Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 28 June 2019

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Ineedtostopforgetting and disruptive editing

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

Could somebody please have a look at the edits by this user? They were recently brought to my attention when they developed an interest to articles on Kuril Islands (which is part of Russia internationally recognized by every country except for Japan) and started renaming articles to Japanese names (example) and removing Russian names example). They did this in a dozen of articles. In the discussion of my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#New editor's suspicious edits at Kuril Islands-related articles, they said that they do not see any problems with their edits and they do not understand why I reverted all of them, even after I provided a detailed explanation, however, they stopped doing these edits, and I decided to let it go. Today, I noticed that they were engaged in edit-warring with Calton on a completely unrelated topic. For example, here (second revert) they claim they add sourced info and removed unsourced info, whereas the situation is exactly opposite - the architect's name is in the article and is sourced, the contractor name is nowhere else in the article. If you look at the user's contribution, you see that this is not a isolated case. I would have blocked, but I consider myself involved due to the previous exchange a week ago. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I literally just added the source minutes before you made this. How about you take a look before making another baseless accusation? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I forgot to mention that the behavior demonstrated here and elsewhere is another ground for the block, along with edit-warring and disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So you're just going to conveniently ignore what I said about me adding the source BEFORE you made this section. Okay then. You're the one with the 'authority' after all. Are you going to block me for saying this now? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that you removed sourced information from the article and edit-warred over iots removal. Repeatedly, in several articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And you actually edit-warred as a response tio a warning for removal of information. If anyone needs more diffs, I can lay out more diffs, but they are pretty obvious from the user contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're still harping over the Kuril Islands articles, the sources there did have the Japanese translations for these islands, and I was merely reflecting it. You accused me of 'edit warring' for that, and I decided not to bother anymore as you're just going to revert it back again. Now, you're making this section over an unrelated article without looking at all the facts, and decided to accuse me again for 'removing sources', despite the fact that the source to the architect's name links to an unrelated dead page (check the source for yourself) that does not even show his name. You said you couldn't find the contractors name 'nowhere else in the article', despite there being a source for it. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I just came here as I saw Ineedtostopforgetting's edits on Roppongi Hills Tower, something on my watchlist. I had just reverted their edit on that article as the source doesn't support the claim. All the source shows is that the company claims they worked on it. No supporting evidence in the source, primary source so not reliable, and the source doesn't even claim they were the main contractor only that they worked on it. They may have just designed the hinges for some doors for all the evidence the source provides. So I reverted it as not a suitable source. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If that's how is going to be, what about the source for the architect? Are you telling me that is a suitable source? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference was already in article, so I've just added the link to that field. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is unfortunately that you continue misrepresenting facts even though everybody can check the diffs. Japanese names were in these articles already years ago. You just removed Russian names and moved articles to Japanese names. This is pure disruption, not even part of these edits was in any way useful. If you do not understand this, you must be blocked per WP:CIR. If you do, you should be blocked for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely some problematic edits — I just clicked the contribs at random and got this. Sorry, Ineedtostopforgetting, that does not inspire confidence and, if it's representative of your edits overall, isn't tenable. El_C 10:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought it seemed pretty obvious that the Navy of a sovereign country would have it's allegiance towards its head of state, and this is shown for other countries such as China, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. If so, what is the point of 'allegiance' in the military unit infobox then? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Communist Party of China is not the PRC's head of state. Anyway, this was explained to you here. El_C 10:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I let that matter rest and did not revert it back. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The point is that you are too quick to revert, even if you let the matter rest eventually. This sometimes reaches heights of absurdity (example). El_C 11:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to block users for being 'too quick to revert', a majority of users on Misplaced Pages would be blocked. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been warned multiple times before for disruptive editing and edit-warring, so it is about time for you. Other users can wait.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You know what, no matter how hard I try to defend myself, you're obviously still not going to change your opinion or judgement. It just ain't worth all the time and effort. If you wish to block me so badly, just get on with it already. It's not like there's anything I could do anyways. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, I don't believe Ineedtostopforgetting is being deliberately disruptive. I think there is some learning to go, and some experience to gain. Their habit of adding non-native names as native names in some articles needs to stop, but I don't believe that's a blocking offence unless they deliberately continue it. Their edits appear well intentioned. Maybe a mentor instead of an admonishment? Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, The user that you're defending, Calton, is currently edit warring, reverting my constructive edits and accusing me of removing 'material' despite the fact that if you compared the revisions, I was adding more information (with sources). What exactly have I done wrong here? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest people take a look at this user’s talk page history. They have been warned numerous times (once by me) for things like removal of content, edit warring, and POV. Their response is to immediately archive the warning - usually without comment, although this edit summary stands out and kind of reinforces the attitude you see in their comments here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, MelanieN, I've only been warned once, which is from you, and not 'numerous times' like you falsely stated. The rest were general notes. Also, I made my first archive on 20th March, after my talk page was created on the 21st January, 2 months prior. That is not 'immediately'. I then archived again on 5th June, a day after your warning. That is again not 'immediately'. Furthermore, is archiving supposed to be an issue here now? I think we have had enough allegations on this section as it is. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no further comment. Your talk page history speaks for itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have given Ineedtostopforgetting a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, including lying about the warnings on their talk page. If the disruption continues, the next block will be longer. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Update: Just to note that the user has continued his disruptive practices like repeatedly adding Japanese translations of names to articles where it is not justified , and has been blocked a second time by User:Cullen328. Let's not close this yet, since the issues with this user have not been not resolved. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That one is not even a 'translation' but just a Japanese transliteration of the English name Changi Jewel Airport(ジュエル チャンギ エアポート), of zero encyclopedic value. It's like glossing and article on the word 'Please' with pureezu just to get in a Japanese angle. Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

The behavior seems to be continuing his/her tendentious editing, this time at Singapore-related articles. (See and .) Japanese is not even an official language in Singapore. I propose, therefore, that Ineedtostopforgetting be banned from adding, changing, or removing translations or foreign names in articles, and from making edits related to Obayashi Corporation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: - that's not Japanese in the second diff. That's Standard Chinese, spoken in Singapore. you got the wrong second diff. Its starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am finding this a little confusing. Please clarify your concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 01:31, 21 January 2035 (UTC).

{{subst:DNAU|Ret.Prof}} My concern or Starship.paint's? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably a little of both. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof: - I had a misplaced concern because the wrong diff was linked. I provided the correct diff of the offending edit. starship.paint (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"Retired"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles01 behaviour

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)

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

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

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

Now it seem one of the users (who is more active on the German Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages" 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)

Alexander-93 The photo was taken by Charles01, and recently you have been siding with him for any comment he post about me. I'm going to be honest, I know this may seem rude and unethical because you have every right to edit on here, same with me on the German Misplaced Pages, but you are mostly active on the German Misplaced Pages because that your native language, I haven't been making edits/replacement on your Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? --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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages!--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 Misplaced Pages with your own pictures or not, your editing pattern gives other editors the impression that you are. I suspect these issues are where Charles01's frustration comes from, and that repeated attempts to get you to see that have left him believing he has no alternative but the unpleasantries you mention above.

If someone wanted to make a measurable improvement in terms of illustrating automotive articles, one would identify articles where an existing image is lacking and seek out opportunities to replace it, rather than taking photos in mass quantities whether they will be helpful or not. The goal should be to replace poor images with adequate ones; replacing adequate ones with excellent ones is icing on the cake (but in the vast majority of cases, a curbside shot like those you have access to is never going to be at that level). The point of having images in the articles is to provide the reader with a reasonable idea of what the vehicle looks like. As long as an existing image does that, ad nauseum discussions of whether a new image is a 1% improvement or a 1% detriment are wholly unproductive. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 Knowing a picture that need replacing is completely subjective towards the viewer. I have every right to do make these bold edits and I clearly understand why I do them and the repercussion I could get because of it. How the heck could I tell if a image could truly be replaced with something else or vice versa and thinking like that is just mind numbing. A person could replace a picture something they consider the absolute best but there always going to be someone who said otherwise. It doesn't matter if Charles01 is expressing frustration over me, it beyond unacceptable accusing others for "edit warring" when they have done whatsoever! It just harassment in general, it really patronising to be labelled as the "Vauxford Problem".. --Vauxford (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, you have a conflict of interests when it comes to adding your own images. You should really be suggesting that on talk pages, instead. El_C 16:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• The pictures-of-cars topic area is rapidly supplanting pro wrestling as the universe's #1 source of lame controversy. EEng 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Think of it as the flavour of the quarter. Blackmane (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hopefully it's only for the quarter and no longer. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

