위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive1011

사용자:Moiidthg

위키 공격

니시다니, 인조크로서 인신공격

• 편리한 템플리트 {{fbdb}} 플러그를 꽂을 수 있는 정말 좋은 기회! (렌딩은 .) EEng 06:30, 2019년 6월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

- 내 신호에 맞는 것 같아? - 록시, 개야WOF 16:14, 2019년 6월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

TERF에서 IP 양말, 가능한 회피, 밀봉 및 대상 편집기

중-미 무역 전쟁과 대화

Syopsis는 다른 편집자들은 모두 틀림없이 "당신과 다른 편집자들(sockpuppet?)은 이미 그만 실망을 멈추게 할 것이라고 확신하는 것 같다.사용자들은 기사를 너무 싫어하고 나서 자유롭게 자신의 POV를 기사에 주입할 수 있다"고 말했다. 그리고 나서 그는 이 태그를 제거함으로써 기사에 추가된 모든 태그를 제거했다. 지적 독자들이 그 C에 대한 언급이 거의 없이 미국 행정부의 과도한 보도를 볼 수 있을 때 기사는 자동적으로 진실로 받아들여지지 않을 것이다.히네스의 상대내가 ALL 태그를 삭제한 그의 편집을 되돌렸을 때, 그는 대신 자신의 버전을 고집하며 내가 먼저 이러한 변경에 대해 논의해야 한다고 말했는데, 이미 여러 명의 다른 사람들이 오랫동안 대화 페이지에 있는 기사의 POV에 의문을 제기해 왔다.그는 다른 사람들이 분명히 지적한 바 있는데, 위키 변호사가 되는 것 외에 주장을 펴거나 인신공격을 할 수 없는 것 같다.나는 한때 이 기사가 미국의 관점에서 너무 많은 것을 쓰는 것에 동의해야 한다고 생각했었다. 왜냐하면 보복관세에 대한 언급 외에 나머지 것들은 트럼펫트럼프럼프가 아니라면 미국, 미국. 비즈터(대화) 05:16, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자는 이미 두 가지 불만을 제기하였다(한 가지는 중립적인 관점에서의 게시판과 공공 기물 파손에 대한 관리자 개입의 다른 것).나는 내가 할 말을 다 했지만 그것은 기본적으로 사용자들이 그가 원하는 변화에 대해 토론조차 하지 않는 것으로 귀결된다 - 그의 견해는 "진리"라는 추측이 있다.나는 첫날부터 그가 꺼내기 위해 노력하는 많은 정보들이기 때문에 그가 말하는 페이지의 어떤 변화를 먼저 논의해야 한다고 말했다.사용자의 이력을 감안할 때, 정말로 당파적인 것은 없다.같은 것은 말할 수 없다.sy시스 (대화) 06:16, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

@Viztor:이 편집이 당신이 해야 할 편집의 종류이고 모든 사람이 동의할 수 있다는 것을 보라.sy시스 (대화) 06:22, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

@시옵시스:이 형편없는 편집에 대해: WP:를 읽어보십시오.Civil, 그리고 의사소통에서 쓸데없이 욕하지 말고, 존중해야 한다는 것을 기억하라.만약 누군가가 당신이 동의하지 않는 일을 한다면, 화가 나서 손을 들거나 다른 편집자들에게 무례하게 굴지 말고, 그것에 대해 차분하게 이야기하고 문제를 해결하려고 노력하라.또한, 양말 퍼피에 대한 근거 없는 비난은 하지 마라.누군가가 양말이라고 생각되면 WP에서 보고하라.SPI야, 대화할 때 꼬투리로 쓰지 마.선장 이크 ⚓ 09:00, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

@Viztor:나는 당신이 WP를 읽어야 한다고 생각한다.Civil aso, 그리고 또한 WP:포룸샵.이슈를 한 곳에 게시하는 것만으로도 충분하며, ANI가 바로 그 장소다.다른 보드에 대한 보고서가 삭제되거나 이동됨.또한, 두 분에게 있어서, 자본화의 사용은 과도하다.톤 다운해줘.선장 이케^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 09:00, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 일반적으로 상당히 느긋하고 항상 낮은 케이스의 사람이지만, 이 특정한 사용자가 내가 만드는 변화를 추적하고 조사하고 그가 좋아하지 않는 변화를 되돌렸다는 것을 알게 되었다. 그것은 마치 내가 자는 동안 누군가가 내 발등을 긁는 것과 같으며, 이것은 분명히 내 신경계에 반응을 일으키고 그것을 꽤 만들게 한다.계속 편집하기가 불편해비즈토르 (대화) 16:57, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 좋아... 너희 둘 다 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지에 대한 의견을 피력했어...이제, 부디 편히 앉아서 다른 사람들이 상황을 살피고 의견을 말할 수 있게 해주십시오.블루보어 (대화) 11시 9분, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

BTW, 나는 그 태그를 추가하지 않았고, 나는 단지 모든 태그를 삭제한 변경을 되돌리면서, 아무도 이의를 제기하지 않는 것처럼 보이는, 토크 페이지에 분명히 관련된 토론이 있을 때 약혼을 했다.그 후, 나는 4개의 태그가 태그 폭격이 될 수 있다는 편집자의 의견에 동의했고, 3개의 태그를 하나의 글로벌화/미국으로 통합시켰지만, 편집자는 여전히 모든 것을 고집하고 제거했고, 그 점에서 그의 의도는 분명하다.현재 이 글은 중립성에 대한 우려로 가득 찬 토크 페이지와 함께 태그가 붙지 않은 상태로 남아 있다.Viztor (대화) 05:42, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 코멘트 인 기사에 대한 토론이 끝난 후에도 여전히 태그가 붙어 있다.보고된 사용자의 편집 내용을 몇 개 되돌렸는데, 아직 가동 중인 것은 {{글로벌화/US} 태그. –MJL ※Talk ^☖– 19:08, 2019년 6월 3일(UTC)[응답]

네, 이것은 상당한 과도한 무게 입니다.'관세제재를 이행하기 위한 미국의 주장'과 페이지다운 상단으로 스크롤하면 이 섹션은 5개 가까운 화면을 차지하고 있으며, '임시적 보복'부터 '인플레이언스'의 중국 하위섹션 시작까지 3개 스크린이 조금 넘는다.중국 고유의 유일한 섹션은 Investment/China 하위 섹션으로, 한 화면보다 작다.한쪽이 커버리지의 8배를 받았을 때는 균형을 주장할 수 없다.힌트: 신뢰할 수 있는 2차 출처는 뉴스 보도와 같은 주요 출처의 전형적인 "여기 당신이 신경 써야 할 최신 X" 대신 좋은 개요를 제공할 것이기 때문에 1차 출처(사건 당시 작성된 출처)가 아닌 2차 출처가 나올 때까지 기다리십시오.나이튼드 (대화) 11시 58분, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자가 사용자:Viztor ([5], [6] 및 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93Uni ted_States_trade_war&diff=899784563&oldid=89978333]의 편집-워링 편집 세트를 볼 수 있는가?나는 정말로 내가 좀스럽게 굴거나, 죽은 말을 때리거나, 뭐라고 부르든지 하는 인상을 주고 싶지 않지만, 사용자가 편집하고 있던 다른 사용자가 전쟁을 하고 있기 때문에 이 문제를 제기하지 않으면 안 된다(사용자 대화:Hari147)은 24시간 동안 완전히 그것에 대한 권리를 얻었다; 만약 Hari가 차단되지 않았다면 나는 단지 예상할 수 있는 것으로 그들 둘 사이의 편집 전쟁을 무시했을 것이다.지금은 하리가 왜 막혔는지 정확한 내용을 모르기 때문에 어떻게 된 것인지에 대해서는 언급하지 않을 것이며, 다른 사용자에게도 같은 일이 자동으로 이루어진다고 말하지 않을 것이다.하지만 그 면에서는 그 치료가 공평하지 않아 보이는데 특히 비즈터가 ANI 요청을 제출한 후에도 전쟁을 편집하고 있을 때는 더욱 그렇다.

그리고 이와 무관하게, 나는 관련 페이지를 많이 변경했고 그 이후로 토론에서 어떤 당사자들로부터도 편집 전쟁이 일어나지 않았기 때문에 나는 더 이상의 편집 전쟁을 피하기 위해 최선을 다했다.물론 내 변화를 대담하게 받아들이긴 하지만.sy시스 (대화) 21:30, 2019년 6월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

솝시스가 사실상 세 번째 편집을 구성했다...그것은 다른 페이지들 사이의 차이점이다.잘못된 비난은 이 편집자에게 지역사회에서 어떠한 존경도 주지 못한다.
비즈토르 (대화) 21:36, 2019년 6월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕.이것은 너무 오랫동안 고조되어 온 것 같다.이것에 대한 나의 몇 가지 생각을 설명하겠다.

나는 위키피디아가 특정한 측면을 선호하는 내용보다는 사실에 입각한 정보에 기반한 플랫폼이어야 하며, 더 중요한 것은 이 경우, 중국과 미국의 무역전쟁에 관한 기사의 맥락에서 불필요할 수 있는 정보여야 한다는 점을 언급하고 싶다.나는 사용자 비즈토르에게 그의 편집이 기사의 맥락에 영향을 미치지 않을 수 있다고 경고했고, 그러한 방식으로 미래에 기사를 게재할 수 있는 적절한 방법을 그에게 공개했다.몇 번의 경고에도 불구하고, 그는 그의 행동을 끈질기게 따라왔고, 적절한 편집을 하기를 꺼려왔다.그는 다른 사용자들로부터도 경고를 받았으며, 보복으로 그는 비난하고 너무 사적으로 받아들이는 것 같다.따라서, 나는 이 기사에 대한 모든 편집을 적절한 경영진에 의해 검토하기를 요청한다. 이 주제가 민감한 것처럼 보일 수 있고, 사람들이 이 기사에 대한 정보를 얻기 때문에, 실제로 그 기사는 실제 삶에서 심각한 충돌을 일으킬 수 있기 때문이다.그럼에도 불구하고, 그 편집은 지금까지 적절했다.

나는 또한 이 주제에 대해 몇몇 사용자들이 제기한 논쟁에 추가하고 싶다.특정 측면을 잘 나타내지 않는 정보가 있을 수 있지만(또는 이 경우, 정량화됨), 기사가 편향된 길을 향해 가고 있다는 뜻은 아니다.지금까지의 정보는 가능한 한 정확했으며, 실제 주제에서 벗어난 정보보다는 맥락과 관련된 정보만 추가되어야 한다.그러한 이전의 정보들 중 많은 것들이 군 병력, 기업의 배경 정보 또는 국가의 역사적 정보를 포함하고 있다.이것들은 이미 다른 페이지에서 논의된 주제들로, 반드시 포함되어야 하는 것은 아니다.만약 그러한 정보가 포함되어야 한다면, 위에 언급된 기사가 아닌 다른 기사와 연결되어야 한다.그런 일이 가능한 한 방지되도록 행정관들이 적절한 조치를 취했으면 좋겠다.나는 또한 내가 단지 그 기사를 더 많은 피해로부터 보호했을 뿐이기 때문에 나의 권리에 대한 블록은 근거가 없고 필요하지 않다고 느낀다는 것을 덧붙이고 싶다.그럼에도 불구하고, 그것은 사실 많은 시간 동안 떨어져 있었기 때문에 나에게 큰 영향을 주지는 않았다.감사합니다.
하리147 (대화) 04:00, 2019년 6월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

@Hari147: 당신은 WP:3RR를 위반하여 차단되었는데, 여기 위키백과에 관한 딱딱하고 빠른 규칙이다.너의 의도와 상관없이, 우리는 정당한 이유로 3RR 정책을 가지고 있다.다시는 그것을 어기지 말고, 일반적으로 전쟁을 편집하지 마라. (당신이 옳다고 해도!) 그렇지 않으면, 당신은 24시간 이상 금지된 자신을 발견할 것이다.Viztor의 경우, 예상되는 위법행위에 대한 차이점 및/또는 기타 링크를 제공하십시오.그렇지 않으면, 증거가 없는 정당한 주장으로, 행동으로 이어지지 않을 것이다.기사의 내용 면에서는?여기서가 아니라 저 기사의 토크 페이지에서 그것에 대해 토론하시오.ANI는 행동이 아닌 행위에 대한 것이다.마지막으로, 무례하게 굴지 말고, 만약 내가 너의 문법을 트집잡는다면: 너는 기본적으로 매우 어색하게 읽는 모든 문장 부호 뒤에 공간이 부족하다.마침표나 쉼표를 사용할 때마다 공간을 추가하는 것을 잊지 말 것 :) 캡틴 Eek 05 05:04, 2019년 6월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자의 모욕:roxy the dog

사용자:Tomsmith81727 -복구 전용 계정?

톰스미스81727(토크 · 기고)은 편집자 회수를 목적으로만 만들어진 계정이다. 편집자의 전체 역사는 그것으로 구성되기 전까지는 말이다.그 계정은 보통 수만 개의 편집으로 고도로 확립된 편집자들을 되돌린다.나는 최소한 무한정 차단되어야 한다고 제안하고 싶다.나 또한 그것이 의심스러울 정도로 손버릇이 나쁘다고 생각한다.이런 의심을 하는 편집자는 나뿐만이 아니다.Jayjg 12:51, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

(비행정권자의 논평) 유대인 게토경찰의 편집 전쟁 블록이 연체되었다.그들은 이번 달에 두 번이나 경고를 받았다.클루스케(토크) 12시 59분, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:여기선 안 돼표준적인 제안을 고수하는 것이 적절해 보인다.최상의 선택:리치 팜브루, 13:09, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)
[답글]

내가 그들과 교감할 수 있는 유일한 방법은 그들이 왜 우리가 폴란드어 문자로 된 벽이 필요한지 정당화하지 않고 일부 비 영어 인용구를 다시 삽입할 때였다.인용에 불과했던 인용문을 다시 삽입하는 것뿐만 아니라 인용문의 출처에 대한 언급도 전혀 없었다.편집 전쟁도 그렇고, 나는 이 모든 것에서 여기 있는 것이 아니라는 느낌을 받고 있다.하지만 동시에 그들은 꽤 새로운 계정이다.나는 짧은 블록을 선택할 것이다.슬레이터스티븐 (대화) 13:06, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 편집자에게 다가가기 위해 열심히 노력해왔다. - 그들이 실제로 그들의 토크 페이지를 읽는 것을 되돌리는 것, 경고하는 것, 환영 템플릿을 추가하는 것, 그들의 토크 페이지의 경고에 개인화된 메시지를 추가하는 것, 그러나 편집이 좋지 않다 - 그리고 우리는 기사의 토크 페이지에서 왜 - 단지 편집 요약에서 설명하지 않는지를 논의하려고 노력했다.운이 없다.오늘 편집이 긴 기사들의 리스트에 다시 추가되는 것은 또한 이 편집자가 WP 아래 위의 편집자들과 연결되어 있는지 궁금하게 만든다.ANI#MOS:폴란드 유대인에 관한 기사의 민족성(여기 추가) - 토크 13:44, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

음, 선한 믿음은 여기까지 밖에 가지 않는다. 이 편집은 "어떤 사람들은 어떤 역사를 아주 많이 숨기고 싶어 한다...."를 덧붙인다. 하지만 말도 안돼!" 분명히 이 편집장을 위 섹션과 결부시킨 것 같다.서포트 블록 같은 거 말이야aldgyth - Talk 13:47, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

그 논평은 (그의 첫 번째) 편집자가 바로 위대한 잘못들을 바로잡기 위해 여기 있다는 것을 보여주는 것 같다.Jayjg^(talk) 13:51, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

알았어, 차단해.슬레이터스티븐 (대화) 14:01, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

편집 전쟁 24시간 차단됨.누군가가 너무 짧다고 생각한다면 연장할 수도 있고, 24시간 후에 무슨 일이 일어나는지 볼 수도 있다.닌자로봇피리테 (대화) 16:15, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것을 연장하여 변명을 했다.만약 그들이 설득력 있는 미봉쇄 요청이 있다면, 나는 기꺼이 원래의 블록을 제자리에 다시 놓을 것이다.하지만 우리는 3RR 이상의 위반을 가지고 있다.이 사용자가 철자 오류를 되돌리기 시작했을 때 처음 만났는데, 나는 이 오류가 상당히 파괴적이라는 것을 발견했다.나는 그 이후로 선동적인 토크 페이지 코멘트를 한 개 빼고는 모든 계정이 되돌아가고 있다는 것을 알게 되어 고민이다.내가 보기엔 그들은 협업을 위해 여기 있는 것이 아닌 것 같다.El_C 17:10, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자와의 유일한 상호작용은 내가 최근에 만든 카테고리에서 기사를 계속 삭제하는 것이다.범주:Axis Powers와의 협업.그는 아직 해명을 내놓지 않고 있다.디마딕 (대화) 04:09, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이것은 내용상의 논쟁이다.K.E.Coffman이 편집을 했을 때 시작되었다.톰스미스81727은 편집한 후 편집전이 시작됐지만 계정이 17일 된 것을 보면 편집 규칙 등을 아직 모르고 있다는 뜻이다.나는 또한 위키피디아 자체가 토크 페이지 메시지를 충분히 명확하게 하지 못한 것에 대해 비난한다.내 말은, 계정을 시작할 때부터 위에 빨간색 알림을 받고 나서 새로운 메시지를 받아도 그게 뭔지 모르기 때문에 클릭조차 하지 않는다는 거야.알림 버튼에 수신하는 메시지가 표시된다는 점을 분명히 해야 한다.나는 위키피디아의 인터페이스에서 모든 것에 대해 들을 때 이외에는 어떤 편집자도 교재를 시작하지 못하게 할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 그리고 그들은 무언가를 배울 때 "알았다"라고 쓰여 있는 단추를 클릭해야 한다.내가 새로운 편집자였을 때 나는 그 빨간 버튼이 무엇인지, 어떻게 편집을 취소하는지 몰랐던 것을 기억한다.어쨌든, 서약 블록은 오직 편집 전쟁만을 위한 24시간 블록이 되어야 한다.나는 이 편집자가 백과사전을 짓기 위해 여기에 없다는 어떤 징후도 보이지 않는다. 또한 편집자가 여기에 만들려고 온 어떤 징후도 보이지 않는다.아직 말하기엔 이르다..--샤라브살람 (토크) 04:40, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그것은 거의 확실히 너무 이르지 않으며 어쨌든 AGF는 자살조약이 아니다.사용자는 설득력 있는 차단 해제 요청을 자유롭게 작성할 수 있다.어찌된 일인지, 난 이런 일이 일어날지 의심하는 경향이 있어.El_C 04:55, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:AIV 정책 질문

사용자 보고:도마쉬엔, 사용자:Mike 1819 및 사용자:BloipyBloppy123456과 WP 연결:AIV는 모두 무기한 차단되기 전에 반달리즘 전용 계좌에 의해 만들어진 것이기 때문에 여기, 여기, 그리고 여기, 그리고 여기.과거에 나는 SPI가 WP와 충돌할 수 있기 때문에 SPI에 그러한 설명을 했다.SOCK 그러나 그들은 해고되었다.나는 이것을 위해 과거에 AIV에 5번 정도 데리고 갔었고, 그 모든 것이 하나의 차단을 초래했다.이러한 보도의 물결 속에서 2/3은 분명히 같은 인물이었다(Mike1819는 Mikep1819에 의해, BloopyBloppy123456은 BloopyBloopy에 의해 만들어졌다).이 3건의 보고서는 NJA가 여기서 본 바와 같이 정책에 따라 차단할 이유가 없다는 주장으로 기각되었다.NJA가 제 토크 페이지에 올렸듯이.

1. 사용자:Mike1819: 사용자에 의해 생성됨:Mikep1819 2019-05-27T13:59:14.Mikep1819는 2019-05-27T14:13:28에서 막혔다.
2. User:BloopyBloppy123456은 User:2019-05-28T12:45:57에 있는 BloipyBloppy.블로피블로피는 2019-05-28T12:56:26에서 막혔다.
3. User:Dormasheen: User에 의해 생성됨:2019-05-26T01:34:04에서 사용자 이름489.사용자 이름489가 2019-05-26에서 차단됨T02:08:46.
   이것은 관리자 행위의 문제가 아니라 정책과 관련된 질문일 뿐이다.WP에 대한 간략한 대화에서 제안된 바와 같이 나는 이것을 여기에 제출한다.AIV. 여기서 내가 잘못된 것인가, 아니면 전적으로 관리자의 해석에 근거한 것인가?Kb03 (대화) 18:59, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

(편집: 사용자:BloopyBloppy123456은 내가 이 글을 쓰면서 블록탈루로 차단되었다)Kb03 (토크) 19:01, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 특별 참조:퍼머링크/899241560#이에 대한 나의 답변에 대한 AIV_제출.NJA토크 19:04, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 잠자는 사람을 사용하지 않았다고 해서 차단되어서는 안 된다는 것은 아니다. 그들은 그것을 하는 성향을 보여왔기 때문에 모든 계정을 차단하고 태그를 붙여야 한다.장소도 틀렸지만 버킷 속 지옥(토크) 19:06, 2019년 5월 28일(UTC) 답장이 더 쉬워질 수도 있었다.

어떤 정당성과 어떤 태그를 사용하는지 차단되었는가?다음 사용자 블록:블로피블로피123456은 블록을 피한 만큼 적절하지만, 전자의 두 사람에 대한 명분은 무엇일까.NJA토크 19:09, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 당신이 붙인 링크에서 원본 계정이 제대로 차단되었다는 것을 인정하십니까?그들은 양말 인형처럼 그들의 계정 중 하나를 사용했는데, 그 계정이 제대로 차단되었는가?그럼 계정이 두 개 차단되고 잠자는 사람이 여러 명이라니?만약 내가 여전히 올바른 길을 가고 있다면, 우리는 왜 다른 잠꾸러기 계정을 차단하고 그것들을 양말 퍼펫으로 태그하지 않을까?그건 네가 이 총만 사용했으니까 이 4~5개는 안 가져간다고 말하는 것과 같아.헬 인 어 버킷(토크) 19:14, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

(ec) 계좌는 반달에 의해 만들어졌기 때문에 일단 자동 잠금장치가 만료되면 새로운 계좌도 반달리즘에 사용될 것으로 예상하는 것이 타당하다.나는 그들을 잠자는 계좌로 차단하고 싶지만, YMMV. —DoRD (대화) 19:14, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

바로 그거야이것이 바로 우리가 일단 자동 잠금이 만료되면 활성화될 가능성이 있는 잠자는 계정을 차단하기 위해 잠자는 검사를 하는 이유다.그것은 정확히 WP에 속한다.예방.--제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 19:17, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 어떠한 무기한 블록이 주어지기 전에 만들어진 계정을 차단하는 것은 적절하지 않다고 생각한다. 그리고 그 계정이 전혀 수정되지 않은 곳은 좋은 관행이라고 생각한다.그들이 아직 여러 계정을 남용하려고 시도하지 않았기 때문에 진정한 양말 인형극은 일어나지 않았다.만약 그것이 일어나고 있다면, Kb03의 초기 보고서는 다시 고려되어야 한다.NJA토크 19:21, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

우리는 항상 이것을 한다.메인 계정이 무기한 차단되면 다른 계정도 차단된다.물론, 아직 엄밀히 말해 양말 처리는 일어나지 않았지만, 다른 계정의 첫 번째 편집은 즉시 정책을 위반하게 될 것이다.이는 CheckUser를 통해 드러난 미사용 계정의 잠자리 점검과 차단을 뒷받침하는 근거이기도 하다.토니발리오니 (토크) 20:00, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• @TonyBallioni:그것은 분명히 일상적이지 않다. 그렇지 않았다면 나는 이것을 근거로 세 건의 AIV 보고서를 거절하지 않았을 것이다.관리자가 정확한 사용자 인스턴스에서 적절한 사용을 권장하는 차단 템플릿과 태그를 구체적으로 확인할 수 있는가? 사용자:Mike1819 및 사용자:도마쉬엔?FYI 나는 이것을 할 계획이 없으며 다른 관리자는 내가 거절한 Kb03의 일상적인 요청을 다시 고려하라는 요청을 받는다.나는 사용할 태그와 템플리트에 관심이 있다.NJA talk 20:07, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

또한, 이와는 별도로, Checkuser sleepper blocking은 여러 계정을 남용한 사용자와 연결되거나 확인된 다른 계정을 차단하는 것을 의미하기 때문에 이 시나리오와 같지 않다고 주장한다.이 경우, 복수의 계좌에 대한 남용, 탈루 등은 (탈루로 인해 정확히 차단된 사람과는) 발생하지 않았다고 주장한다.NJA talk 20:10, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

여러 계좌를 남용한 겁니다.이런 일은 충분히 자주 일어나며, 포뇨가 위에서 말한 바와 같이, 이것이 우리가 잠자는 사람을 확인하는 이유다.RickinBaltimore (대화) 20:12, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)나는 시스템 대화에서 덤핑을 위한 드롭다운 옵션을 사용하여 차단했고, 차단 알림이나 태그를 지정하지 않았다.마스터가 "Alt of of blocked User:예"생성 로그는 그것을 분명히 하고 그들은 어쨌든 메인 계정으로부터 어필해야 하기 때문에 블록 알림과 태그는 필요하지 않다.토니발리오니 (토크) 20:13, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

알았어.모두 "여러 계정 사용"으로 차단됨.Kb03이 마지막으로 질문한 것은 AIV가 편집(필터 편집, 삭제 또는 기타)이 없는 계정 보고에 적합한 포럼이었는지, 아니면 좀 더 적절한 포럼이 있는지 여부다.NJA talk 20:17, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자들은 종종 SPI의 부담을 줄이기 위해 AIV에 분명한 양말 사용 사례를 보고하도록 요청받는데, 이는 WP와 반대로 더 복잡한 양말 사용 사례를 검토하기 위해 실제로 설계되었다.DOK 버려진 반달 계좌.도움을 구하는 곳과 상관없이 문이 닫히면서 kb03이 답답했던 이유일 것이다.--제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 20:22, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 AIV가 적절하지 않다고 느꼈기 때문에 Kb03을 추천한다.나는 "즉각적인 차단이 필요한 적극적이고 명백하며 지속적인 파괴 행위"를 식별할 수 없었다.또한 AIV 보고 당시와 마찬가지로 위키백과를 전혀 편집하지 않았기 때문에 Kb03이 "어떤 문이 닫힌 느낌"이라고 느꼈다면 놀랄 것이다(그들은 전혀 그런 말을 하지 않았다).문제는 AIV가 적절하다는 것이다.NJA talk 20:29, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Kb03이 이 특정 사건과 관련하여 여러 방향으로 지적되었다고 가정하지 않았다. 단지 그들이 명백한 양말 사건 보고와 관련하여 일반적으로 다른 관리자로부터 다른 지시를 받고 있을 뿐이다.그들은 "나는 SPI가 WP와 충돌할 수 있기 때문에 SPI에 이러한 사항을 고려했다:SOCK 그러나 그들은 해고되었다. 나는 이것을 위해 과거에 AIV에 5번 정도 데리고 갔고, 그 모든 것이 하나의 차단을 초래했다."여기 틀린 사람은 없는 것 같아. - 제제벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 20:39, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

Ponyo 나는 전적으로 "여기서 누가 잘못했다고 생각하지 않는다"에 동의한다.나는 주로 이 문제를 어떻게 처리해야 하는지, 그리고 내가 이 문제를 어떻게 처리해야 하는지에 대한 논의를 하기 위해 이것을 시작했다.NJA 나는 네가 전혀 잘못한 것이 없다고 생각하며 너의 시의적절한 답변에 감사한다.Kb03 (대화) 21:02, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사실 이것은 내가 User와 함께 관찰한 두 번째 침울함이다.AVI의 NJA.나는 두 번 모두 다른 행동을 선호했지만, 그들은 토론에 열려 있고 필요하다면 진로를 바꿀 수 있다는 점에 주목하겠다.이것은 또한 블록해머에 대한 절약이므로 모두 훌륭한 행정가였다.헬 인 어 버킷(토크) 21:17, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

칭찬해줘서 고마워.점잖은 사람보다 내가 낫다고 생각하고 싶지만, 받아들이겠다;) 다른 예로는 네가 내가 하고 싶어했을 행동(그냥 궁금할 뿐)이 있는지 궁금하다.내 생각엔 블록 전체가 지금 정리된 것 같은데(예약이 있긴 하지만), AIV가 적절한지 연결된다.결국 나는 SPI 포럼에 너무 많이 참여하지는 않지만, 분명한 양말을 차단하고 충분히 자주 태그를 붙인다.Re AIV와 이 보고서들, 나는 Jayron32의 의견에 동의한다는 것을 확인할 수 있다(아래 그의 진술 참조).AIV는 그것이 무엇을 위한 것인지 분명하고, 내가 오늘 거절한 보고서는 아마도 AIV를 순찰하는 꽤 많은 관리자들이 거절할 것이다.이것은 차단해야 할 어떤 근본적인 정당한 이유 때문은 아니다(Angain, I don't sure) 그 보도는 진행 중이고 명백하며 긴급한 공공 기물 파손에 대한 보고가 아니었다.NJA talk 21:28, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 여기서 두 가지 다른 질문이 있다고 생각한다: 1) AIV가 이런 종류의 보고를 다루는 적절한 장소인지 아닌지와 2) 우리가 알게 되었을 때 이러한 계정을 차단해야 하는지의 여부.두 번째 것은 결정적인 진술을 하기에는 너무 미묘한 것으로 남겨둘 것이다(예를 들어, 공공연한 혼란을 저지르기 위해 양말 농장을 만들 때, 누군가 빠르게 파괴되고, 새로운 계정을 만들고, 그리고 어떤 사람이 광범위한 혼란을 저지르기 위해 양말 농장을 만들 때 대 대 대 결코 파괴되지 않는 것은 분명히 두 가지 문제인 것이다.그러나 첫 번째 제안은 AIV에 속하지 않고 WP와 같은 장소를 통해 처리되어야 한다는 것이다.A 또는 WP:ANI. 여기 그 이유가 있다: AIV는 신속하고 명백한 공공 기물 파괴를 위해 정말로 설계되었다.AIV에서 응답할 때 기여 페이지와 사용자 대화 페이지 두 번 클릭해서 a) 현재 파손 중이고 b) 경고가 들어왔음을 확인한다.만약 두 조건이 모두 충족된다면, 나는 차단하고, 그렇지 않다면 그렇지 않다.AIV는 그런 과정을 위해 설계되었다.그것은 어떤 종류의 조사나 설명을 위해 고안된 것이 아니다.전혀 설명하지 않고 편집된 내용만 봐도 블록이 필요한 것이 분명해야 한다.블록이 왜 필요한지, 관리자나 체크 유저가 어떤 종류의 조사를 해야 하는지를 실제로 설명해야 한다면 AIV는 적절하지 않다.ANI는 그러한 목적으로 존재한다.자, 그것은 때때로 그러한 보고가 여전히 AIV에서 하나의 블록으로 귀결된다는 것을 의미하는가?물론, 하지만 그것은 AIV가 의도한 것이 아니다. 그리고 우리는 사람들이 효율적으로 운영될 수 있도록 이 과정을 올바르게 사용하도록 장려해야 한다.AIV는 "속도의 블록" 프로세스여야 하며 어떠한 설명도 필요하지 않아야 한다.나는 WP에서 상황을 보다 적절하게 보고하는 것에 대한 편견이 없다면, 오로지 그러한 목적으로만 이 보고서를 거절했을 것이다.ANI나 좀 더 적절하게 처리할 수 있는 곳. --Jayron32 20:18, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  Jayron32 나는 당신이 한 말에 전적으로 동의한다. 비록 자동 잠금이 가능한 Alt 계정을 신고하기 위해 ANI를 사용하는 것은 못을 박기 위해 해머를 사용하는 것과 같다.Kb03 (대화) 21:08, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  (분쟁 편집) AIV vs ANI의 일반적인 문제에 대해 말하자면, AIV가 장황한 설명이나 긴급하지 않은 사안을 위한 장소가 아니라는 것에 전적으로 동의하지만, 나는 대개 다음과 같은 이유로 한 문장 이하로 자신을 설명할 수 있을 때 AIV에 보고하는 것을 선호한다.

