Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014

User:Wopr


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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Okay, thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Utsav kapadiya
Hi, This user has 20+ warnings on his talk page, which did not seem to have any effect. Most contributions are biographies of non notable people, most stubs without any reliable reference. In addition, he has removed tags after being told not to do so:,. All uploads on Commons are copyright violations, now deleted. In bref, massive violations of WP:BLP. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

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 accusing another  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 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 After being challenged over their statement, Shinealittlelight doubles down on WP:NOT claims, again based only on a user page infobox After being asked to retract their personal attacks, Shinealittlelight refuses Shinealittlelight cautioned by me, and  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 while simultaneously denying that the statements are personal attacks. 

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


 * They have both now been notified. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Here's where they make specific reference to support of violence. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And this dif, previously provided, is, I think, the first reference to "by any means necessary" which they clarified includes support of violence. - as for my Ngo comments - they were not directed at any Wikipedia editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * per this diff; pa is a pa is a pa... Lourdes  15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just driving by to suggest that maybe an editor that "connects the dots" in this fashion maybe should not be allowed to edit WP:ARBAP2 topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * While I'm not concerned with the blocked IDHT attacks, I'm more concerned with behaviors like 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Some would argue that starting the line at 'advocating genocide' is quite a bit too late. Arkon (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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 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)


 * 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, I was mostly amused by their description NYT and WaPo's bourgeois journalists and their owner capitalists has always been against progressive movements on RS/N. Showing some old-school colors is fine. --Pudeo (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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... — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment - An MfD has been started on these antifascist userboxes. Above discussion participants may be interested in joining this relevant discussion as well. Tsu  *miki*⧸ 🌉 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No, I didn't start that MfD. I'm just disappointed that participants of this discussion weren't informed of the MfD, which is clearly inspired by this ANI discussion. Tsu  *miki*⧸ 🌉 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Another Hateful edit summary left
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)
 * 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)
 * It would have been better if you had first discussed your complaint on the article's- or the user's talk page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

,, It is done but the poster removed it from his talk page. --Loginnigol


 * , done according to ANI. --Loginnigol

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, , ,. 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)
 * 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)
 * my talkpage is covered by your warnings --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Also, please, check these people (especially their edit-history): --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A man without a country - his edits are also fully connected to Russian government and Russian-Ukrainian topics (for ex, see this edit )
 * Srnec (for ex, )
 * Tobby72 - most of his edits are closely connected to Russian oligarchs and Russian government (some of his edits:, , , ,, you can even find his edits on the page about the company that is better known as the troll factory
 * and this IP Special:Contributions/178.165.88.220 on whether this ip Ermenrich's


 * I don't see any wrongdoing by in the diffs provided by, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Devlet Geray, I tried to talk to you several times, but you just completely ignore me. Not good at all. -- A man without a country (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * I don't think so — Devlet Geray (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't have to agree with me, but I'll make this much clear: If you file another complaint that is this bereft of evidence, I will block you. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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, , , and accusations against Srnec for restoring sourced information ,. See also his repeated insertion of the same text to Assassination of Boris Nemtsov, ,. This latest bout of accusations started after he tried to remove the same sourced information again at Crimean Tartars and I reverted him, and he reverted me  and he, without any discussion, tried to move Russo-Crimean Wars to Crimean Russian Wars, 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)


 * Devlet, your accusation is ridiculous (see some of my past edits:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ). I'm just trying to be neutral.
 * Btw Black Sea and Devlet Geray are likely the same person. Here; Black Sea's edit and Devlet Geray's edit . -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * The edits sited in the OP are absolutely correct, we indeed use Kiev and not Kyiv, which is promoted by the Ukrainian government.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this edit by Devlet Geray was absolutely not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given Devlet Geray a DS alert.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I am afraid this is becoming disruptive --Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Nicoljaus is WP:NOTLISTENING over 2 weeks
The editor, since started the discussion Talk:Rusyns on 26 June, mostly transferred to Talk:White Croats 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)
 * The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN ----Nicoljaus (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Also reported at WP:AN/EW because of edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No need for so many words, just show "17,228 Horvati" in the ref you returned. --Nicoljaus (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)



Edit made purely with the intent of an insult in the edit summary.
This edit summary over at Britney Spears: "Chaheel Riens I don't give a fuck to you.Ok?Mother Fucker."

The edit seems to have been made purely for the purpose of leaving the edit summary, as they then removed the unnecessary period straight away here.

Presumably a response to my correcting their linking to the wrong S&M article. The contentious topic is whether the Britney remix of S&M is enough of a Britney song to count as "her" number one. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, but after noting the calendar of event self-reverted and started conversation on the talk page. Pretty sure this edit summary is in a different league to my own.

Editor informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked that editor for 24 hours. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As a personal note I'll reconsider my own edit summaries, but as stated above - that was beyond my own.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User who's edits are only adding flags
is only doing edits that consist in the addition of flags to infobox. See his ten last contributions: He has been warned several times from July 2018 to July 2019, by and me.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/905953997, Special:Diff/905953918, Special:Diff/905953714, Special:Diff/905953632, Special:Diff/905952938, Special:Diff/905952791: 6 edits only to add flags to infoboxes weapons.
 * Special:Diff/905951680: one good-faith edit (however, if I remember correctly, links should be avoided in sections title)
 * Special:Diff/905928730 and Special:Diff/905677697: unexplained changes (I don't whether these are "good" edits or not)
 * Special:Diff/905677697: adding a useless link since this type of aircraft has been mentionned above in the page.


 * I've given them one final absolute warning that if they make any edit that violates MOS:FLAG they will be blocked. Don't know how I can be clearer. If this happens, let me know and I'll block. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the same pattern as a blocked sockdrawer from last year that was also spamming flags, many of them copyvio, and other copyvio images. They had the same WP:RADAR behavior of ignoring all warnings, and zero talk page responses. Every time we'd block them, they'd lay low for a bit then create another sock and continue. Looking back through the history now to see who they were. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Found them. The main indef-blocked sockdrawers were
 * I see others were added later, including sleeper accounts that may have been the sockmasters. - Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can see the deleted contribs here, this is the sock account in particular that was uploading and inserting flags and similar images (tribal seals): -  <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Emmy Expert doesn't add flags to articles. He changes images on awards articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Emmy came up in the conversation, as there were some overlaps in behavior, but yes, should probably be ruled out here as we eventually sorted them into two drawers. It was the two socks of Chitt, and mostly Higher Ground, that did the flags. Thanks. I'll strike Emmy. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced they're the same person. The editor in question on this thread is solely interested in military history and weapons. They're not uploading new images, they're not linking to copyrighted items, they're overlinking and adding flags where policy dictates they shouldn't be. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 02:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Emmy came up in the conversation, as there were some overlaps in behavior, but yes, should probably be ruled out here as we eventually sorted them into two drawers. It was the two socks of Chitt, and mostly Higher Ground, that did the flags. Thanks. I'll strike Emmy. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced they're the same person. The editor in question on this thread is solely interested in military history and weapons. They're not uploading new images, they're not linking to copyrighted items, they're overlinking and adding flags where policy dictates they shouldn't be. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 02:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

COI user issues legal threat
Greetings! has subtly declared his conflict of interest vis-a-vis the Cathedral and John Connon School, which he refers to as "the school's official page" and has issued a legal threat against, promising to track her down via IP address.
 * Elizium23 (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Adij94. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * North East England, near Durham. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 10:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kajol Aikat
Can someone please have a look at this AFD? There are quite a few sock puppets (or meat puppets). Some appear to be altering other editor's comments. Peacock (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, they are all so obviously spurious that no closer will have trouble discounting them. Makes the page harder to read though... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, discussion closed, article deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans
See archived link at wp:ANI: The same people are attacked again. Please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I also confirmed the act of impersonation, please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. I've applied a two-week block to the IPv6 range.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

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 ( and ) and have now created a user account and are making the same edits there (see and ). 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)
 * Even with the IP edits, this is clearly a brand new editor. Perhaps,, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Inappropriate behavior by editor Herostratus on Murder of Seth Rich & associated talk page
Herostratus made three edits to the Murder of Seth Rich page on July 9, 2019 to add an article published the same day by Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News discussing a possible Russian government origin of the conspiracy theory that he was murdered by the DNC in retaliation for supposedly leaking e-mails to Wikileaks. The source was added to two sections. One was it's own paragraph near the end of the page. The second was a change of the "Conspiracy Theory - Origins" paragraph to "Russian Origins", stating matter of factly that the conspiracy theory had been manufactured by the Russian government. I felt this added undue weight to a recently published article by an author who had previously published articles that later turned out to be based on incorrect information from anonymous sources and a sensationalist partisan book about the contentious Trump issue. Since I am not a regular Wiki editor, I added these concerns to the talk page rather than making edits on my own.

Herostratus responded by accusing me of being a Russian agent in a short reply. The following day he added a long winding response about which particular author would be more pleasing to me personally that ended with a kind of verbal shrug that readers should be familiar with the source's author and decide on their own whether to disregard the source as a "hack journalist." Their arguments in this reply did not seem to me to have any particular central thesis. I replied addressing some of what appears to be their concerns, reiterating my concerns and urging that the article should not be given prominence until more sources discussing the claim were available to corroborate the claim of Russian origin. Another user, Geogene, noted that a Washington Post article had since been published casting doubt on the Isikoff claims. Herostratus responded to my post and Geogene's with a weird rant. He said article sources do not need corroboration, talked about their belief that the unpopularity of Donald Trump is practically universal, defended the use of bias, and said the Russian 'the "Russia collusion conspiracy theory". Is that something like the "Earth is round conspiracy theory"?' He also accused me of being a third person who started a different talk page discussion (this is partially my fault, I thought I had a static IP at my work computer, but apparently I do not).

I found this behavior on the talk page to be inappropriate and rude. It is because of things like this that I have no desire to regularly edit wikipedia or register here and have perhaps a dozen times in my life added a comment to a talk page. I am concerned his edits to the Murder of Seth Rich page itself were not in the spirit of Wikipedia and when questioned on the appropriateness of their comment, Herostratus discourage participation in Wikipedia, cast aspersions of people questioning them, and asserted bizarre claims that bias and unreliable information were suitable for publication on Wikipedia. I do not know the appropriate procedures here, so I leave it in your hands to take appropriate action with this uncouth editor.

I believe I resolved the matter of the edits to the Seth Rich page by starting a motion asking editors to vote on whether or not to revert Herostratus' edits and replace them with information from the WaPo Geogene posted to the talk page.2603:3004:6B6:F800:F090:7218:F73C:5CBF (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken re-inserting incorrect categories
There was a recent discussion on categories of whether critics of Islam should be further sub-divided based on religion or philosophy. The result was to purge categories where the critism of Islam was not relevant, per WP:DEFINING. I recently started removing Category:Secular critics of Islam from articles were there was no proof provided in the article that the subjects criticism was secular based. In the past half an hour User:Beyond My Ken has been reverting my edits, and re-installing the former category which I belive to be inappropriate. When I messaged him on his talk page on the absolute lack of any connection to secularism Tommy Robinson (activist) has see here, she/he responded by saying that since there was no mention of religion in the Robinson article, his critism of Islam was by de fault secular see response, a logic that I find troubling since as an asumption it violates WP:VNT, WP:COP, among other well established Wikipedia guidlines. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Inter&anthro's theory appears to be that if an article says that someone holds a religious belief, any religious belief, to any extent, then their criticism of Islam cannot be "secular". I would say that the category might pertain to (1) Anyone who criticizes Islam who is not a religious leader of some sort, or (2) Anyone whose criticism of Islam is not about the religion, per se, but about Islamic societies.  I don't that I&A's theory holds water in any case, but the ambiguity of the category "Secular criticism of Islam" is not a subject of discussion for AN/I.  I advised I&A to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, which he reports that he has done.  Why they also chose to go forum shopping and open this discussion as well, I'm not sure.  In my opinion, this thread is inappropriate for AN/I and should be archived in favor of the discussion at WT:CFD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Cross wiki threats and harassment
Hi

a banned user in French wikipedia came here to threat me and vowed to forbid me to became administrator on a day, after an administrator suggested me to applie to it.

What could we do? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for harassment. Ignore them.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, ignore, Panam2014. But if you dislike having that crap in your page history, let me know and I'll revision delete it. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC).

Disruptive behavior from IP 203.109.232.234
Disruptive editing behavior for days from this New Zealand IP address 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)
 * 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)
 * Just a quick update that a parallel case on sock puppetry has opened: .Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Minimumbias - Thanks for the update and for letting us know. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See also this thread at AN/EW. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've closed the SPI with no action. As for the New Zealand IPs, I express no opinion on whether they are the same person, but the idea that they are WP:BKFIP is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Neurorel pattern of edits VS Ramachandran


I have been advised at the BLP noticeboard, that WP:ANI is the place to get help with '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:

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.
 * Expanding material, cherry-picked and cited to primary sources that criticizes R's work. For example, V._S._Ramachandran, 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 (removing a paragraph describing evidence from R's group for neurological explanation)
 * Mirror box (Talk page demonstration of N's using quotes out of context to attack R's work.)
 * Sleep paralysis (Removing cited work by R's group on neurological basis of sleep paralysis. Note that RS does not agree with N's POV)
 * Tell-Tale Brain (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
 * Science NetworkNew PROD in July 2019 Second PROD (first was rejected in 2013)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * At Talk:V._S._Ramachandran, you proposed adding negative content on two different topics: R's testimony at Montgomery trial and possible use of his early research on vision. (Neither topic was ever a controversy discussed by WP:RS or by the public.) Your description there of R's trial testimony was false and slanderous. That happened July 5.
 * 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) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from editing articles related to VS Ramachandran
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)


 * Support as person proposing the topic ban. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to HouseofChange complaint and Question about material that is obtained from CBC website
Again, I think the Ramachandran entry is now satisfactory. I regret the insinuations and accusations that seem to accompany editing disagreements about the Ramachandran entry. It's not the way to build the Wikipedia community spirit.

Here is a question: The first time (ten years ago?) I dialed up the wiki entry on Ramachandran I was attempting to see if there was any information about Roger Bingham, who claimed that he was a research associate at the CBC (on an online bio). In the top paragraph the "Center for Brain and Cognition" was displayed in red. I had seen names and phrases displayed in blue (indicating a wiki entry for them) but I had never seen anything displayed in red. I manged to find my way to an explanation (on the wiki deletion log) which said (as best I can remember) that the entry for the Center for Brain and Cognition had been permanently deleted because it was deemed to be advertising (or words to that effect). The deletion log indicated that the entry could not be reestablished with out permission. This log is, no doubt, archived somewhere. This may explain why there is no entry on Wikipedia for the Center for Brain and Cognition. However Ramachandran does maintain a personal website for the CBC. Unwittingly, editors have used information from it without attempting to fact check the accuracy of the basis of their reference. (said Neurorel)


 * 's decade of editing the Ramachandran entry has not made it "satisfactory" as a scientist's bio. R's work is barely covered, but trivial matters such as his consulting work have been included, as well as an account of critical mentions of areas R has worked in, often at greater length than is given to the account of his work. Ramachandran is one of several scientists I photographed at an event in AZ. I did quite a bit of work improving Roger Shepard because our brief encounter made me curious to learn more (People at the event told me that Shepard and Ramachandran were "famous," which is why I took their photos for Wikimedia.) I was shocked at the bad state of Ramachandran's article when I visited it in late June. I started trying to improve it in accordance with Wikipedia policies and MOS. It is frustrating that Neurorel disregards RS if his personal opinion is that RS are wrong. It is frustrating that Neurorel disregards WP:LEAD, but eagerly uses the lead to showcase varied attempts to "expose" Ramachandran and the CBC. I just want to create a good Wikipedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

North Korean POV pushing
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)


 * 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)


 * "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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * First on, Tibet. So, it is OK to use sources like "International Campaign for Tibet" (website is savetibet.org), The International Commission of Jurists (funded by the CIA and which functioned more or less as its propaganda instrument), CIA agents like the Dalai Lama (just three questionable sources that come to mind), but not to add information from a source representing over a billion people? It is clearly labelled as China's view, unlike many of the various other sources of the kind I mentioned. What is off about that particular edit? Do you have evidence the ROC did not approve the current Dalai Lama's enthronement, or that the other historical documents referred to are fake? If not, the edit was good and I have challenged the "revert" (of which there doesn't appear to have been one, but it still disappeared somehow). As one commentator has noted, China's claim to Tibet is much stronger than the American claim to parts of the Western United States (or for that matter, the American South, over which it fought a civil war which ended slavery - in the United States, that is - it still continued in Tibet for many years, only ending after the PRC's intervention).


 * Also, I have not written about "how awesome North Korea is", as per Golbez, or "how awesome Communist China is for Tibet," per "someguy", just added sourced facts, written the truth (which speaks for itself), and balanced out a number of biased articles. None of my edits reflect a specifically pro-North Korean POV, they have just attempted to bring neutrality to topics that are desperately lacking it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incogreader (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Block indefinitely this account. This is a very clear pattern of POV-pushing, possibly editing on the behalf or North Korean government. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the users listed here have gone into any detail of what exactly is the problem beyond vague "pro-North Korean POV" or (presumably) "pro-China" POV. They have not stated what specifically I've added to articles that is "pro-North Korea." As for "possibly editing on the behalf or North Korean government," this is a very serious claim, so you must have some proof for that (other than editing pages related North Korea - and Tibet - in addition to a few other edits)? Luckily this isn't South Korea with its National Security Law.Incogreader (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See Streisand effect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of editing by Incogreader. Yes, the sourcing of the page must be significantly improved, but the facts about the abductions are well known. There is nothing "alleged" here. Incogreader inserts the following: "Questions have been raised as to whether Jin Gyeong-suk was actually arrested, rather than abducted" sourced to ... a WP page. What? Well, even if we wanted to use this page as a source, it tells something very different, as anyone can easily check. They remove "Despite the testimonies of former abductees who have escaped from the North,..." (but these testimonies are well known and publicized, so this is an important to note). And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, according to the same article, North Korea disputes the existence of post-war abductees, so alleged is appropriate. And the article on Jin Gyeong-suk contains the line "The question arose whether Jin had actually been kidnapped or only arrested in accordance with North Korean law.", so this question actually has come up. The same article also says that the person in question was to meet a middle-man who "was supposed to smuggle a video camera into North Korea" on her behalf. If she had been acting legally there would be no need to get someone to smuggle it. How would she know about supposed drug involvement by the North Korean government anyway? Did she report this story to the proper authorities before seeking out the aid of foreign forces? The story itself raises some questions. I could not find anything from North Korea reporting this - if they have indeed not acknowledged an arrest, perhaps she was kidnapped by drug traffickers independent of North Korea, if her story actually has even a bit of truth to it. And finally, if the "testimonies of former abductees" are "well known and publicized," there should be no problem with finding a source and readding the passage in question. I checked, and although I did not spend a long time searching, I could not easily find any. Incogreader (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect Wikipedia promotions from Kim Fatso III so this may be just a rare case of Juche enthusiast. But the above abduction-denial is delusional as well as inexcusable. Block this account. Tsu  *miki*⧸ 🌉 04:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not actually denied the claimed North Korean abductions in South Korea, just raised questions. Although, based on the sources, I do find it doubtful. To my knowledge, China has never raised this issue, even though several cases are alleged to have happened there. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding this line;

"'First on, Tibet. So, it is OK to use sources like 'International Campaign for Tibet' (website is savetibet.org), The International Commission of Jurists (funded by the CIA and which functioned more or less as its propaganda instrument), CIA agents like the Dalai Lama (just three questionable sources that come to mind),'"
 * Unfortunately, propagandists for "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea aren't the only communist propagandists to push this lie. The "Party for Socialism and Liberation" is big on perpetuating this propaganda (https://factandtruth.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/american-people-oppose-anti-china-campaign/). Ignore the title of the link - it's neither facts nor truth. So I agree with Tsumikiria and others here. Block thus user. -User:DanTD (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly is untrue? Did ICJ not receive CIA funding? A check of its Wikipedia page shows that it did, and that it was in fact co-founded by long-time CIA director Allen Dulles. Did the current Dalai Lama not receive founding from the CIA as well? Again, research based on declassified American documents shows that he personally received funding from the CIA. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Look at this edit - You cannot just use Google as a source here, and why did you remove a reliable source (Reuters) here? As for this edit, I'm sure that North Korea itself threatened to launch missiles at Guam, and not test. This source tells that it was a threatened launch. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 13:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The removal of the Reuters article citation was accidental (the part about the CIA's help with fleeing to India was also removed, again by accident). I meant to remove only the line "because the people of Tibet wanted to take a stance and protect the man they all cherished, from the communist government." THAT is obviously POV ("the man they all cherished"?). As for the missile tests, I would like to see a source for the claim that North Korea threatened to launch at Guam without provocation, if this is what you are claiming. Regardless, it did not actually launch a missile at Guam, it test fired one into the air, and it landed safely dozens of miles away from Guam. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Quick check shows that Incogreader intentionally misinforms readers. Consider this edit with edit summary: "source cited does not actually confirm 45% stunted North Korean children". How come? Here is the source, and it tells: "Roughly 45 per cent of North Korean children under the age of five are stunted from malnutrition". The user did start a discussion on talk, but in no way the discussion disproves what this and other RS tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This was not properly cited. The citation for that article (from Telegraph) appears after the next sentence, which I did not check (the line about "45 per cent of North Korean children under the age of five" being malnourished has a citation to a BBC article, which has nothing about this - and while, after some research, the 45% figure, probably dating back to 1998 when the country was still in a serious food shortage, appears elsewhere, other sources do not make clear that 45% of children were actually stunted, rather than simply being malnourished). A later figure from Jimmy Carter in 2011 mentioned elsewhere the article gives a figure of one third of children. One researcher at a university in Seoul reported an average difference of about 3-4cm in the children of defectors, which depending on sample size may or may not be statistically significant. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fact remains: you removed well-sourced info which was in the source, while falsely claiming it was not in the source. That might be just an honest error on your part, but you continued to argue on the talk page (link above) that "the source provided for the claim "Roughly 45% of North Korean children under the age of five are stunted from malnutrition ... does not actually state 45% of children are stunted, and is sensationalist reporting about young supposed "defectors" whom Laos and North Korea say were actually victims of human trafficking who may have been beaten and forced to convert to Christianity." So, not only you intentionally misrepresented the source, but you seem to believe that victims of human trafficking and Christians are no longer defectors and therefore ... not trustworthy? My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Speaking about Tibet, Incogreader posted this. He tells: "Starting in 1950-1, the People's Republic of China (PRC) began undertaking democratic reforms in Tibet" and elsewhere". This is just ridiculous. See History of the People's Republic of China (1949–1976). That was time of Maoist political repressions, and what they did in Tibet is also well known. Now, I am thinking this user is actually related to China. That edit alone indicates that Incogreader is WP:Not here and possibly has a COI. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While its true that most of the democratic reforms occurred in 1959 and after, the reforms did start in 1950-1. They included the reduction of interest rates on loans by monasteries (which were as high as 50%) and building hospitals and roads. Prior to the 1950's (especially 1959), Tibet was a feudal theocracy, and the separation between temple and state, a pillar of democracy, occurred only after Chinese intervention. Slavery still flourished in the period before the PRC's intervention as well. See the citations, particularly Michael Parent's "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth." Incogreader (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And the "democratic reforms in 1959 and after" included what? Great Leap Forward, Great Chinese Famine and Cultural Revolution? You are just repeating old communist colonialist propaganda that they made happy their own people and other "savages" like Tibetan people (this is basically a copycat of old time Soviet propaganda how they made everyone "happy" in Gulag). My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted in the citations, democratic reforms included abolition of human slavery, corporal punishment, separation of church/temple and state, and redistribution of land to landless peasants and tenant farmers. And the entire country, not just Tibet, suffered during the GLF period/famine (which natural disasters contributed to, and during which life expectancy was still above pre-1949 levels) and the excesses of the misguided Cultural Revolution (which were often carried out by ethnic Tibetans). Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh! So the widespread destruction of Chinese culture during the Cultural Revolution was largely the responsibility of the Tibetans! I'd missed reading that before.  Thank you for clarifying!   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article itself says that "During the Cultural Revolution, Red Guards, which included Tibetan members,[47] inflicted a campaign of organized vandalism against cultural sites." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incogreader (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the page tells exactly the opposite: . My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Democratic reforms? "abolition of human slavery, corporal punishment, separation of church/temple and state, and redistribution of land to landless peasants and tenant farmers" aren't democratic reforms. Where's the democracy ? And cultural suppression counts as "democratic" reform? Besides, one of your edit's source (this edit) was literally government propaganda. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, this edit is one of 's first edits. How on earth would they know about the POV tag so early? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Indef block the account. Not to pile on or anything, but here the user edited the article Korean War, changing a sentence that atrocities were committed on both sides to say that they were committed by the South Korean side. I will say that I feel sorry for the person behind the account, who may find himself or herself in a horrific situation. But the encyclopedia needs to be protected, and doing so won't hurt the person.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

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, , and September 2018.
 * User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:3DB1:1FA5:CCE4:A120 (today, from me)
 * User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:9451:6474:6D5D:806D
 * User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:781F:87D1:3B2B:72A6
 * User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:49E6:C15C:F183:1FDC
 * User talk:2601:1C1:C200:6E1A:5511:4169:3E00:6FE7
 * etc...

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)


 * Blocked the range for 2 years. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Harry Princeton
I have been discussing with User:Harry Princeton because I felt that his edits to Conway Polyhedron Notation did not improve the article in question. His response to my most recent message to him was to delete the message from my own user talk page. I've never had someone disruptively edit my own user talk page before! I need someone else involved here, because clearly he's not going to listen to me. -Apocheir (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Apocheir, I sincerely apologize for deleting your most recent message in your talk. I had not realized that was unacceptable and unwarranted under Wikipedia policy.


 * However, I think that your opinion on my edits on Conway Polyhedron Notation is not accurate. For example, see Tomruen's images in Chamfer (geometry) and Chamfer (geometry), which I think is Original Research as well (and 'does not improve the article,' as you say). Harry Princeton (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. I thought it was on my user page, which is why I deleted it. Harry Princeton (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive page creation user
Hello,

has been created numerous pages that have been getting speedy deleted almost instantly. The pages are non-notable Minecraft terms and people which clearly violate the WP:GNG. Even after deletion, the user still continues to create drafts and redirects that violate the GNG. Edits like this also appear from this user.

As a member of WikiProject stale drafts and an active participant in deletion, this user needs to be addressed as the creations do nothing but take time away from users who have to delete and address. A page creation ban or something should be in consideration.

Thank you <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 18:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These stats are pretty poor, but as an exercise in precision, only three four have been deleted today—the other (22!) are from last years.Incidentally, I imagine you...forgot to inform them of this ANI, ? Please do so now. ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to notify. I have since done so. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 19:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem with a page creation ban in itself is that it seems to fly in the face of WP:HERE, somewhat: even at this stage of the game, new articles is gotta be what it's about. But, I agree that as it stands, if they are allowed to create pages in artice space, they are going to consume the time of new page patrollers and deleting admins, and if they are restricted to draftspace, they will consume said time of AfC reviewers...adn deleting admins. Even G13 just kicks the can down the road...bit of a time sink all round, really: now and six months time. ——  SerialNumber  54129
 * I see what you are saying. What do you suggest we do? This user needs to learn that Wikipedia is not a depository for their thoughts and knowledge. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 19:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll go with whatever more experienced users suggest, probably: but on the face of it, if all they're doing is producing crud and taking up the time and energy of multiple other editors then that seems a definition of WP:NOTHERE. But perhaps there's a less nuclear option. A page creation tban would, after all, still allow them to gnome and add to existing articles, which might teach them what they need to know—and slow them down a mite. ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. A page creation ban can maybe teach the user that Wikipedia does not tolerate non encyclopedic activity. If the user continues to add non-encyclopedic content to existing pages, that may be a further issue down the line, but lets cross that bridge when we get there. I respect you and agree with your opinion. Should we delete the non-notable draft the user is working on? <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 19:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If would engage then I think setting to 1 creation per week (at pain of a full page ban) might (just might) work as a compromise, otherwise a full page ban would probably be the only course of action. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I stopped short of issuing a NOTHERE the day before this was opened. I essentially warned the user from making anymore non-notable pages and moved their latest creation to draft. I do not believe it will ever be suitable, but it was an effort to engage the user and get them to respond. So far the user has not edited since nor really acknowledged any of what I tried to tell them. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

IBAN violations by U1Quattro
User U1Quattro violated IBAN twice in last 2 days. 1. This user still arbitrary deletes chassis codes from italian cars that were uploaded by me, repeating his Tendentious editing behaviour that resulted in his previour block: Special:Diff/905790969 Special:Diff/538038099 and Special:Diff/883957905 There already was a discussion about how important they are and are also in Automobiles WikiProject guidelines. 2. He arbitrary deletes source provided by me, knowing very well it was provided by me. And this is deliberate IBAN violation: Special:Diff/905919559 Special:Diff/856959988 Section violated: Interaction ban "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" YBSOne (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would present my side of the story. There as already been a discussion on this user's talk page that his website is not in compliance with WP:RS so I removed it. Further, I didn't know that the source was added by this user until he mentioned it here. I saw an unreliable source and replaced it. About removal of the chassis codes, the Automobiles guideline allow them to be mentioned in the names of the automobiles in the article in order to distinguish them from each other when they have a similar name. This doesn't apply to all automobiles and their names. I did not undo the edits in short, I just deleted excess information. That doesn't count as an IBAN violation. I stayed away from this user and his user page until today he decided to go on and post on my talk page which is indeed an IBAN violation. U1 quattro   TALK''  12:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wheather this website in not a reliable source is not an issue here. One persons opinion on my talk page does not constitute this weebsite as unrealiable source. You have not replaced it with more reliable sources but three car selling sites. Those are also self published information provided by a seller. Don't claim that You are improving wikipedia. You knew very well it was provided by me else how would You know it was mentioned on my talk page? I can post a notice on Your talk page, and it is required. It is not an IBAN violation. Quote: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." YBSOne (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if you are right, it is an IBAN, that means no interaction for any reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do however note that at least one of the reversions was to an edit you made 6 years ago [], so he might not have known it was you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not my problem. I have proven that this is a continuation of his tendentious editing behaviour and that he knew who provided the source and I'm pretty sure he knew who added the chassis code.YBSOne (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For the imposition of the IBAN between U1quattro and Ybsone, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * To make my point clear, I do not have the time to dig up years old edit history regarding a page. So I did not know who added the chassis code and the website. As for the website not in conformity with the WP:RS, I participated in the discussion on the user's talk page before an IBAN was implemented. Also the website clearly mentions in large text about the owner. All of the claims made by the said user are false. I have complied with the IBAN rules to this date until this discussion and a notice popped on my talk page. To post on my talk page, an appeal against the IBAN was required which wasn't allowed before a time of six months. This user has violated that. U1 quattro  TALK''  12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not post a notice about this incident on Your talk page to appeal to You about an IBAN. Please stop bludgeoning this thread. YBSOne (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing an IBAN violations here - On both the Maserati_Shamal and Maserati_Q articles there's a months gap on them both, There's been no reverts, It's a bit of a stretch to say U1 knew they were your edits IMHO. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad didn't realise he was removing a website which he knew was yours, That indeed is a IBAN violation and as such I agree with Drmies's block. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * His quote: "As for the website not in conformity with the WP:RS, I participated in the discussion on the user's talk page before an IBAN was implemented." He knew I inserted that source, that he claims is not reliable, but freely uses its contents and links provided there. Also definition from Interaction ban: "whether by use of the revert function or by other means". Definition does not state the time frame. YBSOne (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not know that the said user inserted the source . The website belongs to the user, thats true because the website says so. Participation in the talk page discussion was about the website not being a rouble source, not about whether or not the said user inserted it in the Maserati Quattroporte page. All in all, this user is just wasting everyone's time in reporting something that wasn't violated by me. U1 quattro   TALK''  13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't get why we deliberate about his intentions. He removed a website that he knew I provided because he was feuding with me for past months banging on about it also. If there was any doubt he should have checked. This edit: Special:Diff/905919559 was not legitimate. Website provided: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/cars/maserati-quattroporte-iv/ was replaced with links from the very same website. His violation of IBAN is unquestionable. YBSOne (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A simple Google Search about the Maserati Quattroporte Cornes Serie Speciale reveals these links as stipulated here. I did not visited the said website to check the links either. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well. If there is an IBAN, and if that IBAN was issued in part because the one editor was undoing the other user's edits involving those numbers, and if the one editor adds that the information should be removed because the source is unreliable AND the source is a website run by the other editor, then it is HIGHLY disingenuous for the one editor to say "Oh I didn't know it was that editor's text I removed with that unreliable website". In other words, this claim has no validity whatsoever--and if one has been blocked before for a violation, one should try much harder to stay away from the other user. So this is a violation of the IBAN and thus blockable: I have blocked for a week. As for YBSOne, I think the best thing to happen here would be a formal discussion at WP:RSN, and possibly at WP:COIN. If indeed the website is unreliable (and I see no reason whatsoever to accept it as a reliable source), and if indeed it is run by YBSOne, then a. those references should be removed and the website perhaps blacklisted, and b. consideration should be given to warning or even censoring YBSOne for promotional linking. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I intend to take this website to WP:RSN because amongst car community it is seen as a reliable source. Information gathered there is from car manufacturers, press releases and other reliable sources. As could be seen here sometimes there are no other sources: here. Also I am actively replacing all previous instances of citing this website just in case. YBSOne (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RSN won't care for the blogs, forums, and personal websites you listed there as evidence. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Week block is unsatisfactory for his n-th offense. He will not stop pestering me. And I in the meantime cannot edit this blunder: Special:Diff/893183501, one of many. He is not here to build an encyclopedia:
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012
 * In May this year I complained: "Over past year my edits were reverted 18 times by U1Quattro"
 * In June this number rose to 45... and now we have 2 more. I was under the impression that this IBAN was his last warning. YBSOne (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * YBSOne, last time you were here your opponent got blocked, and then another admin looked at your edits and blocked you for a week. And now I block the editor for violating the ban, and yet here you are whining that it wasn't punishment enough--someone who may well have been plugging their own website on Wikipedia should probably not draw too much attention to themselves., you were the one who blocked Ybsone; this is just FYI. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to hide. Here is the list of articles that still use the website. It is not being "plugged". It is only used as a last measure when there are no sources available, see above, or when new information is groundbreaking and confirmed by manufacturer. Only two reasons for using it are: a source of an interview with a designer, that may or may not be replaced today by a different source (will look into it). The other is for production dates of AR cars, that can be verified by anyone as they have VINs published (not replacable as far as I know). YBSOne (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem at Talk:Erich von Manstein
Hello all, I have a problem at Talk:Erich von Manstein, where I recently. In addition to being a bit of a repeat of material in the paragraph immediately following, I felt that it was inappropriate for us to state in Wikipedia's voice that Manstein had indeed carried out the order when he had stated at his trial that he had not. Whether I'm correct or not that for us to make that judgement is original research is not the issue; what happened next is the problem. User:DuncanHill visited the talk page, and commented "" I took this to be a prersonal attack, and said so on his talk page, and asked him to withdraw the remark. He did not; in fact he doubled down, stating "" and posted again at the article talk page "" and later in response to my third attempt to resolve this myself posted "" which is kinda like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife. Anyone who watches my talk page knows I shrug off a lot of guff, but this is intolerable and I would appreciate some input. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded in Diannaa's defense on the article talk page, and asked DuncanHill to withdraw his remarks and apologize. If he refuses to do so, I suggest that a PA block is in order especially considering Diannaa's long history of protecting articles about Nazis from inappropriate edits from Nazi sympathizers, neo-Fascists etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I find Duncan Hill's complaint hard to understand, and their two attacks to be pretty low blows. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't have to say that at all, and certainly didn't have to double and then triple down on it. DuncanHill recently wrote that "calling someone toxic is a real attack, telling someone to fuck off isn't", so he should understand why accusing another editor of attempts to play down the actions of convicted war criminals, trying to downplay ... war crimes and being deferential to ... Nazi war criminals are all real personal attacks. I hope he retracts and apologizes. Kudos to Diannaa for handling the situation so well. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I endorse the assessments of, and . Those personal attacks by DuncanHill crossed a line, and I advise the editor to apologize. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with the above. Regardless of the content dispute these are unacceptable personal attacks and need to be apologised for. All my interactions with Diannaa have shown a deep and abiding interest in neutral editing when it comes to Nazis. If there is no apology à tout de suite, then a block is in order. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Commissar Order is one of the war crimes of which von Manstein was convicted. To not mention it in the War crimes section is to suggest either that Wikipedia does not regard it as a war crime, or that Wikipedia thinks he was innocent. DuncanHill (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And I am sure this content question can be discussed further; the thread here is about personal attacks, and I would welcome some kind of "sorry" by DuncanHill. Beyond My Ken is spot-on about Diannaa's fight against all things from Nazi sympathizers, neo-Fascists etc. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't review all of Diannaa's edits before making my comments, I'm not that kind of creep. I still have not. If I had an animus against her I would. I saw what looked to me like an attempt to remove mention of a war crime commited by von Manstein from the von Manstein war crimes section by an editor of whom I knew next to nothing, and that looked deeply suspicious to me. I'm delighted to learn that Diannaa does not wish to downplay von Manstein's war crimes, and that she is not trying to give equal weight to the claims of a convicted war criminal as we do to the findings of the court and of subsequent histories such as The Myth of the Eastern Front, referenced in our article on the Commissar Order to support its mention of von Manstein. DuncanHill (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not an apology. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you want an explanation and discussion, or an apology forced out of me at the threat of a block? DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You've received advice from two admins and two other editors to apologise for your personal attacks on another editor. You should do so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no need for an apology, but an admission you made a mistake and/or striking out the offensive comments at the article talk page would be great. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove my comments from the article talk page then go ahead. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry DuncanHill, but this is rich. You are not a creep so you have not established what kind of editor it is that you're accusing, based on one single edit, of being a Third Reich sympathizer, and because you're not a creep and did nothing wrong you don't owe anyone an apology. You have turned a question, or a doubt, about editing text into an accusation of Nazi sympathy, and explained by ... well you didn't explain how a content question turned into an accusation. So yeah, it's obvious that you're not apologizing and that you won't, and to the commenters here I think it's obvious you actually haven't explained a thing, except that this simply was a personal attack. So let me point you to Template:Uw-npa4im. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with demanding an apology with threats is that it makes an apology impossible. If one is offered it gets met with "It's not a real apology, you only said it because we were going to block you". I was just going to strike my comments as requested by Diannaa, but I see an accout registerd in 2014 has just made its very first edit in doing so. So I can't even do that. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , "demanding an apology with threats" does not "make an apology impossible"; if anything, it should make it more easy. Since you have missed your opportunity to strike the comments, I would recommend making an apology instead. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Diannaa said "there's no need for an apology" - but because she said that I can say I am sorry to her, I could have worded things better, but I am not in any way sorry to the pile-on brigade here. And I would like to make it very clear that, contrary to one claim above, I did not accuse her of being a "Third Reich sympathiser". DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is worded kinda convoluted, but appears if I am parsing it correctly to be an apology, so in response I say, I accept your apology DuncanHill. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Qahramani44
User:Qahramani44 has a history of following my edits, makes frequent claims about my edits and violations, he recently even chases me on talk pages and remove my conversations in last conversation he deleted from this talk page he refered to me with this phrase " Hey boy this ain't a forum ", I wonder if this behaviour is accepted in Wikipedia, not to mention that he has a clear Anti semitic opinions which can be spotted in his new Editing war with other users at this very time at this page in which he uses his registered account User:Qahramani44  and the IP associated with his account 188.158.118.65

You can also see how he's fabricating historical authentic maps and uploading them to Wikipedia using them in articles to push his mainly anti-Semitic opinions, for example what he did to this map from this site converting it to this in which he removed the whole area of Semitic inhabitants of southern parts of Iran in a try to deny their historical existence in that region and this is an oblivious act of manipulating the history  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted hamiltun (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted hamiltun (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't investigated the user that is reporting, but I've just had to warn Ted twice in the past 24 hours for making false, disruptive reports at RPP. He misrepresented another editors' edits as vandalism in an effort to win a content dispute: and then made the same report on a "page" that hasn't been edited in two years: (I've warned him for both false reports.) I just realized that the second report was him making a typo on the page name, attempting to repeat the first denied request. His actions at RPP are wasting admins' time. Normally, I just ignore or decline PP requests that are inappropriate, but this seems like more than your usual confused misreporting. -  <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 00:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, its this guy again. Might as well point out to the noticeboard that "Ted hamiltun" had an entire incident here a few months back, with the final verdict being:
 * >(NAC)This discussion has long since died out. There's no obvious support for an indef block as the user has ceased editing since 3/18. Obviously should they restart disruptive editing the appropriate course of action will take place. Doing a block now would be purely punitive. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, since by the time the report closed he'd stopped posting for nearly a month. Given he's back now that particular incident ought to be revived again, since he's clearly not changed one bit since then.
 * As for his ridiculous accusations he's been hurling, that meme map he talks about contradicts the map literally shown on the Lakhmids article; since when Ctesiphon and Khuzestan were ever part of the Lakhmid state? I'll ignore the rest of his racebaiting nonsense because there really isn't anything of substance within those rants. - Qahramani44 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You know, I think my uncharacteristic warning of him for the fabricated RPP reports may have not been only the reports themselves, but a subconscious memory of the indef block discussion from March. Unfortunately, it is looking like Ted has returned and gone right back to his same old patterns of WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * this report is WP:BOOMERANG. also Ted convinces other editors to involves themselves into his war. he posted this on another user page; a new user who has just joined since July 2. it was posted here before. on Chogha Zanbil, he cited a book named "Right to Passage: Travels Through India, Pakistan and Iran By Zeeshan Khan"; a travel book as a history/etymology source and when other members removed it. he started calling them vandal.188.158.112.88 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * not only he used some unreliable sources but also he removed edits of User:Gholaghabijan and tried to own the article. also how he knows a new user named VivereInPace? both users edit same content (Khuzestan) and uploaded similar maps. could this be another sock puppet?188.158.112.88 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

First: to IP 188.158.112.88 AKA User:Qahramani44 The map I uploaded is not the same map as User:VivereInPace uploaded that's very obvious,mine is an authentic map by Henrey Field from his book without any retouching from Archive.org  and I really don't know the user User:VivereInPace I found you and User:Qahramani44 together again are in an Editing war with him here just last night, as I reviewed his page he's not even a new user He's being on wiki for almost 3 years now, Nice try Ip!!