It is one way because I did nothing to make Charles01 like this. This was all his choice, if was actually giving me advice of how to edit productively none of this would happen. --Vauxford (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing to edit more constructively would be to stop going to ANI about everything. No, not everyone is a puppy, unicorn, or eternally happy, and some of these people will make you upset. But if that happens, back away for a bit, maybe delete the message they sent to you if it's not applicable, stop reverting them. If they continue, for a long time, then maybe you can report them. MAYBE. You probably shouldn't. Unless they are making definitively uncivil statements or reverting several people, you probably shouldn't. The reasons people are against you right now are that for one, you opened this less than a month after that YBSOne mess, and two, you are reverting far too aggressively. Stop reverting people for a while and people should feel less animosity. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A lad insane That YBSOne wasn't started by me, it was started by U1Quattro which got myself involved in when I shouldn't have. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Aight, great. Now don't get involved in any more, and no reverts, and everything will be peachy. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I been doing that this whole time though. I been discussing my edit on the talkpage instead of reverting all the time. Charles01 recently told me the type of frustration I been expressing on their should go to the ANI, so I went to the ANI and then E1_C told that this sorta stuff should be discussed in the talkpage section. It just seem like no matter what I do I get shouted and scolded for it. I'm at the brink of just giving up because at this rate I feel like every thing is all falling down on me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you had been doing it the whole time you would not have reverted even twice. It does not matte if you sometimes do it (and to be honest we all forget sometimes). What matters is you are here over this mater (it does not matter who started it, or who was reported) and have now re-started this twice, when you did not get your way (when I saw you first re-post I was going to say "maybe they have not commented because they see nothing to comment on"). Please note that sanctions are not punitive, they are preventive. At this time you are the disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Charles01 I don't even know at this point. I think need a breather from all this because in my head I think I see something someone said but haven't actually said it, I just end up accuse them for no reasons. Even looking back to what I said it starting to not make any sense. Edit: 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[REDACTED] policy, and need to be stopped. Conflicts of Interest can be reported to the COI Noticeboard. Period. ♟♙ (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and Sanction Gaming in Supernova Article

In the Supernova article, a new Section Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements? was introduced by Attic Salt here. This contains a false editing accusation, as explained here.

1) An attempt to fix some of these issues was then reverted by Lithopsian with the uncivil PA "Undid revision 902199003 by Arianewiki1 (talk) not what the sources say, and of course complete rubbish".

They then decided to remove an entire paragraph actively being discussed on the talkpage, using the excuse by saying: "address the accumulation of edits into the lead without any mention in the rest of the article - create a grab-bag section for now, and summarise it briefly in the lead" Their statement is untrue (they are discussed) and is clearly disruptive editing.

Parts of the paragraph and end paragraph was again restored here., then added two new references supporting the statements. (Quoting the exact text from the source.) But instead of using the article's talkpage, Lithopsian reverts with the dismissive : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot." The removal of this paragraph took out all the references remaining in the Introduction that inhibits the process to gain consensus.

Are these not are examples of avoiding scrutiny, talkpage discussion (BRD) or in attempting to gain consensus?

Yet when a discussion does appear, they instead goes to Attic Salt's User talk:Attic Salt#Supernova edit clash, knowing full well than Attic Salt doesn't want me to interact with them on their talkpage. (Exclusion?)

2) Some additional recent revert edits by Attic Salt now claim: "As explained in edit summary and in paper by Johnson, much of the nucleosynthesis occurs before the supernova phase" makes little sense. Edit summaries are hardly the place to justify changes, it is supposed to explain the edit. If challenged, it should follow BRD not a revert.

They make a 2nd revert claims: "Well, I all we can do is invite you to read Johnson and look at the periodic table in this article." (the "we" pretends they have more support; inferring presumable Lithopsian.)

A further 3rd revert edit here for the following sentence, had it instantly reverted because: "Please read the Johnson source"

Yet, this paper does not seemingly appears accessible and the abstract does not state what they contend, and even the available abstract contradicts the edit. Even Lithopsian tells them this here.

This is surely sanction gaming because another editor cannot verify the source: with the available information already contradicting it.

There is no justification for this kind of behaviour and it is plainly gaming the system. It is seemingly intended as a means of excluding another editor, by using Misplaced Pages processes to put another editor in an invidious position by 'muddy the waters.' None of this is constructive editing.

Note: On the page Supernova was restored a likely undetected vandalism and explained the reasoning on the talkpage here. This clearly shows intent in trying to improving this article. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This indenting style is confusing. I had to look it up in the page history. It was all written by Arianewiki1. El_C 04:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks to me like a garden variety content dispute that does not belong at this noticeboard. Arianewiki1, you need to state clearly what you are asking administrators to do here. We do not adjudicate content disputes. Before coming to this noticeboard, which is for discussion of intractable behavioral incidents, you should first exhaust all of the other options listed at Dispute resolution. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Again. Lithopsian saying : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot." is now acceptable practice? Repeatably being pummeled in articles is unacceptable. Being berated for every minor slip up is unfair. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Turning this back around to look at your own behavior, Ariane, you may not have access to scientific journals, but I do. And I can see that not only does the Johnson source say precisely what the article already said it did (and contradict your own version), but also your other addition based on a quote from Sciencedaily actually contradicts the scientific article that the news piece was about. It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate. Otherwise I agree with Cullen that this is an ordinary content dispute with no apparent need for administrative attention, but the way you are making contributions here will be a matter for administrative attention if it continues. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Might be true, but this my edit was justified, because "nitrogen" or "heavier than nitrogen" in relation to an element is mentioned only once in the Introduction but not in the main article at all. Even looking at the figure in the article "Periodic table showing the origin of each element" shows Carbon with exploding massive stars. Again quoting the article under Supernova#Other impacts#Source of heavy elements "...supernovae are a major source of elements from oxygen through to at least rubidium." (with the Johnston cite). Which is it? There are problems with the statement which is why it might be to generalise it. Yet how can it contradict a simpler version that tries to make a more generalised statement? But even if that is justified, gravitational waves or cosmic rays are unlikely appear in Johnston article at all. Even Lithopsian change this comment here to oxygen saying: "Start with oxygen which is included in the list, instead of nitrogen which isn't (or start with carbon, if "significant but less than half" is considered to be covered by "major"" Yet Johnston cite "about nitrogen" was not likely accessed by Attic Salt at all, because he says: "the Johnson article makes it clear that this should be qualified as "about nitrogen" given her Figure 1." I've since accessed the article, and "about nitrogen" does not appear in the document. I can only conclude this is original reaseach. As you have read this article too, please point out where this appears in the paper, as I can't find it.

Yet the negative portrayal of me here "It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate.", but I didn't do that. I responded on the talkpage under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements?, where a cite already appeared that was introduced by another editor, WAFred.

If anything, Attic Salt is doing what you accuse me of.

My revert was this edit because the deletion by an IP didn't seem helpful. (Attic Salt has made false accusations of me, refuses to acknowledge the mistake. This editor continues to do this kind of behaviour and is unwilling to change even if the evidence is against them. e.g. User Talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations Everytime there is a dispute, you have to climb another mountain to fix the mess. e.g. ,, , or this. It ils called sanction gaming Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (EC) If I'm counting correctly, this is the 4th time since April that Arianewiki1 has complained about some editor here at ANI Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request , Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Attic Salt , Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian . I think 2 of those 4 have been about Lithopsian and 2 of these have been about Attic Salt (including this thread). AFAIK, none of these have resulted in any real action. (From the initial discussion, it doesn't seem like anyone feels any is warranted here either.) Also from what I can tell, no one has brought up Arianewiki1 in that time not counting any discussion that followed one of the threads they started. (And I think a long time before their April post.)

  It's possible that Arianewiki1 is right and the the other editors are big problems and we've just missed it. But most of the time, when an editor keeps complaining about other editors, especially the same editors and nothing happens, it starts to become disruptive. To be clear, this doesn't mean there is no fault from others involved, but for better or worse, editors do have to find a way to deal with some degree of non-ideal behaviour from their counterparts without taking them to ANI every time.