  • 데니. 여기 올리면 소동이 벌어진다.그리고 사용자에게 알려야 하기 때문에, 그들은 그것에 대해 알고 있다.여기에 글을 올림으로써, 당신은 반달에게 그들이 그토록 갈망하는 주의를 준다.이 페이지는 영구히 보관되며, 종종 반달의 이름이나 그들의 편집에 대한 설명을 보존한다.AIV의 보고서는 순식간에 거대한 역사에 묻히고, 반달의 관심사는 블록 알림뿐입니다.
  • 비관리자들은 AIV를 "경계"하지 않는다.이 페이지에서는 모든 사람이 의견을 가지고 있다.때때로 나는 사람들이 이곳 실들을 아무렇게나 골라서 OPs 포스트에 사소한 문제가 없는지 세심하게 찾아보고, "BOOMERang!"을 외치며 루즈를 부른다고 생각한다.이 페이지는 사람들이 피를 흘리는 곳이고, 항상 당신의 것일지도 모르는 위험이 있다.

  위에 주어진 표준에 의해 (절대적으로 설명이 없음), AIV에서 "필터 로그도 참조" 또는 "Blatant Block Forse by 127.0.0.1" 또는 "이전에 두 번 차단된 것과 동일한 편집, 경고 없음" 등의 설명으로 보고서를 작성해서는 안 된다.이러한 조사나 지루한 WP를 통한 독서가 필요한 것은 아니다.WALOFTEXT 설명, 보고서가 BS가 아님을 확인하기 위해 한두 번만 더 클릭한다.황색 투약 (토크) 21:48, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  Jayron32, 그것도 내 작업흐름에 관한 거야.만약 다방면에 걸친 설명이 필요하거나, 최근의 편집에서 명백한 반달리즘이 없다면, 그것은 아마 AIV에 속하지 않을 것이다.SQL^{Query me!} 13:43, 2019년 5월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 개인적으로 (명백한 VOA라고 차단한) 부모 계정이 이와 같은 자식 계정을 만든 것을 보면, 나는 모든 자식 계정에도 같은 블록을 적용한다.위키피디아의 고의적인 파괴를 위해 편집하고 파괴 행위를 추가하기 위해 편집만 하는 이와 같은 사용자들은 일반적으로 같은 일을 하기 위해 그들이 만든 아동 계정을 사용할 것이다.만약 누군가가 최근 VOA로 인해 생성되고 최근에 차단된 부모 계정의 자식 계정을 보고하고 있다고 AIV에 보고한다면, 나는 전혀 개의치 않고 일반적으로 이 문제를 적절하게 처리하겠다.정말 그렇게 큰 거래인가? :-) ~오슈와~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:29, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 AIV에 갈까라는 질문을 하나 더 던질 수 있을까?AIV에서 이미 요청했으나 보고서 아래에 요청하여 보고서가 처리될 때 삭제됨.위키백과에서:장기 남용/팡구수는 금지된 사용자가 특징적으로 사용하는 IP 범위의 목록을 식별한다.오늘 나는 새로운 IP 172.85.185.67에서 더 많은 동일한 사용자를 찾았다. (아, 동일한 영역이지만 목록에 (아직) 없는 새 집?)

이러한 IP는 금지된 사용자가 인식했을 때 즉시 단기 차단되어야 하는가?때때로 IP는 여러 날 사용된다.심메(토크) 23:47, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 내가 그들과 충분히 친숙하기 때문에 IP주소를 차단하는 트롤들을 볼 수 있다.대부분의 관리자들은 대부분의 장기 트롤에 익숙하지 않다는 것을 기억해야 하기 때문에, 만약 당신이 그것을 명백하게 발견하더라도, AIV에서 그런 것들을 보고하는 것은 만약 당신의 보고서에 일어난 첫 번째 관리자 또한 문제의 트롤과 친숙할 때에만 효과가 있을 것이다.이러한 경우 WP를 사용하는 것이 가장 좋다.ANI OR 해당 트롤을 알고 있는 관리자들을 알고 있다면, 그들의 토크페이지에서 그들을 때리는 것. --Jayron32 15:01, 2019년 5월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

팡구수 양말에서 위와 같은 반달리즘과 직접 관련하여 나는 이 두 편집본을 발견했는데, 이 편집본 역시 팡구수에서 온 것으로 보이며 나에게 반달리즘으로 나타난다.페이지가 잠겨 있어 되돌릴 수 없고, 다른 편집 내용을 되돌리는 것이 차단되었다.다른 편집자가 팽구수의 반달리즘 패턴에 비추어 두 가지 편집 내용을 검토하고 되돌려야 할지 말아야 할지 판단할 수 있을까?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panties&oldid=898824411 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panties&oldid=898792262

이것은 공공 기물 파손이 아니다.내 의견을 삭제하지 마십시오.만약 이 게시물에 반대한다면, 나를 차단하고 하루 동안 나를 무시하지 말고 나에게 말해줘.나는 파괴하기 위해 여기에 있는 것이 아니다.2001:4898:80E8:3:3541:C292:A263:D9A1 (대화) 17:54, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

@Jayron32:이 포럼에 이런 민원을 올려달라고 건의한 행정관님이시니 한번 봐주시겠습니까?2001:4898:80E8:3:3541:C292:A263:D9A1 (대화) 17:56, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

IP 범위의 눈에 띄지 않는 수년간의 파괴 행위

OTRS e-메일이 나에게 이 편집을 알려줬고, 다가오는 Primetime Emmy Awards의 부문 후보 목록과 수상자 목록을 추가했다.그래서 나는 다른 반달리즘이 있는지, 그리고 뭐 실의 제목이 있는지 그 범위를 살펴보기로 했다.IP는 겉보기에는 정적 /64 서브넷 상에 있으며, 수 년 동안 종종 출처가 없거나 수상보다 앞선 출처를 가지고 수상 관련 내용을 편집하고, 때로는 아직 발표되지 않은 상을 추가하기도 한다.특별 참조:기여/2A02:C7D:49FD:A200:0:0:0:0:0:0/64.몇 천 개 정도 편집된 것 같은데, 이 중 몇 개가 좋은 편집이었는지, 또 얼마나 많은 나쁜 편집이 이미 뒤바뀐 것인지 정말 감이 안 잡힌다.그래서 여기 보고해.Sometguy1221 (대화) 20:14, 2019년 5월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자는 IP6/64 하위 집합이 단일 IP4 주소와 정확히 동일하지는 않지만 단일 장치에 느슨하게 대응한다는 점을 유념해야 한다.— 아서 루빈 (대화) 18:09, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

회사에 연결된 IP와 관련된 이해충돌 문제

50.73.174.35는 웨스트버지니아 라디오 주식회사(WVRC)에 면허가 있다.WVRC는 도미니언 포스트 신문과 함께 WVRC 산하에 수많은 라디오 방송국을 소유하고 있다.2016년, 그들은 여기 위키피디아에 있는 그들 회사의 방송국의 일부 페이지를 편집하려고 시도했고, 그것은 간단한 COI 경고로 성공적으로 종료되었다.지난 한 주 정도 동안, 그들은 다시 시작했다.나는 COI 경고를 2번 더 발령했다.모든 편집이 WVRC IP에서 이루어지고 있고 그들은 WVRC와 그들의 소유주들에게 기사들을 덜 중립적이거나 더 친절하게 만들려고 노력하고 있다.가장 최근의 편집은 순 OR이었다.할 수 있는 일은 다 했으니 이 게시판에 가져다 도움을 청한다. - 뉴트럴호머 • 토크 • 2019년 5월 25일 06:39 (06:39)

위키백과:이해충돌/이러한 것에 대한 게시판. -도널드 앨버리 10:43, 2019년 5월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

난 좀 도와주고 싶었어 도망치는 게 아니라하지만 물론이지...여깄습니다. - 뉴트럴호머 • 토크 • 2019년 5월 25일(UTC) 11:09

• COI 논의는 물 건너갔다.내 말은 아무 반응도 없다는 거야. 대부분의 게시물들이 그런 것 같아.여기에서 어떤 도움이라도 주시면 감사하겠다. - 2019년 5월 27일 중립적 호머 • 대화 • 13:37(UTC)
  • 1) 주말이다, 2) 미국의 휴일 주말이다.조금만 더 참아라.— 당신을 먹여 살리는 손:^Bite 16:22, 2019년 5월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 이것은 영어 위키백과인데, 이것은 여기에 미국인들만 있다는 것을 의미한다. :) - 중성자 • 대화 • 2019년 5월 28일 03:58 (UTC)
      • 그래서 나는 그것이 첫번째 주말이라고 지적했다.미국의 휴일은 미국의 편집자들이 그 시점 이후에도 여전히 다른 일을 하고 있을 가능성이 높다는 것을 강조하기 위한 것이었다.— 당신을 먹여 살리는 손:^Bite 17:09, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
        • "지켜주는" 것 대신에, 그 문제를 돕는 것은 어떨까? - 뉴트럴호머 • 토크 • 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)
          • 좋아: 토론이 설득력을 얻지 못할 때, 그것은 종종 아무도 그것이 교정이 필요한 수준으로 상승한다고 믿지 않는다는 것을 의미해.이미 COI 경고를 주셨는데 OR을 홍보하거나 브랜드를 밀고 나간다면 다시 제기하십시오.지금 당장은 레이더에 잡히는 것이 거의 아니며 나는 관리자들이 지금까지 일어난 일에 대해 IP를 차단할 수 있을지 의심스럽다.그것을 ANI에 가져온 것은 시기상조였다.— 당신을 먹여 살리는 손 ^Bite: 2019년 5월 29일 (UTC) 17:12, 17:12, 29
            • "직장"을 하고 싶지 않은 것은 좋은 반응이 아니다.과거에도 이런 일이 있었고, 이것은 회사 등록 IP인데 COI 논의는 (아직) 물 건너갔다.그래서 ANI에 가져온 것은 (ANI에 먼저 가져왔음에도 불구하고) 시기상조라고 생각하지 않는다.난 그게 있어야 할 곳에 있다고 생각해.나는 단지 아무도 실제로 그것에 대해 아무것도 하고 싶어하지 않는다고 생각한다. - 중성자 • 대화 • 2019년 5월 30일 12:57 (UTC)
              • 왜냐하면 그들은 그것이 해야 할 일이 필요한 수준까지 올라가는데 동의하지 않기 때문이다.그 점으로 미루어 볼 때, 우린 여기서 끝장난 것 같다.— 당신을 먹여 살리는 손:^Bite 21:04, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
                • 우리가 시작한 적이 있는가? - 2019년 6월 1일 중성자 • 대화 • 12시 37분 (UTC)

Iamworm666에 의한 파괴적 편집

2개의 빠른 변명이 필요하다.

관리자가 이 편집 요약을 보고 그들이 가장 잘 생각하는 것을 할 수 있는가?

Flix11 경고 템플릿 남용

관련 사용자 ping: @Natureium:, @Meters:, @Thwinrat:

오랫동안 – 이것은 오래 전에 보고되었어야 했다 – 플렉스11 (대화 · 기여)은 경고 템플릿을 남용하고 새로 온 사람들을 물고 늘어졌다.그들은 새로 온 사람들의 토크 페이지에 불필요하게 분노하고 공격적으로 들리는 경고문을 정기적으로 올린다: "다음 번에 위키피디아를 파괴할 때는 더 이상의 경고 없이 편집하는 것을 확실히 차단할 것이다."이것은 종종 신인들의 첫 번째 편집 후에 일어난다.Talk 페이지에서 Flix11은 반복적으로 그들의 행동을 바꾸고 대신 레벨 1 경고로 시작하라는 지시를 받았다.

• 2월: [7]
• 3월: [8]
• 4월: [9]

하지만 그들은 여전히 그것을 하고 있다.편집 내역("Talk page"로 필터링된 모든 기여도)은 이러한 경고로 가득 차 있다.최근 몇 가지 예.

• 플렉스11은 사용자에게 세 가지 선의의 편집에 대해 경고한다.사용자는 경고에 응답한다: 경고에 당황한 듯 보이지만, 설명을 듣지 않는다.
• Flix11은 선의로 이루어진 것으로 보이는 비교적 무해한 변화에 두 번, 즉 편집 요약에 출처를 제공하는 데이터를 수정하려고 하고, 소싱을 개선하려고 노력한다고 경고한다.당연히, 사용자는 토크 페이지에서 경고를 제거할 때 편집 요약에 의해 증거로서 부당한 대우를 받는다고 느낀다.

플렉스11이 새로 들어온 사람들을 물어뜯어 위키피디아에 해를 끼치지 않도록 뭔가 조치를 취해야 한다.Robby.is.on (대화) 08:40, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그래서 내가 4단계 경고로 뛰어드는 걸 막겠다는 거야?노골적인 공공 기물 파손에도?만약 그렇다면, 알았어.앞으로 고의적인 반달에도 레벨-1을 사용할 것이다. – 플렉스11 (대화) 09:01, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• "무식한 반달(bandal)"; IP 사용자가 자신의 토크 페이지에서 시험/신뢰성 편집(diff)으로 보이는 것에 대해 Flix11의 트윗되고 지나치게 과장되고 잘못 사용된 사용자 경고 템플릿을 제거했기 때문이다.IP의 편집이 지장을 준다고 해도, 이러한 명백한 인신공격은 정당화될 수 없다.—RainFall 09:42, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• Robby.is.on, 그들의 토크 페이지에서 Flix11과 이 문제를 논의해 본 적이 있는가?Flix11은 반짝임을 사용하는 것이 훨씬 더 쉬우며 다른 템플릿을 얻을 수 있도록 도와줄 수 있다고 생각한다.모든 편집이 공공 기물 파손은 아니다.반달리즘 편집은 다음과 같다: 아흐스bdksidbdkfkdndosbd, 기사를 반달리즘으로 만드는 유일한 의도는 반달리즘이다.비협조적인 내용을 추가하는 것은 공공 기물 파손이 아니며, 파괴적인 편집은 공공 기물 파손이 아니며, 편집 테스트는 공공 기물 파손 등이 아니다.반짝반짝 빛나는 도구를 사용하면 필요한 모든 템플릿을 얻을 수 있다.또한 "무시하다"와 같은 미개한 단어들을 사용하지 마십시오.WP 읽기:Civility--SharabSalam (대화) 10:08, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

@SharabSalam: "Vandalism 편집은 다음과 같다: Ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd:네가 틀렸어; 반달리즘 편집은 "악스브딕스디크프크덴도스브드"와 같지 않아.또한, 파괴적인 편집은 공공 기물 파손이다.—RainFall 11:14, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 "무중단 편집"이라고 말했을 때, 의도적인 편집들을 의미했다.내가 그 얘길 꺼냈다고 생각했는데, 보아하니 안 했네.—RainFall 16:37, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

RainFall 네가 나를 옳게 인용했지만 잘못된 답변으로 응답했다.나는 공공 기물 파손이 단지 이런 것이라고는 말하지 않았다.나는 단지 한 가지 예를 들어 공공 기물 파손의 의미를 설명하고 싶었다.나는 그 단어만을 말하지 않았다.그리고 파괴적 편집은 파괴적 편집 정책에서 가장 먼저 읽게 되는 파괴적 편집이 아니다.그것은 문자 그대로 "무중단 편집은 공공 기물 파손이 아니다"라고 위키피디아:파괴적 편집-샤라브살람(토크) 11:35, 2019년 5월 30일(UTC)[응답]

또한, 파괴적인 편집은 공공 기물 파손이다.그것은 절대적으로 틀렸다.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 13:51, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 안녕. 어제 나는 유로파리그 결승전에 대한 두 가지 상품 편집을 했어.이번 대회와 이번 대회의 이전 결승전에 이은 것이다.플렉스11은 (아마도 내용을 읽지 않은 채) 나의 편집된 내용을 삭제했고, 내 토크 페이지에 블록 경고문을 두 번 추가하고, 나는 CATANIAN 반달이라고 말했다.내가 카타니아인이라면 뭐가 문제야?이 사용자는 괜찮은가, 아닌가?위키백과 영어판에서는 항상 상품을 편집하기 때문에 편집은 괜찮다.결론적으로, 나는 플렉스11이 이 백과사전의 사람들과 조용해야 한다고 생각한다.가장 좋은 안부.---82.57.44.190 (대화) 11:18, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• "또한, 파괴적인 편집은 공공 기물 파손이다." - 그것은 읽어야 할 매우 우려되는 대목이다. 샤라브살람은 그것들이 특별히 다른 것이라는 것이 완전히 옳다.코백베어(토크) 12:47, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• @Flix11: 2019년도의 행동_UEFA_Europa_League_Final은 매우 문제가 많았다.IP 첫 번째 편집은 분명히 선의였지만, 잘못된 UEFA 페이지에 연결되었기 때문에 건설적이지는 않았다.플렉스11의 대응(레벨 4단계 반달리즘 경고, 뒤이어 '무식한 반달'의 편집기로 대체)은 절대적으로 수치스러웠다.그들의 두 번째 IP 복귀는 사실상 잘못된 것으로 나타났고, 그들은 그것을 지적한 기성 편집자를 되돌렸다.그리고 이 편집 요약본은 무엇을 의미할까?Flix11은 경고 템플릿 사용에 대해 불평하는 사람들로 가득 찬 사용자 페이지를 가지고 있다. 몇 개만 보았는데, 실제로 그들은 완전히 오용되었다.예를 들어, 이 편집은 건설적일 뿐만 아니라 정확하기도 한 이 편집에 대한 응답이었다.어떻게 진행할 것인가 - 글쎄, 나는 우리가 공공 기물 파손 템플릿을 사용하는 플렉스11을 금지하는 주제 중 작은 부분을 보고 있다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 플렉스11은 그렇게 할 역량이 분명히 부족하기 때문이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 14:39, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반달리즘 편집은 다음과 같다: 아흐스bdksidbdkfkddkndosbd - FWIW, 만약 이것이 새로운 계정이나 IP가 만든 첫 번째 편집이라면 반달리즘으로 취급되어서는 안 된다 - 그것은 '시험 편집' 경고가 무엇을 위한 것인지에 대한 완벽한 예다 - 누군가 키보드를 두드려 그들이 실제로 페이지를 편집할 수 있는지 - 당신은 임의의 의도를 판단할 수 없다.따라서 AGF를 테스트로 취급하십시오. (참고 - 이것은 계정을 차단하는 것을 더 이상 어렵게 하지 않는다 - 레벨 1 테스트에서 시작하면 경고를 받은 후에도 지속되는 경우 레벨 2 반달리즘으로 에스컬레이션할 수 있다.)
• 블랙 카이트 (토크 · 기여) - 이러한 극단적이고 무차별적인 템플릿 사용은 부적절하고 새로운 사람들에게 불쾌감을 준다는 것에 절대적으로 동의한다.대안적인 제안: 만약 플렉스11이 의향이 있다면, 나는 CVUA 과정을 통해 템플릿 사용 시기와 방법을 설명할 수 있다. 단, TBAN이 제자리에 있다면 불가능할 것이다.만약 플렉스111이 우리가 코스를 떠날 때까지 템플리트를 보류할 의향이 있는지, 그리고 단지 나의 지도 하에 그렇게 할 의향이 있는지 확인한다면, 그것이 당신에게 받아들여질 수 있는 접근법이 될까?GirthSummit _(blether) 14:44, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 가능하다면 그것은 훌륭한 생각이 될 것이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 14:47, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이것을 앞서 살펴본 후, 나는 TBAN도 공공 기물 파손 주의보를 게시하지 말 것을 제안할 생각이었는데, 플렉스11은 단순히 기물 파괴 행위를 식별하는 능력이 없고, 그들이 그렇게 생각했을 때 너무 공격적이기 때문이다.그러나 만약 당신이 CVUA 코스, Girth Summit을 통해 그들을 받아들일 준비가 되어 있다면, 나는 그것이 매우 친절한 제안이라고 생각하며 플렉스11이 그것을 할 준비가 되어 있다면 나는 기꺼이 어떤 제재도 보류할 것이다.보잉! 제베디(토크) 15:27, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 아니, 업데이트 잘했어.pdf 문서의 오른쪽 아래 페이지에 참석자 수를 보여주는 UEFA 문서의 좋은 버전을 추가했는데(51,370명) 몇 분 후 플렉스는 이유 없이 편집을 지우고 내 토크 페이지에 블록 경고를 추가했다.왜 그랬을까?---82.57.44.190 (대화) 15:09, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

미안해, IP.처음에는(약 50분 동안) 참석자가 보고서에 포함되지 않았다(자동 다운로드를 요청하는 대신 새 탭에서만 열림).Girth Summit I want to take CVUA.– 플렉스11 (대화) 15:40, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

문제없어, 천만에요.처음에, S.A. 훌리오가 또 다른 출처를 제공했는데, 왜냐하면 PDF 문서에는 참석하지 않았기 때문이다.유럽축구연맹(UEFA) 문서를 추가했을 때 이미 참석자가 나왔다.아마 못 봤을 거야.---82.57.44.190 (대화) 15:49, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

확인 FLix11 - 내가 여기에 교육 페이지를 작성했으므로, 코스의 해당 부분을 다룰 때까지 아무 곳에도 추가 경고 메시지를 남기지 마십시오.보잉! 블랙 카이트 제베디가 말했다. 그렇게 해서 혼란이 종식되길 바라지만, 만약 그것이 고장나면 알려줄게.건배걸스미트 _(blether) 15:56, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

@거스 서밋:다시한번 감사합니다.보잉! 제베디(토크) 16:00, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 나는 아마도 Flix11이 @Girth Summit: 더 많은 지침을 제공할 수 있을 때까지 공공 기물 파손 경고에 대해 중단해야 할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.그들은 여전히 선의의 편집에 대해 부적절한 수준의 경고를 가지고 뛰어들고 있다(예: 한 페이지를 선의로 업데이트하는 IP에 대한 3단계 경고).--제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 18:18, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

Ping Ponyo 고마워.@Flix11: - 내가 전에 명확하지 않았다면 미안하지만, 교육 과정에 참여하고 싶다면, 다른 편집자들의 대화 페이지에 어떤 종류의 경고도 즉각적으로 하지 말고, 우리가 그 과정의 관련 부분을 다 끝마치고 내가 그렇게 하라고 말할 때까지 다시는 하지 말 것을 - 이 점을 이해했는지 확인해줘.편집을 중단하라는 것은 아니지만, 코스의 첫 부분을 마칠 때까지는 다른 편집자에게 되돌리지 않거나 경고하지 않는 것이 코스에 참여하려는 의지를 보이는 최선의 방법이라고 생각한다.네가 그것에 동의할 수 없다면, 나는 너를 훈련시킬 수 없어.당신의 답변을 기대하며, GirthSummit _(blether) 18:31, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

전에 있었던 Girth Summit 사과.IP 주소가 의도적으로 조기 편집을 되돌릴 이유를 무시하는 경우(WP:LEVERSCORES).하지만 그렇다면 OK.나는 쉴 것이다.플렉스11 (대화) 18:40, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

교육 코스를 수강하기 전에 IP에 더 이상 경고하지 마십시오. 샤라브살람(토크) 23:44, 2019년 5월 30일(UTC)[응답]

미안해, 내가 오프라인 상태였으면 이것에 대해 의견을 말했을 거야.특히 경고가 전혀 필요하지 않다고 주장할 수 있는 경우, 플렉스11이 맞춤형 레벨 4 경고를 첫 번째 경고로 계속 방치하고 있는 것을 보고 마음이 아프다.사용자들은 이것이 몇 달 동안 이슈라는 것을 알고 있었다.나는 WP가 있는 것처럼 보인다는 것에 동의한다.여기에서 CIR 문제가 제기되며, 사용자의 최근 응답으로 인해 교육 제안을 이해한다는 것이 확실하지 않다.훈련을 하면서 경고 남기는 것을 피하고 제대로 하는 법을 배우는 것만큼 '쉬는 것'은 필요한 것이 아니다.

User:Flix11은 교육을 실시하는 것에 동의하십니까? 그리고 평균적으로 다른 사용자 페이지(IP 또는 이름)에 경고 템플릿을 남기는 것을 중단하시겠습니까?미터 (토크) 03:51, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

@Meters:응. – 플렉스11 (대화) 04:00, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

잘했어, 그리고 내 사과할게나는 네가 이미 그 강좌를 수강하기로 약속했다는 것을 놓쳤었다.미터 (토크) 04:06, 2019년 5월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 비울 수 없는 교육 페이지가 구축된 것 같은데...플렉스11은 이에 관한 모든 것을 다 읽었다고 주장했다. 다음은 뭐지?"[10] 물론 그것이 사실이라면 그는 이미 알고 있었기 때문에 다음에 무엇을 해야 할지 묻지 않을 것이다.; 그가 읽었다고 공언한 페이지에는 분명히 지시사항이 나와 있다.이것은 그가 거짓말을 하고 있다는 것을 의미하는데, 이것은 그가 실제로 훈련을 할 의사가 없고 그 제안을 악의적으로 받아들였거나, 또는 그는 쉬운 영어를 이해할 수 없다는 것을 의미한다.그를 훈련시키려는 칭찬할 만한 시도는 실패했으니, 이제 우리는 무엇을 해야 할까? 78.28.54.188 (대화) 11:49, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  분명히, 모든 역경에도 불구하고, 그리고 명확한 증거에도 불구하고, 연습생은 실제로 아무것도 읽지 않고 있다.Girth Summit은 훈련을 계속하기를 원한다.[11] 어떻게 되어 가는지 보자. 78.28.54.188 (대화) 12:35, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  나는 이것이 도움이 되지 않는다고 생각한다. 78.28.54.188 - 나는 그들이 지시를 읽었다고 믿지 않을 이유가 없다고 생각한다.Flex11은 우리 모두와 마찬가지로 자원봉사자로, 마지막으로 여기서 논의된 이후 지금까지 하지 않았던 코스의 관련 부분이 완료될 때까지 더 이상 사용자를 되돌리거나 경고를 발하지 않는다면, 그들은 자신의 비율로 훈련 과정을 수행할 수 있다.만약 내가 그들이 참여하지 않거나 내가 그들에게 주는 충고를 무시하고 있다는 느낌을 받는다면, 나는 다시 이곳으로 와서 그렇게 말할 것이지만, 그때까지 그냥 그들이 계속하도록 내버려 두자.GirthSummit _(blether) 12:42, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  그는 한 번 읽고 나면 그 위에 올리라는 페이지를 읽었다고 말하고, 그 다음엔 어떻게 해야 할지 묻는다.과거에 여러 차례의 아시닌 반달리즘 경고의 수신 종료를 경험했던 나는 여기서 약간 편향되어 있을지도 모르지만, 이것은 단지 훈련의 나머지 기간 동안 좋은 징조가 아니다(그리고 "이것"은 읽기를 끝냈다는 그의 노골적인 거짓말을 의미한다).78.28.54.188 (대화) 12:52, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  IP에 동의해, 나는 선의로 생각하고 있지만, Flix11이 훈련 페이지를 읽었더라면, 그들은 그곳에서 응답했을 것이고, 그들이 반짝임을 가능하게 했는지 아닌지에 대한 응답이어야지, 그들이 모든 것을 읽었는지는 아니다.나는 Girth Summit이 그들의 시간을 낭비하는 것을 원하지 않는다.Girth Summit이 플렉스11을 향해 얼마나 친절하고 좋은지, 플렉스11이 얼마나 고마워하지 않는지 지켜보는 것은 고통스럽다.Girth Summit은 플렉스11이 IBAN을 얻는 것을 막으려고 노력하고 있다.플렉스11이 그걸 알아?나는 또한 Flix11이 Catanian처럼 그들의 국적을 다루면서 몇몇 사용자들을 역이용했다는 것에 주목하고 싶다 [12].트레이닝 코스가 그에게 국적은 되돌릴 이유가 아니라는 것을 분명히 해줄지 어떨지 모르겠다.아무튼 플렉스11이 훈련을 하고 있는지 아닌지가 매우 확실해질 때까지 기다리기를 권한다.--샤라브살람 (토크) 13:03, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

샤라브살람 존경심을 가지고, 나는 여전히 이것이 도움이 되지 않는다고 생각한다.플렉스11은 지금까지 더 이상 되돌리거나 경고를 하지 않기로 한 그들의 합의를 고수해 왔고, 여기서 더 이상 논의하기 전에 그들에게 코스를 진행할 수 있는 시간을 주자 - 제발 모든 사람들이 지켜보고 있다는 느낌 없이, 그런 종류의 압박이 학습에 도움이 되지 않을 것이고, 교란 요인이 되지 않는 한, 그들이 그것을 하도록 허락해 주자.n 여기서 더 이상 이 문제를 논의할 필요는 없을 것 같다.GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

NYC 지하철 반달

이 IP는 R179(뉴욕시티 지하철 차량)와 기타 지하철 기사 편집 몇 주마다 블록이 필요하다.거의 항상 편집 요약이 없다는 점에 유의하십시오.카드84664 (대화) 02:34, 2019년 5월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

@Cards84664: 나는 이것을 참고한다.IP는 그들의 모든 편집 내용을 일괄적으로 되돌리지 않을 뿐이다.그들은 확실히 블록이 필요하다.그들은 그들의 토크 페이지에서와 같이 이것에 대해 경고를 받았다.이제 블록이 좋은 생각이다.감사합니다.더 듀크 23:15, 2019년 5월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

나 또한 이 블록을 지지할 것이다.나는 이 IP의 토크 페이지를 따라다니며 그것의 기여도를 검토해왔고 그것은 명백히 공공 기물 파손과 전쟁 편집에 관여하고 있다.그들은 최근의 수많은 블록을 받았다.연구월드(토크) 10:06, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

적어도 편집전쟁은 지장을 주기 때문에 나는 31시간 동안 IP주소를 차단했다.블록이 만료된 후 문제가 다시 발생할 경우 언제든지 알려주시거나 WP에 보고하십시오.AIV. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 2019년 5월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

블록이 만료된 후에도 같은 이슈가 계속되다 보니 2주 동안 다시 차단했다--Ymblanter (토크) 21:33, 2019년 6월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

괴롭힘

사용자:말릭 샤바즈

• FYI: Malik has gotten his userpage wiped and has also gotten all of his talkpage archives wiped: [28]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the user-talk archives were speedily deleted under criterion U1, which seems to explicitly exclude Talk pages. Moreover WP:DELTALK says such pages are generally not deleted (but may be courtesy-blanked). What are the exceptional circumstances here?—Odysseus1479 01:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odysseus1479 you'd probably have to file a thread on WP:AN regarding this if you are concerned or want clarification. There may be different rules for TP archives than for TPs themselves, since the history of the TP itself remains intact. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Malik appears to have stepped away from the project with no specification if they will return. starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rather extreme reaction, as I recall it was only a 72 hour block.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat at Caldwell Esselstyn

User:Halo Jerk1

Vandalism only account?