Second I see guys here are bringing up old matters that It's not the concern of this report

My main question is still not answered How User:Qahramani44 delete other users conversations in Talk pages referring to them as Hey boy this ain't a forum " See here this is very wonderful indeed . . Thank you CorbieVreccan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted hamiltun (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG
The editorial pattern of "Ted hamiltun" is characterized by WP:TENDENTIOUS. He was already blocked in March 2019 for disruptive editing on the same topic area, and in April 2019, he almost got indeffed as well. As his editorial conduct has not improved, though given numerous warnings, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East and the Semitic/Turkic/Iranian world broadly construed. The problems are clearly WP:CIR, but it'll give him a final chance to prove whether he can actually edit constructively on Wikipedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support As nominator. The fact that he consistently used the race/ethnicity card in addition to his new disruptive efforts shows that his editorial conduct is hurting the project. I quote Ted hamiltun's own words:


 * Ted hamiltun: "We have a great deal of problem with what appears to be Persian users Community that wants to push their view and block other information." (He sent this message to six users in order to canvass them).-----
 * Ted hamiltun "Removed by an Iranian user".
 * Ted hamiltun: "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community"


 * - LouisAragon (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support i'm the above ip who now uses this account. Ted hamiltun uses wikipedia resources for ethnicistic agenda; arabification and de-iranianization; even arabization of non arab ancient civilization elam. check out his edits in other wikipedia projects.funny thing is every time he log into his account, the other account VivereInPace logins too. both use random unreliable books, falsify them and insert them in articles. and both uses same book! just look how he removed good edit of another editor in Chogha Zanbil and restored his fake source to connect elamite language to arabic. his source was a personal/travel book. non academic and written by a random guy from bangladesh. this Ted hamiltun is anti-iranian and pro-arab. plz ban him from editing iranian articles. block his sock account too.GGBarBar (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support since that user hasn't changed one bit since the start of 2019. If he wants an online battleground he would be better served on twitter or facebook or 4chan, rather than preaching ethno-sectarian nonsense here on wiki. He's already been called out for falsifying sources and it seems every time he's proven wrong he just jumps back in with another dubious battleground claim on another page. Also for the above guy, VivereinPace is not a sock imo, the writing style is considerably different and he doesn't post racebaiting incendiary comments that "ted hamiltun" does. And just to point out, only reason he wasn't indeffed last time is he actually stopped posting completely as soon as the incident report started; by the time it concluded he'd been gone for three weeks, so he certainly wasn't proven innocent. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban at a minimum, and blocking as needed as soon as he disrupts in any other manner or violates the ban. Am of course not opposed to sanctions on any other editor if they make similar violations. FWIW, he's now playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on my talk page about the RPP disruption. (I am also unlinking my name from Ted hamiltun's comment above that could be read as an attempt to forge my signature. He was probably just addressing me, but since he wrote my name and then didn't sign it himself...) -  <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As nothere. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Per Ted hamiltun's comment below, I've decided to cut off this discussion with an indefinite block.  Per comments above, I've done a uw-voablock.  This block should not be overturned except through the normal block-appeals process — this is definitely not a self-requested block.  Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Again LouisAragon, bringing up old matters in respond to Iligal act of removing conversatios on talk pages by User:Qahramani44,these guys and IPs couldn't convince the Administration to block me last time they're trying again, oh lord

I'm really not concern about closed casess from 2months ago which could not accuse me with anything, This report is about User:Qahramani44 deleting users conversations on Talk pages pointing to them with this low statue language Hey boy this ain't a forum " see  I wanna know if this is accepted to remove other user conversations on talk pages, and leave them such messages  if this is an accepted behaviour on Wikipedia don't bother to block me, I'll leave by my self  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted hamiltun (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"For the last time", I'll say the report is about Illigal act of User:Qahramani44 deleting my conversations on Talk page leaving me such message "Hey boy this ain't a forum" see  Is this behaviour really Accepted in Wikipedia? Can I remove other people conversations and take away their right to speak and if any one objected I accuse him to be "Pan-some ethnicity" and Anti-Iranian?

Despite the outcome of this report This is so wrong and unjust

And for these guys who attack individuals together, engage edit war together report together, It's very obvious that they're hopelessly trying to turn my report into a report on me, and move the attention away from the illigal deed of their friend, they keep bringing up the same old accusation they failed to prove in their privious team reports

I hope that adminstration would take a look at my just report, this is my last words

Ted hamilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted hamiltun (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Whilst not defending Ted hamiltun, I would note how much I dislike hearing a comment like "he consistently used the race/ethnicity card", from User:Qahramani44 or anyone else. The language used here is wholly unacceptable. The fact that it may not have been the intention to offend someone of a different ethnic origin does not alter that fact that this type of comment is going to be offensive to many, and Qahramani44 should have been aware of that. Likewise, Ted hamiltun should not have focused on "Persian users". I don't know what's going on here, exactly, but you both need a warning and you can both expect to be blocked if you use racist slurs again on this project. Deb (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Boy" is a personal attack, true, but it has no ethnicity/race component except when used in America against African-Americans. In the case of "Ted hamiltun" his attacks and comments are entirely ethnically based, see the previous linked incident for details. I would accept a warning for WP:NPA for calling him "boy", as that was an excessive addition. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In an obvious insult to Wikipedia rules these guys removed my conversation again on Talk page last night, left the exact same message Hey boy this ain't a forum

By IP 188.158.112.88 who is participating in this report and introduced himself in above lines as GGBarBar

Is this seriously happening on Wikipedia if It is so, I my self ask the Adminstration to banne me premently but take a look at these group behaviour that made Wikipedia their personal blog attacking and accusing any individual who gave different opinion than theirs, like what they are doing at this very time with other editors, here It is not about me, banne me premently, I'm ok with that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted hamiltun (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

217.92.235.144 claiming I'm spreading propaganda, wants my account to be blocked.
On Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo, the user asked for my account to be blocked due to the fact that I'm "spreading (pro-Kosovo) propaganda". I just asked a question about whether or not Oman has recognized Kosovo as an independent state. I fail to see how this counts as propaganda.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  12:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That static IP seems to be 50% good faith edits, 50% personal attacks. Blocked it for 2 years (this is its fifth block). Someguy1221 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

IP leaving racist vandalism on multiple article talk pages
Can somebody block User:2600:1001:B115:651E:E42C:EADE:54D7:491B and RevDelete their edits. BabelStone (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Being wiki-hounded, disruptive edits from 24.47.152.65
– 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 [|Asner Talk page] to accuse me of wiki-stalking them! 24.47.152.65 used this same bullying strategy on the Carter page, by making threats to have me blocked and then accusing me of having made threats to them.
 * Tim Robinson Another seemingly random page on my watchlist had an IP, 38.142.80.130, add what looked like a joke or redlink that was not ever going to be a page, I reverted and an IP responded. I again just assumed that the same individual had a new address as happens. Obviously has nothing to do with Lee J. Carter, so no reason to notice it was the same 24.47.152.65 IP still following me.
 * Four Arrows - This edit in isolation is fine, but just proof of them hounding me. I did a substantial cleanup of this article and along the way removed some unsourced items, this was one of them.
 * Edolphus Towns - Another edit where 24.47.152.65 is undoing my work just to undo it.
 * Center for Popular Democracy - Another edit just demonstrating that they are following me.

Lastly, I don't know if this is related, but it's not the first time an IP suddenly appeared that took umbrage with just about anything I edited:
 * a 2016 SPI on a few different IPs reverting me across the encyclopedia
 * and an earlier in 2019 ANI of the same, or similar tactic

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


 * Jesse has been uncivil to me and is reverting my edits on assorted articles for poor reasons, edit-warring, and violating MOS:HYPOCORISM. I don't know Jesse and I have nothing against him (or her?) but I do not like being attacked for good-faith edits, especially not being called a stalker by someone who appears to be stalking me. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that they violated ANI policy by failing to notify me. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." They didn't do that. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, please provide diffs demonstrating the uncivil behavior that you are alleging (other than the failure to notify you), as they will assist uninvolved editors in assessing the situation. signed,Rosguill talk 22:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rosguill, it is completely unfair to allow the IP to accuse me of stalking them when I provided the page histories of their obvious harassment. They have done nothing but accuse me of everything under the sun, and I couldn't get a word in edgewise on the previous ANI because I have other commitments, I walked away from that conflict and they are now on every other page on my watchlist (for years! I've been editing and watching Ed Asner since 2011) and they get to accuse me of uncivility and stalking with impunity? Is that really how this forum works? Why is my constructive editing undone and these attacks left to stand? JesseRafe (talk)
 * , welcome to the drama board I was merely informing the IP editor of the proper procedure when making allegations. My request for diffs was an attempt to make sure that the discussion here stays grounded in concrete concerns that can be evaluated and addressed by third parties, as opposed to deteriorating into baseless name calling that is impenetrable to anyone who hasn't been following the conflict from the get go. I empathize with your plight, and now that the IP has provided diffs, it seems pretty clear to me that their accusations are pretty petty, considering that their prime example of "bad faith" behavior on your part is you accusing them of stalking you...while they're stalking you.


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

12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that JesseRafe has an understanding of MOS:HYPOCORISM (aka MOS:NICKNAME) that is completely against the plain sense of the policy, and continues to break MOS with his "correction" edits, and defend his actions against multiple editors on his talk page - see User_talk:JesseRafe. That may be at the root of the issue here. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually you can't see that talk page section, because he's removed the comments of editors disagreeing with him, with a misleading edit summary - "archived" indeed. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * John, stay on topic please. WP:OWNTALK applies, I don't like to archive, feel free to archive your own page if that is of interest to you. I am allowed to remove bad faith whining about lack of archiving if I so choose. I ask any reviewing admins to hide this tangent so the conversation stays focused on the abusive behavior of 24.47.152.65 being reported here. JesseRafe (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Accuses me of stalking them.
 * Same.
 * Accuses me of bad-faith edit.
 * False report filed against me while shopping for a venue.
 * 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, but I think you want just the ones where he is uncivil towards me.
 * Bottom line: Jesse has a bad habit of erasing things that are easily supported by citations, not to mention a misunderstanding of MOS:HYPOCORISM. They generally avoid talk pages, preferring to just revert, and even when they do talk, they're hostile. I'm not an experienced editor -- this is my second month -- but I've had nothing but unpleasant experiences with Jesse from the start. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This absurd now. Look at their history, they are following me to new pages. The Jessica Parker Kennedy is a perfect example of WP:BOOMERANG as I removed non-reliable sources (YouTube and IMDb) and said it was an unreliable source, that editor added it back saying "that user [me] has difficulties to read" so I was maybe a little snarky returning the comment, but hardly meets UNCIVIL. 24.47.152.65, of course, immediately restores the unreliable sources. Also, look at Talk:Ed Asner, they are being confronted by multiple editors there and in the mainspace that their addition is no good, but continuing their diatribe against me when it's actually been undone by four other editors. And of course 24.47.152.65 has a sudden interest in Brooklyn Tech or HydroSacks? And they are allowed to accuse me of stalking them? I come here with a serious allegation and the IP's whims are catered to instead of the facts I've presented? JesseRafe (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, you're just making my case for me when you bring up Jessica Parker Kennedy. You removed two plain facts, 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, when it didn't take me a whole minute to find a reliable source with the correct number.
 * Twice, you damaged Wikipedia by removing facts that are easily verified. Twice, I fixed it. And yet, here we are, with you painting me as some sort of monster for correcting your mistakes. And it's not just twice; you do this all the time.
 * Don't want me to fix your errors? Stop making them! The problem here is you, not me. That's why people like Johnbod are here complaining about your behavior. That's why nobody's taking your claims about me at face value. They want to see for themselves, judge for themselves, and I'm fine with that. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


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

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


 * 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. and : 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&#0124;c 20:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't unrelated. I can't be bothered to go into all the diffs, but at least some of the ip's complaints relate to exactly the same MOS:HYPOCORISM issue. I have no great expectation of being able to sort anything out with JesseRafe, as he seems incapable of discussing anything rationally, as the above demonstrates. Of course if an editor is making mistakes one is likely to look at his contributions to see if this is repeated. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't unrelated. So you think it's a good idea to align yourself with a Wikihounding campaign, just so you can get your licks in against an opponent? Not the best course of action. --Calton &#124; Talk 03:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What a silly comment! I'm just saying they are related. At least some of the alleged wikihounding is the ip trying to follow MOS, against JesseRafe insisting only he has the key to understanding MOS:HYPOCORISM, which is a pretty clear guideline. I've never come across either of them before, and hope I never do again. Or you. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I flatly reject the notion that working to fix real problems caused by an out-of-control editor makes me a "stalker". If I had made a single edit in bad faith or done anything with the sole (or even primary) goal of hurting Jesse, then the claim wouldn't be so ridiculous. As it stands, though, this is a fine example of blaming the messenger.
 * I'm going to share that message again: Jesse is making a mess of these articles due to some combination of incomprehension, inflexibility, and oversensitivity. That's not on me, so their attempt to shift the focus away from their errors is unconvincing. I stand by each and every edit I made, both on merit and intent. I've left all of their reasonable changes alone, and will continue to do so. In contrast, Jesse has reverted some of my reasonable changes out of what looks like spite, has been hostile and uncivil, and has refused to join in the discussions about content. It seems that all they want to do is make things personal and play the victim while ignoring the reason that "their" articles are being fixed.
 * This is an ongoing problem. For Jessica Parker Kennedy (not "Park"), I was easily able to find a citation confirming her training as a singer, from a source that's used all over Wikipedia without controversy. For the fact that she's Jewish, I updated the interview link so that it goes directly to where she repeatedly mentions this. If she's not a reliable source about her own beliefs, who is?
 * These are content issues, but Jesse wants it to be all about their feelings getting hurt and how much I deserve to suffer. This turns it into a behavior issue, but the troubling behavior is Jesse's. You can see that multiple editors are struggling with the difficulty of getting Jesse to act reasonably and cooperate, instead of attacking on multiple venues.
 * Ultimately, it all comes down to whether you want Wikipedia articles to be better or worse. If you choose "worse", ban me now. Otherwise, leave me alone so that I can contribute positively. I'm still learning the rules, and I'm not sure if I even want to make an account, but for now, I'm making things better. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * And he's still at it in blatent contravention of both WP:COMMONSENSE and the MOS! To quote him above "This has been an incredibly negative experience. Someone please do something." Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * is clearly right in this instance. The manual of style clearly says:
 * "With initials, it is not necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. For example, H. P. Lovecraft has that title, H. P. Lovecraft appears in his infobox, and his lead sentence just gives Howard Phillips Lovecraft ... was an American writer ..., without 'explaining' to the reader what 'H. P.' stands for. Initials are not nicknames; do not put them in quotation marks or insert them in mid-name, as in John Thomas Smith better known as 'J. T.' Smith or John Thomas (J. T.) Smith."
 * This is the last warning for both and . Wikipedia is a vast place. If you literally can't bring yourself to find anywhere else to edit other than where  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&#0124;c 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You must be joking (and it's a first warning)! In recent days two articles on my watchlist (as I have edited them in the past) have been messed about by, 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)
 * 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&#0124;c 23:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:

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?!!
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * Huh? Diffs, please, without any more wild abuse. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * That was certainly not how I read it, and I doubt anyone else did either. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you would be dead wrong, twice. --Calton &#124; Talk 05:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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&#0124;c 19:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

Renewed hounding by 24.47.152.65 after block lifted

 * -- adding user links to aid sifting.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)

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:. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I've blocked the IP for one week. I only glanced at the walls of text above, but this IP is disruptive in far more ways than one. My block was based on abusive speedy tagging. The IP, who is belligerent as a matter of course, is already complaining. I may cut off TPA if they continue to post disingenuous, wikilawyer-like comments. Frankly, I think one week is too short, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing and possibly CIR issues
Hi. I just noticed two changes in my watchlist by, both of which were stats updates for footballers: 1, 2. The user did not update the timestamps, an issue they have been repeatedly been made aware of on their Talk page: 3, 4, 5.

I then looked through their recent changes and unfortunately, of the twelve I have checked so far, all have not only been lacking timestamp updates but were inaccurate as well. The user has received numerous warnings, two this month, about disruptive editing, unsourced changes and violating copyright. They were blocked in January for copyright violations.

At this point, it seems like there is a CIR problem. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Or is this the wrong venue? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay. Thank you for this report. Blocked indef. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * I reported them to WP:ANEW just as you posted that. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I blocked for 31h, five reverts is 2 much.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes., . My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Following the exchange at the talk page, I extended the block to indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IP consistently adding unsourced content
has been adding unsourced content to various articles. It mostly appears to be obvious nonsense, e.g. to Selly Oak. Another example is. The isn't obvious vandalism, hence this venue. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  14:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the edits to Old Jewish Cemetery, Prague are highly offensive, and the persistent use of what are pretty obviously real names (also after the fourth warning) is also problematic. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours. Thank you for reporting, Bellezzasolo. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC).

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)
 * Article definitely needs a WP:FULL lockdown. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Bullshit.Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (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)


 * 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)
 * I'm busy celebrating Amexit Day, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You know. The day Americans left a European community.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! Must've been a little thick there, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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,, 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)
 * Whatever you think is “stalling” is probably me trying to enjoy a long weekend. Happy 4th. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. w umbolo   ^^^  14:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * What? BMK didn't revert the category removals, I did. I said I was going to do as much on the talk page. Why are you both being unnecessarily hostile? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am talking about edits on several articles, which includes the 1st edit at the deep state article. w umbolo   ^^^  14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Oh, my apologies then. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition to those reverts (,, , , , BLP vio / hoax) in which BMK only provided the rationale "POV edit", BMK recently reverted me with the edit summary "POV edit by notorious POV editr - restored source info." Even though I provided an WP:UNDUE rationale for removal, BMK insulted me and restored the content.  w umbolo   ^^^  17:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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., you violated the page restriction by reverting a reversion, period. The page restrictions effectively mean that there is zero tolerance for edit warring&mdash;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)
 * , I discussed this with 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oh right. You didn't accuse me of anything here. What was that about insisting that "black is not black?" No matter, carry on. R2 (bleep) 00:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

User:Marianne Zimmerman
This account is used as an unauthorized bot which edits by proxy. It uses Citation bot to make edits continuously, 24/7. By now, the bot has ordered the Citation bot to make tens of thousands of edits, which is still ongoing as I'm writing this. See here. While the owner of the bot seems to be acting in good faith, the user page of the Citation bot states this: "Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected. While the bot does the best it can, it cannot anticipate the existing misuse of template parameters or anticipate bad/incomplete metadata from citation databases." I do not know if the owner of the bot checks the tens of thousands of edits made by this 'Marianne Zimmerman' bot, but I think it's best if this account is blocked for now. I have also posted about this at User talk:Marianne Zimmerman, Bots/Noticeboard, User talk:Citation bot, and at User talk:Smith609 (the owner of Citation bot). Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that the user in question should be blocked not citation bot itself, so that editors who use citation bot in the correct way can continue to use it. This should prevent the user from activating the bot. I also notified User:Marianne Zimmerman on their talkpage about this discussion here. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that—somewhat bizarrely—while they have made thousands of edits with CB, they have made only eleven with their actual account. I suspect whoever is "running" the MZ account is themselves block evading. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this account as an unauthorized bot, we've had enough issues with proxy edits via Citation Bot that I'm not going to stop CB as its operators have been very responsive to fixing issues. I will ask User:Smith609 if perhaps CitationBot could be updated to use an onwiki "user blacklist". —  xaosflux  Talk 13:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is . I've reblocked (CU) without TPA or e-mail and updated the sock's Talk page to reflect that.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The only—hypothetical—question remaining is what the **** did SS think this was likely to achieve...or how they thought it would go unnoticed. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess this is the kind of banned user who actually wants to improve Wikipedia, but only on his or her own terms, with a disregard for social norms. Possibly combined with a certain pleasure that is derived from tricking people and playing mind games. - Manifestation (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:DroidBishop, disruptive editing
is a productive user but doesn't understand or doesn't care to follow Wikipedia procedures. They remove various templates at the top of pages, mess up references, make massive deletions they call wikifying, delete categories and delete list of external links or further reading as "blogs etc" or unnecessary when they are neither. Their edit comments are often misleading even though DroidBishop knows what "wikify" means. (The links are only examples, there are many more in their edit history.) , and myself have warned them and tried to explain that their editing is getting disruptive (see User talk:DroidBishop, sections Removal of hatnote tags on top of articles? and July 2019 as well as edit comments .) Sjö (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the edits are defensible, but this editor seems to go on massive blanking sprees for inexplicable reasons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DroidBishop is continuing to blank articles as we speak, so I've done a 31 hour block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like those behavioural inhibitors weren't up to scratch after all... ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if it would be possible to roll back their edits- every time they have touched references, it has not gone well. Look at Belem Prison. What they added looks ok, but in the process, the entire (well formatted) reflist was decimated, because they removed the bibliography. (and in some cases, they have then removed text because they "cant find a citation"). Same with Joaquín Clausell. Curdle (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted most of the editor's changes to Carlos Salinas de Gortari. It seems like the editor is well-meaning and has some valid concerns (level of detail, source quality, some unsourced claims), but the wholesale removal of categories, further reading, valid article tags, and content (without sufficiently clear, valid reasoning or talkpage discussion) is disruptive. GermanJoe (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I restored an older version on Belém Tower after noticing the mass deletions. Certain parts of the edits may be useful but he can't expect other editors to pick through the wreckage. If this were a new account or an IP, the edits would be reverted without hesitation. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Had some fun dealing with DroidBishop's absurd edit summaries, especially edits on Pancho Villa like which removed mostly referenced contents. Maybe a WP:CIR case here. Dl2000 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

DroidBishop, subtle vandal
I've seen enough from the articles touched by this account in the past month alone to personally consider that this is more like subtle vandalism, and I encourage a thorough review of the edit history by everyone. A fairly convincing explanation of all this is needed. Uncle G (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * with misleading edit summary
 * with deceptive edit summary
 * with deceptive edit summary
 * marked as "formatting"
 * marked as "formatted refs"
 * marked as "formatting"
 * (e.g. the volume number for the journal, notice) marked as "formatted refs"
 * marked as "rm unreferenced contents"
 * marked as "wikified header"
 * marked as "wikified intro"
 * marked as "wikified intro"
 * marked as "tried to wikify info side bar"
 * marked as "wikified article"
 * as "wikified intro"
 * marked as "rm trivia"
 * marked as "wikified bio stub"
 * marked as "rationalised external links"
 * marked as "updated ref"
 * marked as "rm the article has inline citations"
 * as "rm unreferenced content"
 * marked as "updated ref"
 * marked as "rm the article has inline citations"
 * as "rm unreferenced content"
 * Having gone through a few days of their edits, mass-reversion seems like the only reasonable option. There are a few edits there that aren't bad, but they are scattered inbetween mass-deletion of sourced content. I'm having a hard time interpreting their misleading edit summaries as anything but malice. --89.153.64.16 (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have rolled back some individually, where the damage was severe (blanking citations; removal of parts of citations like ISBNs, DOIs, archive URLs, volume/issue numbers; removal of date/ENGVAR templates or DEFAULTSORT; removal of navigation items). See also blanking further reading from July 2018,  in 2018 including ISBN in a citation, and  in 2018 adding a navigation sidebar.  Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the edits still seem like they were meant to be in good faith, but many are indistinguishable from a page-blanking vandal. If DroidBishop starts this up again, I think we should probably block indefinitely to force an explanation of what's going on.  Nobody should blanking DOIs or ISBNs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Chanc20190325 appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia

 * Concerns include

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This revision which I've revdel'd, looks particularly bad.   Acroterion   (talk)   16:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Chanc20190325 has only been editing for a couple of months, but energetically. I disagree with OP's claim that they are NOTHERE, as their primary mainspace interests thus far have been auto power outlets and Gerascophobia, mainly to the good, although a few edits justifiably reverted. Chanc20190325 needs to better understand the importance of references and the problems of POV edits, such as the ones mentioned above. I think this is an editor who should be guided rather than discouraged. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think they're NOTHERE, but I do see some energetic axe-grinding, especially relating to circumcision.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd rather the axe-grinding imagery not be employed when we're discussing circumcision. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My erm, point, exactly  Acroterion   (talk)   19:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * *  Chris Watts (murderer) is a known case with over 22 million views on a YouTube channel called Derek Van Schaik.
 * * And about the edits on the pages regarding circumcision, what was wrong with those edits? Could anyone explain? --Chanc20190325 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've responded to you on your talkpage concerning your violation of the biographies of living persons policy w/r/t Watts. Additionally, you appear to be pushing a controversial pint of view about circumcision via categories. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, even in a controversial pint of view there may be a grain of truth. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Chanc is talking about a different person with the same name. I've corrected the wikilink above.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's become clear, but he didn't do that in the edit that I revdel'd. Casually dropping a name into the talkpage about the murder of pregnant women isn't a wise idea.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it was clear to you, but it took me a moment because he kept using the wrong wikilink, and I thought, besides having an agenda, he's also nuts. This pun is for you, .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are absoluely correct, I did pay too little attention in that moment, as already explained on my talk page. --Chanc20190325 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it to you to go for the low-hanging fruit, . BTW, I don't know who's responsible for this, but the Gerascophobia article is uber-weird:
 * They view aging as a human flaw, brutal slow-motion torture, decompositive decay, long-term disability, biological time bomb, a parasitic, disgusting,[3] creepy,[3] scary[3] deadly chronic disease[4][5][6] and the ultimate involuntary biological self-obliteration, rather than a natural progression.[7][8][9][10]To them, the age of decay, even aging's earliest noticable stages on oneself or others, seems like a prerequisite, a very early sign, an initial step towards the direction of taphonomy (fossilisation) and being dust, which equals absolute non-existence, if not a creepy[3] form of existence.[11]It is a feeling of powerlessness, knowing that age-proneness is currently inevitable, no matter in what physically healthy state one is at the moment. Aging is symbolized and personified as an archenemy to life and a (literal, in this case) mortal enemy, similarly to Grim Reaper with his Scythe is for death.Even children who get confronted for the first time with the idea of evanescence, finite healthspan, external dependence (e.g. medication drugs, geriatrics tools such as wheelchair, rollator, reading glasses), aging and it's self-destructive effects, such as cancer and loss of health, presbyopia (loss of eye's self-ability to focus due to failing ciliary muscle), fraility, Arthritis, facial distortion[3], death, etc. could become gerascophobic due to horrification[3] and cognitive dissonance.
 * That's the lead. (Today's word-for-the-day: horrification.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at gerascophobia and I honestly can't tell what in the world User:Hobbes Goodyear was talking about when they said this user's edits there were "mainly to the good." I just took a scimitar Bat'leth to that article and I still don't think it's particularly appropriate for this encyclopedia. User:Chanc20190325 has been an editor since, you guessed it, March 25 of this year so maybe they get a little more patience but I don't know. They clearly have an agenda to push pseudoscience, and their inexplicable edits to gerascophobia (sourced to YouTube! Quora!! and effing Reddit!!!) are exactly what you'd expect from someone who calls circumcision "child abuse" and "sexual abuse" then sealions when they get called out for it. I feel bad for wiping out the word "horrification" because User:EEng was so charmed by it but since it was sourced to a YouTube video by this grifting woo woo merchant, I think I'm on solid ground here. (Hopefully my use of the word "scimitar" "Bat'leth" rather than "knife" or "ax" makes up for it.)

This report was added by User:Doc James, who probably should have reviewed the dozens of edits Chanc made to gerascophobia first. Chanc can be compelled to read WP:RS but when's the last time that page got someone to stop believing pseudoscientific lies? Just block per NOTHERE because holy moly, it's not even close. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:81E4:8B8:66A4:1164 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Second request to cut out the axe and scimitar imagery when circumcision is under discussion. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:81E4:8B8:66A4:1164 (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Careful with That Axe, Eugene. You've made a good first cut on Gerascophobia. However, I don't feel that blocking is called for, just a warning to start paying attention to sourcing requirements and to stop promoting pseudoscience. To that end, I'll drop the blue DS notice.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , well, that's taken a good snip off the range of potential humour. It feels like I'm walking on a knife's edge. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  10:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, you stole my line. My followup was going to be "Don't get snippy with me." <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Winterchillz



 * Leaving rants on the talk page of other users: "And you are stil reporting me :) shame on you just a little! Don't jodge soon I give you over God.."
 * Trying to Turkify the Tractor S.C. article through edit-warring.--
 * Adding and changing content without source/reason/explanation on the Reza Shekari article.
 * Accusing other users of "racism" out of nowhere.

Winterchillz was already blocked in the recent past for disruptive editing at Tractor S.C. Looking at the compelling evidence, and the fact that he has ignored every warning given to him,--- its safe to say that this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

E. Michael Jones
E. Michael Jones was deleted (after an AfD filled with sockpuppetry). The deletion was then upheld at DRV. The page was then remade as a redirect, which was in turn brought to RfD. The consensus there seemed strongly to be leaning towards deleting the redirect. I'm not sure why that discussion wasn't closed days ago (it was opened on the 4th). unilaterally made the redirect into an article again, after a "discussion" in which no one else participated on the Talk page, probably because no one noticed it existing. (It mentions my user name, which I thought would have generated a ping in my notifications, but I didn't see one then or now.) The text is a copy-and-paste of a comment at the RfD and makes no policy-based argument for notability; its case is based on invoking raw Google hits, which is not how we evaluate the notability of academics, authors or anyone else. (It also misrepresents the AfD outcome, ignoring the massive sock farm that grew up there.) I suggest that the redirect be deleted already and salted. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 16:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That was fast. Thank you! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C and XOR&#39;easter I'm not sure if I need to create a second ANI related to this topic but I would like to address a concerning edit Tobias Epos made in his initial response to learning that the redirect was up for discussion, which intimates that the nomination was part of of some greater "Jewish Conspiracy". When I asked him about why he posted it he did not reply and instead blanked his talk page and again did not answer when I confronted him about it in the redirect discussion. It would also appear this is not the only time he has made such comments. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cautioned Tobias_Epos against editing to illustrate a point. El_C 17:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C He already deleted your warning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's hope he read it closely and will take it to heart. El_C 17:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's...odd? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also would say that an editor making thinly veiled anti-Semitic comments when he doesn't get his way is a little more than just "editing to make a point". Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. At the time, I thought it was best to just disengage and ignore it, but given that per GPL93's comment here this is behavior that has also occurred on article talk pages, his behavior is a more serious disruption and sanctions may be in order. Moreover, given that this has all been happening on talk pages, I'm not sure how POINT is a relevant guideline to warn about. signed,Rosguill talk 22:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * After reviewing Tobias' edits, I've come to the conclusion that he's either a CIR case or a troll. I can't tell which, but between the refusal to communicate, the aggressive blanking of their talk page, the apparent anti-Semitic comment, the personal attacks, and the general bizarre, inexplicable behavior that they're engaging in overall, there's no way forward for him at this point. Blocked indef. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to start a new discussion on whether there should be an article about Jones, what's the procedure? Like I said on the talk page of the said article, I thought I have demonstrated very well with references - three books by respectable authors - that point that Jones meets the WP:Notability standards. Google hints perhaps aren't the only factor in determining his notability, but Jones is mentioned by three different authors (as being a notable member of the conservative/traditionalist Catholic milieu) says something about his notability. Moreover, he was mentioned as anti-Semite by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Deletion review is the place to go to. signed,Rosguill talk 21:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir! :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If a (second) DRV is opened and I'm not around (a whole new sequence of work deadlines is staring at me ominously...), you can put me down as endorsing deletion/opposing recreation. I took the opportunity of the RfD to re-evaluate the available sources, and nothing brought up since then has given me reason to change the !vote I made in the AfD. Sadly, anti-Semites mentioned by the SPLC and/or the ADL are a dime a dozen. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I intend to open a new discussion in few days, and will make a request to last a bit longer if you're not around. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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, and then followed up by blanking my talk page with an interesting edit summary. 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)
 * 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)
 * I left a warning on their talk page. Rlendog (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * They are a new page patroller. Of course they nominate a number of articles for deletion. It's part of the job. How,, does that in any way justify your blanking of his userpage? John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (Time to rename "new page patrollers" to "experienced page patrollers" to avoid any confusion here, eh? Lourdes 01:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC) )
 * "New-page patrollers" —<b style="color: #06467d">Rutilant</b> (<b style="color: #06467d; font-weight: normal;">talk</b>) 05:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, didn't realize that. Thanks for clarifying this. What takes the cake is that there are many old pages that need patrolling? Who would do that? Old-page patrollers? So tough to understand this place. Lourdes 15:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC) )
 * Those would be regular users. New-page patrol is for catching new promotional or otherwise rule-breaking articles, and sometimes just for seeing something new and cleaning it up a bit. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Ok thanks for that clarification again both of you. How do I become one? :D Lourdes 05:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC) )
 * 2sarcastic4meirl —<b style="color: #06467d">Rutilant</b> (<b style="color: #06467d; font-weight: normal;">talk</b>) 05:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All in good spirit mate :D How do regular users patrol old pages if they don't have the new-page patrol bit? (Please don't kill me; this is me continuing being deliberately silly) Lourdes 05:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * , I think John meant the user talk page, which was indeed blanked. signed,Rosguill talk 07:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rosguill - AHA! I see it now... Thank you! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You need to take a step back. The article has been nominated for deletion.  That process is ongoing, as you know.  Editors (not just SportingFlyer) will review it, as part of the AFD process, and a consensus will be reached.  Engaging in personal attacks on other editors is NOT the right approach to take. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so your account may have been compromised? I guess without proof that this is indeed the original owner of the account, you better be indefinitely blocked. Or you're accusing another editor of maliciously compromising your account, without evidence, well, I guess you better be blocked. Blackmane (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

City of Spokane Seal.svg / Excelsiorsbanjo
Excelsiorsbanjo is stubbornly and repeatedly revert-warring to an oversized version of this non-free image. I've done my best to explain the relevant policies/guidelines/procedures, but Excelsiorsbanjo insists the explanation is not to their liking and continues to revert-war. Some assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Begoon 08:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have protected the file and hidden the file content for old revisions. Please use user talk pages to talk rather than just edit summaries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , "Please use user talk pages to talk rather than just edit summaries." -?? Did you not follow the link in my comment above? I make that 1016 words of user talk page conversation... Excelsiorsbanjo has cleared their talkpage... Thanks for the protection - much appreciated. -- Begoon 15:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting that the editor has announced their intention to continue to revert-war over this, and reintroduce the non NFC compliant version when the protection expires: - "Absent an explicit third opinion on this matter I will when the page is again unprotected put in place the original quality version of the SVG". Perhaps someone other than me can explain to them (again) why that is not a very good idea? -- Begoon 00:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted with the user. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

City of Spokane Seal.svg / Excelsiorsbanjo
Excelsiorsbanjo is stubbornly and repeatedly revert-warring to an oversized version of this non-free image. I've done my best to explain the relevant policies/guidelines/procedures, but Excelsiorsbanjo insists the explanation is not to their liking and continues to revert-war. Some assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Begoon 08:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have protected the file and hidden the file content for old revisions. Please use user talk pages to talk rather than just edit summaries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , "Please use user talk pages to talk rather than just edit summaries." -?? Did you not follow the link in my comment above? I make that 1016 words of user talk page conversation... Excelsiorsbanjo has cleared their talkpage... Thanks for the protection - much appreciated. -- Begoon 15:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting that the editor has announced their intention to continue to revert-war over this, and reintroduce the non NFC compliant version when the protection expires: - "Absent an explicit third opinion on this matter I will when the page is again unprotected put in place the original quality version of the SVG". Perhaps someone other than me can explain to them (again) why that is not a very good idea? -- Begoon 00:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted with the user. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Tenaciouss, Iranian cinema, volleyball and academia
, who has been editing since 31 May and focuses on Iranian articles, mainly about cinema, is very determined not to allow maintenance templates to remain on articles about Iranian topics. The user has created a rather large number of articles given the newness of the account; in addition to movies and actors, they also create and edit articles on academics and on volleyball. I'm sure I recognise that specific combination of topics from earlier (blocked) accounts but I cannot remember any account names. The repeated insertion of mentions of the Crystal Simorgh award such as here is also familiar.

The main issues apart from possible socking are a shaky grasp of English and, as I said, repeated removals of relevant maintenance templates, from articles they have created as well as other articles on Iranian topics. They have had multiple warnings from a couple of people, reacting only with annoyance and more removals of templates:, , and are the ones from this morning, after a final warning. (I say "Iranian" topics, but that's not completely true - there is also for instance this, on the Portuguese national volleyball team.)

I think a short block, at least, for their repeated disruption is called for. Perhaps someone else recognises the pattern of edits and can place it? --bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There's def. been a problem in the past with articles around Iranian films and socking. I looked at Superstar (2009 film), created by this new user, and a quick look at the page log shows it has previously been deleted twice for being created by a banned or blocked user. I find it hard to believe this new editor isn't linked to those previous accounts in some way. Prehaps an admin can compare the two deleted versions of the page against the current one? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * All this is a charge. You ignored my efforts and your behavior is not fair. Tenaciouss (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks, baseless insulting accusations, putting words in mouth, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and removal of sourced information
This new editor is removing sourced information on Shapur II, and is unable to act in a civil manner, here are some examples of his personal attacks/baseless accusations towards me;
 * 1) are you blind
 * 2) stop acting as an expert. watch your language too. you attacked me first. don't play victim card.
 * 3) Apparently I attacked him with my "aggressive edit summaries" which "insulted his intelligence", whatever that means.
 * 4) More aggressive behaviour/baseless accusations; as if daryayee and his book are god-like stuff here. you just repeat yourself without find more sources for your claim. just one source which is history book and it's against a work by a linguist. so what would you? trying to convincing admins to ban me? yeah, you already did it. the way you treat new user and people who disagree with you is just awful. 
 * 5) basically your whole rationale is: i'm right and i love daryayee so "Daryaee is much more prominent in the academic world compared to MacKenzie". illogical and ridiculous response.
 * 6) you can't drop words just because you see them in a book and you think author of that book is 1000% right. if you can't solve these issues, then ask another editor to come here and solve it. and don't act like a snowflake. how did i insult you? this is not a forum but users like you deserve your own medicine. even your username proves you think you are always right and iranian articles belong to you. you don't own anything here my friend. as i said, i'm iranian and i have come here to contribute to iranian topics. you can go see my edits. do you see any disruptive stuff there? trying to ban/block my account just removes an iranian from editing this project (wikipedia's loss) and as we know the number of iranian users are low.

