#White Croats on 26 June, mostly transferred to Talk:White Croats#Big mistification? since 8 July, is completely refusing to get the point for over 2 weeks about how the articles are titled (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and specifically WP:COMMONNAME), trying to change the meaning of the term "White Croats", now disruptively edit warring (revision history) to change the title, scope and structure of the article White Croats itself which had from the beginning (!), ignoring the editor's remark i.e. discussion and without any previous consensus. The editor lacks competence in the topic because of which arise misunderstandings and misinterpretations which lead to wrong conclusions and edits. Part of the edit (a note was included as an intermediate solution but again ignored because refutes to get the point, see article & talk page revision history). The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN and RfC. This is the moment when per WP:NOTLISTENING; "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN --Closed. The other editor, User:Miki Filigranski, has not responded in 72 hours.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor continues to provoke and refuse to get the point even in this case as explained several times to them that was not active in the specific days and could not respond, neither was notified the DRN continued after few days. Editor ignored the moderators closing remarks: Resume discussion on the article talk page. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Any content disputes can be resolved by Request for Comments.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also reported at WP:AN/EW because of edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I found in the Lead of the White Croats article references to books in which there are completely no statements that they should support. Raised this question, received a portion of the usual rudeness without any argumentation. I tried to fix article using correct references to verifiable and reliable sources and received blank reverts. For example, Miki returned a ref to the book that on the pages 295, 319 should confirm the sentence "In 1861, in the statistical data about population in Volhynia governorship released by Mikhail Lebedkin, were counted Horvati with 17,228 people". There is such a situation that either I am engaged in disruptive behavior, and on these pages something is said about "17,228 Horvati" or Miki, who returned this ref.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor does not understand the topic at all, is wasting another editor time in now a pointless discussion because is refusing to get the point for over 2 weeks and then wonders why are getting the "portion of rudeness"? What is even more incredible is the fact the editor is trying to support their "disruptive behavior" because of content i.e. their POV on content, again ignoring moderator's advice.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for so many words, just show "17,228 Horvati" in the ref you returned. --Nicoljaus (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What that reference has anything to do with the topic? Why do you detour from the topic? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the linked discussion, I don't see not listening, I see two editors engaged in a content dispute. I also see that there is an ongoing RfC to attempt to (at least partially) resolve this dispute. I would suggest that both editors allow the RfC to run its course, refrain from edit warring, and hopefully the RfC will resolve the content dispute at hand. For future reference, an example of not listening would be if the RfC was closed one way, and then an editor continued to revert to a version contrary to the closing consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 23:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rosguill: this is not a mere content dispute. The editor is trying to change the article title, scope, structure of the article (even meaning of the scholarship term "White Croats"), for which exist WP:SILENCE consensus since the beginning, while the editor is tediously discussing and edit warring ignoring the remark of another editor for over 2 weeks, without patience to wait for any consensus, was it via DR or RfC. Also, anyone reviewing this case, please revert the current revision to old before the edit warring started ([129]) because the current does not have consensus and cannot be reverted by editors in question due to 3RR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Miki Filigranski, setting aside the irony of asking someone to WP:LISTEN to WP:SILENCE, silence is the weakest form of consensus (per SILENCE). An editor is within their rights to make BOLD edits against a silent consensus, although it is sometimes inadvisable as it will result in scenarios like the one that you are in right now. article title, scope, structure are all content, hence disputes about them are content disputes.
        While the edit warring is bad, I don't see Nicoljaus ignoring you, they've engaged pretty heavily on the talk page, and even opened a DRN case which you declined to participate in, for whatever reason. They have not been swayed by your arguments, and you have not been swayed by theirs, which is within both of your rights as editors. The civil thing to do at this point is to stop edit warring, request outside input in resolving the content disputes at the affected articles (through RFC, DRN, or at a relevant WikiProject talk page), and then edit in keeping with the consensus that results from that discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 00:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't tried to research the details of the content dispute. However, it was User:Nicoljaus who requested moderated dispute resolution at DRN. I tried briefly to start moderated discussion by asking each party to make a statement. As noted, User:Miki Filigranski didn't respond in 72 hours, and I closed the dispute. Discussion at DRN is voluntary, but it appears that MF is twisting the facts when they say: "The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN and RfC." They tried DRN. If the parties want to resolve this as a content dispute, I still suggest RFC. But it looked to me like a case of User:Miki Filigranski not listening. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Triggerhippie4