Personal attacks on Talk:Dean Ambrose by User:Wicka wicka

Historyofiran

Requesting a subject-matter ban for user Bacondrum on the Call-out Culture article

Supervote close. Not gonna stoke up more drama by formally contesting it since if things work out, that's great, and otherwise we'll be back here before long. But it's obvious that Bacondrum is still seriously confused about multiple things and I still believe it would be better for the encyclopedia if they were to edit without reverting for a while. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shayanhello001 and his IP socks

Stage-struck?

Eddaido (talk · contribs), who recently displayed some rather odd ownership issues on the Concord coach article, is currently repeatedly reverting to a version which is not supported by the cited source...or, indeed, any good source, using a cite which clearly discusses local adoption as proof of world-wide first usage. Outside eyballs appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a venue to get "more eyes" when you are in a Simple content dispute. If you find yourself in an intractable dispute with another editor you need to avail yourself of the options at WP:DR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither simple, nor merely a content dispute, but ownership and competence issues going back to another article. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is the two of you in a slow motion edit war at Stagecoach. Eddaido hasn't even edited Concord coach since March 8th. If you're going to make accusations of ownership and incompetence you will need to back your claims up with specific diffs demonstrating as such or it just comes off as a personal attack.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Qwirkle's trying to say is that Eddaido has displayed problematic behavior at Concord Coach, and is now continuing that behavior at Stagecoach. This isn't a mere content dispute; his competence problems are real and longstanding. No diffs since I'm on mobile, so sue me. EEng 18:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like anyone has edited Concord_coach in a month (March/April). Is this an urgent problem? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (i see this point has been made)[reply]

It's a chronic problem. And the locus now, as I said, is Stagecoach. EEng 21:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a request for more eyes, or a request to investigate Eddiado's editing more generally? If it's the first, then Ponyo is right (although I rewarded this misuse of ANI and provided an opinion on the article talk page). If it's the second, then we need a whole lot more info than is provided here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen illustrated on the page in question, I think this a floor wax and a dessert topping. There are both issues for which ANI or ANEW are exactly the right fora, and there are some that simple visibility over a wider swath than the other usual noticeboards can give would help. If it were only the latter, it’d really not belong, except on a real slow day. Qwirkle (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in hypotheticals because I haven't looked at any diffs yet, but if Qwirkle's claims be accurate, this is something deserving sanctions, and it definitely belongs here. It's disruptive to add material with a source that doesn't back it up (you're claiming that the source says something it doesn't, i.e. you're adding a hoax), and while we can revert once with a kindly message, someone who does it persistently must be stopped, and a request for an enforced stop is definitely appropriate at WP:ANI. I'll start looking into the situation momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I've looked at page histories and talk entries for Concord coach and Stagecoach. At the former page, I note that Eddaido repeatedly added a claim that 2500 US pounds was 2¼ US tons, which is wrong (1 ton = 2000 pounds), and problematic after you're warned once; and I see that he admitted at talk to making up numbers and throwing them in. At the latter page, I see that he's removing content, which on the face of things is different from adding a hoax. But here, the removal changes the meaning significantly — The first recorded stagecoach route in Britain started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one on a big island, while The first recorded stagecoach route started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one in the world. Since Floquenbeam has added a quote from the source, which specifically talks about it being the first on a specific island and not in the world, Eddaido is indeed causing the article to provide false information. This isn't simply removing an extraneous detail (e.g. changing "19 December 1610" to "1610"); if you delete words whose absence makes a significant change that can't be derived from the source, it's no less problematic than adding un-backed-up information in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see this comment by Eddaido: ...you say you have found a direct quote. Why has your friend never pointed this up? If I understand rightly, the quote from the source was a surprise to him, as if he hadn't consulted the source. If my understanding be correct, that's an even bigger issue: no one should be making significant changes to the meaning of a cited phrase without consulting the source or without solid evidence that the source has been misrepresented somehow. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I have not looked at the issue (which is indeffable as described above) but 2¼ US tons (short tons) is 2500 pounds, confirmed with {{convert 1+1/4 ST lb}}. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend and Johnuniq: I think Nyttend just made a typo there, somewhere. The book states that the coach in question weighed "2-and-one-quarter-ton". Eddaido had been consistently stating this as "2.25 metric tonnes." Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. I think the reported editor is affecting us all because my convert is for 1.25 instead of 2.25. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short ton covers a unit equal to 2000 pounds, so 2500 = 1¼ tons. It's not a matter of hitting the adjacent key; in [67] Eddaido restored a challenged piece of text that said weighed two and a quarter tons or 2.25 metric tonnes. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I ran into the reported user back at the beginning of 2018 at hearse. I removed some uncited and poorly-written information and was 'thanked' by Eddaido. He then put the information back -poorly worded and all- and cited Oxford's English Dictionary. I didn't pursue the matter because editwarring is lame. It does appear that he has a fascination with coaches and other similiar motor vehicles and exhibits ownership of them. I'm not asking for any action, but this is something I have noticed. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not motor vehicles specifically, but anyway... This has been a problem for a while. I wish there was some way to get him to listen to what other editors (often multiple other editors at once) try to tell him in discussions. EEng 20:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all of this user's edits are about land vehicles. Some of them relate to articles about military personnel, such as this edit and the previous one to Malcolm C. McGregor. So the recommended action is at most a topic ban from vehicles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocentric vandalism edits

During the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result, ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups (Lurs and Kurds), were conducted. All pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages to discuss disputes.SHADEGAN (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain what you mean by Ethnocentric vandalism and why you don't reply to multiple users' questions on the talk pages, e.g. Talk: Laki language. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the articles to my watchlist.You can discuss the issue in talk pages. Wikipedia is not the death note. Whatever you write in Wikipedia it will not become fact in the ground. I don't know much about these lur, kurd people but I think this is part of identity politics which is controversial most of the time and we usually find reliable sources contradicting each other.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this: "On the other hand, they themselves consider it an insult to be confounded with the Kurds, whom they call Leks."[68]

You're right this user tries to make everything to Kurds. Not just the Lurs. He also tries it with Shabaks, Zazas and Yazidis. And the sad thing is that the administrators does not want to hear or see it all, and in some cases they even support his attempt because they are not familiar with this topics. 77.245.112.237 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again misleading with your quotes. The text says that Lurs don't consider themselves Kurds whom they call Leks. As in, Lurs call Kurds the name "Leks". You can also use the talkpages to contest the references I have given, despite being an IP. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is that saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance"? I think wikipedia might not have enough user knowledgeable about these subjects. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

I already warned the OP about personal attacks, such as "ethnocentric totalitarian users." Focus on the content and not on the contributors. That's in everyone's best interests. El_C 21:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user is continuing his vandalism campaign. nothing constructive but only on Wikipedia to push for his POV. If this isn't pure vandalism, nothing is: [69] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And then has the audacity to [70] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's gone berzerk[71] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful. As mentioned elsewhere, I expect you both to be guided be the principle of applying due weight to the available reliable sources. And while you attempt that, both of you should cut down on the rhetoric (vandalism accusations and otherwise). El_C 16:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Shadegan and Coron Arol(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are immune to RS and only on Wikipedia for disruptive editing. The rest of us have shown and shown RS but they continue with their work. Now they are on to changing the names of all Kurdish-related articles[72][73] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are in conflict with every user who does not support your POV. And then you accuse them as vandals and constantly start an editwar. 2.62.251.66 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which pov and which edit war? If you have observed my actions, please tell. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have undone the recent unilateral moves from the new user — this new user was already cautioned about using a proper move request in another article. I have extended-confirmed the articles in question and restored the stable, status quo ante versions. The user is welcome to contribute to the discussion on the article talk pages — discussion which so far has been absent. This has just become too disruptive, with new users and IPs attempting to circumvent discussion, reaching consensus, applying due weight to the reliable sources, all seemingly over the last few weeks. I'm really not sure where this concerted effort is suddenly coming from, but I will have none of it. That having been said, if another admin feels that I have overstepped, they should feel free to undo my actions and they do not need to consult me about it in any way. El_C 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that you support his POV. We need another administrator who does not support POV. I have already said to you in the Ane[74] that your actions are not neutral. Coron Arol (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you made it clear that you don't feel I'm suitable to be an administrator. That's on the record. El_C 19:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppeter User:Jahmalm is back as User:Nathan Annick. Same arguments (or claims) on the same articles, same way of referencing (only one I know who uses '^[1], ^[2], etc')[75][76]. I ask admins to take a look at this. Thank you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you mean and I don’t know this user. I just added some sources and you deleted them. Please stop annoying me. Nathan Annick (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may file a Sock investigation. There's not much that can be done here. El_C 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On China–United States trade war and talk

Syopsis seems to be certain of his version of the truth that other editors must all be "for fucks sake stop the bleating already if you and other (sockpuppet?) user hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article", and he then removed all the tags added to the article as if by removing these tags, the article will no automatically be taken as the truth when any intelligent reader could see the excessive coverage of the US's administration with little to no mention of its Chinese counterpart. When I reverted his edit that deleted ALL tags, he instead insist on his version and said I should discuss these changes first, when already several other have questioned the POV of the article on the talk pages for a long time. He seems to be unable to make arguments beside being a wiki lawyer and make personal attacks, when others have made clear stated point. I once thought even the most pro-current-administration person should agree this article simply writes too much from a US perspective, because besides the mentioning on the retaliatory tariff, all the rest are US,US,US if not TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP. Viztor (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User's already filed two complaints (one at the neutral point of view noticeboard and another at the Administrator intervention against vandalism . I have said everything I needed to say but it basically boils down to the user refusing to even discuss the changes he wants - there is an assumption on his part that his view is "the truth". I have said from day one that we need to discuss the kind of changes that he is making on the talk page FIRST because it is A LOT of information that he is trying to pull out. There really isn't anything partisan about it, although given the user's history....the same can't be said. Syopsis (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: See this is the kind of edit that YOU need to be making and EVERYONE can agree on. Syopsis (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Syopsis: Regarding this atrocious edit: please read WP:CIVIL, and remember to not curse needlessly in communication, and to be respectful. If someone does something you disagree with, talk about it calmly and try to resolve the issue, instead of throwing your hands up in exasperation or being rude to other editors. Also, do not make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. If you think someone is a sock, report it at WP:SPI, don't use it as a cudgel in conversation. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: I think you should read WP:CIVIL too, and also remember to not WP:FORUMSHOP. Posting an issue in one place is good enough, and ANI is the right venue. Your reports to the other boards have been removed or moved. Also, to both of you, your use of capitalization is excessive. Please tone it down. Captain Eek^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i'm generally quite relaxed and a all-time-lower-case person, however, it does came to my notice that this specific user were tracking and vetting the changes i make and reverted those he doesn't like, which is as if someone's scratching the back of my feet while i'm sleeping, which apparently cause reactions in my nervous system and make it quite uncomfortable to keep editing. Viztor (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok... you have both expressed your take on what is happening... now, please sit back and let others examine the situation and comment. Blueboar (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did not add those tags, I only became engaged as I reverted a change that removed all tags, when there are clearly related-discussion on the talk page, which nobody seems to bother to contest. After which, I agreed with the editor that four tags may be tag bombing and merged three into one globalize/US, yet the editor still insisted and removed all, at which point it is clear of his intention. As of now, the article remain untagged with the talk page filled with concerns rained about its neutrality. Viztor (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the article now remains tagged after after a discussion on the talk page. I reverted several of the reported user's edits, and the only one of mine that is still up is the {{globalize/US}} tag. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is significant undue weight. If I scroll to the top of "Arguments for the US to implement tariff sanctions" and PageDown, this section occupies nearly five screens, and from "Temporary reprieve" to the beginning of the China subsection of "Influence" is a little bit over three screens. The only China-specific section is the Influence/China subsection, which is less than one screen. You can't claim balance when one side gets eight times the coverage. Hint: wait until secondary sources come out (those written after the fact), rather than using primary sources (those written at the time of the event), because reliable secondary sources will provide a good overview instead of "Here's the latest X you should care about" typical of primary sources like news reports. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator take a look at this set of edit-warring edits by User:Viztor ([77], [78] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93Uni ted_States_trade_war&diff=899784563&oldid=89978333])? I really don't want to give the impression that I am being petty or beating a dead horse or whatever you call it, but I must bring this up because the other user who the user was edit warring with (User talk:Hari147) got an outright 24 hour block for it; I would have just ignored the edit warring between those two as something to be expected had Hari not been blocked. Now I don't know the exact details of why Hari got blocked so I won't comment how just it was and i am also not going to saying that the same be automatically done to the other user. But on the face of it the treatment doesn't seem fair, especially when Viztor was edit warring even AFTER filing this ANI request.

And on an unrelated note, i have made lots of changes to the involved page and there hasn't been any edit-warring by ANY parties to the debate since so i've done my best to avoid any more edit warring. While still of course being bold in my changes.Syopsis (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syopsis practically made up the third edit...It's a diff between different pages. False accusations do not earn this editor any respect in the community.
Viztor (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.It seems this has been escalating for too long.Let me explain a few of my thoughts on this.

I would like to mention that wikipedia should be a platform based on factual information,rather than content that favours a particular side,and more importantly,information that may be unnecessary to the context of the article,in this case,the article on China-United States trade war.I have warned user Viztor that his edits may be unconstructive to the context of the article,and revealed to him proper methods to publish articles in the future of such manner.Despite several warnings,he has been persistent to his actions and has been reluctant to abide by proper editing.He has been warned by other users also,and in retaliation he has been accusatory and seems to take it too personally.Hence,i request that all edits to this article be reviewed by proper management,as this topic may seem to be of a sensitive manner and the article,in fact,could possibly pose serious conflicts in real life,as people gain information to these articles.Nevertheless,the edits have been proper thus far.

I would also like to add to some arguments placed by some users on this topic.Although there might be information that does not well represent a particular side(or in this case,quantified),it does not mean that the article is going towards a biased avenue.The information thus far has been as accurate as possible and ONLY information that is related to the context should be added,rather than information that might actually be off-topic.Many of such previous information has included military personnel,background information of companies,or historical information of countries.These are topics that have been already discussed on other pages,and should not necessarily be included.If such information needs to be included,they should be linked to other articles,rather than to the above-mentioned article.I hope that the administrators would take a proper measures that such incidents are prevented as much possible.I would also like to add that i feel that the block on my rights was baseless and not needed,as i was only protecting the article form further damage.Nevertheless,it did not really affect me too much as i was in fact away during much of the time.Thank you.
hari147 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hari147: You were blocked for violating the WP:3RR, a hard and fast rule here on Wikipedia. No matter your intentions, we have the 3RR policy for good reason. Don't break it again, and don't edit war in general (even if you are right!) or you'll find yourself banned for much longer than 24 hours. In terms of Viztor, please provide diffs and/or other links to their supposed misconduct. Otherwise, its just claims without evidence, which won't lead to action. In terms of the content of the article? Discuss that on that article's talk page, not here. ANI is for conduct not content. Lastly, not to be rude, but if I may nitpick your grammar: you are lacking spaces after essentially all of your punctuation, which reads very awkwardly. Don't forget to add a space after each use of a period or comma :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews

In the few weeks I've noticed some odd goings-on at the biographies of various Polish Jews with questionable, or even odious histories. Specifically, there seems to be a concerted effort to label them as "Jewish", and not as "Polish", generally in apparent ignorance or defiance of MOS:ETHNICITY and the "Nationality" parameter in Infobox person. I think I first noticed it at Salomon Morel (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), but it has been particularly apparent at Chaim Rumkowski (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), where multiple IPs and new/seldom-used accounts have shown up to make edits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. There does not seem to be any similar effort to designate other types of biographies of Polish Jews (e.g. resistance fighters such as Yitzhak Zuckerman, Frumka Płotnicka, Hirsch Berlinski, Chaike Belchatowska Spiegel) as "Jewish" and not "Polish". It seems unlikely that seldom used accounts such as Sophiel777 (talk · contribs), Rordayukki (talk · contribs), Szydlot (talk · contribs), Albertus teolog (talk · contribs), Waćpan (talk · contribs), Tashi (talk · contribs) suddenly discovered this article/dispute by chance. There is now a section on the article's talk page discussing the issue, but my concern is much more regarding the source of this influx of suddenly activated/reactivated and highly motivated editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been ongoing edit conflicts on wiki with editors who insist that Jewishness is a distinct and exclusive ethnicity and, for instance, one can't be both Jewish and Polish or Jewish and German, individuals are one of the other. Perennial pov conflict that needs attention? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some of that too; this board relatively recently had an incident of a long-term IP editor who seemed to believe one couldn't be both Swedish and Jewish, and kept replacing "Swedish" with "Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bit distorted version of the events.I have actually seen attempts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from articles about individuals who collaborated with Nazis leaving only Polish in the lead first sentence, under pretext that it indicates nationality[79].Also in case of Salomon Morel the issue has been it seems debated since years looking at history of the page.For the record reliable sources in cases of individuals with complicated identity often use the term Polish-Jewish as per Per Anne Applebaum "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-56 "the unusual case of Salomon Morel, who – all agree – was a Polish Jew and a communist partisan" New York Magazine - 9 Mau 1994.

Per MOS:ETHNICITY MOS:ETHNICITY,that ethnicity can be mentioned “Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” The cases where somebody was involved in Holocaust and it played a major role in his life, or used his ethnic background as defence against persectution for crimes and it caused international controversy are I believe good reasons for mentioning the ethnicity in the first sentence.I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland. I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland.

As for recent activity it seems that popular publicist Rafal Ziemkiewicz re-tweeted this characterization on his twitter webpage recentely[80], which probably led to people reading this to react. I don't know how to link to re-tweet, as I don't use twitter much.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that could help explain the recent influx of editors at the Rumkowski article, though perhaps not at others. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding this edit you criticized above, you do realize that the nationality parameter on infobox person is only for citizenship, not ethnicity, don't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a fact that the tweet was the cause of interest because many people have noticed that in case of hideous Jewish characters, their Jewishness have been erased from the article. We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). Another example may be the recent edition in Stefan Michnik which was a Stalinist judge who was responsible for murdering many Polish anti-communist soldiers, generals etc. All information about his sentences have been deleted even though I provided two different sources. All of them have been marked as "too far-right". User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one (Redacted). Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. Tashi _{Talk to me} 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)^[3][reply]

Tashi, I suggest less emotional approach.I know that some of the crimes comitted by Nazi collaborators or Soviet executioners can be upsetting but it's best to keep professional attitude and don't use insults, I suggest you re-write your sentence a it.

From a technical point of view I encountered a similiar problem once before:mainly the units of Selbstschutz in Poland 1939 were made of Germans with Polish nationality living in Poland that fought against Polish state. Would it be fitting to describe such individuals as Polish? I am sure this would seem wrong and there should be description of their ethnicity as well in order not to confuse the readers. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me that I'm trying to keep it as professional as possible but I also wanted to point out some facts that seems to be constantly omitted. I have nothing against Jayjig or any other user and I think we can work out and reach a consensus :) Though, there's a space for the debate about the nationality since that term is understood differently worldwide and it can be the bone of contention. I understand the argument that nationality is somehow related to the citizenship but there is no doubt that calling people like Rumkowsky as Polish is totally misunderstanding since he did not identify himself as Polish. Someone suggested the term "Russian-born Polish Jew" and I think that would be acceptable historically Tashi _{Talk to me} 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that I have extended-confirmed protected Chaim Rumkowski, it is clearly appropriate as the semi-protection (where I was the protecting admin) is not working as designed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not see why there need to be labels made in the article about Chaim Rumkowski. Disputes concerning nationality or descent are common and tend to be left out in most cases when a consensus is not achieved, as in Nicolaus Copernicus where only occupation is stated. However, it is appropriate to consider where the person lived, worked and/or obtained citizenship. Rumkowski held Polish citizenship and lived in Poland which is a dominating factor. In general context, I cannot stress enough that "Jewish" is not a nationality only an identity based on both racial descent and religion. All Polish Jews (considering they haven't emigrated) that are either secular or not Orthodox should be labelled as "Polish" per citizenship laws. "Polish-Jewish" or simply "Jewish" is a term appropriate for rabbis and religious or spiritual leaders. You do not see the label "American-Jewish" in articles about American actors, musicians, soldiers or politicians that are of Jewish heritage. Oliszydlowski, 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rumkowski was born in ethnic Russia so he might have been perceived by Polish Jews are a Russina Jew (Litvak).Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:Ethnicity is not based on religious criteria, and for purely MOS comparison(not character), Janusz Korczak or Anne Frank have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead.I agree that usually it’s not needed, but in cases where it played huge role(Morel for example)and RS point this out ethnicity should be mentioned.Also contrary to your assesment we have actors described as American-Jewish, ie Leo Fuchs or Menasha Skulnik[User:MyMoloboaccount MyMoloboaccount]] (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reader should be informed why Morel run away to Israel rather than to Sweden or Chile.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm disturbed by the statement from Tashi, We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). (emphasis mine). This is reminiscent of the "exclusionary antisemitism" common in pre-war Europe. Compare with:

Exclusionary Antisemitism

The exclusionary nature of antisemitism derives from the perception that the Jew stands outside the nation, and represents an alternative nation or an anti-national, internationalist collective. This idea thrived in the early twentieth century when Jews were said to be internationalist, and thus to stand against the interests of national communities. Because there are distinct Jewish communities in many countries, antisemites alleged that: 1) Jewish communities conspire to advance their collective interests to the detriment of their "host" countries and 2) the dominant forms taken by this conspiracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are international finance and communism. In making such claims, antisemites sought to push out the Jew altogether.

Source. To go with Tashi's quote, see their edit here: [81]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that Jewish community was very strong and very separated. It made up majority in many places. In addition to separation between ethnic Poles and ethnic Jews, there were also separation between assimilated Jews and non-assimilated Jews. Pre WW2 state was very liberal in national and religious question. Cautious (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, antisemitism. Sorry but if the discussion is going to be about playing the antisemitism card then I'm out. I don't know how well you're familiar with Polish history but it is a fact that a lot of Jewish people didn't even speak Polish though they had lived there for a few centuries. It's not only about Polish only. That's historical fact and what's antisemitic about it? The other thing, yes I added he was a Jewish businessman because that information had been deleted. It's not something I made up. I used to say he was a Polish Jew but someone is trying to delete that information and I don't know why Tashi_{Talk to me} 06:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just got these kind words from a newly created account on my talk. I will note that comments on "playing the antisemitism card", and above that editing of WWII historical articles was prompted by tweets by Rafal Ziemkiewicz, are deeply concerning. Some context on Ziemkiewicz is in order: Guardian 2018 (visit cancelled to UK, views on Muslims, gays, and Jews, Ziemkiewicz calling UK "fascist"), National Post, 2019 (comments on Jew hatred), JTA 2018 ("scabs" for jews), JTA 2018 (WJC - "gang of international blackmailers"), Pankowski, Rafał. Right-wing extremism in Poland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Department for Central and Eastern Europe, 2012. (endorsement of a book advocating that Poland should've allied itself with Hitler in 1939), Minkner, Kamil. "Polish contemporary art to the anti-semitism of Poles and its political significance." Review of Nationalities 6.1 (2016): 195-221. (views on Jedwabne pogrom and antisemitism). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. In my POV those comments was prmoted by this: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/262593 ("'Israeli minister who made anti-Polish remarks a stupid idiot’ Prominent Holocaust survivor Ed Mosberg blasts Israeli FM over anti-Polish comments". Artcile date 02/05/19 16:10 Rordayukki (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the particular case, but have come across the attitude (in exactly the way it has been put) in a number of articles relating to Jewish-Polish relations. I said it there and I will say it here, saying that this is an anti-Semitic trope. Apart from a very small number of ultra-orthodox Jews there is no evidence the Jews refused to speak (or did not see themselves) as Polish (serving in both the home army and the Free Polish forces). I think a topic ban is in order. We cannot and should not allow the propagation of anti-Semitic tropes.Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many Jews didn't identify themselves as Poles and spoke polish with very strong accent. It might be due to the fact the seprate religious education was allowed. This has changed after WW2, when the state enforced uniformed primary education and went hard for uniformisation. Cautious (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend caution, to avoid stiffing the debate through chilling effect and variations of Godwin's law and political correctness.

Lucy Dawidowicz (a Polish-American-Jewish scholar) wrote "Even the Jewish lower classes who did not speak Polish felt themselves part of Poland." This, ironically, contradicts both Tashi - and you.

Leo Cooper (from University of Melbourne) wrote [around WWII]] "Many Jews either did not speak Polish, or spoke it badly."

Halik Kochanski (Polish-British historian) speaking for the same time period estimated that "80 per cent were unassimilated and therefore did not speak Polish". (through TBH I find 80% a rather surprisingly high figure)

Iwo Pogonowski likewise wrote that "In national census of 1931 nearly ninety percent of the Jew reported that they did not speak Polish". That said, Polish_census_of_1931#Mother_tongue_controversy... and I couldn't verify this with the document here, through perhaps it is simply not complete. It could be that IP confused speaking Polish with chosing Polish as the "mother tongue".

Ewa Kurek (Polish scholar, somewhat controversial) cites for example a report from the 1930s that said "In small towns, Jewish youth did not know the Polish language at all, only Yiddish or Hebrew. Young people did not speak Polish, and if they did, they spoke it they way I did – very poorly." and on the next page herself states that "On the eve of the outbreak of WWII, barely 15% of the Jewish population had knowledge of Polish language"

Ezra Mendelsohn on the other hand suggested that around that time most of the youth were assimilated and spoke Polish, but this also suggested that it was a relatively new developoment ([82]).

But Mordecai Schreiber, a rabbi, wrote that "many Jews did not speak Polish well "

Celia Stopnicka Heller, Polish-American sociologist, wrote (referring to the Orthodox Jews) "Not infrequent among the older generations were those who spoke no Polish."

Finally, British historian Norman Davies wrote "There was also a shrinking category of people who, though Poles in the sense of being Polish citizens, spoke no Polish, shunned wider social contacts, and lived in closed, ultra-Orthodox Yiddish-speaking communities. These ultra-Orthodox were dominant in the traditional shtetln or 'smal Jewish towns' of the countryside. but less so in the larger cities""

I hpoe it is clear that it is not 'antisemitic' to discus to what extent Polish Jews spoke Polish and identified with the Polish nation, and that someone who makes the argument that some, and perhaps most Polish Jews did not speak Polish, is not an anti-semite who deserves a topic ban. We should, of course, keep antisemitic discourse off this project, but the case discussed above is very much a normal academic issue, not 'an antisemitic trope'. PS. Personally, I am not convinced that 'most Polish Jews' did not spoke Polish, this may be an exaggeration, but it is one tha at least some scholars support. And I think the sources presented above make it very clear that at least a significant group of Polish Jews did not speak Polish (but whether that significant group was 10% or 90%, I have no opinion on yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 09:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When someone does not say "some Jewish could not speak Polish" but rather "Jews were not Polish, and the evidence is they could not even speak our language". The issue is not that they could not speak Polish, but that they were not Polish, but rather They are a race and nation apart (see the quoted canard above).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never written that Jews are not Polish. I just pointed out that many Jewish people who lived in Poland did not identify as Poles and it can be observed in fact that they did not know the language of the country they lived in and other arguments Piotrus mentioned. There have been thousands of Polish Jews who identified themselves with Polish and Polish culture. I really don't see anything antisemitic in that claiming. If banning is the way of discussion then I think that the idea of Wikipedia is already dead since we can disagree on many topics but we should try to reach a consensus. Tashi_{Talk to me} 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you have just used it as an excuse to argue to certain types of people should not be called polish based upon no other evidence then they were Jewish. If you had provided some sources saying "X did ot indetofy" as Polish I would not have ascribed this view to the perpetuating of antisemitic canards. The fact is the only evidence you have produced (some of which even contracts your claim) is that some Jews could not speak Polish, ergo a particular jew (which not source has said could not speak Polish) was not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not even evidence, since there is no natural historical equation between citizenship and fluency in the designated national language. You don't require it in Israel, be you Israeli Arab or a Jew making aliyah. Sometimes states stipulate this as a sine qua non (notoriously in Baltic states) but where ius soli defines citizenship, being born there automatically confers citizenship. When the US passed its citizenship act in 1924, that right automatically extended to indigenous peoples like the Navajo, though many did not speak English, and even to this day, on a number of reservations studies indicate that 20% are monolingual, not knowing English, something which in no way imperils their citizenship identity. To give an extreme example when the Piripkura or Kawahiva were discovered in Amazonia, they were automatically Brazilian citizens since they were born there, though they didn't speak Brazilian. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus BTW, according to Halik Kochanski more than 80 % Rordayukki (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'd like to see what source she uses for that. It's a rather far-reaching estimate that needs good backing from sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a mess. In short - the lede should mention their nationality/citizenship only (X was a Polish astronomer, Y was an American writer etc.) and only mention ethnicity/religion if it is key to their notability - so Anne Frank should probably be described as Jewish but there is no need to describe Barack Obama as African-American, for example. GiantSnowman 10:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, that is pretty ridiculous. Like, completely ridiculous. Please look at Trevor Noah and tell me what ethnicity you see. Or don't, and just don't participate in this discussion because you're just digging your hole deeper. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading this and reading some of what some are calling RS, I do think a TBAN for Tashi is in order. I saw a lot of links posted, so I am not sure if this was in the mix, but this is one of the sources being pushed, [83]. This is not something we should allow on the encycopedia. Antisemitism or antisemitic tropes should not be tolerated or condoned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To Piotrus: pointing out ethnic tropes & bigotry is not political correctness [84] run amok; it's basic human decency. Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [85] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I could equally accuse Poles of not 100% speaking Russian, German, or Yiddish, even though they "lived there" for over a century, but that would be silly.