I did take this up to an admin, but I felt this issue was simply ignored as seen in the talk page below, hence why I am here now. Keep in mind the information he has removed has been there for quite some time, the only change I made to it was simply adding a citation from an academic scholar, who I'm apparently in "love" with. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * nonsense and bullshit. this is abusing of report system. even the title of this report is another attempt by this user to block me. these are my edits . i was the one who opened the discussion to solve our issue. go read our conversation there. Talk:Shapur_II i have provided my points and source. this HistoryofIran can't participate in a discussion and he's angry because an admin locked the article and provided a solution. even i myself asked for the second and third opinion by a trusted user. look at my edits. seriously which one of them fits into "treating Wikipedia as a battleground"? this guy insulted my intelligence and edits by his continuous reverts and ignoring my comment and edit summaries. now he plays victim card and does everything to ban my account. i came here to contribute to iranian topics. what did i abuse in my edits? too many reverts by me? i agree with that. other than that i just had a normal discussion with this guy and he has turned it into a drama and now we're here.GGBarBar (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"1488" username?
I blocked an editor for what looked like a "1488" reference in their username (see the article Fourteen Words for why these are a bad thing) but after some thought, decided it was not clear-cut and could have been a coincidence, and unblocked them. Other editors disagree, citing behavioral signs from the user's editing pattern: see User_talk:The_Anome for diffs. I think this is right on the edge of the WP:AGF grey area, and would like to get other admins' input on this. -- The Anome (talk)


 * Not an admin, but smells like Sockpuppet_investigations/Architect_134 to me. Even if not, it's reasonable to assume the user is a troll given their heavy editing focus on politics.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Endorse block. That username is an obscure 14/88 reference, but in combination with editing pages about Antifa in a negative light? Yeah, that would be a helluva coincidence. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  22:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Even if you want to AGF, make the user choose a new username anyway. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse block per WP:DUCK. If it looks like a white supremacist, walks like one and quacks like one... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Username includes a neo-Nazi slogan, check. Editor adding content critical of anti-fascists, check. Editor worked in non-contentious area just long enough to get autoconfirmed, check. Yeah, I can't assume good faith on this one. Softblock is not enough, this one needs a hardblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of Antifa which is a violent extremist group in their own right, but that their article was targeted is definitely supporting evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The username is indeed toxic, even if unintentional. I've softblocked them now, to remove that possibility. If other admins whant to change that to a hardblock, they can do so. -- The Anome (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Endorse block An innocent user would have added '2'/'02' or a 'February' reference to their username without a thought...and avoided alt-right topics or obvious red flags like editing the Dave Ross article (a Seattle talk show host with Democratic leanings) to remove their political candidacy or CBS Radio commentary because they don't like the subject. Good block.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note They are requesting an account rename on their talk page. I am inclined to support their request with a strongly worded warning that the community will be monitoring their future edits closely and they are unlikely to be cut any slack if they appear problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you entertaining this? If it had been an honest mistake they wouldn't be editing specifically political/right wing articles. Separate you have an argument for rope but this is someone playing you for a fool. AGF is not a suicide pact. 2001:4898:80E8:8:2A09:2077:C34A:8291 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Endorse block but do not endorse user name change. Let them pick a name which stays completely away from any hint of Nazism. Their current choice is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse block per WP:NOTHERE - the account name plus the editing behaviour is already a problem. But frankly the story of an editor with a rare congenital illness named Valentine and born on Valentine's day who inadvertently stumbled upon a Fourteen Words referencing username and who, despite frequently claiming to be befuddled by issues like WP:RS, seemed to understand autoconfirmed status well enough to begin editing protected articles on their fourth day of editing, strains credulity and makes me suspect we're being trolled. (I should note that I was the editor who originally brought up the username issues. Honestly what I've seen since those issues makes me more concerned rather than less. ) Simonm223 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They have dropped a note on my talk page where I replied. And I agree that this smells. If there is any sort of problematic editing involving POV or racist behavior drop me a line and I will hard block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeffed by TonyBallioni following check user. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Paid promotional user page
, after making exactly ten edits (all of which have been reverted), has created a company "article" on their own user page at User:Regularcontributor. They have disclosed that they have been paid to promote the company, so I commend their honesty. But it goes against various parts of WP:UP. I might have put a WP:G11 template on their user page, but I don't want the disclosure deleted, and I don't feel right about editing someone else's user page. I'm not really sure how to deal with it, maybe an admin could take a look? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring IP inserting unsourced information and copyvios and refusing to negotiate.
2 days ago, User:2A02:C7F:2C36:B400:5C83:AD0E:4B75:2411 inserted unsourced information on Dost Mohammad Khan. I reverted him 3 times , and tried to open a discussion on the talk page , but he relented. Then he inserted unsourced information on Ali Ahmad Khan, and again refused to discuss the change, and then again on List of heads of state of Afghanistan and Mohammad Yaqub Khan. Today this IP added copyright violating material on Barakzai dynasty (no diff because it was removed). This user has been warned several times on his talk page but is showing no signs of giving up. I believe he should be blocked for disruptive editing. Koopinator (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TROUT for who has their knickers in a twist over this IP. The Ip was warned by  at 12.28 today; the IP has not edited since. Therefore they neither needed Koopinator's superfluous second warning nor this report. @Koopinator: suggest you withdraw this immediately and wait for the said IUP to actually edit against the warning; then this report might have validity. But not until then.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP has already edited against my warnings of inserting unsourced information, so this report already has validity. I had sent him 2 warnings regarding unsourced information on 13 July  for 2 different cases of inserting unsourced information, and i tried to send him a third one today for a third case of unsourced information on 14 July, but it was removed because of an unrelated rule being broken on the 15th. My warning also wasn't superfluous, i warned the IP for unsourced info and Doug warned him for Copyright violation. Koopinator (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It has no validity at all I'm afraid. In only the most egregious cases do we see someone blocked having not edited since a previous warning. This is certainly not approaching that level of severity, even if you believe that BLP applies to people who have been dead since 1923 and 1557 respectively, particularly in an article where, if you removed everything that was unsourced, you'd be left with a couple of sentences. Advice and discussion are the watchwords in these cases, not templated warnings and straight to a dramaboard. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, i was wrong. And i thought i could withdraw nominations by removing sections, but i was wrong in that, too. So i don't know what to do now. Koopinator (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter since I'm the only one to have replied, and I don't really care, personally; it's just that archiving is preferred—for example, if your IP does start causing more trouble, then this report is easily found in the archives and can be reactivated :)  and don't beat yourself up over being "wrong"—it's not so much about right or wrong and more about interpretation. Your concerns (and vigilance) for WP:V, though, are—without sounding condescending I hope!—both valued and appreciated. Take care!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request
Upon my offering assistance to User:Elisa.rolle, she has requested my aid in unblocking her. I made the offer because I enjoyed reading the articles she prepared, some of which matched my interests. I went to User:Fram, who did the original block to let him or her know of the request, but I found that Fram, too, has been blocked. So now I am here to notify any interested Admin of this user's request & to hear suggestions on how I might proceed to honor it as far as I am able to. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any unblock request on their talk page. What do they have to say about the reasons for their block and the reasons for their appeal? ST47 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As ST47's post suggests, generally speaking the editor subject to the sanction from which they're seeking relief must request an unblock, and absent exceptional circumstances, third-party requests are usually not granted. This board denied such a request the other day. If I were in your position, I'd recommend Elisa.rolle to read WP:GAB and WP:APPEAL and for her to leave an unblock request at her user talk page, which she is still able to do as she hasn't had talk page access revoked. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The user has not edited in six months, so you damn well better have an explanation for requesting an unblock on their behalf. I do not see such an explanation. Please come clean with what this is about, ASAP. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ER was blocked for repeated copyright violations, among other things, by multiple admins (Fram's subsequent issues and/or behaviour are irrelevant, I imagine?). Can someone also remind ER that their talk page, while blocked, is solely for appealing blocks, not for speculation as to other editors motives and accusing them of attacks, which is completely unproductive. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Elisa.rolle retired a year ago and wishes to remain so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well quite.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Edgar13298


This editor doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Besides months of continually adding unsourced info to articles and ignoring what must be a record number of warnings on their talk page, amazingly without being blocked yet, their most recent edit pushed me to bringing this here. Purely disruptive and perhaps bordering on vandalism, they changed all the reviews to perfect scores here. Please could an admin take a look at the edits of this user. I could add diffs (happy to if need be) but just hovering your cursor over their contributions shows an unsourced addition on almost every entry.  Rob van  vee  09:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely needing a block. They have a few changes that don't seem to be hostile (at least at a first glance), but multiple final warnings and some clear actions that don't just read as not understanding wikipedia's sourcing requirements. If they engaged then a temporary block might make sense, but I think an indef that required they actively demonstrate an understanding of their editing issues before unblock conditions are considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per this edit which falsifies the scores received by the band Humanz on various rating sites. I've indefinitely blocked Edgar13298. Any admin may unblock if they become convinced that the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ignore WP:1RR discretionary sanctions (Edit warring) and personal insults
User:Flyer22 Reborn This user has been refusing to assume good faith and has violated the 1RR discretionary sanction at Milo Yiannopoulos. I have argued with the editor before, but walked away for a number of months, learnt a lot in the meantime and came back to make some calm good faith edits which were challenged and have been worked on by two other editors since. I have not reverted when challenged and have been discussing politely on the talk page since then, but this user is antagonistic towards me, refuses to assume good faith and has brokern the 1RR sanction on the page.

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) []
 * 2) []
 * 3) []
 * 4) []
 * 5) []
 * 6) []

So they've self reverted since, I still feel it's unfair to refuse to assume good faith, they're busy attacking me personally on the talk page rather than addressing the edits.

Bacondrum (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "problematic contributions" counts as a personal attack — if that's what you meant, as you don't actually specify the attack itself for some reason. El_C 02:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at those diffs I don't see a problem. The first one is clearly a revert. The second adds a space - I'm inclinded to ignore that. The third and fourth are not by Flyer22, and the fifth - which would have broken 1RR - was self-reverted by Flyer22 with the sixth. Thus at the end of that sequence there is a single revert, and that doesn't violate 1RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history, it's clear that the above diffspam is incredibly disingenuous. Flyer reverted twice, and then self-reverted in deference to the 1RR. Also, we couldn't enforce the sanction anyways because it does not appear that the awareness criteria have been satisfied. Also, please remember that BLP applies to talk pages, expressing a view that an BLP subject is "nazi scum" is disruptive and I have redacted that part of your comment. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I appologise for calling him "Nazi Scum", but I was being accused of whitewashing Nazi associations from the subjects page, I was trying to make the point that I have no interest in making the fellow look good. Disingenuous, how so? No need to be rude. So, flat out refusing to assume good faith is okay: "you want me to assume good faith? Assume good faith after how you acted last time?" We disagreed, so what? I could say the same of them, aren't we supposed to assume good faith, aren't we supposed to focus on edits not fight with editors? Bacondrum (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume "the above diffspam is incredibly disingenuous" suggests that there is only one effective revert in the six diffs presented. Wikipedia is not the place to play gotcha—self-reverting is accepted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bacon, you literally posted six diffs, even though there are only 2 reverts, the second of which was self-reverted. If that was not a disingenuous attempt to make the situation look more severe than it is, it certainly looks that way, and claiming that I'm being "rude" to you by pointing that out does not help your case. Also, yes, I see that Flyer called your attempts to unilaterally delete text without a consensus in spite of previous discussions which made clear that such actions would be controversial, "problematic". I'd say that's about the same level offense as you telling Flyer to "grow up". Is that really the crux of this complaint? Alright, fine:, this user is upset that you called their edits "problematic". If you feel an editor's behavior is problematic, please report them to administrators in an appropriate forum, rather than making the accusation on an article talk page. Thanks. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I want the editor to be polite and assume good faith. Are you taunting me? Yeah that's real appropriated behavior mate. Bacondrum (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who ever appropriated that behavior GIVE IT BACK RIGHT NOW! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I find 's finding offense where there is none intended and inability to accept the possibility that they are wrong to be a problem. Maybe the problem. Recommend we close this unless a more detailed review of Bacondrum is warranted. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that, when dealing with a contentious subject like this, attempts to unilaterally pare back the lede in a manner that obfuscates the subject's connection to white supremacist movements can be a problem. This doesn't mean that Bacondrum is a problem - just that this edit in this context presents a problem. And I think that's the context in which Flyer22 was speaking. It's a heated page, as most far-right politics pages here are these days, but I think this is very premature to be at AN/I and would suggest a speedy close. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I have not reverted when challenged" but linked two diffs where they (Bacondrum) very clearly did revert when challenged. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum

 * Take a look at Bacondrum's edits to Alt-right. I think we're dealing with a POV editor here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn! Alt-right is under 1RR, so I had to self-revert my restoration of the massive undiscussed changes Bacondrum just made. This is why sometimes DS sanctions makes no damn sense at all, especially when all one is doing is restoring the status quo ante!  Would somebody  PLEASE  restore what Bacondrum deleted from the article so that discussion can take place with the article in the status quo ante? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, Bacondrum has now deleted 37K bytes of reliably sourced material from Alt-right, all without substantive explanation or discussion on the article talk page. Is no one going to do anything about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an editor who created an account in September 2008, and then made 9 edits in the next 7 months, before starting editing in earnest in 2015. Doesn't that pattern strike a chord with anyone? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I told them on their talk page, I think such sweeping deletions on a high-traffic article with no discussion were clearly poorly-considered, and I don't agree with all the removals (even the part I do agree with - mentioned on talk - could probably be preserved, just with a much smaller summary for WP:DUE reasons.) But they didn't edit war over it, so it's still just a content dispute at the end of the day; none of the removals strike me as so unreasonable as to be conduct issues just as a result of one sequence of WP:BOLD edits.  And the deletions don't seem to follow a particular POV; mostly, their deletions were the causal factors and notable incidents sections, which (if I had to characterize the impact their deletion has on the article in POV terms) point in different directions.  They didn't actually revert-war over these edits, so I'd just say they were a bit bad at judging how WP:BOLD they could be without it becoming reckless. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as is clear, I disagree. 37K bytes of deletion of reliably sourced material without any prior discussion is not just "poorly considered", it's downright aggressive and uncollegial. It also gave him a first mover advantage because the article in under 1RR.  The size of the deletions make them unreasonable, and their patent refusal to revert to the status quo ante in order that discussion take place just adds to the "recklessness".  The deletions are, in effect, a massive whitewashing of the article, which I have every intention of reverting once it is legal for me to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is stopping you from discussing the edits, and I am not stopping you from doing anything. You are making demands and I don't see why I need to respond to demands, you don't own the page. Bacondrum (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow. The fact that Bacondrum is performing more unilateral and substantial deletions of controversial content in far-right articles while this thread is still fresh, even continuing to blank content over the objections of an editor, is extremely concerning. I find it hard to believe that this isn't willful POV-pushing at this point. This should probably go to AE. ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, that's a different issue and I've done nothing wrong on the Alt-right page. I think you are a bully and just have a general problem with me. Please point out one specific rule that I have clearly broken. Bacondrum (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Which rule have I broken?
I'll accept what ever is coming to me if someone would kindly explain what rule I've broken in my recent edits at Alt-right. I've made good faith edits (I'm entitled to that assumption, aren't I?), I've not reverted back to any of my preferred version, not once, and I've attempted to discuss the edits in a polite manner on the talk page. So what is my crime, pray tell? Bacondrum (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that appeared to be mocking me on this noticeboard recently, which I just think is grubby, bullying behavior and indicates that they have some kind of personal grievance with me, for reasons unknown. Bacondrum (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not mocking you, I was objectively addressing the only legitimate concern you raised. I was not being disingenuous, or mocking. I was addressing the issue in the only reasonable way that it could be addressed, with a straightforward redirection. Nothing about my statement was non-serious or sarcastic, which makes it a bit bizarre that Bacon would attempt to skew it as "bullying". Very strange. I'm not sure what alternative was being requested here. The fact that Bacon taking a legitimate redirection in response to a behavioral complaint they made, and claiming that it's mocking them, is nothing short of bizarre, really. This user does not appear to be on a reasonable wavelength. I'm very certain that this should be addressed at AE without rhetorical considerations. ~Swarm~  {sting} 06:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you do mental health diagnosis too now. Unbelievable. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bacondrum, I'd suggest you should step away from the keyboard for a bit and cool your jets. Swarm is one of the most generally civil admins I know, and I think you have the wrong end of the stick that they were mocking you or doing mental health diagnosis - it would probably be in your best interest to ease off on the confrontational demeanor now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah...mental health diagnosis? While I noted that it was a fairly minor infraction, I still literally took your complaint seriously, and issued a correct behavioral redirection to the relevant editor accordingly, complete with a direct ping. You responded to this by accusing me of mocking, bullying and having a personal grudge against you, which, sorry, is a pretty bizarre response. I mean, I thoroughly clarified that your reaction was wholly unfounded and unreasonable, but rather than apologizing for the misunderstanding and admitting that you were being weirdly paranoid, you're now accusing me of diagnosing you with a mental illness?? We can't work with this. Your repeated self-victimization is not going to help you here, nor is your inability to see why making controversial mass deletions of content from contentious articles without a consensus is a red flag. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Which rule have I broken?" is exactly the wrong question for a WP editor to be asking. See WP:5P5. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what have I done at the Alt-right article, the precise issue that I'm being reported for here, that I'm not supposed to have done, that requires intervention? I'd love to know, seriously. I'm not being given the assumption of good faith at all here, the complainant has accused me of tendentious editing, calling me "a POV editor" and I'm being accused by "the most generally civil admin" of "willful POV-pushing", of being "bizarre", "Disingenuous" (in other words, a liar), "Very strange" and not being on a "reasonable wavelength" (mentally unwell). That's civil is it? seems like a barrage of polite insults, but insults none the less, to me. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, I think this series of edits was not within the spirit of WP:CAREFUL (which specifically notes article sanctions as a reason to use extra care), and your edits here and on the article talk page are not within the spirit of WP:BATTLE. I am unconvinced that those examples "require intervention", as you say, but practically speaking I would expect you are going to exhaust other editors' patience pretty quickly at this rate. VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * this edit leads me to think you are not interested in voluntarily incorporating the feedback you've received here. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am, I'm just feeling hounded and harassed by old mate and was hoping for others to join the conversation. Bacondrum (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You have a Wikipedia account. Please sign in and edit with it.  Editing with an IP when you have a Wikipedia account -- as you did above -- can be considered to be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Petty much? I forgot, so hang me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just giving you a heads-up, since your understanding of Wikipedia's policies seems to be a little less complete than you appear to think it is. Also, please sign your comments, which you also forgot to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't WP:SOCKing. WP:SOCK is for when people use other accounts (or anonymous editing) abusively, (eg. to create the illusion of consensus, to avoid scrutiny, etc.)  Simply using two accounts (or editing when both signed in and signed out) is not socking.  Posting while logged out, with a first-person comment that makes it clear it's the same editor above, is obviously not an attempt to conceal their identity in an abusive manner; and in the context it was pretty obviously an accident (the Okay, so what have I done at the Alt-right article... bit immediately makes it clear who is speaking and makes it obvious they weren't trying to conceal their identity.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it was glaringly obvious that there was no attempt to hide his identity, or to stack extra quasi-votes in a controversy, or any of the other bad things that real sockpuppets do. It and all that follow it, up to and including this, ought to be -ed. Qwirkle (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Folks, that's why I said it can be considered a violation, not that it wwas a violation. Had I thought that Bacondrum was doing it deliberately, to "avoid scrutiny" of their edits, I would have said so.  After all, I'm not known to be one to not call a spade a spade. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the collapsing of the above discussion (which see), User:Bacondrum, despite having been informed that he should edit with his account rather than with an IP, has continued to do so. (,, and , all occurring well after the warnings I gave him via ping). Although it is clear to me who is editing, and that there is no attempt to avoid scrutiny in that respect, other editors may assume that these are two different people -- the account and the IP -- which has the potential of creating the illusion of multiple people, which (along with avoiding scrutiny) is indeed a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry.  I would like to formally request that an admin warn User:Bacondrum that forgetting to log in is one thing, but deliberately using an IP after having been warned about doing so is deliberately skirting the boundaries of Wikipedia policy, and that he should cease doing so and edit with his account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And now Bacondrum is using a second IP, User:120.21.50.58,, immediately following it up with an edit by his account, . This guy is playing games, and flouting Wikipedia's policies. I renew my request for admin intervention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit of a Luddite, my Mac needs a new battery and crashes every now and then as a result. For some reason sometime (but not every time) when it restarts, I have to log back into every thing. Not that it's a sin to edit when logged out...I don't think it's a problem, I'm being harassed here. Dudes shifting the goals to get me blocked because I was bold on an article he seems to think he owns. Bacondrum (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

An outstanding question
There really is still an outstanding question in all of this: is Bacondrum a POV editor or not? I think a close look at all their recent edits, on Alt-right, Talk:Alt-right, Antipodean Resistance, Talk:Far-left politics, Template:alt-right footer and elsewhere indicates that this is an editor who is very determined to whitewash certain articles and downplay certain groups, to the detriment of our articles. I would suggest that other editors take a close look at their edits, while remembering that AGF is not something that hangs around forevre - once enough evidence has accumulated that there's a malevolent purpose behind someone's editing, AGFing is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just crazy, I'm not making POV edits, I just think the subjects are neo-Nazi's, not Alt-right...what the hell happened to the good faith assumption, does that only apply in some cases? Look at this fella Beyond My Ken recent edit history, all I did is make some bold edits, now it's pretty clear that I'm being subject to a campaign of full blown harassment by this guy. The fella doesn't adress any of my questions on the talk page, just makes spurious demands and petty snipes. Help! Bacondrum (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, in point of fact, anyone examining Alt-right can see that I have addressed all of Bacondrum's questions. Certainly, the answers weren't what he wanted them to be, but they were substantive responses, nonetheless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

user: Beyond My Ken
Request intervention relating to personal attacks and harassment by user: Beyond My Ken. It all began as boring content dispute, I made some bold edits, and for some reason he felt he was unable to revert, so started making demands of me: Next thing I've got a spurious AI report calling me a POV editor during which Beyond My Ken makes numerous personal attacks, but no admin bothers to really pull him up: soon I felt like I was being harassed and accused of making POV edits, simply because I made bold edits and ignored what I thought were unreasonable demands: Then the demands continued: Then the agro, highlighted 'mate'', we all know what that hard tone means in that context, it's an aggressive thing to do: Then he started to demand I revert my own edits, without cause. I can't see why he couldn't, and I can't see why I must. I was bold, other editors are welcome to challenge my edits..one did and I didn't revert, I had already taken it to talk. Beyond My Ken also refused to discuss edits, despite demanding that I do so: Then came more personal insults about being a POV editor: Then more spurious demands and personal insults. Calls me a sockpuppet this time: Then what seems to be cheap shot, nit picking: Then more personal attacks, now I'm wikiblaming: Threatens to get an AI on me for editing while logged out: And demands again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAntipodean_Resistance&type=revision&diff=906788006&oldid=906780320] Then multiple deeply insulting personal attacks calling me right wing, a sockpuppet and a POV editor engaged in whitewashing: Finally, starts personally insulting me to other editors: I asked him to stop and assume good faith numerous times. I tried to stay civil, but I bit back a couple of times. There's more if you check his edit history, this is all I could be bothered with. I just want him to leave me alone. Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * WP:BOOMERANG applies per WP:STICK: quote  User:Bacondrum's finding offense where there is none intended and inability to accept the possibility that they are wrong to be a problem. Maybe the problem. Recommend we close this unless a more detailed review of Bacondrum is warranted. So, it clearly is, and, indeed, Bacondrum clearly wants such a review.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be investigated here, I did nothing wrong. I am not a POV editor. Bacondrum (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you two keep pushing this, it can only end badly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * For the true background please see this above, as well as the original complaint it is connected to. Bacondrum's interpretation of various events is wrong in several instances, which any editor can see by simply examining what I said (I never accused him of sockpuppetry, for instance, merely warned him that using an IP could be construed as a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry).I have nothing much more to say, having outlined the problem already above, except to note this, which apparently fell on deaf ears. Bacondrum's edits need to be thoroughly examined to determine if he is a POV editor.  Either Bacondum is the person he describes on his user page, or he isn't, and his edits are either simply very poorly considered, or they are an attempt to whitewash articles.  The jury is out, but Bacondrum continues to behave badly, not in the least by deliberately using IPs when he has been informed that doing so is not good behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Swarm, as for taking this to AE, I agree that AE would have been appropriate for Bacondrum, but unfortunately they haven't yet been given an American politics discretionary sanctions alert (I just gave them one now). But we can always propose a topic ban, or several topic bans, right here on ANI, as from the community. Alternatively, we can wait and see if their editing becomes more appropriate as a result of the alert; if it doesn't, any admin can topic ban them. Or it may be worth considering a simple shot-across-the-bows block right now for battleground editing and personal attacks, not as a discretionary sanction. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Procedural question: Does a user strictly need to be issued a DS alert if they have clearly indicated they were already aware of DS in the topic area? This ANI thread began with "someone is violating 1RR DS" -- ferret (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, Ferret. Common sense says they don't, but the somewhat technical list here about what it takes to be considered aware does not mention applying common sense. Also, I can't find the comment you cite. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
 * User:Bishonen, this section originally opened as a complaint by Bacondrum that Flyer22 violated 1RR discretionary sanction (Their words), so they're clearly aware of the DS. -- ferret (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - see Awareness. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. ArbCom recently approved & enacted my proposal for a DS/aware template, which means editors can now add it (as hidden text) on their UTP. See the custom DS Notice on the top of my UTP which includes the filter trigger as hidden text. I piped mine to include all t-areas, and it is now a permanent fixture. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support a block for edit warring, battling, and IDNHT. I definitely support a topic ban. As they are immune to reason, I think we should proceed with the block and with the TBAN.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not edit war. Can you provide diffs to back this claim Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really involved, haven't reviewed the diffs so please don't take this comment as endorsing or opposing any specific remedy. If blocks/bans are meant to be protective rather than punitive, why use both?  If the problem is specific to one topic area, use the tban.  If the problem is across topics then block.  The advantage of the tban is the editor has a chance to show through action that they understand the rules.  Anyway, I haven't looked into the diffs so this is just my general take when I see both block and tban proposed as simultaneous measures.  Springee (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been marginally involved as both BMK and Bacondrum share an area of interest with me (and Chinese historical articles remain stable and quiet so it's my primary at the moment). TBH I've tried to WP:AGF and give Bacondrum the benefit of the doubt such as cautioning them here not to take offence at civil comments made by admins, and reminding them that while WP:LOGOUT doesn't prohibit editing while logged out, doing so on a talk page under multiple IP addresses without formally noting their connection to a logged in account could be grounds for trouble under WP:SOCK however they seem to be stuck in a rather WP:BATTLEGROUND headspace. Honestly I can see the value of a t-ban. Bacondrum finding something else to do on Wikipedia for a while could give them the space necessary not to take everything quite so personally. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll happily accept a topic ban. Seriously though, is it okay for Beyond My Ken to call me a Sockpuppet and a biased editor over and over? I can see that I’ve taken offence too easily, but I have not edit warred, I have not acted as a Sockpuppet and I’ve not made any POV edits. I personally think BMK has behaved at least as badly as I have, if not worse. Bacondrum (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see my mistakes now, and as I said I’ll gladly take a topic ban, happy to stay away from US politic altogether. I still think BMK has been anything but civil, from the outset, but I can accept my part in it. Bacondrum (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The essence of the Big Lie is to repeat the same falsehood over and over again until it is taken at face value. In actuality, I did not call Bacondrum a sockpuppet. When he edited with an IP, instead of with his account, I wrote this and pinged him with it:
 * You have a Wikipedia account. Please sign in and edit with it.  Editing with an IP when you have an account can be considered to be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry.
 * You can see what I wrote: it  can  be considered a violation, depending on the circumstances. I did not say that what he did  was  a violation, I was warning him that he could get into trouble if he continued to do so (which he did, and then with another IP, the explanation being that his computer reboots and he gets a new dynamic IP, which doesn't answer why he didn't sign in again when that happened.  The interface is very clear when one is not signed-in.)So, once and for all  I did not say that Bacondrum was a sockpuppet , and I have never considered that he was. As for whether or not he is a POV editor, the jury is still out.  A lot will depend on his future edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support a community TBAN on politics in general, because Bacondrum appears actively involved in problematic editing on Australian politics as well, the edits to Alt-right were also about its Australian manifestation and whether Australian neo-Nazis are alt-right or a different thing entirely. Neutral about a block, but they need to understand that any more mass deletions of reliably sourced material from a 1RR article without getting consensus for it is going to result in a block. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP


IP continues to add unsourced genre's here, here and here for example, despite repeated warnings and a previous block for the same reason. Almost definately a sock of the indeffed Gregotheus 01 but as I'm not completely familiar with SPI, I'll just be happy to see user reprimanded with a longer block so as to give them some time to learn some fundamental policies.  Rob van  vee  08:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring IP inserting unsourced information and copyvios and refusing to negotiate.
2 days ago, User:2A02:C7F:2C36:B400:5C83:AD0E:4B75:2411 inserted unsourced information on Dost Mohammad Khan. I reverted him 3 times , and tried to open a discussion on the talk page , but he relented. Then he inserted unsourced information on Ali Ahmad Khan, and again refused to discuss the change, and then again on List of heads of state of Afghanistan and Mohammad Yaqub Khan. Today this IP added copyright violating material on Barakzai dynasty (no diff because it was removed). This user has been warned several times on his talk page but is showing no signs of giving up. I believe he should be blocked for disruptive editing. Koopinator (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TROUT for who has their knickers in a twist over this IP. The Ip was warned by  at 12.28 today; the IP has not edited since. Therefore they neither needed Koopinator's superfluous second warning nor this report. @Koopinator: suggest you withdraw this immediately and wait for the said IUP to actually edit against the warning; then this report might have validity. But not until then.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP has already edited against my warnings of inserting unsourced information, so this report already has validity. I had sent him 2 warnings regarding unsourced information on 13 July  for 2 different cases of inserting unsourced information, and i tried to send him a third one today for a third case of unsourced information on 14 July, but it was removed because of an unrelated rule being broken on the 15th. My warning also wasn't superfluous, i warned the IP for unsourced info and Doug warned him for Copyright violation. Koopinator (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It has no validity at all I'm afraid. In only the most egregious cases do we see someone blocked having not edited since a previous warning. This is certainly not approaching that level of severity, even if you believe that BLP applies to people who have been dead since 1923 and 1557 respectively, particularly in an article where, if you removed everything that was unsourced, you'd be left with a couple of sentences. Advice and discussion are the watchwords in these cases, not templated warnings and straight to a dramaboard. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, i was wrong. And i thought i could withdraw nominations by removing sections, but i was wrong in that, too. So i don't know what to do now. Koopinator (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter since I'm the only one to have replied, and I don't really care, personally; it's just that archiving is preferred—for example, if your IP does start causing more trouble, then this report is easily found in the archives and can be reactivated :)  and don't beat yourself up over being "wrong"—it's not so much about right or wrong and more about interpretation. Your concerns (and vigilance) for WP:V, though, are—without sounding condescending I hope!—both valued and appreciated. Take care!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ke an and edit-warring at Adolfas Ramanauskas‎
Could an admin have a look at Adolfas Ramanauskas‎ please. This is a contentious figure which some consider a Lithuanian national hero and others as a Nazi collaborator. Recently, due to a monument to him opened in Chicago, a number of reliable sources (including e.g. BBC, the full list at the talk page) published pieces on the guy being a Holocaust perpetrator. Kyuko tried to add information to the article based on these sources, just to be reverted by Ke an. Then Kyuko started a talk page discussion, with Ke an dismissing the info as "Russian propaganda". There are about 20 sources, the text proposed by Kuyko was fairly neutral and taking into account all the opinions, but the discussion went nowhere since Ke an resisted to all attempts to add anything to the article and did not make any constructive contribution to the discussion. Yesterday, I saw this and suggested that Kuyko adds the proposed text to the article, which they have done. Ke an reverted them, and then me, claiming there is no consensus. Apparently, in their understanding consensus is when everybody agrees (giving them a chance to block reaching consensus). We have 20 reliable sources, two persons agreeing, and one disagreeing without policy-based arguments ("Russian propaganda" is not a policy-based argument). Well, I can start an RfC and attract more people, but I am afraid we are just dealing with disruptive editing. A third opinion will be appreciated. Everything is documented at the talk page and in the recent editing history. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to add that I have never heard about Kuyko ot Ke an or Ramanauskas until yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I see now that Ke an has a zillion of warnings for edit-warring. May be it is time to make the next step.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit-warring is definitely of concern. From what I've been able to understand of the discussion, Ke an is saying that the material cannot be included, regardless of how many reliable sources mention it, because he believes it to be false, or Soviet propaganda. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again: what is said by the sources with strong reputations for trustworthiness and those that do not routinely put an errors/retractions section in their interior? The BBC and other news sources are distinctly not experts on Lithuanian history; the only way we have any business citing them is if they've asked actual scholars to write for them.  Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are scholarly sources required in these circumstances?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User blocked for 72 hours for deletion of sourced content without a policy-based rationale. Force-deleting sourced information merely because one deems it "fake news" is seriously disruptive. User has been warned that if it happens again, they'll be banned from the article. ~Swarm~  {sting} 04:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Disregard the first one. There is an anonymous user 152.32.96.27 who is keep vandalizing List of It's Showtime cast members article without showing any proof or source that may allow him/her to edit specific information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.160.127 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any vandalism. This looks like a content dispute. If you think there is vandalism here please cite diffs. Otherwise I would encourage you to have a look at WP:DR. No warnings have been issued as far as I can tell. Nor any attempt to engage on the article talk page. Also do you have an account? If so, please sign in. It makes things easier when trying to sort everything out. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Amaury
I stumbled across this edit by User:Amaury which has a pretty unnecessary edit summary "And it already says, dumbass", which is both uncivil and biting a new user - especially as the edit they rolled back looks like a good faith edit to me. I left a gentle reminder to be civil on Amaury's talk page, which was reverted with the edit summary "Don't care. People should be able to read", which seems like an unproductive response. Editors should care about civility. It looks like Amaury has a history of offensive and uncivil edit summaries, , , , , , , (these are all in the last 3 weeks). Given Amaury's reaction to my message, I don't feel like I can productively continue the conversation, so was hoping an admin could help Amaury understand that this behavior isn't helpful and politely ask them to stop. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Distinctly unhelpful edit summaries - if these were at the end of long ongoing disputes I could understand (not support, but understand) but many of these seem to jump to rudeness as a first port of call. If nothing else, I feel I'd need to ask Amaury how the rudeness is more productive at convincing people to Amaury's POV then a more civil approach Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Nosebagbear - the level of aggression in these edit summaries is totally uncalled for. Amaury, at the risk of being condescending, I'd like to offer a piece of advice. When I come across a good faith but problematic edit that has been made by a fairly new account, I try to imagine that it was made by my mother, who may for all I know have recently started editing. I find that approach helpful in formulating an appropriate form of words for how to explain what was wrong with their edit. As for repeat offenders, it's worth reading WP:DENY - aggression rarely helps, it just feeds the trolls.
 * Basically, if you think the edit is in good faith, be polite; if you think they're trolling, then just revert and ignore. There's never any justification for insults, or for naughty sweary-words, unless you're communicating with someone you know won't be offended. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All of these edits are against IPs editing children's film and entertainment, which certainly doesn't deserve this kind of language. I understand these kinds of editors can be frustrating (I've basically brushed it off and used guiding personal summaries to help them out), but you pretty much have to explain and help them out rather than curse them out for what definitely all look like innocent mistakes (one of them was immediately warned with a uw-4 (!) for no justifiable reason). This needs to stop, and very quickly.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blimey - that's a very good point, I'd overlooked the nature of the articles. Amaury has most likely been cursing out minors with these edit summaries. Please replace the reference above to 'my mother' with 'an enthusiastic and good-natured child'. I think Amaury needs to give a strongly worded affirmation that they will change their approach to editing pronto, or be TBANNED from editing articles about children's entertainment. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Minor incident being blown out of proportion. Warn and move on. I would be strongly opposed to any kind of Tban. --bonadea contributions talk 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect (I truly mean that) Bonadea, it's not a minor incident: it's a series of incidents. We can argue about whether they're minor or not, but the string of diffs above looks like a pattern of behaviour that the user believes to be acceptable. To be clear, I'm not looking for an immediate TBAN; I'm hoping that the user will recognise that being aggressive and swearing in edit summaries, and handing out 4im warnings for apparently good faith edits, it totally inappropriate on any page; on a page about children's entertainment, even more so. If they affirm that they will desist, I'd be satisfied with that; a TBAN seems to me to be a necessary alternative. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Ad Orientem, greatly appreciated. Railfan23 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Marcolacson
Requesting an indef block of this user who refuses to comply with some of Wikipedia's guidelines, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS in particular, even though he has been warned in the past by some editors multiple times in his talk. Most of edits have been pretty disruptive; for instance, in the Darna (upcoming film) article, his recent additions were not in the source he provided, and in the Jane De Leon article he claims that a movie is to be released in 2020 even though there's no official release date for it. User is also guilty of copyright violation by uploading which he copied directly from this news article without copyright permission from the author. This editor is just too good for this site's policies.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism to a Cultural Contribution


User locked:

Reason Vandalism:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_Nolasco_Vergara_Albano&type=revision&diff=905821779&oldid=897546569 Vandalism here. Erase a to cultural contribution]

Test:

At the same time in French At the same time in German

Vandalism objective:



Thank you --Historiadormundo (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

He was skip the blockade--Historiadormundo (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Boy, so very not vandalism. It appears you are trying to put into the article a picture of someone who isn't the subject of the article, but that you think looks like the subject of the article. There's nothing encyclopedic about that. Deletion from the article is appropriate. Deletion from Commons is outside the boundaries of this board, but seems likely to be appropriate as well. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Um... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Historiadormundo he's now randomly tagging IP editors as a sock, perhaps in retaliation to being blocked for sockpuppetry on Commons? Can someone look at this please? 2001:4898:80E8:3:BD15:1416:1A93:77C0 (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 took care of it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

renewed harassment by blocked user FFA P-16
was blocked for sockpuppetry in enWiki and blocked for unutterable harassment in deWiki. Please delete userpage ( text of user page but even more of talk page makes clear reason for deletion). Thank you--Caumasee (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the issue the claim about who has the userid they claim to have wanted? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * no the issue is a sockpuppet-accusation by a sockpuppet-professional... The person behind the accounts FFA P-16 and this one has become a troll. Another account had been blocked without me ever knowing - only later I found out: and you can see it was just a provocation and when blocked called "trollerei" by the admin - easily to be translated as trolling. So: No, no one wants my long time user id. It ist just time consuming trolling and false accusations (me being someone elses sockpuppet).--Caumasee (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right troll of some sort
Only reason I'm not blocking is that what got my attention was this lovely rant on WT:NONAZIS, which is an essay I helped write. The account seems to be WP:NOTHERE, thus far only existing to claim left-wing bias on Wikipedia and claim that saying violent racists should be blocked is a form of racism. Highlights include: Fair obvious nazi sympathizer who has as their only purpose here to complain that we aren't nice enough to the far-right and nazis. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Commentary on nazi uniforms
 * Complaining an article only focuses on the right-wing
 * Complaints of use of SPLC on Patriot Prayer
 * Why is this word "acquired" used when it has been well established that the French simply stole and plundered Italian art. After all what is the difference between the Nazis plundering gold and the French plundering art?
 * Complains we are unfair to Conservapedia and overly kind to Rational Wiki
 * This page is a perfect example of systemic racism and political bias on Wikipedia and the irony is this page is itself "racist". In the opening paragraph it singles out white people as being racist, yet makes no mention of any group or race. That is textbook racism according to just about progressive standard that folks love to use not to mention highly hypocritical. (linked above)
 * Having reviewed their contribution history, it looks like their only reason for being here is to troll talkpages. Indeffed.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark
Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

After warning TracyMcClark stated in the edit summary "1 aware of and the other one is just stalking me. Please cut it out" This was a false allegation of someone stalking them. The edit summary was "Assuming good faith needs some honesty which isn't shown on Quack's side" This is rude. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 00:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC) e
 * Well, I wasn't going to be ready to bring this to ANI until next week. I began an editor review of TMC after they reverted QG with an incivil edit summary and made this incivil remark at WP:AN.  My attempts to discuss this with TMC, were rebuffed here and here. Please note the edit summaries. Please note that message reversion is not the problem, the dismissal of my attempt to discuss is the problem. I let matters ride, but saw following incivility later. (I'll hae to come back with the dif's. I'm sorry. I was not ready.) I again tried to discuss with TMC, but they rebuffed my effort with the edit summary "...the other one [that would be me is just stalking me. Please cut it out"] So per WP:ADMINACCT I prepared to bring it here, but QG preempted me. TMC followed me to Eeng's talk page and again accused me of stalking. (Asking someone to stop being incivil and conducting an editor review when they refuse to discuss is not, in fact, stalking.) Soory, this is all jumblely. I am late.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, in quickly moving forward with my review, TMC has not made any incivil remarks toward QC (that I saw. That aren't that many edits) since I asked them to stop. So if we want to delve into the past that's one thing. If we want to leave b and hope for the best, that's another.' Sorry for the aggravation.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This goes back years. On 12 May 2017 the edit summary was "Undid revision 780090808 by Doc James (talk) You're a quite ridiculous activist. Don't post here again" On 16 July 2017 TracyMcClark wrote "Your shameful agenda is again duly noted." <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TracyMcClark hasn't edited much in the last couple years - 225 edits from 2017 and much of that to the reference desk, however just peeking at their contributions one sees a great deal of hostility, and yes, incivility:
 * 22:45, 25 May 2019 - WP:ASPERSIONS towards QuackGuru.
 * 23:40, 6 May 2019 - personal attack - "I'm not surprised by your narrow mindedness that prevents any original thought" towards.
 * 22:46, 5 February 2019 - personal attack - " as usual blind ideology minded hate for everything that makes this subject....
 * 00:02, 8 March 2019 - perosnal attack - sole content is talk diff by other user with header " Fucking unbelievable nonsense insulting my (still) hold sanity" - which may be also an attempt to canvass talk page watchers? Also - 22:45, 19 March 2019 is similar. Considering they have 72 talk page watchers, this does reach an audience.
 * 21:34, 20 April 2018 - personal attack - referring to (I think) QuackGuru as "That w*****". Now, TracyMcClark uses precisely five asterisks (which by itself indicates this is something rude) and I think it is abundantly clear to anyone who is conversant in British (or greater Commonwealth) English what is meant by "w*****" - I would hazard a guess there is a K in the middle and that it ends with a R.
 * Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

'''Thanks for retrieving those dif's. That is in agreement with what I saw. Had I properly formatted this thread, I'd have posited a choice included WP:IBAN for interaction with QG. (Probably unworkable due to the overlap in interests.) And a formal expectation that TMC behave more civilly towards others. I believe there is a level of toxic behavior that has gone unaddressed for a long time. Having said that, my review also, (to be fair) showed TMC can be, and often is, quite helpful though a bit pedantic while helping. (I tend toward pedantry too, so I cannot hold that against them.)'''  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the dispute and TracyMcClark's other contributions. In the light of what Dlohcierekim says above, I've given TracyMcClark a final warning and asked them to avoid interactions with QuackGuru as far as possible. They can be in doubt now about the standards required when editing in an area under discretionary sanctions and I'm prepared to indef if there is a further breach. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the dispute and TracyMcClark's other contributions. In the light of what Dlohcierekim says above, I've given TracyMcClark a final warning and asked them to avoid interactions with QuackGuru as far as possible. They can be in doubt now about the standards required when editing in an area under discretionary sanctions and I'm prepared to indef if there is a further breach. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Attempted POV edits on Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death
This article is under pending changes, and an IP is attempting to skew it by removing the word "falsely" from the image caption "Photograph which falsely purports to show Hitler with a self-proclaimed former SS trooper in 1954, from a CIA document". Of course, there is no doubt whatsoever about the falseness of the claim. I've reverted twice, but have to protect myself -- so could an admin please remove pending changes -- which carries with it the possibility of an editor attempting to protect the article being dinged for edit warring -- and semiprotect it instead? The IP involved is User:2a00:23c7:cf06:200:ac11:4f26:9556:ba37. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 03:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'd have gone to RFPP, but sometimes those requests are rejected because the admin looks quickly, sees what looks like an edit war, and doesn't get the context that a blatantly false "fact" is being attempted to be inserted in the article -- and so refuses the request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2019

(UTC) Isn't there an element of redundancy in the formulation "falsely purports", since the word "purports" already carries with it a strong connotation of falsehood? It reads awkwardly to me. I have no disagreement about the need to convey the conclusion of all reliable sources that these conspiracy theories lack merit. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is mildly redundant, but the "falsely" acts as an intensifier. If it was "purports" by itself, the reader might assume that some people think it does and some think it doesn't (you know, like those TV documentaries that try to leave everything up in the air until they porivide the final evidence at the very end of the program) -- but in fact, this is not the case, except for fringe conspiracists.  The "falsely" makes it definitive. Have you another suggested wording? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Purports" implies that the statement isn't true, so "falsely purports" is somewhat redundant. Perhaps "falsely claims"? ETA: Although, thinking about it, a photo can't "claim" anything (nor can it purport something, for that matter).  So perhaps "Photograph which is falsely claimed to show..."? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to say falsely. In the context of the article that's obvious. How about "Photograph that has been claimed to show..."That's a straight description and it does not imply its real   DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also feel that the intensifier "falsely" is unnecessary and redundant in "falsely purports" (and also in the overly-common "false conspiracy theory"), and removal of the word "false" from such constructions is about grammar, not POV. In other words, edits like " falsely purports" and " false conspiracy theory" aren't an attempt to say that those things are true, but are attempts at copyediting. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I disagree about the use of "falsely" as an intensifer (but I'm pretty loose about not getting down on people who say stuff like "very unique", because we know exactly what they mean, and therefore they are effectively communicating), but I think it's moot now, since a couple of editors have kicked it around and I think we've come up with an acceptable alternative. In any case, as far as I can tell, the editor who removed "falsely" wasn't doing so for grammatical reasons - if they were, they should have said so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of "The 1954 photograph has not been proven to be false, so claiming it is a hoax is POV." if grammar was what was really concerning them. It does read better reworded though. Curdle (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ser-Rod-7
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding potientally vandalism. The thread is Ser-rod-7. I'm tired of fighting this user, it constantly reverts to problematic edits on this pages, List: List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(2000–present) The King's Man List of Walt Disney Pictures films You think the WDP is gonna to start making R-Rated movies! This editor is misleading! The Entertainment Weekly stupidly reported that co-production between Disney and Fox, but when I clean up the pages, i'm not removing the source but user is wrongly blaming other editiors for removing source. It also deletes text that animated movie will be last in 2010s in this page Spies_in_Disguise and added in page It Chapter Two to be supposedly lasted 198 minutes. But these edits in two pages reverted by other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomber7600 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bomber7600, you are a very new editor. Have you attempted to discuss your differences on the article talk pages? WP:ANI is where you come when you have attempted to resolve disputes on user and article talk pages and failed. Please speak to the editor you have disagreements. And discussing your differences on the article talk page will draw in other editors so it doesn't become a them vs. you struggle. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Bomber7600, you should have seen a bright pink message saying that you needed to alert Ser-rod-7 of this discussion which you neglected to do. I have let them know about this discussion on their talk page. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How to alert, I don't understand well in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomber7600 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is user
 * There is a notice, pretty bright, that says you have to post ~ on the talk page of every editor you are discussing on ANI or AN. It's only fair to let them know they are the subject of a discussion. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It'also tried speak to editor having disagreements but none. He likes editing wars! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomber7600 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of you are leaving angry messages in edit summaries and user talk pages. Neither of you is using the article talk page. To his credit, Ser-Rod's messages are at least more coherent. When you feel an editor is not responding to your concerns, the solution is to follow the steps outlined at dispute resolution, not to continue edit warring. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bomber7600 may be having trouble communicating with Ser-Rod-7 because their command of English seems to be a bit sketchy:
 * "You verry annoying man! So please stop it providing unsourced editing. You are really supposedly against unsourced editing but you edited to be It chapter two to be supposedly running 198 minutes."
 * "And STOP Adding WDP Studio in king's man movie. YOU TIRED ME!!!"
 * (to another editor) "This is user very stupid, constantly cancels problematic edits, wrongly blames for deleting the source especally page "King's Man". The Entertainment Weekly are really stupid, to confirm this. This is potientally vandalism, we need report on this user and will be banned"
 * Bomber7600 seems to be saying that Ser-Rod-7 is inserting unsourcd information into articles, but Bomber7600's talk page contains a warning from from 2 weeks ago for doing the exact same thing they now wants Ser-Rod-7 to be "banned" for.   Perhaps Bomber7600 might might want to cut Ser-Rod-7 some slack, or perhaps Bomber7600 might be more comfortable editing the Wikipedia of their native language instead of English Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and definitely needs to read WP:Vandalism which lays out specifically what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia.  I certainly may have missed something, but I'm not seeing anything in Ser-Rod-7's edits which qualify as "vandalism", just disputed content.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'am never inserting unsourced informations. My English was just bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomber7600 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, well said. Thanks for taking the time to wade through this and the talk pages and all. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I've warned both editors for edit-warring.. Probably nothing more to do than just keep an eye on the dispute. --RexxS (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:103.217.172.202
Please block 103.217.172.202 as WP:NOTHERE. Not here 24 hours yet, and every one of their three dozen or so contributions is vandalism. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked. You can report vandals to WP:AIV for a potentially faster response. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

2001:8003:DC59:6600:D1EC:BC17:2C85:2564
WP:NOTHERE; all edits by User:2001:8003:DC59:6600:D1EC:BC17:2C85:2564 are vandalism. Trivialist (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard blocked for a week. Let me know if it starts up again, and I'll do a much longer block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced BLP editing by User:Treshanks
The user ignores all warnings on their talk page and keeps adding unsourced material to Biographies of living persons where proper sourcing is required. The user has made a number of dubious unsourced BLP edits since the level 4 warning, including, , , and most recently .—J. M. (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As they are past a final warning, have not responded to concerns, and edit too infrequently to even notice a short block, I've blocked indefinitely. They may be unblocked once they have addressed these issues.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn: incivility, personal attacks
User:Flyer22 Reborn has been using WP:PERSONALATTACKS against me and several other users. Her words are in bullet points and pink highlight for clarity.