    Ducked... Lourdes 01:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user Triggerhippie4 is repeatedly deleting comments on their talk page, and I do not think they care what people are saying. I posted a comment [130] asking them to stop deleting everyone's comments on their talk page, and they deleted my comment. I'm pretty sure this is not allowed, since I have been blocked in the past for screwing with other people's comments. Their edit descriptions when they delete other people's comments are always about something unrelated, just to make it seem like they are deleting things for a reason. When they deleted comments, they did not archive any of them, and this makes it look like they are avoiding scrutiny for discretionary sanctions and when they were blocked twice. Bill Williams (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    LilBillWilliams, you might find WP:BLANKING helpful in this instance. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As Schazjmd says, I would encourage you to read the that policy and consider removing this post. I will also say it is unclear what remedy you seek. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now this user is accusing me of being a sock puppet of some random person. They are just angry that I asked them to stop deleting talk page comments. I don't even live in the same country as the other user, and I disagreed with their policies. Bill Williams (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLANKING, users are expressly allowed to delete comments on their own talk pages. I might be somewhat annoyed too. Dumuzid (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if they are allowed to delete everyone's comments on their talk page, this user is making blatant accusations that are obviously false. They are accusing me of being a sock puppet of some random Israeli man, immediately after I posted a comment on their talk page asking them to stop deleting comments. I don't even live on the same continent as that guy, and I disagreed with his policies. Bill Williams (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly do not condone untrue accusations, but there was some provocation from your side with regard to the talk page. Is there a reason you can't simply steer clear of this person? Moreover, I just realized you haven't notified the editor. I will do so now @Triggerhippie4: Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified them on their talk page, but they deleted the comment. Of course I could steer clear of the editor, but they just did something that is very annoying. They shouldn't be allowed to go around making false accusations as they did with me. Bill Williams (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and I believe you re: notification, but making doubly sure can't hurt. I'm sorry you're annoyed by their behavior, but I think you'll find online there is a good deal of behavior that is very annoying yet expressly tolerated. I'm not sure what you think would solve things; an interaction ban? Dumuzid (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a ban, but they need to be warned not to make serious accusations without a lot of evidence. The Israeli man lived on across the Atlantic from me (I am in the US), uses a different writing style, disagreed with my opinion, and is at least 20 years older. If they actually investigated at all, they would have immediately known that we are different people. Bill Williams (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Triggerhippie4 opened SPI, the dispute is continuing there. Schazjmd (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I'll quit there -- Bill, I would highly advise you to let the investigation run its course and ignore all of this to the best of your ability. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    North Korean POV pushing

    Incogreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to pushing a pro-North Korean POV. I removed this content (an attempt to contradict a source using a synthesis of references to other Wikipedia articles and google search results) they added to North Korean famine. After looking through their contributions, they mostly seem to be editing North Korea-related articles to push a POV. They nominated Seoul National University Hospital massacre for deletion in June. After the discussion was closed as kept, they made this edit, adding the OR statement "It is worth noting that the cited reports of the massacre are based on accounts from the South Korean military, which for years falsely attributed massacres such as the Bodo League Massacre to the North Korean side". Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah. Overtly pro-NK POV, Google searches as sources, willful misrepresentation of sources, and... well, this. He seems to now also be branching into writing about just how awesome Communist China is for Tibet. I'd suggest skipping warnings or even topic ban and go straight to indef for nothere and CIR. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Their contributions"? First of all, several points. First, I am one person and everything I've added is sourced. I don't see what's wrong with the information I added to "North Korean famine" and I have started a new discussion to challenge the revert. Do you disagree with the life expectancy data provided by Wikipedia or Google? Is Wikipedia not reliable? I admit it can be biased at times and has problems, but what is the issue with citing it?
    Also, I maintain that the disclaimer I added to "Seoul National University Hospital massacre" was necessary. There is no information available in English about the subject and no Korean historians have written about it (or any historians at all, even though it supposedly happened in 1950). If you disagree, please list even just one (preferably contemporary)? The well-respected historian Bruce Cumings has noted that a number of massacres, including Taejon (4-7,000 people) and the Bodo League massacre (one massacre of 200,000 people), once attributed to North Korea by South Korea and official American histories, have since been proven to have been committed by South Korea. The South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission has even reviewed many reports of North Korean massacres and come to the same result. The only sources for the "Seoul National University Hospital massacre" are from right-wing newspapers in South Korea based on reports from the South Korean military and a plaque/report from that hospital dating back to 1963. And as noted, not a single historian has written about it. All massacres attributed to North Korea by South Korea in the past need to be re-examined. I note that on the Talk page another user has questioned reliability as well.
    What is the "misrepresentation" of sources from "North_Korean abductions of South Koreans"? A commission led by the South Korean prime minister (see https://books.google.com/books?id=DT4yAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22wartime+abductees%22+%22korean+war%22&source=bl&ots=tGOD8oGIG5&sig=ACfU3U0MScKbsyyiGx6xXxJHfHEuafOXNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1kIC5zd_iAhUmiFQKHZ5ZB1I4ChDoATAJegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22wartime%20abductees%22%20%22korean%20war%22&f=false - quote: "In August 2011, the Korean War Abductees Fact-Finding Commission (6.25 chonjaeng nappuk chinsang kyumyong wiwonhoe) led by the prime minister said it could confirm 55 cases", p. 80) claims there were 55 abductions during the war, not the tens of thousands claimed in the article.
    What is the issue about trying to bring neutrality to articles on North Korea (or for that matter, Tibet)? There is a lot of pro-South propaganda and unsourced anti-North Korean POV material, as well as lots of material on Tibet from biased sources that are anti-Chinese. Often it remains on Wikipedia for years without anyone to correct it or balance it out. I have not pushed a pro-North Korean or pro-China view, but rather added sourced information that balances (or balanced, prior to reverts, whatever the case may be) the articles out (I would note that other users have noticed issues with the articles on both Tibet and some on North Korea). If I had written, for example, information about how the life expectancy in North Korea had fallen or that it was lower than other countries I doubt we would be having this discussion. But, as it turns out, it was actually higher than other countries with similar or even higher GDPs (such as Cambodia and India). I also would note that, before today, I had not received any complaints here or rarely on the Talk pages. Incogreader (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "First, I am one person and everything I've added is sourced. " The English language allows the use of "their" as a singular. For example: Someone makes edits about how awesome North Korea is, and a reasonable person responds, "What is their problem?" --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Incogreader - Do you know and understand Wikipedia's policy on the requirement to word all articles and content to reflect a neutral point of view? It appears that your edits to articles have reflected a pro-North Korean point-of-view, which is not neutral and violates this policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As per this edit, the source is literally owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, and the source itself seems a bit off. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior from IP 203.109.232.234

    Disruptive editing behavior for days from this New Zealand IP address 203.109.232.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on a large number of lists. He/she persisted in unilaterally deleting massive content from the pages without discussing anything Talk Pages. His/her editing comments involves personal attacks and is a very likely a sock puppet of an Wikipedia account from Australia (which I will not name here for now). Anyone who can help would be appreciated. Minimumbias (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure about the sock puppetry or anything like that, but I've left the user a note regarding the use of talk pages and refraining from edit warring in the meantime. Hopefully someone with more knowledge about the possible sock puppetry or use of multiple IP addresses will be able to take a look at this... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick update that a parallel case on sock puppetry has opened: [131].Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimumbias - Thanks for the update and for letting us know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor: Wikitigresito