Then there's Tashi's targeting of Jayjg: User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one. Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. This is highly inappropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @K.e.coffman: I certainly agree that unsubstantiated accusations like the comment about Jayjg are not constructive, and I hope User:Tashi will withdraw it per WP:REFACTOR. However, regarding the first point, there's a difference between repeating bigoted stereotypes (ex. Jews are greedy, Caucasians have big noses) and and a scientific analysis of whether some cultures are more mercantilist or some DNA is more likely to result in, well, large noses :) We should warn people to avoid the former, but the latter should not be discouraged. It is very unfortunate when a chilling effect can be seen when a trigger happy admin throws blocks and bans or their proposals around. Frankly, commenting in such discussions at A(N, N/I, E) or such always makes me wonder - will I get banned or blocked? Because sadly I have seen a lot of misunderstandings and such solved with a banhammer. Why bother drawing lines if nuking solves quickly problems, eh? In either case, I think we should both warn some people here to be careful when it come to using streotypes or such, but also, warn people not to denounce others too quickly to avoid chilling effects in such discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @K.e.coffman:, @Piotrus:, @Slatersteven:, what do you think of this "refactoring", that still doesn't appear to accept that there's anything wrong with bringing up some random 7 year old attack thread on some outside forum, but "apologizes" if that was somehow taken as an attack? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what the relevance of that forum is, not what it "proves" in the way of anything. It was not in and off itself a PA, but it was (I think) uncivil. What a bunch of loud fingers on some forum think is irrelevant and a distraction, but does imply the user see's this as some battle against a "towering figure in the history of WikiKorruption", i am also am also somewhat concerned that that forum had an outing attempt, and linking to it here was outing as well. Overall it reinforces my view the user needs a TBAN, as I see nothing but distractions and obstructions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all kind of a stupid argument, because in both cases - that of Chaim Rumkowski and Salomon Morel - the information as to their ethnicity/nationality is pretty much implied/stated right there in the sentence. In case of Morel, whom Icewhiz is trying to "tag" as Polish [86], it says in the same damn sentence he worked for the Polish security services. So his citizenship is kind of obvious. In the case of Rumkowski the first sentence states that he was "head of the Jewish Council of Elders" which already implies he was Jewish. So there's no point in trying to "tag" him as Jewish either. Trying to invoke an overly literal interpretation of WP:MOS here to insist on adding the nationality/ethnicity in the lede explicitly is a classic example of WP:POINT and WP:GAME. And WP:TEND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible that the Jewish Poles had Jewish property? Citizens of Poland have Polish property which is nationalized if heirless.

Pre-war Poland was obsolete, it continued some pre-division customs. Jews had their parties, Poles had their parties and Ukrainians had their ones. This division created ethnic wars partially described in Intimate Violence http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140102719170 . The massacre of Poles by Ukrainians was bigger than anti-Jewish violence of Poles.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/lens/poland-ukraine-volhynia-massacre.html?searchResultPosition=1&fbclid=IwAR17TAD11EfjuGJ7L9uBWRmUTJcSO4aVPKoWgZIUhxcx7mAHhH2bjy5I0Yk BBWR and socialists accepted Jews.

The Jews were strictly isolated by their religion, mainly by lack of mixed marriages. A poor Pole wasn't able to marry a Jewish girl and join a Jewish business. Even getting work was a problem. Such division craeted serious economic and social problems. It's impossible to creatre a modern state from two strictly economically and socially divided ethnicities.

Zionists weren't Polish, they constructed future Israel. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a couple of users in this thread who clearly should not be editing Polish-Jewish topics. Is AE sufficient to enforce this, or do we need a new ArbCom case? In addition, let me please warn everybody against WP:NOTFORUM violations. Thank you for your understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Chilling effects to the extreme. While I fully support NOTFORUM, trying to topic ban someone for one-two talk page posts is ridiculous. Topic bans should be limited to people who have shown a consistent pattern, over many edits, of problematic editing of content, not made one-two borderline comments. I would like to see how many people you'd topic ban after seeing discussions on pages of Trump, Obama and such... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus [[User talk:Piotrus}

Anyway, I think that this thread is nothing but NOTFORUM discussion that will lead to no constructive solution, and I suggest closing it. If any editors are making inappropriate edits, specific diffs can be discussed in new threads (or at AE). Reminders of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV wouldn't go amiss, there are also warning templates for those, right? So I suggest that the closer sprinkles a few of those as neeeded, and we move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 08:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This thread is an exemplary example of one problem that hounds editors in these fields: not prejudice (like antisemitism), but Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with it. This aspiration to keep Wikiepdia a "sterile space" where we only discuss editorial decisions and policy technicalities is, as we all know, ridiculous: Wikipedia is a reflection of society, and society has bigots, and so some Wikipedians are bigots. The assumption that calling out bigotry has a more "chilling" effect than not being able to call it out at all, has denial built in to it: that we don't have bigotry, that the usual processes are enough, that people minorities are "too sensitive" etc. And so in Wikipedia's current climate pointing prejudice out is a cause for indef blocking, while expressing prejudice is pastime that rarely gets addressed. It's not at all difficult to recognize: some editors are entirely concerned with eg. introducing sources that 3rd party RS describe as prejudiced; others repeatedly and explicitly express opinions that RS state are stereotyping, nationalistic, prejudiced etc. The fact that they're being polite about it (eg. dogwhistling) rather than burn crosses and paint swastiakas on synagogues doesn't make it any less severe, and Wikipedia should address it just like any other "real world" organization. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is sometimes it is six of one half a dozen of the other, I have found myself supporting both sides of this particular issue (Jewish/Polish) at one time or another. At least in part because of a desire to label and dismiss the other sides opinions. What is happening it is producing a toxic atmosphere where a lot is being said that should be actionable, and maybe lead to topic bans (by both sides, no user should ever feel intimidated). Now in this case (I think) the case is clear cut enough, but I also do not want to other side to continue to bait any one they decide is a Polish Nationalist. I think this is one some users have turned up here to defend what should be seen as pretty indefensible. As such I do not think this is going to go away with the banning of one user (or even one side). I think there may need to be DS as harsh (and enforced) as there is for Jewish/Palestinian topics.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: The concern I have is that some editors are using the label 'antisemitic' with little justification, but because of the 'political correctness', anyone who disagrees with them is risking being labelled an 'antisemite' (or a ill-judged defender of such). Hence, the chilling effect (intimidation). Do you want to stifle a discussion, scare some people away and bait some admins into political correctness-like blocking? Accuse your opponents of antisemitism and watch sparks fly. This is how we already lost the most prolific content editor in this topic area, User:Poeticbent, author of 1000+ DYKs, including among others dozens of perfectly neutral and informative entries of Jewish WWII-era ghettos and such. Someone accused him of an antisemitic attitude based on a single comment, a certain trigger happy admin agreed, Poeticbent got a topic ban and left in disgust saying 'if this is my reward for 10 years and 1000+ articles, bye'. This is the real danger here - that a group of editors, portraying themselves as on the side of angels ('we fight bigots/antisemites/nationalists so of course we are the perfect righteous guys, if you disagre with us you are a bigot/antisemite/nationalist!'), are going to intimate everyone else of this topic area. The comparison to Jewish/Palestine is not the best, as in that area the sides are more 'gray' than if you paint this as a fight between 'antisemites' and whatever the other group should be called. It is basically a logical fallacy of of Loaded question - posing the question of 'how are we going to deal with those antisemites', conveniently skipping the part where we prove that there are really any antisemites to be dealt with. Now, to be perfectly clear, I am totally supportive of warnings and blocks/bans for editors who are shown, beyond doubt, to be promoting bigotry, antisemitism and like. But there's a difference between calm elimination of editors who are here to promote such problematic views, and a witch hunt that starts when someone accuses someone else of antisemitism, and people pile on with 'antisemitism? awful, truly awful, let's topic ban the whole bunch, nobody wants those kind of people here' with scant evidence that someone behavior is problematic beyond one or two unclear comments that could be variously interpreted. PS. Going back to the OP post, I think there issue of removing/adding words Polish/Jewish to a bio has nothing to do with antisemitsm, just with a form of nationalistic defense of one's nations/ethnicity. For unsavory individuals, people prefer not to think of them as their own. Classic example, Hitler - I am sure many Austrians would prefer a description of him as German, not Austrian, and vice versa. For Morel, ditto - many Poles prefer to think of him as Jewish, and Jews, as a Pole. There is no antisemtism here, BUT there's certainly a problematic attitude. One I have seen in the past on numerous articles that had nothing to do with Jewish identify Polish/German, Polish/Lithuanian/Belarus, etc. If an editor is doing little but adding/removing nationality/ethnicity claim to the articles, a topic ban can be in order (one preventing them from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity). That's really is all we should be focusing here: are some of the reported editors doing noting else in this topic area but warring over ethnicity/nationality? If so, we have something to act upon. If not, nothing to look at here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 12:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I am concerned that an over use of the accusation may just be being used to silence those who some users disagree with, just not (frankly) in this case. The user clearly used a common antisemitic canards to claim that certain people born in Poland, who held Polish passports were not Polish because some Jews (not even the ones who the articles are about) could not speak Polish. That is the problem. At the end of the day even if it was not antisemitism it was such a wholly invalid argument that it simply put is disruptive and tendentious as it is pure OR and synthases of the worst kind (and that IS being generous). Given that (even without the antisemitic edge to it) could well justify an TBAN. The possible antisemitism just makes it all the more distressful and thoughtless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valid concerns, and all the more reason to have a forum where they can be addressed by admins/moderators who actually know what they're doing. I'm fairly convinced that most editors - even those that are clearly biased on some issue or another - aren't prejudiced in the sense we're talking about here; but we both know some are - I bet if I asked you to you'd give the same names that I would - and these are the ones we need to be able to address, and address harshly.

As for Poeticbent: I didn't know him except for the 2-3 times where he rushed into a discussion, flouted some accusations and disappeared. That behavior, to me, is unacceptable regardless of motive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will say this: Wikipedia as a social system is poorly designed (well - barely designed), and many a veteran editor grew tired of its impotence and abrasiveness, either left or were left. Put differently: the current system isn't built to accommodate and consider a variety of human behaviors and modes of communication; to minimize editor wear we need a system that is. Such a system would naturally know how to deal with prejudice as well, be it real or imagined. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we need another noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying we need changes in policy, informed admins and a change to DRN that will actually make it useful. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood why WP:PAIN was closed. It even had such a nice acronym :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really in the scope of this ANI. I think you need to raise this at village pump. But this also has nothing to do with the question at hand, why should we no sanction the reported user for their actions. I do not care what the other boys did, did his actions fall short of what we expect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was it intended to be, which why it's a comment and not a vote (or whatever). But it is in the context of this discussion, and the discussion is in its. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Rumkowski was born on the area of Russian Russia, not Belarus. His mother tongue must have been Russian and Yiddish. He was not perceived as Pole or Polish Jew, because there is no information about his assimilation into polish society. Cautious (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likely, but sources are needed. Without them it's WP:OR. We don't know whether he spoke Polish (well) and whether he identified himself as a Polish Jew or such. We can only speculate. BUT what we can be sure is that he DID have a Polish citizenship. Also, why are you posting this in reply to Francois comment is beyond me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of the discussions above, this is still an issue; another seldom-used account has just shown up, and decided that "Jewish" is a "nationality", and started putting it infobox person.[87][88][89][90][91][92]. Perhaps one of the editors above who are concerned about labels etc. can explain why this still only seems to happen on biographies of Polish Jews who collaborated with Nazis, and not on any of the other approximately 1600 biographies we have of Polish Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The timing is suspicious. As I said above, a warning on edit warring should be given, and if an account is not adhering to it, I will support a topic ban (but not from a broad Polish-Jewish topic area, but from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity/citizenship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have more sympathy for an appeal to leniency from Piotrus it wasn't for the fact that he defends SPAs accounts in the topic area under the guise of fighting political correctness. For example, Piotrus did not request that Tashi retract his statement against Jayjd until after multiple posts from other editors and myself. Instead, there's a discussion on how Tashi's discourse was "very much on a normal academic issue" [93], that this is "Chilling effects to the extreme" [94], and that we should just all "move on" [95]. Prejudice is not acceptable. If such discussions would deter those who use Wikipedia to publish their unfiltered worldviews, then good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? I am the only person who gave him a direct conduct guideline/warning. But if you prefer to overract and nuke the guy, so be it - but I still reserve the right to see this as a pc-fueled overreaction for what merits at best a warning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Tashi was banned for a different reason. In any event, Tashi was hardly the worst offender; other editors have continued to edit in this way (and even edit-war over it). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think a TBAN fishing net is needed here, rather than one at a time. Sadly, I don't think it will happen, unless someone opens an ARBCOM case, something which has been done for someone in this thread years ago, IIRC. Sir Joseph^(talk) 18:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayjg and Sir Joseph: - (non-admin response) - identify the worst offenders, post all the diffs of each offender at the very start of a section. starship.paint (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for an indef Tban for Tashi

Continued

@K.e.coffman: Re: Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [43] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I see a logical issue and have a question. If on Wikipedia we describe nationality based on citizenship rather than ethnicity, why would January Suchodolski (for example), who was alive only during that period, be (accurately I assume) described as "Polish" in his lead when he did not have such citizenship? We could probably find many articles like this. So my question is this, when do we use ethnicity for nationality and when do we use citizenship? Is there a clear rule? From MOS:ETHNICITY: In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. I think that is an incomplete formulation of what we have to do in some circumstances.

@Xx236: Re: Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. So many things wrong with this that I think it speaks to the fact that you should not be editing articles related to this topic. Other of your comments here and on Talk:History of the Jews in Poland, also speak to a bias and agenda, for example: Thousands of Israeli citizens ask for Polish citizenship and/or visit Poland. Israeli youth is indoctrinated and terrorised by Israeli guides/bodyguards to prevent informal contacts with Polish youth. This one also speaks of personal bias: My family lost everything during the war. Our house in Belarus was plundered by Polish neighbours. Isn't there something else you can edit on Wikipedia?

I think there is some honest question over how to apply MOS:ETHNICITY as outlined above. It is tempting to say that being Jewish in Europe during the holocaust may be essential to providing the context demanded by the MOS, but I think this is limited to cases, as the MOS says, where the person is notable for something related to being Jewish. These issues can be reasonably worked out on article talk pages and dispute resolution venues. I do believe there is a problem with several editors who are fixated on Polish Jewry constantly being at odds with each other. This does not quite rise to a TBAN (except perhaps in two cases, one of which being rendered moot), and I think that would lead to an imbalance to prevent the open discussion of what is NPOV and RSed on these topics, but to my mind this pushes the limits of what is acceptable as far as activism by editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a discussion for ANI, but I would say that this is at the heart of the dispute. They are (say) Polish when someone wants them to be, and not Polish when they dont. Ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing, some om can be a Polish Pole or a Jewish Pole. The problem was calking they were (in effect) not Polish at all. This may not have been the intent, it was the effect.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a main symptom of the problem was a desire to designate a very small list of individuals (specifically Nazi collaborators and Salomon Morel) as "Jewish" and not "Polish", particularly not an "ethnic Pole". And it was clearly the intent, not just the effect; a number of talk page comments (e.g. [99]) made that clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please someone help me to resolve this problem: User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP. Personally for me, this is a bit rude, and, continuesly trying to let me down by telling about my English or any other stuff. Improving articles is something else. Thanks. He/She may be trying to help me, but, difficult for me to response. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shevonsilva, you need to be more specific about what you want administrators to do about your problem. If your disagreement is with Imaginatorium you need to notify them of this ANI discussion on their talk page as the bright message says to do when you posted your comment here. This discussion can't continue until you do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page claims there are various problems with your edit. One claim is: "Others are plain wrong, because the[y] link to different regions. Northern Netherlands, for example, goes to a political division, which has nothing to do with COROP". What is your response to that claim? Repeatedly editing articles in a way that introduces errors is very disruptive. Not responding to claims that the errors occur is also very disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

• User_talk:Shevonsilva#About_vacuous_articles
• User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuck_(unit)
• [[100]]

etc.

In above, Imaginatorium has repeatedly tried to confirm about my English language skills and placed a lot of personal opinions on it, and, was unable to point-out any Errors but criticized my English (personally I believe she/he has a difficulty of dealing with longer sentences [or may be something else due to stress, I do not know]). This is a clear disturbance for me as it is clearly letting me down, and, I find very difficult to respond those comments.

Additionally, by referring the articles below too, I suspect Johnuniq, Reyk, Reywas92 and Imaginatorium are working as a group for a common purpose in order to back up each other whether they are right or wrong.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circular_millimetre
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_districts_of_Sughd
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Western_Khatlon
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rest_of_Groningen

These people are always trying to delete articles: I really do not know what is really going on with them (sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively) Shevonsilva (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I care about is errors in articles, particularly errors that are not easy to find. Please respond to the point in my comment above at 07:56, 29 May 2019. That is one small point from the large number of issues that have been raised—why not respond? Either explain that it was not an error, or acknowledge the problem and undertake to avoid similar problems. Editors must be able to communicate when problems are raised. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been working in collaboration with any other users. I, like they apparently, only want to ensure that article subjects are both recognized as official places and have notability and content warranting articles. The rapid-fire mass creation of hundreds of one-line permanent sub-stubs is not a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, especially when they are simply phrases used in sources, not official regions. You need to slow down and put content in articles you create, not leave them as as pages that provide nothing at all to the reader and are redundant to the main article and could be expanded within the main article. If “sometimes [we] are right collectively”, what are you complaining about exactly? Reywas92^Talk 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Why is it that whenever several editors individually notice errors in a source or in a series of articles, they must be somehow colluding inappropriately? Reyk _YO! 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When one says (sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively), doesn't that usually mean one's view is not matching up to the consensus? --Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a wiki email to Imagitoriun: hope things can be resolved nicely; I like to pause the discussion. Shevonsilva (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public collaboration is a requirement of editing at Wikipedia. Why is there a problem with responding on your talk page to the issue I mentioned above at 01:41, 30 May 2019? Refusing to collaborate is disruptive, and being unable to collaborate at the English Wikipedia is unfortunate. Both mean an editor is not a good fit for this project. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply. There is nothing to collaborate with regarding this matter until any further issues raised. I want to pause the discussion. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add a little bit of context to this topic. Shevonsilva has been presented at this noticeboard before, last time in February by me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#New articles by Shevonsilva. I must say that the issues we had in February (creation of subdivision articles with obviously wrong information) did not repeat, however, we now have the new ones. At this point, I believe Shevonsilva is acting in good faith and is trying to help the project, but indeed some sort of issues do exist, and one has to have this in mind while taking a decision. I do not really know what this decision should be.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this post, I think I really want to pause the discussion for now. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits despite numerous warnings, no communication

I counted ten previous warnings for unsourced material on Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)'s talk page, along with several other warnings for disruptive editing, unexplained deletion, etc. - none of which he has seen fit to respond to. Indeed, despite making over three thousand edits, he has never once used any talk page.

I left a "disruptive" warning for yesterday's edit: [101] which is not only unsourced but obviously false. He hasn't responded, but has since made about twenty more edits, including this unsourced one: [102]. Could someone get his attention? --IamNotU (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Dieter Mueller (talk·contribs)'s behaviour is a problem. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. At any case, they now have 2 days to master a response. El_C 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just speculating if this would count as block evasion? A very serious charge, I know. Location is Indonesia and there are historical contributions particular to Indonesia by Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs).

List of presidents of Indonesia Lembata Javanese calendar [103] [104] [105] [106] Public holidays in Indonesia

Surely I'm wrong? Hey, they're also interested in Finland, besides all the racing edits. Shenme (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to have waited out their block, then continued editing, while never responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same thing. Not good. ThunderChunder! Talk to me! Walk with me! 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference falsification at Cantonese

Sky UK's IPv6 ranges and underestimating the collateral effect of rangeblocks

I didn't quite know where else to put this, so it's gone here. If it would be more appropriate in WP:VP/P or something, please just let me know.

When I found myself a affected by @NJA's block of 2A02:C7F::/32, I did some sleuthing and found out that 2A02:C78::/29 (which subsumes that range) is the entire allocation of IPv6 addresses to Sky UK, the country's second largest ISP which accounts for 22% of the UK's internet traffic. Sky has completed its IPv6 rollout and few if any Sky connections will show up as IPv4 addresses.

This means that NJA's rangeblock should have affected one eighth of Sky users (or 1 in 36 UK residents), which already seems pretty high. Emphasis on should: A cursory glance at contributions for each of 2A02:C78::/32, 2A02:C79::/32, et cetera, reveals that only 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32 are currently in use. This means NJA's block affects half of all Sky IP addresses, amounting to 11% of UK connections. This is clearly far too much collateral damage.

This isn't a complaint about NJA, as others have previously (and recently) rangeblocked both 2A02:C7F::/32 and 2A02:C7D::/32, and this degree of disruption to UK users obviously wasn't intended. I thought this worth bringing up here to make sure blocks like this don't continue to happen.

Blocking half of the IP addresses of the second largest ISP in a large country isn't a sensible way to deal with vandalism. Yes, blocking 11% of the UK from editing Wikipedia anonymously will obviously lead to reduced vandalism, but then we might as well just turn off anonymous editing altogether. It's by sheer coincidence (Sky's allocated range and manner of allocating IPs) that so much of one country's traffic is even crammed into a blockable range (since /32 is the maximum rangeblock), thus creating far more collateral damage than should be considered acceptable.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the blocking admin I will say this and only this (in-law coming in an hour, will be sporadic for a while): See my talk page here on this discussion. I will add the block is not recent and expires Fri, 31 May 2019 14:05:41 GMT and was initially for 72hr, it is anon-only with account creation disabled. It was the second such short-term block to the exact range this month. If there’s a narrower range that will be as effective then I am more than happy for another admin to revise this. I do not however buy in to the sense of alarm about blocking “11% of the UK”. Apparently 100% of those “11%” had no ill effects (except Newbiepedian of course) as I’ve seen nothing on UTRS about the IP (and plus it isn’t using Autoblock). N.J.A. talk 21:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lack of UTRS tickets isn't equivalent to "no ill effects", it just means no one has reported any. Most people who would casually edit a Wikipedia article anonymously, say to fix a typo, are not familiar with these procedures. There has been another complaint, just not via UTRS – see User talk:2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:B414:B48E:1054:DCCC.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a long while, WP:SIP required us to notify the Foundation whenever we blocked the IP address(es) that represented virtually everyone in Qatar. Per Demographics of Qatar and Demographics of the United Kingdom, Qatar had about 2.6 million inhabitants as of early 2017, while According to the 2011 census, the total population of the United Kingdom was around 63,182,000. If this rangeblock affects 11% of Britons, that's just short of 7 million people being affected, or nearly triple the number of people affected by a block of Qatar. Barring a weird emergency (e.g. someone's spending weeks operating a vandalbot that's changing IPs every couple of seconds), I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time. Of course, we admins make good-faith mistakes, and I think it would be out of bounds to complain at NJA, who clearly wasn't aware of the number of people affected by this block — thank you, Newbiepedian, for explicitly disclaiming such a thing. However, I do think we ought to remove this block and ought to be careful to avoid something similar in the future. But how does one remove it? I don't understand rangeblocks (especially for IPv6s) and have never removed one, and neither User:2A02:C7F::/32 nor User:2A02:C7F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has a block log. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Nyttend. Do you not see a block log for the range here? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw nothing. I wonder if I entered the wrong IP? But I do remember doing one rangeblock (someone supplied the precise numbers, which I copy/pasted into Special:Block), so I just copy/pasted the range you supplied above (2A02:C7F::/32) into that page and blocked it for one second. (Only the latest block matters at all, so if a later block expires before an earlier block, the earlier one won't "take over" when the later one expires.) Both the resulting page and the link you just provided have the log with entries by Materialscientist, NJA, and now me. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI Nyttend has removed the block (I just checked). I still think it was an appropriate block and could not see a less perfect range to block for a short period. Two complaints and none through UTRS is hardly millions of people, but I’ll leave it alone as truthfully no one can say how many people were bothered and didn’t report it. Anyhow if this range remains an issue something else may need considered. Good evening all. N.J.A. talk 02:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Also for anyone interested EdJohnston posted this on my talk page Some more details on the /32 range used in question. N.J.A. talk 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, NJA, you may have misunderstood my comment. I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time means that I'm normally opposed to a longer block, but a short block (maybe 12-24 hours) isn't too bad. I'm sorry if I confused you. I'm just concerned that the size of the range is skewing what we're seeing — the wider a range and the more people using it, the more vandalism we're going to see from it. (A massive amount of vandalism is committed by ::/0, but as that covers 340 undecillion short scale addresses, blocking it would be a really really bad idea.) In my opinion, if you know how to calculate the number of addresses affected by a rangeblock (I don't), it's important that you consider that number when setting block length, and block a really big range only for a short while except in those really rare situations. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like IPv6 users from Sky tend to stay within the same /64 for months at a time. A single vandal switching to a new subnet during a vandalism spree could conceivably just be switching from one device in his house to another, or hopping on his neighbor's wifi, giving the appearance that his IP is dynamic over the entire /32 when it is not. It's also conceivable that an admin might see a bunch of vandals all over a /32 who are individually confined to /64s, and think they are one vandal. When casting a net that large (almost 1% of the English speakers in the world), it's very likely you'll notice more than one vandal with common interests or behaviors, since they are usually pretty basic. I have occasionally dug into the vandalism behind some broad range blocks and sometimes found that it was really just a handful of people who could be blocked individually without much difficulty. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This. A thousand times, this.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long-winded elaboration of the problem

As I briefly mentioned on NJA's talk page, I think the primary issue (and something I feel folks aren't quite understanding) is that this is a specific problem with this specific range which has served to demonstrate a larger (and unfortunately highly technical) issue with how people are estimating potential collateral due to unfamiliarity with IPv6. I'm going to split this explanation into several paragraphs because otherwise it will end up totally illegible. I hope this makes some semblance of sense; if not, there's a bit of a TLDR at the bottom.

IPv6 ranges currently are mostly very spread out. The /29 range assigned to Sky contains capacity for 34,359,738,368 (over 34 billion) end users. The C7F and C7D sub-ranges each contain capacity for one eighth of that, i.e. 4,294,967,296 (over 4 billion) end users. "End user" here refers to a subnet, i.e. the internet connection of a home or small business router, each having capacity to serve 18 quintillion distinct hosts. But those numbers are totally meaningless, because capacity at the moment isn't easy to relate to actual usage due to the sheer breadth of IPv6 allocation.

Sky UK has been allocated a range of 2A02:C78::/29, which as stated contains capacity for over 34 billin users. Sky UK has a market share of roughly 20% in a country of roughly 60 million people, so there are 34 billion /64 subnets to allocate to approximately 12 million people. By contrast, Comcast (US) has a market share of roughly 40% in a country of roughly 320 million people, so that's 128 million users. But how does their capacity relate? Well, Comcast has the ranges 2601::/20 (17,592,186,044,416 end users), 2603:3000::/24 (1,099,511,627,776 end users), 2001:558::/31 (8,589,934,592 end users) and 2603:2000::/20 (another 17,592,186,044,416 end users). This means Comcast's total capacity is for 36,292,473,651,200 users – over 36 trillion. Clearly, these numbers are all pretty meaningless.

Now, at a glance, Comcast has about 10 times as many users as Sky UK, but over 1,000 times as many available addresses. But it's not quite that simple. These allocations are to what is reserved to the ISP, but currently neither of these two ISPs are allocating users across their entire allocated range(s). Sky UK is only allocating across 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32. I'll call these /32 ranges "MR" (maximum range) for convenience, since that's the maximum size for WP rangeblocks. So, Sky allocates users across 2 MRs. What ranges does Comcast actually use? 2601::/32 through 2601:102::/32 (103 MRs), plus 2603:3000::/32 through 2603:3027::/32 (28 MRs), plus 2001:558::/32 and 2001:559::/32. So, in other words, Sky UK is allocating 12 million people across 2 MRs, while Comcast is allocating 128 million people across 133 MRs.