  I'm not suggesting any action at the moment, but I would strongly urge careful consideration before another thread is opened lest a WP:Boomerang results.

  As a disclaimer in one of the previous discussions I strongly criticised Arianewiki1 for referring to themselves in the third person in their complaint. I believed I also commented either at ANI or in one of the talk page discussions or both, that people needed to cut out the personal commentary. I also found their refusal to use edit summaries disruptive especially since it seemed to come close to a WP:POINT violation in my eyes. And I have to admit, when I looked into I think 2 of these disputes, my impression from a quick overview was that while there was non-ideal behaviour from several people, Arianewiki1 seemed to be at biggest fault. So I'm not unbiased. Although I don't believe I've otherwise been in a dispute with Arianewiki1.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Also as a final comment, it's IMO easy to shoot yourself in the foot whatever the merits of the general concerns if there are serious flaws in your complaint. Referring to yourself in the third person was a previous example. Part of your complaint seemingly boiling down to "I don't have access to the scientific journal article" would IMO be another. There are plenty of possible solutions for that including asking at WP:REX or simply asking the editor with access for a direct quote of the relevant sentence or paragraph. While paywalls may be annoying for article improvement, paywalled sources can be an important part of an article. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  And as a final point, I should say it's unlikely I'll ever propose (as opposed to !vote in other proposals) action against Arianewiki1 in the near future even if they do open more of these threads. I've said why they seem to be a problem, if no one else shares my concerns enough to propose action if they keep happening then there's nothing to worry about and apologise for even bringing this up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  I share your concerns. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

  @Bishonen and Nil Einne: I recommend you have a look at the reams of notes at Talk:Rigel, which is Arianewiki1 disagreeing with just about everybody there about different issues, and also started up at Talk:Antares#Magnitudes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more, I have two comments specific to this particular dispute. User talk page discussion are generally a bad place to discuss article content especially in depth. Notably if editors made a decision on their talk pages and implemented it and then when challenged said 'we came to consensus' and referred to a user talk page discussion and refuse to discuss it again, this would almost definitely be a problem. But still for various reasons editors do have reason to use them at time. And in any case, there's no need to complain about every user talk page discussion over article content. I can understand it may be frustrating there's an article content discussion you cannot participate in but the simple solution to that is to initiate a discussion on the article talk page explaining your POV on how to improve the article and wait for others to join in. (Please don't get into pointless debates over who should initiate the article talk page discussion.) If already done so then just wait. On non urgent issues like this, editors should give others a reasonable time no matter what these others may have said or done elsewhere. And that's my other point. I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it. And given their lengthy disputes with both editors, they probably shouldn't looking at the 2 editors' contrib histories except when actively investigating the editors to bring a complaint to an appropriate noticeboard. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a very interesting point asking: "I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it." What about looking at Lithopsian discussions? Also I found their discussion just before I posted the ANI notices to Lithopsian and Attic Salt's talkpage. I then modified the ANI again before posting it. Was that wrong?

It is also notable that the (Attic Salt) "ban" is likely being made as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Also the entire reason why this ANI turned up was because I reverted an edit by an IP, where Attic Salt launched into their attack accusing me of "...so one can interpret Arianewiki1's sentence as meaning..." and "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." They refuse to retract these statements when asked.

In summary, what is going on is (as said here): "But even if this is acceptable, it is clear that you targeted this part of this only only because of my revert of an IP edit, and you thought it was a chance "to nail me" on some esoteric point just to frustrate the editing process. You were pushed on by Lithopsian pointy edits here and here, especially when they claim "…and of course complete rubbish." (Then to make sure of this, they then delete the cites, making certain the burn their bridges behind them on a unrelated pretext.)" As you've already point out, this kind of tactical behaviour is not the only time (over several ANIs now).

What is disturbing in the way gaming works. They see a weakness, like an 1RR, and exploit it. They force discussion onto talkpages, then either ignore it, make an accusation (like above) or attack the premise or a simple mistake on the talkpage or attack it in the edit summary; or now it seems do it where they can't be touched.

When challenged, like in this ANI or previous ones, they either target some 'mistake' (like no edit summaries), but avoid the actual problem. Or in this ANI, don't respond at all, and watch the complainer get picked apart by their past actions or transgressions. Easy. When the ends or disappears, you get the repeated attitudes, like Attic Salt's: "The ANI turned out to be a waste of time." Another is Lithopsian's response on User talk:Lithopsian#Reflist dropping down of sources/cites : "And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world." (the assertion doesn't match the response.)

The current justification appears here by Attic Salt, which continues to ignore the problem, even when the problem is explained to them by multiple people. Instead of an admitting any mistake, they finally partly capitulate with this series of edits when they already previously reverted it here. If this full explanation here shows multiple problems with even basic policies regarding editing. And yet they believe "I honestly don't see why this is controversial." (Worst, they are just explained by another editor the basic problem, but still do it anyway.

A Supernova article TBAN warning might just wake them up based simply on competence. Might be nice too, to hear a defence. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

‎Ur and En Wiki Helper

Ur and En Wiki Helper (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

Seems to mainly be interested in POV category labelling. Repeatedly inserts Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent into BLP articles where it is unsourced, and edit wars over it: , , are examples on one of many articles. The rest is readily seen from the relatively short contrib history. No response to multiple warnings -- Begoon 10:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the same user as these two:

• En Wiki Helper (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)
• قیومونٹ (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

They're not socking as there doesn't appear to be any deceptive intent here (they seem to start a new account after completely stopping using the previous one, conceivably after forgetting their password). They've also edited from various IPs. POV is a concern, but there are also really really massive CIR issues and no willingness to listen to feedback. A drain on the community's resources without any visible benefit. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a mass-rollback of their edits and, if at all possible, a mass deletion of the redirects they've created: almost all are either just wrong or are to articles without mentions and the one or two exceptions are too vague to be any use. – Uanfala (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought they might be قیومونٹ because they edited a draft begun by them, and edited by no-one else. I noticed them because people abusing categories for POV labeling, particularly ethnic/religious, is a pet dislike of mine. Category:Film censorship in Pakistan seems to be another favourite. Now I look more closely, and at the other accounts, the general CIR issues are pretty stark though, yes. -- Begoon 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mass rollback sounds reasonable. I changed one redirect (Old Urdu) from the target Hindi, which seemed rather pointy and in any case not very helpful, to History of Hindustani, but it would probably be best to just delete it with the rest. I don't know whether "Old Urdu" is a term that's used at all. --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Now it's framed in CIR terms, I admit that it does seem that the "basis" for a good lump of their Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent additions appears to be "because Khan"... -- Begoon 11:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is probably a young user, and their grasp of English seems to be a bit shaky. Maybe they ignore the talk page warnings because they don't understand them. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You're possibly right. Even so, if the net result is that they are wandering around slapping incorrect ethnic categories on BLPs, then edit warring them back in when removed, that needs to be prevented fairly quickly. If they don't, or can't communicate then our options are pretty limited. -- Begoon 15:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely, and came here now to ask admins for a CIR block. I posted this to their talk page 45 minutes ago and since then, they have added unsupported ethnic categories to a BLP, created another inappropriate redirect, and created a draft of a BLP for an apparently completely non-notable person - what they haven't done is react to the post on their user talk page asking specifically for a response. --bonadea contributions talk 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've recently reverted the usual addition to Arbaaz Khan, but this time from an IP, which I've warned. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I just realised that this is almost certainly the same user as User:اردو کے ممالک، ثقافت، وغیرہ. That account was username blocked so they are not actually socking, but it is worth noting that they were already warned multiple times about the same kind of edits (unsourced additions, inappropriate page creations) on that account, as well as on the accounts listed above. I can't see that they have ever engaged in any kind of discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this account is the master, the subsequent accounts would be socks. The master was hard-blocked. Permission to create new accounts would have been required.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Now obviously the same user or meatpuppet at 119.153.41.251 (talk · contribs), their English seems ok Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• All the accounts have now been blocked: after Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi (sami). Anybody want to unleash mass rollback and G5? – Uanfala (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd support that - it's rather a lot of edits to undo manually, and I don't believe anything of any value would be lost. -- Begoon 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mass-rollback is  Done. Home Lander (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing that. I guess that just leaves the G5s of the (mostly) redirects - unless anyone thinks any of them are useful enough to keep. -- Begoon 03:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think they've returned as Tiger MUQA. Very similar edits. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Promptly blocked by JJMC89. Created page also deleted per G5 by same. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung

I'm not quite sure of the standard procedure here, so I apologize in advance if there are issues with how I've handled this or if this would be more appropriate on a different noticeboard like NPOV or DR. I've begun to become worried about POV-pushing behavior on some of the Xinjiang related articles by user:Alexkyoung. It started for me when I noticed some misused citations (these were fixed) and OR (need to specify exactly where) on the article History of Xinjiang, which made me feel that it read like propaganda in some places (exactly where?). In the discussion on the talk page that followed (Talk:History of Xinjiang#Citation misuse), user:Tobby72 brought it to my attention that there's apparently been a pattern (all of these were from a month ago) of biased editing on a number of Xinjiang related pages from Alexkyoung: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff.