According to WP:ASPERSIONS & WP:PA: (1) “It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation.” (2) “It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause.” (3) “Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views” is a personal attack.

Flyer22 continually accuses me of being a sockpuppet by saying I’m "not new" in various talk pages and sometimes using that to dismiss my reasons for an edit, and once used it to counter my reasons against a disruptive editor. There are procedures to report a sockpuppet, when the accuser has reasons beyond doubt, and not just constantly accusing people of it on talk pages.

WP:SOCKHELP: (1) "Putting the "suspected sock puppet" tag on a talk page or calling them a "sock puppet" on any talk page is considered uncivil, so don't do it. Report them to WP:SPI instead. Informing the suspected sock that they have been reported to WP:SPI is not required, and in most cases, it causes more problems than it solves so it is discouraged." (2) "When handling a sock puppet problem, use the method that creates the least amount of drama possible." (3) "A sock puppet (also called a "sock") is an extra account used by someone for abusive purposes."


 * “There has also been socking going on. And the socking I've seen thus far has been from editors who believe that Jackson is innocent. As seen by this warning to Akhiljaxxn from Yamla, Akhiljaxxn has also been problematic at these articles. And I don't believe that Partytemple is a new editor. When I asked Partytemple on Partytemple's talk page if Partytemple has edited under a different Wikipedia account, Partytemple said no. I really can't support removing Hammelsmith when the other side are just as problematic.”[1]


 * “You're not new. Surely, you know that everyone's behavior is under scrutiny at ANI…. You can continue to claim that you are new, but I don't have to buy it.”[1]


 * “A lot of irrelevant topics in this thread? No. And do I need to repeat myself? I think I do: "everyone's behavior is under scrutiny at ANI. Noting that the other side is just as problematic, if not more so, is a topic for discussion at ANI. It's not derailing any thread." Again, this is not something I need to tell you since you are not new.”[1]


 * “I replied/refuted at Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Taraborrelli is unreliable. and above. Read WP:Bold and WP:BRD. You are not new. You know the deal. You made a bold edit; I challenged it since you removed material on the belief that Taraborrelli is unreliable.”[2]


 * “Sighs. I'm not doing this with you again. At WP:ANI, I stated that you are not new. You are not, and any significantly experienced editor analyzing your account would state the same thing, just like they do about various other new accounts at WP:ANI.”[2]

She also accused me of being a WP:SPA.


 * “Haven't refuted any of your reasons? LOL. And I'm WP:NOTHERE? LOL! I can imagine the many Wikipedians rolling their eyes at that one. I'm WP:NOTHERE says the WP:Single-purpose account pushing their Jackson agenda all over Wikipedia, including at the Leaving Neverland article, where their POV editing has been complained about.”[3]

I made my account a few months ago and have only start editing regularly lately. And I don’t just edit Michael Jackson articles. I have asked other admins on how to edit better on WP. I may learn fast; that doesn’t mean I’m a sockpuppet.

WP:NOASSUMESOCK & WP:NOTSPA: (1) “On Wikipedia, a single-purpose account is defined as one that is used to edit a single page, group of pages in a common category, or to perform the same type of edit to any number of pages. Not all single-purpose accounts are bad, and they do not all violate Wikipedia policy.” (2) “There are many good faith behaviors that have a lot in common with sock puppetry and are totally unavoidable and are actually helpful. It is important to assume good faith whenever possible and not jump to the conclusion that sock puppetry is occurring just because one or more signs are present. Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sock puppet investigation.”

Flyer22 also bites newcomers and suspects they are sockpuppets. Not to mention biting me, if I am considered a newcomer.


 * “Funny how about half of “these others” are new accounts.”[2]

WP:BITE: “New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility.”

WP:GOODFAITH: (1) “It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.” (2) “When disagreement occurs, try to do the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.”

More WP:PA against whom she believes are “rabid Jackson fans” to dismiss their reasons on the talk page.


 * “Oh, goodness. Another rabid Jackson fan. Do report me at WP:ANI right now, where you just might be called a WP:Sock by different editors and get a WP:BOOMERANG.”[2]


 * “Not a "rabid Jackson fan?" Your commentary speaks otherwise. And "incredibly racist and insulting for others suffering from vitiligo"? So wrong that I'm not even going to address it beyond stating that I'm sure I know more about vitiligo than you do. And, predictaby, here comes Israell, who is undoutedly a Jackson fan. I'm not interetested in either of your comments about Jackson. Countering your claims is fruitless, as the Jackson ideology in you is strong.”[2]


 * “You should wait and see if more people weigh in at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. And, yes, that means waiting more than a day or two. And by "more people," I don't mean Jackson fans from this talk page who will agree with you. I mean uninvolved editors who very likely are not concerned with all of the latest Jackson developments.”[2]

WP:CIVIL: (1) “Be professional. Avoid name-calling. Avoid condescension. Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment.” (2) "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable."


 * “You are the one who acted like you were already familiar with me. I'm "very toxic," you say again. You are very POV-leaning in your editing, and you are not good for Wikipedia. I've proven that I'm good for Wikipedia times over. I will wait for you to be indefinitely blocked one day, and I have no doubt that it will happen. I'm "defending misinformation"? According to you because you don't believe Taraborrelli.”[2]


 * “Not a "rabid Jackson fan?" Your commentary speaks otherwise. And "incredibly racist and insulting for others suffering from vitiligo"? So wrong that I'm not even going to address it beyond stating that I'm sure I know more about vitiligo than you do.”[2]

Flyer22 hasn't helped to deescalate the situation, despite her saying that she would. I can’t speak for other users nor can I defend their behavior, but it’s clear to me that Flyer22 has accused me of being a sockpuppet multiple times without proof and has been disruptive across Michael Jackson talk pages. I had restart my edit proposal twice to get away from the toxicity, and she called a bluff on getting reported on ANI. WP:DISENGAGE, WP:FOC —Partytemple (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg Good point at the end. Disengage, problem solved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The above is a complete misrepresentation of what has been happening at the Jackson articles, and I'm not going to address all of it. First, as I've told Partytemple more than once, I never stated that Partytemple is a sock. Editors can easily check the history on that. I did state that Partytemple is not new, and any significantly experienced Wikipedia editor can see that Partytemple is not new. I told Partytemple that "not new" can also apply to people having edited as IPs first and to WP:LEGITSOCK. And calling an editor a single-purpose account? We can see that this is done in the thread above as well. Looking at Partytemple's contributions, it is easy to characterize the account as a single-purpose account. And, yes, in the ANI thread on Hammelsmith, Partytemple acted like they were familiar with me, stating, "This isn't the first time this user has tried intimidating me on a keyboard, nor the first time she has devoted an entire post to flaming." I replied that Partytemple must be admitting to having edited under a different account or as an IP because because there was no record of me trying to intimidate Partytemple on a keyboard. There still is not. That ANI thread was the first time I had interacted with the Partytemple account (other than asking on their talk page if they had used a different account).


 * Most importantly, there have been coordinated WP:Meatpuppetry efforts going on at the Jackson articles. This is clear by looking at the following new accounts (for just a few examples):


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthGuardians


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deboleena.ghy


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GiuliaZB


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Funkof40000years.
 * I had a WP:CheckUser look into the matter, and pointed to the first two. The CheckUser also checked the third. I just noticed the fourth today at the Leaving Neverland article. The CheckUser agrees with me that meatpuppetry is going on. The CheckUser suggested that they may be from a forum. I was already considering that, if not one or more socks, the very new accounts are meatpuppets from a forum. Jackson fans being coordinated in their efforts to defend Jackson is something that has been recently mentioned in media sources, such as this The New York Times "Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle." source and this The Daily Beast "'Leaving Neverland' and the Twisted Cult of Michael Jackson Truthers" source. It's happening across social media, and now it's happening on Wikipedia. I can ping the CheckUser here if others want me to, or email the CheckUser to weigh in. The meatpuppetry is obvious when looking at the accounts. They follow one another to articles and defend or support Jackson-positive text, often in questionable ways. As seen here, Partytemple has also been problematic in this area. As that links shows, there is even the suggestion to use fansites. Popcornduff turned that flat down. At one recent point, because of how these Jackson fans are, SNUGGUMS stepped in and stated, "Even [i]f Flyer's 'rabid Jackson fan' remark was unwarranted, patronizing her with the 'Time to grow up, Little one' comment is definitely not appropriate. She's not some young child with close-minded views. Disputing claims doesn't mean her goal is to maintain false details in the page." This personal attack was then removed. Partytemple goes on about personal attacks, but they have been engaging in personal attacks against me since the WP:ANI thread on Hammelsmith. Calling me toxic in that ANI thread is just the tip of the iceberg. Partytemple says that I didn't try to deescalate the tensions between us, but when I was clear that I wanted to, this was Partytemple's reply. Then, before I knew it, I was dealing with new accounts centering on me. I have no reason to think that these accounts weren't directed to that thread about me, the same thread that violates WP:TALKNEW. And when I told Partytemple that the heading violates WP:TALKNEW, did Partytemple change it? No.


 * Like I stated before, as seen here and here, I was considered a Jackson fan trying to obscure child sexual abuse material. And now I'm considered a Jackson hater, with all types of accusations thrown my way. In both cases, each side came after me. What I'm looking to do is to stave off the POV-editing that is plaguing the Jackson articles, including what are or aren't reliable sources based on personal opinion rather than on the WP:Reliable sources guideline. And I'm not going to pretend that I don't see meatpuppetry when I do. Even the RfC that Partytemple started is currently filled with these new accounts weighing in. I really do think that we need WP:Discretionary sanctions at the Jackson articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2019‎ (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For clarity, my response was


 * Tweaked my above wording regarding meatpuppetry with a strike-through and small expansion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Tonyballioni bullying case
It seem he is involved bullying Benjaminzyg according to this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying

It should not happen and should be taken seriously

Bullying disability people is considered discrimination which lead to a block or ban.

Any question should be held here.

--1.159.80.14 (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jenulot. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  05:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Present diffs, if you don't want to be blocked for WP:Casting aspersions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an LTA. Someone who isn't me please block. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked by El C. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Block threats to me


Dear admins, if you look at this page, you can see carefully that I removed unsourced content I also remove unencyclopedic propaganda. But this user Roscelese is accusing me of vandalism. Her threats on my user page are growing day by day and I feel like quitting Wikipedia. I hope this is on the correct page. The edit warring page was too complicated to file the report. Dagana4 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You deleted a bunch of content supported by sources. While the claims seem a little WP:EXTRAORDINARY on the surface, it would be wise to engage at talk rather than accusing others of vandalism or propaganda. Suggest taking the discussion to WP:RS/N WRT the reliability of the sources from the disputed para and voluntarily closing this premature thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But why are you ignoring the threats I got? Dagana4 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You said I deleted a bunch of content supported by sources but all of that content is WP:OFFTOPIC for History of Kolkata. I just saw it again. Dagana4 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They're not threats, they're warnings because you've been repeatedly reinstating your edits, and continued disruption will result in a block. That is disruptive and, in this particular case, can be considered vandalism since you're removing huge chunks of content with no real explanation other than that the content you're removing is allegedly false allegations. Amaury • 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely - those are actually template warnings, the recommended method of cautioning a user that their comportment may be falling outside of Wikipedia's expected norms. If you believe a source is being misrepresented or is a fringe source, you should raise the issue at article talk, WP:FRINGE/N and WP:RS/N. You should not call the edits vandalism, you should not call the edits propaganda and you definitely shouldn't start an WP:AN/I post about some template warnings from multiple editors responding to your pattern of disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Loveroftheworld14710 and 20XX in Country articles
Loveroftheworld14710 has been creating a very large number of stubs such as 2017 in Montenegro, 2017 in Malawi, 2020 in Australia, etc. Many of them have been moved to draft space, but the user has not responded to comments on their talk page. If they continue to ignore feedback, administrative action may be necessary. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All these articles have one thing in common: they contain little or no infromation other than leadership or holidays. They are also all unsourced. This user started only on July 6 with the creation of 2020 in France, while having relatively few problematic edits from before. His/her only page creations are these articles and a few redirects from page moves. Thus, the best option would be a temporary ban from creating articles. As for the pages, I would recommend draftification or deletion, or a mixture of both. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And some are just empty shells.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This user continues to create problematic articles. He created List of most-followed Twitch accounts in mainspace by copying the table from most-followed Instagram accounts. The reference given doesn't exist. I think some administrative action is necessary -- possibly requiring them to use AFC for new articles. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , as you are corresponding on your talk page, can I please invite you to comment and respond on the above issues here? We are here to help you understand the issues, so please cooperate. Thanks, Lourdes  03:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the Twitch account article that I made, here is my honest response on the article on which I made.

This Article That I Was TRYING To Create is NOT MEANINGLESS

I was making it for 5 minutes and then I was trying to tap the Save Preview button but accidentally put the publish button, and then, yea, I accidentally published the article

Some people are dragging me just for my presence here on this holy website of knowledge known as Wikipedia, which I do not appreciate

Some of y’all are being polite to me on editing, which I’m happy to hear that some of y’all care and don’t want me blocked, which I feel is unfair for me since I’m trying to learn how to edit here

Imma talk more about this tea that y’all badly want to make later.

PS, I’m an editor as well, please accept me on Wikipedia, I’m just starting to learn darlings

Loveroftheworld14710

Some of y’/ll can learn how to be nicer to people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveroftheworld14710 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I’m not a problematic user munchkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveroftheworld14710 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , editors here don't wish to be patronised, at the same time we wish to support editors making mistakes. Do you voluntarily agree to read up Articles for creation and submit articles as per the process detailed there? Please respond. Lourdes  08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indef block. Appealable to any uninvolved admin after 6 months, though. I could handle the mainspace disruption temporarily, but when you make light of suicide you lose my respect. It's the number for the suicide prevention hotline; Some of us have actually had to call that number in the past. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I could handle the disruption of dozens of new "1xxx in France" articles, all of which require significant edits to meet content and style guidelines, even if they were to be kept. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * More disruption by blanking the leads of 1991, 1990, and 1989. Lean toward a long block, but not sure whether just a 6 month block, or an indefinite block with appeal allowed after 6 months, would be more appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and now creating hundreds more "1xxx in France" with no discussion I can find. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the user for continuing the disruptive behavior, trollish responses, and a refusal to respond to the direct inquiries of their behavior and how to mitigate it. I'm fine with it being appeals if the user responds and promises to stop creating these articles. -- ferret (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good block, support indef based on their recent unblock requests, comments here and on their talk page (including the suicide hotline "joke"), and recent contribs (showing continued mass creation of pages against consensus). This editor has already taken up too much of other editors' time (a finite and valuable shared resource). Competence and civility are required. Perhaps things will be different in six months. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

curious behavior by IP
Hello,

It appears the IP 72.69.243.12 has been making several small edits throughout a various range of pages, some of which appears to be clear straight vandalism, while some seem legit or are less clear cases of vandalism. Several editors have already given the IP warnings

Examples of fishy behavior

The editor's edits are all very small over a wide range of often obscure pages so its hard to figure out. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing sourcing issues with OfficeBoy

 * de.wiki talk page
 * de.wiki contributions
 * de.wiki contributions

Since all the way back in 2009, has been warned dozens of times by numerous users about sourcing issues, including adding content without sources, listing sources only in edit summaries, and using unreliable sources. Generally, OfficeBoy does not respond to messages, but when he does, he is invariably defensive and hostile. Despite numerous warnings, dozens of reversions, and a 3-day block on Feb 26, he has persisted in making these types of edits and shows no signs of stopping. I consider myself too involved to take administrative action against him, but I think it's time for the community to consider some kind of sanction against him to stop this behavior.

I first encountered OfficeBoy in Feb 2019 when he added some unsourced names to Bradford Bishop, which is on my watchlist. I reverted the edit as good faith but unsupported by the sources, and left a note on his talk, noticing other similar warnings from many other users. He restored the content two days later citing Find-A-Grave in his edit summary. reverted on Feb 13 as FG is not reliable. Throughout February,, TJRC, , and myself all attempted to engage with OfficeBoy on his talk page. He responded with extreme hostility and dismissed concerns about unreliable sources:. Around Feb 14, I spent some time looking through his contributions and either properly sourcing what I could, or removing what I couldn't. On Feb 26, blocked him for 3 days after he carried on making badly-sourced edits to other articles.

Since then, OfficeBoy has continued with the same behavior, including: (unsourced edits),  (unreliable sources; those last two are from July 16), and  (hostility). That's not an exhaustive list, and there's plenty from before Feb 2019 as well. He has not made an edit to his talk page since February. It's clear that he has no interest in abiding by our policies and practices about sourcing and verifiability, no matter how many editors over a decade have tried to engage with him. He's wasted enough of other editors' time. It needs to stop. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've notified OfficeBoy on his en and de talk pages, and the users I pinged above as well. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid PMC is quite right: this guy just can't bring himself to follow the rules, and insists on basing edits on rootsweb, findagrave, and so on despite being warned a zillion times. Plus there's GO AHEAD, you ungrateful motherfuckers and you indescribably fussy, petty-minded moron and (my personal favorite) you source Nazis really suck (all linked above). At this rate he'll never be ruler of the Queen's Navy. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OB edits infrequently and mightn't have seen this. Perhaps if someone spoke to them in their mother tongue? At any rate, might we indef block until they have addressed the sourcing and incivility problems?   Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If knows enough English that he can write Seriously? Well, if you want to block a Wiki author of 15 years and of 600 written articles, GO AHEAD, you ungrateful motherfuckers. I usually put a source into my edits. I can't believe how this shitty platform treats its authors. Incredible. Kiss my ass, Wikipedia. Cheers., he obviously knows enough English to understand the many warnings he's been given.
 * I don't think he would claim that he does not know enough English to understand the discussion; but if that were the case, he probably shouldn't be editing English Wikipedia any more than I should be editing German Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I agree with Dlohcierekim that a block would be appropriate until we confirm that the user understands the problems with their editing and will address them.  Sandstein   15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As one of the participants in trying to bring Officeboy in line with Wikipedia requirements, and the one who brought the issue to his attention, in both English and German, on his German Wikipedia talk page, I am in complete agreement with PMC's comments. OfficeBoy's edits are a net drain on Wikipedia. He makes his edits without regard for ensuring their verifiability, and uses sources that he has repeatedly been warned are not reliable. He is damaging Wikipedia, and has demonstrated that he has no intention of stopping, rejecting any guidance and warning, over and over and over again. He depends on other editors to follow and mop up after him.


 * Perhaps even worse, he obviously sometime has sources (mostly not WP:RS ones, though), because he'll put a link in his edit summary... and he still will not include them in his edits. Again, it's up to other editors to follow him and clean up after him.


 * He's been given so many warnings for so long, and been blocked, and still persists in his misbehavior. I don't see any alternative to either an indef block; or alternatively a long-term (say a year) block with a warning that the block will be made indefinite if he resumes his damaging edits. TJRC (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Too nuanced. He's had a zillion warnings, which he's openly thumbed his nose at. Simply indef him until he's able to show he understands what's expected, and then a long probation under threat of sudden death. Note to T&S: Not a threat of literal death. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My dad thought in German but spoke English beautifully. I never heard him make that sort of utterance. Perhaps we can indef him (OB, not my dad) till he rinses out his potty mouth.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My tolerance level this type of disruption hovers near 0. I've blocked OfficeBoy indefinitely with instructions on how they can be unblocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * endorse block. obviously.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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 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."[] This is being repeatedly removed by the editor. ClearBreeze (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * , 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

In Wikitigresito talked about  being removal of a BLP violation because, 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  (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  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 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)
 * Thank you 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)
 * The allegation of edit warring is absolutely ridiculous. You claim you tried to discuss this with me, which is not true. In fact, in your message on my talk page you wrote "I don't come to Wikipedia often, and won't be checking anything else you've done, so don't bother to reply, as I most likely won't see it". Take this to the article's talk page and please WP:AGF. - wikitigresito (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Uncle G: I am also surprised that you find it is hard to see what one could consider an ad. If you had examined the actual diff, you would have found that I removed the sentence "Donations continue to be sought for the baroque facade decoration by Förderverein Berliner Schloss eV, which is funding this part of the reconstruction." I agree that the BLP violation is less obvious, but the NYT article does not support the very enthusiastic picture that the person in question was "the ultimate driving force" behind the reconstruction. - wikitigresito (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Wikitigresito disputes he has been edit warring, and that a prior attempt has been made at discussion. False on both counts. A long note was posted on his Talk Page detailing how his edit had: (a) been careless, because the subsequent sentence ("In 1992 von Boddien...") then made little sense to those unacquainted, like apparently himself, with whom von Boddien was, and (b) that the statement he removed was supported by a reliable source (NY Times). Despite this, when the text had been restored, he removed it again, and posted the statement, "The content is improper, please familiarise yourself with our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons" – an attempt to give legitimacy to the context of his actions. Now he states: "I agree that the BLP violation is less obvious". Given there's not been a violation, "less obvious" is the least of it. He further states: "the NYT article does not support the very enthusiastic picture that the person in question was 'the ultimate driving force' behind the reconstruction." Yet, in point of fact, the NYT reference states that Boddein: "heads the private fund-raising group" and "until Mr. von Boddien and his associates got involved, the Government had given no thought to rebuilding the vast royal palace." Indeed, every reputable article on the reconstruction credits Boddien as the driving force. e.g. Deutsche Welle: "After the fall of the Berlin Wall...von Boddien...had baroque backdrops painted bright yellow and mounted in front of the Palace of the Republic, sparking off one of the most vigorous debates in newly reunited Germany. Wilhelm von Boddien was ridiculed by the media as the "ghost of the palace," and his declared plan to raise at least 85 million euros ($98.5 million) in donations to support the reconstruction of the palace was politely smiled upon. But fortune was always with him." etc. etc. [] That Wikitigresito continues to doubt this, despite it being well known to Berliners as one of the most singular facts about the reconstruction, indicates (a) he doesn't know the first thing about the project (b) he's not interested in doing any research about it, but (c) is nevertheless willing to wilfully alter the article to accord with his own opinion; yet (d) not include any references to support that opinion. (Or even do any research to check if the opinion he disagrees with might, in fact, be accurate.) That's why, unfortunately, his actions have to be addressed here, in order that (a) the wilful behaviour isn't endlessly repeated, including across other articles and (b) he might grasp the simple 101 of respecting the hard work of other editors, and understand that while he is entirely welcome to add an opposing referenced claim to an article, it must NOT be at the expense of deleting other authoritatively referenced claims he personally doesn't agree with. It's concerning that he still doesn't seem to appreciate this. Until such time, he will be very far from the professed claim made on his page "I focus on improving wikipedia". Little wonder then such virtue-signalling always tends to be viewed as a red flag. ClearBreeze (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Attempting to discuss does not mean posting an angry message that ends with "don't bother to reply". I reverted you once (!), gave the relevant policy and changed the wording. You seem to mistake a content dispute with an issue that requires administrative action. Your behaviour also exhibits a lack of understanding how WP:consensus building on wikipedia works. - wikitigresito (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Wikitigresito is attempting to deflect the issue. Which is his refusal to acknowledge that the edit he erased twice is authoritatively supported fact. (Nowhere in WP:BLP – which he references in an attempt to legitimise his actions – does it advise that a statement supported by an authoritative reference should be erased by an editor who disagrees with it. Characterising the request for respectful editing on his Talk Page as 'angry', when it in fact stated: "please bear these thoughts in mind -- which are well intentioned" -- also indicates either misunderstanding or misconstrual.) To resolve this issue I suggest there needs to be agreement from him that he won't continue to delete the sentence on the primacy of von Boddien's role. ClearBreeze (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your abusing this noticeboard in an attempt to win a content dispute and fail to assume good faith. This might be a case of WP:OUCH. If you really want to debates this, use the article's talk page. I request this discussion to be closed. wikitigresito (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitigresito, enough of the deflections. If you are acting in good faith as you claim, please answer 'yes' or 'no'. Will you now accept the authoritatively referenced text regarding the primacy of von Boddien's role in reconstructing the Palace? (Note: saying 'yes' doesn't mean you can't include an alternative viewpoint in the article – provided it is authoritatively referenced, and not just your own opinion.) Here is the text again, with additional references: "The driving force in ultimately achieving reconstruction of the Stadtschloss was businessman and aristocrat Wilhelm von Boddien. Until von Boddien and his associates became involved, the Government had given no thought to rebuilding the entire palace.   ClearBreeze (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but we can request a WP:THIRD and then find a compromise. I will not respond here anymore unless being pinged by an admin or uninvolved editor. wikitigresito (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See Wikitigresito's reply immediately above. Given his refusal to accept the fully cited fact, he will presumably refuse to allow it, given his previous erasures. The primacy of von Boddien in reconstruction of the Palace is a major point to address in the article, as would the role of Castro or Mao in articles on Cuba or China. A compromise, which is what Wikitigresito says he wants, is surely the entirely rational offer made to him to add his own opposing viewpoint to the article with proper citations. However, he's rejected this, which is not surprising -- because the citations, as far as I'm aware, don't exist. Compromise is welcome, and the offer remains open, but Truth should never be negotiable, and nor should its erasure be. Is this is a fair summation? ClearBreeze (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate warnings by Alex 21
I would like to raise an issue regarding the conduct of. I believe his conduct at List of highest-grossing films has been unhelpful and the threats he has left on my talk page are unjustified. I will relay the sequence of events here:


 * 1) There has been a dispute about the image in the section at List_of_highest-grossing_films. For years the section had a standard image, but over the last couple of months it has gone through numerous changes. These changes were never discussed and there was never a consensus for these changes. Editors kept adding more and more images until it turned into an image gallery.
 * 2) I did not think this was warranted so proposed a new, single image at the end of May: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films.
 * 3) There was no response so I assumed there was a WP:SILENT consensus so I installed the new image.
 * 4) The editor, Brojam, took exception to the change. We reverted each other a couple of times each (all between 9pm and 9.30pm on Sunday evening), but once it became clear the dispute was not going to be resolved through reverts and edit summaries the dispute migrated to the talk page: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films
 * 5) The crux of the issue was that I believed the gallery was decorative rather than illustrative and only one image was necessary. The opposing editor at first argued that I had not obtained a consensus. I believe I had because consensus does not equate to getting permission to edit from the community. At the time of the reverts there had been no substantive objections (i.e. policy/MOS based objections).
 * 6) After discussing the issue with Brojam he further expanded on his revert explaining that while I had a valid point that a gallery was decorative and one image would suffice, my selection of image was a poor one. We both tacitly agreed to restore the original long-standging image i.e. the WP:STATUSQUO version.
 * 7) After agreeing this, another editor Alex21 (who have not been involved until this point) restored the gallery in the main article.
 * 8) Despite what he accuses me, I didn't actually revert him. I implemented the edit that was agreed in the discussion on the talk page i.e. I restored the original long-standing image.
 * 9) Alex21 then left me an edit-warring notice and informed me if I reverted again he would report me: User_talk:Betty_Logan. This was inappropriate because I hadn't actually reverted him. I performed a new edit that implemented the agreed edit i.e.it was NOT a revert, but a new edit in full accordance with the outcome of the discussion.
 * 10) I tried to discuss this with him on the talk page: . I pointed out that he had not actually restored the WP:STATUSQUO and I had not actually reverted him, but I had instead implemented the agreed edit. He dismised my reply, informing me I had been reverted by multiple editors and told me to discuss it on the talk page. I in fact had only been reverted by ONE editor, had discussed it with them, and we arrived at a compromise that I tried to implement. When I pointed this out he reverted my reply and told me to go and discuss it on the talk page.

So here we are. There was a dispute between me and single editor (Brojam). We reverted each other a couple of times each, discussed the issue, and agreed on a solution which I tried to implement. Another editor, Alex21 reverted me and accused me of edit-warring and told me to go and discuss it on the talk page. I admit I was slightly too combative earlier in the evening with the first editor, but the dispute was taken to the talk page, discussed and a compromise was agreed upon! I tried to implement the agreed compromise, was reverted and warned for edit-warring when I hadn't actually reverted since the initial dispute earlier in the evening. Alex21 could not even be bothered to join the discussion himself. I have not found his edits conducive to resolving a problem that had already been resolved! He is now obstructing the solution that was agreed upon. For the record I have absolutely no problem at all with editor involved in the initial dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Betty, to be fair to, if I had reached the article after your 3rd revert, I would have left a warning exactly like Alex left on your talk page. To be fair to you, once you would have pointed out that you were actually implementing consensus, I would have told you to continue discussions on the article talk page and go ahead and follow consensus (which is what Alex finally seems to have told you, albeit in a rough way). I would suggest that you wait for a couple of more days for any more comments on the talk page of the article before undertaking the changes once again. If Alex reverts you against consensus, I will warn him. As of now, unless Alex has anything incredibly enlightening to say, I think there's not much to do here. What do you say? Thanks, Lourdes  03:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more of a conduct issue than a content dispute. My final edit was not actually a revert, it was a new edit implementing the outcome of the discussion (I tried to make this clear by linking to it) so I only actually reverted twice. If I had my time over I would have not undertaken the second revert, but at the end of the day there were a couple of reverts by both parties and the issue was discussed and resolved. If you want me to delay implementing the outcome I can do that, but the problem is with the behavior on Alex's talk page. He tells me to "continue to discuss the topic on the relevant talk page" but it is not clear i) what I should be discussing since the dispute was resolved and ii) who I should be discussing it with, since the other party was satisfied with the outcome. If Alex has some substantive reason for opposing my edit then he needs to join the discussion and articulate the problem, or he needs to withdraw his objections to my edit. That is all I am asking for. Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Two editors get into a dispute, talk it out, come to a resolution, implement their resolution, that's the end of it. That's as good as DR can get. That's beautiful DR in action. If Alex wanted to join in the dispute, sure, then it's not resolved and more discussion is needed. But that's not what happened here. The dispute was resolved, then Alex marched in and joined in the edit war for nothing but invalid procedural reasons such as enforcing BRD, maintaining the status quo, or, paradoxically, "you're edit warring". None of these are valid reasons to revert, in fact this behavior is disruptive. You can't tell that the dispute was resolved just by looking at the article history, but it was. So, Alex's falsely-authoritarian procedural reverts to the "status quo" are not only invalid from a policy perspective, but they were in error. This looks like a big misunderstanding, so if Alex has nothing beyond his stated procedural objections, his revert should be overturned and this should be the end of it (and he should take note that this sort of thing is not a valid reason to revert). If he has a personal opinion in the content dispute and he wants to join in, then he needs to stop feigning uninvolved BRD enforcement (which, again, is not a legitimate thing anyway) and present his arguments on the talk page. Either way, he should not be hypocritically making authoritarian declarations while literally edit warring. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse admonishment  to Alex 21 for over-reacting, going off half-cocked, and trying to fix a non problem in an overly agressive manner.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol - heat warning
While patrolling the admin dashboard I came across a speedy deletion request by User:Yosakrai for Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol as an "attack page".

I have also noted the following:


 * The page and user are under discussion at WP:COIN
 * The article has previously been under discussion at the BLP noticeboard (see user contribs)
 * The user has a number of warnings on their talk page
 * The page has an ongoing RFC alongside an ongoing edit war
 * The edit history of User:จังหวัดระยอง1 makes me suspicious of breaches of WP:SOCK and/or WP:NOTHERE

Actions I have taken:


 * Declined the speedy deletion of the talk page request
 * Applied full protection to the article

Actions I have not taken, as I am formerly semi-retired and have eased myself back in by working on non-controversial issues and/or because I'm off to bed shortly :) -


 * Read or closed the RFC
 * Blocked anybody

The situation appears to be sufficiently heated that I am requesting another admin look into it. --kingboyk (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the greatest likelihood is that Yosakrai and จังหวัดระยอง1 are meat puppets. I have therefore blocked Yosakrai for two weeks and จังหวัดระยอง1 indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User: Shellwood
This user with blank edit summary insists in remove the term "Amerindian" in the "Languages" part of Mexico infobox. This is a true racism case. --JkMastru (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, I believe that the filer, JkMastru, is the problem here and I've issued an indefinite block. He began editing on July 4 and has already managed to be blocked twice. Their most recent appearance on the admin boards was on July 9 at WP:AN. When his previous one-week block expired on 21 July he went right back to edit warring (at Mexico) and move warring (at Muisca). Here is one of his edit summaries which caught my attention: "Undid revision 907274987 by Shellwood (talk) learn to read, racist genius:.". Any admin who disagrees can modify or lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * endorse block glad to see WP:civility is a pillar once again.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:ShanonSchuhmache
This user keeps removing speedy deletion tags and appears not to be here to build the encyclopedia. Interstellarity (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty evidently...something. Spam-only account, I guess? It looks like someone or something repeatedly posting a bunch of spam keywords to the user page. WP:NOTHERE, apply a banhammer and call it a day. creffett (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I reccomend that an admin apply a block to this account. Reason: NOTHERE. Interstellarity (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Vinegarymass911
An IP user has now, for the second time, made a legal threat at another user's WP talk page, threatening to "trace you down in real life and take necessary legal action against you and Wikipedia". PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Vinegarymass911 has used WP as a defamation tool for many years now. We have researched his archives and found that he created and maintained WP pages that follow a pattern. Most importantly he has a very vicious history of deleting WP pages of music band groups, public figures and others often citing what he perceives as self promotion and group promotion whereas those groups and individuals are all accomplished people and organizations. I would like to request an admin to go over the entire edit history, page deletion history and page creation history of this user to determine whether or not his editing activities are motivated and biased. If you find so, it is recommended that you ban or remove him as an editor for using WP as a defamation tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.228 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you, IP, to provide evidence to back up your accusations. Admins are not going to go thru an editor's entire editing history, especially one that is "many years" long, because the time that would take would be prohibitive at best. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 00:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 month  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Endorse block. Unquestionably a legal threat. Also per Jéské Couriano, there's not much chance of doing a WP:DOLT check without more information to pinpoint what precipitated the legal threat. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical question
This is more of a technical question than a specific report.

As seen here the filters are working at stopping this LTA from posting That Which Shall Not Be Named (he has to misspell it), and the abuse gets reverted in minutes, so basically our defenses are working.

My question is mostly for my own technical education; can we figure out a pattern here? Something more nuanced than this? How is he getting the new IPs? The latest is a T-Mobile broadband. Is he actually moving between cell towers? What other countermeasures are available to us? Would making a list of likely misspellings and filtering them help? Or is that too much load on the system for too little benefit? Are companies like T Mobile still responding to "one of your users is vandalizing our website" reports and cancelling accounts like they did in the 90s, or am I stuck in the past on that one? (Get off my lawn, you damn kids!) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect there are a few joe jobs adding to this, and not every apparent incarnation is actually him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how T-mobile allocates IPs but it is always worth remembering that while some have gotten a little sticky some ISPs are still basically completely dynamic and only require the connection to be turned off for a short time for a new IP e.g. flight mode for a mobile device. Or simply renewing the lease for those using DHCP. Also long established ISPs in the developed normally have enough IP space that many don't use IPv4 CG-NAT even for mobile devices. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:118.209.190.158
Reverted my changes to Strava, saying in multiple edits that it was edited for legal reasons, undid my expansion and warned me against editing because I am "not party to the behind the scenes legal chat". Implied violation of WP:OWN and WP:NLT. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I left a message about our lack of interest in insider "behind the scenes" information and 42. As it is a static, corporate IP with minimal risk of collateral damage, I gave a 3 month soft block for NLT.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, as to the assertion of plagiarism I ran dup detector on our article and the source. This may be too close a paraphrase. Please someone double check. There are some word-for-word copies.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of those are direct quotes from the terms of service quoted in both. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I see what you mean.  Could you please double check. The duplication detector makes me cross-eyed. And the now blocked IP said that plagiarism was afoot. With the debacle unfolding at AN in an unblock request, rather be safe.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any problem with copyvio. By the way all the cool kids now use Earwig's tool, so much more useful. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, think we can clse. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pflipper73, and the use of # / Number
prefers the use of "#" rather than "number" contrary to WP:NUMBERSIGN. Despite being politely reverted and advised they have repeatedly reinstated the "#"s and threatened disciplinary action in response. Could an admin step in and give them advice? Thanks! (Note: comments left on their talk page have been selectively deleted). Dorsetonian (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean MOS:NUMBERSIGN. It says avoid using number signs, not don't use number signs.  His revert actually Pflipper73's statement looks better anyway.  Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed the wikilink. In the very section you link, the example deals with EXACTLY the issue of song rankings, saying:
 * "Incorrect: Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts."
 * "Correct:	Her album reached number one in the UK album charts."

BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pflipper was claiming to be an administrator for a while and has now changed it say something slightly different. I think a much stronger case could be made for a WP:NOTHERE block, but people who edit war against the MOS are kind of annoying, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours for continuing to edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given their user page claim to be "Wikipedia's Resident Sockpuppet", I feel Pflipper may be skating on fairly thin ice here. -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They've returned to edit warring, and making personal attacks right after the block expired. I've reblocked. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  03:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well blocked.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

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.

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 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 [[User:Pi314m|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?"

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)


 * 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)
 * Brevity is your friend. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * The Backup article, like this report, is an indigestible mess. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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—except for ref-diddling—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)


 * 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)
 * , you write above "... Pi314m had IMHO substantially vandalized ..." and "... 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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)
 * Then,, please strike those remarks here and at Talk:Backup (use the syntax ... ) 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)


 * I've struck out and paraphrased the one instance in this section where I actually used the v-word, rather than quoting . 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  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)

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)


 * 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)


 * For those who were wondering about Pi314m's referring above to "BREAKTHROUGH To .. GEMORA (Z. Zobin)", reference 15 in "Yeshiva" is Breakthrough to Learning Gemora: A Concise, Analytical Guide by Zvi Zobin. I had to do a Google search for "Zobin Talmud" before I could find the two WP articles that have him as a reference.  I have essentially zero knowledge of the Gemara (non-Ashkenazic transliteration) or any other part of the Talmud, because I attended a good suburban public high school.  I think Pi314m has just pretty-conclusively validated my guess about his educational background.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DovidBenAvraham, looking at this, and it looks to me like you are under the impression that "substantial deletion of useful text" is vandalism. That's incorrect. According to the policy page, content removal has to be maliciously intended to damage the encyclopedia before it can be considered as vandalism. Whether the removed content is useful or not is not part of the definition. Material might be removed because it's off-topic, or incorrect, unencyclopedic, or unsourced (to name a few examples). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Diannaa, I understand the difference between WikipediaOfficialVandalism and Conventionally-Defined Vandalism. I think that some of Pi314m's edits that I have encountered are C-DV, but I understand that they do not qualify as WOV.  What my ANI is about is Pi314's practice over the last 3 years of merging other articles into a chosen article without prior or subsequent discussion, which I—and the two other editors who have warned him about this—understand is a violation of Wikipedia rules.  Justlettersandnumbers got bothered yesterday by my use of the v-word on this page and on the "Backup" article's Talk page, so I've been sidetracked into dealing with those concerns.  Don't worry, my presentation of evidence of Pi314m's mergers-without-discussion is coming, as soon as I can frame it according to Someguy1221's standards.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, vandalism is not a "synonym for substantial deletion of useful text"; on Wikipedia, vandalism is the intentional malicious damaging of the encyclopedia. Please don't use the word "vandalism" on this wiki unless someone is intentionally and maliciously damaging the encyclopedia, regardless of what the word means in other contexts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me, DovidBenAvraham, especially since you may have misunderstood my reference to Yom Kippur. I apologize if something I said or even implied brought you to think for even a moment I'd even consider that you would ever "take back any repentance .. Yom Kippur." Absolutely not! I really was looking to avoid thinking that your (forced, but I somehow believe deep down you probably did consider) apology was evasive- what some might call
 * "Sorry, I didn't mean to call you a moron, you're more OFF your rocker than on."
 * Your mention elsewhere of 98 on the English regents shows you are not just, as you said above, educated, but you've been Granted much.
 * Yes, it seems to be your style to try being a perfectionist and this is best not to be looked at negatively, even if the result of your EIGHT edits in 37 minutes to my TALK page was my (initially puzzling) receiving of repeated Wiki-alerts. Just to show that I can do math, there is a teaching to judge favorably
 * ''LeKaf ZeChus/ZeChut - what's called benefit of the doubt - Kaf is spelled with two Hebrew letters that are valued at 20 and 80, total = 100%.
 * From what you have noted in a perhaps less "guarded" moment (but proving that you are truly human), you do need Refuat HaNeFesh ReFuat HaGuf - healing of ... You can, if you wish, mention your mother's Hebrew name, since the Dovid part is evident. (As can be seen from the title of Nothing Can Stop You - for a refuah sheleimah for Orly Bat Esther, for this type of situation, it is the mother's rather than the father's name that is preferred) Pi314m (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , you wrote what you wrote—and I wrote my 03:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) comment above in response to it. My apology on your personal Talk page was mealy-mouthed,  since I had simply been directed to strike-out the word "vandalism" because it has a Wikipedia Official meaning as linked-to in my 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) comment above.  (The eight edits were because I was having trouble getting the mandatory notice template to display correctly; please read the edit summaries.) IMHO what you have been doing with your merge-ins and "simplifying" edits since the beginning of 2017 can justly be characterized as C-DV in the sense linked-to in my 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) comment above.  I don't believe you are a moron, just constrained by your sub-culture upbringing (you may be able to do gematria, but I'll bet you never learned how to solve a quadratic equation—something taught to public school students no later than 10th grade).  I have created this ANI because I want to stop you from messing around with articles I and other people edit, whose content you don't understand and therefore feel compelled to "simplify" down to the level of your sub-culture.  As for any religious questions, I will discuss them on your personal Talk page after I have presented my evidence on this page.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DovidBenAvraham, it's inappropriate for you to make assumptions about another editor's education or brainpower. Comment on the content, not the contributor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Diannaa, it's also inappropriate for Pi314m to make assumptions about my religion—somewhat valid ones based on my WP "handle". Nevertheless the exchange has pretty much confirmed my guess about his educational background, a confirmation that is IMHO important for anyone reading this ANI—an ANI which would probably be unnecessary if Pi314m had been able to read the existing contents of articles and his own references in the first place.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go again, commenting on the contributor rather than the content. (Of course it's not okay for the other person to do it either). It doesn't matter how you arrived at your conclusions about his intellectual capabilities or how firmly you believe them the be true; just stop doing it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, here's an indented copy of my apologies on Pi314m's personal Talk page:
 * Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding unacceptable article merging-in without prior discussion. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pi314m. The discussion is about the topic Backup.