So, TLDR: IP ranges of the same size do NOT necessarily have the same level of collateral effect. As this example shows, blocking a Comcast MR will affect up to about 900k people, while blocking an MR belonging to Sky UK will affect up to about 6 million, almost 7 times as many. Currently what it looks like to me is that there is a broad-brush approach to figuring out the level of collateral effect which is to just assume that ranges of the same size can be treated the same, but that is unequivocally false. Before blocking an ISP-level range (which is what the /32 maximum range is; no normal organisation would be assigned one), administrators should research:

• to what ISP that range belongs
• how many other ranges the ISP owns
• what parts of those ranges are actually in use
• how many users the ISP has (roughly, from market share × population)

Then, and only then, have you obtained a picture of the potential collateral effect of your rangeblock with any semblance of accuracy.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent

There's precedent for long-term blocks of ranges this wide that are used by miscreants. 2607:fb90::/32, a range widely used by T-Mobile, one of the largest mobile providers in the US, has been blocked on-and-off for the past two-and-a-half years. My major blocks were due to the dog and rapper vandal, but there were and are others. Pinging other recent blocking admins who have dealt with this range: @DeltaQuad, Oshwah, Drmies, and TonyBallioni:. Desperate circumstances require desperate measures. Graham87 04:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Graham. My entry in the block log was to temporarily lower the account creation block per a valid request from a steward in private. When the reason for that was done, I restored the former block settings. In general I’m pretty conservative with IPv6 range blocks, though there are valid reasons to make wide ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, this just to let you know that I ran into two longterm rangeblocks this week while trying to vandalize Wikipedia from my phone. ;) (Does your reader do that winking emoji?) Drmies (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, there is ample precedent for long and wide rangeblocks. I cannot calculate whether the woof, rap block is as wide as the UK block discussed earlier. I'll add that, like Tony, I am conservative (or like to think I am); in woof, rap case it is clear that I am guided also by earlier blocks. I also remember that a couple of months ago I was asked to make a range block more narrow, which I did. I really cannot comment on the UK block: much happened on that range and I don't have the time or the inclination to pick through a bunch of them to see how justified the block (and the range) is, but I trust my fellow admins to be as conservative as possible. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Fair enough. I use precedent as a guide re blocks as well. Re winking emoji: yes, it does, but I couldn't detect it in your message at first because I have my punctuation level lower than the default, for various reasons. Graham87 04:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think, though, you have to be careful in deciding that something is actually "desperate" rather than "completely ordinary". If one person is vandalizing a wide variety of pages from a wide range of IPs, then yes, absolutely, those are desperate circumstances. I estimate that non-bot admins make, what, 1000 blocks a day? By numbers alone, you expect that we should be blocking 10 or so Sky users every day. That's not a desperate circumstance. Vandalism on 10 different subnets of Sky, all on articles related to British popular culture, well, that should just be a daily occurrence. Back in ancient times when vandals didn't have a choice but to use IPv4, if we saw 10 obviously distinct vandals on 10 different static IPs belonging to the same ISP, we didn't nuke the whole network. And we shouldn't be nuking an entire network just because each vandal now has a /64 instead of a single address. We also shouldn't be assuming that two vandals are the same person because they have very vaguely similar interests and live in the same countryohmygodhecanchangehisiptoanythingwhatsthechancesomanypeopleinenglandwouldbemadattheresamay? But anyway, I think I totally understand the impulse. You're manning AIV, reports keep coming in, vandal after vandal. Oh, here's clearly changing his IP, better do a range block. Oh, this vandal has a very similar address. Hmm. Not the same article, but also targeting the same topic area. And another one, and another one? Anyway, my 2p, don't block an entire ISP just because a bunch of vandals use it, if those vandals can be individually blocked. Rangeblocks are for people who can't be stopped otherwise, not for stopping several different people at once because it's faster than figuring out their individual ranges. Honestly, I think this probably needs a software solution. Most residential hookups for many ISPs have a relatively stable /64. If the MediaWiki software defaulted to treating every address in a /64 as having a unified identity - one contributions list, one talk page, one IPname - but still gave the option to see deeper in case this is wrong, I think it would clear a lot of confusion. It would also help make it obvious that what might seem like a nest of vandals is actually several individuals. Blocks would default to that subnet, and often work. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tools need to treat all of an IPv6 /64 as though it were a single user, AFAIK. No, I don't think it is confusing this particular conversation, but it does makes people do a lot of extra work and it would be nice if things were improved. @Newbiepedian: there are calculation mistakes above. 2601::/32 – 2601:102::/32 = 0x103 = 259 MRs, not 103. 2603:3000::/32 – 2603:3027::/32 = 0x28 = 40 MRs, not 28. Comcast is allocating 128 million people across 301, not 133 MRs. Blocking a Comcast MR will affect up to about 425,000, not 900,000 people :) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count edits instead of editors?

Instead of trying to count users (whatever a user is) that would be blocked, or whatever it is you're trying to do, why not have a gizmo that tells you, as you contemplate a block of range R for H hours, the number of distinct edits that would have been blocked had that block been in effect during the H hours immediately past (or at this same point one week ago, or ...)? That's unambiguous, and I think it's the true measure of collateral damage. EEng 08:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or not, I guess. EEng 23:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo hoo! Over here! EEng 13:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to propose that on Phabricator rather than here, as it would mean rewriting MediaWiki. My gut feeling would be that for all but the smallest ranges, it would gum up the servers to an unacceptable level (checking a range of 10,000 IP address would mean carrying out 10,000 checkuser investigations to figure out which logged-in editors would be affected), so the WMF would probably refuse to permit it. ‑ Iridescent 13:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01 behaviour

Charles01 condescending and bully-esque attuide towards me

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

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

Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [107]

Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [108]

More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [109]

Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [110]

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [111] [112] His reply to the template message [113]

Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [114]

Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [115] [116]

Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [117]

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [118] [119]

I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [120] [121] [122]

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

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

Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Interaction Analyzer

Could someone please restore this article while it is at AfD...

User Gmortaia vandalizing pages with guerrilla advertising

"Actresses" in "actors"

Disruptive editing by Aqooni

Aqooni has violated 3RR [132] [133] [134] [135] despite warning [136] and continues to reinstate misquoted and unsourced material. Aqooni has a long history of edit warring which led to them being warned by @EdJohnston: [137], and they were eventually blocked twice for violating 3RR [138].

The same editor has also engaged in WP:CANVASSING by selectively notifying a single editor and requesting them to provide support to their stance [139]. Shortly after being contacted on their talk page, MustafaO responded on Talk:Dilla Massacre and sided with Aqooni [140]. Koodbuur (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit warring and canvassing - I looked through your diffs. This does look like both have occurred: 3RR warning was ignored and then sympathetic user was canvassed. What is next after a user ignores 3RR warning? WP:3RR states:"Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident" Regarding the canvassing - a warning is likely in order for WP:VOTESTACK Lubbad85 (☎) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aqooni here, you can see the interaction between the Administrator Oshwah (talk)

( that blocked Koodbuur (talk)), and myself, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aqooni#Dilla_Massacre, the Administrator recognized that I was acting in good intentions, and made attempts to communicate. Afterwards, I also asked another well known user to provide consensus towards the page in question as seen here consensus 1 , and just now, asked a second user, here consensus 2. These are 2 random users, I seen editing Somali pages and thought their insight could help with the talk page discussion. I'm not sure who else I was supposed to ask regarding this issue.

I highly suspect I am just being reported now, as a type of tit for tat, because this user Koodbuur (talk) was blocked for 36 hours. During Koodbuur (talk) edit warring, which he was blocked for 1, I indicated to him on my first edit to use the talk page 2, which he did not do, and left a message on his talk page about his edit warring here 3, and then finally reported him to Wikipedia here 4 , when he was then since blocked. I acted in good faith to the best of my ability. Aqooni (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat made by editor who identifies as a lawyer

Can someone please let Quaerens-veritatem know that telling an editor (me) that my "attacks" (?) are "actionable libel" is unacceptable, particularly from an editor who identifies as a lawyer on their User page? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much of a threat it was, but I have left them a note about the policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However I think there may be other issues, their obsession with removing a wikilink seems odd and misplaced. They do have some attitude problems.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "actionable libel" comes from the statement made by Quaerens-veritatem with their edit here: "In my view, your unseemly, horrid, unnecessary, and bizarre attacks are so far beyond Wikipedia's standards as to need quashing through a minimum of blocking, if not actionable libel as folks know me by my online name." In this context, I would say that the "actionable libel" term used in the comment implies that it means or refers to libel that is legally actionable via a lawsuit. I don't believe that the user blatantly crossed the line and directly made a legal threat that's actionable beyond a warning (as of the time of this writing and assuming no other comments are made by the user that adds more NLT concerns), but the statement could definitely leave a chilling effect and be interpreted by some (if not many) to be intending to do this. I'll also leave a warning for this user regarding WP:NLT and set expectations with them that this not continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The diff of my warning message is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki attacks and meat puppetry by User:Fwaig

Is WP:FOLLOWING only limited to editing in direct opposition? Isn't following another around the 'pedia, when in conflict, also creepy and inappropriate?

Simple case

Delay at Oversight?

I emailed WP:OVERSIGHT over an hour ago. The offending edit is still visible. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Fixation Sonicfan200530/JohnSmith13345

I have concerns about the fixation editors User:Sonicfan200530 and User:JohnSmith13345 have with the sandbox. You may remember that Sonicfan200530 had an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post a few days ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009) complaining about vandalism in the Sandbox. This seemed unusual to me as the point of the Sandbox is to test edits and nothing placed there remains for long. I observed their edit history and JohnSmith13345 who appear to be regulars and both have the majority of their edits in the Sandbox, multiple times edit-warring over changes. Neither editor, JohnSmith13345 especially, have extensive edits outside of the Sandbox. I have no proof, but the interactions between the two editors seems to indicate that they know each other in real life, and perhaps are younger editors. I posted a request on Sonicfan200530's talk page to not try to police the Sandbox and got my comment changed to "Harassment" and then reverted. I am not the only one with concerns, as User:Ponyo and User:Davey2010 have also tried to talk to Sonicfan200530 and have been met with hostility and claims of vandalism. I do not have a sanction request in mind, only that this behavior have more eyes on it and maybe somebody could mentor them. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just crafting another message to Sonicfan200530 when I received this notification. They continue to blank editors and bots in the sandbox almost exclusively to any other edits that actually serve to improve the encyclopedia. At first glance I thought that they were perhaps making the bizarre edits to game EC-protection, but their responses to concerns raised regarding their edits lead me to believe this is more of a CIR issue.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not physically know any Wikipedians in the real world, nor do I have any personal connections with any Wikipedians. I cannot make any statements about User:Sonicfan200530. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed Sonicfan200530 as NOTHERE. I already told them in the last ANI thread to stop doing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was just to support this with diffs etc but no need now, Many thanks Bbb23 for doing the honours & thanks 2001 for the ping.. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the prompt response @Bbb23: but I would also look at JohnSmith13345's edits, as they are almost entirely on the sandbox as well. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any similarity to Sonic's edits? After all, editors do edit the sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, otherwise I would have not brought it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&dir=prev&offset=20190603131138&target=JohnSmith13345https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&offset=20190603131406&target=JohnSmith13345https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&offset=20190524114235&target=JohnSmith13345 I do not know how to look at the percentage of edits an editor edits a particular page but it appears to be the majority. If you do not feel it is actionable, I will not object. I am just concerned. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that doesn't show any similarity in their edits. I already know that they both edit the sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I will not continue this. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is strictly coincidental and I have absolutely no affiliation with Sonicfan200530. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiUni - WP:CIR issue?

WikiUni (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia since 2009, but apparently still doesn't understand its rules, especially around WP:COPYVIO and non-free images. WikiUni's talk page is a giant wall of warnings, which would have been much longer, had WikiUni not deleted many warnings:[141][142][143][144][145]. WikiUni may have also edited as 112.201.85.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); WikiUni deleted similar warnings from that IP's talkpage:[146] WikiUni was blocked for non-free uploads in 2010. Today, WikiUni created an article that had to almost immediately be moved back to Draft space. WikUni then recreated the article in main space. Both the draft and the article had to be purged of copyright violations, which were most of the article(s).[147][148]. WikUni has made perhaps a half-dozen talk page comments. I submit that WikiUni is a WP:CIR issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg - Wow... that's a lot of copyright warnings for one user to receive. I also see that this user was blocked back in 2010 for repeated copyright violations involving the uploading of non-free images. I believe that the best solution to this is to start holding WikiUni accountable for each violation of copyright that they add to Wikipedia from here on out, and beginning now. These are serious violations that have been ongoing for years; we just haven't been enforcing it with this user and with proper actions in response. Because of the numerous warnings this user has received in the past for copyright violations, I applied a 24 hour block to this account for their creation of Tiyanak (film) today that included text copied straight from external sources that were copyrighted. I think that from here on out, any further violations to Wikipedia's copyright policies should be met with longer blocks (24 hours - which I've applied now, then 72 hours, 1 week, 1 month?, indefinite). This user has had many opportunities to learn the policies, ask questions, and receive help. I'm absolutely willing to help the user if they ask; otherwise, we need to stick to strict enforcement with WikiUni moving forward and without any further warnings... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: The second copy of the article appears to still be in mainspace? Should I just redirect it to the draft? (Sometimes I rescue these things, but I haven't the time right now to look for sources.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir - Whoops! Forgot about that other article... Yes, please do! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding false information to articles

Last month user:Forest90 was adding false information to international politics-related articles. It looks like he's at it again (replacing "Iraqi" with "Baathist", which is not supported by the sources):

• [149]
• [150]
• [151]
• [152]

User was also previously warned to stop [153]. Alex-h (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's clearly wrong, but it's been two days and they haven't reverted back to it. El_C 23:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't understand why @Alex-h: make everything's personal? I tried to improve some article in wikipedia but it's look like @Alex-h: don't like anybody comes here and work on article, specially the article that I have worked. I had a problem about using correct phrase with some user's. The Baathist and Saddam Hussein's Army is equal in many Article and book and sources. But I finally decided to use Iraqi Army as the sources said. So, in this discussion about using better word inside the Article, user Alex-h had never participated and I can't recognize why he/she trying to open for me a subject here and for solved problem??? It is not fair for daily problem and issue which happen for every user, start a fight here...Forest90 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90 - The reason that Alex-h created this discussion here about your edits to Operation Forty Stars is because the references cited in the article do not match what you're repeatedly changing the content to state. This is problematic, as your changes not only contradict the references that are already cited in the article, but your edits don't cite any references or sources at all to support your changes. Doing this repeatedly is disruptive, and if done repeatedly despite numerous warnings and requests asking you to stop - can lead to administrative action (usually blocks). Please assume good faith and don't jump to believing that Alex-h is doing this to be personal or to give you a hard time (unless you have diffs to show concrete evidence of this). Instead, you should continue to discuss the content-related matter with Alex-h on the article's talk page properly and respectfully, and come to an agreement. Until an agreement is made, please don't edit or revert the article and add the same content back. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, can see, in article the user Alex-h never participated and he/she suddenly decided to create a subject here, he/she did this act before too. Is it usual? he didn't talk to me about article changes and suddenly comes here and open a subject to open a fight against me... Is really normal Wikipedia user act?!!! Because I have never seen a user like Alex-h. All his/her work against me is an emotional response, this user, if you go and see Article history, never participated in discussions or helped to improve the Article or something else, but he/she had a strong resume in many article and places in Wikipedia for fighting against another writer or editor or user. I hope you understand me, I tried to expand that Article and somebody frequently changing my work. First I think they tried to change facts, but after opening a new subject in Article talk page, I found that I was wrong and I changed my mind. But it's very weird that a outside user, without any comment in main subject, open a subject against me here. I hope the Administer group, see the Alex-h act as a vandal and punish him/her. I changed my viewpoint about Baathist and Iraqi army as the sources said (I added that sources and expanded the article), but I can't understand Alex-h role in this subject. He/she only make everything personal and quickly open a new subject here for what?Forest90 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90 - If Alex-h did not discuss this with you (either on the article's talk page or on your user talk page) at all before creating this ANI discussion, then yes - I would say that going straight to an ANI before doing so is premature. We always encourage and ask users to discuss issues and problems directly with the other(s) involved before coming here and after such discussions have shown to be to no avail. However, making accusations toward Alex-h about his actions being an "emotional response", him having a "strong resume in many article (sic) and places in Wikipedia for fighting against another writer or editor or user", and his edits being attempts to "change facts" - and without any kind of evidence, links, diffs, etc is not acceptable to do. All accusations must supply sufficient evidence in order to support them. Alex-h, did you discuss this issue with Forest90 directly at all before coming here to create this ANI report? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, He never discussed me about this subject or last subject that he/she opened here. And this is not fair, I'm a Wikipedia user, I'm not a newbi, I always tried to improve Wikipedia Article and I created some Article before. I saw many user in many sensitive subject, but this kind of behavior of Alex-h is really weird. He/she twice opened to subject directly here without any discussion in my talk page or the article talk page. If I make a mistake in any of my work or article, it's not personal or I do this for my pleasure. It's only a mistake, when an user didn't say why deleting my work, I will revert it (because I don't know why he/she did that and I consider it as vandal), but many of my mistake or other user mistake solved after they discussed about that, as you can see I didn't revert the Article word to Baathist after had heard the other user (who frequently deleted my work and didn't explain why) reasons. But I beg you, saw the Article history, please search about the last subject that Alex-h opened against me here, he never discussed me or speak out about that with me. He/She comes here and open a subject against me to persuade you to act against me or block me. I don't know, but it's obvious vandal against another user. That two user which were reverting my edit and I reverted their edit, never opened a subject in article talk page to explain their reason for their revert, finally I opened and after discussion I found their right and I have not revert the Iraqi Army to Baathist since 3 days ago. But Alex-h wasn't there, never commented there, directly comes here and opened a subject against me. It's completely unfair.Forest90 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I noticed Forest90 adding false information to articles about Middle East politics, a subject I edit on Wikipedia. The information Forest90 was adding was false and, at least to me, of slanderous nature. I brought this to ANI (which I wasn't sure was the right noticeboard for this at the time). Instead of accepting or repenting, Forest90 accused me of "personal attacks". This led to several editors explaining to Forest90 that adding false content to Wikipedia was not ok: [154] [155][156]

Now, I noticed Forest90 also adding false information to the Operations 40 Stars article, and saw that user:PersianFire had [157] warned him to stop, but Forest90 continued, so I didn't see a reason to pile on to PersianFire's warning. The user was aware that what he was doing was disruptive, and continued to do this repeatedly. Alex-h (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} can you Check out the Alex-h claim. I beg you. This is really vandalism. He/She attached four link in his/her claim, in non of them he/she never opened a subject in my talk page or article talk page, even he didn't participate in non of them, only directly comes here and open a fight against me. It's not Wikipedia way, I know. He used some of my discussion with other users to condemn me!!!! That's the correct way which I used, I opened a RFC in related article, because I taught for a well sourced subject should exist at least a paragraph inside the article, but the other users said no and I respected them and finished the discussion, it's a normal manner inside Wikipedia. Alex-h mentioned the user, PersianFire, discussed with me and I accepted this user reason, but before this discussion that I had created it, the user only removed my edit, and didn't explain why, it was his/her mistake that without any reason deleted my edit, finally I opened a subject in Article talk page to communicate them. If you look and think, you will see the Alex-h never participated on them, only comes here and open a fight against me, he/she comes to Wikipedia to see what I am doing or where I am speaking with another user, harshly comes here to open a fight against me and make it completely personal. I didn't open this subject But I ask you to consider my comment seriously and knock up the real vandalism user. When I'm working to write a new Article or thinking how to improve some article with adding phrase or sentences or paragraph or adding needed citation to article, Alex-h looking me to find a subject and comes here and open a fight against me, without speaking with me before. Please, I beg you to open All of links that Alex-h sent here, you will understand what am I saying. It's second time which this user trying to use another user emotion against me, and I have not understood why? But I hope you find me and let me to ask you see the Alex-h user as a Vandalism.Forest90 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, I forgot to say something. If you look, the user, Alex-h, pinned the other user who I discussed them inside the talk page of article, user:PersianFire, to invite him/her to comes here and comment against me. You Are the ADMIN, You can recognize who is real vandal and hurt Wikipedia. Thanks.Forest90 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90 - I need diff links, man... You can't just make accusations toward another editor and ask me to go searching through that editor's contributions in order to find what you're accusing him/her of... You need to provide links to the actual edits that support exactly what you're trying to say. What policies and guidelines have Alex-h violated? What diff links can you list that support your accusations? Keep it short and simple so that I can easily follow what you're saying... Else, I (as well as any other admin) won't be able to help you... If you're confused at all about what I'm asking you to provide, let me know and I'll be happy to explain. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC), what link should I give you. The Alex-h opened the fight subject, which I wasn't agree, if he don't like my article or my edit, or see I made a mistake in my edit, he should open a new subject and discuss me in my talk page or article talk page, not here. He/she inserted four link for his/her claim, look them, in non of them he/she never participated. He opened a fight here against me and inserted four link which show I spoke another user and accepted other user comment. NOW, it's me who should find diff link to show he/she never spoke with me about the subject. You find the Alex-h claim usual? He/she must spoke with me in my talk page or article talk page, not coming here and open a subject against me. If all another user do this and for every subject comes here and call you, is it correct one?! He/she inserted four link which show in non of them he participated and I spoke with other user and accept their comment and idea. So why am I here?!!! Where was Alex-h, the user who opened a fight against me if he bothered or was against my edit?!!!Forest90 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90 - If you're making accusations including the ones I quoted in my response above, then yes - you need to provide evidence for that. You obviously can't show diffs to support a lack of edits. :-) There are issues with what you're trying to say in rebuttal here... The argument you're making that Alex-h didn't edit the articles or pages involved in the diffs he provided in this ANI report doesn't matter at all and is completely irrelevant. Why would he have to do that in order to file a report here and express concerns to the community? That doesn't make sense. The other argument you're making that Alex-h didn't discuss these concerns with you directly first before creating this ANI, while discouraged (if this is true - Alex-h has said otherwise in a response above), doesn't automatically nullify the ANI report and cause it to close without a further look. We sometimes do this, but that's a judgment call by the patrolling or responding administrator and it's made on a case-by-case basis... Yes, I understand that it's frustrating to suddenly see an ANI discussion created about you and while feeling that you weren't talked to first. I get that... really, I do! But we need to move past these arguments and talk about the issue itself. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, But I ask you How can I provide a diff link to show the Alex-h didn't talk to me in my talk page or article talk page when it's never exist?He/she claimed I edited and added false information and given you four link, which you open them you will find I had started a RFC in a talk page and finally accepted other user comment. The only claim that I say against Alex-h is the user who should noticed for vandal is Alex-h not me, because He/she must talk about my edit or article in my talk page or article talk page, but he/she open a subject here, give you some link that you can find for every other user in Wikipedia and call me vandalism or some body who try to insert false information inside Wiki Article. He open a subject against me here for second time, maybe he/she like to open against all of my work a new subject here. I typed here near one or two Article length, without doing anything, and now asking you stop this user, Alex-h, maybe he decided to open a new subject against me every month. It's not fair I come here and explain you that I didn't do anything or vandalism and he/she seat there and watch me. It's not fair. I don't have any link against Alex-h or I didn't try to accusing him/her, I just said this user act for opening a subject here against me is more look like vandal not my act that added some information or started a RFC.Forest90 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h, Forest90 - Now that you're both here, why don't you two take this discussion to another place and sort this out between yourselves? Forest90 feels that he wasn't contacted first before this ANI report was filed, and I believe that Alex-h just wants to resolve this matter and for the issues and problems to stop. I think that this is the perfect stopping point for continuing the discussion here, and the perfect opportunity to move this to a relevant talk page. Where do you two want to continue this discussion? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always ready to speak with other user about my work and edit or my mistake. This is Alex-h who open a subject here. I respect you admin, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, but I'm not sure it's work, because if Alex-H wanted to speak with me, he/she did it. It's second times he comes here to solve some usual problems in a weird manner. I was hoping this time you do something that stop this kind of Alex-h act against me or other user...I always ready for negotiations with another user and Always accept my fault. Thank you Admin.Forest90 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90 - Let's not hold grudges or doubt against Alex-h and assume that he'll do what's asked here (unless he has reasons against it, which he would add in a response here). Talk this over with Alex-h, find a location to discuss this matter that works for the both of you, and work together to resolve this in a civil matter and without any negative assumptions or grudges about the past. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK,Thanks ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}.Forest90 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last time Forest90 spinned his adding false information to Wikipedia into it being a "personal attack" against him, and it worked for him, so is doing the same thing here again. Nevermind he falsely represented the sources repeatedly, that's surely not the problem here. Alex-h (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h - Try and discuss the issues and work things out with Forest90 as I suggested. If things don't come to a resolution and if Forest90 continues repeatedly making the same edits with issues after this discussion attempt, let one of us know and we can take action from there. I'm trying to suggest a solution that is mutually acceptable to both of so that we can at least try to work together and toward helping Forest90 to stop making the problematic edits you described in this discussion. Can you try and do this? Please? So that there's no room for push-back if the issues continue? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thank you for your advice. I will follow it. Alex-h (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen Forest and tried to help him with spelling and grammar. I can say he is editting in good faith. Alex made this report without discussing the issue with him in the talk page or in his talk page. If Alex-h made a similar report again I would suggest a one way IBAN for Alex per WP:Boomerang.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that's not gonna happen. Good faith is not a license to edit in a manner that is disruptive or incompetent. There was already another Incidents report (archive) about this user's subpar editing. Hopefully, this one will resonate. El_C 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your suggestion is wayyyy far off as El C said above... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor trying to link Musylimah with Hanifism + personal attacks + inflammatory language in the discussion

User:ArtistH - COI, CopyVio, and unsourced BLPs

Apologies if this is the wrong place - I've not used this noticeboard before but spotted a pattern of behavior which I am not sure I can keep up with. User:artistH is creating a lot of short, unsourced BLPs of artists. From checking a couple, they seem to be direct copy-pastes of artist profiles from here https://kristinhjellegjerde.com/artists/. I suspect there is a connection between the 'Artist H' and the owner of that site, given the initial. So it seems that aside from the copyvio, there is also a problem with a COI, and of course the fact of creating a bunch of BLPs that almost certainly do not meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugsyrup (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just policed a page that has these very issues Christina Banban, but I am not sure any more then a warning is needed about COI..Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, you may be right - just conscious that these pages are being created literally by the minute. Three more just since I posted this discussion. Hugsyrup (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You are right here. I have yust taggedAndrè Hemer for speedy deletion as acopyright infringement andChristina BanbanforWP:BLPPROD.Looking at his talkpage, these arenot the only one. This has to stop, because both copyright infringements and BLP violations can lead to legal problems. I suggest a temporary block for BLP violations and violations of the copyright policy.Jannik Schwaß (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of prior warning (and AGF) it may be they are not aware this is an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) User appears to have been blocked 31 hours by Sphilbrick. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring at RT (TV network)

RT (TV network) (edit talk history links watch logs)

While on holidays, I noticed (I do not remember how to be honest) the edit-warring whoch started with this edit which I believe to be pointed. The topic is very sensitive, and was discussed multiple times (though not this particular formulation, just merely a general propaganda issue) multiple times at the talk page (search archives for "propaganda"). When I was there, Galassi already had two reverts, and Ahrtoodeetoo was at the initial revert plus two. I reverted them inviting to the talk page discussion. That was pretty much the only thing I could do on an ipad and without much time available, but in the hindsight it was a bad decision, since Ahrtoodeetoo now believes I am a party in this content dispute (though I never made my position clear, and generally I prefer making administrative actions in EE area rather than participating in disputes). Still, my edit was reverted by El komodos drago, they were reverted by Galassi, and they were reverted by Ahrtoodeetoo. Apparently, Ahrtoodeetoo and El komodos drago before starting the reverts has a discussion on the talk page, which did only attract them and one IP who disagreed with them (see Talk:RT (TV network)#Misleading wording about misleading content). Today, noticing the development, I went to the talk page Ahrtoodeetoo, asking to self-revert and have a proper discussion at the talk page (possibly opening an RfC). The summary of their response was that they believe consensus has been achieved at the talk page, and they are reverting to establish this consensus. They refused to self-revert. They also took my warning as "threats" and said they will ask for a boomerang, which I am sure they will do after I notify them of this topic. Still, I find the situation completely unacceptable, and it has to be resolved somehow.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this isn’t at AN3. Seems that El komodos drago and Ahrtoodeetoo have discussed on the TP and Galassi’s presence has been repeatedly requested to no avail. I would think the proper course would be to ask Galassi to participate at their TP. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically none of the users made four reverts within 24h. AN3 admins routinely decline such requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Three reverts over a five day period to enforce a talk page consensus is "completely unacceptable?" Really? This is truly a black-is-white allegation. I don't understand how such an experienced editor can have a simple situation like this quite so upside-down. For some reason they refuse to acknowledge that this issue has already been raised on the talk page at Talk:RT (TV network)#Misleading wording about misleading content. They come to my user talk asking that I discuss this matter at article talk, citing as evidence one of my diffs in which I refer to the existing talk page discussion ("See talk."). Huh? On top that, they're the one reverting while not discussing. Yet they insist they're above the fray and ask me not to "drag" them into this content dispute....double huh? I'm totally baffled. R2(bleep) 18:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I should have protected the article and blocked you for edit-warring rather than reverting to the pre-war version? As a hindsight, this seems indeed to be a better solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this escalation. As you say, no one even broke 3RR and Galassi is the editor that refused to discuss. O3000 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, even if I broke some rule, which I didn't, you could not block me over this because you are involved. R2(bleep) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, seriously. A second before I made that edit I was not involved. The very fact that after having made four reverts in this article you still think that your behavior agrees with our policies is the very reason why I brought you here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, andEven if you were not previously involved, you became involved the moment you made that revert. Now, I want diffs of my four reverts, please. R2(bleep) 19:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One edit and two reverts before I edited the article, and one more after I edited this. I am sorry to say this but you are wikilawyering right now. This might be understandable in your situation, but does not help. If you have said in the very beginning "I am sorry, this was not my best behavior, I will (for example) revert my edit, wait for two days until Galassi responds at the talk page, reintroduce the edit if they do not, and if they revert again without responding take them to ANI", you have not even been here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please, or else this is just harassment. Because there were only 3 reverts. And I engaged in exemplary behavior, thank you very much. It's inapporpriate to let the aritcle be held hostage by editors who revert but do not join the existing discussion. That includes you. And speaking of less-than-best behavior, you know as well as anyone that you don't come to ANI with meandering complaints that do not include diffs of misconduct. R2 (bleep) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)On 30 May there was said "Galassi, this is where you explain why El komodos drago and I are wrong, instead of edit warring" (00:16, 30 May 2019). I see no explanation, but revert again: 21:09, 2 June 2019--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper notification. I am not responsible for Galassi, but for example they are under no obligation to have pings enabled.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, Ymblanter, do your homework before you make accusations like this. R2(bleep) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I stand corrected on this issue. Note that I mentioned Galassi in this thread and notified them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

I've fully protected the page for three days and added an edit notice, putting 1RR DS into effect. El_C 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full prot makes some sense while this dispute is being resolved, but is 1RR really necessary here? It seems like overkill. Aside from this minor dispute it doesn't seem like there's been much disruption in recent months or years. R2(bleep) 19:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe you're right. Let's see what happens with this dispute first and we'll go from there. Remind me. El_C 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the 1RR DS there. Seems reasonable looking into the history of the article and the talk page. Also and this might not be related, it'shard to track Ahrtoodeetoo comments as their signature and their username are completely different so I was puzzled a bit while looking into the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I'm having a Wikipedia nightmare. Someone wake me up please. R2 (bleep) 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you are able to demonstrate WP:POINT, I will consider taking the rare step of restoring the status quo ante for the remainder of the protection. El_C 18:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what WP:POINT has to do with it, but we have a 2-on-2 edit war here between El komodos drago and myself, both of whom have discussed the matter on the talk page (we actually discussed the matter before making any edits), and Galassi and Ymblanter, neither of whom has commented on the talk page at all. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) When the only content being added is insertion of "on one occasion" to become "found on one occasion", I would find such edit pointy. However, this is not my main point, my main point is that here edit-warring is apparently being promoted as a means of resolving an editing dispute, and it is being justified by a party who wants to insert content to a long-established version. Thanks for protecting the article, though I am still concerned that content dispute resolution has not been properly followed here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing that — I'm seeing a content dispute concerning whether the article should read "broadcasting" per se., or "on one occasion found it had broadcast." I realize that it replaces longstanding text, but I'm not sure I see how WP:POINT applies. Feel free to sharpen. El_C 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me. I think the editing dispute should go back to the dispute resolution. In the end of the day, I do not care what is written in the article as soon as proper process have been followed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Ymblanter, but what the fuck are you talking about? What "proper process" did I not follow? R2(bleep) 19:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to discuss the disputed change on the talk page instead of edit warring. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful. We already know they've been edit warring and they have been discussing their changes on the talk page. El_C 19:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, they first discussed and then tried to add the edit to the article, based on alleged consensus. Then Galassi reverted. Up to this point, everything was fine. The dispute resolution procedures should have been subsequently followed. This did not happen, instead, edit-warring started.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "dispute resolution procedures" should I have followed after Galassi reverted? WP:CONTENTDISPUTE doesn't make sense when the other editor refuses to discuss at all. R2 (bleep) 20:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I outlined one example above. Definitely not to continue edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to your suggestion of starting an RfC? R2(bleep) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Opening an RfC would be indeed another option.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

At my end, I was under the impression that Galassi had recognised that their edits were in error (the mistake was easy to make as I have explained on the article talk page) as they had not reverted R2's edits for 19 hours or offered an explanation on talk. I was under the impression that, given they said Go to the talk page and discuss, Ymblanter wished the version arrived at on the talk page to stand. I was unclear how else to proceed given that Galassi was not responding on the article talk page and was deleting R2's comments on their talk page. I am sorry if this was unreasonable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

I'm not involved but I had some time on my hands, so...