I was also worried by ownership-like behavior from Alexkyoung, particularly this post: . I wasn't able to find anything that indicated that consensus had been reached , so I wrote a note saying as much, only for it to be deleted , and (on revert), responded to with the accusation that I was trying to start an edit-war . I initially thought it was just a problem on one article or perhaps an extreme response during an argument; at one point I felt really guilty about having potentially misconstrued Alexkyoung's behavior and apologized to him on his talk page. Since then I have reviewed the edit history and been somewhat disturbed by edits made with edit summaries like this: . I'm not really sure what to do because I hate to write all this negative stuff about an individual editor's behavior, especially as in my view, Alexkyoung has been largely civil with me (yes, thanks for realizing that). However I've become increasingly concerned that there's a greater pattern of POV-pushing and page ownership and was hoping others would be able to look into it. Darthkayak (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The political agenda pursued by the subject editor is patent but generally skilfully executed so as to divert attention or to make targeted re-editing a major chore (who has that sort of time to spare? ). Admin(s) were easily duped when I crossed paths with this editor and I decided to leave the scene, notwithstanding the ongoing infection of the encyclopaedia. sirlanz 02:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

The obvious anti-Uyghur POV-pushing : , , , , , . File a report at NPOV noticeboard per WP:NPOVD. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes Jamez42 reverted back to Alexkyoung's original version, and DavidMCEddy thanked Alexkyoung for the edits. Alexkyoung has certainly been appreciated for his positive contributions to the wikis many times before.

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

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

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

IP repeatedly restoring forum-talk disparaging article topic and venting personal feelings

IP repeatedly restoring forum-talk disparaging article topic and venting personal feelings, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKNO. Comments include "much of the rock press was despicable," "a very opinionated writer, and it shows," "his newspaper and magazine reviews were nothing but pablum", all under the talk-page header titled "despised by musicians" (See diffs for more). Dan56 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• 50.111.24.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Diffs

IP's talk page

• First notice to them
• IP claims to be a former admin
• Second notice, with explanation of why the IP's post has no merit
• IP's second response

• Comment. You also restored comments that the IP had removed. Per WP:REMOVED editors are allowed to remove warnings on their own talkpages (and it doesn't matter if they are a named account or an IP), other editors are not supposed to restore them except under very specific circumstances. The IP also said they used to be an admin when they lived in Oz, as in Australia. They did not claim to now be an admin, therefore there is no misrepresentation of their status. Keeping WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTAFORUM in mind I disagree with your assessment that they are using the article talkpage as a soapbox...maybe they are being somewhat inelegant in their phrasing but to me they are attempting to discuss the sources and the conclusions in the article itself...which would seem to be to be aimed towards improving the article... Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

They aren't attempting to discuss any sources; where did they discuss even one source??. They could not even quote the statement they have issue with correctly. ("Standard reference" does not exist anywhere in the article) Dan56 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I've stricken irrelevant and inappropriate remarks () Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No matter the behaviour of the other editor, striking parts of their comments is clearly WP:TPO (except if it is unambiguously an attack of the type "X is " - as far as I see, "X was a very opinionated writer" does not appear to be such a WP:PA). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And if the other editor is correct? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:E5A0:4CB9:5B55:89AE (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Interaction ban

Editor NewsAndEventsGuy has a history of following my edits, makes frequent claims about my edits and violations, has a dedicated section on his talk page where he collects selectively from our communications. I've noticed that I edit pages where he is also known to be more active less so, e.g. at global warming/sea level rise where I in the past was among the most active editors. But even when I edit pages he never touched before, he follows me around. Yesterday, editor Sean Heron posted on my talk page in regards to my edits at climate emergency in a constructive consensus finding way. But immediately NewsAndEventsGuy had to show up (even though I asked him to take such matters to article talk), reverts my edits, and made a point about a POVFORK violation. Sean Heron noted subsequently, Then someone else (in this case you NewsAndEventsGuy :P ) blankets the page. That's not exactly courteous - not to Prokaryotes nor to me :/ .

Generally the user reverts me then drags me into long talk page discussions where he usually argues I violated NPOV, OR, POVFORK or a combination of those. The first interaction I had with NewsAndEventsGuy was around 2014, at the article polar amplification, the user since made 20 edits, added 336 bytes of text, deleted 5,786 bytes of text in article space, on the talk page he made 829 edits, added 235,847 bytes of text. He usually is not acknowledging when he makes a failure, instead doubles down. I am happy to provide more examples where the user interferes with my edits in a not so constructive manner, but basically I ask the community here to enact an interaction ban between him and me, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope you do understand that this potential interaction ban would be effecting you just as much as NewsAndEventsGuy. I say this as I see that you have reverted one of his edits as late as just a few hours ago.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted his revert of my edit, which wouldn't have happened if we have this ban. I am aware that I would no longer interact with him (including his edits, unless they are in gross violations). prokaryotes (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To sum up, you've offered as evidence of recent problematic behavior one diff in which NAEG made an obviously correct decision to restore a redirect, that has been well supported by numerous editors on the article talk page. --JBL (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reply by NAEG To sum up, I'm accused of WP:Hounding in which The important component... is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Say again, "no constructive reason". Prokaryotes editing merits following because they often inject two kinds of problems into our articles. The first is an over-reliance on WP:Primary sources which he is likely to mis-interpret. He is especially likely to do this with scientific papers on climate change and global warming. This problem was discussed in August 2018 at WP:AN in this thread where Boris (recently deceased, alas!) concurred with my observations and mentioned WP:CIR. The second problem is Prokaryotes climate alarmist POV, e.g., in his own words Unfortunately humanity is to dumb to understand the implications. ]. That has been P's approach to climate articles for a long time. For example, in May 2012 at Fermi paradox#It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, P made an edit with edit summary Adding climate change to the possible list of self destruction. P used a different name, as explained ). Similar RIGHTGREATWRONGS editing on P's part led to vaccination Tban in 2013 and a GMO Tban in 2015. Since I'm not seeking a boomerang, I'm going to stop now. I just wanted to say NPOV and proper use of PRIMARY sources are constructive reasons to follow someone around, when they have a troubled track record in those areas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That's all you could find, my block log, a spot on edit summary, a talk page comment, who reads in full, The agreement is 1.5-2C while the Arctic warms at least twice as much (which should be somewhere in the article). Unfortunately humanity is to dumb to understand the implications. Guys, can we please have this interaction ban, or do I have to show you how lots of editors have similar problems with this editor, and that he often is plain wrong in his argument? I am mis-representing the sciences my edits have an alarmism bias, I ask you to retract these claims without merit. NewsAndEventsGuy, is the only editor who makes these claims about my edits, he usually did not read the science studies I add to article space. I have literally added thousands of science papers to the Misplaced Pages, if there was room for improvements I discuss on talk, that's about it. prokaryotes (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

