User:Aron Manning/Conduct dispute EditorASC

Content dispute: EditorASC
I'd like to show the recent deletions from the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 article, the discussion before, and the resulting edit war by WP:SPAs. The deletions were preceded by a heated argument (12:06, 10 May 2019 post, diff) that ended an off-topic discussion mingled with the review of the "Expert analysis" section (Discussion: Analysis section). There have been previous civil discussions with EditorASC, his opinion as life-long Boeing pilot is respected.

The section Expert analysis was already being discussed and reviewed in Discussion: Analysis section. Two sentences have been deleted from the article by unexpectedly, without any preceding discussion (20:52, 10 May 2019 diff 1, 21:17, 10 May 2019‎ diff 2).

I've started a content dispute (original) at 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC), then I reverted the deletes (diff 3, diff 4). I believe this was a disruptive revenge, and indicated this in the comments.

Edit war: SPAs
This was followed within 2 hours by re-revert (WP:DRR) of both from 2 previously uninvolved dynamic ip WP:SPAs in the same btcentralplus.com network (07:45, 11 May 2019 diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019  diff 6).

I suspect sockpuppetry, maybe not personally by EditorASC. The discussion (2 weeks' stats) and editing (2 weeks' stats) of this section has been ongoing for weeks, around 5 registered editors contributed and participated in talk, with the occasional ip editor inserting flags or changing a few words. These re-reverts happened swiftly within 2 hours, in a very targeted manner.

Two hours later at 09:50, 11 May 2019‎ the whole "Expert analysis" section has become collateral damage, removed by another editor in bit of a WP:RUSH (diff 7), before entering the discussion at 09:58, 11 May 2019‎ (diff 8), without mentioning the section blanking.

Discussion with contributing editors in the content dispute seems to be coming to a consensus. Note: I've requested page semi-protection for a few weeks to stop SPAs, the page is now fully protected for 3 days (response).

Two messages to EditorASC's talk page to complain/resolve/negotiate about the dispute (First message, Second message) has been deleted, the Third message is on my own talk page. There was no answer.

Conduct dispute
This is a conduct dispute as well: it is very difficult to cooperate with EditorASC without yielding to his POV, in fact I and many other editors failed to do so. This has a strong influence on the atmosphere between editors in this and associated articles.

He did not contribute to the article in effect, but expressed his view as the "focus" the article should follow (diff), while discrediting other views as "hordes of media articles", with a strawman argument of an unrelated accident. Another discussion of his view and my trial to include a different view (diff, more readable at the end of section). This opinion was expressed in a discriminatory manner earlier (diff).

This weighs on editors with his activity in talk pages talk. Sadly, his expertise is not used to contribute in articles.

It seems to be a long-time pattern, there has been previous heated POV discussions on his talk page (1, 2), and suspected sockpuppetry, not investigated.

Per WP:NPOV my talks and article edits.

It has been very difficult to communicate with him, as he often misinterprets things, ignores the point, while focusing on minor details. His responses are often strawmans and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This would not be a problem, if it did not turn into uncivil communication. We need more WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, WP:LISTEN from him to positively cooperate. With this I wanted to highlight that despite his expertise, his actions negatively influence editorial work, continuously. If needed I will collect the diffs that illustrate my impression presented above. To address his last claims: imo Psychological projection.

I understand this is hard for EditorASC. I've tried to be factual in this report, non-offending. I'm sorry if it offends someone. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Look, honestly, this is all a little vague. They may not be especially touchy-feely, but Where is the evidence of edit warring or revenge-edits by the user? "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? Where is a recent SPI report? You're making a lot of assumptions that I'm not really seeing matched by the evidence. El_C 22:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * EditorASC effectively did not contribute to the article (2 sentences: +600 byte, -4 KB) until he needed to delete two sentences, added 1-2 weeks ago, not recently, that was part of the "Expert analysis" section being reviewed and discussed (Discussion: Analysis section) in the thread where he posted off-topic, distracting, strawman arguments in great length about parts of the source that was never cited. It was too much and disrespectful, which I pointed out. In response he posted his WP:ANGER post. He has not made editing suggestions, nor mentioned he challenges the deleted content. Nobody wanted to answer, 9 hours later he deleted the 2 parts from the section. He basically was not editing the article before, this was a WP:REVENGE. His destructive action was so destabilizing, that in a few hours it ended in the non-consensual blanking of the whole section. This sequence of events is against the purpose of wikipedia.