1. The text at issue is that a UK gov't regulator ... has repeatedly found RT ... of broadcasting "materially misleading" content. This text was added on 23 January 2016 and remained until 29 May 2019. It is the longstanding status quo language.
2. On 12 May 2019, El komodos drago posted on the talk page about changing the language "to show that there was only one case".
3. On 28 May, an IP editor replied on the talk page, disagreeing based on the sources suggesting multiple instances. Up to this point, nobody changed anything in the article yet.
4. Later on 28 May, Ahrtoodeetoo (R2) posted on the talk page agreeing with the suggestion to change the language.
5. On 29 May 2019, R2 changed it from "of broadcasting" to "on one occasion found it had broadcast". The edit summary included "See talk." This was arguably a WP:BOLD change to longstanding (3+ years) status quo language without consensus on the talk page (two editors-to-one, only 24hrs since the second editor in favor posted).
6. Later on 29 May, Galassi reverted R2's change. This was arguable a proper revert under the bold, revert, discuss policy. The WP:ONUS would be on those wishing to change the longstanding language to establish consensus before changing it.
7. R2 restored it later on 29 May. That's out of BRD process; it's 2RR.
8. Galassi reverted again on 30 May. That's 2RR for Galassi.
9. 10 minutes later on 30 May, R2 posted to the talk page pinging Galassi and saying he should come to the talk page instead of edit warring.
10. R2 also restored the content on 30 May. That's 3RR for R2, though not in 24hrs, but 48hrs. R2 at this point is not following WP:BRD, by changing longstanding text without consensus. As of this point, there are two editors in favor of the change (El komodos drago and R2) and two editors opposed to the change (the IP editor and Galassi), so still no consensus.
11. Ymblanter reverted on 30 May with edit summary "Go to the talk page and discuss." This is the only edit Ymblanter has made as far as I can tell, which does not make him WP:INVOLVED. An admin restoring the status quo with direction to get consensus on the talk page is like page protection; it's an admin action, not an action as an editor involved in a content dispute. Ymblanter did not post about this on the talk page and expressed no opinion on the underlying content dispute, as far as I can tell.
12. On 2 Jun, El komodos drago restored the text. There had been no additional talk page discussion.
13. Later on 2 Jun, Galassi reverted, which is 3RR for Galassi (though not in 24hrs, but the third revert in four days).
14. R2 restored the text. Not 4RR because it wasn't within 24hrs, but the fourth revert.
15. Finally, on 3 Jun, El_C protected the wrong version :-), the one with the change to longstanding text that does not have consensus.

Both Galassi and R2 are edit warring, but R2 is edit warring from the wrong side of BRD, by changing longstanding status quo text without consensus. I think this version (the same as had been in the article since 2016) should be restored, and it shouldn't be changed until/unless there is consensus on the talk page. Hopefully the full protection will allow time for that consensus will form one direction or the other. – Levivich 21:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to this chronology. It is both inaccurate and incomplete, see below. R2 (bleep) 22:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it's not about votes, it's about sources. The claim was unsourced and the IP editor did not provide a new source or even a specification of which source was in question. Additionally, Galassi has proved more than capable of reverting within a few hours but has yet to provide a comment on the week+ old talk thread. El komodos drago (talk to me) 21:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EKD, I agree it is about sources and not about votes, and it's "not a good look" when an editor reverts without joining the talk page discussion as Galassi has done. Yet, that doesn't mean there is consensus for the change, at least not yet, and as one of two editors on one "side" of a content dispute, you shouldn't be unilaterally discounting the other "side", you should seek further input instead. There are dispute resolution mechanisms in place for this situation: WP:3O, WP:DRN, and holding an WP:RfC. Practically speaking, all you need is to have one or two more editors look at the sources and give their opinion, and you can get that with 3O or DRN. If that doesn't cement the consensus, launch an RfC. Only once the consensus is clear should the text in the article be changed, though. – Levivich 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, you have a lot of details right but some key details wrong. First off, my May 29 edit was not a revert. I reverted 3 times over 5 days. Second, you missed the fact that after Galassi reverted without discussing, I invited them to join the discussion (1) in my revert edit summary, (2) an their user talk page, and (3) by pinging them on in the article talk page. The article can't be held hostage by an editor who refuses to participate in the discussion. No offense but this is pretty basic stuff. R2(bleep) 21:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrtoodeetoo, your May 29 edit wasn't a revert, it was a WP:BOLD edit–a change to longstanding status quo language without consensus. Galassi's first reversion of that BOLD edit was proper within the WP:BRD process. It was a proper revert, even without discussion. After that, both of you are engaged in reverting multiple times over a short period of time (i.e., edit warring). Yes, you did your part in terms of posting on the talk page and inviting the other editor to discuss, but you don't get to make a BOLD edit and have it "stick" while there is discussion. That's not how BRD works. Your BOLD edit stays outuntil there is consensus, not "stays in while we discuss it". That's basic stuff, too. The proper course of action, after Galassi reverted your BOLD edit, if Galassi didn't join the talk page discussion (or even if they did and gave their reasons for opposing the change), would have been to pursue dispute resolution (3O, DRN, RfC), not to revert Galassi's revert. One side in a content dispute can't unilaterally decide to discount the other side of the content dispute and just charge ahead with the change. You need to seek out additional input from other editors to cement consensus before making the change to the article. – Levivich 21:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're largely correct there. And if Galassi had commented on the talk page then I wouldn't have reverted after that. But that's beside the point. You said I reverted 4 times, when in fact it was 3. Over 5 days. And you excluded important details from your chronology. R2 (bleep) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all need to stop playing 'the blame game' calm down and (in the case of me, R2 and Galassi) apologise (as I have done above). Then we can look for a constructive way forward. Right now I'm going to sleep. El komodos drago (talk to me) 21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want Ymblanter to lay the fuck off so I can do some productive editing. I apologize for using some salty language. R2(bleep) 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to start a thread, "should X be changed to Y", on the article talk page, lay out the sources supporting the change, and even see if anyone !votes oppose at this point. If consensus isn't clear after a few days, post a link to the thread on the relevant WikiProject talk pages to get additional editor input. If that doesn't work, maybe try WP:DRN, and if that doesn't work, a full WP:RfC. (And R2, you're just digging yourself a hole at this point. Take the "out" offered by EKD.) – Levivich 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lecturing me. My behavior has been exemplary. There are two editors willing to engage on the talk page, and they agree on what the content outcome should be. If someone comes along and lodges their disagreement, then fine, we have a bona fide content dispute. But that's not what has happened. No one has defended a contrary position on the talk page. Your WP:DRN suggestion is nonsensical. There is literally no one to go to WP:DRN with. R2(bleep) 22:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bona fide content dispute. An IP editor has lodged an objection on the talk page, and Galassi has lodged an objection in edit summaries. – Levivich 22:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is for editors who are willing to talk. Those two editors aren't. I did everything I could possibly do to get those two editors to discuss the subject matter, yet neither would respond. At some point you revert back to WP:BOLD for the good of the project. Remember, the goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to bury ourselves in bureaucracy. R2(bleep) 03:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R2, you are not being accurate about what happened. Here, on May 28 you posted a talk page message expressing support for a change another editor suggested, which was opposed by a second editor. You chose a side in a content dispute, as it were. Nothing wrong with that. The next day, on May 29, you changed the article text to what you thought it should be. Also fine. WP:BOLD is not a problem. Your change was reverted. That's also fine. That's the R in WP:BRD. A reason was given in the edit summary. At that point, it's 2-to-2 whether it should be changed or not. There is no consensus. A little more than an hour later, you restored your BOLD change. Not fine. You did not attempt to engage in talk page discussion between your BOLD insertion and your restoration of that BOLD insertion after it had been reverted. An hour after you were reverted, you just clicked the undo button, you didn't engage in the D of the discussion cycle before pressing the undo button. So it is not true that you "did everything" before edit warring. Edit warring was your instant and repeated response, and you edit warred before pinging Galassi to the talk page. What happened was: you came across a talk page discussion, picked a side, changed it to what you thought it should be, and when someone reverted it, you edit warred. This is not "exemplary conduct". It's not a huge deal, but you persist in maintaining you did nothing wrong, when you did. And your treatment of Ymblanter–who you said you wanted to "lay the fuck off" but then you went and posted again to his talk page continuing the dispute–makes matters worse. – Levivich 04:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you; at this point you're just repeating yourself. Clearly we have a disagreement about best practices. I am willing to continue this on my user talk, but further discussion on this specific topic isn't appropriate for ANI. R2 (bleep) 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we save this as an example of why people call ANI a dramaboard? Meanwhile, allow the protection to go to expiration and then sanction the first editor to revert without a TP resolution, and close this. O3000 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor R2 misrepresented the given source as a mere single instance of RT news faking, while the source clearly said "twice in a 2months period".--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no opinion on the content of the edit one way or the other, and this is not where one goes for content disputes. That would be the article TP. O3000 (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of the article is wating for Galassi. His obvious mistake is already explained there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be getting somewhere if Galassi were merely to confirm that their source was the Press Gazette at this point.El komodos drago (talk to me) 07:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we only allow the protection to expire once the discussion is resolved as people have mistaken whether it was resolved in the past. Very happy to allow it to be either wrong version in the intervening time. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with nearly all of my full protections, the protected version is in place randomly. I will need to hear convincing arguments about reverting it while the article is fully-protected. El_C 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial issue of disruptive behaviour here is not the reverting as such, but the fact that Galassi kept reverting (on 29 May, 30 May and 2 June [159]), when there already was quite incontrovertible evidence on the talkpage that his edit was misrepresenting the source (posted by R2 on 28 May [160]), plain for everyone to see, and Galassi did nothing to counter that observation or otherwise engage with the criticism. That makes his reverts disruptive, the other side's not so. I also note (again, as a few weeks ago) that Galassi has actually been under a strict revert limitation that includes an extra requirement for him to discuss and wait before every revert he makes. He seems to have routinely disregarded this restriction for years (see User talk:Galassi#Revert limitation for background).
Under these circumstances, I plan on imposing a lengthy block on Galassi shortly. I'm open to suggestions as to length or further conditions etc. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Addendum: Let me also add that, unlike some of my colleagues above, I find R2's behaviour in this dispute faultless. Contrary to a frequently-peddled myth, reverting in and of itself is not necessarily disruptive. In the face of stubborn unreasonableness and failure to engage in discussion, as displayed by Galassi here, reverting is, unfortunately, often unavoidable to protect encyclopedic integrity. Some people don't like to hear that there are such cases, but yes, in some edit-wars the faults are entirely on one side. This is one such case. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I have neither objections (to a block) nor suggestions (as to duration). I simply did not have enough time to investigate this with enough detail and my protection (and application of DS — if you think that was overkill, please feel free to undo) was intended to curtail immediate disruption to the article. Anyway, naturally, I welcome someone else stepping in and taking the lead on this. El_C 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galassi's edits can be assumed to be a mistake under AGF so blocking them seems unreasonable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 07:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody doubts that Galassi was caught in a good-faith error in understanding the source; that error was understandable and in and of itself is not a problem. The problem is, first, that he failed to correct this error, which he certainly would have if he had made an effort to engage with you and R2 on the talkpage (where things were laid out clearly enough for anybody to understand); and secondly, that this behaviour is part of a larger pattern that has been a problem with him for years, and that he was ignoring an existing arbitration enforcement sanction that was specifically designed to avoid exactly this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El komodos drago: FYI Galassi was under a 2011 Ukraine-related 1RR restriction, and of course the content he was reverting (the "materially misleading" violation "on 13 and 14 July 2014 which concerned the policies and actions of the Ukrainian Government towards the population of eastern Ukraine" [161]) was about RT's coverage of Ukraine, and there were also reverts at Ukrainians in March and April. Last block was for 48hrs in 2014, so the 2-month block duration is a bit surprising to me, but I think the block is within admin discretion in the circumstances. – Levivich 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well shit Fut.Perf., if I had known about that restriction this dispute probably would have been resolved ages ago. Thank you so much for digging back through ancient history and resolving this. R2 (bleep) 23:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:, a jump from 48 hours to 61 days after 5 years with no blocks still seems high to me. I would have thought a week or two more appropriate. Would you consider reducing it? Jayjg^(talk) 15:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the five years without blocks is hardly a merit. If he wasn't blocked, it's not because he wasn't disruptive, but because he just wasn't watched carefully enough. He was in breach of that limitation continuously, and there is no shortage of complaints about his style of reverting spanning all those years. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but this long a period without sanction might have given the editor the impression that their edits were not violating the terms of their restrictions. I think such a large escalation after such a long period seems excessive; are you sure you won't consider a reduction to, say, three weeks? Even four weeks? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Error-strewn lists of ambassadors - users Veinas and Bata via

I have just spent some time correcting many of the British prime ministers mentioned in List of ambassadors of Romania to the United Kingdom, and in List of ambassadors of Thailand to the United Kingdom. The extent of the errors to me suggests that nothing else whatsoever in those articles can be relied upon in any way. The Romania article was created with the errors by Veinas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has created many "Lists of ambassadors" pages, and the Thai article by Bata via (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also create many such pages, but who appears to have stopped editing in December 2017, a few months before Veinas began. I am concerned that many of their other lists and articles may be full of errors, which I do not have the time to investigate. Please could this be looked into? I shall post the usual ANI notice on both their talk pages. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Nepal to the United Kingdom is another one, lots of errors. I'm not sure if this is a competence issue or long-term vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sock who trolls its own checkuser page and is way ahead of anyone interested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manda_1993 regularly trolls its own investigation page, and even trolls itself, often with messages about its own presence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HEFM

It seems so loopy that it is hard to where to know to go with this, and the editor is obviously from Indonesia with the phrases:

O Channel Medan UHF Televisi di Media? di Medan is a standard phrase and a few nonsense words in Indonesian are dead giveaways on the usually socked articles.

To go on the usual process to checkuser is usually accompanied by the sock...with comments, not in english.

It is also in accompanying cross wiki abuse as well. It almost seems self defeating to have to compete with the sock at checkuser, and the delays sometimes allow the sock to play again while it is not investigated. I feel stumped by this as I watch it in process.

I realise that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/HEFM has happened at Meta, but I am wondering whether the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manda_1993 page might be protected in some way, or even the usual locations of the sock behaviour JarrahTree 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI page has been protected since 23 May. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely, which is a bit much in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That explains the astonishing self reporting at the HEFM talk page - the editor couldnt get on to play with the SPI page - all makes sense now - thanks for responses, appreciate that JarrahTree 11:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree, can I suggest that, no matter how troublesome a person is, you should never refer to anyone as "it"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough I have no problem with that at all - the word for he or she in Indonesian is dia - which is determined by other contexts as to whether the word relates to a gender, and in the case of this editor who has now been at it for two years incessantly User_talk:Manda_1993#January_2017 and has never expressed anything in english in that time, to identify their status as to their gender to english using editors JarrahTree 14:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in English, "it" is not an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "they" would be the proper gender-neutral pronoun in English. "It" refers to inanimate objects, so folks may take offense to that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses - I indeed am aware of the level of implied offense and unreservedly apologise to readers and the sock, he she, or ... is probably in reality a very nice person, but on wiki is a damned nuisance, having spent two years leaving an incomprehensible mess JarrahTree 00:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most experienced editor did unknown reason revert my expand with reliable sources

I've expand this article Y-Zet and added issues with reliable soures; but most experienced editor WikiAviator; did unknown reason revert i added infos (reliable sources proved) and did edit wars. See Talk:Y-Zet and Check source [162] Princess of Myadaung (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-3rr}} to both editors. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, three reverts without an explanation is problematic. WikiAviator should be explaining the reason behind their reverts. I'm not sure the uw-disruptive2 they left at the IPs talk page counts as sufficient explanation. The expanded section is not ideal, either, but some guidance is to be expected as to any correction or removal. El_C 12:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already give reasons in edit summary. And User Slatersteven also did reverted without reason. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:brd, you a user objects to your addition you have to make a case for reinsertion, you do not just reinsert.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user need to explain why they reverted, in the first place. El_C 12:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good practice yes. But you still should not just reinsert. As others have said, this is two users not playing the game.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in theory, they should have gone to Wikiaviator's talk page and asked: "why did you revert me? — why did you place the uw-disruptive2 template on my talk page? Sure, that would have been ideal. El_C 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore my expand or not?. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is about user conduct, not the validity of your edits (or theirs).Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

What is up with all these unexplained reverts? El_C 12:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did give an explanation [[163]] "if it is reverted you do not reinsert it.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an explanation. El_C 12:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not? How is telling them you should not reinsert contested information not an explanation of why I reverted?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the original reverts remain unexplained. El_C 12:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SlaterstevenPlease see the talk page of the other involved user for the detailed reason of reverts.WikiAviator (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He nominate AFD for the singer; i don't understand; the singer is clearly meets WP:NMUSICIAN... and sources are very reliable from Myanmar strong media. easily pass WP:GNG. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I cannot comment on why another user might have reverted, only on why I reverted. Thus my edit summery explained why I was reverting contested material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't know why it's contested, yet you feel confident to revert it on that basis? Okay...? El_C 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said on the talk page, I could not see why it was inserted in the first place As I say below, I could see why I would object to it. The fact it was being edit warred back in (however) was for me the main issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

I'm at a loss here. User expands the article, then they are reverted without an explanation save for uw-disruptive2 — then there's an edit war during which at no time is an explanation offered as to the revert. Am I the only one who is finding this a bit puzzling? El_C 12:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm finding it puzzling that an editor who's been here 3 hours is citing WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:GNG, and bringing cases to WP:ANI. Not their first visit to the dance floor I think. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were editing as an IP beforehand. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAviator, what do you mean Changing the wording without community consensus — it was a bold expansion. What specific fault did you find with it? El_C 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I agree, I cannot see a real explanation of why it was removed (I can see a reason why I would remove it). But it does not alter the fact that the onus is on the person wishing to include to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they don't know what they are arguing against! El_C 12:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second. The user reverted must provide an argument at least, using consensus as an excuse is basically saying "I don't like it but I don't have an argument/don't want to find one", as if we're discussing every change we make to an article, that's not how Wikipedia works. Viztor (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, My expand or edit is not attack to the singer; i added facts base on per sources. it is not WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thirded (just because I've seen this misuse / misinterpretation of WP:ONUS before.) Consensus is required... but it's also presumed until someone raises a specific objection, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Removing something without giving a reason (or by merely citing WP:ONUS) isn't raising a meaningful objection. The objection doesn't have to be strong or detailed, but it does have to at least notionally be backed in policy - outside of cases of clear vandalism, reverting an edit without explanation is improper (and saying "get consensus" or "go satisfy WP:ONUS", in the absence of any other standing objections, isn't an explanation. How can they get consensus about your objection when you refuse to articulate it?) --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know we aren't supposed to discuss content here, but anyway... part of the revert cycle seems to be that the article called "debut album Pyaw San Par" a "duet album", which the former IP wanted to change to "duo album" instead. Looking at the details of the album at myanmar music store, it seems as if it isn't a duet album, but a hybrid split album, with three collaborative tracks ("duets", if you like), 4 songs by Oasix without Y-Zet, and 4 songs by Y-Zet without Oasix. While "duo album" perhaps isn't the best monicker, I can certainly understand what the IP is trying to improve, as it isn't a "duet" album either (which brings to mind something like Duets (Frank Sinatra album) of Forever Cool). Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the talk page it seems to be about the killings at the concert more then anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at these edits, I am also at a loss here:

1. The first edit corrected grammar (e.g. changing "collaborations" to "collaborating", removing an unnecessary "to" and "that song") which is objectively an improvement.
2. The second edit added sourced content about a brawl at one of the subject's concerts that led to a death (and changed "duet" to "duo", explained by Fram above, and added a detail about the subject's education "at the second year"). No comment on the content issue of whether that should stay or go, but it's clearly the addition of sourced content (sourced to Coconuts Media and The Irrawaddy), plus wording clarifications, which are at least possibly an improvement.
3. The third edit moved a source from one paragraph to another paragraph, in an obvious improvement to text-source integrity.

WikiAviator's explanation for reverting, posted after making three reversions in 24hrs (3RR), was The edit is not relevent because this is just an unneccesary change of wording, which is not constructive. These uneccessary changes are disruptive. This explanation does not appear to be substantiated by the edits, nor do the multiple warnings posted on Princess of Myadaung's talk page appear to be justified. – Levivich 17:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich~ Thank you very much for your fair. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is ANI thread is just Emily Khine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki) being disruptive. I'm not closing because if there are behaviour issues that need to be addressed, they should be, but I'd urge another admin to figure it out quickly. She's a drama queen and this just adds fuel to the fire. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable behaviour by Ybsone

Ybsone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I would like to report about the irrational behaviour of Ybsone. He edits pages without a source and when asked, behaves rudely. I would add links supporting my claim:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ferrari_575M_Maranello (here, it is seen how he refused to add a source when inquired and admitted he was just lazy to do so)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9 (another source highlighting his rude behaviour and non acceptance of sources when added. Also a violation of the three revert rule)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#/talk/3 (here he tells me to contact Maserati myself while being rude and only presents a self centred blog in his defence)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Quattroporte (again, refusal to add a source and instead this rude message being posted on my talk page claiming that he is right when he has no proof backing up his theory)

I'm willing to put an end to his as I'm fed up with this user's behaviour. He has been the source of discouraging others to edit pages on Wikipedia by having a "I am always right" attitude. I request the admins to take appropriate action.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmm.... When I look at the histories and talk pages linked above, I see two editors being rude, two editors edit warring, two editors threatening to report the other to "the admins", and two editors arguing about the quality (or existence) of the other's sourcing. And to be honest (though I am not a car guy) it looks to me like U1Quattro is coming off as the worse of the two. I also note U1Quattro's recent blocks for similar behavior with another editor (see here), who he is still feuding with as of a few minutes ago ("until a consensus is reached, the edit I made stays"? That's not how it works....). It would be appreciated (and wise) if @U1Quattro: and @Ybsone: both dialed back the pointless aggression and edit more collegially, so you don't waste other people's time. But User:U1Quattro, you're getting pretty close to a significant block yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC

Floquenbeam I have tried to reason with this user before but all he does is act rude for no reason when asked for sources for his edits. You may have already seen how he comes off on my talk page and has been pocketing evidence against me by threatening to report me.U¹ _quattroTALK 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you read what I wrote? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read that Floquenbeam. I'm not feuding with Vauxford as of now. I wrote that comment as he tends to revert edits back to what he personally thinks is right without seeking concensous on the subject matter's talk page. I don't know how am I getting close to another block as I have just been out of one. Also, administrator intervention was necessary as Ybsone continues to edit without source with no change in his behaviour.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm taking great care to not start up what happen in the past between me and U1Quattro but I'm not impressed that shortly after his block he has already reverted a edit I did and done the usual "I'll take the matters to administration" threat on my talkpage, as pointed out by Floquenbeam. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will state my case, and would like to point out at this time that I am constantly being harrassed by User:U1Quattro. My edits were reverted at least 19 times over the past 9 months and not once was it necessary, and not once was it correct.

1. 612: Special:Diff/855578814 My edit was reverted just on occasion of rewriting the article. With this correct engine links were reverted. Vandalism of my work.

2. 575M: Special:Diff/879639849 My correct, and later, sourced edit was reverted, even though previously there also was no source. Special:Diff/880025334 Here I presented that my claim was sourced but it was deleted not improved anyway Special:Diff/880107734 and User:U1Quattro begun a conversation accusing me of being lazy. His rude behaviour and unwillingness to improve an article. And so I inserted a source Special:Diff/880427587, which was deleted maliciously Special:Diff/880566579 and replaced by a "credible" source, ie. a forum... Special:Diff/880569080. My later update of dividing production numbers into two completely different models (practice very common) was just deleted Special:Diff/894035517 because it is, quote: "Too confusing.", whch will be a very often defense mechanism for User:U1Quattro, so he deleted it from infobox altogether. Again I see this as vandalism of my work.

3. 599: Special:Diff/880107892 A very long engine size was shortened as is common in any other Ferrari model but this edit was reverted because User:U1Quattro deemed it: "Not needed." It was then reverted yet again Special:Diff/880566293. User:U1Quattro then begun edit warring Special:Diff/891852265 and Special:Diff/891870862 about a picture clearly inserted into wrong place and was deaf to any constructive arguments. Especially frustrating when they are correct and with a little attention I would not have to waste my time to do one edit three times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_599 When I tried to peacefully point out what are we talking about he accusses me of being rude.

4. EB 112: Source I presented is the highest authority on Bugatti EB 110 and 112, but: Special:Diff/881425458, Special:Diff/883089248 Here he states that source shows 2 cars (it shows 3) Special:Diff/883134358 Still stubbornly argues that he only sees 2 cars. Special:Diff/883136624 Here he claims he added a more reliable source, that just proves my point further but after 4 revertions. Time surely wasted. Also see talk page for EB 112: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bugatti_EB_112 where he claims that this "unofficial registry" is... "confusing" when it isn't. I even posted three separate links to three chassis numbers Special:Diff/883138743.

5. F50: Special:Diff/885645951 I was not asked for a source my edit was just reverted. He could have just followed the link.

6. Coupé: Special:Diff/893820486 Special:Diff/893818480 Special:Diff/893802825 Special:Diff/893778756 Special:Diff/893739643 Special:Diff/893737761 Special:Diff/893736904 Special:Diff/893716503 Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893710349 Special:Diff/893606976 Special:Diff/893606872 Special:Diff/893606503 Special:Diff/893606228 Special:Diff/893349542 (other members of the community also helped providing proofs of facts stated by me, to no effect)

Coupé talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name

Coupé talk on U1Quattro talk: Deleted by him Special:Diff/896526399

Coupé talk on my talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ybsone#April_2019 with a racial outburst about a japanese trading site that showed a limited edition 3200 GT for japanese market with a plaque that said Japan Special:Diff/893720057

7. Ghibli (M157) talk (after being stuck in a ill-logic loop that an era-successor is also the successor to every individual car type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Ghibli_(M157)#Predecessor just a pearl of his logic:

"The Quattroporte IV was itself based on the BiTurbo so it never succeeded Amy of the Biturbo family cars."

"The Ghibli II succeeded the BiTubro and was based on the BiTurbo"

Special:Diff/895002665 he also changed one of his claims after my reply

8. Quattroporte Special:Diff/898127851 Again not asked to show a source (should I be asked for a source to prove what I see on the picture? Really?? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006_Maserati_Quattroporte_-_Flickr_-_The_Car_Spy_(4).jpg ) my edit was reverted just to start a war with yet another user. I showed a source anyway.

Quattroporte talk on U1Quattro talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Maserati_Quattroporte when I asked for him to stop reverting my contributions and he gets offended?? YBSOne (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To that I can say I'm not rude. I'm defending facts. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone your proofs clearly show that you edited without a source in the first place. On the 575 page, you added a source in the edit summary and not in the article which is not how it works. You only add source when you are done arguing and I'm sorry to say, this is not how editing works on here.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the EB110 page, yes I was wrong but you could've been more courteous while pointing out my error which you clearly didn't do and kept on adding some unofficial registry. This was resolved once I added a more credible source. Your "defense" of the facts is not only unethical but it also discourages me to keep editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone I can clean my talkpage. I am not estopped from doing so especially when the discussions are not active anymore.U¹ _quattroTALK 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You better look up estoppel. EEng 05:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that I don't source my work, but You don't do it Special:Diff/893710908Special:Diff/893720240. Difference being that I am a journalist.

You claim that EB 110/112 website is just some unimportant unofficial registry. His website is THE website for EB 110 and 112. Just like mine is for the GTV/Spider: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/ and Lancia Lybra and Maserati Coupé. Researching italian cars' history is very tough. I know it and You clearly don't.

You claim that I asked You to contact Maserati. If You did: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/maseratispyder90thanniversary.jpg http://www.bozhdynsky.com/cars/interview-with-maserati-heritage/

You claim that I incorrectly sourced 575M manual transmissions. But You reverted that edit... to my edit that was before Special:Diff/818782708 and yet lack of source didn't bother You at all.

You claim that I didn't source that Quattroporte V intake is plastic and black. I don't have to source every single fact that can be, with open eyes, clearly seen on the picture and I won't be bullied to do so.

You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting.

You claim that I should accept any sources, any time. Nothing furthest from the truth. As I told You many times be inquisitive not repetitive. You have presented countless sources and all of them were wrong and unacceptable.