P's reply is (yet another) CIR like tantrum of which the ANI and related pages have plenty to choose from. No P it is not all I can find, but as I stated my only purpose was to show there is a constructive reason to follow your edits, and I provided diffs for that purpose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that the real CIR issue is on your side, otherwise you would provide diff's which show mis-representing and alarmism POV (whatever this is). prokaryotes (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who is (more) at fault, or if the edits of one (both) of you are indeed inappropriate per policy, but given your current feelings, an interaction ban between the two seems absolutely warranted as a minimal step even if my first two questions are answered in the negative. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we please hold NewsAndEventsGuy accountable for his baseless accusations that I mis-represent the sciences, is reluctant to provide evidence (other than an accurate edit summary from 2012)? And if this is not moving you, remember he has a creepy special section on his talk page about me, above wrote he follows me around - YES, I feel harassed by this user that's why I came here for help. If yo u have specific questions, want more difs, please ask me and I will provide, thank you! prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There has been a previous discussion on the matter (to which NAEG has linked), in which others editors do side with him so I do not think his accusations are baseless. "Reluctant to provide evidence" also seems inaccurate given the post he made in reply to you; and the fact that other editors right here seem to disagree with your assessment of his editing. I also fail to see how a discussion on his talk page where he invited you to participate is "creepy". You might be taking this a bit too personally - maybe you should take some distance and let cooler heads prevail? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes:@NewsAndEventsGuy: Alright you have both said your piece, now stop arguing with each other. NAEG: Would you be amenable to a 2 way voluntary (yet quite enforceable) IBAN? Captain Eek ⚓ 19:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Having interacted with both users quite a lot, I think that a IBAN might be quite fruitful. I do worry a bit about the edits made by P still though, which make me suspect a passion for the topic which makes it more difficult for P to write up facts in a balanced way. An example is , where P added a line about global warming to a very generic physics article in the lede, for which I had to extensively explain how this contained errors and was unbalanced. Further examples are , where P added a full paragraph about a new alarmist study to global warming, a top-level article where this led to quite some unbalance. One study for which P seems to have interpreted as having a more extended application that the studies implied themselves: . Is there a possibility that in addition to an IBAN, P would volunteer in some mentoring program? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King of troy and WP:SEEALSO

King of troy (talk · contribs) is a recent editor who has been mostly been adding to See also sections. Unfortunately, many of the insertions violate WP:SEEALSO; they're often already linked in the article (sometimes duplicates of existing See also items), or of unclear relevance/relationship, and in no discernible order. Several editors have commented on KoT's user page and/or reverted KoT's edits, with no response or apparent change in behavior. Jayjg 14:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

user:Bbb23 has blocked indefinitely. Bbb23, can you provide some information around this? Jayjg 16:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I tagged the sock so you can see the SPI case it belongs to if you want to read about the behavioral patterns.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that certainly makes short work of this editor. But even if this were not a sock, with his additions of see also's that are not related, or are already linked in the article, and then not being responsive on their talkpage, this was going towards a block in any case. Somebody should undo all his edits... Debresser (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation (Michaelgabrielo)

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

This user has been a constant problem when it comes to adding unsourced content (usually their own interpretations and speculation) to articles, as well as regularly removing 500-1000 bytes of sourced content without explaining why. This started in February and March with warnings for edits for removing content and unsourced content/WP:OR. They were blocked for a week, see here. After the block they left this message. They recieved a warning for removing content again in May and then blocked again the following day, this time for 72 hours . However that did not help. In this edit and this one this month, they added unsourced content and after that on Chad Gable (diff) they added "Originally a heel tag team, their fighting spirit, and resiliency against their larger opponents won them many fans and began a gradual face turn". This is entirely their own personal analysis of a storyline. They also removed around 800 bytes of content in the same edit without reason. For this they recieved a final warning again. Then today in this edit they changed a tag team's article to say they were now disbanded. They gave no source for their change, again just their personal analysis of what is going on. I searched online for a reliable source saying this and could not find one. This was also in disregard of a hidden note placed in the article for this reason. I have left multipe messages including in my own words and nothing helps. Refuses to respond to 90% of messages. StaticVapor message me! 08:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have a belief they are connected to User: Kingofcruiserweight (similar editing style of removing content with no explanation) or some other account with the whole "blockapedia" and this repeatedly mentioning they are a new user. Either way, this is a problem editor and it needs to stop. StaticVapor message me! 08:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wrestling. Again. EEng 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Anon Disruptive Edits

I am involved in a edit war on Marriageable_age The anon is posting old news about saudi arabia from 2009 "In relation to proposed Saudi marriage reforms in 2009, it was observed that "although girls can marry even before reaching puberty, they cannot terminate the wedding contracts according to the Hanbali legal school, one of four major schools in Sunni Islam, which gives complete control over the female to the male guardian" However the saudi goverment have reformed this law and banning all marriages under the age of 15. "However in 2019 Members of the Saudi Shoura Council in 2019 approved fresh regulations for minor marriages that will see to outlaw marrying off 15-year-old children and force the need for court approval for those under 18. Chairman of the Human Rights Committee at the Shoura Council, Dr. Hadi Al-Yami, said that introduced controls were based on in-depth studies presented to the body. He pointed out that the regulation, vetted by the Islamic Affairs Committee at the Shoura Council, has raised the age of marriage to 18 and prohibited it for those under 15." (https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1540156/saudi-arabia-introduces-new-regulations-early-marriage) the user has left the new information but still puts in the old one which is redundant.

The anon has reverted my edits the reliance of the travler whose reference cannot be accessed seems to be dispaly false information regarding the age of marraige in the shafi juriprudence the source cannot be accessed then I found the online pdf of the book which can be accessed and that information completly different to what was written:

The false information currently on the wiki page whose reference cannot be accessed:

The Reliance of the Traveller, frequently considered the definitive summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, states in the chapter on marriage as follows:

       32.2a. A father arranging the marriage of a virgin daughter: A father can arrange the marriage of his virgin daughter without her permission even if she is beyond the age of puberty. It is up to him whether he consults her or not.
       32.2b. Someone other than the father arranging the marriage of a virgin: However, if anyone other than the father is arranging the marriage of a virgin, such as a guardian appointed in the father's will or anyone else, he cannot give her in marriage unless she is beyond the age of puberty and has given her consent. In this case her silence is taken as consent.

The reference which can be accessed and which has been reverted by this anon states: According to the Shafi book of Jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveler:

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission. As for the non virgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7). If the Islamic magistrate is her guardian, he may not under any circumstances marry her to someone who is not a suitable match for her.As for the non virgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7). If the Islamic magistrate is her guardian, he may not under any circumstances marry her to someone who is not a suitable match for her. No one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to someone who is not a suitable match (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be guardians (def: m3.7).go to page 213

The anon is alos deleting information regarding hindu scriptures which are referenced and the annon appears to be using two anon accounts as well. Arsi786 (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2019

1. for content: The old information should be kept as a historical record of how things were, if there is a WP:RS to support it; and you should not copy-paste directly from the source as that would be copyright infringement - rather, paraphrase in your own words; and avoid long quotations such as this unless they are strictly necessary. In any case, regarding the book, it appears to me more like a set of rules/laws and thus may be WP:PRIMARY - on Misplaced Pages, we prefer when sources further removed (i.e. not directly involved in the topic matter) are used as they provide a more reliable and independent commentary.
2. for behaviour: it is wrong of the IP to change the reference of the book to make it appear as only a web page - if what you are citing is just an online PDF of an otherwise published book (and it is), then it's a book and should be cited as such - of course, if the online PDF is a copyright infringement then it should not be linked to. It is also wrong of the IP to describe sites as "personal websites" when that is not the case. Nevertheless, it is wrong of both of you to keep reverting each other without engaging in more constructive dialogue on the talk page - even if you think you are righting a grave error. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

On further inspection, the IP also appears like a WP:SPA, for what it's worth (probably something in this kind of situation). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing by Alwaysrightman

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

Alwaysrightman is a SPA that has been at disruptive presence at Stephen Hendry for around a couple of months. The problems are too numerous to recount fully here, but I will list some that are typical of his edits:

• (note the edit summary)

The rest of the edits are more or less versions of the above.

He has been reverted on numerous occasions by a total of five editors: Rodney Baggins, Lee Vilenski, Larry Hockett, SFC9394 and myself. There is broad agreement on the talk page not to describe Hendry as the "greatest player": Talk:Stephen_Hendry#Is_Hendry_the_greatest?. Alwaysrightman's only interaction at the discussion was to delete it: .

I was hoping that the editor would either go away or perhaps the message would get through and his editing would become productive. Unfortunately neither seems likely at this point. It is starting to look like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Note - User was blocked back in April for this same issue, and breaking 3RR Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 11:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked him for disruptive editing. We need him to address this continual disruption before he can return to editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Flixbus/Ashafir

• Ashafir (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)
• Flixbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Suspected biased administration of the FlixBus page

User appears to be an WP:SPA with the sole purpose of adding as much "dirt" about this bus company as they can. In the previous ANI they groundlessly accused SoWhy of "biased administration". After having a couple of massive dumps of trivial incidents removed from the article for POV, RS and COPYVIO they argued interminably on the talkpage, complete with backhand insinuations that I am somehow protecting the page due to some affiliation with the company.