 * His delete (diff 1) was a WP:BOLD action (although the Bold policy supports constructive actions, not destructive), that I reverted (diff 3), which then was re-reverted within 2 hours (diff 5), this is when WP:BRR starts: Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". If my purpose would be to prove by all means this is editwarring, then I would have reverted, and another ip would have done it again, thus destabilizing the article even more. This was not my purpose, I prefer the WP:1RR rule.


 * The whole ordeal seems to be caused by a misunderstanding. The reasons he mentioned in his last post here, suggest he interpreted my wording as I'm stating a physically impossible event. I've written the explanation to the content dispute thread.


 * " "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? "
 * Search "third world" (diff).
 * — Aron Manning (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * They are entitled to speculate that 3rd world standards may be more lax than in the developed world — that isn't discriminatory. I would appreciate sources for that, but as far as an article talk page comment, there's nothing wrong with that. Sorry, I might be a bit thick, but revenge for what? And edit warring where? El_C 00:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Ok, not discriminatory in this community.
 * 2) Revenge for disagreeing. In the "Analysis section" discussion, he's very forceful. I think his image and his influence of the POV of the article seems to be very important. He's been POV-pushing in his talks (eg. diff 1, diff 2) and attacking reliable sources when he disagrees with it (diff 3). The editing atmosphere in that aviation bubble is steered very strongly towards the status quo, working for a neutral POV destabilizes his influence, this is part of the reason for the revenge.
 * 3) The re-revert is by WP:SPASOCKs/WP:IPSOCKs: look at the contributions.
 * 4) The article is edited 1-5 times a day by only a few editors. There are very few, occasional ip editors on the article, not involved in discussions or disputes. The SPASOCKs are very up-to-date with 2 hour reaction time, and seem to be strongly motivated to get involved in the dispute, and to prove a point in the edit comment. (history)
 * 5) I believe I explained the disruptive edit satisfactorily, as that has not been questioned. The revert comment makes it clear the deletes are treated as disruptive edits, and include the link to the appropriate talk page discussion. Reverting a revert when a discussion is clearly pointed to, is editwarring. Not by WP:3RR rule, but by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others".
 * 6) The re-revert is also WP:VAND: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content". The removed content has been present for a few weeks, reviewed and edited for conformance with WP policies. This also applies to the original delete, suspected OR is not a reason for deleting content. Suspecting OR after a week of passing reviews is a sign of bad faith imo.
 * 7) The reason for suspecting OR is that EditorASC misunderstood the sentence, as I explained before: [content dispute] (diff). Storm in a teapot.
 * 8) The [content dispute] is coming to a consensus with the contributing editors. The "suspected OR" sentence will be reworded to avoid such misunderstanding, the "Speculation" section will be merged to another section. No deletes are necessary.
 * — Aron Manning (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. In what community would it be seen as discriminatory?
 * 2. You fail to demonstrate revenge-edits, still.
 * 3. Then file an WP:SPI about it.
 * 4. What does that have to do with the user in question?
 * 5. Still no diffs of edit warring or disruptive editing.
 * 6. Re-revert by whom? That's not made clear.
 * 7. Okay, so there may have been a misunderstanding — what does that have to do with misconduct?
 * 8. Okay, I hope that all works out. El_C 04:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. Not in this one.
 * 2. He deleted content that I created or modified, after he became very angry with me. If that does not sound like revenge, then please describe how to demonstrate revenge-edit.
 * 3. Will do so, I was not sure where to start... May I assume, you see now, the editor of those re-reverts is intentionally hiding behind (07:45, 11 May 2019 diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019  diff 6)?
 * 4. It points out that only an editor of the article or the talk page would have it on watchlist, and have an interest to interfere. This editor is likely the very angry EditorASC.
 * 5. All diffs are in the original post, systematically listed: WP:DISRUPT by EditorASC. 20:52, 10 May 2019 diff 1, 21:17, 10 May 2019‎ diff 2. Let's leave WP:EW aside for a bit.
 * 6. You are just making this up :-D WP:WAND Re-revert by   (07:45, 11 May 2019 diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 diff 6).
 * 7. It helps to understand a misunderstanding in an effort to untangle the tangled mystery of who understands what, without misunderstanding what was understood by whom in this mysterious misery.
 * — Aron Manning (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck with all of that. El_C 05:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)