You claim that I should encourage You to edit and be more courteous while pointing out Your errors. Yet You don't have to adhere to Your rules. YBSOne (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so you're a journalist what would you now claim next? That you are a historian? It's that behaviour of yours which is the most repulsive of all. You are repetitively stating a personal blog as a source which is run by you and you hae basically "ordered" me to use this source. Who do you even think you are? Some kind of a dictator? I think that Ferrari owners, who own the cars and are in contact with Ferrari are more reliable sources than a personal self researched blog-site which has been forcefully used here. Yes I did contact Maserati and they got back to me with the owners manual. Frankly, I don't have any blogs to post the records there. Yes you do have to source every other "fact" that you think is right, otherwise it is just self research. I only see a lack of understanding to the policies which are followed here. FYI, a talk page is a user's personal name space and he can use it the way he wants. You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am a historian. I have researched automotive history with many successes and published my findings on my personal website mainly. My historical research of type 916 Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider is unparalleled in the world and widely respected in it's community. It was even commended by Cenrto Documentazione AR. You on the other hand were tasked by community and me to research one simple fact, like a name of a limited edition, and failed. You asked wrong questions and got same answers. I asked right questions, again, and received a confirmation of facts I already knew. Consensus was reached and You were still stubborn. You claim You needed sources, but when I provided credible and primary ones You change them to Yours. You don't want facts You want Your facts.

I was very patient over the months of harassment. Even didn't participate in recent actions against You from other user, although I did reply to what I was asked to provide. You wanted to start this fight by provoking me with vandalism Special:Diff/898127851 and You got it. Now You manipulate opinions that You are the victim. You are not a victim but an agressor. First thing You do afer block is lifted You harass all of Your "enemies", undoing work of at least 5 different users. Admins can see Yours and mine contribution history. You are the dictator because You don't care about consensus nor facts. You claim to respect policies yet You constantly vandalise my work, replace primary sources with uncredible secondary ones, attack personally, threat, edit war and for this I expect User:U1Quattro to be blocked by Administrators.

Should Administrators have any further questions towards me I am at their disposal.

With regards, Yaroslav Bozhdynsky, historian. YBSOne (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what harrasement is? I think you need to have a look at the definition of what harrasement is before you start to act as a victim of harassment. That is a very bold claim that you're making about your research and everything else which was "successful" and has recieved "acclaim". Infact, I don't even see a mention about you in the automotive press let alone the Italian automotive press and I haven't seen any proof where this is verifiable. Wikipedia isn't about you or your facts where you go on to claim that your "work" is vandalised. I have now found solid evidence that your website is in violation of the policies here as pointed out by 72Dino and hence cannot be used as a source in the articles here. Yet you had the audacity to come out on my talk page and force me to use the site. I wasn't tasked by anyone to do research on the sources, I did it on my own free will and shared the response which I got in return. You on the other hand, posted your own blog in which it was highly unclear about the said conversation you were pointing at. I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here. I have provided my evidence and that shows how you behave and force others to stay along at work and act like this site is all about you. That's all I have to say.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were using ferrarichat.com/forum Special:Diff/818411451 that clearly violates policies as being self-published and uverifiable. Also the production sums are way different from official Ferrari claims. Yet in 2018 You had absolutely no problem with it what so ever, because of double standard. My note: "Please do not use this source in the future" is not an order nor forceful. You are manipulating facts to Your advantage and blowing them out of proportion. YBSOne (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it. Does the manufacturer who is manufacturing the car knows better how many were produced or some self proclaimed historian and journalist who has no sources on where he got his information? I will let the admins decide.U¹ _quattroTALK 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as usual whenever is convenient You manipulate Your own positions: Special:Diff/893874280 Special:Diff/880569080 Double standard. YBSOne (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Ferrari 575 page, I just changed wording of a sentence, that doesn't change its meaning. Just accept that you're out of justifications now. Plus about the Maserati talkpage, I talked about my doubts but accepted the name as is.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, stop. ANI is not for content disputes, it's for behavioral issues. And all you've managed to do is prove that you're both fighting, instead of collaborating. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reported him for his odd behaviour which is clearly showing here.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider your own behavior as well. Your abrasive discussion style and apparent tendency to hold grudges doesn't make anything any easier. You criticize YBSOne for using a self-published source while you try to use an online forum as one, which is equally unsuitable. Your comment here is completely unacceptable, and given that you just came off a week-long block issued in part for such behavior, you should know that. Misconstruing someone's opinion and then accusing him of "lack of knowledge" is a personal attack. You criticize YBSOne for not seeking consensus, yet change images in the midst of an ongoing discussion about them - one of which, there is no indication whatsoever of consensus for.

The greater dispute here is quite difficult to follow and I don't know that YBSOne is entirely blameless in this, but the personal attack noted above is concerning, especially given the timing. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after the week block U1Quattro left this message on my talkpage, already threatening to take "matters to administration" when no form of conflict hasn't started yet. As pointed out by Sable, he made a edit replacing the infobox when there was an ongoing discussion about it when a consensus haven't been reached. --Vauxford (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford you are assuming on the same talkpage that you should put the 'White on on the infobox while the red one in the ZL1 section' so you get an equal blame for assuming things that way. Also, you had already mentioned about your talkpage discussion earlier on, so I see this as an attempt to side with the accused in order to oust me from editing which you had been doing ever since you have been feuding with me. Sable232 if you see how Ybsone has behaved above in this thread as well as accusing me to stop the "flow of knowledge" and everything else, I consider these personal attacks as well. Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page. Where was he with his reliable source before? And why did he completely refused to add a source in the article? That is the question.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I'm fairly disappointed with how these two editors namely Vauxford and Ybsone behave with others while violating WP:CIVIL and WP:ETIQUETTE multiple times. I don't know how one would behave nice with them when they behave repulsively with others. Since we are diverting to point out the flaws of each other, I think Vauxford should also be held accountable for his behaviour with Charles01, 1292Simon and Alexander-93.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro this is proof of Your manipulation: My quote: "You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting."

Your response blown out of proportion: "You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide."

And this is proof of Your uncaring about facts nor consensus: Your claim: "I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here."

Your actual behaviour on Coupé talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name

Manufacturer sourced data was provided on the first line of dispute yet it took more than 2 weeks not to teach You or show You gently the errors of Your ways. It took 2 weeks to wear You down. Not only that but reference to Maserati website and Spyder 90th Anniversary was there all the time, since 2012, You didn't take time to read it (number 61: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#References). But I read it when it was active.

Another intersting fact about Your dictatorial behaviour: "Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page." So is it forbidden to correct Your mistakes? Is it forbidden to edit pages that were marked by You? Who do You think You are? YBSOne (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone and who do you think you are? If you have researched about cars so much go and improve pages instead of sitting back and degrading others. Where were you when you researched about the Ghibli and it's successor? That's right, you came to edit and fight with me when I had edited the page. Where were you on commons when you thought the photo of the suspension system of the Ferrari 599 was wrong? That's right, you were coming right after me after I had edited the page. Where were you when you had researched about the Maserati Coupé and the Maserati 3200 GT? That's right, you were after me when I had edited the pages. Your edit pattern suggests that you're indeed a stalker who is targeting other editors in order to degrade them.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for your kind information Ybsone you cannot dictate any user to keep or delete content on their talk page which is their personal name space. Just like I haven't told you to keep or delete content on your talk page. About manufacturer claims, the Ferrari 575 incident happened before the Maserati Coupé incident. So you failed to put the blame on me, yet again as edit history is present to back that up. And as for "dictatorial behaviour" I think you need to look up what that behaviour is when you try to blame someone next time.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern You see are Your own paranoidal assumptions. I have nothing to do with them. I care about the pages You mention and when I see a blatant error I will fix it, whoever edited it before. You are not that special to me as You claim to be. YBSOne (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution history says otherwise. You have started to target me ever since the Ferrari 575 incident. You have been following me on pages as soon as I edit them.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about an IBAN, then you go both get on with productive editing?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And how about actually going after that disruptive user for his vandalism and personal attacks? YBSOne (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven I was trying to productively edit before I came across this abusive user.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone so you are actually going to dictate the admins now?U¹ _quattro TALK 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro Are You still going to blow things out of proportion and manipulate admins? YBSOne (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone I'm just presenting facts about your editing history and your repulsive behaviour which is showing here. Thankfully, you won't be able to manipulate any of this.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, You are mistaken, I and other user are presenting facts about Your abusive behaviour and personal attacks even though You try to manipulate the sense of it. YBSOne (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your current behaviour here is abusive Ybsone. You personally attacked me when you said "who do you think you are" so I will let the admins decide who is the more innocent one here.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also you and Vauxford are trying to form an alliance to oust me from editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, and any user is allowed to challenge an suggestion. If this feuding continues it will be more then just an IBAN, for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro Are You sure You want to use this argument? Special:Diff/898214744 YBSOne (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven As I posted above I'm defending myself agains constant attacks from U1Quattro, I'm not feuding. I'm here because he filed an action against me, because he vandalised my work. This is the ill-logic I have to deal with. YBSOne (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven I'm ready to bury the hatchet but I demand an apology from him for how he behaved with me.U¹ _quattroTALK 10:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think others have suggested you are both at fault. I have no idea who is at fault (or who started it), nor do I care. This is wasting a lot of time with the pair you you throwing insults back and forth. The only solution now (as far as I can see) is either an IBAN or you both get blocked. I suggest that the pair of you drop this now before it become a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone no, you're actually trying to prove that you're above everyone else when you aren't. Your "work" is just as relevant as the works of any other editor. It is neither superior nor inferior. Any editor, including me, has the right to edit a page after you have edited it. You're trying to say that you own a page after contributing to it, this is the behaviour I'm against.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I actually filed this claim because I'm done with your behaviour and envy against me.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro And how exactly am I behaving? All You do is claim and still noone sees any actual proofs. I have proven Your vandalism and personal attacks. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone I have presented my proofs and others in this discussion. This is another attempt of yours of manipulation. Your behaviour? It's narcissistic and repulsive.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Ybsone I'm still waiting for the proof of praise of your work by the automotive press.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No You havent, You invent causes and claims and move on to manupulation.YBSOne (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please block the pair of them for tendentious editing and close this? This really has gone on for two long.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ybsone, but the proof of disqualification of your website as a source and the sources I presented along with the behaviour you have shown here isn't something that I invented. But go on and keep trying to shift the blame. I don't say I'm innocent, but you aren't either.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who does not agree with You is automatically called rude by You and is suddenly in violation of policies. Even presenting facts does not matter because You shift Your position from pro-manufacturer to anti-manufacturer whenever it suits Your current needs. You use forums when You need it and simultaneously devalue an automotive blog when it suits Your needs. You do not allow others to check Your work, change Your work or even do their work after You. You bury Your opponent in an avalanche of seriously sounding phrases and have nothing to back them up with except Your opinions. I am not envious of You and never will be and You will never be apologised to by me. You start the fight and then act like a child and scurry behind someone who You think You can manipulate and do Your bidding for You. When pointed out a simple thing You turn it's meaning around, blow it out proportion and then use as a weapon. You are not interested in learning, You are not intersted in policies you claim to protect, You are not interested in facts nor in consensus. Everything must be as You want it to be and we all are just in Your way. You are narcissistic and parnoid and You think everyone is after You and they are conspiring to oust You. You are very, very, very tiresome and actually disruptive to this community. We wouldn't be here if You wouldn't maliciously reverted a simple edit. You wanted all this attention. You needed to blame someone for Your shortcomings. You crave to act as a victim when someone endangers Your position. And don't worry I will soon publish my first book. I can be a very good editor but You will never be as good a historian as I am. I surely hope Administrators will see through Your facade of lies and manipulations and block You for good. Best. YBSOne (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You will never be as good as I am." Proves how big of a narcist you are. Your "Automotive blog" doesn't qualify to be a source on Wikipedia which has already been said proven by other users. We are here because of your disruptive behaviour, not because of me as a victim. I never said I was a victim neither am I trying to be one. I have said why I filed this claim and I hope you also get dealt by accordingly. I never said that others are not allowed to check my work, statement like this from you "He is vandalising" my work is a proof that you don't allow that. This site isn't a place to have opponents like you put it. It's for collaborative contribution and you refuse to do so. I just see blame shifting here.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, calling me paranoid is a personal attack. I'm still waiting for proof of your praise by the automotive press as I write this. Statements like "I'm going to write a book very soon" wouldn't make anyone believe in your credibility. You are right about learning. I'm not interested in learning from you.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You will never be as good as I am." is based on experience of You trying to research a simple fact and failing miserably. I am not disruptive, edits that I did, sourced or not, were correct. We are here chronologically because of Your revert of my simple edit and shifting blame on me for that incident. I have yet to wait for You to correctly check my work. You don't know the meaning of collaboration and You of all people should not use that term. Paranoia is a mental illness when someone sees threats where there are none, like secret alliances etc. I don't have to prove to You my credibility, community checks it. My website is just some of my automotive knowledge and still is unparalleled on 916s alone. You are not someone I have to prove myself to. YBSOne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Edits I did, sourced or not were correct" these statements just prove my point more of why we are here. Never said I was going to research anything so didn't fail, another blame gone wrong. I am waiting for you to show me the praise you received by the automotive press, you blank accusations are not going to change the claims you have made. Yes I do collaborate with others and appreciate their work but I won't do none of that for you. Oh yes you have to prove yourself here because your website is incapable of being used as a source and unlike you, I never tried to establish hat I am right and the others are not. Give WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVIL a read.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are mislead about the source of my contributions. And as for my website it can be used as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid Because as I proven, facts were checked with manufacturer and are based on their publications and sources. Example: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-147-156-166-gt-production-dates/ So taking my website out of running You Got Nothing on me! YBSOne (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you do not get to decide your website is an RS, the community does. SPS is clear that to use an SPS certain requirements must be met, in the case the only applicable one is 2 "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", you do not appear to meet his. Frankly I think you are heading for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This part is something to work on in the future it is not relevant now. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of your website, and your instance that it is an RS is at the heart of this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't The 4 points he made at the begining and 8 points I made later have nothing to do with my website. YBSOne (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is being manipulative and avoiding to use proofs now Ybsone?U¹ _quattro TALK 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it being banged on about here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because of his manipulations!!! YBSOne (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone yes it is relevant as it is you who claimed to be a journalist and a historian by the use of your website. You also used your website at the Maserati Coupé incident you pointed to multiple times. That makes it relevant here.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried to manipulate anyone here. Stop your empty accusations.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name No it isn't I posted manufacturers claims first. Then proved that I am in contact with Maserati. Just that no sourced were used from my website. Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that you contacted Maserati Classiche in edit summaries before a talk page discussion was opened and you used your website as a source which is unreliable as per WP:SPS. This is not manipulation but a fact.U¹ _quattroTALK 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation that I used my website as a source for Coupé, prove it in diffs...YBSOne (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go Ybsone this is before when you started a talk page discussion and I never said that you used it as a source in the Maserati Coupé page. I said that you used it as a source that you contacted Maserati like you said in the article's edit summary.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit summary for Coupé, this is not a source for Coupé, this is just Your talk page. No proofs still? YBSOne (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I see no problem if the website does not meet WP:SPS if it is on the talk page. Any more problems to solve? YBSOne (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Because I contacted Maserati Classiche" there you go with the edit summary. When asked for a source, you presented your website, which is unreliable.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! The website was not used as a source! The source was there since 2012. And is still there. YBSOne (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually get what I'm trying to say? I said that you used your website as a source that you had contacted Maserati. The fact that you also tried to promote your website as a reliable source on my talkpage isn't hidden either.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my website was not used as a source on the points specified. I see no further problem to discuss. May please Administrators step in and ban us already. YBSOne (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. I have presented my proofs. Yet you deny them. Proves who is being manipulative now. You have no right to dictate the admins on what to do.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"please" is uequal to "dictate". Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You telling them what to do is dictating. Stop accusing.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.citethisforme.com/topic-ideas/english/History%20of%20the%20Alfa%20Romeo%20GTV-19284871 My website as source and citation used to research history of the Alfa Romeo GTV

https://www.mlsclassiccars.dk/cars_sale/alfa_romeo_spider_3_v6.html Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

http://www.squadra916.com/history/ Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/4200-production-numbers.537650/ My website noted as a source and a compliment: "This is a great resource, one that slipped past my radar previously. Thanks for the link! "

https://automotiveviews.com/2015/02/10/gandinis-shamal-a-controversial-maserati/ My website noted as a source

https://www.sportsmaserati.com/index.php?threads/4200-production-numbers.24306/ My website noted as a source

http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1956_ferrari_250_gt_coupe_corsa/ My website noted as a source

And a rather established Petrolicious: https://petrolicious.com/articles/the-designer-s-story-battista-pininfarina

YBSOne (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four sources are forums (which you consider unreliable yourself) one source used only photos from your site. So this doesn't change the fact that your website is considered unreliable here. And I only saw praise from one Ferrari Chat forum member of your source which is certainly not the automotive press.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, read this from WP:SPS "self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." Your website is not used by established publications. Petrolicious is a new publication (established circa 2016) and is not as established as Car and Driver and La Stampa etc. So still, your website is not in conformity with WP:SPS.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of 31 May 2019 U1Quattro is still edit warring with my edits. Almost all Ferrari articles have production quotas in an infobox, that is an established practice. Yet U1Quattro removes this quotas from two articles that I have edited, because they are "unnecessary" or there is "no guideline" and leaves them on every other Ferrari article. This behaviour is clearly bias. He is not interested in an established layout but in reverting my edits and provoking a response. Here You have it.
Special:Diff/899606215Special:Diff/894035517Special:Diff/893049371Special:Diff/894035442Special:Diff/899606108
Partial list of articles with production quotas in the infobox. See for Yourselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_productionYBSOne (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone I didn't touched them after you mentioned those articles on my talk page. Look at the definition of the three revert rule, then come here. You are just spicing up the issue.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block for both users

Enough is enough, it is clear neither user is interested in working with each other, its also clear this is going to drag on. For the peace of ANI I therefor think the pair of them need as cooling down period. Please can we stop this now?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might well have done this if I'd come along a while ago, but as the last edits in this section were two hours ago, I think it would be more punishment and less preventive. Of course, I'm saying this only regarding the argument immediately above, and maybe there's something else that warrants blocking. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A block wouldn't be out of line in my opinion but I'd question whether it would help now.

That said, both editors are clearly not getting it, and this dispute is spilling over to other parts of Wikipedia and becoming disruptive, such as the bludgeoned discussion at Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (sixth generation)#Infobox. Long-term, I think a two-way IBAN is unavoidable given the behavior by both parties. --Sable232 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This block was only to stop the ANI war, hopefully it is no longer needed (and it is not just a case of Sleepy Bobo's). I suggested a two way above, and still think this is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate it seem fruitless to defend myself against U1Quattro since he just going use anything I ever said past or present as a form of accusation such as ousting or conspiracy even when its not, as he done here and here. This name dropping he did while venting with this IP user. I did repeated myself twice because I thought that comment could be used further down the discussion, I was thinking of removing the initial comment but then what the chance of him making another accusation against me that I'm trying to cover up my mistakes? Currently I'm not in any edit dispute nor planning to any time soon with U1Quattro but I believe that something should be done by now with these personal attacks against other users. --Vauxford (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[164] He now went on my talkpage again saying that I was "name calling" when I didn't say that. At the time I thought I did say that and got my words mixed up so I made this respond, I reverted after realising I didn't say "name calling" at all and redone the message. U1Quattro took offence and said I was being "manipulative". He made further accusation that I'm trying to "oust" him because I brought up two users in a past ANI who was involved in the same incident as I was.

[165] He is taking the phrase "anytime soon" literally in a sense that I'm planning to edit dispute against him when most people use that pharase as a figure of speech. This has already proven my point that whatever defence or comment I make, U1Quattro simply take it as some form of attack or accusation and seem to be threatening to use what I said above against me despite the fact I already provided the diffs from my talkpage. I'm trying my best to be neutral and calm about this situation but I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made by this user clearly suggest that he plans edit disruptions and involves me. He is also being manipulative here while accusing me to be so.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now the only solution to this, but extended to three users, this is just getting silly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The below disruption is appalling. How have there not been blocks issued for this yet?!--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool-down blocks are not to be used per WP:CDB. If a block is to be applied to either user, it should be for repeated disruption that's actively occurring and in progress or happened just recently, or it should be after expectations are set with both editors by the community after discussion and consensus (it doesn't have to be a formal ban), and following the violation of those expectations or conditions. Otherwise, this will just continue (and more heatedly so) after such blocks expire. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be (as I ask for below) IBANS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[166] U1Quattro just left a message on my talk page commenting about a edit I did last month, saying it was a recent edit, along with a personal remark between me and another user that he isn't involved in. --Vauxford (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford complaining as always.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro Because you just made that message out of the blues, putting your nose into something you weren't involved in. Before you say it, the difference with me talking about your behaviour on this incident is because it all related and involved with you and other users (including me). You had no known involvement with this user so all you did was thrown fuel on the fire, you had no other reason to put that message on my talk page other then to harass other users. --Vauxford (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford yes I had a reason. I disagree with your edits on the article I mentioned so I discussed it on the talkpage. Now if you want to complain about everything I post on your talkpage, be my guest.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iban between U1Quattro & Vauxford

No idea what created this one, but its clear its more of the same.Slatersteven (talk)

Slatersteven It because of past incidents which were already solved and done. U1Quattro has been holding a grudge against me since that 1 day block we got for edit warring. Anything I seem to say he takes as a form of attack and threaten to use it against me. I am not directly involved whatever Ybsone and U1Quattro got themselves into. I believe this situation can't go on for any longer, U1Quattro has already gotten a 1 week block for the things he doing right now and what he left on my talkpage which I provided diffs for. I'm sorry if that sounds threatening but I don't know how else to put it.

*Support I think a IBAN between me and U1Quattro would be helpful. I'm tired of getting all these talkpage messages from him just because I'm giving my own testimony unrelated to this Ybsone incident. --Vauxford (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since when you were asked to give a testimony Vauxford? I opened this discussion because of my greviance against Ybsone. You didn't had anything to do with it.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.U¹ _quattro TALK 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although I do support this IBAN I believe U1Quattro's recent behaviour towards users in general should be look at by a administrator. --Vauxford (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The disputes between these two will clearly flare up again and again otherwise. Vauxford's inserting himself into this one, given the recent history, was out of line. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentSable232 How was speaking out about someone was out of line? I thought it was appropriate to have my said about the problem? This user has been under hot water and dispute with several users, not just me and this Ybsone user. I inserted what I said above because I believe something really need to be done U1Quattro can't go on with this sort of behaviour towards others. --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you've had significant disputes with U1Quattro in the very recent past, and bringing that up here in an unrelated matter gives the appearance of "piling on" and only makes things worse, as you can see from what resulted above. At times like this it's better to exercise the discretion to stay out of it unless your input is asked for (in my opinion). If YBSOne had started this discussion about U1Quattro instead of the other way around, it may have been appropriate; but as it is, I don't believe it was. (I could be wrong in that assessment though, if anyone wants to change my mind). --Sable232 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline Scratch that, this IBAN seem to me is just a attempt sweep the problem under the rug, it been a week and no admin intervention has actually been done for this whole incident and the likely outcome for all of this is keeping a few mouths shut. I showed my diffs to proven U1Quattro hasn't learnt after his 1 week block with the personal attacks and combative behaviour. What I "inserted" in this incident was actually meant to be sub-incident rather then the one about U1Quattro and Ybsone. But I guess having someone have their say about the user in question is "out of line". --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford had given his testimony because he can clearly see who was wronged here. Just because U1Quattro preemptively struck this action against me doesn't mean that he is the innocent party. May I remind You that this action was taken after I asked him to stop vandalising my work. And in reply he reported me. This is how twisted this is. Vauxford and I do not have any alliance. We were both wronged by the same user - U1Quattro, and both our patience ran out. YBSOne (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford, you don't have any proof of what you said here. You were repulsive to me, you got the same behaviour in return. The same goes with Ybsone. If you're talking about Carguy1701, he was coming off on my talkpage hot headed. The way I see it, you inserted yourself in this matter which had got nothing to do with you in order to pile up evidence and attempt to oust me from editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone you also threatened me to take the matters to administration, please bear that in mind. Posing as the innocent party won't make you innocent. "Vandalising my work" sure, that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro Read the diffs. --Vauxford (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford I say it after reading the diffs. You had me reported on ANI so you shouldn't slip into other matters when I report someone else as you're basically over me after the decision of the admins. Sable232 is right. You were out of the line here.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What he said also that he "could be wrong in that assessment" [167], [168], [169], [170], [171] and [172]. These diffs proven that the 1 week block hasn't change the way you treat me and other users such as Ybsone, Carguy1701, Toasted Meter, and possibility other people in the past. --Vauxford (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford you got these messages on your talk page because you decided to put yourself in a matter you had no relation with. Further, there is a reason you get this kind of a behaviour. You are yourself repulsive against me. You get what you give in return. As for the other users, I haven't interacted with Toasted Meter. Carguy1701 was also told by a user to back of because of his out of the line attitude.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found this evidence which suggests that this user is not the innocent party here and his behaviour keeps getting worse.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro Grasping straws, that discussion on my talkpage is something unrelated to what your doing. The situation I was having with Charles01 was way before this and most of it isn't resulting in insulting and throwing threats. To be honest, it feels more one-sided since as far as I am aware I haven't done anything that would directly provoke him to be like that to me. Your misunderstanding the take that I'm maintaining innocent when I'm not. At the end of the day, you were the one who got blocked for genuinely harassing users and already proven the block did nothing towards your attitude and I believe this should of been reviewed at over a week ago. --Vauxford (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford since you're the one bringing my talkpage into this, I would bring yours into this as well. Your own behaviour will also be assessed here which is nothing short of bad and disruptive.03:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro I don't think there anything to be assessed for me, not what I'm aware of, I don't remember making any recent personal attacks or accusation on somebody with no evidence to support, all I have been doing is putting my testimony against your behaviour since I don't think you learnt from your 1 week block while being calm and content while I'm speaking. I believe I haven't done anything considerably disruptive since my 1 day block which was a month ago but all the diffs I provided about you are all shortly after your block and it the same stuff you did that made you got it in the first place, straw grabbing whatever scrap I got with Charles01 recently isn't a reason why I am being "bad and disruptive" and unrelated to this ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford you haven't learnt anything from your blocks either. The recent assesement of your behaviour by Charles01 shows that. Now I have got nothing to say to you since you inserted yourself in this matter which had nothing to do with you.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro I got blocked for edit warring, not for personal attacks against other users. I might of got myself into a scrap with Charles01 but I didn't edit warring. I did (attempt) to discuss it on the talkpage but Charles01 did a I presumed a outburst of frustration and reverted it prematurely before the discussion was finished which I reverted back, other then that, I haven't got into any edit wars like I did to get me that block. Look, I'm sorry U1Quattro but no matter what the case with me, and Sable pointed this out, you have continued doing what you got blocked for, within no more then 24 hours after you got unblocked. That all I'm going to say. --Vauxford (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford if you have read, Sable232 also pointed out your out of the line attitude which you have adapted here. Your apologies are rejected.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro You are right, I misread that, however, I personally don't think it was out of line and Sable was questioning that himself. --Vauxford (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford your personal thoughts matter next to nothing. You were out of the line. Infact, you shouldn't be here arguing anyways since this matter doesn't concern you.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iban between U1Quattro & Ybsone

This is the only solution as far as I can see.Slatersteven (talk)

SupportYBSOne (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportU¹ _quattro TALK 00:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As was commented before on my behalf I may not know the lingo Special:Diff/898595031. If this IBAN is a temporary solution to give Administrators a chance to come to a conclusion and block faulty party or parties, then I agree. BUT if this IBAN is the only punishment and the matter will be dropped, in my opinion it would just be a slap on the wrist and I would have to decline. I was under the impression that this two-way IBAN is just to stop us from bludgeoning this hearing and still a serious decision will be made later. I was wronged by U1Quattro and I demand justice. YBSOne (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I decline this solution. I feel it is not serious enough. YBSOne (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly didn't gave ANI Advice a read. You cannot come out here demanding justice. The admins would do what they think is best. I whole heartedly agree with the IBAN since then I wouldn't have to deal with you anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. Just because You reported me does not mean that this is not Your trial. You want to accept smaller punishment beause You don't want to be held accountable for Your actions. Le me quote on the admins (or a user) Special:Diff/898595031: "It's rather clear to me that Ybsone is here to build an encyclopedia and wants this mess to be over."

And this is about You: "In all but naming the essay, they are trying to communicate that the reporting user is trying to WP:BLUDGEON the ANI thread by muddying the waters. Given the personal attacks made against Ybsone and Vauxford... My suggestion would be a one-way WP:IBAN to prevent further harassment. U1Quattro clearly has a checkered record [4] and listed themselves as semi-retired. One-way should end the disruption."

You will not manipulate Your way out of responsibility. YBSOne (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsone showing old thoughts of a user about you, won't change anything. This diff is before you started to show your true self here. You won't weasel your way out of here by these tactics. By insisting that your personal website is a credible source while it's not and by showing that no one can correct your mistakes, you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this ANI thread is any indication of the interminable and disruptive feuding between these two, I'd say a temporary topic ban is in order for both to allow a cool down and a rethink of exactly what this project is all about. Both of them clearly have a great deal of work to do when it comes to pursuing a collaborative approach to editing. I don't think an IBAN will achieve much except business as usual plus the silent treatment, with the possibility of an increase in disruptive editing doing the talking. RandomGnome (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro"showing old thoughts" Those old thoughts are as of 16:45, 24 May 2019 and my last reply to the main thrad is from 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) so yeah, chronology. I have proven without a doubt, even though it was not required from me, that I am seen as an expert in automotive community and that my website is cited even by an establised, from 2012 is not new (again chronology), publications. To prove to Wikipedia community that it is a reliable source will be just a formality in my opinion and I will not discuss it further here. To my use of word 'work' in substitution to 'contribution' or 'edit' You immediately propagate that: "that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes", is just a manipulation of a simple word. YBSOne (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia" is just Your opinion and I disagree with it. You have ran out of arguments against me and have to change the meaning of words to invent new insults. YBSOne (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That user only posted his thoughts on the matter and you're using it as a weapon by posting it on here and on your user page. Let the community decide whether you want to build an encyclopedia or not and be collaborative. Your recent behaviour suggests that you're not in the mood to do those things. You are only considered an "automotive expert" by forum members which are themselves unreliable sources. Petrolicious (a new automotive website) posted your website only as a reference, this doesn't make you an automotive expert.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a temporary ban above. I would support a TBAN of some kind at this stage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is rather clear that this user is on a a new level of starting another disruption by posting the thoughts of other users about this dispute on his talkpage when a decision has not been made.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is only clear to the person who invented yet another argument out of thin air. My talk page is clear of other users "thoughts", proof: (talk). You are still bludgeoning this thread with those fantastic accusations. YBSOne (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Non-administrator comment) Having read this dumpster fire of an ANI somewhat thoroughly, it appears the two users will not be able to discuss with each other in a civil fashion. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

While this discussion has been successfully bludgeoned to the point where few uninvolved editors are willing to comment, there seems to be agreement among those few for two-way interaction bans in each case.