When I pruned their latest contribution of trivial content concerning timetable/booking disputes etc their reaction was to directly accuse me on the article talkpage, and my talkpage of having an "affiliation with Flixbus". Some assistance would be appreciated. -- Begoon 11:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is indication of "PR style" actions on the Flixbus page:

a) the Flixbus is a German company. The wiki page officially monitored by WiKi Germany. But now the Flixbus operates intensively all across Europe and in the US. The incidents published on the page was outside of Germany and than this info was deleted quickly. b) the user SoWhy initially took attention of the changes on the page is a lawyer in the region of the Flixbus HQ. c) just instantly after the comment of the user there was another anonymous user started "fixing" the page to look more positively. So there is a clear connection between the users or possible the same person act with 2 user ID. d) the whole page was 100% positive for the company service even there is a lot of controversy found.Ashafir (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, there are approx. 14,000(!) lawyers based in Munich and another circa 7,000 in the surrounding areas. But while I am one of them, I am not one working for this bus company, a conclusion Ashafir has clearly made by ignoring WP:NPA and WP:AGF as much as possible. As Begoon has previously pointed out, this user seems to be interested in righting great wrongs by adding non-notable and trivial "controversies" that are entirely sourced to user-generated social media platforms. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

lol. Well I'm not a lawyer, and I've never played one on TV or even on the internet. I did visit Germany once, in the 90s, and very pleasant it was. -- Begoon 12:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• What is clearly visible here, that both users (SoWhy and Begoon) are using "the lawyer style" of defending Flixbus. There are only favorable for their viewpoints policies listed. But not, for instance WP:BOLD. The grammar errors listed was not corrected but the whole data erased. There is no any visible attempt to help but it is a very clear indication to erase non-PR looking data from the FlixBus page.

Moreover, the initial "fix" of the FlixBus page was "complete cleaning" so there was not even a trace in the "history"! Also it is easy to check that the page with the correction initially stayed for many hours but when user SoWhy noticed it the "complete erase" by an unknown user happens in a very short time, nearly instantly. Whenever there is any connections between user SoWhy and FlixBus there is a community interest involved.Ashafir (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Anyone who looks at the diff can see that I corrected your poor grammar in the content which I retained. Ashafir - when you are in a hole you really ought to stop digging. -- Begoon 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And I have honestly no idea what you are talking about. I only edited the page five times at all, three times to revert vandalism/unsourced changes and once to tag copyright violations you added for deletion. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, SoWhy i will explain. 1) I initially added the data to the page at 15:59, 16 June 2019. 2) You wrote to me at 05:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC). 3) soon after this the FlixBus page was edited that there was no trace of my initial submission in the history at all . Unfortunately i have no screenshot of this but I am sure the server logs have it. 3) Than, after I raised concern over admin page, the history got magically updated and now it shows user Praxidicae deleted the info (btw without notifying on the talk page). 4) another time user Bonadea reverted the edit. 5) now user Begoon is fighting to remove many of the published in the newspapers data as "trivial". Of course all it can be a coincidence. You are the lawyer. When you see so many coincidences around a case how it looks for you? I understand and agree that some of my work was (is) not properly formatted or spelchecked. But the claim that the very detailed data from non-anonymous customers of FlixBus is and even the data from the newspapers is "trivial" and "useless" looks quite strange. The same story happens around FlixBus on many places. IMHO for good PR need to support customers etc. There are many business models that incorporate this. But just cleaning up "uncomfortable" data does not solve the situation at all. As the lawyer you must know.Ashafir (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashafir, the content you tried to introduce was removed by three different editors: Begoon, SoWhy, and Praxidicae. When your edit is removed, it's not okay to keep re-adding it. That's called edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing it. Instead, per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you are supposed to visit the talk page and make a case as to why the material should be included. All three of these editors are long-time Misplaced Pages contributors who have good policy- and content-based reasons for removing the material, so it's likely that they are correctly removing it because it's not suitable for inclusion (rather than removing it because they some personal connection to this company). Having to wait for a bus is not something you would see in a paper encyclopedia, and it's not the kind of content we are looking for either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, please check the initial submission and especially the reverences/links added. () The situation is far from "Having to wait for a bus". Even after the wait the company has not provided any replacement buses, no accomodation and tried to object plainly the bus no show-up at all. This is the exact reason why the 15 ticket holders contacted the newspaper and the story was published. And this is not an isolated and not a worst case of the FlixBus related incidents. This case is listed alone just because all the other incidents listed on my initial submission was deleted and this is one of the few that has formally verified source. I also added a related question to the talk page but it is ignored up to now: Based on the discussion above it makes sense to clarify "triviality of incidents" to avoid further edit wars. Let's imagine a situation, when a group or family is traveling as usual. It knows the transportation laws etc. It expects a bus on a stop ... but it does not stop. It expects to solve the incident with a transport company ... but it plainly ignored. It reads the relevant reviews and finds out that it is a very stable pattern of the company handling. Is it a "trivial incident" for the family/group? Certainly not. Since it disrupts the whole holiday plans, costs more than most of the trip etc. Is it trivial for a company? Certainly yes if it care only about court cases but not about the customers. The question is it a "trivial incident" for the readers of the encyclopedia. I assume, not only a company and it's fans reads it by regular readers. So, as i stated above, if an accident has been noticed and published by a news agency it is more than "merely being true, or even verifiable". I can say that "true and verifiable" is applicable for the way more incidents than published in the news. So a news publication can be a trashhold level for "non-triviality". How does it sounds? Is there any specific policy for such "triviality"? -- Ashafir (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what it is that you're accusing me or SoWhy of and I'm not going to read the diatribe above but I didn't think my revert needed explanation as blatantly unreliable, and frankly garbage sourcing. I don't know anything about this company and I'd never heard of it until several filters were triggered via COIBot for adding Tripadvisor, which is not a reliable source, ever, for reviews, nor is a Facebook group or any of the other original research you added. I'll also note that the content you added was sourced to Gethuman (unreliable and should probably be blacklisted), Tripadvisor (explained above) and checkmybus (unreliable), so in addition to the no original research policy, you should probably take a read of WP:RS, cause this ain't it. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You are the lawyer. When you see so many coincidences around a case how it looks for you? IANAL but it's time to put the tin foil hat away. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Very nice try to change the point. This starts looking like an old FIDO style flame. But the point is: whenever you wearing a foil hat or not there was serious incidents with the FlixBus that started from a very minor issue and than with the negligence of the FlixBus HQ converted to a "noise" and appeared even in the newspapers. There are many "bureaucratic" lawyer-style objections that allows exclude this data to the encyclopedia. Why there is no a single attempt to fix it? Just clean-up. Better without a trace.Ashafir (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I spent considerable time on the talk page of the article attempting to help you to understand that, quite aside from poor sources and copyright violations, you cannot use the article to "aggregate" individual complaints about timetables, performance, customer service, booking problems etc to try to establish a pattern, because that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, but rather need to find reliable sources discussing the matter as a whole and cite their conclusions, along with any reliable sources which might conclude otherwise.

In return you have basically accused both SoWhy and myself of being "shills" for the company. This is disgraceful behaviour, particularly when the only person who seems to have an axe to grind in this situation is you, as you appear to be an WP:SPA with no other purpose here than to "dish the dirt" on this company. Instead of realising this and backing off, you appear to be digging yourself even deeper and accusing even more people.