    This editor is continuing to remove content on the Berlin Palace which is authoritatively sourced (New York Times), despite having been asked on their Talk Page to exercise more care in their editing. User_talk:Wikitigresito#Your_Edits) It appears they have a personal issue with Wilhelm von Boddien being credited as the principal progenitor of the Palace's reconstruction. The NY Times clearly states: "until Mr. von Boddien and his associates got involved, the Government had given no thought to rebuilding the vast royal palace."[[132]] This is being repeatedly removed by the editor. ClearBreeze (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ClearBreeze - Have you tried starting a new discussion on the article's talk page and pinging Wikitigresito in the discussion in an attempt to discuss the issue and dispute with them? I only see one comment by Wikitigresito made to the talk page since May 2018. Please try expressing your concerns and discussing this issue directly with Wikitigresito first before filing a report here. This noticeboard is meant for reporting issues where edit warring or other violations are occurring in place of using Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, or if violations are occurring despite repeated attempts to comply with the dispute resolution protocol and discuss the matter peacefully. I don't think we're at this point yet... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolution of the issue was sought unsuccessfully via the editor's Talk Page. However, they have repeated the behaviour. When an editor repeatedly removes a straightforward, authoritatively referenced statement, despite a direct appeal to reason, then it is edit-warring, pure and simple. Further pandering to unreasonable bad behaviour is unhelpful. Either rules are respected, or they are not. Hence this request.ClearBreeze (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ClearBreeze, you have failed to discuss the issue at Talk: Berlin Palace, which is always the best place for discussing content disputes. There has been only one edit to the article in the last month. There is no "incident" here that requires emergency attention from administrators. If an edit war is going on, it is glacially slow. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Cullen328. We need to communicate directly with the editor as recommended and try to come to a resolution first. We're not at the stage yet where administrative action is required in order to resolve the situation. Administrative action should be sought only after attempts to discuss the matter have clearly failed and where it is the only choice to put a stop to repeated disruption or the repeated violation of policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In this reply Wikitigresito talked about this second edit being removal of a BLP violation because "you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it", where in fact there was a citation to a supporting piece in the New York Times removed in that very edit, and where in fact it was this first edit (also citing the NYT in the very edit itself) where Wikitigresito left "von Boddien" hanging with no antecedent, claiming advertising not a BLP problem (although it is hard to see what it is supposed to be advertising), that this enquiry was talking about. So minus one hundred points to all participants (including administrators here in this discussion), I think, for not supplying diffs, not reading diffs, not acknowledging citations, not reading sources, BLP waving, breaking article prose, communicating via boilerplate instead of using one's own words, waving of "edit warring", using undo and blanking instead of fixing, misusing administrators as Wikipedia:third opinion, and stating that using User talk:Wikitigresito is not "discussing directly with Wikitigresito" when the person who comes to this noticeboard even points straight at the discussion directly with Wikitigresito. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you @Uncle G: for taking the time to examine the background of the edits. Having addressed the editor directly and been ignored, a note on their Talk page from someone else regarding respectful editing might prove helpful (e.g. if there is a cited fact in an article they disagree with, the correct approach is to provide a contrasting cited fact -- not simply erase facts they disagree with.) ClearBreeze (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user persistently removing maintenance templates

    An IP user in the range Special:Contributions/2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:3DB1:1FA5:CCE4:A120/64 has been persistently removing maintenance tags, especially "citation needed", without explanation or fixing the problems, and edit-warring over it, since at least March 2018. At that time they received multiple warnings and a block already (User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:B83D:566A:8523:595E), but have continued with several hundred similar edits. The most recent warnings are:

    I'm not sure if there were any more blocks. It looks to me like they have been the exclusive user of this IP range. At least two outbursts of out-and-out vandalism are linked to the same user: July 2018 [133], [134], and September 2018 [135].

    The majority of the edits are to articles related to food or to films. In addition to removing templates, there's a habit of removing information about whether a dish is served hot or cold, and other idiosyncrasies. --IamNotU (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the range for 2 years. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=905788331"