 * Sorry about that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In connection with that discussion, I've been directed to apologize to you for myself using the Wikipedia-fraught v-word (which I've now struck-through) once on the discussion page and 3 times on the "Talk:Backup" page. I've done nothing to my quotations of User:Matthiaspaul. However I reserve the right to right to later use the v-word in connection to what you did to the "Information repository" article, where you 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. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Copied by DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m May 2019 contentious merge/redirect/insert changes without consensus, then refusing to discuss

 * Merge "Information repository" into "Backup":User:Pi314m redirected the “Information repository” article to put it into “Backup”, and in the process deleted the “Federated information” subsection —the entire body describing a type of application that has been implemented twice. I tried to engage with User:Pi314m here , but he did not respond in at all despite being active. User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial because of the only Talk comment. User:Pi314m was warned about this before . User:Pi314m  does not discuss on talk page despite efforts to engage . DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge "Continuous Data Protection" into "Backup":User:Pi314m redirected the "Continuous Data Protection" article to put it into “Backup”, and in the process deleted all text describing the distinction between true CDP and near-CDP  . I tried to engage with User:Pi314m here , but he did not respond in at all despite being active. User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial because the distinction was clearly stated in the article and because of this recently-added ref which talks about true CDP . User:Pi314m was warned about this before . User:Pi314m has reverted attempts to undo his deletions , but does not discuss on talk page despite efforts to engage . DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Insert new text into “Data repository" article that clearly conflicts with topic:User:Pi314m inserted new text into the “Data repository" article that clearly conflicts with its topic.   That first sentence of the lead continues to state “A data library, data archive, or data repository is a collection of numeric and/or geospatial data sets for secondary use in research”, but the “Universal digital library” and “Information repository” sections that User:Pi314m inserted clearly discuss data that is neither numeric or geospatial.  I didn’t try to engage with User:Pi314m on this insertion, because I didn’t discover it until a few days ago.  User:Pi314m should have known the insertions would be controversial, because the article topic is clearly stated in the first sentence and because the preceding three edits are clearly about social science data . User:Pi314m shouldn’t need to be warned about this kind of insertion, which is out-and-out WOV—inserted text is nonsensical though sophisticated and there's no discussion.  IMHO it is evident that User:Pi314m got cold feet about his having deleted the entire content—except for the lead—of the "Information repository" article, and decided he’d better put some section named "Information repository" into another article as an alibi.  So he Googled a couple of phrases, found references in leading newspapers named “… Times” (his favorite easy-to-read sources for references), and inserted quotes from those refs into the “Data repository" article—never mind that one of the refs was about the Mount Vernon NY Public Library’s computer information center.  IMHO this constitutes User:Pi314m's de-facto confession of guilt about "Information repository" deletion! DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m Jan-April 2019 contentious merge/redirect changes without consensus or discussion

 * Merge "Print and mail outsourcing" into "Outsourcing":User:Pi314m redirected the "Print and mail outsourcing" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before . DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Midsourcing" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Midsourcing" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Move “algocracy” paragraph of “Outsourcing" into “A. Aneesh” :User:Pi314m deleted the “algocracy” paragraph of  the “Outsourcing"  article  and inserted it into “A. Aneesh” (the article about its originator) . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and he made no comment in either article’s Talk page. Since the paragraph says “Global software development projects, may be neither insourced nor outsourced, in a process that is sometimes termed "remote insourcing” (term referenced here), and he had recently merged “Insourcing” into “Outsourcing”, [User:Pi314m]] should have suspected the delete would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Outsource marketing" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Outsource marketing" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Engineering Process Outsourcing" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Engineering Process Outsourcing" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Information Technology Outsourcing" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Information Technology Outsourcing" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Business Process Outsourcing" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Business Process Outsourcing" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Farmshoring" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Farmshoring" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Homeshoring" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Homeshoring" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge “Personal Offshoring" into "Outsourcing" :User:Pi314m redirected the “Personal Offshoring" article to put it into “Outsourcing”, and in the process deleted most of the body of the article . Nobody tried to engage with User:Pi314m,  and his only comment tangentially relating to the merge-in—and his last comment despite being active—was a previous comment saying “This article is not meant to be at the PhD level” . That comment and preceding comments IMHO means User:Pi314m should have suspected the deletes would be controversial. User:Pi314m was warned about this before .  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Alright, so this is a content dispute. You've finally started an RfC, which is good, but there's several improvements you need to make:
 * 1) Bold, assertive edits are encouraged as a matter of policy. You can not block them without good reason, and you do not control articles.
 * 2) When a dispute arises, explain your objections, briefly, and coherently, on the talk page.
 * 3) Typing out paragraphs upon paragraphs as you have been consistently doing on that talk page and here, is disruptive. When your commentary is excessive, it disrupts the consensus-building process and grinds disputes to a halt.
 * 4) Do not ever comment on an individual in a content dispute, period.
 * 5) Do not report content disputes to AN/I.
 * 6) When you flood a page with walls of text, no one can work with you. You're in the wrong. You can't complain about another person's behavior when you seem impossible to collaborate effectively. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dovid, I'm glad you've now provided a much more easily digested complaint, but I find myself leaning toward Swarm's interpretation of events. Yes, it's true that the other party has made bold moves more than once, and it's true that he does not give much in the way of response when you have attempted to engage with him. However, I have to admit it would be extremely difficult even for someone acting in good faith to give a substantive response to your attempts to communicate. I honestly have trouble following your walls of text, and I suspect the reason that you often find yourself essentially the only person speaking is that no one wants to respond. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please start reading with this sub-section; you won't find any walls of text there or in the next sub-section because I re-started doing this ANI the way User:Someguy1221 politely suggested. If you folks think I should delete my preceding comments here, I will, but I originally made those comments to explain what type of relief I am looking for and why. As far as commenting on an individual in a content dispute, User:Diannaa has already raked me over the coals on that—but I allowed myself to be provoked into doing so in response to an "acceptance of apology" by Pi314m that in its stated assumptions about our common religious educational background could definitely be considered as a comment on me. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prior guidance in how to properly submit this ANI.


 * The examples I have given so far here (and more examples are on their way) do not involve any attempt by me to communicate with Pi314, because I only looked at "Outsourcing"'s revision history a couple of weeks ago after noticing in Pi314m's Contributions a number of edits to that article by him several months earlier. AFAICT he never puts anything on an article Talk page announcing what edits he's going to do or has done.  User:Pi314m was warned about that in January 2018, as I've taken pains to point out in every example above.  In "Insert new text into 'Data repository' article that clearly conflicts with topic", he went beyond that into out-and-out WOV—because the inserted paragraphs are "nonsense" in terms of the article's topic; I've said in that example the insertion seems to be an attempted cover-up for his having deleted the entire body of an article.  I also said in that example that IMHO the insertion by User:Pi314m constitutes a confession of guilt for having violated a Wikipedia rule in the other merge/redirect examples.  So we're not talking about mere "bold moves", but multiple Wikipedia rule violations.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with separating this out with a neutral header, but don't attempt to dictate the narrative of the section via your own commentary. Continuing to be disruptive right now is not a good play. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * But "Is this merely a content dispute, or does it involve at least one violation of Wikipedia rules?" is a precise statement of the question posed by my ANI. That's why I used it as the heading for this sub-section, and I don't see why it doesn't qualify as a "neutral header" to separate the ensuing discussion from my sub-sections re-stating the problem—re-statement made the way User:Someguy1221 wanted me to.  I don't see why my version of that sub-section header would "attempt to dictate the narrative of the section via your own commentary".  IMHO User:Swarm is still angry about my comments in previous sub-sections of the ANI, which I've already explained as either inexperience or reacting to an evident comment on me.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't see any evidence of Swarm being angry. (2) And please don't explain what you think is motivating the user you're reporting; if there's been disruptive behaviour or vandalism, it will be obvious to experienced administrators and experienced editors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What Diannaa said; please don't speculate about the emotional states of other editors. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, let's briefly recapitulate Pi314m's behavior since January 2017. As the instances I have put into the ANI  here and here (which I have added to) show, his repeated practice has been to edit one article by merging other related articles into it and then deleting most of the content of the merged-in articles.  He didn't have to do those deletions; he could simply have left the other articles as is and linked-to/selectively-copied-from them, as I have done so here—after I re-established an article Pi314m had merged-in.  The effect of these mergers-followed-by-deletions is to "dumb-down" the total content of Wikipedia; IMHO that constitutes "removal ... of the text or other material that is ... nonsensical"—and that's an abbreviated quote from the WOV article.  I'm not going to speculate any further on the motivation of Pi314m for doing this "dumbing-down"; my previous well-referenced speculation is actually a form of "assume good faith"—even when that "good faith" is not the sort that most Wikipedia readers or editors share.  So IMHO the real question posed by the ANI is: Is "dumbing down" the content of Wikipedia acceptable because the editor who does so is "acting in good faith" according to his beliefs?  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have previously commented suggesting the merging of some of these articles, but I saw immediately there was opposition, and therefore would never do it without prior consensus.  In cases like this, it is often useful to first slowly eliminate duplicate content, just duplicate, making sure that unique information does not get deleted. And if anywhere I wanted  to test the consensus boldly for a group of article, I would do just one and see the reaction.  DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I belatedly added to the bottom of the "accepted (publicly)" sub-section of this ANI a copy from Pi314m's personal Talk page of my apology which he was "accepting". IMHO comparing it to his comments in the sub-section leads to an interesting conclusion on how Pi314m interacts with another editor.  But I'll have to let you draw your unaided conclusion; I've been warned.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Galatz
Today made 116 reverts to edits which I made (roughly around this point in their contributions history). Each of my edits was of this form, in which I changed an author's name to match the current byline displayed on their website, with an explanation of this edit and a link to the discussion from which it followed on from Special:Permalink/906102795. As they began to revert my edits, I was in a rush to leave, so I attempted to grab their attention with a couple of reverts like this, as well as an edit warring template and a ping at the discussion page with a promise to reply when I next could. I did this after they had made about 10 reverts and they saw each of these notifications and continued to make a further one-hundred and six edits. This is egregious edit warring, plain and simple, and the user shows no sign of not understanding that these are incredibly disruptive and unconducive to further discussion.

In their defence, Galatz's cites the following things: BRD and "Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively". The first does not apply as I engaged in discussion before making the edits, as I evidenced in each of my edit summaries. The latter is simply false; MOS:GENDERID says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. This policy is quoted three times in the permalinked discussion which I provided in my edit summary, including in the first post in the discussion. It is incredibly irresponsible to make 116 reverts without reading a single word of the discussion, and instead making an assumption (Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened? - Special:Diff/906714459), then later in the same comment treating that false assumption as fact (Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time) and using that to justify 116 edits made rapidly when the user who made the original edits has made an assurance that they will later be available for discussion.

Had the user simply consulted MOS:GENDERID before making their rapid reverts, they would have seen that their reasoning was faulty. This behaviour is disruptive, damaging and creates a very precedent for further damaging actions in the future. I'm not sure whether there's standard procedure on preventative measures for this sort of behavioural issue but I would simply recommend the following: Galatz should be banned from making more than 3 reverts to an individual user's actions within a 10 minute period except in cases of obvious vandalism or material which falls under the RevDel criteria. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Bilorv, you made 116-bold edits. They were reverted. Now you resolve that content dispute with discussion at some centralized venue. El_C 21:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which, I preume, is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. I invite Galatz to explain the substance of his mass-revert there. El_C 21:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not make bold edits. I made edits after a discussion at which that course of action was agreed upon. Reverting 116 edits without consulting policy is essentially the definition of edit warring: Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion. It shows a battleground attitude to editing. No user should make 116 reverts before giving the other user a chance to explain their actions. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one is disputing the policy MOS:GENDERID, which says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis, which is precisely what was done here by me and . — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You and one other person made a couple comments to each other and then you updated 100+ pages without gaining a consensus. Your Permlink you used clearly shows you drew your conclusion well before the conversation was continued. When you made your edits, the conversation actually looked like this  yet you chose to link to an older version, before some concerns was raised. Coincidence? Maybe. Stange? Definitely
 * There was no clear consensus yet you went ahead and made 100+ edits without awaiting a conclusion to the discussion. I clearly stated in my edits, and mentioned it on the wikiproject. Just because you went ahead and made 100+ edits before a consensus was reached does not mean your edits should not have been reverted. The pages should remain as they original were while the discussion is active. When a person edits while a conversation is ongoing it is standard practice to revert those edits, whether its 3 pages or more, like it this case. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if you believed my edits to be a violation of policy, this is not an excuse for your incredibly disruptive behaviour. I linked to the version at which AWB had stored in my user settings, nothing more, so stop the insinuations. You'll note that the other editor asked a question and then waited for an answer rather than making mass reverts. I had no reason to believe the changes were controversial, as the discussion was left for 5 days and WP:FILM and WP:TV were both notified, and no-one registered disagreement. Two is enough for a consensus when nobody has disputed it. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll note that the other editor asked a question and then waited for an answer rather than making mass reverts Yeah normally people don't revert before changes are made... -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The user was brought to the discussion by a series of edits I made on 13 July which were otherwise uncontested (example), yet another thing you failed to research before making mass changes. I took part in discussion, made a batch of edits, waited for any further discussion and then made another batch of edits today. I was being cautious in my actions, unlike you when you chose to make 116 edits before bothering to learn any of the facts of the matter. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, if you had actually bothered to read the discussion (which you yet again evidence that you did not), you would have seen Flyer22 Reborn's comment linking to this edit of mine which was part of that batch of uncontested changes, for which I was thanked by multiple users, reinforcing that I had consensus for the changes. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You two need to stop going back and forth with each other here. This seems to me to be a classic BRD and pure content dispute, except the B was large in scope, on a potentially sensitive topic, and with some agreement before the bold started. Start a new discussion on the talk page and put it on WikiProject Film and discuss it. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this currently at WPFilm. As you say the B had agreement, which makes it not B at all, but an implementation of consensus. Do you really not see an issue with a user making 116 reverts before learning the facts of the situation, after repeated pleas to stop and discuss the changes? The new, more authoritative consensus emerging at WPFilm is obvious and in favour of the edits I made; once we reach full consensus, Galatz's 116 edits have been nothing but a waste of time which could have been avoided had they simply engaged in discussion beforehand. I also gather that the user will not be willing to revert their own mess, which will take a significant amount of time to clean up. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bilorv, I agree with your position entirely. But I also don't think it's a problem to revert based on a consensus of two editors, especially when the changes were large and the discussion not necessarily advertised. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there were three users who took part in the discussion and two further users who thanked me for edits I made before today. The changes are reference data integrity changes which are not large at all and the discussion was advertised to the only two relevant WikiProjects, WP:TV and WP:FILM. (Unless you want to include WP:LGBT and it's quite obvious which position the majority of users involved there would take.) I had also made 50 such edits four days before today, giving plenty of notice for anyone who objected. In other words, there was absolutely no sign that the edits were in any way controversial. They affect about 1000 pages and I made edits to 15% of them, so my edits were not large scale relative to the situation.
 * Do you not understand the human effect it has on a user when someone rapidly reverts without discussion or any sign of understanding the situation all of your changes? It's bullying, battleground and uncivil behaviour designed to intimidate and the effect it has is ruining what would have otherwise been a pleasant evening for me. I was happy to take part in discussion but now there will be hours of cleanup due to one person's insistence on make large-scale changes without understanding the situation. This sort of disruptive behaviour needs to be addressed and all I'm asking for is assurance that the editor won't continue running around bullying other editors in future. I don't want them to be blocked or punished, just for them to not engage in this ridiculous behaviour in future. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. Getting reverted is never fun or enjoyable. Also, I only saw you discussing this with Flyer22 Reborn on WP:FILM when I investigated the diffs, and didn't check thank logs (I'm not sure I've ever checked thanks given to someone else.) I think the third was Y2Kcrazyjoker4, whose response didn't seem necessarily consensus-building but rather restating the rule. I understand it's a pain, but it still seems to me as if this was within WP:BRD. I'm sorry the mass reversion had such an impact on you, but now's the time to continue discussion. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you do not understand. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I have to state is that we should remember that MOS:GENDERID is a guideline (not a policy), but it's what we have for matters such as these, and I explained at the WP:Film talk page why I agree with Bilorv's approach. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed
Could somebody please block the range these two IPs originate (if feasible)



High intensity vandalism. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunetly, we can't do a range block that would include both those IP addresses. Mediawiki only allows us to perform range blocks if at least the first two sets of numbers (octets) in an IPv4 address are the same.  So, 93.143.78.194 and 93.143.0.1 would work because they both start with 93.143.  The same is true of IPv6 (you need at least two hextets to be the same), but this is a very large pool of IP addresses, so it can cause worse collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In looking at the two /22's, I only saw recent problems from these two IP's.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Electrichope99
User has been genre warring and making other unsourced changes to articles in the past month, since being blocked twice, once for genre warring. After more warnings to their talk page and a final warning (by ) for genre warring on 3:25, July 19, they made this edit, changing genres in the article infobox and adding unsourced content elsewhere. Additionally, they have been calling users -- who disagree with or undo their changes -- "losers" in their edit summaries, which earned them this warning. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * They've not edited since being final warned twice and noticed for this thread. I added a final warning of my own. I have little tolerance for incivility these days. If it resumes, they should be blocked.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an editor active for three months who is a Single-purpose account focused on Mary J. Blige, which would be fine if this person was complying with our policies and guidelines, but they aren't. Instead, they have repeatedly uploaded images that violate copyright, have added unreferenced genres, and have removed references to seemingly reliable sources without explanation. Plus, they are engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries. They have never once made an edit to a talk page. I was seriously considering an indefinite block with strict unblock conditions, but since they now have two fresh warnings, I will wait until they resume editing, and see how that goes. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to be block happy, but it sounds like we should block now and ask questions before unblocking.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked twice before. Needs an indef for recidivism. Any opposed?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in fairness, I think the copyvio's stopped after last block. But the unsourced and personal attacks are enough.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the editor plans on communicating other than through the edit summaries. An idef block would be the most suitable action per WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User has resumed editing with the edit summary-- "(STOP CHANGING MY EDITS. STOP REMOVING MY EDITS. LEAVE MY EDITS ALONE. MARY J. BLIGE DESERVES TO HAVE A HIGHLY DETAILED ARTICLE JUST LIKE MARIAH CAREY, JANET, AND BEYONCE. LEAVE MY EDITING ALONE AND STOP REMOVING THEM.) "  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked this editor, making it quite clear how their behavior must change in order to get unblocked. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT POV pushing by IP range
The user using has been making edits today in which they remove sourced content regarding LGBT recognition. For example, they removed content, claiming that a statement by the Ministry of Justice is a "personal opinion" not from the government (whilst the content was sourced and ministries are part of the gov). I found out that similar edits have been made by likely the same person using other IP addresses, all part of the  range. No long-term good faith editors are active in the range and as such, I request the IP range be blocked. --MrClog (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone might want to check whether the IPs, which geolocates to Kyrgyzstan, are proxies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.192.249 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems unlikely to be an open proxy. The IP is hosted at . Ktnet.kg sends you to the website of OJSC Kyrgyztelecom, it doesn't allow you to connect to any proxy from there. I wasn't able to detect any ports to connect. --MrClog (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the /24 for two weeks, anon only. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

SpoonLuv
DS alert on 17:34, 10 July 2019. Edit warring alert on 18:56, 10 July 2019.

SpoonLuv is continuing to edit war without establishing a consensus for new content. The edit history shows SpoonLuv is continuing to revert since July 10, 2019.

For example, I removed the disputed content. SpoonLuv restored the disputed content. Cloudjpk deleted the content because consensus has not been reached for the new content.

I requested verification for the content but no verification was provided. I was accused of stonewalling. I asked again for verification. SpoonLuv did not provide verification for the challenged content. Cloudjpk explained "Verification" means accurate to the source, not whether the source is MEDRS.

SpoonLuv previously asked "Is there any way to deal with bullying editors?". <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru is preventing any neutral point of view edits on the Electronic Cigarette page. Every single edit that is made neutrally has an immediate failed verification, MEDRS, or CN (even when citations are cited) flag placed on the content.  This isn't just being done to me, but every other editor on the page.  They remove content while content is being discussed and negotiated on talk page before consensus is reached.  I repeatedly (at least 5 times) asked how my sources failed MEDRS or verification according to Wikipedia.  He never answered, just repeating that he doesn't think it's a review.  You can see clear evidence of bullying and disruptive editing on both the talk page and page history.  You can also see clear evidence of refusal to make any concessions or attempt to achieve consensus, and simply stonewalls every discussion on the talk page. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you considered providing a demonstration of where in the source the support for your claim lies rather than edit warring? Because the link you provided bumps into a paywall so it may be hard to verify. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cloudjpk provided a link to an excellent review that successfully refuted the claim of common liability model being the primary driver in my mind. There are still a number of issues with that particular section, but Cloudjpk is open to reaching consensus.  I removed the source that bumped into a paywall (Etter), as after purchasing and fully reading the text, there were a number of issues that could make MEDRS compliance questionable.  This happened about midway through the consensus discussions (I can't really expect anyone to read the novel on that talk page lol).  Either way, QuackGuru has made 32 edits to the page in the last 2 days, and the majority of that is undoing other editors work without consensus.  In one mass deletion today, they removed almost 5k of other editors contributions without consensus.    SpoonLuv (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DrNicotiana Made quite a few constructive edits to the page yesterday, and QuackGuru has systematically removed every one of them. If you go back in the history (you don't have to go very far) you can see that QuackGuru has made keeping this page away from anywhere near NPOV his personal mission.   SpoonLuv (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than a reply with "in my mind" and other deflections, how about answering the question: "Have you considered providing a demonstration of where in the source the support for your claim lies rather than edit warring?" Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the "edit war" was claims that the material was not MEDRS. The main source I was using was MEDRS.  I withdrew Etter, but most of the content came from kowalski.  I continuously asked how Kowalski violated MEDRS according to Wikipedia policies, and they refused to answer.  The last part about verification was my misunderstanding of what verification meant.  The way QuackGuru was talking, it was as though the source wasn't verified as legitimate, I didn't know the question was where in the text itself those claims lied.  They were also clearly located in the text, and even a cursory glance would spot them.  I wasn't deflecting, I was legitimately trying to provide what they were asking for.  I don't know how to prove somethings a review other then the fact that it's clearly a review of studies and data.  It's like if I hold up an apple and ask you to prove to me it's an apple.  It's obviously an apple.  You'll also notice that when one requirement of QuackGuru is satisfied, there's immediately another reason the content shouldn't be included.  This process seems endless. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, I don't have time to deal with editor bullies that have too much time on their hands and are clearly intent on preventing NPOV. If you honestly can't see that from the talk page discussion and the removal of all NPOV editor content, then it's pretty clear that there's no improving this page.  Without any recognition of what's going on, any efforts to improve the article will take far more effort then should reasonably be expected by anyone.  There should be a reasonable level of expectation that an editor actually reads a source before saying that it fails verification.  SpoonLuv (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was "Undid revision 906684347 by QuackGuru (talk) Did not fail verification. Is MEDRS compliant. Please stop deleting MEDRS compliant information." According to your edit summary you claimed it did not fail verification but you refused to provide verification. I read both sources and none of them verify the content that was restored. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 12:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the reversions have stopped and discussion is under way. As you are at logger heads, you should request an WP:RFC on the page if you have not done so and seek a third opinion. As that is the case, there seems nothing to do here but to insist on the WP:dispute resolution process be followed and a cessation of edit warring. I suppose the DS notice includes WP:1RR, so hopefully you all can deal with this without anyone getting blocked. I'm theoretically off Wiki today, but I've little patience for personal attacks, comments about editors instead of content, and incivil behavior. Just a word for the wise. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just read through this again. I certainly hope that calling those with whom you do not agree who seek discussion about your edits a "bully" is a rarity and not something you do on a regular basis. I will remind you that Civility is a policy.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Date range vandal working from Newtownabbey
Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:7F97:8100:0:0:0:0/64? The person has been changing to wrong dates since 1 May on this range. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem IP editor
User:146.199.1.98, previously blocked for vandalism, now adding unsourced content and leaving abusive messages. Popcornduff (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week, edit summary revdeled. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Cross wiki threats and harassment (again)
Hi

After the last ANI, this a banned user in French wikipedia continued to harrass me. So could you block him again (his IP is static) and if possible, could you made indef block for his account, so I could ask Meta Wiki to give him a global lock or a global ban? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP is and has made one edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it is the second edit. He have been blocked for one week and the edit deleted. have seen the first ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for resuming and amplifying harassment after their previous block.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Unnamed12
keeps editing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement article with unsourced/uncited and incorrect information and keeps changing the language into possessive form in the American POV.
 * I notified them of this discussion. They had not been told that their editing is a problem on their talk page ere now. In quickly glancing at their edits, I feel the urge to stand, click my heels and salute. Their POV is amazingly "red, white, and blue".  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Their POV is NOT helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Block of User:EEng
In his !vote to community ban User:Mzmadmike (Mike Williamson), User:EEng added a photograph of Mike mocking him for his clothing and insinuating that he is a "pha66otte".

This is in response to use of this slur and other inappropriate behavior by User:Mzmadmike for which he has been (correctly, in my view) indefinitely blocked. The fact that User:Mzmadmike has behaved badly does not, however, excuse others doing so. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. I removed what I saw as a tasteless bit of gravedancing as well as a WP:BLPTALK violation. EEng restored it. I removed it again with a warning. EEng restored it again. He then left a message on my talk page where the gist seems to be that he is WP:UNBLOCKABLE.

I have assigned EEng a block of 24 hours which I will gladly lift as soon as he commits to not restoring the objectionable material. EEng is, however, quite right that I have only recently become active again as an admin and that I may have learning to do to make sure my actions are aligned with community standards. I thus submit this block here for review. Haukur (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really nice that you didn't bother telling EEng about the block before coming here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant to post both at the same time. I apologize for the 3 minute delay in the talk page comment. Haukur (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time. One.  Thing.  At.  A.  Time.  I would apologise to EEng personally, like on their talkpage, not just generally here for a general delay.  Poor behaviour I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Usually we bring it to AN(I) before unilaterally blocking someone. And notify them of the an(i) thread before blocking them.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Bad block. Excessive. Non discurssive, and it looks like someone was edit warring with Eeng-- and abused their tools in a content dispute..   Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Further. EEng is always tasteless. But the "grave dancing" is bullshit. EEng always adds tastelss humor to break the tension.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is really funny in the context of me having been castigated "for refactoring" Eeng's post when I moved the image to a better spot. At least I did not remove it entirely.    Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Bad block- I thought EEng was being a bit tasteless, but ultimately linking to a photo on the author's own article and to a clip from Seinfeld are not blockable offenses. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Next oldschool administrator to lose their tools? 2001:4898:80E8:9:9283:A6A:C43E:A9EF (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad block. Should’ve been left to someone else if you genuinely thought it was inappropriate. Incidentally EEng has you dead to rights on your activity. You only started editing nonsporadically again in June, after 99 consecutive months (2011-03 to 2019-05) of fewer than 20 edits per month (only 3 of those with more than 10). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had two kids and got tenure. I now have time for this again. I don't think there's anything shameful in this. But it is true that I am both rusty and catching up with new things as I noted in my initial comment here. Haukur (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, no insult to your real-life achievements intended! My point was more to refer to changing community norms and the difficulty with which these are learned. Anyway you've got my respect for your response to this thread. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad Block - my thoughts echo Reyk's.--Jorm (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to learn from this. Since the action has received no support so far I will lift the block now. Thanks for taking the time to look at this. Haukur (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not just block yourself and be done with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No need for that snark. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 18:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think by edit-warring to insert a pointless link that EEng covered himself in glory either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking comment as Haukur has now reversed that block. But I thought the idea was that all Admins should operate to the same consistent standard? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all night. See the link below for some golden oldies. Haukur (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) A block enacted in good faith isn't something to get worked up over. If Haukurth had a tantrum and been stubborn about it I'd agree with you. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Bad Block Haukur you would benefit from reading (or re-reading) WP:PUNITIVE - WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:INVOLVED to avoid things like this in the future. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, at least one of our Arbs is full on "PUNITIVE" so this is just run of the mill stuff. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside EEng's humor can be like drinking gin. The first time, you may say, "Ugh! Horrid! Disgusting! After a few more times, you may say, "Ugh! Revolting!  Disgusting!     Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And then you say "hand me the fucking tonic". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Or one can always just take the pledge, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This really brings back memories. I present for your amusement my last train-wreck of an ANI-reported block action, this time of User:Betacommandbot: Haukur (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

you're one of the good ones. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually enjoy both gin and EEng's humour; I thought this one crossed a line. Mocking someone's personal appearance is pretty low.  GoldenRing (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

<b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Haukurth - I commend you for challenging your own admin actions - it speaks volumes - and for having the courage to bring the discussion to AN/I - WP's high-risk dramah board - and for your attempt to get caught-up, despite the setback...oh, the irony. Anyway...EEng is...well, he's our shining light of levity in what can often be the dark tunnel of WP editing. Yes, there are times when levity can be blinding, and when humor crosses a line some editors draw for themselves. I'm of the mind that calling the sheriff after the shooting isn't always the best way forward. Discuss before slamming down the hammer. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can get a bit wild round here, sometimes. Poor old EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * EEng added a photograph of Mike mocking him for his clothing and insinuating that he is a "pha66otte" – I was not insinuating that. I was pointing out that if one applied Mr. Mike Williamson's bigoted thinking to Mr. Mike Williamson then that's the conclusion to which one would be led. (I was, however, definitely mocking the 007-in-silk-nightie pose.)
 * I commend for not digging in his heels, and I do appreciate the apology on my talk page.
 * One and all are invited to The Museums as my special guests. (I think I should be entitled to a free plug for my trouble.)
 * Agreed. In all seriousness, you did not insinuate that the user was a "faggot", you simply employed a lighthearted invocation of "judge not lest ye be judged", and posted an incredibly cringey picture of the person. It was genuinely hilarious, and so was your merciless destruction of the users who applauded the blocking admin on his talk page. Hats off EEng, most of us are replaceable, but you aren't. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quiet, ! If you keep this up people will realize we're lovers. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a pha66otte once, but it never got past the MoS spelling Nazis. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A funny touch is the poor composition of the photo. The top of his head's cut off. It adds a veneer of incompetence to a picture that was already absurd. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 07:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A look at the copyright info says a friend of his not only took the photo, but donated it to wikimedia commons so it could be used on that page. Wow. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Male pattern baldness. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Puffy Shirt — classic! El_C 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably the field uniform of military air conditioner repair men, which is what he, according to the article, was in the US Air Force, Army and National Guard. Pity it's a black-and-white photo, I'd like to know if the shirt is pink, purple or red. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey! No making fun of military air conditioning repair persons!! These people are willing to crawl through minefields just to undo the brutal efforts of our enemies to discomfort our troops by knocking out their A/C's. They are a hearty lot, willing to face death in the name of lower temperatures and less humidity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of our finest politicians have been air conditioning repair persons. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji deletions for copyvio
is making a lot of deletions for copyvio today. I caught it when he deleted J. Marvin Hunter as a notable person on Mason, Texas. The editor did respond to my talk page inquiry about this, but his response makes no sense to me. I asked him to link the text he believes is copyvio, and he linked a list he's working from. But that list does not say what the copyvio is on any of it. It looks like he's making a lot of deletions based on that list, but I don't see the specifics on that list that refer to what he's deleting. J. Marvin Hunter is not on that list he linked. I've never seen that list before, and don't know what people do with it. I need other eyes to look at what this editor is doing. Please look at his contributions. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems to be part of an ongoing WP:CCI. Have you clicked on the CCI link in the edit summaries?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , Sorry for my shitty talk page explanation; I could have explained it better. The page I am working off of is Contributor copyright investigations/20110727, aka User:Billy Hathorn's CCI. The problem with Billy's CCI is that it's Huge and he often copied from offline sources. I removed the reference to Marvin Hunter on Mason, Texas not because Marvin's article was a copyvio, but because Billy is the one who put the text about Marvin into the article. Presumptively removing content in cases of offline plagiarizing is common at CCI, which is why I removed the content to be on the safe side. I also accidentally told you the wrong section it's in, I meant to say "Articles 3521 through 3540". Thank you for reading this and I hope it clears some stuff up, 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh ... I know about Billy Hathorn. I'm going to go back through what you're doing, if it's articles I've worked on and had some interest in.  Mason, Texas is one of those. I'm re-inserting J. Marvin Hunter.  He's a rather famous author in Texas, and it seems a shame to leave him off Mason, Texas just because Hathorn's fingerprints were on it.  And while at least I now understand what you are doing, I can't help but think there must be a better way than reverting text because a decade ago Hathorn left it there.  Between 2011-2012 I was cleaning up various articles in Texas, and that was one of them. I think when it comes to a list of notable people, it's stretching it a bit to call it a copyvio just because Hathorn put it there. That would be like saying, "Oh, my god, Hathorn touched this ... cooties!"  I know what you're doing, but there must be a better way.  — Maile  (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, in hindsight, the "notable people" sections he was obsessed with are less likely to be vios; Feel free to re add it if you want to. I'll try better to avoid collateral damage in the future, and try to reword important info rather than removing important info. Thanks for understanding, 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And thanks to you, also. — Maile  (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page abuse
Here. He's lucky that word has a different meaning where I come from. Adam9007 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP’s last few talk page messages justify a civility block. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk page access revoked. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In view of the user's colorful word choice, I've taken the liberty of extending the block to 1 week.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. Have you suggested this choice at the relevant RfD?   Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well thanks to Uncle G I've now discovered a very cool painter I didn't know about previously.Excellent selection of classic American scenes,but the artist really needs to choose a maximum of one title per painting :) Lemon martini (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent IP editor adding wrong info
There is an IP editor persistently adding duplicate, redundant, and wrong info to municipality articles in Luzon, Philippines. (S)he continues to add distances to San Fernando, Pampanga, to a variety of places, many of which are not even in the same region (hence not their regional center) and many of which are utterly wrong. The IP addresses used so far (that I know of) are:

Since their edits are to many articles, I am requesting a IP range block. Thanks. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8BE0:69C0::/64, for ease of searching and reverting. ST47 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They've earned a 1 year block once before, and there's zero communication since that block expired in June. Blocked for 3 years. ST47 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikistalking and incivility by Bbb23
I really didn't want to bring this here, but Bbb23 has been wikistalking me, likely because he disagreed with my non-admin closure. I know he is a checkuser, administrator, and respected by the community, but I'd like additional eyes to look at his behavior. He reverted my edit to Non-admin closure and also reverted the past several edits I made marking users banned under WP:3X as banned, under the idea that I am somehow not competent to edit Wikipedia. While I understand why he reverted my edits marking users as banned under WP:3X (although I disagree with him), he has been nothing but hostile and uncivil to me. In addition, he reverted an edit I made to the userpage of User:Mzmadmike, saying that I am not allowed to mark this user as banned (even though the template can be applied by anyone and there is no rule saying I can't). Maybe I'm just being melodramatic or perhaps there's a legitimate gripe that this user has which I don't understand, but either way, I'd like other members of the community including other admins the opportunity to review his behavior so I can get more eyeballs on it. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to say that I am correct and that he is wrong, I just would like additional review.

I'd like the opportunity to propose an interaction ban between us if we can't have this resolved.

All the best, -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Regular users aren't supposed to be going around tagging accounts as banned, and people not approved to work in the checkuser process are definitely not supposed to be going around messing with CU-blocked accounts. This is a longstanding practice that I am certain is memorialized in an essay someplace, if not in the guidance to the templates you are trying to use. The application of the "banned" tag is itself controversial in a lot of cases because it can be viewed as a badge of shame. Bbb23 is not wikistalking you: He is (correctly) reviewing your recent behavior given your misapplication and misunderstanding of policy. As to the policies you seem to be misunderstanding, let's look at a relevant portion of WP:3X: Administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks will normally tag the master account's user page with. You have disagreed with the statement that people who are neither administrators nor SPI clerks should not be performing these tasks, I believe because of the word "normally". The problem is the function of "normally" here: It is not to say that normally these particular people will perform these tasks, but sometimes others will. Instead it means that normally these particular people will perform these tasks, but sometimes they will not be performed. It's as simple as that. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw what you were doing. You were wrong. Bbb23 was right to tell you to stop, and when you continued to tag banned users, he was right to warn you. That you didn't comprehend this after being told by several editors that you were misreading the relevant policies, is a very good reason to refer to WP:CIR.
 * I understand how WP:SPI works now, and yes, that is a misunderstanding of what operates on the word "normally" and I am wrong here. Thank you for elaborating and being polite about it, I appreciate it. I apologize if you felt that I was being disruptive, but I wish you would remember to be civil with people as well. We all want what's best for this encyclopedia, or we all would have been blocked long ago. I would like to extend an olive branch. I will be more careful with my edits in the future.
 * I still disagree with my reversing of the banned tag on User:Mzmadmike, because the user is banned and there is nothing indicating that I shouldn't be allowed to mark the user as such (and I have marked users as banned when they weren't banned in the past, or removed banned user templates that aren't accurate because they never were banned. This is the first time I've seen anyone complain about it). -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I attempted to explain this to Rockstone here, but they chose to open this thread in the midst of our discussion, despite really not wanting to bring it here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also note, since it's requested: Oppose interaction ban as unsupported by the allegations. One swallow doesn't make a summer: This is a single incident. Even if you were right and Bbb23 were wrong, it would not be wikistalking or merit an interaction ban. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose a swift WP:BOOMERANG for the OP. Absolutely refusing to listen to experienced admins and CUs (both and ; see User talk:Bbb23 and down) when being told not to add/modify CU tags etc, or make certain non-admin closes, shows an appaling lack of competence. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I really want to clarify that I'm not ignoring experienced admins, and I'm sorry if it appears that I am. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't examined all the claims above (partly because you didn't provide diffs) but just as a start: you  voted to community ban Mzmadmike, and then in quick succession closed the discussion, and tagged the userpage. Even setting aside that the particular discussion would best be closed by an admin (or, more-experienced user) who is better prepared to defend the action and face the likely real-life blowback, your closing a discussion after participating in it itself suggests that you should desist from making any further WP:NAC/admin-y actions in the near future. Abecedare (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * with close. Rockstone, I have criticized Bbb's conduct on more than one occasion, but even I can see where he's coming from here. First, it's a longstanding norm that we simply don't touch CU stuff. Not even us admins. If it's within the CU's jurisdiction, just leave it alone. Even if it's something really mundane like tweaking a CU template. CU is largely independent and self-sufficient. They train and employ their own team of specialized clerks for the tasks they do need help with. In the future, bring something like this to a CU's attention for them to review. You can offer to handle it, but it's probably not likely that they'll delegate even something minor like this to a non-CU, much less a non-admin. Secondly, no, there's nothing wrong with adding the CBAN tag. Anyone can add it. However, that's not what you did, you closed the CBAN discussion. Formalizing a CBAN is an admin action because it involves blocking the banned user. Per baseline NAC standards, non-admins shouldn't close discussions where an admin action is required. Also, as has been pointed out, even if you were an admin, you would be involved, so you shouldn't be closing it anyway. Bbb wasn't reverting you to be mean or to harass you, it was just improper for you to be actioning that discussion to begin with. By itself, I doubt Bbb would revert you for adding the tag, but in context, he was correctly reverting your inappropriate intervention. Nitpicking that point that you're technically allowed to add the tag is not constructive, you should be focusing on understanding where you went wrong and why you were reverted. Not complaining, not writing the incident into NAC. You should have simply understood these concepts, at least upon being corrected. It's okay to screw up like this and learn from your mistakes, but anytime someone's overstepping their bounds in multiple areas because it appears they're too gung-ho about getting involved behind the scenes, they tend to seriously ruffle feathers. You're clearly just a good faith user who was trying to help, and you're probably not actually a CIR case who needs a final warning, but there's little tolerance for disrupting the smooth running of the project behind the scenes, even if motivated by a good faith eagerness to help. What you see above is a strong indicator that that is where you're at. You have to gradually work your way up to this level of involvement, you can't just jump into assisting in admin areas, and you're clearly out of your depth here. Let me know if you have any questions. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you block Paulol183892?
He vandalised my talkpage and other articles. They already got a warning from someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverState472 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign. Thanks @SineBot! SilverState472 (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out here both users involved so far each made their first Wikipedia post at the same time, exactly 29 minutes ago. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...I am NOT a sockpuppet. Check out their contribs. SilverState472 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , how did you find out what sockpuppets are within 35 minutes of creating an account? --MrClog (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: how severe was the vandalism? Gun23man (☎️) 08:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/SilverState472. MrClog (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Bite-y behavior from three admins


New user Angelarking did some editing on Marc D. King, a page for which she apparently knows the subject. After their one round of editing there got reverted by CambridgeBayWeather], they went to BLPN, inappropriately (in newby ignorance) tried to post their version of the BLP there, but when it was reverted by Bbb23, posted to raise their concerns about the BLP there.... and for some reason, Bbb23 chose to revert that as well, and block them, while CBW opened up a sock puppet investigation against them and posted on BLP complaining that editors were removing "sourced" material. All of this despite the fact that on the whole, the edits that Angelarking, while possibly COI, were good edits and of net benefit to the project. The bulk of the material that was deleted was either unsourced or negative factual claims soured to opinion pieces which is generally discouraged by WP:NEWSORG and usually treated as a no-no on BLPs. Additionally, multiple of these were used to synthesize claims ("As with many of his legally liberal colleagues his conversions and rabbinic decisions are often challenged and rejected by Orthodox groups.") I ended up having to re-delete much of what she had deleted. But when Huon went to review the unblock request, the bulk of the edits were ignored and the one sentence of positive spin added was used as a reason by Huon to keep this editor off of the project.