Initially I had a certain inclination to help you, as I try to do with all new users, but you seem hell-bent on destroying any goodwill. -- Begoon 13:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Begoon, it does not matter helping you me or not. The encyclopedia shall help the public. If there is a verifiable data about FliBus that can help passengers it shall be presented. According to the policies, of course. And this you certainly can help as the way more experienced contributor than me.--Ashafir (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashafir This sounds like something you have an issue with personally, that needs to be dealt with elsewhere and not on Misplaced Pages. Praxidicae (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae "Sounds"? It is very strange, especially in the view of your previous comment on this page. Have you read the article by the link(s)? All the links are still in the history (after it was fixed). Can you clarify why it is my personal issue? --Ashafir (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Because all of your complaints here are seemingly about the company and thus irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. They're the equivalent of "this company did this bad thing that sucks" but it's unsupported by reliable sources. If we allowed TripAdvisor or similar site reviews in articles, we'd be a directory of spam and puffery. But this is also irrelevant because the current policy and consensus is that the sources you added are not acceptable. Simple. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And if your argument is that this is the "news source" well yes, it might be a newspaper but this particular piece holds the same weight as a random op-ed. It's from a reader submitted tip and based on, shocker, internet reviews that are not verified. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeForget about tripadvsor. Can you use the same line of the arguments for the latest revertion related to the newspaper articles? Please check the FlixBus page history. Thanks.--Ashafir (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeOK, now you say rzeszow.wyborcza.pl is the same as TripAdvisor, right? What next? --Ashafir (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me back to this discussion. I reverted you once. But for the record, I agree with Begoon's revert as this isn't a soapbox and it is trivial. Adding every single time a bus malfunctions, misses a pick up or has an accident is trivial. Shit happens, unless it is chronic and reported in such a way that abides by Misplaced Pages's policies, it shouldn't be in the article. And no, I didn't say it's the same as tripAdvisor, I said it's the equivalent of an op-ed because it's a reader submitted tip based on tripAdvisor reviews, which is exactly what their clarification note says. Now drop the stick, please. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeI am very sorry but you are again twisting the point. For the record: the reason why this article was published on the newspaper because it was not "shit happens" but totally wrong handling by the German (Bavarian) company FLiXBUS which is managing the customer support. According Praxidicae and Begoon it must be "chronic and reported". And in fact it is. It is CHRONIC indeed. This is not an isolated case. Hundreds reports with the booking IDs, names, pictures, videos across Facebook, Tripadvisor (yes!) and other sources are clearly indicating it. Keeping it from the enciclopedia will make more passengers in troubles since there is no indication that the way FlixBus will handle it will change.--Ashafir (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to ask - I said my part, stop pinging me here. You are either not getting it or willfully refusing to. TripAdvisor and Facebook are never suitable sources for content of this nature. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

It's clear to me that Ashafir has no intention of dropping the stick and doesn't seem to quite understand what Misplaced Pages is for, so I'd like to propose either an indefinite topic ban from this article or an outright block for WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, as well as blatant personal attacks where they have accused multiple editors of bad-faith editing or "shilling", with the condition that it may be lifted once they exhibit an understanding of reliable sources, verifiability and the general purpose of an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I should add my preference is for an outright block as they've edited nothing else and don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block per WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. Editor seems clearly to be a WP:SPA and persistent bad-faith accusations (such as ) show a lack of mature behaviour and ability to engage in proper discussion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a block due to IDHT, NOTHERE and SPA. - Donald Albury 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT. Further, I would suggest a topic ban regarding public transit articles for a minimum of 6-months after any block is lifted. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion

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

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

107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

174.18.78.210

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

After just slightly more than 1 day of release from the user's block, 174.18.78.210 is attacking other editors again. The user was originally blocked for long-term abuse. See Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Nate Speed. The user is editing in violation of their site ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=790555410#Site_ban_for_Nate_Speed. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's already taken care of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:D.Mills1977

D.Mills1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been problematic for several months now. They continually add unsourced content to articles and have been reverted dozens and dozens of times and have been warned for it on their talk page several times, which they have never responded to. I also have a suspicion that this user may be a new account of User:Kaimaidment18 who was indef blocked for the exact same type of behavior–consistent addition of unsourced content despite reverts/warnings and simply making problemetaics edits that always had to be reverted. That user was blocked in October 2018 and then indef blocked in January 2019 when it was confirmed he was making new accounts to evade their block. Their last sockpuppet was blocked in January 2019 and this account starting making edits the following month, following the same pattern of edits. Just look at their interaction analysis. Using List of The Walking Dead episodes is a perfect example as seen here, where both accounts would make the same type of edits against MOS:TV guidelines, would be reverted multiple times, but still come back and make the same edits. I'm wondering if WP:COMPETENCE is also an issue here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A quick look shows significant overlap between edited articles. Both users seem to have made also relatively little use of talk pages... If you (as I do) suspect this account is a sockpuppet, the proper place is WP:SPI. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Unregistered IP User attacking me despite having issues corrected

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

User 87.75.117.183 maybe in violation of WP:PERSONALATTACKS after repeatedly attacking me with false accusation through Misplaced Pages Feature {Edit Summary). I contacted a admin on a talk page to help with the issue to get things clear up and it did. Despite heaving issues cleared up the unregistered ip user continue to attack . I believe the user may been blocked before for attack on another account and maybe using multiple accounts to group on me. I stop responding to the unregistered ip user started to repeatedly use the edit summary to attack after issues was clear up. I was gone from the page that had a issue for around 2 days. I decided to just let a uninvolved Admin to deal with the new problem. Issue that been cleared up Proof 1 Proof 2 Proof 3Proof 4Regice2020 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's difficult from the links you presented to see any personal attacks as they are not edits but different versions of the same article. Can you provide diffs, specific edits that show the edit summaries you find offensive? Thanks. Liz 00:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Tip.... see WP:DIFF and HELP:Page history. What works best here is a diff like this. I got that url from the version history for this page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the IP labeled Regice2020's good-faith edits as vandalism a couple of times (see, e.g., ). However, Regice2020 should be aware that the discussion s/he linked to as an "issue that been cleared up" in fact shows third-party editor MelanieN seeming to agree with the IP that the material Regice2020 was removing should not be removed. @Regice2020:, if you have a content dispute and are not satisfied with the result of your discussion, you should turn to proper dispute resolution mechanisms—not ANI. Other than mislabeling your edits as vandalism, what has the IP done that would require an "uninvolved admin" to get involved? --Jprg1966 01:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As the person accused, I'd like to add vexatious litigant to the list of "personal attacks" too. Regice2020 appears to have a major problem with the fact that I am an unregistered user who uses a static IP address for my own ideological reasons. He requested deletion of the Ryzen article without first trying to improve it or even posting on its talk page. Naturally, the request was rejected. He then tried to block me from editing it by requesting that it be protected. When that was rejected, he tried again, a few hours later. When that also failed he began disruptively editing (deleting significant chunks from) the article and adding tags with the wrong dates to suggest that it has long standing issues and when challenged he sought advice from an admin, who told him that he needed to revert and seek consensus. He didn't revert but continued to argue, so the "clear up" was done by me. I've repeatedly tried to engage him in discussion but he refuses. If I'm wrong for calling him a disruptive editor or a vandal then so be it. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like there's a case for calling Regice2020 a disruptive editor, but not a vandal. That may not seem like an important distinction, but it always helps when there's a content dispute (bordering on an edit war) to avoid mischaracterizing people's motives. Not saying you're in the wrong in this dispute—just something to keep in mind. --Jprg1966 02:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I take your point. Thank you for pointing that out. Not that there was ever any risk of an edit war. I made it clear to Regice2020 that I would not be drawn into one but he barely acknowledges my existence. I only reverted his disruptive edit the second time when he showed no inclination to do so himself. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Ryzen page is still being too technical everyday and other issues from edits in 2017 to now. We do not know if Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7, and Ryzen 9 going even par with Intel . I mean this person going to keep going even if something ended in good faith. I am not bother. Right now there too much "heat" going around with multiple users and may get more people in trouble. I going just request closure to this to let "heat" cool off few days to a week. I am not going bother with that Ryzen page or even fans coming over once a while to edit for few days to a week. Thanks. Have nice day Regice2020 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. --Jprg1966 02:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As always , in WP:FAITH. I like to withdrew this report. Regice2020 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's very wise, and I'll forget that you ever accused me of WP:COI. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's drop our STICKs and move along. --Jprg1966 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I see that the discussion at my talk page has been cited here. I’ll summarize for the record. I first encountered Regice a few days ago when I declined their RFPP request for protection of the Ryzen page. It had previously been denied by another administrator, but as soon as that was archived Regice posted the same request again, for which I scolded them. They then approached me on my talk page with complaints similar to this ANI. My analysis at that time: Regice was repeatedly removing longstanding content, which the IP was restoring. I told Regice they needed to get consensus at the talk page to remove longstanding content; they have still not posted there. I'm not sure they understood me, and I certainly have trouble understanding them. I think the IP's characterization of them as a "vexatious litigant" has merit and I suspect ANI has not seen the last of Regice. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright images

Lauriamundo uploaded about 60 images to commons yesterday as "own work" and added links here. The images are all up for deletion on commons. Not sure if anything else should be done here to prevent more of this. MB 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Depends. If the user is a newbie then help them per WP:DONTBITE. If they just keep doing it despite prior warnings see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and maybe whatever policies anyone else points out. Then review the guidelines how to make a properly documented complaint here. Is this the best place for action on repeat copyvios? beats me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I assume the 60 or so notifications of deletions at commons will get their attention and hopefully put and end to it. I know once the files are deleted, a bot will remove the redlinks here. But in at least some cases, there was a prior image that will not be "returned" so there is some damage done here that will be left behind without manual intervention. I though maybe a block would be in order to prevent more such damage. Maybe they will stop (no new edits in 11 hours), maybe not. MB 01:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment but to prevent future problems. If a newbie makes 50 mistakes when they don't yet know, we're pretty easy on them, or should be. Check their contribs. Have they done this before? Check the version history of the tir talk page. Did anyone warn them and did they try to hide that fact be deleting the warning? That's all relevant in a complaint here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dan Vs.