I would suggest that the three involved parties read WP:IBAN thoroughly, and then read it again. An IBAN is not a trifling action; trying to goad someone into a response or obliquely referring to them in a talk page comment or edit summary is a violation of the ban and will result in a block. These disputes have disrupted the project long enough. --Sable232 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sable232 Just a disclaimer, I am not pointing fingers at anyone but, I think this could of been prevented if there was someone to intervene a week ago, before the first eruption. I didn't want to say anything or try to rush the process of this incident but I waited and waited for something to happen, I don't understand why no one intervened and get it done and dealt with, regardless the consequences it would be for me and the other users. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. YBSOne (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An IBAN would keep me away from these two disturbing users so I agree with it even if those two don't agree since I was the one posting about the behaviours of Ybsone here. I believe now someone moved ahead and put the suggested three way IBAN in place because these two just want to point fingers rather than solve the matters.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All three of you (I do not care who started it) could have said "WE WILL STAY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER!", none of you really have. Instead you have continued to bicker (even now) and point fingers. As to why no one intervened, I am not aware of what started this. But Admins cannot look at or police every article. If you do not report problems they cannot know about them. But what you should not do is take the law into your open hands and engage in this kind of dispute. Can we please end this now?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Ybsone's behaviour started this ofcourse. Don't know why Vauxford interfered here, seems to me he doesn't like to see me on Wiki due to some unknown reasons that's why he comes here pointing to talk page discussions this issue has nothing to do with. I had proposed to avoid Vauxford when I discussed the issue I was having with him with an admin but his response was "Don't know how we can avoid each other since we edit the same articles". I support the IBAN as I don't have to deal with these two anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shouldn't of interfered with this in the first place, but that doesn't mean I can't make a separate incident discussion and just move all the evidences I provided about your behaviour, and do it before this IBAN get put into place to all three of us, it up to you and Ybsone to solve whatever this supercar sourcing dispute. "If you do not report problems they cannot know about them." The diffs of U1Quattro's disruptive behaviour was me reporting a problem (unrelated to all of this). Again I shouldn't of and I instead do it in a separate discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford you don't seem to know how you report a problem. You're just shoving your made up issue into this issue without a reason.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask anyone to wade into this disaster any further, but @Floquenbeam: and/or @Oshwah: as the only two administrators who've commented here, could either of you bring this to a close? --Sable232 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to ping: I'm sorry, I looked at this a week or two ago (?!) but don't have time (or the stomach), to read thru this ridiculous waste of electrons again. And even if I wanted to read this again, I wouldn't be around for the inevitable ADMINACCTapalooza appeal that would inevitably follow, so I'm not going to do anything myself. Frankly, my recommendation would be an indef block for U1Quattro for being just relentlessly obnoxious whenever anyone disagrees with them, and for not caring even a tiny bit about other people's time. I know I would NEVER knowingly edit any article they were active on; editing with them seems like it would be a horrible experience. If not, certainly a final "knock it the fuck off" warning would be in order. I get the distinct impression YBSOne behaves similarly, but at a somewhat lower intensity level; I just don't know whether an indef block would be appropriate for them too, or if they're doing it in response to U1Quattro and get along well with others. I didn't get the impression Vauxford actually did anything really wrong this time around (after a previous run in with U1Quattro a while ago) but I could be wrong. Maybe they should be punished just for being dumb enough to dive into this nightmare thread? I'm certainly not going to read this thing again to find out. I suppose the cowardly way out (but possibly the most efficient, time-wise) would be mutual interaction bans all around, and maybe 1RR restrictions all around, and being put on notice of a zero tolerance policy for obnoxiousness going forward. Doing that for all 3 seem like it would be rewarding U1Quattro for much more appalling behavior, though. But it's easy. This thread, by the way, is Exhibit #5418 for the thesis "ANI is a dysfunctional wasteland". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If you ask me (which you didn't) slap a three-way i-ban on all of them, topped off with some final warnings for YBS and U1, and call it a day. The sooner this mess is off the top half of ANI the better. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only really judge buy this ANI, and it seems to me all three have issues (some are worse then others, but it may just be a clash of personalities as I have never interacted wit any of them before). I have suggested a three way (well actually two two ways), that will give all users a chance to prove they are not just a annoyance we need to remove.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case (and at risk of overstepping bounds on my part), this discussion is closed with both proposed interaction bans implemented, and everyone can move on. --Sable232 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sable232: Reopening this thread. Please read WP:INVOLVED, you should never close a sanction discussion where you yourself participated. Apart from the very obvious fact that there is no consensus for any sanctions here, in which case only administrators are in the capacity to impose sanctions, in case of discretionary sanctions and conditional unblocks (classified as an unilateral sanction, different from a community sanction as being discussed here). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the proposed IBANs. I'm going to be perfectly honest, I skimmed 90% of the interactions between the feuding editors after the first few paragraphs made it clear that they were not going to stop hounding each other without an intervention. (Non-administrator comment) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bmurph42069

Could someone please review the contributions of the above user and see what needs to be done? Looks like mostly vandalism to me, sometimes self-reverted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheOneAndOnly9000

Obviously asking for removal of TPA. See e. g. this filter catch or this edit I'm going to revert now. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Maggs article (COI/paid editing, multiple account use, legal threat)

User:Mike Galvin

197.47.155.23

Death threat by 172.56.28.83

I know it's archived, but for context this IP hopper has engaged in low-level harassment of longevity editors for several months now. My guess is it's someone who doesn't like the mass removal of longevity cruft we've been undertaking. This morning I got a couple love letters myself, though I don't bother deleting the ones directed at me; in addition to the IP zzuuzz linked to above I got Special:Contributions/208.54.36.219. Don't know how that would factor into a rangeblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a longevity "fan". Didn't think of that. Because of the mention of Beall, I thought it had something to do with (predatory) academic publishing. But this is possible, too. Of course, a death threat surpasses "low-level harassment"... --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I've cleaned a couple of those off Newshunter12's talkpage as well, the messages all bear striking similarity. I suppose I should have said "infrequently" instead of low-level, although it has picked up this past week. Whoever this is clearly doesn't want any of us to surpass Jiroemon Kimura! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way these T-Mobile addresses often work is that there's one /23 within 172.56, one /23 within 172.58, and then one /24 within 208.54 (that's quite standard but there's some other variations). Also while I'm here, I believe a CU has taken a look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A longevity fan issuing a death threat has a certain artistry, don't it? EEng 22:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure there's a COI there :) Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Account compromised and User Should be checked clearly.

Behavior of Roy McCoy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Matching commas on attributive nouns in titles

65.222.251.100 - COI

The IP address, 65.222.251.100, according to WHOIS data, belongs to the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. The Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory article, and other Naval Reactors-related articles, have been edited from there. Since it is an IP user, I don't know how this is best addressed. Psu256 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psu256 - There's nothing we need to do at this time, since this IP address is stale and hasn't edited for over a month. If the IP user resumes editing and on articles where a conflict of interest is a concern, we just need to warn and advise the user about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and (if repeated after numerous warnings) reported to this noticeboard. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01 behaviour

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

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

Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [202]

Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [203]

More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [204]

Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [205]

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [206] [207] His reply to the template message [208]

Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [209]

Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [210] [211]

Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [212]

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [213] [214]

I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [215] [216] [217]

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

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

Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Tendentious and disruptive editing by User:Excalibur26

I believe that Excalibur26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making bad-faith contributions to wikipedia.

Heavily biased edit with citations that don't support the claim:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=899712575
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=899713481

User deletes cited material added by others:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_C._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=883390317
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Phillips_(activist)&diff=prev&oldid=879279942
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reed_O%27Connor&diff=prev&oldid=873928132

User seems to have some history of edit warring, on their talk page.

I don't have any knowledge of the edit warring, just came across the edit on Cloward-Piven strategy and decided to look at the user.

74.103.158.94 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur26 Fixing Ping, Please see messages above... ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁 21:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be here at the editing warring noticeboard instead, and you still need to tell the user that you listed them here by using the template listed above. Thank You. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Skeptical Raptor at Sharyl Attkisson BLP

SkepticalRaptor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made this comment on the talk page of journalist Sharyl Attkisson

[218]

This NPA violation is made worse by the fact that SR had every reason to believe Sharyl Attkisson would read the comment, since she is presently active on the talk page. SR should be immediately banned from her page. Further sanctions are surely in order as well. petrarchan47คุก 16:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say warning, but as they seem to have posted this three or four times yes, I think a TBAN is in order. No idea what brought that on, as they do not seem that active on the page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a TBAN from the page is merited at the very least as the attack is bitter with needless hostility. Unless SkepticalRaptor is able to indicate contrition and understanding, a preventative block seems called for as well. Jusdafax (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, it looks like Skeptical Raptor posted the attack, and then added a blank line and a header above his post, not quite the same as posting it repeatedly. - Donald Albury 18:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my mistake, but they did also then decide to empathize it by making it its own section. It looks like deliberate trolling. But as it was in fact only once a warming may be in order. Though it is hard to see any justification for this attack.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's nice they found it within themselves to empathize, at least. EEng 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I agree with you for the most part and will add that I can't think of anything that would justify such behavior, much less excuse such a degrading and vile PA against a female journalist. It clearly demonstrated SR's animus toward her, unlike any outburst of frustration or a moment of losing one's patience like what I've seen in my time here as an editor. We must not lose sight of the fact that WP is first and foremost a neutral encyclopedia, and as such, editors are not only expected to express their POV in a civil manner, they are obligated to do so in an effort to reach consensus. We reach consensus through civil discourse, not by vehemently attacking, polarizing and personalizing a BLP we may view as the opposition or simply because they have a POV much different from our own. I would support an indef article ban and if the behavior is repeated in another BLP, then a t-ban more broadly construed should be considered. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely reads as a personal attack (not just against a journalist, but someone who is a fellow editor active on that page) and there should be consequence, but saying she promotes pseudoscience is not a BLP violation. She has made fake claims about vaccines and autism for years and has promoted congressional investigations into vaccines and autism. This has received coverage in major outlets. Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user claims that to find and add negative content about her would be "fun". No editor who finds it enjoyable to add negative content to a BLP, especially after showing such hostility toward the subject, should be allowed near the page. I'm not aware of any claims she's made (from reliable sources) to justify the "anti-science" comment. You have cited a music blog and an opinion piece from The Hill as justification. petrarchan47คุก 19:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins, there is also an SPA on the talk page making matters worse with off topic commentary. petrarchan47คุก 19:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, there are reliable sources for "right-wing" [219], "anti-science" [220] and her pseudoscientific anti-vax stuff [221] [222], so the only real BLP issue there is putting !"journalist" in scare quotes. However, I'd note that a Google search for "Sharyl Attkisson pseudoscience" does suggest that Skeptical Raptor has an axe to grind here. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have given SkepticalRaptor a 24 hour block. I consider the comment as a whole, taken in context, as a BLP violation and an unacceptable personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I am not concerned about the pseudoscience stuff. It is certainly not out of bounds to say that Attkisson has promoted pseudoscientific views. Even if it's not true, it has an element of truth, and we should err on the side of permissiveness on talk pages to ensure that the arguments of editors of all stripes are heard and evaluated against our policies and guidelines.

What I am concerned about is SR's comment that Attkisson's list of awards, which is extensive and includes some of the most prominent awards in journalism, is "pathetic" and that including it in our article is "fanboi crap." That's a pretty egregious personal attack and BLP violation.

All that being said, as far as I can tell this was just a drive-by comment and there's no indication SR is sticking around to do cause more disruption. I think a warning should be sufficient. R2(bleep) 20:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrtoodeetoo, I do not understand your "sticking around" comment since Skeptical Raptor has been an active editor since 2012 doing a lot of good work involving vaccines, homeopathy, creationism and pseudoscience. They should continue that good work without engaging in bitter personal insults against BLP subjects. Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 20:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean they don't seem to be dwelling at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson and continuing their personal attacks. R2 (bleep) 20:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor is Attkisson? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

173.66.57.46. I believe she also edited under an account back in 2012. You can find her in the talk page archives. R2(bleep) 21:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She is and she has. I’ve welcomed her on her talk, advised her to create an account, and added a closer contributor notice to the talk. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New sock of User:Dragonrap2

• Please see 104.243.170.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quick and disruptive. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim198 again

A registered user is removing my edits and belittling my IP status

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

Andy Dingley is a Cyber Bully

Darts editor

Disruptive user

Nationalism, nationalistic sentiment, lack of neutrality, lack of response

• Stan Tincon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) utilizes pro-German nationalistic (Wikipedia:Nationalist editing) sentiment and exaggeration on articles related to Poland and its history. Disrupts all Polish articles linked to Germany, lots of mistakes and somewhat anti-Polish sentiment which can be clarified by the highly un-neutral and controversial tone when adding irrelevant information on cities or towns that are part of the Recovered territories. This has been going on for weeks or months perhaps. I posted an answer on the user's talk page, however, it was completely ignored. User:Mike Winowicz has also noticed this action and also posted a message on Stan Tincon's page but no again no answer was provided. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Stan Tincon has misunderstood the meaning of Wikipedia and turned it into a political and controversial tool to misinform users. By adding singular secondary sources, the user exaggerates, blames and adds biased information. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Stan Tincon has incorporated personal lengthy opinions instead of well-sourced factual sentences. In every single alteration nationalist editing is clearly present, which suggests that the user's permanent role on Wikipedia is to continue this conduct. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Elbląg - 0 Not true; personal opinion. I explained why on Stan Tincons's talk page.
• Malbork - 1 No source given. Apart from resettlement and language change to signs the castle was reconstructed.
• Dobre Miasto - 2 Is this addition necessary?
• Krosno Odrzańskie - 3 Exaggeration and strange language.
• Kołobrzeg - 4 No source. Contradicts to Slavic settlement.
• Szczecinek - 5 Not neutral. Hasn't explored why Germans were expelled nor who has conducted this. Suggests Poles stole property, if so a source needed.
• Jelenia Góra - 6 Poor grammar, punctuation. Obviously does not care how the information is written as long as it is there. The source seems unreliable; no page given nor link to the published source.
• Masurian Lake District - 7 Ceded per Potsdam Agreement, not just annexed and kicked out.
• Gryfów Śląski - 8 Again the same unnecessary exaggeration about being "settled for centuries".
• Warmia - 9 Per Potsdam Conference borders were redrawn. I don't know anything any peace conference and no source provided.
• Świebodzice - 10 Personal misleading opinion. Suggests Poland was complicit in redrawing the borders without a source.
• Poznań - 11 So he describes Poles as settlers after border changes in World War II, but the Germans that came to settle in Poznań after it was annexed by Prussia in the 18th-century were normal ordinary citizens. There is a trace pro-German or anti-Polish sentiment entailed.

I think a warning is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find many of these edits unobjectionable. For example, it is clearly correct to call the territorial changes between Germany and Poland after WWII "annexation" rather than "cession" (since Germany wasn't in any position to voluntarily "cede" anything at that point); it's also correct to not call people "settlers" after they and their ancestors had lived in a certain place for several centuries (as opposed to a new population group coming in after them). These are legitimate content disagreements, if anything. On the other hand, several of the additions have a WP:COATRACK tone to them, and insisting on the term "annexation" for the Polish-German territory shifts while at the same time changing "annexed" to "reattached" for the Polish-Soviet shifts reeks of tendentiousness. Also, for a newish contributor with a couple hundred edits to be focussing entirely on edits of this kind is something of a warning sign, so I do agree he needs to be advised to dial it down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that a warning will be sufficient enough; the user was already informed and he continues to edit only the articles that have to do with war or repressions against Germans, or former German territories. This has been going on for months and it seems the account was created for that purpose. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Oliszydlowski, you forgot to notify Stan of this thread, which you were required to do. I'm doing this now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that by linking the name he would receive notification. Thank you for doing so. Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the header says (although in smaller text) "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole continued tendentious editing on Catholicism and homosexuality

Previously discussed on NPOVN; I've brought over the evidence from there as well.

Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs), formerly BrianCUA, has an ongoing problem with disruptive editing of topics related to Catholicism and homosexuality; his edits have the result of functioning as promotion for the Church and its various affiliate organizations, but are also misbehavior on their own independent of any promotional or non-neutral aim. A selection:

• Feb. 2019: Slugger adds euphemistic, promotional wording which was very explicitly rejected by the other users (FreeKnowledgeCreator, Doniago, Contaldo80, and myself) in a discussion in which Slugger participated two months earlier. Slugger claims in this edit that there is no consensus against the wording that he is trying to add.
• Feb. 2019: Among other NPOV violations related to promotional content and WP:WEIGHT, Slugger insists on vaguely writing "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people" in place of the more clear and source-supported "against LGBT rights," insisting that to say "rights" would violate NPOV and, nonsensically, that because LGBT people are also interested in other matters, "rights" is overly narrow. (Here's the only other user in the discussion besides myself, Contaldo80, specifically rejecting this proposal.)
• June 2019[223]: Slugger removes text indicating that the Church "opposes the extension of at least some aspects of civil rights legislation, such as nondiscrimination in public housing, educational or athletic employment, adoption, or military recruitment, to gay men and lesbians", claiming that it is not in the source. The sources read:
  • ...In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples....Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated [in initiatives with negative impact on the family]....There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. and
  • in some matters...concern for the commonwealth justifies [sexual orientation] being taken into account. For example, the church teaches that discrimination based on sexual orientation is justified in the employment of teachers and coaches and in military recruitment.

The latter I had already directly quoted for him (after his first attempt to remove it, falsely claiming it was unsourced), and the former is right at the beginning of the source.

• June 2019[224][225]: Slugger, astoundingly, continues to edit-war against the statement that the Church is politically active against LGBT rights. This time, it is "active politically to support or oppose civil government legislation on the basis of Catholic moral theology and Catholic Social Teaching," which goes beyond being a WP:WEIGHT violation and somehow manages to convey no information at all.
• It's the little things: June 2019, an organization which campaigns against LGBT discrimination has as its function to "advocate for LGBT people to be able to engage in sexual acts."

I can really only say what I said in February - I do not know how else to proceed when, say nothing of listening to me, this user will not listen to anyone who disagrees with him even when formal procedures like 3O have been followed, will flat-out claim they agree with him when they do not, and will remove very blatantly source-supported text, claiming it isn't supported, on a whim. This is a user behavior issue, not a case of any given discussion needing broader input.

The topic area of Christianity and sexuality is subject to an ArbCom case, but unless I'm mistaken, this does not belong at Arb Enforcement because there are no general discretionary sanctions. Please let me know if this does in fact belong there instead.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the first point, as I explained in my edit summary, I had a different understanding of the consensus. When I later understood that the consensus was against me on a broader scope, I accepted it. That article has been stable for months now. On the second and fourth, I still contend that the issues of importance to that population go beyond rights, to things like AIDS prevention. I also don't believe, as I have explained to Roscelese, that explaining what the basis of the Church's decision is violates Weight. As to the third, the text Roscelese is citing is not on the page she cited. I later found it, but still believe there is a difference between teaching that something may be "justified" in some circumstances and "actively opposing" it in all, which is what she said. As to her final point, I AGREED with her and edited the text to reflect so. She was right, I was wrong. Currently, the paragraph in question was last edited by Roscelese. I'm not sure what her issue is there.

More broadly, three weeks ago I suggested a group effort to try and calm tensions, build good will, and learn to collaborate with one another. No one, including Roscelese, took me up on that offer, even though she was pinged about it at the time. I started working on it in the last few days when no one else took the lead. Rosclese then came in and made some edits in response to mine. When I agreed with her, as shown above, I said so. I've even publicly thanked her four times in the last day or so for her edits to this article. I am willing to work with anyone who works with me. I am often the one who requests 3O or RfC when things get contentious. And, even when the consensus is against me, I respect it. I am sorry to see what was supposed to be an effort to build good will end up like this. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gregotheus 01

OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request

Two successive issues have occurred with Lithopsian that have issues with OWN or a NPOV. (Everything corresponded here[226])

• Changing sources and dropping them into a reflist.[227] Policy is clear, as stated, but it is deemed by them as "...a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. " and asserts that: "If you seriously think I'm contravening the policy, now or two years ago, you know where to go. Discussion over, here at least."[228]. (then closing the discussion with an archive template.) CITEVAR is clear and concerns stated appear justified.

• A response to Talk:Antares on magnitudes here[229], being transferred from their talkpage here[230] and described as "moving content-related whinge to mainspace talk page" The response is problematically saying: "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you. We're not here to change the world, or right great wrongs." No support for this and nothing to be able to achieve any consensus, where the question arose with this edit.[231] They did a similar set of edits to the star magnitudes in Crux for nine instances here[232] This was explain to them and notified here[233]. They didn't respond.

Usage needs to be applied so the pages like the recent significant edits like: Photometry (astronomy), Apparent magnitude, Magnitude (astronomy), Photographic magnitude or Absolute magnitude can be further improved. Discussions like here[234] have been very positive.

Yes. Their own contributions have been greatly improved the project on astronomy related articles. No contest. But there seems a growing tendency of intolerance by this editor towards other obvious POV that differs from their own views. These two issues seem to support this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Lithopsian on the usage of language in the arugment above. I recommend any uninvolved admin look at the size of Talk:Rigel and its contents and draw their own conclusions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord. First bullet - L's (very minor) tweak of the ref location is precisely per WP:CITEVAR. No issue there.

Second bullet - editorial issue, take to article talk page.

Neither one of these has any NPOV implications whatsoever. Quit spamming ANI with asinine complaints. VQuakr (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you haven't read the link on CITEVAR. Again:

WP:CITEVAR also says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." It also says under To be 'avoided'': "changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist."

Lithopsian has done both, whose response is "And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. If you don't like the policy, take it up at the policy page." Yet the words above is the policy. e.g. They did not seek consensus to change and they are moving cites around seemingly to be DE. Is this an example of an "asinine complaint"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is asinine because even if you were correct it wouldn't merit a trip to ANI. But as it happens, you are also not correct - the edits you have linked were examples of making the citations within that single article consistent, per WP:CITEVAR. You excised the relevant condition from your selective quote above: When an article is already consistent... VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read the reasoning in the ANI. They changed the cite format here[235] on the 18 Oct 2017. Before this the article was: ...already consistent...

Even if this were deemed acceptable, they also did this[236]. Evidence suggest they've done this. What's wrong here is it a disruptive tactic being done likely to avoid scrutiny and making article editing by others more difficult. That damages the project but help editors not to waste time ajudging new contributions.

Perhaps instead of discrediting and undermining everything that is said, it is better to use objectivity. Is the evidence given true? That's the point. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, the edit you cite here: [237] only makes the referencing consistent. Note, also, that the edit you are complaining about was from a year and a half ago. Attic Salt (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this is all a distraction. Lithopsian's position here is seemingly untenable, because even when faced with specific usage, they are prepared to both revert back to some own singular viewpoint. This is not the first time e.g. RfC: Inclusion of this statement under 'Nomenclature' and their (unsigned) reesponse[238] It doesn't help when his eagerly apostles seemingly blindly follow their lead and unable to be pliable enough to accept the evidence, even when it is overwhelming. Lithopsian in saying: "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you." sets a dangerous precedent as it damages the whole point of Wikipedia - based on statements supported by verifiable sources. Impositions like this edit by them on Deneb[239], but they don't even bother to respond to an RfC Bayer designation#RfC : Placement of Alternative Names (They were advised). Another is that Rigel has no variable star designation, when it does. Dismissing that Rigel doesn't under go blue loops, even though it is cited, but they remove it as alleged 'fantasy', but use the same source on another related page.

The big problem with OWN is that it destroys the ability to collaborate between editors, and it attempts to enforce a singular viewpoint. It also discourages other editors from contributing unless they tow the line on that viewpoint.

This given text that is based on International Astronomical Union (IAU) precepts, and it was reverted back on Lithopsian's opinion without evidence ("nobody does it") and based on this they content, on their word alone, "I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you." No consensus, no compromise, just dictating a POV. Yet they repeatably by doing this across multiple articles and get bolder every time it is ignored. Worst, they merrily ignore any involvement and do something else, and leave others to squabble over the mess they leave behind. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd case of citation bombing by Pr12402

Note: this was originally reported on WP:CCLEAN.

On and off since 2017, Pr12402 has been citation bombing (WP:REFBOMB) a handful of articles to a height of absurdity I've never seen. Single sentences have up to 30 citations apiece, and this article about a Belarusian band has 327 citations, almost 50 more than the article on the American Civil War. It's almost surreal how bloated the citations in these articles are. See also: Cyruĺnia Svietu; Gentleman (Hair Peace Salon album); Open Space (band); Bristeil; beZ bileta. I was going to speak to this user myself, but I feel something like this warrants an intervention from an administrator. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27 - I don't see anywhere on Pr12402's user talk page where anyone has attempted to notify them or even educate them in good faith about over-adding citations to articles where their placement aren't trivial, relevant, or useful. I see one warning left for this user in January 2019 about overlinking, but that's completely different from "reference bombing." I think we need to start at square one here: We need to assume good faith on the user's part (I'm sure that he/she believes that their edits adding references are helping; any user doing this would...) and talk to them about their edits, and try to educate the user in a positive and encouraging manner. Just leave them a custom note and help them out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Pr12402 has absolutely been informed about this problem, but not necessarily on his/her talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon, Talk:Hair Peace Salon, and the currently in-progress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Space (band). Those are the ones in which I have participated, there may be others. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk Contribs) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also created a thread at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard asking what is their relation to the brand since this user was the main contributor (over 90% of edits) for both the Belarusian and the English version of Hair Peace Salon. They never replied and it had no consequences. I totally agree that this editor's behavior is beyond a simple warning or a "nice word". They should be banned for the disruptive editing. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go on the record saying I'd support something like a WP:TBAN. Pr's rampant, chronic, intractable disruptive editing and general disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines (and basic etiquette) combined with their complete inability to acknowledge – let alone learn from – mistakes makes it unambiguous that a nice word or even a slap on the wrist will not change this editor's behavior in any meaningful capacity. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a nice word may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pr12402 (talk·contribs)'s reaction to the problem of refbombing Hair Peace Salon was to offer more refs (Special:Diff/872893540 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon). This needs more than a nice word. Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After the deletion discussion was closed on 28 December 2018, practically nothing was added by me to Hair Peace Salon. What's wrong with this? ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ The notability of the subject had to be verified by the multiple sources already put in there before 10 December 2018, I don't know why the deletion discussion was being re-listed multiple times and took so long. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

It is true that you have made no additions to the article, but everyone in that discussion other than you has recommended significant reductions to the article, which you have resisted with red herring arguments that ignore Wikipedia policy, especially WP:CITEKILL and WP:MASK. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk Contribs) 00:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some additional evidence to consider here: a while back, I PRODed an article created by Pr12402, Harkin Deximire as part of new page patrol. They responded by going to an article I had created and with a different signature rather hostilely threatened to nominate it for deletion and cast completely unfounded aspersions as to the subject's notability. A few days ago, they attempted to canvass me to an ongoing AfD, where they pretty clearly demonstrate that they don't understand how to cite sources (and possibly English). As additional evidence of this pattern of behavior, see Talk:Hair Peace Salon and the associated AfD. While they haven't been warned with templates, at this point multiple experienced editors have very patiently tried to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to them such that template-warning would be overly bureaucratic and unlikely to be productive. In line with Cabayi's suggestion, we've tried nice words and it hasn't helped much. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Rosguill has declared that knows Russian, the language of the main scope of sources over at Open Space, and had shown the deep knowledges of ins and outs of WP:GNG over at Talk:Obongjayar, it should be considered an appropriate notification. IMHO. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

Please see my comment below elaborating on why both this and another related instance of canvassing by Pr would be classified as inappropriate notifications per Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to what I said before and to Rosguill's comment, I'm not going to sugarcoat this: this editor's disruptive behavior is chronic, rampant, and completely intractable. Any article they touch in a non-trivial capacity is run into the ground unilaterally by them because of their flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines and for other editors' input. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE, and no amount of kind and informative messages on their talk page is going to change this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've kindly explained some takes over at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Space (band), and personally for TheTechnician27 over at #Pump the brakes. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

• Speaking of, it would appear Pr12402 has also kindly explained some takes here where they tried to WP:CANVASS another editor into an ongoing discussion for deletion, much like they did to Rosguill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Wikipedia:Canvassing, it is an appropriate notification ("Editors known for expertise in the field"), since Melilac has shown decent abilities to contribute in Russian and Belarusian (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Melilac) and therefore could rightfully evaluate sources in these languages what is useful to the deletion discussion on Open Space while the majority of disputed sources there are presented in these languages. -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

• You'll also note that, according to WP:CANVASS, under 'Inappropriate notification', we have Campaigning and Vote-stacking. Campaigning is defined as: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." I wonder if leading with "Foreigners here are too obsessed" and "Of course the one who nominated does not know the source language" count as a 'non-neutral manner'; I'll have to think on that. Moreover, vote-stacking is defined as: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a [...] prior statement)". It's been made abundantly clear that you support the article being kept, and you state: "According to your understanding of the WP:GNG on the example of Talk:Obongjayar, the article meets it", which can also be construed as "Campaigning", since you not-so-subtly nod them toward voting to keep the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have pondered Pr12402's obsession with hundreds of citations to support trivial tidbits of info on moderately notable bands. It could be a conflict of interest and Pr12402 is a promoter, or it could be something as lame as editcountitis. But I suggest boiling down this mess to one simple statement: the articles are unreadable and do absolutely nothing for those bands, or for Wikipedia. Who in the world would be enlightened by a statement that a band appeared at some minor festival, followed by 15 citations to brief media notices? With his/her obsession for ref-bombing and inability to see the point of why it is disruptive, Pr12402 is clearly uninterested in writing encyclopedic articles that are useful to readers. I'm with TheTechnician27 in supporting at least a topic ban. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk Contribs) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Canvassing update: Pr12402 has also canvassed the editor Vit Koz into the same deletion nomination thread here on the Belarusian Wikipedia, with the same message they left Melilac. Thus far, that's three editors they've inappropriately canvassed for a single deletion thread.

Block request

User:YuxinJiang - request for short-term block

Chemtrails conspiracy theory promotion

Anand Kumar Khatri clearly WP:NOTHERE

Arj38

User:Tareksa: NOTHERE?

Search Party 3.0

Disruptive IP

Obsessive SPA on a Hulk crusade

Our World In Data

User:BobRoberts14

Sfbmod

IP user making legal threats

He was warned. He was given an opportunity. Nevertheless, he persisted.

Soniaprods, redux