As far as I can tell, at no point did any of these administrators look to see if any of the editor's concerns were valid, look to see if the "sourced material" were at all good, try to explain any problems with their efforts to the editor, or raise any matter on the article's talk page. It was all just pile on and block the editor. I suggest that Angelarking receive an unblock, an apology, and an introduction to our conflict-of-interest guidelines; for the three administrators, I recommend that they each receive a gift certificate for a free trout facial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for this to be reviewed here, and Huon especially should not even be mentioned since he was the admin who was doing an unblock review. If wishes to appeal their block again, they may do so and an uninvolved administrator will review. This thread should be closed as we don't generally accept third-party unblock appeals, and there is nothing so egregious here as to deviate from that norm. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So we're free to bite the hell out of newcomers so long as they don't already know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia practice to defend themselves? Got it. If I ask for something more than a trout against these admins, would that be excuse to keep this open? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, Huon did a third party review. That's not admin abuse, that's following policy. He declined to unblock, which in most cases means that he felt the block was valid. If Angelarking still thinks the block isn't valid or isn't needed, they can appeal again, but you shouldn't be bringing an appeal here when there is not currently an open appeal. They've shown they know how to use the unblock template. Let them explain their position for themselves so that another administrator can review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This looks like a textbook BITE situation and I'd be inclined to unblock per NatGertler's assessment. The article's protected, the user was making good faith improvements to a BLP and they were never warned or coached, even though they took it to a community noticeboard as they were supposed to and reported false and slanderous information in a BLP. We don't typically review third party unblock requests, but we don't typically railroad well-meaning newbies like that either. I don't really see this block as being necessary at this point, are there really any issues with unblocking that aren't procedural? ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My thing is that the whole point of an unblock request is that the user in question has a discussion with the admin who is reviewing. We can't really have that discussion if they aren't involved. I also just really dislike the third party appeals, because discussing one usually leads to a bunch more in the coming weeks, but I do get the bureaucratic and procedural point you are making on that. Would it be worth taking this discussion to the talk page of Angelarking, and talking about it with the three admins mentioned above? I think that would address your concerns with the block while also keeping it more in line with the normal process? Sorry if this sounds a bit policy-wonky. I'm just trying to think of a way to get to the core of something while still keeping this relatively "normal" TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I get it, you're not wrong, it shouldn't be a community review but I will take it up discretionarily. I'll take this to the talk page and ping Bbb (feel free to extend the archive box if you don't need to reply further). ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 14) description
Apologies if this is the wrong place!

If you search in Wikipedia for America's Got Talent (season 14), the current season. The short description says “worst season ever”.

I’m not sure how to fix it or where to ask. Any help? Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, . The short description was taken from Wikidata, which was vandalised. I fixed the vandalism at Wikidata and imported the new short description to the article to prevent any Wikidata vandalism from affecting the article. You can always set a short description yourself: place  at the top of the article. Thank you for reporting the issue. --MrClog (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning
I received a message about a change that I have no made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.3.103 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The message is from 3 years ago. Ignore it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone did make the edit in which they added "telengana state is very good state" in Nov. 2016. If that wasn't you, then it was someone else using your IP back then. --MrClog (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Not here since 2012
Please see recent which included unsourced claims with WP:BLP implications, and the promotion at User talk:Nudge squidfish/twinkleoptions (now tagged with WP:U5). The talk page shows warnings about other deletions, self-promotion and copyright violations. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 23:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else see something odd in an editor whose second edit is to set their Twinkle options? The chances of this being a new editor are... slim (though that's not to say it's necessarily an illegitimate alt account, of course).  GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's odd, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Going by the confused edit to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, I think this editor was just clicking on stuff randomly, got lost, and went with it.  That seems to happen sometimes with new users.  The deleted user page is pretty weird, though.  It claims the user is a "UFO contactee" and is involved an "ET Breeding Program". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed with a detailed rationale. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC).

Sachinthonakkara
Can someone revoke talk page access? He's not being productive with it [Each diff gets weirder than the last]. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Second that. He's not only NOTHERE, he's not there either. Not sure I want to know about where he actually is. John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look at this? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 'cause he's seriously asking for money at this point. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 07:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Faruk danyaya


New editor. Promotes himself on his userpage. Given his editing and the self-promotion, this appears to be a paid editing situation.

He's edit-warring to include unreliable sources in a BLP, and to remove the COI tag on it. He's apparently unaware of his talk page and of edit summaries. Likely there are language problems as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Unnamed12
In a trade war at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement article, keeps trying to edit back in what other users are reverting. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean edit war, and those can be reported at WP:AN/EW. --MrClog (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Perohanych's persistent copyright violations
This morning, I had to nominate User:Perohanych/sandbox for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Looking at 's talk page, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't understand the rules about copyright text by now, and yet these violations keep happening. The earliest warning is from June 2009, and a number of G12 speedy deletion notices can be found at User talk:Perohanych, including User talk:Perohanych and User talk:Perohanych. Can we try to find a way to stop this behaviour? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything is clear for me. I promise not to violate copyrights anymore. --Perohanych (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you describe why you are ignoring notifications about WP:COPYVIO? Rzvas (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I take promises with a grain of salt. Inclined to block until they very specifically describe how they will cease to jeopardize this project with their copyvio's. Probably will.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Investigating further, I'm discovering additional instances of Perohanych's addition of copyvio text, such as this, that haven't been picked up previously. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * GAd. More work for WP:CCI. More inclined to block. No rush, this is not a new problem.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm indefinitely blocking now, with any unblock contingent on both demonstrating an understanding of how copyright works; assurances aren't cutting it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When I looked through this yesterday I also found one instance of removing a G12 template from an article he created (though it was later deleted at AfD). I'm on mobile now so can't look. Sort a block. GoldenRing (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some quick spot checks on the older stuff: How can someone who founded a Wikimedia chapter have got the free content mission so fundamentally wrong? Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Henry Hampton Halley, article later zapped and begun again.
 * World Telecommunication and Information Society Day is the about blurb from the ITU, copyrighted by the ITU.  Unfortunately,  not spotting this, World Information Society Day is a wholesale copy of  and has been a copyright violation for 10 years.


 * Contributor copyright investigations/20190722 is now open. MER-C 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I already have a backlog, including what I just researched for . Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Contributor copyright investigations/20190722 has been cleared out. There were only a few vios as for as I could tell, leading me to believe that this user has acted in good faith and simply misunderstood certain licenses. Either way, if he is to be unblocked, I would encourage him to not copy and paste content. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 02:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

IBAN violation by U1Quattro
User U1Quattro violated IBAN again, twice at least. This user still cannot keep away from contributions made by me quite recently and keeps rewriting them and adding tags to them. See Ferrari 456: Revision history. Special:Diff/907256292 and Special:Diff/907256438 Special:Diff/904629142 Clearly shows this section added by me quite recently, this very month. Special:Diff/907261327 Special:Diff/901265487 Clearly shows this section added by me quite recently, last month. There was no reason to make those changes. He was just blocked for an IBAN violation that literally ended two days ago: IBAN violations by U1Quattro, and keeps getting back for more. Section violated: Interaction ban "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" YBSOne (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Also user clearly referenced me indirectly stating that my edit was "appaling" and he cannot change it due to an IBAN with an author of that edit. Special:Diff/907255736 Section violated: Interaction ban "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;" YBSOne (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on IBANs, but even under an IBAN, it seems that editors can still work on the same page., on the first complaint (the article edits), the diffs you linked were part of a whole series where  was doing various cleanup throughout the entire page, not just the short bit of text that was added by you (which did need cleanup for grammar, and for which a citation needed tag was appropriate); it wasn't even a reversion.  The second part is less great, but he's criticizing the article organization, and then asking for assistance from others in order to abide by the IBAN.  Maybe a more tactful choice of words could have been made, but still, did this really need to be brought here yet again?  Can't we all just get along?  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is rather clear to me that this user cannot stop to use ANI again and again. Just like Vauxford. Because they don't have an understanding of how an IBAN works and they decide to use the same old clause in their defense when I did not even violate it. There is a difference between reversion and correction. I am confident that this time, I did not do an IBAN violation. I corrected grammar and wording and did not remove anything. I even left a note in the talk page of the article asking another user to do a proposed correction made by me as I was aware that such excerpts were added by this user. I did not even mention or criticise this user, only the content that was present. I have now changed my choice of words on the said tlkpage discussion. On the other hand, this user was involved in edit warring on the same page they are referring to and they even violated the 3RR rule rather than discuss matters on the article talk page in a civil manner. I request the admins to take notice of their edit warring and please give them advice about how ANI works so we are not faced by these time wasting tactics again and again. U1 quattro  TALK''  03:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * To make my point more clear, I would mention the entire IBAN section here:

"The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions;

make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;

undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;

use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption."

The thing which I did is highlighted in bold so that this user understands what I did. I also criticised the content in the talk page, not the person who added it as it would appear to a general reader. U1 quattro  TALK''  03:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Further this section here from the IBAN rule states to provide edit summaries for such weird which I did provide "As a banned user, if you think your editing is excepted from the ban according to these rules, you should explain why that is so at the time of the edit, for example in the edit summary. When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify." U1 quattro  TALK''  04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Since this user has demonstrated that they cannot differenciate what is an edit reversion and what is an edit correction, I will now mention the following from WP:REVERTING :

"A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.

A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions.

Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

As made clear here, I did the thing that is mentioned on the table at the top. U1 quattro  TALK''  04:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing was made clear because You are quoting a lot of unrelated policies and yet You do not comprehend any of them. I have clearly added content and now parts of that content are missing, deleted by a user that was supposed to have an interaction ban with an author of that content. You are not allowed to remove any of the content added by me. Ie You are not allowed to interact with the content added by me. Comprehend? YBSOne (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Furthermore it seems that user is actively changing disputed content to cover his tracks. Special:Diff/907324311. YBSOne (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support no action against U1Quattro Sorry, but IBANs should not be enforced in such a manner as to force both editors (or, rather, the less belligerent of the two editors) to constantly look over their shoulder and be thinking about whether this or that piece of text may have been edited by the other. Forcing IBANned editors to think about each other is the opposite of the intended purpose of an IBAN, and sanctioning an editor for having fixed a mistake that another editor inserted into an article because that other editor happened to be "the wrong editor to mess with" is simply unacceptable.
 * I would, however, support a trout or perhaps a boomerang being issued to Ybsone.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with Hijiri88. Nail squarely struck on head.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And what's appalling is the amount of time wasted on this sort of bickering.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Show me this in exceptions to limited bans that now this user can "correct my mistakes". This user wanted an IBAN but instead of adhering to the rules, he has quoted at least four policies he knows nothing about just to "game the system" against me. I am not going to be lenient against an editor with such sketchy past of disruptive and tendentious editing behaviour. YBSOne (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know a lot more about IBANs than you do. WP:BANEX is deliberately written in such a way as to require interpretation in light of circumstances. U1Quattro is allowed edit the same articles as you, and to do so in whatever policy-compliant manner he sees fit -- you are increasingly giving the impression of trying to "lay traps" for him by inserting content that someone is going to need to fix and then reporting U1Quattro when it's him who does it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from such personal attacks as to alledge that my edits are just traps for others. YBSOne (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "personal attacks"!? You made bad edits to an article you knew U1Quattro had edited and was probably watching, and then when U1Quattro interacted with your edits (inadvertently, while also making a bunch of other edits, several weeks later) you immediately filed an ANI report. Either you deliberately set a trap with the intention of "getting" U1Quattro (not dissimilar to this and these) or what you did and are continuing to do is so similar to doing so as to be functionally identical. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When I added performance content in June 2019, last time he edited this page was in August 2018. There is no indication that he will edit this page further. It is highly degrading to alledge that I'm deliberately making bad edits in light of a thread posted against his n-th violation. Why am I constantly defending myself in those threads? This is not what should be deliberated. YBSOne (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support no action- it does not seem as though there's anything wrong with the edits themselves. As for the "covering his tracks" bit, U1Quattro has settled on a milder choice of words on their own. Now Ybsone wants to interpret that as devious underhandedness. It seems clear that anything U1Quattro says or does is going to be interpreted in the least charitable way possible. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 07:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're just wasting everyone's time in this discussion. Further more because of editors like you and Vauxford, we would lose more active contributors in the automobile project. You are no different than Vauxford in bickering about the rules and bending them for a decision favourable to you rather than making an effort to understand them. I brought the exact relevant standards here which also put a light on what reverting actually is. You're implying to the content you are added when the IBAN rules permit that edits can be made or improved on the same page, just not reverted and I did not revert them. You do not own the content you add and interacting with the content (ie improving it) isn't an interaction with you. Instead of uunderstanding the IBAN rules and what reversion is you decide to bludgeon the discussion. I request the admins that appropriate sanctions should be placed on this user for engaging in an edit war on the Ferrari 456 page about the speed recorded. U1 quattro  TALK''  07:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are accusing me of edit warring on Ferrari 456 speed record but I have reverted that users edit once. And I have also proved he was a sockpuppet. Stop insinuating against me. How is is a 3RR rule violation when I reverted it once? YBSOne (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are accusing me of not understanding how IBAN works. That in Your opinion an interaction with he content is not an interaction with a user. But for this exact interaction with the content administration blocked You previously. And revertion of the content has nothing to do with it, as I also proved in the previous thread. "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". YBSOne (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ongoing feud with U1Quattro IBAN violations by U1Quattro You clearly understand rules and not waste everyone's time... YBSOne (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Those discussions were closed and decisions were made on them. Yet you still want to bring past discussions which have nothing to do with this discussion which is based on your misinterpretion of the IBAN and WP:REVERTING. As Hijri 88 has pointed out, you're doing all this due to personal envy which is not doing Wikipedia any favours. U1 quattro  TALK''  07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm... you filed both of those threads. Are you just trolling now? Harassing and trolling U1Quattro in this manner, even in this thread, is most certainly not covered under BANEX, and I'm increasingly inclined to think you need to be blocked for this behaviour. You really should take this close's wording to heart... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I filed both of those threads because I was being harrased by a user and resulting blocks were just a confirmation of my argumentation. YBSOne (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How am I harassing and trolling? I have filed an IBAN violation. In light of many opinions left by previous participants of this feud I am under the impression that it was a violation. I took it here because this is the place for it. How is this harassement? YBSOne (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying "You waste the community's time -- look at these two ANI threads!" when you are the one who filed both of those threads (read: if anyone is wasting the community's time, it's you) does come across as trolling, yes. And even if it's not trolling, it's certainly not the kind of comment you should be directing at someone with whom you are IBANned. (Yes, U1Quattro did kinda sorta do the same thing, but in reference to a frivolous ANI thread you had filed about him, and only after several uninvolved editors had already said the same thing.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "these time wasting tactics" "You're just wasting everyone's time" U1Quattro used it twice. Could You in light of being impartial reprimend him also for it? I don't see how my reply is worse. YBSOne (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous ANI threads were shown as a context for previous offences and, most importantly, a proof that content interaction is forbidden under IBAN just the same as user interaction. YBSOne (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that policies on: Reverting, 3RR or Edit war have nothing to do with this thread and are only used to bludgeon it and/or change the subject and/or show me in a bad light. YBSOne (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Content interaction was explicitly, many times and by multiple users and admins explained: Special:Diff/905983766. YBSOne (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I would Ofcourse check edit history next time I edit an Italian car page so I don't run into this situation again." He explicitly promised to check the edit history before editing. YBSOne (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because last time, I was at fault as I removed the chassis code at the Maserati Shamal page. That is considered an edit revert, my recent actions at Ferrari 456 page are not considered edit revert. I was blocked for my edits at the Maserati Shamal page. This time I am not a fault. You have already been told by an uninvolved editor that you're bending the rules in your favour, yet you continue to squabble about the ANI rules when I didn't violate them. You are a bad editor as you continue to stalk me and follow me over Wikipedia even after an IBAN in place. Admins should seriouly consider your bludgeoning in his discussion and should ban you from posting further ANI discussions like these so you stop wasting everyone's time. Even an admin had pointed out how foolish your point of discussions is. See this. It is a tool which tells whether I interacred with you or not and I didn't. I'm done here. U1 quattro  TALK''  15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for removing the website on Maserati Quattroporte IV and "improving it" with trash. If You didn't follow me around You wouldn't edit Ferrari 456 page that You edited last year. Please stop following me. As for bad edits, when are You going to correct the numbers made mistake on Shamal page? It is literally next to correct answer from main text. YBSOne (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I came to the Ferrari 456 page as I searched Ferrari pages. I can edit whatever pages I like. You don't dictate me to edit a page. As for trash, that is what your website is called. Hence I placed a tag for a better source. Adopting "oh poor me" tactics in this thread will not brand you as good. Today, your true intentions come to light it this discussion. Even after over 8 years of being on wiki, you couldn't adopt a professional attitude and develop an understanding of how this site works. U1 quattro  TALK''  15:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe You should refrain from personal attacks on my website. Editing Wikipedia over those years was a bliss, until Your incompetence showed up.YBSOne (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is amusing how you brand everyone who disagrees with you as if they are personally attacking you. Maybe you should focus on editing here instead of following me around. I was having a good time until I came across a messed up editor like you. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Just stop it, both of you. Sheesh. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 16:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Your comments in this thread are way outside of the scope of WP:BANEX.  Anything more that either comments on the other party or responds to them will draw a block.  GoldenRing (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is from today: Special:Diff/898301206 Special:Diff/907532300 There is no such car as '575 Superamerica'. See. 'Ferrari Superamerica' or 'the Superamerica'. What was the reason to change my edit of correct model name to incorrect one? Another IBAN violation. YBSOne (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * See here, here and here. Happy now? U1 quattro   TALK''  19:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could someone block Ybsone? The above comment is another clear IBAN violation. Yeah, U1Quattro shouldn't have responded, but punishing someone for having been repeatedly harassed by someone he's supposed to have an IBAN with, and acting out in frustration that no admin has done anything about it, would be counterproductive. (And since I know based on the above that he's gonna start claiming that being right on the substance makes it okay for him to complain about U1Quattro like this, he's not even right on the substance.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot be impeded from providing fresh evidence that meets the same criteria as the ongoing case. Not only that I should be encouraged to provide them. You are thratening me by blocks from providing evidence. (I am right on the substance). Could You be more bias? YBSOne (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am right on the substance is completely off-topic; but ironically that means it's actually not a violation of your IBAN to talk about it (unlike most of the rest of what you've written in this thread) so I'll bite: where in the page you have now linked twice does it say "the car is not called the 575M Superamerica; this name is inaccurate, and should not be used"? I don't see the phrase "575M Superamerica" anywhere on that page. You are, to quote Dale Martin (transcript here), breaking one of the major rules of textual interpretation, in a manner that is utterly unacceptable for even a new Wikipedia editor, let alone one who's been around as long as you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, quick off-topic to show You two things. First, official name that manufacturer gives: Ferrari Superamerica. Using the very same method apart for official website. Second a common name made up by the journalists because the car was based on 575M Maranello. Ferrari website cannot state the car is not named... because why should they? And the phrase 575M Superamerica is not present on their website because it is not it's name. It is not on the badge on the car it is not on brochures nor owner's manuals. Another example. See this? This a common name made up by journalists not an official one. Do You understand? Why I provided this context next to my evidence? It does not matter wheather my edit is right or wrong, an IBAN extends to the content interaction as well. YBSOne (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This a common name made up by journalists not an official one. Not only are we allowed use such "common" names, we are encouraged to give them priority. Do you understand? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not apply to cars other than to use a shorter name like instead of a Ferrari 250 GT Berlinetta 'Tour de France' we do use: Berlinetta or 'Tour de France' or 'TdF'. but to substitute 'Superamerica' for a longer, incorrect name is not a common practise. Nowhere on wikipedia 4200 GT should be used for Maserati Coupé. There are common names and there are incorrect common names and those should be discouraged. YBSOne (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Should be used", "Should be encourged" blah blah blah. Are you an admin now? This thread has gone to a new level of stupidity on your part. This site doesn't work like the way you want. It works on the established rules and policies. U1 quattro  TALK''  10:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not commenting here anymore. Not wasting more of my time to show what is the correct name of the car. My time is valuable, my edits are also. I have presented all the needed evidence and at least four proofs and await administration to make a decision. YBSOne (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So is the time of all the editors you have wasted here due to your misinterpretation. If your time and edits are that valuable, invest them in improving the site instead of following around others and abusing them. Hard to break it to you but an admin already commented how valid your "proofs" were. U1 quattro  TALK''  10:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Break
I've blocked both U1Quattro and Ybsone for a month for continued IBAN violations. The length of the block is due to them both having already been blocked for two weeks in the course of this dispute.

My advice is to close this thread with a warning that the next one to violate the ban will be blocked indefinitely. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Shame that this was necessary, but it's not like they didn't have plenty of warning. Just another case of two people who can neither stand each other or stay away from each other. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 14:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

further harassment
I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me.

Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content:

Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" 

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

More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" 

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

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage   His reply to the template message 

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

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

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

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me 

I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. 

The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. | Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me.

I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps.  Lubbad85   (<b style="color:#060">☎</b>) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It was archived as udea, and I am not sure that you deciding it should not be archived is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The archive was done by a bot. I provided diffs, evidences and everything, how can they not try and evaluate this? They can't just discarded this because it was created by me. This been going on way before anything else prior to that. I don't want to let this get sweep under the rug and forgotten. --Vauxford (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * u|Oshwah I know I shouldn't really ping admins but I talked to you about this before. Please at least look at this, this is nowhere near worst then what I got myself into with the previous discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening this because he has been archived the 2nd time now since nothing has been done about this. Charles01 has reverted my edit after I replaced a picture that wasn't even discussed, it might of been in the talkpage discussion but it was simply ignored, YET again calling it my "personal vanity project". I'm going to blow a fuse if he going to accuse me of that one more time. Please something be done about this, I really think the talkpage discussion on the Audi Q3 wasn't justified (see Extended content for the original post I did). I tried talking to him, solving it on the talkpage discussion, but now he simply reverting anything I do because he calls it a "personal vanity project". I'm at a dead end here and doing anything else would just become disruptive. Please can this be look at that, I know I can a handful but still this has been going on for half a year now and I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a bit much; but you do also suffer from a conflict of interest when it comes to adding your own work. Best to try to argue for its inclusion on the article talk page rather than inserting it yourself. El_C 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I did discuss this on the article talk page, I added a alternative image but it was never discussed except for some opinion about the wing mirrors. I thought because it hasn't been discussed I could use that instead of the one which a consensus have been reached, but even the consensus I find unfair because 80% of the reason for why they choose the grey one over the blue was mostly personal rather then actually talking about the picture. --Vauxford (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Try to change the consensus by getting wider input, taking advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Which one should I pick for this sorta thing though? Also this incident isn't just about the Audi Q3 dispute it the overall misconduct Charles01 has been giving me all this time. --Vauxford (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. That, indeed, depends on the depth and breadth of your dispute. El_C 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Charles01 made another lengthy comment making personal remarks of me rather then the picture itself in another talkpage, this often happens when I start discussion on the talkpage or anything with my name on it and when he gets involved it the comments become personal very quickly. --Vauxford (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I made a request for comment on the talkpage discussion and I reverted a comment by a user who has already had their said about the photo in the previous discussion. Charles01 | reverted that with yet another lengthy comment which mention I have "destructive arrogance", "toxicity" and implying that I edit warring all the time which I don't. I thought RfC was made so users who aren't involved in the previous discussion can have their say? --Vauxford (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. You removing that comment was totally inappropriate. Please don't do that again. El_C 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * My mistake then, sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Now it seem one of the users (who is more active on the German Wikipedia) is favouring Charles01 photos over ones that were done by me, the fact isn't whether which one is better, the fact is this user is acting biased by siding with Charles01 on anything now. Alexander-93 was the one who created the Audi Q3 talkpage because he wanted the grey car (which he took himself) to be used. The thing that bothers me the most is he insert his OWN photos into articles both on English and on the many Wikipedia I personally thing their nothing wrong with that as long as it isn't disruptive but I'm the one who been getting all the hassle saying I'm a "destructive user" and is "degrading Wikipedia" by Charles01 and he doesn't. Now I'm predicting that Charles01 gonna revert the recent edits Alexander-93 done with another lengthy scolding about how much a problematic user I am. What I find unfair is the sheer hypocrisy this is becoming and all I am is a scapegoat simply because the photo or edit was done by me. --Vauxford (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias:                  

Alexander just made another talkpage discussion which is just gonna be the same bias outcome from Charles01 and I'm fearing he just going to continue doing this on any photos taken by me (whether I put them there myself or not) --Vauxford (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not prioritise anybody's photos. I changed the image in the Fiat Panda article since I think it is better! After you reverted my edit I started a new discussion on the talk page. It is the same procedure as I already did for the Tesla Model S and the Audi Q3. It is getting stupid since every edit, in which a picture of you is replaced is endling like this. It seems like not even I have a problem with this behaviour.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The photo was taken by Charles01, and recently you have been siding with him for any comment he post about me. I'm going to be honest, I know this may seem rude and unethical because you have every right to edit on here, same with me on the German Wikipedia, but you are mostly active on the German Wikipedia because that your native language, I haven't been making edits/replacement on your Wikipedia because people on there got upset with me because their manual of style for automobiles is different to here which I respect that so I leave them be, same thing happened with me and the Italian Wikipedia so I also leave them alone, As far as I'm aware, it not against any polices to do edits on other Wikipedias unless it disruptive but if people on their really oppose my edits I would leave them alone. Why do you insist of trying to get your own way on here when it not even your main Wikipedia? --Vauxford (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * When I first read the words 'vanity project', 'Vauxfordy' etc. I did not know, what the others meant. I'm not someone who bullies someone and I will never use such words. But after a while working side by side with Vauxford, I can understand the others. And to be true: Since a few days, I'm looking at your and Charles01 edits. But I do not side with anybody! I'm following different users on Wikicommons, who upload (car-)images regularly. And if I'm convinced by an image (as I was for the new Fiat Panda image), I share it on Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter if it's from me or another user. I think this isn't a problem. It seems to me like Vauxford is creating his own rules and if someone says something against him or his edits, it's ending like this. As I mentioned above, I do not prioritise anybody here. I also vote for his images or implement them in some articles, but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it . And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits , but your behaviour is different to others. You do not assume good faith and do not respect the work of other users!
 * As El_C mentioned before: Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. And just because English is not my native language and I'm also active in the German Wikipedia, I shouldn't do that in your point of view? I think you have to be careful with statements like this! Your problems in other Wikipedias are not my fault! In the German one there is the guideline to use mainly LHD-vehicles, since 99% of the vehicles in the DACH-countries are delivered with the steering wheel on the left side. And since you didn't stick to that rule, the German users had a problem with your edits. If I see it right, nobody here without you has a problem with some of my edits. But you have a problem with many edits, since I think you are making your own rules - and if I see it right, I'm not the only one thinking about you in this kind of way. So I do not care about your statement, that I should not use the English Wikipedia!--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Vauxford, while I don't know the full depths of this dispute as it's been mostly outside of my sub-topic area, I've noticed a few things. Your photographs generally range from decent to less-than-passable, but you don't seem to understand that. You also don't seem to understand that replacing one adequate image with another adequate image isn't particularly productive. Whether your intention is to fill Wikipedia with your own pictures or not, your editing pattern gives other editors the impression that you are. I suspect these issues are where Charles01's frustration comes from, and that repeated attempts to get you to see that have left him believing he has no alternative but the unpleasantries you mention above.<P>If someone wanted to make a measurable improvement in terms of illustrating automotive articles, one would identify articles where an existing image is lacking and seek out opportunities to replace it, rather than taking photos in mass quantities whether they will be helpful or not. The goal should be to replace poor images with adequate ones; replacing adequate ones with excellent ones is icing on the cake (but in the vast majority of cases, a curbside shot like those you have access to is never going to be at that level). The point of having images in the articles is to provide the reader with a reasonable idea of what the vehicle looks like. As long as an existing image does that, ad nauseum discussions of whether a new image is a 1% improvement or a 1% detriment are wholly unproductive. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Knowing a picture that need replacing is completely subjective towards the viewer. I have every right to do make these bold edits and I clearly understand why I do them and the repercussion I could get because of it. How the heck could I tell if a image could truly be replaced with something else or vice versa and thinking like that is just mind numbing. A person could replace a picture something they consider the absolute best but there always going to be someone who said otherwise. It doesn't matter if Charles01 is expressing frustration over me, it beyond unacceptable accusing others for "edit warring" when they have done whatsoever! It just harassment in general, it really patronising to be labelled as the "Vauxford Problem".. --Vauxford (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you have a conflict of interests when it comes to adding your own images. You should really be suggesting that on talk pages, instead. El_C 16:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * But I'm not getting paid to do these edits or doing it out of my interest. I know that hard to believe but that's the truth and I understand why people mistake that. --Vauxford (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter that you're not getting paid, you cannot be presumed to be neutral regarding your own images in the event these are objected to, so you should let others add them instead and limit yourself to proposals on the talk page. That sounds like a sensible solution to me. El_C 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The pictures-of-cars topic area is rapidly supplanting pro wrestling as the universe's #1 source of lame controversy. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Think of it as the flavour of the quarter. Blackmane (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it's only for the quarter and no longer. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I eagerly await a page entitled 'RuPaul Riding In Cars With Wrestlers.' JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the reason why this was ignored twice is a lot of people looking at maybe thinking, Mmmmm, not sure this is all that one way. At this time I am going to suggest that this is dropped before a boomerang ensues.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is one way because I did nothing to make Charles01 like this. This was all his choice, if was actually giving me advice of how to edit productively none of this would happen. --Vauxford (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing to edit more constructively would be to stop going to ANI about everything. No, not everyone is a puppy, unicorn, or eternally happy, and some of these people will make you upset. But if that happens, back away for a bit, maybe delete the message they sent to you if it's not applicable, stop reverting them. If they continue, for a long time, then maybe you can report them. MAYBE. You probably shouldn't. Unless they are making definitively uncivil statements or reverting several people, you probably shouldn't. The reasons people are against you right now are that for one, you opened this less than a month after that YBSOne mess, and two, you are reverting far too aggressively. Stop reverting people for a while and people should feel less animosity. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That YBSOne wasn't started by me, it was started by U1Quattro which got myself involved in when I shouldn't have. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Aight, great. Now don't get involved in any more, and no reverts, and everything will be peachy. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Per wp:brd once you are reverted it is down to you to make the case, not down to the other user to give you advice. You are being told here what you did wrong, and your response is "I disagree".Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I been doing that this whole time though. I been discussing my edit on the talkpage instead of reverting all the time. Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI, so I went to the ANI and then E1_C told that this sorta stuff should be discussed in the talkpage section. It just seem like no matter what I do I get shouted and scolded for it. I'm at the brink of just giving up because at this rate I feel like every thing is all falling down on me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you had been doing it the whole time you would not have reverted even twice. It does not matte if you sometimes do it (and to be honest we all forget sometimes). What matters is you are here over this mater (it does not matter who started it, or who was reported) and have now re-started this twice, when you did not get your way (when I saw you first re-post I was going to say "maybe they have not commented because they see nothing to comment on"). Please note that sanctions are not punitive, they are preventive. At this time you are the disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't re opened this because it wasn't going my way I re opened it because nobody said anything and the bot automatically archived it before anyone could, all I'm doing is addressing the issue, I haven't reverted more then twice recently and I have been taking to talkpage discussion instead of that. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong here. --Vauxford (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am troubled by a lot of the stuff here on a number of different levels, but I was repeatedly dissuaded from intervening (1) because initially I couldn't think of anything I could add that would be helpful and (2) as the thing has dragged on and the temptation to jump in has periodically returned, I have been dissuaded from commenting by the belief that anything I wrote/write was/is likely to be savagely reinterpreted beyond recognition.  So I bit my tongue and stayed silent here.   But I am particularly taken aback by the statement "Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI...."    I have no recollection of having "told" Vauxford that or anything that could have been construed as that.   I really think he is ...um .... mistaken with his statement here.   Either that, or my mind is going.   (Of course, those two possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)   He is, as far as I understand the rules,  entitled, as we all are, to write whatever he wishes here.   But I think I would have been borderline insane to have "told" (or even recommended) him to do it as he has chosen to.   I wonder what you are / he is thinking of with this.   Charles01 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't even know at this point. I think need a breather from all this because in my head I think I see something someone said but haven't actually said it, I just end up accuse them for no reasons. Even looking back to what I said it starting to not make any sense. Edit: This what I meant. I might of misinterpeted in a way that I thought you were telling me to take my concern about Typ932 to the ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an all too predictable response to someone complaining about being hounded by another editor. Personal attacks are not justified by being "frustrated", are a clear violation of wikipedia policy, and need to be stopped. Conflicts of Interest can be reported to the COI Noticeboard. Period. ♟♙ (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm going to be honest here I don't completely understand this whole COI thing. I been reading about it since but the way it describe doesn't fit the type of edits I do. I'm not closely connected or associated to anything or anyone. I just really love cars of all type and photographing them and thought they be good use in the article. I started this ANI because of the user's behaviour in the long-term. If their more I need to know about this subject please do explain it to me. The diffs I have provided shows he has accused me of edit warring, using wikipedia as some sort of "vanity project" which upsets me each time he uses that term because I know myself that isn't true, he calls my good faith contribution "toxic and delusional" and that I am "degrading Wikipedia". These are the type of comments I get whenever am trying to solve a dispute on the talkpage which is why people could take this as a COI (if am using that correctly) and became a more serious issue then it should to be. --Vauxford (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * COI is different to WP:COI. That sounds silly but the addition of WP: references it to the encylopedia's take on conflict of interest. Editors above that mention COI (without the WP:) are talking about one's conflict of interest when it comes to one's own work. Of course we are going to be biased towards our own contributions, we're going to think that it's great and defend it (to the death for some, figuratively speaking). And this is where editors lose perspective. They get so caught up in defending their work, they get blinded to all else. They start seeing any sort of constructive commentary as attacks on their work, people pointing out areas for improvement become bullies, harassers or hounds (sometimes this is true but for the most part, people generally do act with the best for the project at heart, you know, good faith and all that) and round and round it goes. I mostly restrict myself to copy editing because I'm pretty confident in my writing skills (quite a few of the articles I've copy edited have gone on to pass GA and even 1! FA), but I always keep in mind that at the end of the day no matter how well I think I write, someone else will no doubt come along and improve it, and that's the take home message. Don't get too enamored with your contribution to the article. Blackmane (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * That looks like an IBAN violation, as does this [].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * as does this []. So in fact the pair of you have not taken a blind bit of notice of the IBAN, I would suggest a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait, I never had a IBAN from U1Quattro. That one done by Sable was revoked wasn't it? I know there was a IBAN propsoal between YBSone and U1Quattro but the one proposed by me and U1Quattro was revoked by a admin over some reason. I really wasn't aware the IBAN was official or not since it was done by Sable. Then he closed it and got reopened by a admin and it just got postponed. Then a separate IBAN was created based on the ANI U1Quattro created which I didn't get involved in. --Vauxford (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Was it, when? I see nothing on your talk page to indicate that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't retrieve the diffs where one of the admins reopen it because they all got suppressed over a unrelated incident. This is why users shouldn't close ANI because it confusing to know which of these mental barriers are active or not. --Vauxford (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ["two-way interaction ban implemented between you and U1Quattro.". I can find nothing that says this was overturned.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven] (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Because it got disputed and buried, how am I suppose to know if it in place or not? Unlike the second IBAN proposal where it was only towards U1Quattro and YSBone which was actually in place and the two already got a 2 week block for breaching it. --Vauxford (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected, the message on your talk page causes confusion and should have been removed. Its a shame the pair of you could not resist speaking to each other.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well this talk I had with them today was for once was a lot more friendlier then the others and we came to a agreement that the edits was fine. --Vauxford (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So why did you raise them here?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Because I presumed he jumped on the bandwagon from Charles01's ramble nonsense about me. I was just logging anything that is related to this incident I created and providing as much evidences and diffs as I can. --Vauxford (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Incident
This should be the last ANI I make about Charles01. You don't have to read through everything above but it would be helpful if you do. I feel like nothing has been done with this user, he is still harassing me whatever I do something. He made a hate page about me which got deleted, follow by him recreating it again follow by another delete. He has accused me of edit warring with the same bias argument that everything I do is a "vanity project". He accused me of sockpuppeting twice, one on his now deleted hate page about me and | on my talkpage.

All this determination of painting me as a disruptive, tendentious editor which I have no intention of doing. In case that one suggest a IBAN or something I did nothing to this user, this is very much one sided in spite of what I do on Wikipedia, choosing to scold and harass me rather then actually helping me to not be a "toxic", tendentious editor. Even after doing everything right when it comes to content dispute such as trying to solve it on the talkpage and made a RfC I still mess it all up, it looked easy when other users does it.

How is this person haven't get any form of consequences other then a slap on the wrist a couple of times on his talkpage. I thought accuasing someone of sockpuppeting with no valid evidence is taken very seriously and could easily defame someone's credibility as well as creating what you could call a "hate page" about with false facts. --Vauxford (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I deleted two of Charles01's subpages, at two different time intervals, because I felt they needed to be launched formally, rather than sit in userspace where they basically constitute an attack page. Vauxford, however, was advised by me last time not to be the one to add his own work to articles. This advise was not, however, subscribed to, as he, in fact, even reverted his own image back to an article today. An article, which, as a result of the ensuing edit war, I fully protected for a week. As I told Vauxford on my own talk page earlier, I just can't devote my full attention to this dispute at this time, so another admin should feel more than free to step in. Anyway, I thought a brief note was at least due, if only to enable the reader to somewhat navigate this long-standing dispute. El_C 21:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It might of been a image by me but that was the image that was part of the RfC and I thought a consensus was reached so I did the edit. Just because it was taken by me doesn't mean that I'm adding my own work to the article nor am I ignoring your advice. --Vauxford (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (puzzled frown)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What the point of trying to bring this to light because so bludgeoned to the point nobody is willing to sort this incident. The outcome of it is gonna be fruitless and this ever growing problem is just going to continue on. I just want to edit normally and learn as I go on here and make good relation with other users rather then hounded by scolding editors that live off on their reputation and how long they been on Wikipedia. --Vauxford (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford. Again.

 * See AN/I: Charles01 behaviour (June 4, 2019)
 * See AN/I: Charleso1 further harassment (today, above)
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

 * Vauxford has contributed to Wikpedia since the end of 2016.  He has also contributed under other names in the past.   I am not aware of any other wiki-identities he is currently using, however.


 * I have contributed to a large number of Wikipedia automobile articles over the years and then left most of those articles on my watch list.  That means (I suspect) that I am alerted to Vauxford edits more frequently than others who might be tempted to  read this.   A ringside seat.   My problem?   Indeed.


 * An appreciation of the scale of the "Vauxford Issues" would need many weeks of studying the Vauxford edit history.  It is not realistic (and would be seriously unkind) to wish that on anyone.   Nevertheless, here is the summary   Several things leap to the eye, depending, perhaps, on what you were expecting.   One thing that seems to have increased powerfully during 2019 is the weight of Vauxford contributions to talk pages.   (But there are several other very unusual features also.)   Although he plays a prominent role in so many talk pages, a flavour of Vauxford's attitudes to Wikipedia can by seen simply by consulting his own talk pages and as here.


 * In summary, Vauxford contributes according to his own rules: he robustly ignores suggestions, recommendations and pleas to contribute according to anyone else's rules.  He does not "do consensus".   It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he cheerfully treats Wikipedia with sustained contempt   The result is damage to Wikipedia in ways that play out both directly and indirectly, both in plain sight and invisibly.

Issues

 * Between December 2016 and June 2019 Vauxford uploaded 31,395 files to Wikpedia-Commons.  It's a lot.


 * As far as I can make out these were almost all pictures of cars.  In my opinion Vauxford has spent 30 months uploading all "his" pictures to Wikipedia-Commons without regard for whether they are (1) good, (2) more or less competent, (3) mediocre or (4) terrible.


 * During the past thirty months Vauxford has linked "his" images of cars - as in HIS OWN images of cars - to Wikipedia articles in between ten and twenty different language version of Wikipedia. Hard to believe?  Yes.   But page down on a few of these … if you’ve got the time to count the links to different Wikipedia pages on each one.   Well, maybe just a randomly selected sample….:1 2   3 4 5 6 7  89 10  11   12 13   14 15 16 17 18 19   20 21   22 23 24 25   26 27   28 29   30 31   32 33   3435   36   37   38   39   40      41   42     43 44   45   46   47   48   49      50   51   He has done this regardless of whether "his" picture is (2) more or less competent, (3) mediocre, or (4) terrible.   People familiar with these issues may very well have their own examples in mind.   There are lots.   (There must be a few (1) good “Vauxford pictures” in the mix too:  but these would not normally get noticed so much....)


 * Vauxford repeatedly indicates his belief that this behaviour is (1) normal and (2) not damaging.  I disagree.  Others disagree.    During June 2019 Vauxford invited and received a large amount of advice.  Almost all of the advice he has received has been, in my opinion, carefully considered and broadly sound.    (As in I agree with it!)
 * One contributor wrote: "... the way you're going about this is wrong. Both you and ____ should be putting your images on the Commons, then letting others decide how they ought to be best incorporated into WP."


 * A gentler soul pointed out that: "...it was always considered bad form to "push" ones own photos".


 * A third contributor, in response to one of those interminable Vauxford discussions, wrote: "Putting your own pics if there is a pic already is considered very impolite in all Wikipedias I guess."


 * Plenty more along the same lines. People may or may not agree with those pieces of advice.   Vauxford rejects them.


 * Sometimes someone dares to replace a "less than stellar image by Vauxford" with something better.  He reverts the edit.


 * People are becoming a little bit less accepting of Vauxford's behavior in this respect.  Partly this is because, in my judgment, his behavior is getting worse.   Sometimes, if still infrequently, he is persuaded to enter into a discussion on an article's talk page.   Or on an individual's talk page.  Or on an admin noticeboard of his choosing.   Or any and all of the foregoing.   He then strings the resulting discussions out with inconsistent (and, it appears to me, frequently phony) assertions, interlaced with abuse, in the hope that everyone else will lose the will to live, and go away.   Which we quite often do.   Where a clear consensus is reached he will ignore the consensus and reinsert HIS OWN picture anyway.   Where even Vauxford appears to have spotted the existence of a consensus, you can nevertheless go back to the page in question a couple of months later and find he has reinserted HIS OWN picture when no one was looking, and even where HIS OWN picture contains a significant number of characteristic and very basic errors.   Many people reading his will have examples of this already in their own minds.   But  here and  here  and  here  and  here  and  here and  here and  here  are elements from a few of the worst – mostly recent – ones.   (Check out how many ended up with “Vauxford SELF-LINKED” own images back where they were before it all started, after it all died down!)
 * Vauxford tells us that "other people" behave like this too.  The only other person in recent years to behave like this on anything approaching the same scale was EurovisionNim with whom Vauxford attempted to operate a quasi-monopolistic partnership during 2017/2018.   About a year ago Vauxford turned savagely against his former partner in crime, however:  their exchanges on one others' talk pages (and, it felt, everywhere else) became more and more ...  shrill.   About six months ago Vauxford launched one of his admin notice board attacks on EurovisionNim which led to EurovisionNim's exclusion from the project.   You might think that after this experience Vauxford's own behaviour would have become a little bit more mainstream.   In my judgement the precise opposite has happened.


 * Vauxford tells us that "other people" behave like this too.  It is the case that - albeit on a much more controlled scale - there are indeed more people who do this, apparently following the logic that if it's ok for Vauxford (and EurovisioNim) to link THEIR OWN pictures to wiki articles on cars, then it must be ok for everyone else.   There is indeed a certain logic there.   However, none of these “other people" links their own pictures to Wikipedia entries on anything approaching the industrial scale which Vauxford thinks "normal".   And, just as importantly, these "other people" seem to recognise the difference between a competent picture of a car and a terrible picture of a car.   So where they do, on occasion, upload THEIR OWN images .... most of the time no one much notices.   (Though some of us still wish they wouldn't do it …. except, perhaps, in some of the more egregious cases created by Vauxford actions.)


 * Arrogance.  Am I not being monstrously arrogant myself in sharing my opinion that most of the >31,000 pictures that Vauxford has uploaded to wiki-commons, including most of the pictures that he has linked to wiki entries in our various language versions, are of a quality that lies somewhere between  "more or less competent" and "terrible"?   Yes I am.   Or rather, yes, but .....   I would prefer that people form and share their own opinions of the quality of all those Vauxford pictures.   I hate signs of arrogance when I see them in others and I hate it if I see them in myself.   That's one of the reasons I hesitated so long before drafting up this summary.   But we are all here to try and make Wikipedia better, or at least to try and prevent it from becoming worse.   That's what we do here.  And that is the best answer I can think of just now to the accusation of arrogance.


 * So isn't picture quality purely a matter of opinion?  In my judgement, yes: but only up to a point.   Vauxford's actions over the last few months mean that a large number of people, most of whom would normally tell you they had better things to worry about, have found themselves prodded into offering an opinion on the quality of a picture that Vauxford has uploaded and then HIMSELF linked to one or more Wikipedia articles.   By the law of simple averages you might expect that roughly fifty per cent of those contributors would have shared the opinion that the Vauxford picture under discussion was at least competent, or to use a word Vauxford likes to use a  lot, "fine".   (A couple of weeks back Vauxford even announced that I had written that I thought a picture he had uploaded and then himself linked was "fine":  this was incorrect.)   The striking thing is that not one of the people who has been sucked, by Vauxford, into one of his interminable "discussions" about a picture he has uploaded and himself linked, has come up with an unqualified endorsement for the Vauxford picture under discussion.  Not one.   There are one or two places where people have indicated that one of those Vauxford self-linked images looked like the least bad option available, but only in the context of apparent agreement (an apparent agreement excluding Vauxford, of course) that someone somewhere needs to find something better.   Ringing endorsements based on the quality of a Vauxford self-linked picture - any Vauxford picture - are vanishingly hard to find.   I think that's the best answer I can manage to the thought that picture quality is purely a matter of opinion.   However, in the interests of balance it is worth adding that on those relatively rare occasions when he does not simply avoid directly addressing the issue, Vauxford's explanation is quite different.   He believes that everyone is “piling in” against him.   Starting, I think, if he will be reading this, with me.  But even if you are tempted by the idea that there might sometimes be an element of truth in this, you are still taken back to the question of why Vauxford's behaviour attracts adverse reactions from so many normally level-headed Wikipedia contributors?


 * So maybe I need to spell it out.  I am not against Vauxford.   As far as I can make out no one is against Vauxford.   I am reasonably sure he’s able to be a charming fellow in real life.   But yes, I am against a lot of what Vauxford does to Wikipedia.   I hope that was clear enough.


 * Despite his apparent lack of self-control on so many talk pages and administrator notice-boards, Vauxford generally manages to avoid discussion of his own behaviour.  But someone recently managed to extract the following comment during one of his outbursts on an Admin Noticeboard discussion:  "...I'm not getting paid to do these edits or doing it out of my interest. I know that hard to believe but that's the truth and I understand why people mistake that..." (sic).   This is reassuring on one level, but also revealing of Vaixford's attitude to himself (and - apparently several notches down on his list of priorities - to Wikipedia).


 * Without wishing in any way to downplay the more collegiate qualities that Vauxford could presumably display if he wanted to, I do not think we and all the others he has caught up in this should be devoting so much of our time and energy to Vauxford's behaviour.  Back in the Wikipedia mainstream there is content to be created and built upon.


 * Of course it is still entirely open to anyone reading this to come along and tell us about Vauxford self-linked pictures they have found which they believe to be just "fine".  I, too, think some of Vauxford’s pictures are competent and some of them – not too many, but maybe this is more a matter of taste – are quite good.   Everyone is entitled to share an opinion.   Every opinion deserves to be respected and evaluated.   On the other hand, if you now tell us you think most of Vauxford’s SELF-LINKED “own” pictures are just “fine”,  you might find yourself gently asked why you didn't mention it earlier.....  - because these "Vauxford Issues" have become pretty high-profile lately.   He repeatedly pushes himself up the Wikipedia agenda in ways which I for one find very very odd.   He cannot be faulted for any lack of wiki-stamina.

Impact

 * The most directly visible impact of the Vauxford project is a loss of quality on a large and growing number of Wikipedia automobile pages.  Vauxford's OWN PICTURES which he insists on linking on a massive scale can charitably be described (and in some cases were described) as "less than stellar".    Less charitably, many are pretty dire.


 * The quality of the Wikipedia automobile project is also diminished by the uniformity of the Vauxford pictures.   He has picked up on approximately three of the ten or twenty things to consider when photographing cars, and then applies them as rigid mantras, regardless of where he has found himself (and the car) and without pausing to apply his judgement to all the other things that conventionally careful photographers would normally take into consideration.   So there’s a level of uniformity which you may find reassuring and which you may find dismal.   Rather depends, I suggest, on the quality of the pictures.  The images over which he goes to war are almost all produced in a small corner of central England not celebrated for its beauty spots.   They almost all feature the same sort of (in my personal opinion badly judged) background.  They almost all suffer from poor judgement in respect of (1) lighting, (2) angle and (3) reflections.   There are no magic solution, but there are one or two quite simple steps that he could take to improve matters.   Sadly, we have established that one thing Vauxford does not find himself able to take is advice.


 * Where someone dares to remove SELF LINKED Vauxford picture with a better picture, Vauxford reacts by launching a lengthy and soul destroying edit war.  To him it would appear that for someone to replace a SELF LINKED Vauxford picture is the same thing as a profoundly intrusive attack on everything that matters on Planet Earth.   I cannot believe he reacts to disagreement like this in real life:  he would surely not have got away with it.   But he seems unable to display his better side when he switches on the computer and comes along to make his contributions on Wikipedia.   Quite often the result is that an inferior SELF LINKED Vauxford picture remains in place for longer than it needs to or should.   Much longer.   The price, again, is one paid in terms of Wikipedia quality.


 * Everything has a life cycle.  Trilobites.   Zoroastrianism.   Soviet hegemony.   Western Liberal Democracy(?).  Jelly beans(?).   In my judgment Wikipedia's life cycle is running its course with alarming rapidity.   More rapidity than, ten years ago, we would reasonably have foreseen.   Is the first burst of imaginative innovation and enthusiasm even now beginning to give way to middle-aged drift?   And then stagnation and then ... what?   There are certainly other overlapping information providers out there who envy Wikipedia's popularity and reputation: They want a piece of that cake for themselves.   Their presentation is often slicker and their strategy is better funded.   And their commitment to truth?   I believe the Vauxford wars that Vauxford launches, when the most destructive elements of the Vauxford Project meet with resistance, encourage editors to reduce the amount of time and effort they devote to the Automobiles entries.   They may hang around and work on other corners of Planet Wikipedia.   Or they may wander off and give up on Wikipedia entirely.   Although there are lots of people who have contributed something on Wikipedia, the proportion who hang around for a reasonable length of time, and use that time to make constructive contributions, trying to work collaboratively, in order make Wikipdia better, is vanishingly small.   I have a strong impression that the automobiles project is suffering a steady reduction in the number of those people trying to build the thing and maintain its quality.   And there is a compounding reduction in the number of hours dedicated by the editors who remain to engage in competent content creation.   No doubt there are people trying to produce meaningful statistics on all this stuff (though maybe only globally, rather than on a project by project basis).   Either way, no contributors: no Wikipedia.   And I am sure that Vauxford's behaviour has driven people away and will drive away more people.   How far you agree with that is, of course, likely to depend (1) on the extent of your own experience of Vauxford's warring, (2) your personal reaction to it and (3) private discussions, taking place, outside the Wikipedia bubble, with friends.   But I do not think you can simply conclude that because something is difficult or impossible to measure, it must not exist or at least cannot be said to matter.


 * Of course most Wikipedia contributors are occasional contributors who never get to the point of becoming serious contributors of useful content for more than a few weeks.  They stop by, correct a couple of typoes, mention something important that everyone else ignored in a couple of entries, and take a look around.   They check out a few talk pages and one or two entries in more detail.   In the case of automobile entries, they come across one or two Vauxford contributions on talk pages and edit histories.   (The Vauxford contributions tend to stand out for various reasons.)   Those casual visitors are all potentially serious committed contributors.   But if you were one of those people and you came across manifestations of the Vauxford project, you might very well decide that Wikipedia really wasn't the sort of place where you wanted to "stick around".


 * If it is difficult to provide meaningful statistical analysis of the (vanishingly small) proportion of occasional Wikipedia contributors who then become more permanent, it is completely impossible to give a figure for the number of people who might have taken one look at what Vauxford does to Wikipedia and decided that it's not even worthwhile to register as a contributor.  Impossible to measure what isn't there.   But that doesn't mean it's not a problem.   "If you can't measure what happened in the past you can't do anything about where it will lead in the future" may be put forward as a realistic mantra for one or two undistinguished politicians, but it nevertheless ignores massive chunks of what matters in life.   And of course, with the Vauxford project, there's a knock-on reputational impact affecting even people who (1) have never looked at a Wikipedia automobile entry or even (2) have never (yet) consulted Wikipedia about anything.   Reputational damage, once it sets in, can be awfully long lasting and difficult to correct.   Especially if you think Wikipedia's early success has left it with a high profile and powerful enemies.


 * Vauxford has made himself a star of the admin noticeboards.  He seems to be a bit of a natural.   Not necessarily in a good way.   Vauxford hates to be ignored.   We all need recognition and reassurance, and Vauxford seems to have figured that the admin noticeboards are a good place to go and look for it.   He has been rewarded with large amounts of advice from Admins and from others who follow those noticeboard discussions.   I guess you would expect Admins to come in a range of shapes and sizes and to be supported with a wide range of different background beliefs.   But they all appear to believe in Wikipdia.   Many of them have taken significant amounts of time to look at what Vauxford has written on those noticeboards, check out the many links he has kindly included in his ... um ... verbals, form a view of a matter, and come back with a careful response.   (Presumably there have been plenty more - Admins and others - who have also taken wiki-time in order to evaluate carefully some part of the Vauxford verbals on the notice boards, and then concluded that there's nothing they can think of that they could usefully add.    But they will have taken time and mental space to think about it.   Wiki-time and wiki-mental space.)   Vauxford's admin noticeboard contributions are particularly time consuming, because where he doesn't get the reaction he had hoped for and the discussion slides off into the noticeboard archive, he solemnly digs it out and pastes it back on the admin noticewboard.   Where, again (as in for a second time) he doesn't get the reaction he had hoped for, and the discussion quietly (as in again) sides off into the noticeboard archive, he digs it out.   Again.  And puts it back.   Charming or what?   He has also told us about a case where, failing to get the reaction he hoped for, he "pinged" an individual Admin whose response, he thought, might be to his liking.      Vauxford has only told us about energising his harrassment by pinging an Admin behind the scenes (as far as I have noticed) once during recent weeks.   But for those of us reduced to a certain level of paranoia where Vauxford is doing what he does, it necessarily raises questions about how far he may have been contacting other Admins behind the scenes in support of His Project.  (If he has, and as far as I can tell, those Admins whom he has approached have quite correctly refused to involve themselves.)   So, does it - should it - matter that Vauxford takes so much time - his and lots of other folks’ - doing his stuff on the admin noticeboards?   Well, I reckon some – one hopes many - of those Admins are among Wikipedia's more experienced and more committed contributors.   They do what they do on the noticeboards because they think that is an important way to make Wikipedia better and / or to stop it getting worse.   But when they're not doing admin stuff, it's a reasonable assumption that most of them will be providing content on subject pages.   Subject pages are at the heart of what Wikipedia is about.   All those admin noticeboards and the talk pages on which Vauxford spends so much of all our time are valuable only because they support content creation.   Treating them as freestanding outlets for what's on your mind really is a waste and an abuse.   Many Admins must be tempted to think that they should be able to work more usefully by providing more content, and by taking less time doing "admin stuff".   Well, Admins often resign, citing just those reasons.   Who would blame them?   Does this paragraph look a bit creepy on this page?   Well yes, to me it does.   But I still think it belongs in a summary of the cost to Wikipedia of what Vauxford does.   So I leave it in.


 * Rereading that, it looks as though I think the most important people for Wikipedia are its contributors.  That's completely wrong, of course.    The most important people are the readers.   Sure, some of those folks also become contributors, (including, I guess, anyone reading this).   But if you separate out those two groups, it is the readers who will make or break Wikipedia's influence and status and, in the longer term, survival.   That's an important part of why quality and reputation matter.  And that is why, if you think Vauxford's desperately bizarre and unconventional package of contributions to Wikipedia damages Wikipedia (I do), then you maybe shouldn't want to run away from the thought that these Vauxford issues matter.

Solutions

 * It would be incomplete to summarize the problem, as I have, without addressing the question of solutions.  I do not have a monopoly of wisdom.   Self evidently.   But that is not a reason to run away from trying to identify some possibilities.   Others may very well have better ideas.


 * We may take time to drill down into the evidence and decide that almost all the pictures Vauxford uploads and then HIMSELF LINKS are just "fine".   We may think his edit warring across and beyond the entries and the talk pages is just "fine".   Or even, as he repeatedly insists, we may decide that Vauxford doesn't do edit-warring any more.  Or at least we may conclude that Vauxford is a very special individual with very special personal needs, and Wikipdia is here to accommodate them.   Any other response would be ungenerous and mean.   Maybe we think Vauxford's behaviour will change if we just sit back and watch.   Well, some of those responses are perfectly natural.  But in my judgment this solution puts the feelings of Vauxford ahead of the preserving the quality and promoting the development of Wikipedia.   I don't think that correctly reflects why we came here in the first place.


 * We accept there are problems with Vauxford behaviour, but, well, we sit back and watch.  And maybe over time we find ourselves spending less time on contributing to Wikipedia.   Wikipedia becomes a personal "spectator sport".  Again, perfectly understandable.   But what if it just goes on?   Which I think it would.   There is now a large historical body of evidence.   The trend of it all looks remarkably linear from here.


 * Vauxford has taken exceptional measures to make himself the star of the show.  Perhaps he will now step back and evaluate all the excellent advice has received, not in the context of his personal project; but in the context in which all the people providing the advice mostly operate most of the time.   The context is Wikipedia.   So Vauxford stops linking HIS OWN pictures to Wikipedia entries on cars.   He stops launching toxic month long edit wars when someone dares to replace one of his "less than stellar" images.   The problem?   Does Vauxford think there's a Vauxford Problem?   Can the leopard change his spots?   Well yes, such things happen.   And from many perspectives this will be the best solution.   Though of course it does nothing to address the destructive impact on quality already inflicted on so many automobile articles, and it does nothing to address the impact of Vauxford behaviour on Wikipedia behaviour more widely.   But that has become a long-term problem:  it is not realistic to expect a short-term cure.


 * We might require Vauxford to transform his behaviour as indicated in the previous paragraph.  Might work.


 * Vauxford himself is not too big on respecting the personal feelings of other contributors.  Nevertheless, maybe we should still be going out of our way to respect the personal feelings of Vauxford.   He regularly comes across, in some ways, as an extraordinarily sensitive soul.   How far should we go in respecting Vauxford's personal feelings?   Maybe this far:  maybe we should require that NO ONE should link THEIR OWN pictures to Wikipedia articles on automobiles.   It is something (if you leave Vauxford out of the mix) that would leave most of the people contributing to automobile articles and others reading this unaffected because they don't do anyway.   Or we don't do it very much.   So this is not a solution that, for most of us, imposes widespread changes in behaviour.  In most ways it simply takes us back to somewhere near where we were before Vauxford came along.   You can object that it would be a little “over the top” to impose a rule on every contributor in order to deal with the behaviour of just one very exceptional individual.   But I still think that, in the absence of anything else that works, this one deserves to be considered seriously.   Of course, it leaves wikipedia stake holders on the other 19 (or whatever) language versions who are also afflicted by Vauxford issues to fend for themselves.   Not sure hos that should work.


 * Other suggestions?

Background
Some people have seen (a version of) this report before. That’s because Vauxford generously “outed” it from my “sandbox” on 2 July 2019.

He did it in the context of a personal attack which he launched on an Administrators' noticeboard on 4 June 2019 (and has now managed to sustain for more than a month). In the end a surprisingly large number of people responded to his … submissions. If you already took part in that discussion, thank you. Although the Vauxford invective, on this occasion, was targeted against me, I found myself in the slightly surreal position of agreeing with virtually all the reactions that people took time out to share on the noticeboard.

This (above) report is NOT a direct reply to Vauxford’s Administrators' noticeboard submissions. He has received plenty of replies from others: most of those are far more succinct than I could manage. Even if he does not seem to like them. (And from what I have seen of his behavior in Wikipedia, he likes to be ignored even less, so at least in that sense I am sure that he, too, is grateful to all those who took the trouble both to read and to reply to his Administrators' noticeboard submissions.)

So, since you’re reading this, I think you probably looked at the report preceding it. Thank you. I am sorry it is still longer than I’d like. Possibly not all easy reading. As in still unfinished and still too long. But after Vauxford outed it on the Administrators’ noticeboard and then kept snooping on successive versions of it in my sandbox and bleating about the existence of the copy in my sandbox to a hapless Admin on his personal talk page, I have been urged simply to paste it here, finished or not! (And I’m too fed up with the whole Vauxford thing to relish spending yet another month thinking about Vauxford’s wiki-behavior.  So thank you for that powerful prod, El C.)

If you will (and/or already did), thank you for any reactions you are willing and able to share on these matters.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * After finding out Charles01's hefty paragraph about me. I had no choice to defend myself from the amount of exaggeration he is putting about me and facts he trying to make out that are simply not true. For starters. I have not uploaded "31,395 files". I have actually uploaded about 8000 files/photos, it still a lot but not the amount that Charles01 is putting as, what those numbers are is the total amount of "edits" I have done on the Commons, that includes (Uploading images, changing/editing categories, creating new versions of a existing image, talkpage discussions, editing description on my photos) and much more. I have taken people advice such as the ones you quoted and it the reason why I have stopped putting images into other Wikipedia languages and is sticking to contribution my native Wikipedia. I had never rejected them. I admit the stuff I did such as reverting people's edits and replacing a image when the consensus presumed settled, the one he particularly mentioning the Audi Q3 talkpage discussion. I personally oppose this one because of the fact he put a lot of emotions and personal approach towards me rather talking about the picture itself which is why I added a similar image back, regardless it was of wrong of me to do so.


 * The reason why most of my contribution recently is on talk pages because I got blocked for a day for edit warring and to prevent in the future I take any concern and dispute onto the talk page which most of time works with both me and the other party solve it without grudges | such as here and even thank the person who opposed my picture. Looking back on the talkpage, the ones I got involved or started that went out of control or heated is when Charles01 gets involved with his personal remarks and grudge about me as a person rather then what we are discussing on the talkpage.


 * After several talks with admins and uninvolved users I have slowly stopped doing my old habits such as pushing my pictures onto other Wikipedias. Although it doesn't harm for me to replace a picture when I truly think need a improved version and if people oppose I take it to the talkpage, the problem with that Charles01 pretty much follows me about and insert one of his lengthy paragraphs with 20% about what we are discussing and 80% saying how much of a terrible user I am which is why stuff I shown on the ANI about Charles01 looks worst then they look when they shouldn't be.


 * The way Charles01 implying it going to take forever for people looking back my edits like I'm hiding something sinister. I'm not hiding anything and I already put out my bad sports onto the ANI about him because I'm happy to admit when I'm in the wrong. The reason why people don't often defend my pictures is just simply how it is but sometimes I think people oppose to anything pictures taken by me or stuff I do simply because it by me (that how I feel about it), quite a few people have added picture taken by me that I didn't get involved in and in fact there a few Wikipedias who favours my picture over the others, they don't need to show that directly but can also be indirectly.


 * His part where he thinks I have no consideration or quality control over my pictures is simply not true. I make sure all pictures is overall good not just to me but to others, I wouldn't upload a photo of a car if it has severe case of reflection or rust, missing or aftermarket parts, been damaged in any way, being blurry or noisy and many other factors. His point about me talking onto another user's talkpage (including him) is simply me wanting advice or at least help me what I'm doing wrong. Charles01 rudely take my plead and dump it onto my talkpage like it isn't his responsibility when it about something he brought up in the first place.


 * EurovisionNim has been here much longer then I am and a the stuff he did during his time, a small portion of it is automobiles, he tried to take on several fields and subjects such as buildings and buses etc. When I made that ANI speaking against his behaviour I was surprised just to see the amount of unhappy users speaking against him about the edits he did back in 2014-2015. The reason he retired wasn't solely because of the stuff happened in the Automobile Project but his previous edits back in his early days and his sockpuppeting issues.


 * "That's why quality and reputation matter" I personally disagree with this and having that mentality is how user pyramid schemes are created. The big lengthy "Impact" section he done is about stuff such as assumptions that I don't get my own way with things, again not true. The reason why I brought up the ANI I created once or twice because literally no responded and the bot on their kept archiving it and I rather not want to retype all the things I said all over again so I thought it be better to put back in, I didn't do that because I wanted reaction that suit my liking, I wanted responds, advice and help over this situation. The fact he is making (or implying) accusation that I been canvassing admins "behind the scene" is beyond unacceptable. The rest he said on it is just overall overthinking nonsense, scenarios and assumption he going through his head that simply doesn't exist. The massive passage he written just shows the sheer determination to run me off the road because he doesn't like what I do, rather then helping or advising me, he just scolds and make me feel "small" compare to him until they lose their sanity and end up doing something scandalous enough to have a good reason for them to be permanently sanctioned. As I mention in one of the earlier talkpage discussion with him, I described his behaviour and how he approach me is mutual to that of a "bully", at first I sorta regret describing him that and thought he still has good morals towards me but as shown recently, that clearly not the case and just supports my summary about him as a person.


 * With seeing Charles01 determination to paint me as the bad guy worries me. I already feel alienated and people doesn't seem to like me as it is and I really want to mend that with as many people that I have upset and this paragraph could be the end of me. I can cope with the fact people might disagree with my edits and I'm willing to discuss it on the talkpage in a friendly manner. Being called a "delusional and toxic" person and being accused of "degrading Wikipedia" and "edit warring" wherever I try to be civil for the past 6 months gets you quite down, it makes you feel crap, makes you feel like your enthusiasm towards something you love meaningless, I have absolutely no intention of being disprutive on here, I am not on here to create some sort of "Car pictures empire" or "personal vanity project" rubbish, I just really want to try and improve articles by providing content for both existing and new and upcoming cars in the coming years. --Vauxford (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Another thing, him pointing out that in the past (I don't do this anymore) that I linked pictures taken by me on other Wikipedias. Another user, Alexander93 who is mostly active on the German Wikipedia does the very same thing who got involved in some of these dispute and nobody even bat a eye on this user despite all this
 * Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias:


 * To me this is a example of becoming a scapegoat, if I'm going get sanctioned for what Charles01 is outing then why this user isn't getting the same amount of hassle and harassment I been getting? --Vauxford (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary request

 * I don't plan on commenting on this, but both of you should try to give a four sentence maximum explanation of what you think is going on, with less than 10 diffs, if you want anyone to read this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, Charles01 doesn't like my pictures which I been adding and editing over the years. I tried to get rid of my bad habits but get harassed by him and making baseless accusation about me such as edit warring and sockpuppting. In the past I have resolved content dispute with other users with some ease other then from no less then 2 users. For the past 6+ months he been trying to oust me out for both my edits and mistakes I done when I haven't done the same thing towards him except when I tried to resolve this on ANI which made me feel the feud is one-sided. I also believe Charles01 has been treating me unfair because another user done the same habit that he condemning me for with no repercussions. --Vauxford (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tony, Charles01, the part of your complaint I read was eloquent but every editor's time is limited and with all of the activities they can do, few if no people will devote the time it takes to digest your long complaint. Can you sum it up in a paragraph with a couple of diffs? Then, you can respond to questions people pose with more information. But, as it stands, I doubt that any admin will take action on your case because it would be so time-consuming to read all of the history of the dispute you go into and consider the merits of both sides. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes...have to agree with Liz. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A path forward
I actually read about 80% of the excessively lengthy original post by and skimmed the rest of it. Study and emulate Ernest Hemingway's writing style before posting on talk pages again, Charles01. Be succinct. Your report was dramatically verbose. Charles01 is also wrong in asserting that no editor who takes a photo and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons should be allowed to add that photo to a relevant Wikipedia article. I do that all the time. So, I will disclose that I have uploaded about 56 car and motorcycle photos to Commons, and added many of them to articles. I have done the same thing with photos of buildings, art objects, natural features and portraits of notable people. The cars and motorcycles I photograph are rare and unusual, because those are the type of photos we need 18 years into this project. Similarly for my other photos of unusual or rare things. I am trying to improve the encylopedia, not promote my own photos.

But what I have never done is add one of my mediocre photos to an article illustrated by a similar but better photo. If any editor objected to inclusion of any of my photos (which has been rare), I have not pressed the matter. I step aside. Though I am proud to have helped illustrate various articles, especially when the article previously lacked an image, I am not trying to push or promote my own photos.

The evidence presented ad nauseum by Charles01 actually indicates that has a different attitude and a very strong motivation to include his own photos in as many articles as possible, even if an article is already well-illustrated. That behavior is disruptive, as shown by the several ANI threads that show that many editors see Vauxford's behavior as controversial and problematic, as well as many other lengthy conversations at other venues. Vauxford is free to upload their photos to Wikimedia Commons, following that project's policies and guidelines. I propose the following narrowly crafted topic ban: Vauxford is topic banned from adding their own photographs to any article which already contains an image. Vauxford may propose adding one of their images on the talk page of any such article, and if clearcut consensus emerges, another editor can add that image to the article. Vauxford's participation in such talk page discussions will be limited to his original statement and responsive answers to direct questions asked by other editors.

Both editors are strongly advised to be succinct in the future. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A good start. Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. That was pretty much my earlier advise to Vauxford, to which sadly they did not adhere. I can see making that mandatory as a way forward, also. El_C 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment.  But I did, all those things that I did do it been done way before these ANI has happened and I had stopped by then. Charles01 always make any sentence extremely lengthy. Please at least look at what I put again. I'm not a disruptive person and I'm not doing it to promote my pictures. Stop trying to think I haven't listened to any of you because I had. A lot of the things he said in that lengthy paragraph isn't true. I haven't uploaded 31k photos nor am I promoting them.  --Vauxford (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mention above, you reverted back to your own image earlier today. And due to the ensuing edit war, I was forced to protect the article. Today. Why are you making me repeat this? El_C 06:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Because that was my mistake, I didn't fully understood how RfC works. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, okay. But mistakes have consequences. You were advised (by me, way back) to not add your own images to articles, but to propose them on talk pages instead. It now looks like you will be forced to adhere to something similar. That's just the way it is. El_C 07:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely my last time I revert something I promise, just please see where I'm coming from my own defence. --Vauxford (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't who I am, Charles01 is describing me far worst then I actually am. I admit, I thought using your own photos on articles was the way to go based off other editors. But I know that isn't the way of things and gets very problematic, and I am willing to listen and change who I am. You don't have to conclude to a topic ban so quickly. This is what I been fearing the most and it can't turn out this way already. --Vauxford (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These recent comments call 's competence to edit Wikipedia into question. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're objecting so strenuously. If there's no image, you may add your own. If there is already an image, you may use the talk page to propose adding your own instead. Seems perfectly sensible to me. El_C 07:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So you think I'm just some disruptive mong as Charles01 been painting me as for the rest of time? It shouldn't have to end like this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a mong is, but you should be thanking Cullen328 for taking the time to parse thorough your dispute and proposing a resolution that, to me, just makes sense. El_C 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But a topic ban doesn't has to be the way, there better ways of doing this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's kinda coming across as if you're too fixated on this being a topic ban, but the substance of the restriction is what matters. El_C 07:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But you and  is concluding this based off Charles01 testimony which is consist mostly of jargon and exaggeration of who I am. Barely anything related to my defence was mentioned and more of focusing more on what he said. --Vauxford (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are testing my patience, Vauxford, by being mostly non responsive. El_C 07:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I too have never heard nor read the word "mong" but I am from California which has its own jargon. I have tried to craft a reasonable and narrow topic ban,. If that does not succeed, I think the time will come quite soon when an indefinite block for you will be on the table. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What!? No no no you that isn't what I mean. How am I making this worst? I'm just trying to see the best solution for this and not to jump to a conclusion so quickly. "Mong" just means someone who a complete idiot. --Vauxford (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is now time for other editors to comment. I will respond to direct questions but will make no other new comments on this matter. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But it isn't who I am, that the thing. I feel my defence (which is far shorter and brief then Charles01 lengthy paragraph) hasn't even been read. --Vauxford (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what the word "mong" means, and if I ever see you use it again you're immediately indefblocked. What the hell is wrong with you? &#8209; Iridescent 07:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Cullen's solution. Since Vauxford seems to say that is what they will do anyway having it formalised shouldn't be much of a hardship. That it is a point of such contention demonstrates that formalising it will be a good thing, both for the avoidance of doubt and the avoidance of further contention. I also second Cullen's wise advice on brevity, and, like Iri, I come from a place where that other word has, unfortunately, long been in (ab)use, and I also strongly advise you to avoid its use ever again on wikipedia, even when you might believe you are using it self-deprecatingly. -- Begoon 07:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe "mong" wasn't the best word of choice. But in the UK, we mostly use that word to describe someone as just stupid. --Vauxford (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only the ignorant and stupid use that word in the UK. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I might as well shut up then. Since everything I'm trying to say is just pissing everyone off. Even though that wasn't my intention. --Vauxford (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I get it now. "Mong" is a slur against people with Down syndrome. For 30 years, I have been the father of a young man with developmental delays, and he has been educated and trained with quite a few young people with Down syndrome. What delightful loving people they are! Far better than many "normal" people. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Off-topic, but from my own (slightly less close, but very real...) experiences I can confirm that evaluation. That's why I, and others, react as we do to the term. -- Begoon 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's what it means?(!) What, are we in the fuckin dark ages? El_C 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew mong was a slang used in senior school but I didn't know it was used for someone who has down syndrome. I would never of used it otherwise. I'm terribly sorry about that. --Vauxford (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a disability myself related to social skills and communication, which I rather not say, but for christ sake you guys are getting more pissed over what I ignorantly said rather then the entire ANI. I'm sincerely sorry for using that and I used it in my own ignorance which I have learnt the origin of. Please don't let that hinder the proposal and who I am as a person. --Vauxford (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about your disability, but WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Support. Adding your own photos is not something I think should be forbidden universally, but your limited ability to judge your photos objectively and tenacious defence of some quite poor photos in the past makes me think that this is the best way to avoid further disruption. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Bloody hell, never post another thread on any noticeboard as long-winded as this. A beefy para and ten well-selected diffs would have done the job. I'll never get that time back. Cullen's idea is a workable response to tendentious image-pushing and should also eliminate the edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment So that's it for me, huh. I always knew this day will come. I did say that I have stopped the image pushing, but being unable to add pictures on ALL articles and need someone to do it for me. I highly doubt people will have a clean positive conesus over my proposal anyway because I'm simply annoying. This is basically a kinder way for me to be unable post images all round, and removing one basic ability and right will make almost anyone give up contributing, losing all motivation lost from these sanctions due to their reckless mistake.

If this sanction going to be put in place. I still find it completely unfair that another user like me has been doing the very same thing for the same amount of time. Despite that, Charles01 and the rest of you has blanetly ignored his behaviour and actions and even at some moment supported him, especially in the Audi Q3 talk page. You might of sanctioned me but there still a user roaming doing the EXACT same thing that is "degrading" Wikipedia. Like I used to, each time he upload a batch of images, he would find every possibilities of using his image over someone else's on every Wikipedia article he could find which I happily provided diffs for near the top of this ANI. is that very person, so if you gonna remove "problematic editors" that are apparently damaging Wikipedia as Charles01 put it, then you need to do all of us rather then just a single user with a big mouth and call it a day. --Vauxford (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Vauxford - I've edited and uploaded thousands of images to wikipedia and Commons, for people at the Graphics labs, and just in general. Only very rarely would I add an image I've created or improved to an article - I generally leave that to the article's editors, unless they ask me to do it. If the images are suitable, they will be included - if they are not, they won't. That's the way it is. If I got upset every time an image I'd created or improved was removed from, or not added to, an article I'd have given it all up years ago. I don't, because I enjoy the work, and it's not important to me that sometimes it's not used in the way I would have liked, or at all. You'll need a thicker skin than you're demonstrating here, I'm afraid. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do have a thick skin and I had in the past and to this day let user decide what image to use and have done with mine anyway, I did got a little impatience and I thought it was right sinceother editors done it before, but as I could see clear as day, it isn't.. But that isn't what am demonstrating here, what I am demonstrating is there going to be justice then it need to be done fairly, leaving no stones unturned. I'm concern that they won't take this user in consideration and let him run scot-free doing the same thing you guys are trying to sanction me for. You got one, get the other. --Vauxford (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think another editor is editing against policy, or otherwise unacceptably, then you can start a section to discuss them and make your case. It may or may not be successful, it may even just be seen as sour grapes, I don't know because I haven't examined the details, but it has no real influence on discussions of, or remedies imposed because of, your own behaviour, and this is not really the place to raise it, unless you believe it has a direct impact on this discussion of your own behaviour, and trying to blame other people for your own faults rarely goes down well here (I'm not saying that is what you are doing, just why other users' behaviour probably isn't very relevant here). -- Begoon 11:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It very well relevant to all this because there a large possibility that I have inevitably influenced him to think that is right doing these problematic editing and I'm the cause of normalising it. Does it look like am blaming someone for my own action? No. I owe up these mistake but Alexander should of known earlier that this style edit is leads to problems yet he has continue doing it and doing it without anyone hounding him everywhere he go. --Vauxford (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support If Vauxford were truly committed to voluntarily complying with the terms of the proposed topic ban, then he wouldn't be objecting so strenuously to having it implemented. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose with condition It is possible that Vauxford is just being overly defensive regarding this Tban and feels they aren't being heard. While they aren't being contrite they seem to claim they are willing to comply. I certainly can understand that it would be frustrating to be told you have any type of special restriction if you know in your heart you aren't going to violate that restriction. My feeling is, per WP:ROPE close this with a warning that returning to the old ways will result in a Tban and that any future complaint can point to this discussion and swiftly enact a Tban. Springee (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm quite remorseful for what I did, which is why I'm being overly defencive about this TBAN because I know I can change and not have this old habit again, it kinda hard to show it with text. But I do genuinely feel that my voice isn't being heard, I tried to make them look at it different and read what I been saying but it seem everyone has already concluded that they want me sanctioned. --Vauxford (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support with addition that Charles01 is cautioned to avoid any personal comments to or about Vauxford, directly or indirectly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Schazjmd  (talk)  14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Cullen's proposal. It would not prevent Vauxford from putting (rather letting other editors put) his good photos into articles where they would make a good contribution (may it be that there is no photo yet or that his photo is unarguably better than the existing one). Charles has described the "typical Vauxford picture problems" (may I use this term?), which I reckon Vauxford may not have understood in every aspect. This wouldn't be a big problem if he listened to the advice other editors give and have given; if a TBAN forces Vauxford to choose the pics he proposes carefully, then he might learn how to improve his pics' quality, and how to improve his behaviour. Therefore, I recommend not making this an indefinite TBAN. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Cullens solution - This has dragged on for long enough, Admittedly I used to participate in Vauxfords RFCs however the continued squabbling between these 2 made participations boring and I got rather fed up of being dragged in the squabbles, Anyway I support Cullens well thought out solution. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Having looked at MJLs diffs IMHO Charles should be warned to pack the comments in but I don't believe he deserves warranting a topicban atleast not at this stage in time. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if there's a heaven Cullen's going there. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of his skink. They make great pets. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I buy Finnan haddie in California, ? I would love to try that fish dish. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, if you're in the Bay Area try Mollie Stones who certainly used to sell it in their larger branches—otherwise you should be able to get it delivered on Amazon. Don't expect too much; there's a reason it's been completely eclipsed by kippers. &#8209; Iridescent 07:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very popular in Cincinnati at one time, I think. I'll try and have a quiet word with Audrey. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The way I see this is we have two editors: one is immature (Vauxford) while the other is aggressive (Charles01). The problem is not as simple as Vauxford disruptively adding their own images to articles. If Charles01 was not unnecessarily hostile towards Vauxford, I doubt we would be here. It's pretty clear to me that if nothing is said about Charles's battleground behavior, we are only going to be encouraging it. I'd be willing to support this T-Ban if it was paired with a one-way IBAN on Charles. That way, Vauxford can contribute productively without being consistently disparaged day-in-and-day-out (I'm talking about the "Vanity project" remarks here).  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ Can we just ban both of them from opening ANIs? This is getting repetitive. Sorry if I'm being abrasive, but I'm sick of this. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  20:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban as outlined by Cullen. In my own case, I take a lot of pictures of buildings, and when it comes to whether to add them to an article or not, I try to be as absolutely objective as possible about whether my image is an improvement over the current image or not.  Just guessing, I'd say about between a third of the time I leave in the current image, perhaps adding mine elsewhere in the article, if its length allows for another image.  Just from reading Vauxford's commentary here and on their talk page, it appears to me that they do not have the maturity to hold to that sort of standard, which is why I think the topic ban is necessary, especially since it allows Vauxford to propose using his image on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment I know this is a bad idea to make comments while people decide the sanction you will be getting but something I been meaning to point out. I understand that my tendency of bringing stuff to ANI was tiresome, the initial reason why I made those two ANI and this third one was because I felt hounded and harassed by this person and the accusation he has gave me, all those three ANI I believe failed to get proper attention. The moment Charles01 planted his behemoth of a paragraph against me, someone has already come up with a solution and proposal to sanction me and 8 people have already favoured it in a course of no more then 4 hours. I had to wait weeks for someone to respond to any of mine and it doesn't get anywhere after few comments then it just get buried and archived and I had to dig it up again.

Why is that? Minus that I seem to have a reputation of being a tiresome editor to handle but I have many speculation why Charles01's ANI has more vivid respond and outcome then any of mine, despite having the same amount of compelling evidences to go with it. I have one prominent speculation and please do not take this in offence because I genuinely want to know with curiosity. Is it because Charles01 been a long-term editor (12 years) with many friendly pen-pals he picked up along the way and the credibility for that he is generally trusted and the accusation I point out about him are hard to believe? I am however grateful for the people who have been looking through both side of the story rather then pointing out solely my problematic behaviour but also Charles01's. It just something to think about it. --Vauxford (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who's not come down on either side as yet and has no interest in automobiles, I think you're missing the point here. What Charles01 has or hasn't done is irrelevant when it comes to discussing conduct; if you plow through the initial walls of text, Charles01 is presenting convincing evidence that:
 * You're engaged in repeatedly attempting to shoehorn photographs you've taken into articles regardless of whether there's a need to do so;
 * People have regularly raised concerns about your conduct in so doing;
 * You've continued to do so regardless, and consistently appear either unwilling or unable to follow the consensus that you should stop self-promoting;
 * The pair of you are disrespecting the rest of the community by regularly bringing your petty squabbles to administrative noticeboards, posting at great length, and expecting other people to read your comments in full.
 * What Charles01 has and hasn't done is irrelevant in this context; if Charles01 has done something problematic then we'll get on to that in due course, but what's being discussed here is the fact that you're being disruptive and give the appearance of being unwilling to stop being disruptive. (Seriously, all we need to put a stop to this is "I undertake never to add a photo I've uploaded to an article without discussing it on the talkpage first, and if people don't feel it will be an improvement I won't go ahead".) Launching attacks on the people who've actually done the pair of you the courtesy of reading your whiny walls of text, as you've just done here, is the way to convince us that the problem isn't you. &#8209; Iridescent 08:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What Charles01 has and hasn't done is irrelevant in this context; if Charles01 has done something problematic then we'll get on to that in due course, but what's being discussed here is the fact that you're being disruptive and give the appearance of being unwilling to stop being disruptive. (Seriously, all we need to put a stop to this is "I undertake never to add a photo I've uploaded to an article without discussing it on the talkpage first, and if people don't feel it will be an improvement I won't go ahead".) Launching attacks on the people who've actually done the pair of you the courtesy of reading your whiny walls of text, as you've just done here, is the way to convince us that the problem isn't you. &#8209; Iridescent 08:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I never said the problem wasn't me, it both of our problems. I admit it entirely my fault that I failed to pick up any concerns that other users were giving me, it my fault that I did shoehorn many of my photographs without any consideration for others. I'm just trying to get people to see both side of it. Like I said, I admit my mistake and I'm sincerely apologise for it and I want to show people I am willing to amend my mistakes for the future. I have vow to not forcefully self-promote photographs I taken myself but I do want people to know I'm not the only one at fault here. --Vauxford (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, I guess you have upset several editors, and I strongly believe that the strong support for a tban is not down to Charles having more friends than you. Charles' behaviour on the other hand is not deemed "as disruptive as yours", which is possibly why not many editors commented on your ANI discussion. On the German language Wikipedia, you have attempted to replace several images, and the way you have done that was considered disruptive. This is how I found my way to this discussion. I believe that you are doing your "photo thing" in good faith, and that you may struggle realising what exactly makes it disruptive. I understand that you feel like Charles treats you in a way that is not exactly friendly, but I reckon that it will stop as soon as you stop. Charles says that your photos are not particularly good, and even though I see why he says that, they are still better than most car photos out there. You have taken several really good ones, and, literally a step backwards will improve the quality even further. I would actually like to help you, but currently, I believe the only way we can help you is by prohibiting you from putting images into articles. It would not prevent you from taking photos and uploading them to Commons. If you take a photo that is unarguably better than an existing one, it will end up in an article sooner than you think. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, albeit slightly reluctantly. Restricting someone from adding their own images to articles is not an insignificant sanction in my opinion, and probably unprecedented, at least in this topic area. (Applying that restriction to all editors as Charles suggests would be counterproductive, illogical, hard to enforce, and do a great job of driving new or casual editors away from the project, in my view.) However, this scope of this issue is so broad, and the disruption so considerable, that there needs to be some action taken. Vauxford has shown a consistent reluctance to get the point, so this is the logical next step. It would ultimately require him to consider the quality of the existing image compared to his proposed replacement, and the need for a measurable improvement to justify replacing it may also spur an improvement in his photography.<P>I would also note that Charles' behavior here has crossed the line - primarily the seemingly-baseless insinuations of sockpuppetry. I understand the frustration, but the edit summaries and "Vanity Project" mentions are unproductive and in my opinion have only exacerbated things. --Sable232 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to make myself sound delusional, but I got every aspect of what a good photo could be and I proven that many times, there nothing when it comes to photographing the "correct" way. The problem with me (in the past) is that I was very forceful with my photos, when I first started I did simply waited for them to be picked by other editors, but I started to grew impatience because I saw that past editors did the same "self-inserting" photos into all articles in all Wikipedia (e.g. OSX). Obviously I found out the fate of these editors I was influenced by because of this disruptive practise.


 * With the whole, willing to accept this sanction, me being reluctant and worrying and feeling terrible about yourself (most of the time) is just my way of coping when something distinctive in my head is going to change, doesn't mean I'm actually reluctant or outright refused for this sanction to happen. It doesn't help I'm quite stubborn with changes and it takes me a few go's to accept them in my life. --Vauxford (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed general sanctions


Like everyone else, I believe enough has been said about this dispute. Just taking a look at this AN/I thread or. I drafted out these proposed general community sanctions to maybe finally put this issue to rest for good.

Pinging uninvolved users who have previous commented in either thread Could you please read this over and provide feedback? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? First I'm losing the ability to freely post images without having to consult it on the talkpage and now I'm being considered being sanctioned from editing automobile articles all round!? This can't be happening, I just about getting used to prepare myself with the previous sanction. Please, please don't do this. Unless this is about another user, why is it on this ANI? --Vauxford (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about sanctioning you, this is about making it easier for administrators to unilaterally sanction anyone editing this topic.  I'm not convinced this is at a stage that requires GS.  Although there are two reports about this open on this board now, they each seem to be relatively discrete disputes between a couple of editors, not a general breakdown of the community's ability to self-govern in this topic.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are these four the only editors in disputes for this topic? If yes, then GS is too heavy-handed. MER-C 13:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there are more individuals who edit this topic according to who do the same thing as them.  also claimed the same thing about a since retired user. I'm not going to push these remedies too hard, though since  seems against them. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That what I was on about during the proposal, Alexander-93 has been doing this for as long as I have and it obvious he isn't stopping any time soon. If I'm correct, he seem to have misunderstood Charles01's gesture and is using his photos exclusively over anyone else. I also fear because I'm now topic banned, he could possibly make unconstructive edits or something I strongly disagree with which involved a photo I took and I'm unable to revert it. --Vauxford (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you ever become under the impression that users are systematically removing the photos you already put up, let me know on my talk page. I'll review the matter for you to see if it is worth referring elsewhere. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and I'm rather new here. Just try to stay positive, okay? { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think DS are over kill. More needless bureaucracy. We already have rules about these behavior problems. The finger pointing and bickering is tiresome.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Individual sanctions for incivility and battling. Trouble is no one has time to sift this.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not see the above proposal resulted in remedies. Time to close this and get on with our lives.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This topic area doesn't have the level of consistent controversy that articles on hot-button issues around politics, nationality, ethnicity, etc. that I typically see GS for have. Disputes like the one above, despite its regular appearance here in recent months, do not happen often. The only other ones I can think of where it got as far as this or another noticeboard are for EurovisionNim (which was more or less the prelude to this issue) and for Bull-Doser years ago (and his automotive images were only a part of a larger pattern of disruption). Dealing with this on a case-by-case and editor-by-editor basis should be sufficient; unless this escalates and starts happening routinely with a wide variety of editors, general sanctions are overkill. --Sable232 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat on Tuff TV
On the article Tuff TV, we've been dealing with the television network's parent company continuing to insist it's returning the network (which went off the air about a year ago and insists was a 'pre-planned hiatus') to the air, although there is no proof of that at all to speak of, and they've been trying to add WP:COI edits to change the page to their narrative, through IPs and a few months ago, a user account which was blocked on sight. I reverted their newest COI edits last night...to wake up to an IP legal threat (and of course, reversion), which obviously will chill me from editing the page any further, so I don't know what else to do here besides cease and ask for admin action, along with a RFP (I am not notifying the IP out of fear of retaliation). Thank you  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, I feel sorry that you have received such a threat. I have warned the user, admins should feel free to block if needed. Please note that the IP is registered to , and that organisations seems to have nothing to do with the article's subject (right?). I am going to check the rest of the article history for now. --MrClog (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, that sucks, sorry you had to experience that. It happens to the best of us. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If necessary, an email can be sent to The Connection, Inc., informing them that their IP is used to make legal threats in the name of another seemingly unrelated company. : if you would like to discuss the legal threat with legal experts, you should feel free to email about the situation, they may be able to advise you. --MrClog (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick action MrClog...I seem to run into this every couple years because I'm intent on keeping neutrality on network articles, so hopefully this is all that needs to be done. I appreciate the help here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user, likely CIR issue


This user is showing a complete disregard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in general and to consensus-building procedures in particular. Yesterday, they conducted several colour changes to Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Conservative and Template:Party shading/Conservative (Canada). As the templates are used in a wide range of Canadian election-related articles, this had a disruptive effect in them, as was pointed out by some users. However, when required to discuss the issue and seek consensus before pressing for the changes, in accordance to WP:BRD, the user acted as if they didn't hear any of it to the point of affirming that "I care little for whether you want to report me or not, do what you wish" or "Issue as many warnings as you wish". User was given the chance to revert their changes to maintain the statu quo until a consensus was reached in the proper discussion; however, they did not revert such changes nor even cared to engage in such a discussion despite being pinged to it. The user has done the same today in another political party colour template despite another user's plea for consensus to be achieved due to the number of articles affected.

I've obviously refrained from reverting any further lest we risk violating WP:3RR and engage in further edit warring, but looking at the user's talk page, which is full of warnings for edit warring and even a 48 hour-block this same month for a past discussion on the same edit warring problems, and considering their concurrent behaviour in other articles, I'm wondering whether they have the required competence to edit Wikipedia. A block would probably be due at this point. Impru 20 talk 17:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He has also been marking non-minor edits as minor despite several warnings. He has been reported for this. I too have stopped reverting lest I violate 3RR. But he seems not to understand what constitutes a reliable sourced. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , please note that WP:BRD is not required, it is "an optional method of reaching consensus". But that does not take away that communication is required. --MrClog (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that BRD is not required, just pointed it out here since it was mentioned to the user and still ignored. That does not hide the fact that they are deliberately ignoring any consensus-building procedures altogether, and do not seem to exhibit the necessary communication nor the required competence to edit Wikipedia. Impru 20  talk 17:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ec1801011 is now blocked one week by User:Ponyo for violation of 3RR. This is their third block since April, which may suggest more trouble in their future. Earlier this month they were blocked per WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

IP changing birth dates
In a period of about a half hour early today, an IP made 40-50 edits across many articles (without edit summaries) that all seem to be related to changing the birth year of several Iraqi politicans by one year. I spot-checked a couple and the original years matched the sources in the article. Should all these edits be mass-reverted? <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 16:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say yes . This kind of low level vandalism goes on quite often and, once its been determined that it is disruptive, mass reverting saves a little time. This is just a non-admins thoughts and others may feel differently. Thanks for your vigilance in reporting this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like the same vandal as, , , , and probably others. See Special:Contributions/113.210.113.0/16. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rolled back most of the recent edits from this range. If anyone sees any constructive edits that got caught up in the reverting, please feel free to reinstate them.  The range 113.210.0.0/16 has been blocked many times before, including for 6 months for the last block, so I have also now re-blocked the range for a year.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:E68:540E:6C84:B039:7333:ECD0:B8FC/Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

2601:5c0:c000:89d7:9dac:f36:5320:549a
I was not going to start this ANI as (to be honest) I am not sure what can be done. But its getting rather disruptive now. It started with this [], the PA's aside, it contains outing of an (apparently) sick man. This was repeated a number of times (one deleted) and now sits at the AFD as well []. IN addition they do not seem to be taking this seriously (despite the effort they have put into this), and have now accused me of socking (in all but name)[]. What with possible COI and the fact its a SPA I think it is clear they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, Steven, given the pattern of your obsession and the obvious throwaway title for the AfD, all of which cited only to your complaints, I can't imagine how someone could think it wasn't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C0:C000:89D7:9DAC:F36:5320:549A (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week, since that's how long AFDs last, and comments redacted from AFD. This individual claims to be the subject of the article, so in addition to WP:DUCK, we can evade-block anyone who claims to be the subject of the article.  Nyttend (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, someone is socking, I daresay, so this is only about half-done. To be honest, Slatersteven, given your open animus on your userpage against the subject, you ought to recuse yourself from the AfD and let neutral parties decide.   Ravenswing    13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean the blather in the initial diff certainly seems like Kratman's brand of nonsense. But honestly, the guy is the authorial equivalent of a forum troll and my recommendation would be let's delete his article and salt it so that he doesn't have a reason to come back and annoy us in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really animus so much as a joke reaction to the last time he pulled this stunt. But fair enough, if it raises questions about the integrity of my vote. Who (by the way) do you think is socking, vague accusations just poison the well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Kratman trolled my blog once but I still think I can neutrally assess that he's not of any particular note as an author. I mean he writes for Castalia House FFS. They're virtually a vanity press. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (TFW you find out Castalia House redirects to Vox Day which kind of makes your point for you.) Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt he has, and As I said he has tolled me here at least once before (hence my comments on my user page) but if users think that this means I am not neutral then maybe I should recuse my self from any "vote" (yes I know). I will however still defended myself from accusations of some vendetta (hell I did not even "vote" delete, he would have still had a mention).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

POV pushing at Top Gun: Maverick
Hi, someone continues to add a "controversy" section to the article Top Gun: Maverick, whose notability is dubious at best. The image used is non-free and taken from someone's Twitter account, and used politically fringe publications like Washington Examiner and New Tang Dynasty TV, and provided undue weight to Donald Trump Jr., whose opinions are irrelevant to the article.220.101.15.161 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a content dispute best dealt with through discussion on the talk page. Having said that, I agree that the controversy section is just a platform for soapboxing and should go entirely.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Erroneous mass page moving without reasons or sources
I aplogise in advance if this is the wrong place to raise it, but could admins take an urgent look at the activities of User:Renzo_espiritu ?--BushelCandle (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even ignoring whether there are good reasons for the moves, the editor seems to have moved a lot of article pages to talk pages or to file pages - these errors need to be fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of moves but only 3 involved articles: Zamboanga Peninsula, Metro Manila, Soccksargen. I think I got it all fixed. Working on double redirects now — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Diannaa and I have both asked them to stop. Hopefully that will be enough.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both!

I hope your advice is heeded (I see there's no response yet by this user...) --BushelCandle (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Abusive personal attacks by Noman1985
Noman1985 has been vandalising Ahmadiyya-related articles. I gave him an "only warning", and he responded with some really unpleasant personal abuse on his talk page. Pepper Beast   (talk)  14:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Trying to figure if it should just be indef. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Noman is attacking me?” Where’s Poseidon when you need him, anyway? Qwirkle (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I suspect there's also some sockpuppetry going on as well, so I'll try to investigate.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  15:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've increased it to a week. Simply unacceptable. Deb (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Too many citation needed tags on the Romani people articles.
I’m so sad that nobody is adding sources on the Romani people article. The Boyash article looks so ugly with all those citation needed tags. Add a source from Google Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3400:1003:d542:e27c:181e:de5c (talk)


 * Not an ANI issue aside, I will note that a large number of citations were replaced with citation-needed tags with this edit. There is no summary but based on the note left in the article, I'm assuming this was because the citations were poorly formatted, which is a terrible reason to remove them. If there is another reason, it's not obvious. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

nationality vandal by a Malaysian ip is back yet again


It seem the last range block was not enough (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005. Matthew hk (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * New batch of vandalized articles, all changing nationality and/or DOB without citation, same pattern as the last reported vandalism :


 * --Matthew hk (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For now I have blocked the single IP. If there are other IPs that are currently being used (or recently used), please let us know so we can consider a range block.  For the record, the existing range block appears to be .  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * He used the ip4 range 123.136.XXX.YYY in the first ANI filing in October 2018. I lost count this is the fourth or fifth filing. Matthew hk (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Private life speculation

 * Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate if Mm.srb were warned against engaging in wild speculations about my private life. I have hardened enough in my years on Wikipedia to take insults such as being called "arrogant and self-important", narcissist, or a vandal. Being compared to a 16th-century Jesuit was even amusing and, I must confess, elicited a snigger. When you approach a Western Balkans-related topic, you can safely expect to have sticks and stones thrown your way. I draw the line at the invasion of my privacy, however. I do not think my origins, life history, and current whereabouts are relevant to any discussion I lead on Wikipedia, and I would not like any of that to be casually theorized about by random strangers on the Internet. I have asked Mm.srb to stop commenting on me at least twice before this, but this is only escalating. It has not yet reached outing level, and I do not want it to. Surtsicna (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * of the Eastern European and Balkans discretionary sanctions regime. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this referenced above certanly is commenting about the editor instead of content. You need to, as my dad would put it, not get into personalities-- you are making personal attacks instead of defending the merits of your edit. Surtsicna has a point-- any sentence that contains the word "you" would be better left unwritten., this goes for you as well.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not mind being addressed directly. I mind having my private life speculated about by random who haws on Wikipedia article talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, see-- "who haws" is exactly what I'm talking about. It only makes it worse. It personalizes a matter that should be impersonal.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but the matter of a stranger speculating whether I am a war refugee, originating from this country or another, and living there or abroad is something that cannot be impersonal at all. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and, Mm.srb, "speculating" about someone's real life sounds like trolling for opportunities to troll to me-- it's wholly inappropriate.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) This whole report is mostly a misintepretion of my statements. I think that the idea behind it is to "scare me" so that the other editor could continue to push his POV. After a lot of debate on the article, we reached a sort of a consensus. Soon after, the other editor just decided to revert to the version he finds appropriate, while I did the hard work of searching for academic sources and references for the topic. That version is the current one, mind you... 2) POV pushing and arrogant behaviour, for which I have zero tolerance both on Wiki and in RL, is the foremost reason why I made any speculation in the first place. That sort of bully like behaviour is not just pointed at me but another user who tried to make some edits on the article in question. That behaviour is evident and this is not the first instance (as he was banned and reported on multiple occasions). You can analyze the very tone and see the edits on Ignjat Job in which he easily reverted other editor's work while the discussion was ongoing. That is a POV pushing if I ever saw one. 3) just I tried to understand what is the drive behind other editor's resentless and unconstructive POV pushing. And I am not saying that this can be an excuse for me going over the appropriate level in the discussion in that one instance. 4) In fact I appreciate other user's and people's privacy. This might sound ironic to you, but that is the case. 5) I did not write that he is a narcissist but that something written by him is a nice example of mild narcissm. There is a big difference, because I did not attack the person, which means that the interpretation in the intro of this report is an attempt at manipulation. I did not call anyone a vandal. It is all in the TP. 5.1) "16th century Jesuit" was meant to ease the previous heated discussion with a bit of comedic effect and not to insult anybody. It's old news. 6) I would very much appreciateif User:Surtsicna was warned to not push his POV, behave politely and appreciate other user's different views.


 * Please take a look at Talk:Ignjat Job for these speculations about my views, life and activity on Wiki... That was just a defence mechanism to the sort of aggression.


 * 1) WP:NOTHERE accusation is a bit rich coming from someone whose sole purpose (literally sole purpose!) on Wikipedia is establishing the Serbdom of everyone and their momma. 2) That is nonsense. A person from Yugoslavia is absolutely correctly and commonly defined as a Yugoslav person. If you disagree, take it to a broader discussion. I have no idea how someone having cousins who live in different countries is relevant to Ignjat Job. 3) I do not know what you are talking about. 4) Yes, and it is also nothing new that Serbian sources claim Job and pretty much every Slav, regardless of religion, as Serbs. So how is that different from the Croatian nationalist historiography? Ah, yes - the Serbian one must be correct. 4.1) Yes, that does excuse my removal of a blatantly biased claim. Shall we have another sentence next to it saying that he is a notable Croatian painter? You have acknowledged that as many sources can be found for that. How ridiculous do you want this article to sound? 6.1) ...Again, if you wish to push this mental gymnastics, please do it in a larger forum. 6) That is despicable. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. 7) Irrelevant and likewise despicable.


 * This report is definetly not a one-way street. Mm.srb (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss content disputes. This is about your gross invasion of my privacy. If it takes "scaring you" to make you stop poking your nose into my private life and debating it on article talk pages, so be it. Asking nicely has not worked and obviously will not. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I've now seen enough incivility and petty bickering from both of you to block both of you. I guess as long as you're slugging it out here it's pretty harmless.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is reasonable to equate my saying that I do not want any random who haws (funnily enough, a word I picked up from an administrator on this very page) poking their noses into my private life with what is nearly an attempt at outing, or to call the latter "pretty harmless". I do apologize for causing any offense and consuming your time, though. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who writes here is an administrator. It is actually ″hee-haws″.  And it is an insult. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Vanya Ilcheva
Insertion of original research after final warning. Edits concern promoting the historical role of one ethnic group in the development of calendars. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And this. What? “Ex-Bulgarian territory”? I don’t get it. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nigos, you are more likely to get a quick reaction here if you include diffs of the edits that gave rise to your warnings, rather than of the warning messages themselves, of which people have no quick way of checking the accuracy without such diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, dif's please.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to ping Jc3s5h in my previous comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The claims seem to be more dramatic as the edits go on. This one, with no more than a link to Bulgar calendar and a vague mention of UNESCO to support the claim, says "Oldest Calendar in the world, recognized by UNESCO in 1976 is the Bulgarian Bulgar calendar" and "It is a solar most accurate calendar ever made, with 365 days and 1 leap day every 4 years." Sounds a lot like the Julian calendar, which had to be replaced with the Gregorian calendar due to inaccuracy. This edit is similar, but to a different article.
 * The Bulgar calendar which is wikilinked does not appear to have the either the claim about being the oldest, or the most accurate, before Vanya Ilcheva's edits. Since the claims weren't there before these changes, naturally they couldn't be supported by reliable sources, and Vanya Ilchev didn't add any. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They said that a calendar belongs to Bulgaria just because they said that "Croatia was an ex-Bulgarian territory" (same diff). They inserted their POV and claim in this diff: . And their message on my talk page said that I "needed editing" and made fun of me. They also insist on using blogs as sources, and removing legitimate talk page comments by other users on my talk page, saying that I needed to "educate" myself. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First off please so not put links in a threads header as it makes it impossible to access. Next that is not the way to ping another editor. You have to add the ping for  in a signed post. Without a signature a ping does not work. As you see I have pinged VI for you. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor is at it again. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * what did you mean by that link? It was a document download for the state of Vermont. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've fixed the link. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Removing propery cited sources and them replacing it with original research is too much already. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 23:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

US Air Force Security Forces are not infantry.
We have a problem with an editor, and possibly others, adhering to a mischaracterization of United States Air Force Security Forces as Infantry. Not only is the notion false, but multiple attempts have been made to demonstrate this to the editor from multiple former infantry members. There are only two places you can find bonafide infantry in the military, and that is 11 and 18 series MOS´s in the Army, and 03 series MOS´s in the Marine Corps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Air_Force_Security_Forces

Furthermore, this misinformation has been propagated on several other articles, even thought the claim is patently false, and not in line with the doctrines of the United States department of defense, or their respective services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_force_infantry_and_special_forces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry

The evidence provided for these assertions is based on quotes in the media saying things to the likes of ¨We are the infantry of the Air Force″. These claims are pretentious, and not in line with military doctrine. Those units have a distinct roll, that is very different from the infantry. Not only is the training different, but standard operating procedures, mission, and doctrine are significantly different than a bonafide infantry unit.

Please read the talk section of the fist link that I provided and view the conversation on Secrity forces not being infantry. Since the assertion that non infantry units are infantry is considered by many combat veterans to be a form of stolen valor, this is a highly contentious mischaracterization.

Dirty11Bravo (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Was not notified on my talk page as is required. Dispute resolution is a more appropriate place for this. Moreover a sockpuppet investigation is currently open Sockpuppet investigations/Mrkoww that includes this user. Garuda28 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute and is not appropriate for AN/I. It also sounds a bit like inter-service squabbling is behind the complaint. In any case. deal with it on article talk pages or some other form of dispute resolution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Repeated archiving of ongoing discussions on Talk:Fascism
I would like to ask for assistance in dealing with the behavior of User:Beyond My Ken on Talk:Fascism in the last week. The user has decided at some point to just archive discussions that were active on the talk page without giving a valid explanation, in my opinion. I reverted the deletion of content from the main talk page, but the user insisted. Here are the relevant diffs: the user's first big archiving, my first revert , more archiving , more revert , more archiving. I abandoned the edit warring (also probably those discussions were actually a repetition of themselves, so not a big loss). In the last of his reverts the user started a new discussion topic with an interesting title. That was also not good after a while: the user decided that part of that discussion topic had to be archived and only one or two comments were allowed to stay (archiving again:, restarting it: , archiving it again multiple times: , , , and finally copy-pasting only some comments back into the discussion: ). There have been attempts to discuss, even though the user seems aggressive: see the user's talk page and mine. The user justifies all of this by saying that there is consensus among "the users" regarding a certain subject not to be discussed again. The discussions are about the presence of "right-wing" in the definition of fascism. Now there are many IPs and users that continuously ask for it to be changed to "left-wing" without citing RS, and of course there has to be a way to deal with the constant ridiculous non-arguments that clog the talk page of Fascism. So I am not here to discuss the merits of the specific edits. Nonetheless the user fails to recognize that a discussion about whether "right-wing" can be moved down in the lead and not be kept in the first sentence (for whatever reason) does not belong to the same set of pointless and unjustified discussions about removing "right-wing" altogether or even changing it to "left-wing". However my point is not of substance, but of method (but maybe I'm naive, as the user made me notice on his talk page by citing my edit count): Is the user violating the Talk page guidelines and/or being disruptive by archiving "legitimate" ongoing discussions? Or was I being disruptive by restoring archived discussions? Does consensus apply even to what can and cannot be kept on the talk pages? Thank you. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would rather this had not been bright to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too, but the other options do not work. Attempts to discuss it in Talk:Fascism were shut down by archiving them again. Also, the user is being aggressive and inconclusive on the user talk pages. Edit warring is out of question, so I'm not trying to restore discussions again on the talk page before I am sure that what I'm doing is not wrong. If I'm wrong I'll shut up. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Is partial archiving (or partial restoring, depending on your POV) of a discussion permissable? It seems extremely dubious to me, as it artifically weights the discussion? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was clearly an issue with SPAs and IP editors bringing up the same exact argument over and over again in new sections on the talk page, but even considering that, Beyond My Ken's archiving has been excessive. Just look at the history, even after the initial archive of basically the entire talk page (which may or may not have been justified), he archived another 18k bytes of new text from a recent ongoing discussion and then edit-warred over it repeatedly over the past three days. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is there is a genuine issue here over our choice or words (well in fact wikilinks), which a few users (who are not SPA's and IP's) agree may be a problem. But despite this the thread keeps getting archived with out an real resolution. Even if it was just SPAs and IP editors I would rather we did not just shut down debates, but this is not the case here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The page has not been archived in over 24 hours while legitimate discussion has been taking place, yet Ritchie92 is pursuing the issue as if it were ongoing, which it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We might have a different definition of the word "ongoing"... First of all, your last big deletion of content was at 12:45, 22 July and this thread was started by myself at 08:18, 23 July. So less than 24 hours difference. And anyway, 24 hours is not a time-span in which a discussion can be considered stale, resolved, or generally in the past. We all have different time-zones here, and other stuff to do. Second point, and most importantly, I did not act immediately also because I hoped for an easier resolution by discussing on our User Talk pages, which was rather unfruitful. Finally, the fact that you did not archive anything in the last 24 hours does not reduce the relevance of the questions that I asked in my first post, which are rather general questions about the management of a difficult Talk page like the one we're talking about. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected the talkpage a couple of days ago, in part to remove the incentive to aggressively archive contentious drive-by edit requests. I don't see a present reason for archiving things right away now that there isn't a daily parade of new editors and IPs landing on the talkpage to demand that the article be altered to fit their POV or to explain that academic sources should be ignored in favor of partisan commentary. The semi-protection of the talkpage is something of a last resort - as evidenced by the above, the repetitive partisan talkpage activity was eroding the patience of experienced editors. The protection is for a month, and I welcome suggestions for a longer-term solution that doesn't involve lots of archiving or daily patient explanations to agenda-driven new editors..  Acroterion   (talk)   12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't see taking any action against BMK for attempting to curb the disruption caused by what sounds like trolling.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP appears to have forgotten that he edit-warred against at least three editors (Simonm223, BMK and myself) to restore the "large" archive of which the vast majority was simple trolling. Not only that, but his revert of mine contained the edit-summary "your judgement is biased" .  Perhaps the OP might more usefully go and read WP:BRD, WP:EW and gain a better understanding of what consensus is. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in good faith here, and I'm sure BMK and you also are, and I am sorry that User:Dlohcierekim is being so fast in his/her judgement, denoting me as a troll. But edit-warring rules do not apply if one reverts vandalism, and archiving entire ongoing discussion threads (containing more and less legitimate comments) sounds more like vandalism to me than restoring it. Anyway for the large archiving I admit I might have been wrong (but I still did not like the aggressive archiving), so I indeed gave up because it was actually full of trolls. However the last one, namely this discussion had no reason to be archived, repeatedly. BMK archived, I reverted, then BMK should have started discussion, instead BMK archived again. Read WP:BRD. I also started a discussion on BMK's talk page, and I received a warning on my talk page by BMK. It's anyway unclear (and a bit funny) to me if we should have a Talk:Talk:Fascism page to seek consensus about what goes and what doesn't go on the Talk:Fascism page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it's becoming clear that someone in this thread is biased. Black kite has offered good advice.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will readily admit to a bias against Wikipedia articles containing false or misleading information, does that count? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not say you were a troll. I pointed out that BMK (and others) had archived the talk page to stop the SPA and IP trolling. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh then sorry for misinterpreting your words! I am sure about the good intentions of BMK and other users, but I am questioning the method. First, archiving discussion threads does not solve the problem of the SPA and IPs (as also stressed by other users on this thread, and especially by User:Acroterion who temporarily solved the issue before BMK did the last chunk of big archiving). Second, to reply to your other comment, I don't think I am being biased on the "fringe" arguments that are brought by IPs etc., I totally disagree with them and I support the deletion of trolls on the talk page! What I did not like was the generalized archiving of very big, recent or still ongoing discussions, that did not only host trolls and might have been useful for the improvement of the page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not the principal subject of this complaint, considering how it previously spilled over onto my user talk, I'm somewhat wounded I wasn't notified of this discussion at all. Fortunately Black Kite said precisely what I would have. That Ritchie92 editwarred against three other editors, breached WP:3RR in the process and asserted that consensus doesn't count on article talk. I was very satisfied to let this issue just die. It's unfortunate to see it here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but when exactly did I break the WP:3RR? About consensus, I still have not found where it is stated consensus must be achieved before editing a talk page. The consensus was to remove the IPs and the trolls, not to remove entire lawful discussion threads. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You totally misunderstand. The consensus on the talk page (and, no, I'm not going to waste my time providing diffs, the discussion is there in the talk page archives) was that it was disruptive to have IPs and new accounts constantly asking for "right wing" to be changed to "left wing" (or the equivalent), which was inevitably turned down with a request for reliable sources, which no one every provided, because such sources do not exist.  So the discussion decided that steps should be taken to reduce the disruption.  These included not responding to such requests (which unfortunately still happens too often), frequent archiving of those requests, and a banner on the talk page similar to the one on Antisemitism (which says that we know that Arabs are Semities), and other pages.  I created the banner, which remains on the page (despite some efforts to remove it as "inaccurate", which it is not) and myself and others, have archived such discussions quickly.So, no, one does need a consensus on the talk page to discuss suggested changes to Fascism, but the prevailing consensus is that right/left replacement requests without reliable sources will not be tolerated and will be archived quickly.  Your denial (on my talk page) that consensus plays no part in talk page discussions ("There's no such a thing as consensus about editing a talk page" ) is a ridiculous statement that shows neither awareness of the general role of consensus on Wikipedia, nor specific awareness of the history of Talk:Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have struck through my incorrect assertion. I misread the edit log. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, User:Simonm223. I perfectly agree with everything that you said here (Except that my statement about consensus on talk pages is being misinterpreted: what I meant is that obviously talk pages are when one builds consensus, so one has no way of achieving consensus before even editing a talk page, if one ever wants to make an edit "challenging consensus"; but even then, here there's no need for consensus to establish that vandalism and trolls must be removed from talk pages: it's already in the talk page guidelines! Therefore your anti-troll actions are actually more than justified). The point is that you archived indiscriminately entire discussions, including also the last discussion started by yourself in which there were no trolls nor IPs. And even if there were, one should only remove those posts and not the others! --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I recall the issue was not changing right wing to left wing, but just removing right wing (which is not the same thing) [].Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The current discussion is about that, and some other things, which is why it is still on the page. The discussion which generated the banner and the archiving consensus was about right->left. The same problem occurs (with somewhat less frequency) on Nazism, Nazi Party, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And likewise we are almost constantly fielding identical requests to have Wikipedia call people who uphold taking direct action against fascism terrorists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. Right-wing talking points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And you think that in order to solve these problems one must archive and archive? I think this is not a good strategy and it does not reach the objective here. Also, as a counter-effect, it removes legitimate (and sometimes even valuable) comments. And it sets precedent for a similar dangerous behavior (archiving discussions indiscriminately) on other articles. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

My preferred solution would be to permanently restrict article talk in this set of articles to autoconfirmed accounts only with more stringent edit protection on the articles themselves. Since that's impractical, yeah, keeping these WP:TEND arguments off the front page and denying these annoying, repetitious, unsourced requests the time of day is likely the best course of action. Of course, I half-expect an arbcom discussion of articles about far-right politics and the movements that oppose them (internationally) to pop up any day now so, who knows. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of anything else, I think these, , , were bad edits. Here Beyond My Ken archived a discussion that took place entirely after the talk page had been protected. It was a discussion among long-term editors, not SPAs. The semi-protection and the initial archiving are justified, but this repeated archiving afterwards was unnecessary, unhelpful, and overly aggressive. This is just removing currently active, on-topic discussions, and it definitely violates standard policy for talk pages. Beyond My Ken says there was a consensus for the archiving, but how could he know that? He archived every discussion about the archiving after just a few hours. This was just plain disruptive. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that, because I took part in the discussion in which that consensus was reached. You apparently don't know that, because you have not read the talk page archives, something I suggest you do before you comment again on whether a consensus existed or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been following the page since before that RFC on whether to include "right wing" in the lead, and reading the talk page discussions while they were still on the talk page. Where did you find a consensus to do those specific removals? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How about you read the archives, and then read the above discussion in full before you start asking questions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I've read every discussion on that talk page for the past several months, and participated in many of them. Could you just link to the discussion that contains this consensus you claimed in edit-warring against multiple editors to remove the discussion of the past two days? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make accusations directed at other editors, you'd better have all your ducks lined up in a row. Please do your own research, and AGF that what I'm saying is true: other editors certainly remember the discussion, which, as far as I can recall, took place in February-March 2018, maybe a bit later.  Certainly not within the "several months" of your involvement.  As I've said, read the archives: not only will they enlighten you, but they will give you a better sense of the past problems on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm currently looking into Talk:Fascism/Archive 47 and Talk:Fascism/Archive 48 which contain the historical threads from the first months of 2018 that finally lead to the famous RfC started in March 2018. Unfortunately I cannot find any sign of consensus building or even discussion about whether users have free way to archive legitimate ongoing discussions about any topic referring to the "right-wing" wording. I only see discussions about the wording, and the usual IPs with their nonsensical theories. But even if there was a discussion, there is no way one can reach consensus regarding the generalized deletion/archiving of any new discussion. This is so against the talk page policies, and its purpose. Editors could agree to have a systematic approach in dealing with the trolls, SAP and IP users, but they can't make such a rule that applies even to long-term editors comments in the talk page. I agree with RRC on this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My last contribution to this rather absurd discussion: I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what is written in WP:CONSENSUS, and sorry but it does not look like there is consensus on generally archiving any ongoing legitimate discussion in the talk page: this would be in fact absurd! How could a new or a different editor (who might have additional expertise or additional sources) then challenge an existing consensus? --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your understanding of the role of consensus on Wikipedia is faulty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So, rightists are spamming the talk page with demands that we whitewash the common knowledge statement of fact that Fascism is a right-wing movement. BMK is archiving these threads, and you want him punished for it? Sigh. I think we're done here. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's about the size of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sighing, because you obviously have not read what I have written or you refuse to understand what happened in the edits:, , , . On the side, I do not want the user punished, I don't care. I want to clarify when and where a user can indiscriminately archive ongoing and legitimate discussions. Again, I am not questioning the archiving of the spammers (even though we have seen that the archiving is no solution to the problem)! --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion that's been open on Talk:Fascism for two days, and now an RfC as well (which I pinged you to) yet you have yet to participate in either.  Instead, during that period, you've posted multiple times on my talk page , started this AN/I report, and posted to it numerous times.  Why is this sidebar -- essentially complaining that I'm suppressing legitimate discussion -- so much more important to you than actually participating in an ongoing discussion? That seems a bit odd to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, I sure replied in the talk you initiated, but you archived part of it, including my replies and restarted the same topic without them! I also just commented on your RfC. But anyway, this AN/I report – and my questions in general – are about your methods, I do not have any obligation to intervene in the discussion about the topic itself. And yes, making sure that people cannot generically delete legitimate and ongoing discussion threads from talk pages is more important to me than the whole right-wing nonsense, regarding which my main worry is that after this month an army of the usual suspects with swarm the talk page again, and we will probably be back again to the same crazy daily indiscriminate archiving. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, you're more comfortable tilting at windmills rather than in participating in collegial talk page discussion designed to improve the article by coming to a consensus (there's that word again). It appears that you'd rather complain than improve, and that you feel that if a discussion does not take place on your terms, it's not a discussion you want to be a part of.  My suggestion to you is, bluntly, to put up or shut up.  Either participate in the discussion that's taking place right now, even as we chat, or don't -- that's your choice, no one can compel you to participate -- but please don't put up a front of self-righteousness  when you aren't taking advantage of what's available right in front of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "On my terms"? The discussion was archived, the question is if a discussion can happen at all, according to you. We are not here to discuss about my personal scale of priorities. You shouldn't be bothered by it and you shouldn't comment on it nor make your conclusions about my POV. Now, we are here to discuss about what can and cannot be done on Wikipedia: it's the purpose of this page. My complaint about your methods are fundamental to the way things get improved on WP, and it's nothing personal against you (I am sure you were just overzealous in the last archiving of your own discussion thread). Anyway I thank you for your invitation to discuss, and I inform you that I have discussed and probably will keep discussing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that you have now made a small contribution on Talk:Fascism, that's good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Some inspiration for the WP rules experts here: I quote from the talk page guidelines, section about "Editing others' comments". First rule: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page, then: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection, and objection there was. Among the exceptions to the rule, the ones that are relevant to this discussion are: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived which means that archiving of trolls and vandals could be a rightful thing to do, and Removing duplicate sections: Where an editor has inadvertently saved the same new section or comment twice. Note: this does not mean people who repeat a point deliberately, meaning that editors can repeat a point and not undergo deletion or archiving. These are the rules. Can "previous consensus" change these rules? (and we don't even know where and when that specific consensus to overthrow TP guidelines was achieved) That is my question. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked through all the archives for 2017 and 2018, and I don't seen any discussion about removing threads from the talk page, and certainly not a major, long-standing consensus that would justify doing so 4 times in 12 hours several years later. But I guess since no one else seems to care, and you're probably not going to do it again, it doesn't really matter. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage protection

 * Continuing my comment from above, I've semi-protected the talkpage for a month, which appears to have dealt with the proximate cause of the dispute in this thread. As WP:PROTECT notes, semi-protection of article talkpages is to be used sparingly. However, that policy was formulated primarily to deal with occasional individual vandals and POV-pushers. What's appearing on Talk:Fascism and similar pages is a steady stream of new editors and IPs who are convinced that fascism, for instance, is a handy universal label to apply to people they oppose, and expect the article to reflect that POV rather than reflecting academic and historical analysis. These editors are clogging the talkpages. I see no reason to believe that this will change when protection expires, and some longer-term solution will be needed.
 * Right now, WP:PROTECT suggests that semi-protected talkpages redirect edit requests to WP:RFED, which isn't really set up to deal with that sort of traffic. I think we're going to need a project space page linked on long-term semi-protected talkpages that can handle this traffic, where editors with the patience and inclination to do so can winnow serious requests from the forum speech and trolling, allowing the article talkpages to be used as intended, and allowing editors on those topics some rest. That project page can link to WP policy, offer suggestions on reading archived discussions, and perhaps help to educate newcomers on how to approach perennially contentious topics.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Question: Is all this nonsense somehow related to our current problems with fashion icon Michael Z. Williamson (see ), who apparently shares this fascism-is-left-wing delusion? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt it given the limited cross over between the two pages.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well maybe he's transitioning. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Round in circles is basically for this exact thing, though I see it's already on the talk page. Someone ought to write an FAQ to go with it, answering the question of why we don't label fascism as left-wing (or whatever other nonsense arguments keep coming up) and then when more new editors turn up with "there are left-wing fascists too!" or "Mussolini was a communist!" or whatever, you can just point them to the FAQ and close their threads. We'll never stop new and misinformed editors from turning up on the page and you can't semiprotect it forever; the best we can do is say "this question has already been answered, look here" and move on. If they get upset when we show them properly sourced and widely accepted scholarly facts, that's their problem, not ours. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maaaaaan, this is gonna sound way worse than I mean it, but it's super weird that you keep popping up in these discussions involving Simon. Arkon (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to write an FAQ based off this comment, but it seems someone has posted Warning Fascism left-wing. / &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long it's been there, though. Should I still write an FAQ? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was there when I wrote my comment, and the template has been around since February (not sure when it was added to Talk:Fascism exactly). I'm not really a fan of it, we should be trying to explain why we present the facts the way we do (we're an encyclopedia, after all). Instead we just have a bright red "fuck off, troll" and, well, it's working exactly how you'd expect telling trolls to go away would work - it just brings out more trolls. I mean, it's not working obviously, we might as well try something else. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote that template on February 25, and put it on the talk page that same day. I have absolutely no objection to a FAQ, which I think is a fine idea.  If someone wants to write one, I (or someone else) can change the template to point to the FAQ instead of to the archives.Incidentally, the reason the warning hasn't been as effective as we had hoped has little to do with the warning, and everything to do with the far-right's concerted attack on Wikipedia, the effects of which can be seen on numerous articles about extremist right-wing organizations and ideologies, as well as historical articles about various aspects of Nazism and Fascism. Plus, of course, that the talk page really does need to be permanently semi-protected, since the FAQ is unlikely to be any more effective than the warning has been in fending off those who come specifically to make their POV requests.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I'm 100% aware of all that. At least with an FAQ, when some new (but clearly not new) account shows up with some new diatribe about "left-wing fascism", you can just shut it down with " ...  " and be done with it. I know it's not actually done, but you can claim the intellectual high ground of having tried to explain and inform, instead of playing into their hands with insults. Maybe it's ideological and silly, or maybe you'll actually educate someone who thinks Breitbart is a respectable news source and genuinely doesn't know any better. Probably not, though. I mean, this is pretty much no different from people leaving new diatribes about chemtrails and vaccines and what-not, we might as well respond the same way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, at this point, I see far-right movements and related articles ending up at Arbcom before the end of the year. Frankly the rate at which I've seen arbcom-related actions in that arena when it overlaps AP2 is already pretty telling. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * lmao, I just found out that suggested we have an FAQ more than six years ago.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The new FAQ page can now be found here: Talk:Fascism/FAQ. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I've changed the warning box to point to the FAQ. One suggestion: the tone of the FAQ seems to me to be a bit chatty right now.  Perhaps you can take a look at it with that in mind, and - if you agree - make some adjustments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] I agree that the FAQ is conversational in nature, but I honestly can't help the fact that it's just the way I write. My hope would be other editors would fix the tone issue, so it's not in my voice. This current FAQ came after several tries on my part. I removed a lot of tongue-in-cheek references to even get it this far. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)