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

Could Geraldo Perez and myself get some sysop help at this article, need the page semi-protected and the proxy IPs blocked. LTA is disrupting the page. Home Lander (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Only two IPs, not sure if semi-protection is needed at the moment. Bigger question to me, are those IPs on webhost ranges? 162.220.51.129 (talk · contribs) and 82.223.108.106 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, indicates they are both proxies. Home Lander (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the range for being web proxies and colocation hosts. Sasquatch t|c 03:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Nate Speed

He's back at it again... https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=94.69.61.55&limit=50. He was banned a long time ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=790555410#Site_ban_for_Nate_Speed Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked for 60 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

El C has blocked another IP and semi-protected the pages. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

DoctorAldebaran and "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby"

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

A "new", but surprisingly experienced editor DoctorAldebaran (talk · contribs) has joined Misplaced Pages apparently for the purpose of pointing out that antisemitism (or so-called "antisemitism" as DoctorAldebaran styles it), is not real, but merely "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby". As such he has been making edits that, in his view, help balance material that is " too pro-Jewish lobby" and that "favour a Jewish POV over an ethnic Catholic POV", and, in general, to clearly identify people and groups as "Jewish". DoctorAldebaran lays out some of his/her philosophy in this post. I submit that DoctorAldebaran's views and editing might be better suited to Metapedia than to Misplaced Pages. Jayjg 13:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Aaaand they've been CU-blocked by Bbb23. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 14:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as a sockpuppet of Ishbiliyya (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) - That makes Ishbiliyya's creation of certain categories (and their on-going deletion discussion more understandable. Jayjg 15:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Being wiki-hounded, disruptive edits from 24.47.152.65

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

• Labor theory of value - here, IP 47.200.26.187 removed an explanatory sentence from the lede with an edit summary showing they did not understand the reason it was included and a link to YouTube. I reverted, and 24.47.152.65 showed up to take up the mantle. I assumed I was dealing with 47.200.26.187's continued insistence, no idea it was the same person from Carter.
• Ed Asner - here 198.252.228.3 makes the unnecessary claim about the frequency Asner plays Santa, and I removed it. 24.47.152.65 shows up and keeps re-adding it, despite different editors insisting it does not belong in the lede. Again, assumed it was the original IP, no indication to expect it to be the editor from the Carter article.
  • Relatedly, and insidiously, the IP even went on the 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 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) 12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

There are also plenty of examples of them being snarky or rude to other editors, 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 has difficulties to read" so I was maybe a little snarky returning the comment, but hardly meets UNCIVIL. 24.47.152.65, of course, immediately restores the unreliable sources. Also, look at Talk:Ed Asner#Santa, they are being confronted by multiple editors there and in the mainspace that their addition is no good, but continuing their diatribe against me when it's actually been undone by four other editors. And of course 24.47.152.65 has a sudden interest in Brooklyn Tech or HydroSacks? And they are allowed to accuse me of stalking them? I come here with a serious allegation and the IP's whims are catered to instead of the facts I've presented? JesseRafe (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, you're just making my case for me when you bring up Jessica Parker Kennedy. You removed two plain facts , 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

User:Cody2019

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

Could someone please rollback all edits from Cody2019? He’s a block evading sock of CodyFinke2019. I’m without usual computer for a bit. --jpgordon 16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi,

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

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

Dear Bbb23,

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

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

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

IP user censoring MH17

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

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

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

Michael Gough (cricketer) - page protection request

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

Hi. This is logged at WP:RFPP, but his article is going crazy at the moment with BLP violations, following some Indian cricket fans being unhappy with a decision he made today at the 2019 Cricket World Cup. I'd be grateful if someone could protect the page. Thanks. Lugnuts 11:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously admins, pull your fingers out. We non-admins haven't got enough fingers to plug the dyke. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Big thanks to @Malcolmxl5: for adding the padlock. Lugnuts 11:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

94.67.133.161 and subtle pseudo-text pastes

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

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

Legal threats?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block SPA user for disruptive behavior and harassment

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

On 12 June 2019 this article was nominated for AfD by The Banner.

A day later on June 13 the User account Verabo was created automatically. The first edit the Verabo account makes is a vote in the above mentioned AfD.

Verabo posts a huge block of text. From the start Verabo personally attacks another wikipedian and accuses the editor of sockpuppetry. Furthermore Verabo claims that the actual subject of the AfD is "unmasked". The rest is mostly filled with groundless opinion and proof by assertion. But when ending the post Verabo claims to write on behalf of multiple people and industries. Wanting to project the image that there is some sort of team operating the Verabo account.

One point of discussion was imdb. Since i am a Gold level imdb-pro contributor i thought i'd help. And after doing my own research, i posted my reply here. .

My post was followed by wall of disruptive text with the same personal attacks, tone of voice and accusations of sockpuppetry as Verabo's previous post.

Other Wikipedians started warning Verabo.

I also replied, asking Verabo to stop with the personal attacks and groundless accusations: "(...) please do not attack the person but listen to their arguments. Do not attack me." And i closed with: "We should not base research on assumptions and should be open to change our views if shown the opposite to be the case. Please do not personally attack other users again Verabo".

An hour later Verabo ignores every warning and continues with personal attacks and groundless accusations. It showed Verabo was not replying in good faith. Verabo's tone of voice becoming increasingly more hostile.

Verabo receives another warning from an editor.

At this time Verabo was harassing editors to the point that an spi case was issued against me and other editors. The result of the spi case confirms that all of Verabo's personal attacks and accusations are untrue.

Verabo is again warned about the disruptive behavior on his or her own talkpage.

It has become clear to me that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior and personal attacks.

Verabo has been warned multiple times by multiple editors to stop. Then Verabo's behavior disrupts the AfD to a point an spi issued. And when the spi results show that Verabo's accusations are untrue, Verabo continues with personal attacks and proven-to-be-false accusations of sockpuppetry.

At this point I believe that the single-purpose account Verabo account had no intention to handle in good faith and was created to attack editors with an opposing view with the purpose to disrupt the AfD.

I am requesting account Verabo to be blocked. These patterns of harassment need to stop. Thank you. SimonRichter1337 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am a very correct and decent lady and you seem to be the only one who calls it "disruptive". Everyone else calls it constructive. Everything discussed was essential for the completeness of the case. You are the one who constantly refused to discuss the content. All other editors did. Have a good day. Verabo (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Incident on a Kurdish-related article

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

Portbase can't seem to defend their removal of scholarly references by linguists in Kurdish languages when I ask for an explanation in the talkpage and continues to remove templates I added next to sentences that are outright lies and cherrypicked. Also, it has been a common trend for sock puppets on new accounts to start editing this article after a dozen or so edits on random pages. Delegitimation of Kurdish scholars (even though none are used has also become too common. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

lol you have reverted my edit and the source two times and you claim that the page Kurdish languageS is about a single "Kurdish language". This attempt and effort is totally ethno-pov. We should here be neutral. The article is literally called Kurdish languageS so it deals with several languages spoken by Kurds. Portbase (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

How are you neutral when you remove an article by the respected Iranica Online written on the basis of oeuvres by linguists? Nevertheless, I'm not here to discuss with you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Can someone stop this now please?

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

There are some IPs (presumably socks) repeatedly posting copyvios and trolling at WP:Sandbox. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Yosakrai

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

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

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

Terrorist propaganda

Hi

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

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

Legal threats

IP 108.161.169.19 at and . Ifnord (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards