Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Persistent disruptive editing by user SBS3800P

User:SBS3800P has been editing pages without proper citations. I observed on his talk page that other editors have previously tried to engage him about this disruptive and destructive behaviour, but he chose to ignore it.

For example, he made very odd claims about fare rules for a train station on this page without citation. I have since removed the false information he added.

He is recently on an editing spree, again, many without verified citations. He used words including "probably" without solid substantiation, is worrying and will damage the integrity of information posted on Wikipedia. One example is on the page this, he made a claim and used the word probably without citing any sources. Trust me, I have lived in the country for very long and have never heard of this claim before. Another absurd and not cited claim is of a train station with the least amount of climbing and walking. Where does he get these information from!? — Preceding unsigned comment added 17:08, 28 May 2019‎ by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs)

User:Bring back Daz Sampson: NPA and ASPERSIONS

First some background, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was previously indefinitely blocked in October 2016 by Bbb23 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha. User talk page access (TPA) was also removed by Bbb23 a day after blocking the account per this edit because of "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". An attempt made by another administrator Ivanvector here to try and help out at the time apparently was rebuffed per this post. An unblock request for Sevcohaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), one of the previously blocked sockpuppet accounts, had been declined by here by Vanjagenije earlier in March 2016, partily based upon this post by Bbb23, with TPA access for that account also being revoked shortly thereafter. The Bring back Daz Sampson account was created a few months after that in August 2016, while the Sevocohaha account was still under blocked so techinically that's WP:EVADE. After the accout was blocked, the editor apparently decided to wait out the block per WP:SO and appeal after about six months had passed. An UTRS unblock request was filed and copied and pasted to use talk page here and TPA was restored by Just Chilling in April 2017. In their unblock request, Bring back Daz Sampson admitted to the socking and promised to not repeat the behavior which led to their being indef'd. Positive comments in support were posted by here and here repectively by Ivanvector and JamesBWatson, and the unblock request was accepted by Bbb23 here. All of this seems fine; an editor made some mistakes and was blocked as a resutlt. Some time passed and the editor was unblocked because it was believed they had learned from their mistakes and was committed to moving forward and not repeating them.

One of the socks (Målfarlig!) had been previously blocked by Swarm for edit warring and personal attacks in September 2015. Bring back Daz Sampson admitted to being Målfarlig! in their unblock request, so part of the behavior they were stating they were not going to repeat would also be making personal attacks against others. Recently, however, it appears that they is going back to making unsubtatiated comments about other editors in some talk page discussions and at an AFD. None of these comments appear to have been provoked in anyway; people weren't pinging them or even mentioning them by name let alone posting any negtive comments about them. It would've been entirely possible to participate in these discussion without making any comments about any other editors. Yet for some reason, they felt that these discussions were the right time and place to try and revive old disputes with others. Here are the most recent diffs:

1. May 11, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/896572069: An attempt to use a discussion at WT:FOOTY about non-free content use to re-hash previous discussions where files were removed by administrators for not complying with WP:NFCCP; the discussion was perfectly civil and there was no reason to make accusations or cast aspersions against other editors. A personal attack against Number 57 was even mixed in under the guise of supporting their position in the discussion. Requests by myself and Number 57 for diffs and a striking of the attack was never responded to and the thread was archived.
2. June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899892694: More accusations made in a different FOOTY discussion which seem only intended to try and re-start some long resolved dispute. Perhaps things didn't get resolved in a way that Bring back Daz Simpsom wanted perhaps, but they were resolved none the less. Stating that I exhibit "monomania" is something that was previously done here a little more than three years ago by one of the blocked sock accounts.
3. June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899890243: This AfD !vote could've just as easily been made without mentioning any other editors; yet for some reason, this editor felt the need to mention GiantSnowman by nameeven though Giant Snowman isn't participating in the AfD at all. It's almost as if this was a pre-emptive personal attack or casting of aspersions in advance just on the off chance that Giant Snowman might eventually show up and !vote.

I don't think there's any doubt that Bring back Daz Sampson makes a lot of positive contributions to articlese about soccer, particularly women's soccer. The problem is not really their ability to do that. The problem has to do with their behavior and their apparent inability to simply stick to commenting on content and avoid commenting on other editors as much as possible. All editors have their bad moments, and probably post things they wouldn't; morevoer, three posts might be only a small sample size when it comes to this type of thing for someone with no history of having problems with others. Even just three posts, however, might be one too many when you're coming back from an indefinite block, and. Moreover, there's no indication there won't be more such posts from here on. FWIW, I'm not looking for a reinstatement of the indefinite block; I'm not even looking for a short-termed block to be issued or even an apology to be made. I do, however, think that a stern final warning is needed that this type of conduct is not going to be tolerated by the community and that this editor is going to be expected to try to figure out a way to honor what they posted in their unblock request and also what they posted here. If this type of behavior continues after this final warning, then the community can decide to block if they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC);[Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling of the word “articles”, to change “short-termed” to “short-term”, and to replace the word “moreover” with “and”. — 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)];[Note:Post edited by Marchjuly to strike comment about GiantSnowman not having participated in the Referenced AfD. -- 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)]

Okay, here goes. I'd like to set out some background of my own: This all relates to an ongoing dispute over WP:NFC#UUI#17, a contentious "minimal use" image copyright policy. It's very boring but please bear with me. Marchjuly thinks some national sports team articles cannot contain logos because the teams are "child entities" of the national governing bodies. Even more controversially, he thinks women's sports teams can't have logos because they are "child entities" of the men. It's either a wacky stretch or unilaterally offensive, depending on your perspective. Unfortunately for Marchjuly, WP:NFC#UUI#17 doesn't really support any of this. Manful efforts to gain consensus have proved similarly elusive. So for five years or so he has been taking a piecemeal approach, targeting individual articles - think 'low hanging fruit' like Bhutan or Haiti, for example, rather than England. As WP:FFD gets little traffic and Marchjuly's posts are generally long and impenetrable, this often results in one of the two or three admins active there giving him his desired 'result' from a tiny quorum. Invariably when other editors working on these sports articles realise what he is up to and revert or query the lack of consensus, he demands each individual case go back to the admin and then be subject to the tedious rigmarole of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Persistently editing against consensus has given Marchjuly something of an adversarial approach. Indeed he is currently engaged in a parallel dispute with Tvx1 over the same issue, where strong accusations of edit warring and inappropriate conduct including WP:POINT are being traded. Undoubtedly Marchjuly has not been above edit warring over this matter in the past. There is also an allegation that Marchjuly is WP:HOUNDING Tvx1. I'll make no comment on the validity of that, except to say that Tvx1's edit history has not yet been subjected to anything like the forensic excavation mine has.

Anyway, to try and address each point in turn: Among your myriad talents, Marchjuly, brevity is not one of them. Upon sight of your latest imposing WP:WALLOFTEXT I likely thought: "Yea, I'll try and get back to this later". As well as usually being very long, your posts are often quite technical and can appear turbid to the general reader, so I usually have to be in the right frame of mind to try and assail them. This partly explains the delay in my response here too. I don't remember seeing N57's shorter response either as I think the topic went off the front page quite soon afterwards and WT:FOOTY is not on my watchlist. Is questioning someone's feminist credentials really a personal attack? My only previous interactions with N57 relate to them making a totem of WP:FOOTY's in-house notability essay and trying to use it to delete female footballer articles. That's why I found it particularly interesting that N57 described your position on women's teams being "child entities" ridiculous. Of course if I am wrong and N57 does have an interest in feminist issues I'd be happy to make a full retraction with apology. I see N57's 2014 link below has me being branded a "misandrist", among other things. Funnily enough I don't remember that being called as a personal attack at the time. I also felt that N57s description of your position as "ridiculous" was if anything more attacking than "idiosyncratic" and "radical" which were the terms I settled upon. Why did you perceive one as an WP:ASPERSION but not the other? As regards the second point, my warning to Tvx1 was 100% serious. If they keep at it I have absolutely no doubt that you will soon have them here at ANI fending off WP:DRAMA and WP:WIKILAWYERING. In point three GiantSnowman did !vote so your objection doesn't make sense. GS always votes "Delete - fails NFOOTY, GNG". GS voted this way there, in the relevant AfD I linked from three years ago, and in each and every one of the recent spate of AfDs on female footballers. GS has likely been voting this way for over a decade. Does GS make a genuine search for sources every time to weigh up GNG? Or even a cursory one? You would have to ask GS but given the sheer volume of these !votes it seems improbable to me. So the comment was on the !vote itself not on GS. That is to say it addressed the content and the action, not the person (unlike GS's swipe at me below). Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct about GiantSnowman having !voted in that AfD prior to your post. I apologize for that error and have stricken it from my post. As for the rest of your comment, I will respond below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Here he is calling trans rights activists 'transvestites'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. That, as well as this later response, is pretty offensive, from the scare quotes around 'activists' to the implication that only a miniscule proportion of the population thinks that not using offensive terms about other people matters, to the assumption that only people personally affected by a slur would want to protest against it, to the underlying presumption that it doesn't matter if someone uses incorrect terminology if the topic is not (in their personal view) immediately relevant... and that doesn't even touch on the fact that they admit to not really caring about other people being abused. A serious and final warning is the minimum here, and combind with the PAs, an indef does not seem to be undue. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I see now that 'transvestite' was not a well chosen word and I can't defend its use there. Although used out of thoughtlessness and ignorance rather than malice, that is no excuse. It was a stupid isolated comment made in the heat of the moment and not - I hope - representative of my editing before or since. On reflection I will strike the offending paragraph and offer a sincere apology. I am also likely to self-impose a topic ban to prevent me letting myself down in that manner again. Clearly I should stick to the soccer... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reading just the above, it's clear to me that BbDS has made a habit of making personal attacks. I'd be inclined to re-indef, unless a reasonable counter case is made. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've found this user to be nothing but a pain, to both myself and other editors. Serious attitude problem. I'd support an indef. GiantSnowman 07:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not (quite) intellectually dishonest enough to pretend this is a 'personal attack', GS. But its of a piece with anything I've posted in the three diffs in the OP. Arguably slightly unbecoming of an admin - although in the circumstances I can't really begrudge you a fly kick at me here! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• For context, it's also worth noting that BbDS previously edited as Clavdia chauchat and exercised their right to vanish after being blocked for personal attacks – see this ANI report from 2014. Number 57 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why they took an instance dislike to me! GiantSnowman 09:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, apparently, which John offered to cancel if I recanted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment for now. This user in the past has been resistive to efforts they perceive as instructing their behaviour; my most favourite version of that sentiment is this comment on performative contrition. For some background have a look at this October 2016 discussion. I do believe that the user sincerely misinterpreted the standard offer at that time and was treated somewhat harshly for it, and after having it explained and going out of their way to thumb their nose at my advice, it seems they actually did take it. Their April 2017 appeal was a genuine exploration of their behaviour and it was easily accepted. All of that is to say: I think they're here for the right reasons, and capable of listening to advice when it's given gently.

We should also note that in the past this user (under their many usernames) has suggested they are subject to ongoing harassment, which it seemed to me at the time of our last interaction to likely be the case. A user working in content creation for female athletes attracting gender-based harassment is no big surprise. However, they have indeed already been told many times that they should contact an administrator if that is the case, not respond with personal attacks.

And having said that, I have noticed there have been a lot of AfD nominations for biographies of female football players just over the last month or so, correlating quite neatly with reports in various places about Bring Back Daz Sampson's incivility. While it's probably not harassment per se, for someone who works in an underrepresented topic to have much of their work broadly put up for deletion, as though someone is on some kind of mission, it likely stings. Still, no personal attacks is policy.

All that I guess to say I don't know what to do here, it's complicated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There have only been four AfDs on female footballers since the start of May and none of them were articles created by BbDS. Number 57 13:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ivan, I don't remember ever using the word harassment myself. I've got a thick hide and can take the brickbats with the bouquets. If my skin was as thin as some on here my latest comeback might have lasted two weeks, not two years. All that said, the fact is, yes, it's often a toxic environment for us women's sports editors. Your links reminded me of Hmlarson - a much smarter, more stable and resilient editor than me. It seems even they have now been ground down and had to basically give up and walk away, which I think speaks volumes. I also remember LauraHale, another exceptionally gifted editor constantly subjected to WP:BATTLEGROUND by editors of - shall we say - more prosaic abilities. Such accomplished content editors are indispensable to Wikipedia as no-one else can do what they do. As diverse role models and mentors they are also invaluable as a bulwark against groupthink and the petty tyranny of the 'average Wikipedian'. There is a persuasive argument that gold standard contributors like this deserve a measure of extra protection here (Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi) Maybe a fast track to adminship under a sort of Rooney Rule? Such progress is probably still a few years away yet. But in the meantime they should still get no less than the same treatment and protections extended to other editors. I'm not trying to bracket myself along with Hmlarson and LauraHale, by the way, this was more of a general point to follow on from what you said.

Football (soccer) is a passionate game, an emotive subject, and sometimes tempers will run high while editing in that area. I am sure that GS and N57 will back me up that WP:FOOTY is a teeming cauldron of bad editing, non-notable sub-stubs, pedantic quibbling over statistics, IP vandalism etc. etc. I dare say that policing the minutiae of obscure image copyright policies is a very important job. I just can't pretend to share Marchjuly's enthusiasm for it. Clearly there are some wider philosophical differences here as well as the content dispute over NFC#UUI #17, but trying to get each other blocked is not the best way to deal with that.

As for our previous interactions Ivan, with hindsight I do believe that you were - as you saw it - trying to talk some sense into me. I recall you were working up to your admin position at the time and on something of a 'charm offensive' which made me wary. Also, if you ever get blocked (I hope not) you will find that strangers turning up unsolicited at your talkpage can feel a bit ghoulish. The fact that you are still here saying the same sort of things convinces me that you were sincere and my doubts were unfounded. I appreciate that you have kept an open mind and a balanced approach when others have not. You are correct to say that I thumbed my nose at your advice and I was wrong to do so. Although I'm disappointed you seem to have settled on giving me a thumbs down verdict, I hope you can reconsider based on the evidence presented elsewhere in my response. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I was ever on a charm offensive, but I can see your point. Maybe it was Hmlarson in that discussion that suggested harassment, and if I was trying to be unusually polite in that discussion it was because she seemed to have lined me up as your enemy. I can't read Bbb23's mind but I'd guess that he wouldn't have bothered cutting off your talk page access if Hmlarson hadn't been so adversarial. But that's all, what, three years ago now? I should respond to the rest in another part of the thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• The reason I am here is that I was notified of this discussion because I had previously suggested removing a block on this editor to give her another chance. I am a great believer in giving blocked editors another chance. I have now checked all of her comments on talk pages and other discussion pages from 23 April. (In "comments" I do not include such edits as archiving her talk page, adding categories or WikipProject banners, and so on.) When she is not expressing disagreement with other editors there is no problem, but in every single edit in which she expresses disagreement with one or more other editors she does so in a belligerent and contemptuous manner, doing such things as throwing insults at them and accusing them of incompetence or bad faith. An indefinite block on this account was lifted on the basis that she had acknowledged her past faults and would avoid doing the same again. I checked her editing immediately after that unblock, to see whether she had at first done better and then slipped back, or whether she had never improved. For a long time she simply didn't make comments in discussions at all, but when she returned to doing so the very first talk page comment she made after the block contained a personal attack. Looking through the history of her many accounts (12 that I know of; there may be more) I see that she has repeatedly been blocked and then claimed that she will not do the same again. As far back as December 2013 an editor wrote in an ANI discussion "This user is incapable of civil behaviour", and her actions since then have done nothing but confirm that impression. Over the course of more than five years there have been I don't know how many blocks on her various accounts, there have been ANI reports on her, discussions of her editing on talk pages of different accounts, and assurances from her that she now understands what was wrong with what she was doing, and she won't do it again. If she were at all likely to improve then she would have done so by now. Ivanvector says she is "capable of listening to advice when it's given gently", but listening to advice and then not taking it is no use. I don't see the evidence of "ongoing harassment", but perhaps Ivanvector can link to it; I do, however, see an editor who interprets civilly-expressed disagreement with her as harassment or attacks, and responds with attacks. The last indefinite block was lifted following recommendations from Ivanvector and me that it be lifted. Ivanvector said then "it seems apparent you know what went wrong that led to your block", and at the time I agreed with that, but knowing what went wrong is no help if that knowledge does not lead to a change in her ways, and it hasn't. I supported an unblock "to give him or her another chance". Giving her that other chance has not succeeded, and the indefinite block should therefore be restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't disagree with anything JamesBWatson wrote here. "Belligerent and contemptuous" describes my previous interactions with the user as well, notwithstanding what I wrote above. I wasn't aware of accounts predating Sevcohaha, but if this has been going on for six years without any marked improvement except when they need to convince someone reviewing an unblock request, then it's time we stopped playing their game. I support restoring the indefinite block, and they're going to have to do something better than swear they won't do it again this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

When I created S.L. Benfica (women's football) and it was sent to AfD within 24 hours I promptly "expressed disagreement" at the AfD. Far from being belligerent and contemptuous I actually apologised for not adding more sources. I then collaborated with the AfD nominator SLBedit at the page itself and the talk page. I think it is developing into a nice little article and between us we have even added the club's players, taking assiduous care to only create the notable ones with national team caps. Despite my frequent criticism of the football notability rules in their current form (which some editors seems to take personally) I do respect them to the letter in my editing. I played a small part in SounderBruce's dramatic recent overhaul of the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup. You will see that points 1, 2 and 4 express disagreement with the article as it then stood. Bruce's response to me said he disagreed with putting some of my suggestions straight in the article without further sources. No problems. The PR ended and I got back to Bruce a short while later for another friendly interaction on his talk page: "I think x might be notable?" Response: "No I disagree, I don't think it is." Again all very standard, civilly expressed disagreement. I then politely asked an admin to restore Kim Sun-hui. They were unable to do as I asked so I thanked them for their time and went on my way.

Even at Graham Linehan where it was fairly heated before I got there, with all sorts of "bias" and "whitewashing" allegations flying about, I made a single WP:BOLD edit, based on WP:BLPSOURCES concerns. When that didn't fly, I followed WP:BRD and stuck to the talk page. I apologised and refactored a comment another editor disagreed with. I had better address more fully my ill-conceived activity at Graham Linehan: the article was what the Americans might call a "dumpster fire" with urgent WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK issues. So my extended RfC was a worthwhile exercise in that it did bring more eyes and some modest improvements. But a rough consensus of previously-uninvolved editors emerged against my position which I accepted and I stepped back, after rather churlishly returning fire at a user called Bastun. I had originally weighed in at the Graham Linehan article with genuine intentions but endured quite a bruising experience outside of my football comfort zone, due perhaps to naivety and an overestimation of my own ability to bring about the required changes. Frankly, I feel much, much worse about what happened there than what Marchjuly is trying to accuse me of here.

So, even if we delimit this investigation to comments from my rare "expressions of disagreement" with other editors (a rather circular argument in itself), "every single edit" is simply not true. I can point here to evidence of long-term harmonious, productive interaction and editing which makes your characterisation of me both inaccurate and unfair, JamesBWatson. Even if we accept that I have made serious personal attacks here (which I don't), the years between them and your previous examples mean they have been episodic in nature rather than chronic as you have tried to imply. I am not incorrigible. I am very far from the recidivist portrayed in your post. My last block ended over two years ago and was for WP:SOCK. I have not and will not SOCK ever again and my penance is this ludicrous username. My block for edit warring with a personal attack was, I think, more than three years ago now. Since the block I have never edit warred and will always now seek assistance when needed. When one of my creations was recently subject to IPs persistently adding various madey-up birthplaces, I requested page protection. Shortly afterwards I requested protection on another article which was getting v serious BLP violations. That request was turned down - wrongly in my view - which I took on the chin.

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Open tasks it's pretty quiet and there isn't much chat, but me and a few other hardy perennials keep things ticking over. We're a little busier at the moment and I'm getting plenty of notifications as I am the proud creator of articles for a decent chunk of all the players at the soccer World Cup which is currently happening in France. For a few years now I've been as active as anyone at WP:WOSO and I don't think I've ever been involved in any conflict there. I've contributed happily to WP:WIR edit-a-thons etc too. During one such edit-a-thon, WP:WIR promoted one of my article creations on Twitter with a small factual error in the accompanying blurb. I pointed out the error to them, which they immediately corrected. Again from what I remember the exchange was quite cordial, perfunctory rather than "belligerent and contemptuous". Perhaps you'll wish to exclude all this from your deliberations because it isn't narrowly focused on me disagreeing, er, disagreeably. I'll argue that it is relevant though, because this is what I spend 99.9% of my time on Wikipedia doing and why I am here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that any claims of harassment should be taken seriously and looked into per WP:AOHA, but doing so means that diffs need to be provided as examples of this type of behavior to make sure it's not just a case of WP:HA#NOT. It appears that this editor was using other accounts before Sevcohaha; in their April 2017 unblock request they mentioned two specifically by name (Clavdia Chauchat and Målfarlig!), and stated they would declare all of their previous user names on their user page if their account was unblocked. They never got around to doing that and maybe there's no point in doing so now, but a listing of all of the accounts and perhaps and explanation as to why (at least as best as can be remembered) they were created might be helpful in figuring out if they were really harassed. I posted here because of my concerns about the three comments I referenced in my OP. I don't see this editor being harassed by anything posted in any of those three particular discussions; they weren't even mentioned by name prior to their posts. Rather, I see the posts as an attempt to try and insert personal comments about others the editor might have previously had disagreements with over various things Wikipedia; an attempt to use the discussions for per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SOAP and WP:RGW reasons. They appear to have been more upset by who was posting comments than what was actually being discussed, which is probably why their comments focused more on specific editors and their perceived flaws than actual content. It was a chance to take a cheap shot at another editor they might not really like; so, they took it. Maybe they hoped the other editors would lose their cool and do something that would get them in trouble; maybe they figured their last unblock combined with all of their positive contributions over the years would outweigh any behavior issues. You can't really tell someone they aren't truly being harassed if they feel they are, but specific examples are going to be needed so that the community can make a proper assessment. Personally, I don't think trying to use WP:BIAS as a de-facto justification for continuously attacking others or casting aspersions is a good approach to have been following, and, as pointed out by Ivanvector, it would've been much better instead to get administrators involved at a much earlier stage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

But you have a marvellous gift for sifting other users' edit histories, Marchjuly. I'm sure if you clicked on the 2014 link supplied by N57 above you could harvest some striking examples of the flak aimed in my direction. Flak which puts anything under consideration here firmly in the shade. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add one more diff for reference because I think it further illustrates what JamesBWatson mentions above about how this editor responds when they agree with someone and how they respond when they feel someone is in their way or otherwise preventing them from doing something they want to do. Swarm's response here to a WP:RFP/A request made by this editor doesn't seem to be rude or harassing in any way, and even seemed to include a request for further clarification. However, when the editor posted here on another editor's user talk page a little over a month later, they seemed to feel the need to label Swarm as a jobsworth (just reading the first sentence of the "jobsworth" article should be enough to understand why refering to a Wikipedia administator in such a way is probably not a good idea); not specifically mentioning Swarm by name seems irrelevant here because it wouldn't take much to figure which editor was being discussed. Anyway, I have no idea whether either Swarm or this editor remembered their earlier interaction regarding the Målfarlig! account and it affected their response, but this editor could've posted something on Swarm's user talk further explaining why they wanted to be "autopatrolled", even after the request had been formally denied here. Instead, this editor somehow felt entitled to take a cheap shot at Swarm on some other editor's user talk page, even though the response to the "jobsworth" comment given here actually seems to agree with what Swarm posted at RFP/A. This is similar to what was done in the three diffs I referenced in my OP in that the a personal comment about another editor was added when pretty much the same thing could've easily be stated without posting anything good or bad about anyone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? Even by the standards of the first three examples of so-called personal attacks this is getting pettier and pettier. Speaking charitably, it is now into the realms of the surreal. I gather that as the "accused" I am expected to take on a wholly supplicant role at ANI, but I will stand by my use of Jobsworth and offer you a detailed explanation as to why. In the UK, the term Jobsworth can be used humorously. Sure, it is informal but not necessarily derogatory, much less abusive. The background was that Swarm tried to set me a bizarre 'homework' task, expecting, I think, the written regurgitation of some basic Wikipedia policies. This homework assignment was set in the middle of the night where I live and when I hadn't responded less than 72 hours later my RFP/A application was summarily booted out. Is this normal? Had I been the sort of editor given to making personal attacks I suspect I would have furnished Swarm with one there and then. In Swarm's defence I suppose there's nothing stopping anyone taking it upon themselves to make up arbitrary additional criteria on this sort of random, ad hoc basis. Equally applicants would be under no obligation to indulge any additional criteria they diagnosed as pointless and/or demeaning. Clearly in my case it was superfluous - and so it proved when I was rubber-stamped at RFP/A shortly afterwards without any such fuss. I didn't remember any previous interactions with Swarm and I sincerely doubt they connected me to my previous incarnations. I doubt anyone would connect my Jobsworth remark to Swarm either, unless they were interested in conducting a detailed 'audit' of my edits like you seem to be here. Would Swarm have felt attacked by my exasperated Jobsworth outburst - which didn't even mention them - had they seen it? Would they have cared? Even a teeny bit? I can't speak for them but I have my doubts - I certainly wouldn't have done. In terms of potential for disruption to the wider Wikipedia community it wasn't exactly seismic.

Perhaps given the chance again Swarm and I would have both done things differently. Once I'd realised Swarm was apparently serious about wanting the homework I remember shaking my head and chuckling to myself at the impertinence. But other editors who lacked my patience, empathy and good sense of humour may have been turned off. The ensuing month or so taken up needlessly 'patrolling' my article creations could have been put to better use, easing the large backlog of new articles which actually needed to be patrolled. Maybe this very minor kerfuffle being cast up again six months later will give us both an opportunity to learn and grow? Although I rather suspect both of us had quickly forgotten all about it and had already moved on. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived, to give chance for BBDZ to respond. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 09:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Bring back Daz Sampson: do you wish to comment? GiantSnowman 17:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Your OP did not give a neutral outline of our dispute, Marchjuly, which I have tried to rectify. You have also rounded up admins involved in my previous problems and carefully selected others. So much so that I fear that you are sailing very close to the wind in terms of WP:CANVASS and WP:ADMINSHOP. I acknowledge that you withdrew your last posting and agree it was crass. Albeit I don't think it was out of place alongside the rest. As I tend to edit quietly and eschew WP:DRAMA, I am obviously not fighting on my home turf here at ANI. You on the other hand appear to have an inordinate presence here, relative to your editing. Roughly how many of these reports would you say you have filed now? Are you a serial complainer? You certainly seem to know the buttons to press and the buzzwords to hit - throwing in a couple of decorative nods to balance always plays well with the admins. I would prefer to see some honesty. Notwithstanding your claims to want "not even an apology", there is fat chance that you breathlessly typed out these essays and dragged me here to bring about a mere finger wagging. I know well enough - given my problems a few years ago - that another block would be an effective site ban and there would be no way back this time. So while this may be sport for you the stakes are much higher for me. As ANI is definitely not my thing - despite editing consistently I haven't been here for over two years - I have been idly reading through some other postings. Trying to take the 'temperature' to assist me in writing my responses. It is startling to me just how high the bar is set here for actionable personal attacks. The case above mine was about someone saying 'asshole [...] cunts [...] wank pheasant' which seemed to me like pretty strong meat. Result: no action taken. Incredibly, we also appear to have users telling each other to 'fuck off' all over the place, not least at this noticeboard itself, which is somehow (!) tolerated. You have tried to pad out your complaint with some irrelevant material already dealt with years ago, but at its crux you are claiming a breach of WP:NPA. Despite me assisting your case by being a bit of a wank pheasant at Graham Linehan, you haven't come anywhere close to establishing that I have made any personal attacks severe enough to be dealt with here. Finally, the various impugned parties on whose behalf you have raised these matters (N57, GS, Swarm) could presumably have meted out warnings or blocks themselves had they felt it necessary. The reason they didn't is that the matters are trivial. And if they set their thresholds that low, they wouldn't have time for anything else besides blocking and then dealing with the fallout. Am I a perfect editor? No - but who is? I've shown in my response how seriously I take my responsibilities here. If you continue making notices like this, then next time (or the time after, or the time after) someone will eventually "join the dots" and realise that you are the common denominator in your frequent trips to this noticeboard. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If you believe a BOOMERANG is warranted, please provided diffs. If you believe I've been edit warring or making personal attacks, please provide diffs. If you believe I've been editing against/ignoring consensus, please provide diffs. I've asked you previously to provide diffs here and here in support of accusations you've made against me, but you never got around to it. Perhaps, you can do so now?

I notified people of this ANI because they were either specifically mentioned by name or had something to do with a previous block or unblock request. I'm not trying to pad out a complaint against by bringing up your past, but pointing out that you've been recently exhibiting the same behavior that led you to be blocked before. Your past editing history (regardless of how many accounts you may have used or how many times you might have been blocked/unblocked) is relevant because you gave assurance that you would not repeat the mistakes you made before. One of our first interactions apparently was about User talk:SevcoFraudsters#File:Sheffield FC.svg where you decided edit warring and personal attacks would be acceptable substitutes to discussion, and from what I and others have posted above, you seem to be reverting to (at least) the personal attacks approach once again.

As for UUI#17, your narrative seems to be that (1) I created UUI#17 (not true), (2) I'm the only editor nominating or who has nominated files for discussion at NFCR/FFD for this reason (not true), (3) I'm going against whatever consensus was reached at NFCR/FFD and continue to remove files from articles just because I don't like the consensus (once again not true). I can provide diffs showing that (1), (2) and (3) are indeed untrue if needed. You make specific reference to files being used in the Bhutan and Haiti national team articles as examples of me exhibiting this type of behavior. Can you please provide diffs showing the consensus that was established about these files and me removing them contrary to this consensus? FWIW, I wasn't even a participant in the Bhutan file's discussion, and I wasn't the only participate in the Haiti discussion who !voted that the file should be removed from the team articles. Again, I can provide diffs showing these things. Regardless, both discussions were closed by administrators (just like the Sheffield FC one referenced above) who then removed the files from various articles and removed invalid non-free use rationales from the files' pages. There are many more NFCR/FFD discussion where a file has been removed for UUI#17 reasons: not all of them were related to sport team logos, and not all of them were discussions that I even participated in. The closes for these various discussions were made by different administrators and were pretty consistent in that this type of non-free use was considered not to comply with relevant policy. I'm not telling these administrators how to close these discussions or what the consensus should be; they are making that decision on their own. FFD is like any other XFD discussion is that an administrator closes based upon whether they believe a consensus was established; so, if you disagree with their close, you can discuss things with them as explained in CLOSECHALLENGE. If I subsequently removed the Haiti and Bhutan files from team articles or any other file from a team article, it was done based upon the closes of one of these discussions. If a new consensus is established overturning these closes, then the files and corresponding non-free use rationales will be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• So are we looking at a dispute over non-free content criteria then, with some spillover? That should be fairly easy to work through, WP:NFCC is not open to debate in most cases. But is WP:NFCC#UUI #17 the right recommendation from those lists? By my thinking, a women's affiliate to a men's football club is not (necessarily) a "child entity" that "lacks its own branding". It's an affiliate, which uses the same branding as the affiliated club (unless they have their own logo). It's not like the ladies are running around the field in plain white tees - they're clearly identified by the logo they use. So WP:NFCI #2 should apply.

But! These matters are decided by discussion, and if you have a lot of editors saying UUI#17 and none saying NFCI#2, then admins' hands are tied. No amount of questioning editors' "feminist credentials" is going to do much to change that. And Marchjuly is correct that the way to object to that sort of deletion is to take it up with the closer, c.f. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Or start a discussion to clarify NFCC between UUI#17 and NFCI#2 for this particular circumstance, to hopefully head off problems in the future. But much smarter people than me drafted that policy (with its legal considerations) so I'm just going to watch for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, We actually have such a discussion at WT:NFC and it actually futured a lot of editors sharing your view and thus saying NFCI#2 and not NFCI#17. But because said discussion was not formally assessed and closed Marchjuly refuses to allow it being used as a basis for including the contested type of NFC in national team's articles. That has been debated for a while now at WT:FOOTY and the reported user made one snide comment there and then apparently they were reported here. I was pinged here despite not being involved directly and all in all I feel this report is a bit of an overreaction. Anyway, I have posted a request to have the aforementiontioned discussion finally assessed over WP:AN/RFC and I am patiently awaiting for said request to be actioned.Tvx1 10:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to allow anything. I just don't agree with your assessment that the discussion reached the conclusion to overturn the way the policy had been applied by various administrators (including some who participated in the discussion) up to an including that point and has continued to be applied since that discussion was archived more than three years ago. Near the end of the discussion, there seems to have been at least one other editor who also felt that an RFC would be better than talk page discussion to try and resolve this since it would effectively need to go back a void/overturn quite a number of FFD/NFCR closes related to this type of file use. This editor even made a suggestion about adding something about this to the MOS for FOOTY articles. You were pinged for a response at the time but never responded. It looks like your last comment in the discussion was on June 24, 2016, but the discussion continued on for another month. The last comments posted in that discussion seem to indicate that there were still some differences of opinion, but there were no further comments after that and the thread was archived a little over a week later. It didn't directly result in an RFC, but that doesn't mean one couldn't be started now to try and sort this out for once and for all. At the same time, if you're only interested in the close of single file like the Bhutan one, you can follow CLOSECHALLENGE and see what the closing admin has to say; you, however, feel there's no point in doing that because the discussion was so long ago. At the same time, if you want to clarify or change the policy in some way and build upon the previous discussion, you can restart it at WT:NFCC. You make it seem as if I'm pulling the strings of all the administrators who have removed files from articles for this reason over the years, or that I am somehow influencing the administrators who reverted your attempts to re-add the file to the Bhutan article here or to re-add non-free use rationale for the Bhutan team article to the file's page here. The administrator who reverted you at the Bhutan article was even one of the main participants in the WT:NFCC discussion, yet you posted at FOOTY that he was most likely not aware of the WT:NFCC discussion. There were maybe 10 editors participating in that particular discussion, three of which are admins (one who has closed quite a number of FFD discussions and removed files from articles for this very reason and two others who were actually involved in the NFCR discussion which led to the Bhutan's file removal from the team's article) and not one of them in the three years since the discussion was archived has tried to claim the consensus your claiming now or even just tried to re-added the Bhutan file to the team's article because they believed the NFCR discussion related to it had been overturned. You've made statements about me edit warring (even though removing files removed per an FFD/NFCR discussion is listed as one of the exemptions to 3RR) without providing diffs or even seeking administrator assistance. You've accused me of being POINTY and insisting that nothing valid came from that particular discussion, even though I've never claimed such a thing (1, 2) and am pretty much saying the same things now that I posted here and here three years ago. which actually indicates WP:NOTPOINTy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't read all of that, to be quite honest, so my apologies if my response misses a point you made. It seems to me the issue of which fair use principle applies needs to be resolved before we start enforcing one interpretation or another. I'll try to follow for when someone takes a look at that thread (my opinion makes me WP:INVOLVED) but there's a lot going on right now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Basically, a non-free file was removed from an article per Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png. This is one of many NFCR/FFD discussions where a non-free file was removed from an article (sometimes even from more than one article) for the same reason. Tvx1 is arguing that Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17 resulted in a new consensus with respect to this type of non-free use, which effectively overturns all of these closes (or at least one particular close) and also overturns how the NFCC was and still is being applied by various administrators to this type of non-free use. Bring back Daz Sampson pinged Txv1 and brought up my disagreement with Tvx1 about this matter because he thinks it proves his claim that I’m the one continuing to edit against consensus in dozens if not hundred of cases. He might even see my behavior as somehow justifying his having to resort to SOCK and EVADE (some of the reasons for his previous block) because I somehow am able to influence admins who deal with non-free file use to close discussions in a certain way that I desire or to block editors who disagree with me and try to interfere with my apparent crusade against certain types of non-free use. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × maybe? weird server error) Look, I'm not even going to try to evaluate conduct issues here until there's some formal resolution to the matter of fair use of these images. Another admin might, I'm not the King of Non Free Content or anything. But I think that as long as both of you have competing interpretations of the guideline that you're trying to enforce, this is just going to go in circles. I don't see anything at this point that merits a one-sided sanction. I'll say though, Tvx1, I think it might be more productive to start a new discussion on this topic rather than try to glean a consensus out of one that fizzled three years ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I wasn’t requesting that either you or some other admin sanction Tvx1. I didn’t ping them into this discussion. Moreover, as I posted in my OP and even though he doesn’t apparently believe me, I’m not asking for Bring back Daz Sampson to be re-blocked. I’m still just only asking that he be warned to avoid commenting on other editors and stick to commenting on content as well as to avoid reverting back to behavior that previously led to one of his previous blocks and that he said he would no longer repeat. Others have suggested reblocking, but I haven’t stated so even once. I didn’t seek him out and post some things at WT:FOOTY in the hope that he might see them and perhaps post something that might end up getting him reblocked. In all of my interactions with him and his various accounts, I don’t think I’ve ever not been civil. I might not have agreed with him, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually commented on him as a person. So, if whomever closes this discussion decides that no action need be taken, then I won’t challenge it. Same goes if others after reading everything posted above decide to change their minds about what they posted. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, I might take one of the suggested steps but first I think it would be helpful if that old discussion is assessed to give us a starting point, even if the closer just says: "have more discussion". In the mean time it would be nice that me patiently waiting for the AN/RFC request to be actioned, not be seen as me showing a bad faith unwillingness to take any other step. It would also be nice if Marchjuly would stop to post a wall of text containing the steps they insist I must take on every relevant talk page or notice board I post. I have seen their "instructions" clearly now, it's not necessary to repeat that over and over and over again. Experience has taught me that it can take some time until an AN/RFC request is actioned, so for now I prefer to be patient. I didn't think we had a WP:DEADLINE on this? Tvx1 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If the AN/RFC request results in a new consensus as being established, I will respect it as such. I may ask for clarification of it, but I won't ignore it. If the request results in a no consensus or suggestion for further discussion, I'm happy to participate in any such discussion, and am assuming there would be no objection to me doing so. Anyway, my understanding of our disagreement is as follows.

1. A non-free file was removed by an administrator from the Bhutan team article per the consensus established at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png back in August 2014.
2. A general discsussion about the application of the WP:NFCC to this type of non-free use was held at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17 back in June–July 2016. The discussion was archived in August 2016. Your opinion posted at a recent WT:FOOTY discssussion, is that the WT:NFCC discussion established a new consensus regarding this type of non-free use; I, however, disagree with that assessment. You've requested that the WT:NFCC discussion be formally closed at WP:AN/RFC#Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17. In your request, you posted I believe it would be immensely helpful if this discussion were properly closed and thus consensus assessed, so that we know what is the best step to take next (e.g. more discussion), which I think means that, for at least the time being, the consensus established by the 2014 WP:NFCR discussion (at least with respect to this particular file) still applies.
3. Item 5 of WP:3RRNO states that removing content which unquestionably violates the NFCC is considered an exemption to 3RR and edit warring. It also states that what counts as an exemption can be controversial and should be established as a violation first, perhaps through discussion at WP:FFD. NFCR used to be where non-free content use matters were discussed, but that page has been incoporated into FFD. FFD used to be "Files for deletion", but was changed to "Files for discussion" after NFCR and WP:PUF were incorporated into it. The file's non-free use in the Bhutan team's article was "unquestionably" established as a violation of the NFCC by the NFCR discussion; otherwise, it wouldn't have been removed from the team article. Again, I'm assuming here that the consensus established by that 2014 NFCR discussion is still in effect, which means there was no violation of 3RR or any edit warring.
4. If the WP:AN/RFC request leads to a close which does state that a new consensus was established to allow this particular type of non-free use, then I'm assuming it would apply to all such files and not just the Bhutan one: which means it might overturn all previous NFCR/FFD discussions related to this type of non-free use, not just the NFCR about the Bhutan file. Of course, this may depend upon the specific wording of the close and the scope established by the closer. On the other hand, if the close states that no new consensus was established or that further discussion is needed, then the previously established consensuses for each of these files would continue to remain in effect until they are individually overturned or a new general consensus is established for this type of non-free use which overturns them all at once. You posted that you prefer to be patient and wait to see what happens at AN/RFC, which I think means that the current consensus (or at least the consensus established prior to the concerned WT:NFCC discussion) still remains in effect.

Does the above roughly sum up where things currently stand? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

...Jeez. I probably shouldn't have called Marchjuly a "time burglar". But if that's now the only charge left against me I'm pleading 'veritas' and citing this thread in evidence! Within this avalanche of pompous verbosity there is, I think, evidence of an insidious, passive-aggressive form of incivility which ultimately is much more damaging and disruptive than occasional mild outbursts of frustration from those of us on the receiving end of it. That said, I must accept that neither party's conduct here has been faultless. To bring this to a conclusion I would be minded to accept a short block of seven days or so, provided that the sanction is applied evenly to both me and Marchjuly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

This issue was previously raised at ANI here on 10 May 2019 but it was archived with no action taken.

Since that discussion, further editors have raised issues with page moves, including @MYS77: here. Ortizesp said he would start using RM here, but he hasn't, and MYS77 had to raise the issue again with him here. Today I have had to revert another undiscussed page move involving the Rubén García Rey article.

Based on the above, given the number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted his page moves, and given the number of broken promises to stop, it is clear that Ortizesp lacks the competence to make page moves. As such, we need an indefinite topic ban from making any undiscussed page moves, and he can only nominate using WP:RM. GiantSnowman 07:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban: Ortizesp is not reaching any compromise when it comes to moving pages, and has not kept his promise of using RMs to raise opinions over the page moves. MYS77 ^✉ 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN with v. minor exception - repeated issues despite agreement otherwise seems to warrant a TBAN. I've spotted a few things in your edits that look like they will turn either into AfC drafts or articles. If this generates any 1-off redirects that should be fine, but otherwise it needs to cover all pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, an exception of moving from user space into mainsapce is fine. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply disagree that moving Rubén García Rey needed nomination from WP:RM. Rubén García Rey is simply not his common name, and all external links and references state that. Most of my moves follow this logic, and i believe are valid. Obviously you and MYS77 disagree with my moves, but they are generally uncontroversial. I haven't used WP:RM because I'm leaving those pages for later, for actual controversial moves. In case you guys haven't learnt, it is recommended to be bold - and not the other way around.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As @SMcCandlish: said at the last ANI, "Hint: If people are controverting your moves, then they are controversial". The fact you still cannot see that is very concerning, and raises WP:CIR issues. GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• This runs the risk of going stale and being archived again, despite a clear problem. Can somebody please comment/close with implementation of the topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 09:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I've tagged this thread with a DNAU so it won't be archived until 18 June. Blackmane (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Blackmane: amazing, thanks! GiantSnowman 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I would say topic ban would only work if the user know if they violate, then it have some consequence. I would support the TBAN or just straight temp block. Most of the time except typo, WP:RM of real person are rarely not controversial, especially now there is some dispute in the disambiguator such as Alisson (footballer, born 1992) v. Alisson Becker. Matthew hk (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Breach of a topic ban would lead to blocks. GiantSnowman 10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, there is no formal TBan, but this issue was raised in ANI for a few times. I am not sure enforcing a formal TBan and delivered the TBAN statement to his user talk page, has any change, if he seem did not know what is happening. But anyway, lets give him a final chance by giving him a formal Tban. Matthew hk (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

While there's no definition over the subject, he's still doing the same thing (i.e. Jaime Asensio de la Fuente and Fidel Chaves de la Torre). Not a single compromise, and for every new page I create, he's moving it. I would add a WP:HOUND on this too, aside from the TBan. MYS77 ^✉ 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I was also reading the old ANI about him, and I've noticed that he thinks "it's normal to make errors and learn from them, and at least it's not the same kind of error being made continuously". The thing is that his mistakes are quite the same since the old ANI until now. MYS77 ^✉ 14:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hari147

• Hari147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user insists on not putting spaces after punctuation. Not just forgets sometimes, not is just unaware, but simply passively refuses to correct their behavior after being asked to recently here at ANI, back in 2016 by Anna Frodesiak, and who knows where else. I tried again here. They removed it without comment and just kept on doing what they've been doing. Some might think it a minor annoyance, and those of us concerned with such things are used to quietly fixing such things here and there, but it's just not reasonable for someone to effectively tell us to f*** off and expect us to follow them around and fix everything they write. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think these two edits encapsulate the 'refuses' thing. More worrisome is the recent plain vandalism [1] repeating [2] and problems elsewhere and here. Having been here since 2012 and thumbing their nose at simple conventions and now pranking us, hey, when does the low-grade fever finally exhaust the immune system? Shenme (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. If this continues after the block expires I will block indefinitely — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I hace declined their unblock request as they say they do not understand the reason for the block.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks MSGJ, Dlohcierekim, and Shenme. The silence you hear is the sound of a dozen gnomes resting a moment, anticipating a little less work for their arthritic fingers. I realize I didn't notify the editor about this discussion, for which I apologize (and thank Shenme for doing so). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Hi there.I see there has been some ongoing talk about me. After an unneccessary block, i would like to apologise. I am actually not much fond of editing here (which i will learn more and make the edits as pleasurable they are to you as to me). I would further like to iterate that i will try to avoid those punctuation errors which i have done, and i would like to mention that these are not intentional in any ways. However, i do hope that when users with more administrative rights ban other users, they could provide more solid reasons to the ban, rather than linking references way back to 2016 like this one back in 2016. I would like to also mention that sometimes when incidents like this happens, often i assume that these edits are intentional when users often revert back to their idealistic versions of a wiki page, or a more non-constructive ones like this one here. I also like to mention that when Shenme mentions vandalism, it seems abit weird when this and this are mentioned. These seem to be unrelated to the topic, and also something which i have been just made aware of and will clarify that with the respective person. I would like to emphasize to the user to not make wavering accusations of vandalism. I have been an user who had made more than 500 edits i have no reason to see myself into an indefinite block. Hence i advise that these terms be acquitted henceforth. I hope that i have mentioned these as clear as possible, and also would like to request that users do not ban others without hearing both sides of the story. We are all here to learn from each other. I have so and i hope you do too. Thank you. --Hari147 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive anti-China editing from Syopsis

Previous AN/I report

• On China–United States trade war and talk

Related discussions

• RFC on restarting article from scratch due to subversion of NPOV
• Talk:China–United States trade war#Article concerns

Warning given

• Special:Diff/900966515#Talk page guidelines

Report

Let me preface this with saying that I was told I should stay away from the dramaboards, and since then I have followed that excellent advice for the most part. Also, most of this report refers to the bolded conversation linked above except when mention is made to the RFC.

This report comes about from an off-wiki conversation that occurred at WP:Discord. Viztor asked for some feedback on the situation and was advised to take it to AN/I. Instead of getting involved with that*, I made a few edits to the article. ^{[3] [4]}
*I later did though.^{Diff unavailible}

Since then, most of my substantial edits besides one were removed. ^[5] It's hard to get a diff for this because of edits like this, though.

What was the one edit? A tag I put on the article citing my concerns with WP:GLOBAL. ^{[6] [7]}

Now, despite Nyttend saying there was significant undue weight in the article at ANI, ^[8] an RFC being started on completely re-writing the article ^[9] with multiple editors agreeing in said RFC ^{[10] [11]} (Well, it's only 2/3), and my repeated explanations... Syopsis has insisted that the tag be removed. ^[12]

In the conversation that labeled "Article concerns" (which concerns the tag), this user has made personal attacks against editors, [13], doubling down on those attacks, [14] [15], WP:SHOUTING [16], and has even stated "I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive."

This is on-top a general habit of ownership of the article in general. ^{[17] [18] [19] [20]} I have additional concerns about their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. ^{[21] [22] [23]} Even more concerning is their propensity to follow Viztor around to undo their edits. ^{[24] [25] [26]} or give them unneeded warnings ^{[27] [28]} (this second diff alerting them to an ANI thread that Viztor started! That might have to do with this edit, though?). On its own, these edits would be fine, but taken together I have to include a mention here.

I know I have lost patience at least more than once and have had my own fault in this mess. I tried resolving the dispute on my talk page, but as mentioned before Syopsis doubled down. I don't have any recommended action to take, but I would prefer to see a resolution into this matter. I really hate spending more time on this than I need to.

I don't watchlist ANI, so ping me when needed. Thank you all, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• His POV is another question, the more serious one is his behavior: (1)persistent blatant attacks at multiple other editors (2)hounding them around, (3)tracking and reverting their edits in a systematic manner, so to scare (4)the editors from contributing (5)in the attempt to own the article in question. None of which is an acceptable behavior in this community. Viztor (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to request help with Syopsis. I can't even tell you if I agree or disagree with their POV because the content issues we are trying to discuss are being obscured by Syopsis' personal attacks against other editors. For example after my very first post at Talk:China–United States trade war, [29], Syopsis responded with this — and keep in mind this is also our first interaction on Wikipedia [30]:

"It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"

I thought I had only been recommending measures for article improvement, so I objected [31] to Syopsis' rude response, and they quickly came back with this [32]:

"let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position"

Syopsis has been ever more rude to MJL, for instance supposedly repeating their concerns using a kind of pidgin spelling, mockery and insults [33]:

"I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning... it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling... what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing..."

This is really distasteful and I hope something can be done to stop it. Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be editorial boards: more or less professional environments. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Since @MJL: was the one who filed this request I am going to respond to directly to that user and i am not going to bother wasting my (or anyone else's) time by responding to the borderline personal attacks by the other two users here; everything i have to say to Darouet i will say on the related talk page and I am not even going to address the comments Viztor made because it will just degenerate into a useless back and forth. But i will say at the outset I absolutely, 100% stand by the things that i wrote which that user quoted ("mediocre," "dog's breakfast" "pseudo-intellectual dog whistling") - they were attacking arguments. That is obvious to anybody who actually read the whole conversation...in full. They were not personal attacks because they were not even directed to a user. I've never made a derogatory personal comment since I started using Wikipedia and I will never make a derogatory personal comment so long as i use this encyclopedia. If that is what you call a "personal attack" then I would hate to see what an actual "personal attack" looks like. It certainly pales in comparison to some of the other things i have seen on wikipedia.

"...their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. " Ah so there it is. Your point-of-view to attack "anti-China" (what ever that means) POVs or defend a "pro-China" (again, I have no idea what means) POV. Little wonder that the user contacted you for help on discord (which seems very much like a case of tag-team editing aka Wikipedia:Tag team. Why even bother editing the article in the first place?). yes if things were only that simplistic. Whatever. Of course the label is just nonsensical, there is for starters a difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, and there is a difference between attacking the views of a political party and attacking the culture of a particular place like some mindless idiot. No different than the difference that exists between, say, attacking a religion (christianity, Islam, judaism) and attacking its believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews). I have to say i do find it very curious you did not cite my most recent edits about Hong Kong here, here and here as evidence of my (non-existent) "anti-China" views - probably because you finally figured out the truth of what I just said.

Please stop misrepresenting things. I didn't remove the material you edited, i rearranged them and I left the tag in there as a compromise gesture - hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. By the way, you and anybody else who is reading this should also be aware that the changes I made which included reverting your edits have stayed almost entirely in place - again, hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. I challenged you multiple times on the tag issue with the aim of actually resolving it and all I got from you were just mediocre, sub-standard arguments - that isn't a personal attack, that is just stating a fact. I asked you how the tag isn't a form of discrimination and all i got from you basically was "because it just isn't". And that is before we even get to your allegations of bias in the content. And about the RFC...that was before the people involved in it made massive changes to the article to rectify the bias and whatever else the RFC initiator complained about, which in any case it must be said was decisively rejected.

Okay I will admit: I have to tone down the language. Going forward, i will do my best to refrain from using profaniies and just using general insults. I and like most of the people on the encyclopedia (including everybody involved in this request) are passionate about things, but at some point you have to draw a line and say enough is enough. Fair enough. As for the hounding accusation - that's not accurate. There was one edit that was hounding (the one about Xinjiang) but the one about the anchor was to revert a hound edit by the other user and then the third one is not even an example of hounding. That said, I apologize for that one edit and haven't done anything like that since.

It's pretty simple. My position is that these are content disputes which should and can be resolved...between the two of us. If it helps, I am willing to shift the basis of my argument so that we now focus on the hard evidence that you have that the sources are "biased". This is a further compromise by me because I am downplaying the fact that it is wrong for you to discriminate the sources on the basis of nationality. Involving the two other editors is just going to drag this out way longer than it should and they aren't adding anything to the debate that we don't already know anyway. I don't know why you are trying your hardest to railroad this conversation and turn it into a conduct dispute when it isn't. Syopsis (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only should you not curse, don't insult people at all, let alone in "general"! Argue over content, not editors, on talk pages. And in terms of POV, it /must/ be neutral. Overall though, from these edits I see serious attempts to WP:OWN the article, and little effort put into building consensus. Syopsis is clearly very difficult to work with. In terms of resolving the issue, I would support a carefully worded warning on conduct, or a post 1932-American politics T-ban. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: post-1932 politics t-ban seems a little much. Maybe a subset that has to do with US-Chinese relations, but I would not support such a broad topic ban for a relatively new editor.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Syopsis: response incoming. Let me start with what is good about you. I think you are genuine person who takes criticism better than most. I appreciate your contributions so far to this project, and I hope nothing that occurs as a result of this ANI report discourages you in anyway from being a part of this community.
That being said, your tone can be very off putting at times. As CaptainEek pointed out, you really shouldn't be insulting anyone nor anything. It's a bright line violation of our WP:civility guidelines. The sorts of language you tend to use has a negative effect on people.
In that regard, I must address the tag team allegation because that most certainly is something I aspire to never do on Wikipedia. I believe I have been, from the beginning, the most transparent I could possibly be with you in regards to any offwiki communications I have had with Viztor. As previously said, Viztor had general conduct concerns that were brought up on discord (which is fairly common among editors there). I personally took notice of the article (it covers a subject I care about- namely trade) and made the edits. I never even knew Viztor before this interaction, and they had no reason to believe I would get myself involved.
I said I had concerns about a bias on your part, and then I provided diffs to substantiate this claim. I did not review every single edit you made and only reviewed significant additions or subtractions to Chinese-related articles. Also, China in this case was shorthand for People's Republic of China (the government). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Listen, I really, really, want to work constructively with you, but just take a look at some of the changes you made which concerns sourcing. ^{[34] [35]} That second diff was really bad in my opinion because you removed something cited by Reuters but left a statement that was cited to a tweet by Donald Trump. It's hard for me to make sense of that.
I appreciate your ability to own up in the places you know you were wrong. I also like your passion for the subjects you cover, but I don't like it when that gets in the way of the group's ability to cooperate with one another. We're all on the same team here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is not the first time concerns of his questionable behavior has raised, This editor responded in a similar way last time and stated it was just content dispute. When he said that what he is really saying is that we should neglect his conduct issue because this is just a content dispute, that is denial of problem for me. If he do not acknowledge his problem, this will just keep happening, until everyone just get too tired. This is not "the debate just got too heated and I lost control" kind of situation. He was literally throwing words at people who he just met, on first encounter, people who showed gestures to reconcile the difference. That is beyond content dispute that I have no plan to dive into, for that would just be exactly what he want.Viztor (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Syopsis, you cannot continue engaging with Wikipedia in this way. If this is, as you say, a content dispute, then you need to focus on the content and avoid commenting on other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment and these types of remarks degrade the experience for everyone. I would not support a topic ban at this moment, given the lack of a prior formal warning, but going forward I would consider that an applicable remedy if Syopsis doesn't change their behavior. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. To give admins time to review this.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, can an admin formally warn Syopsis about conduct, and remind them that if the behavior continues they will find themselves escalatingly blocked? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

^An acceptable outcome to me (just as much as saying, MJL, there is nothing actionable here. would potentially be). I'd like to see some sort of response from an uninvolved admin. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Facilitated communication articles

I am here to dispute actions being made by User:Wikiman2718. This user is currently removing large portions of articles that contain quotes from non-speaking autistic people, as well as the biographies of non-speaking autistic people, on the premise that facilitated communication is discredited (including removing portions of Neurodiversity, Lucy Blackman, Sue Rubin, and removing nearly all of Benjamin Alexander (writer)). I have provided extensive evidence to the contrary, but regardless of one's position on FC, completely removing every reference to it and every person who has been purported to use it cannot be the appropriate action to take. Please assist in this matter. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not removed every reference to Facilitated communication: only those that fail to recognize that it is a psudoscience. I would appreciate administrative assistance in this matter. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: User has now removed nearly all of Amy Sequenzia. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. We discuses in the article the counter claims about FC. There may well be arguments for a re-write, not wholesale deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Per NPOV, each claim must be given due weight. That means that scientific consensus is stated as fact while psudoscience is called out as psudoscience. Giving science a chance to make a counterclaim against psudoscience is a violation of NPOV. I deleted all information that implied or depended on the proposition that FC is science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you re-write, you do not just blanket delete (including removing the criticism of the procedure).Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the "criticism of facilitated communication":

According to skeptic Steven Novella, a professor at Yale University School of Medicine, Sequenzia's writings under FC are unusually eloquent for a nonverbal autistic individual. He additionally stated that there is no given explanation for how she spontaneously learned to read and write at an advanced level when she was eight years old. Novella also said that he would have to personally meet her understand better. In response to this and other studies that found the facilitator and not the facilitated are doing the communication, Sequenzia has said that critics of facilitated communication do not understand how a neurodivergent brain works or how their body responds to internal and external output; that organizations such as ASHA have a financial interest in people needing oral speech to communicate; and that skeptics don't meet FC users, care about the learning process, or acknowledge studies of authorship. She has labelled most of those critics as bigots who have fear and disdain for those they believe are intellectually disabled.

This passage fails to communicate that the technique is psudoscience, and I don't see how it is salvageable. I don't see how any of the information I deleted could be useful in an article which reflects the psudoscientific nature of FC. For instance, it makes no sense to include quotes from a person who cannot communicate. If the article cannot be re-written, it may have to be deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You are making the claim that FC is pseudoscience based on incredibly tight goalposts. Again, I have provided [extensive evidence] that it is not. There are many, many qualitative studies confirming authorship that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Now it has to be "medline indexed" in order to be reliable, apparently. I will wait for admin intervention. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain which bit of that "Extensive evidence" you link to is the bit we should read to show us that this is not pseudoscience? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All of it does. The idea that FC is pseudoscience is predicated on an antiquated version of what autism is (which is why that page includes research on autism being a neuro-motor condition and presumption of competence.) However, I did provide a specific journal article on the Amy Sequenzia Talk page when I was asked to provide something from within the last five years. (This one.) And I know that you saw it, because you responded. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Was That when you carpet bombed us with a couple of pages chock full of refs? And that one has been superseded. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I presented other evidence to the people I was debating, and it was ignored before that point in time (of which you were not a part of, so I'm not sure why you say "us"). Then I made a comprehensive list of my information because I wanted to show that there was a lot of evidence, not just a few articles that supported my view. You call it "carpet bombing." I call it being thorough. I then took a break for a while, because I was offended by your comment to "put in the work" as if I hadn't just spent hours debating people and then a good while formatting and arranging a list that would be easy to read, and then you just showed up and refused to look at any of it.

Then you did the same thing when you glanced at the article I posted, apparently misread the date on it, and responded condescendingly, ("What part of 'in the last five years' don't you understand?"), which I thought was completely uncalled for. I have not mentioned that to this point, but I will now, because I don't know who you are or why you're being so dismissive of me.

The issue is complicated, but you're all pretending it's cut-and-dry, as if human competence isn't complex and our understanding of it isn't ever-evolving. These are human beings. I'm not pretending that FC is never used incorrectly, because it is, and people who have used it to build motor control and have gone on to type independently (which is the actual end goal of FC) have talked about the potential for ethical violations. Removing FC as learning method entirely isn't the answer, though, because some people need physical support to start. Regulation of the profession is the answer. However, we can't regulate the profession if this idea of it being pseudoscience keeps persisting.

To those outside of the debate, it might look like I'm some nut who was falsely convinced by the "ideomotor phenomenon" or whatever and is now trying to break science by including falsities on Wikipedia. I'm not. I'm only saying that there's enough evidence of FC that you can't, in good conscience, act like everything that was ever produced via FC should be discarded entirely. (I haven't touched the facilitated communication article because I'm not ready for that mess yet, but it does not present a comprehensive understanding of FC and the history of its research. Even the first line saying that it is also known as "hand-over-hand" is wrong; there are dozens of versions of facilitating and only one of them is hand-over-hand.)

Anyway, I disagree that the article provided has been "superseded." I think there is no way to win this debate due to the other side's shifting goalposts. First, it's "well, there's no evidence," then it's "too much information," then it's "well, it has to be in a peer-reviewed journal", then it's "well, there's no review", and now it's "oh, it has to be medline indexed." My point is that removing large swathes of information on living people because you refuse to acknowledge qualitative studies on the efficacy of their communication method due to whatever your arbitrary rules are on what is or isn't considered proof of authorship is, I think, inappropriate. Thus the request for admin intervention. --Anomalapropos (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

We defer to Wikipedia's guidelines on medical referencing. Qualitative case studies hold no status against reviews published in reputable journals, and neither do editorials. It is common and encouraged for review articles to omit low quality sources from their analysis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And I would suggest that someone's method of communication not be held to the same standards as those governing the provision of medical advice.

[Addition: To provide an example, to say, "Amy Sequenzia said these words [using FC]" is not the same thing as saying "FC is appropriate and successful for every single non-speaking autistic person." Unless you have a particular reliable source that says that Amy Sequenzia *specifically* could not have possibly communicated using FC because of whatever reason, I don't think that referring to a literature review that ignores qualitative evidence of FC being used effectively is a good enough reason to discount everything that could have been communicated via FC and excluding it from Wikipedia articles. And repeat this argument for every other specific person who uses it.] --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The general does prove the specific. There is no need to debunk the same pseudoscientific claim each time it is made. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For the convenience of the administrators, here is a list of pages related to this discussion.

• Autism rights movement
• Amy Sequenzia‎
• Lucy Blackman
• Sue Rubin‎
• Benjamin Alexander (writer)
• Neurodiversity‎

There are also other pages about facilitated communication and it's users, but I have only listed those pages that are in dispute. The other pages for the most part seem to reflect the psudoscientific nature of FC. This 2014 literature review concludes "Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity." I do not believe that any reputable source exists to challenge it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship." So this review ignores every qualitative study that has proven efficacy, and we're using that as the sole determiner for whether FC is pseudoscientific or not? Quantitative data isn't the only reliable source, particularly when you're trying to evaluate competence. Just because someone gets an "F" on a test doesn't mean they don't know the material. There are a lot of factors involved. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We defer to Wikipedia's guidelines on medical referencing. Qualitative case studies hold no status against reviews published in reputable journals, and neither do editorials. It is common and encouraged for review articles to omit low quality sources from their analysis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718, you've also been deleting material from Autism rights movement. Please add it to your list of pages related to the discussion above. CatPath (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless one can play the speech synthesizer like Hawking, it is extremely doubtful that FC would be effective. If the goal of FC is to teach people play it, then I agree that it is a worthy cause. Otherwise the S from CUDOS prevails. And, yes, always citing high-quality sources prevents Wikipedia from turning into a PR venue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Extremely doubtful that it would be effective by whose measure? How is it that applying your objective measure of someone's competence, without being inside of their head, determines whether or not they are capable of doing something? And how are you able to apply your measure to every single person who might use FC? What diagnoses do each of these people have? What is their measured IQ? What about the participants in whom the quantitative studies of FC were conducted? Do we know all of their symptoms? There are people who now type independently who got to that point by using FC to start. So I can already tell you you're wrong.

I'm not arguing that a psychic claiming that their words come from dead loved ones be presented as a fact on an online encyclopedia. I'm saying that unless you can objectively determine that an individual person is incapable of ever using FC to convey their thoughts, then you cannot be removing what they claim are their words on the basis that you think they can't use it.

One of these articles was about someone who attended college and became a writer. There are hundreds of people who have seen this person every single day and interact with them. And for a random Wikipedia editor to remove the entire article on the basis that they decided that it couldn't possibly have happened and that nothing in that article can be presented as fact... even though they presumably have never met this person, know nothing about who they are, what their story is, what their symptoms are, and whether or not they are capable of using a letter board or a keyboard to convey their thoughts, based on, what, a diagnosis of a condition that has an incredibly wide expression of symptoms? And then that person can just point to numbers as their proof?

This isn't medical advice, and it shouldn't be held to the standard of it. It's people talking about their own lives. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In the end science is about what can be measured. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Measurements without context are meaningless. Science is not always right. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you have just agreed that science is not on your side. And for qualitative evidence, the courts have consistently found that facilitated communication is not a valid communication technique. See List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but you've definitely misinterpreted what I said. When I say "science is not always right," I'm saying that the science you are relying on is wrong. (In particular, I'm saying that their interpretation of the results is based on an objective measurement of competence and that our understanding of competence, particularly in autistic people, is very different now than it was in the 90s. Also, the data shows that FC was unable to be validated in double blind controlled studies. It doesn't show that FC is never effective ever. And we know that it can be because, again, there are people who type independently now who once used FC. But these people are very inconvenient to your argument, so instead of addressing them, you just pretend I haven't mentioned them at all! And then you make up arbitrary rules for what further specific proof needs to be done first before you could accept that anyone at all could possibly need someone to brace their shoulder in order to be able to type something!

I'm not saying science is not on my side, because it is. I'm not the one denying science here. I'm not the one shifting the goalposts to make up excuses to ignore very obvious evidence of its effectiveness. I can see that it is not effective in some cases. I can see that there is evidence of facilitator influence on occasion. Yes, that's definitely a problem. However, I can also see that there is clear evidence that it does work for some people. The thing is, this argument starts with the premise that I'm some kook ignoring science, but I'm not. You're looking at biased past interpretations of people's levels of competence, and you're using them to make generalizations of other people's levels of competence. Like I said, without even knowing the people involved, the argument you're making is that scientists who measured competence and, with their own inherent biases, interpreted the results are a more reliable source than literally anyone in that person's life.

Criticizing a method is not admitting that science isn't in my side. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There's always one. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Y'all just keep eloquently proving my point. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Doing my daily bored ANI browse, but this appears to be a giant content dispute - not sure there's anything for ANI to really do here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Is there any way you could transfer this discussion to the proper place? Thank you. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiman2718: I'm not sure what the best place for the discussion would be, possibly the autism wikiproject? SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: I'm new here, so I'm not entirely sure how these sort of disputes work. The dispute has to do with autism, pseudoscience, medicine, and the biographies of living people. It's ok if you're not sure where to put it. I'm sure someone will come along who can move this to where it needs to be. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What he is saying is this is a content dispute, and thus should be talked about over at the articles talk page. This is for reporting disruption, and that is all you should be talking about, users conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• For archives, adding recent related noticeboard discussions:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 65#Facilitated communication
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive284#Amy Sequenzia
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#Amy Sequenzia

—PaleoNeonate – 07:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In light of these archived discussions, I think this dispute should be moved to the medicine noticeboards. The wikipedians there will be properly equipped to evaluate the evidence at hand. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is not a case of medicine. This is a case of a user unwilling to accept what is right in front of them. Whether you think facilitated communication can work or not, there are users who have technically graduated college and have diplomas in their names. There are users who have their names on published poetry and books. And there are users who now type independently. Whether you like it or not, these are incontrovertible facts that do not need to be established by a doctor. You can argue to the moon and back about this, but you can't be removing facts from Wikipedia just because the implications of it are contrary to a human interpretation of scientific data. That is why I brought this here. Your actions are entirely unreasonable in the grand scheme of things. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I am referring to edits such as these (but not limited to these): 1, 2, 3, and especially 4. I've had this debate about content before, but no one else was making edits like these, and that's still what I'm disputing here. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A consensus that FC is psudoscience would means that all statements which imply that such people can communicate would have to be removed. FC users are not activists and they are not authors; they are disabled people who are being taken advantage of. The pages of all FC users will have to be re-written to reflect this. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The review you linked did not conclude that "FC is pseudoscience." That phrase is meaningless because "facilitated communication" could potentially mean half a dozen different techniques. Further, it clearly does work, because there are people who are now at a level of competence that is widely accepted to be a valid method of communication (i.e., being able to independently type on a keyboard, i.e., like I myself am doing right now) who have used this widely-considered-valid method to confirm that FC helped them to get to the point they are at now. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The review addresses FC in general. A number of older reviews find the same, but we prefer to cite the most recent literature. FC was considered debunked in the 90s. There are claims of FC users learning to type independently, but much like FC itself, no such claim has ever been verified scientifically (or even by a reliable source). The mainstream media that reports on FC without acknowledging it's pseudoscientific status is not reliable. It is normal to find such media on issues of pseudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not yet seen evidence concluding it is "pseudoscientific" or "debunked." I have seen a review concluding that there is evidence of facilitator influence in some of the messages, and I have seen theories as to why. There is no evidence concluding that every message communicated via FC is influenced, so no, it is not "debunked." We are dealing with human beings, not "spirits" or "ghosts." It is not possible to "debunk" a method of communication. Presumably there is a point at which one is competent enough to use it; correct?

FC has, in fact, been verified scientifically and by reliable sources, just by ones that you refuse to acknowledge. In regards to independent typers, Ido Kedar's book, Ido in Autismland, contains a foreword written by Dr. Yoram Bonneh of the Department of Human Biology at the University of Haifa, Isreal that verifies his identity and abilities. This may or may not be considered a "reliable source" based on whatever goalposts you're using today, but you are wrong yet again. And this is only one example. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time a professor made false claims about FC. Anna Stubblefield made a similar claim, but the courts disagreed. She later revoked that claim. If your evidence is not a WP:Med review, it doesn't count. I think that consensus has been established. In light of WP:BLPRS, I have decided to remove all material that implies or depends upon the proposition that FC is effective from all relavent pages. This will include the near blanking of Amy Sequenzia and the re-titling of Benjamin Alexander (writer). @Slatersteven: We can discuss the potential for re-write or deletion on the talk page. I will help you re-build the page if we decide to keep it. @Anomalapropos: Please do not try to revert these edits. If you do, I will have to change them back per WP:GRAPEVINE. I believe that I am justified in making these changes. If I am not, I am sure the administrators on this forum will take appropriate action against me. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to produce evidence (or a consensus) that facilitated communication is never effective, and this response is exactly why I asked for admin intervention. You are interpreting data to fit your own agenda and refusing to accept anything else. It is a violation of neutral point-of-view. I hope administrative action is taken on these disruptive edits that are meant to obscure facts which for which reliable sources exist and for which no reliable source contradicts. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have produced evidence per WP:MED. You seem to be the only one who disagrees here, and your opinion is grounded in ignoring guidelines. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your "evidence" was not a scientific consensus. It was a review of quantitative studies. Which guideline am I ignoring? --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

See what scientists say at [36]. Otherwise, Wikipedia is very strongly biased against the promotion of WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

An article is not a scientific consensus either. I can quote scientists who disagree with those ones. However, we can only deal with very specific sources, according to the people here who think its pseudoscientific, so within those parameters, I want to see the scientific consensus that FC is never effective. --Anomalapropos (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We have a WP:PAG, it's called WP:RS/AC. That's how we know what the scientific consensus is. Another source: [37]. Now, I'm not claiming that these are WP:MEDRS-quality sources, but from them you may Google further to what those professors published and have stated in court. Speaking of US courts, these have not recognized FC as true speech of the facilitated person. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718 shouldn't be deleting huge swaths of content without a consensus, but if the consensus goes in favor of writing BLPs from the point of view of the people using pseudo-science to exploit the BLP subject for their own benefit, then Wikipedia has gone crazy. ApLundell (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We also have a WP:MEDS quality source. concludes "Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity." Per WP:GRAPEVINE, consensus is not necessary to delete such contentious information. Reguardless, I do believe there is consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will again suggest that a person's competence cannot be measured by a random editor on Wikipedia by pointing at data sets for the method of communication that they used, that the competence of all people can be unreliable in controlled settings, and that the qualitative evidence for FC means that the only neutral action is to use reliable sources about the specific person. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, we don't want fringe POV pushers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The idea that the BLP subject is being exploited for someone else's benefit is your opinion, not a truth, as yet again, there is no scientific consensus that FC never works, and there is scientific proof that it can. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, you aren't a published scientist/scholar so it is all original research. Please see Howard Shane#Facilitated Communication. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

None of what I said is my opinion. I have referenced published scientists and scholars to back up everything that I have said. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest using other venues for WP:RS/AC denialism. Maybe you should try Conservapedia. Or your own blog. Here we are very biased for mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you review denialism yourself. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Denying that FC is WP:FRINGE/PS is a testimony that you lack an adequate understanding of the problem. There could be a WP:PAG-based dialogue if you admit that it is fringe, bereft of that agreement there can be no rational discussion with you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Denying incontrovertible evidence that FC can be effective, and then falling back on arbitrary guidelines for what counts as a fringe theory (and refusing to engage me when I try to clarify) indicates the same for you. I continue to be accused of being irrational for judging all of the evidence fairly (there is no reason not to, considering that evidence for FC outnumbers evidence against it) ... and yet you, and other users here, refuse to acknowledge other evidence at all, based on your belief that it is debunked, end of story ... which is easily contradicted. --Anomalapropos (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that:

• the rules which apply to debate championships (Debatepedia) don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to Academic Publishing Wiki don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to MBTI don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to Hindawi don't apply to Wikipedia;
• the rules which apply to the academia don't apply to Wikipedia.

To give you an example: for science experiments are decisive. For Wikipedia the scientific literature is decisive, not experiments. Wikipedia is in no position to perform its own scientific experiments. You might have the greatest discovery in natural science, if it hasn't been published with peer-review and accepted as mainstream science, it is useless junk for Wikipedia. We do describe scientific hypotheses, but we don't describe them as facts. So, if WP:CHOPSY derides it, it has to fulfill WP:EXTRAORDINARY in order to pass for accepted as science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You are again referring to guidelines and presuming a scientific consensus without offering evidence of this being the case. You are continuing to apply rules to this situation as if we have already established that point. We have not. The reason I am being interpreted as repeating my points over and over is because you are failing to provide evidence, but you keep engaging me as if you have done so already.

Re: WP:CHOPSY: "The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In matters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Wikipedia purposes." Great. This is what I'm advocating for. As per this journal article, "the preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills."

To me, this makes it pretty clear that the majority of evidence points towards some effectiveness. In response, I have been provided an article that quote scientists claiming that there is a consensus on the issue, and a literature review that excludes the majority of evidence for FC's efficacy and concentrates on data that was obtained 15-20 years ago. By all standards, I have not been provided with a scientific consensus. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are by default a person with a mission, so you will never agree to the WP:RS/AC or that you would have been provided with it. In the reality-based community the consensus is overly clear, and Wikipedia is not a front for renegotiating the medical consensus. You default to WP:IDHT. Your aim is to raise low-quality sources above high-quality sources (i.e. reviews indexed for the MEDLINE, a recent one which was told to you says the opposite of what you say). That is unacceptable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop presuming you know what my intentions are, and please also refrain from suggesting that I am removed from reality.

I am not trying to "renegotiate" the consensus; I am trying to get proof of it. You are referring to my sources as "low-quality" in order to discredit my argument. They are in peer-reviewed academic journals. These are not low-quality sources.

As I have already said, the review you are speaking of excluded the majority of evidence for FC's efficacy and concentrates on data that was obtained 15-20 years ago. This is not a consensus. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I meant: WP:IDHT—you have chosen to reject the medical consensus. That is just your choice, not ours. Also, the consensus claim does not stand or fall by only one paper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

How does WP:IDHT apply? I am asking you for proof of the consensus, not rejecting it. I am not pretending I didn't hear you; you literally are just refusing to provide evidence to back up your claim. That's you pretending you didn't hear me, not the other way around.

"the consensus claim does not stand or fall by only one paper" -- Exactly. There is no consensus because the data in peer-reviewed journal articles is conflicting. You are picking and choosing which evidence counts as acceptable, then treating me as if I am ignoring common sense when I ask for clarification, and ignoring the science that doesn't support it by claiming it doesn't meet the standard of a medical claim, even though "facilitated communication" is not a medical claim. --01:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not the place to educate you about WP:RS/AC. But speaking of WP:SOURCES, I have mentioned several, I have even translated quotes for you. You just don't take "no" for an answer. For a start, read the WP:RS of facilitated communication. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you gave me quotes from a web page that had a few scientists claiming there was a consensus. This does not constitute a consensus. The facilitated communication article violates WP:NPOV, and I don't consider it to be a reliable source on its own. The sources that were used for the article mainly criticize it. I'm quite aware of this.

However, there are more sources of the same quality that say otherwise (of which I have provided many, via the Amy Sequenzia Talk page). So again, we are looking at a curated list of reliable sources that make a number of claims about FC's efficacy (again, no consensus that it can never work; only that there is evidence of facilitator influence) versus another curated list of reliable sources, many of which support authorship in FC.

If I could draw an analogy, this argument is like trying to determine the scientific consensus on the use of a keyboard. There is no consensus, because people have individual capabilities that are a result of a number of factors. At some threshold of competence, a keyboard is useless, yes, and we can provide many studies of it not being effective, but none of it means that the "consensus" is that it is useless to everybody. Clearly, it can be useful to some people.

So I am disputing the use of quantitative data to make determinations of the competence of every person who uses FC. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To me the above sounds like you dig yourself into a hole. Also, are you a WP:SOCK or WP:CLEANSTART? You seem to remind me of some editor, although I don't know precisely who (there were fringe POV pushers at acupuncture and also at the GMO arbitration case). E.g. you sound much like [38], an editor who was also involved in discussions about autism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I have been pretty clear about my reasoning. No hole that I can see. Unless you have new information, I'll reserve further comments. I have never been to either of those pages. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To be sure, that's not a denial (as answer to my question). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a confirmation either. I'm not responding because I'm not obligated to. --Anomalapropos (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Outside opinion

OK, speaking strictly as an outsider to this little conflict, I have a few observations:

• Anomalapropos appears to be, based on a scan of their contributions by a non-admin, a single-purpose account focused on autism rights advocacy and closely related topics.
• The locus of dispute here appears to be a garden-variety content dispute; however, Anomalapropos appears to be pushing a POV that is not supported by sources that meet WP:MEDRS, while those on the other side of the dispute are attempting to enforce policy regarding the scientific consensus.
• Any time that someone disagrees with Anomalapropos, the response is, essentially, a recap of their current position and insistence that qualitative sources trump quantitative ones, that context trumps the weight of evidence, while remaining unfailingly polite.
• A full month ago, Bishonen already gave Anomalapropos good advice on their talk page, suggesting that they try working in a less-controversial area and try to build more consensus for their edits; this seems to have had no effect on their editing patterns.

My non-admin opinion, based on this information: Anomalapropos is a tendentious civil POV-pushing editor advocating a fringe theory regarding autism in general and facilitated communication in particular, who has engaged in WP:IDHT behavior towards advice intended to de-escalate the situation and demonstrated an inability to drop the stick and re-examine their behavior. They appear to be here not to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to right great wrongs against autistic individuals. Despite my own being on the autism spectrum, this doesn't give me any confidence that Anomalapropos is going to be able to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this point, and it might be time to start discussing a block. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am a new user, and I haven't edited other topics yet. You are correct. If any of my edits have not been neutral, please point them out in order to provide evidence that I am violating WP:NPOV.

Again, this is not a content dispute. I came here to discuss a user's disruptive edits. The user has blanked pages and removed large amounts of information without discussing his edits first (and when they are challenged, he simply reverts them and shuts down dissent). For example, after I reported his behaviour, he started a nomination for deletion of Amy Sequenzia's article by claiming that there was a "consensus" reached on this page to nominate it; there was not. He is disruptive because he is taking actions without discussing them when they are actively in dispute.

There is no scientific consensus that FC is not effective, and I have explained myself numerous times. Continuing to say it is does not prove otherwise.

Any time someone disagrees with me, I try to get clarification. I assume this is a normal way to respond, but I could be wrong. If you interpret my responses as restating my position, perhaps there is a misunderstanding that we are both missing. I'm not sure what me being unfailingly polite has to do with it, except that I can point out that, despite my unfailing "politeneness," several users involved have questioned my competency and good faith, but I have not reported any of these. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

The advice that was given to me had to do with making edits before discussing them -- exactly what is happening here, but on a grander scale.

My non-admin opinion is that if I am blocked for challenging the perception that FC can never work and proving incontrovertible evidence that it can, but [User:Wikiman2718] is not sanctioned for his extremely bold edits that remove facts backed up by reliable sources without being open to a discussion first, then perhaps we have very different ideas of what it means to contribute productively. --Anomalapropos (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your mistaken assumptions:

• • that we would have free (aka unstructured) debate (no, we don't);
  • that Wikipedia would be a level playing field between medical orthodoxy and altmed (no, it isn't);
  • that all opinions/sources are equal and should be treated equally (no, they aren't). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never implied any of those things. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you will have to acknowledge that the medical orthodoxy is that FC is WP:FRINGE/PS. As simple as that. Just stick to mainstream scientific sources, that's their final verdict about FC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have provided you with a mainstream scientific source that says otherwise. There is no "final verdict" as much as you want there to be. --Anomalapropos (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Good, that's evidence of WP:IDHT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang

Per WP:BOOMERANG I request a topic ban for Anomalapropos for all topics that can be construed as WP:FRINGE. Yes, this includes mentions of fringe topics in articles about mainstream topics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I would note that this user is making this request based on our disagreement on interpretation of sources for a very specific subject and not as a result of any edits I have made. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's just your view. I will let others chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anomalapropos: It is clear that you have good intentions, and it must be hard to see so much of your work under threat. However, there is absolutely unequivocal evidence against FC, and we must obey WP:RS guidelines. If you cannot see that, it might be better for you to edit in another area. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The evidence proved that there was facilitator influence in some messages. Not all messages. Some. This is not "unequivocal evidence against FC." And when placed next to other reliable sources of similar quality, it is clear that there is unequivocal evidence for FC. There might appear to be a consensus based on the synthesis of information that you have cherry-picked, but this qualifies as original research, not proof of a consensus.

I continue to contend that there is no consensus due to the conflicting evidence that scientific studies have presented in regards to the use of FC, and again, these are not low-quality articles. They are peer-reviewed and in academic journals. --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

For clarity:

> I came to report a user making disruptive edits; user says they were not disruptive edits because WP:FRINGE implies that every source is unreliable.

> I responded that WP:FRINGE does not apply, because there is no scientific consensus on the efficacy of FC.

> We exchanged sources. The evidence in said sources is clearly conflicting.

> There is a claim that specific sources outweigh mine because you have to go with guidelines for WP:MEDRS

> I have disputed this as well; I don't think that a method of communication constitutes Wikipedia:Biomedical information that needs to be governed by WP:MEDRS; this definition of "training" on the biomedical information page -- "how a person learns to do a job, or what tests they have to take to do that job legally, is not biomedical information" -- could apply.

> Further, like with every single method of communication, there is obviously a point at which facilitated communication can be effective 100% of the time (e.g., with a speaking person who has enough control of their body and can verify that it does work).

> If I am wrong on that point, please explain. But if I am right, then WP:MEDRS certainly doesn't apply to articles like Amy Sequenzia. Without an independent measure of her competence, one can't possibly claim that very specific sources have determined that she is too incompetent to use FC successfully (and that these very specific sources apply to the exclusion of all other sources that would otherwise be reliable).

> I say "otherwise" because the reliability of these sources is apparently challenged by WP:FRINGE

> Even though its inclusion in WP:FRINGE is what I am asking for a reliable source on in the first place (back to top and repeat)

Did I miss anything? --Anomalapropos (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Anomalapropos from all pseudoscientific topics. He has thoroughly demonstrated a willful disregard for Wikipedia's standards on fringe topics, and there is no point to allow him to continue editing in this area. His contributions and arguments are nearly certain to be rejected by any guideline-minded editor, and allowing him to even participate in dispute resolution on such topics will simply continue to waste everyone's time. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for fringe topics subject to MEDRS , but I think all fringe may be too broad. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't pseudoscience, as a topic area, under discretionary sanctions? (WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions) Unless I'm much mistaken, the DS in that area remain active. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from fringe topics subject to MEDRS. @Jéské Couriano: yes, pseudoscience is under DS, but Anomalapropos hasn't been alerted to them. @Anomalapropos:, you are not merely "being interpreted as repeating [your] points over and over", as you say above; you are repeating your points over and over, and thereby bludgeoning the discussion. Your debating technique is a waste of our most precious resource, which is constructive editors' time and patience. Meanwhile, I don't see our article Facilitated communication listed above. It states that FC is "a scientifically discredited technique" and puts it in the category pseudoscience. That might could have been a better original point of departure for this discussion, on WP:FTN rather than here. There was a discussion there in May, but quite short, and without input from Anomalapropos. But Anomalapropos has taken it here, to ANI, where a boomerang is always possible, in an apparent attempt to get an opponent sanctioned. One last point for information: Anomalapropos, you suggest above that "WP:MEDRS certainly doesn't apply to articles like Amy Sequenzia". Please note that if you should be topic banned according to this discussion, but continue to edit Amy Sequenzia and similar BLP articles according to your conviction that it doesn't apply to them, you can be topic banned from BLPs also, by a single admin, since you have been alerted to DS for those. Bishonen | talk 08:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC).

Perhaps you can tell me why WP:MEDRS applies to an individual's method of communication instead of telling me I'll be banned for questioning its application. --Anomalapropos (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I am not sure they do not have a mildly valid point, there does seem to be some recent research which supports FC, but in no one overturns the rest of the studies (partly because of methodology issues). But at the same time this has been taking up a lot of other users time, and does look very much like advocacy. Thus I am hovering between oppose and support, and would rather some other restriction was in place (such as a no edits without consensus ruling).Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all Pseudoscience, Fringe and Project Med related articles for this user who refuses to follow Wiki Policy regarding sourcing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't necessarily oppose, but I'm not sure about "all fringe topics" - is the goal to allow editing in less controversial subtopics of autism? If there is an apparent conflict of interest, could it affect objective editing about autism in general? And another option may be mentoring, but this would require both a generous volunteer and Anomalapropos would have to accept and drop the stick whenever told by the mentor that a source or edit are not acceptable. Just food for thought for the future depending on the outcome. —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marvin 2009

User:Marvin 2009's history shows that he's a single purpose account pushing a pro-FLG narrative on the highly contentious Falun Gong articles, which are under an arbitration case. He has engaged in soapboxing on the talk pages [39][40][41][42][43] where he attempts to discredit sources critical of FLG. He was also involved with edit warring, with User:Unicornblood2018 (now banned) [44] who he called a CCP apologist, and previously, he received several warnings for his disruptive editing [45], and was blocked for 48 hours for violating 3RR. In light of this I think a topic ban may be in order--PatCheng (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• None of the diffs you linked to seem to show problematic editing on the article itself- and the archive of his talk page only shows me that you and him have had past disagreements, going back 3 years. While verbose talk page walls of text are unpleasant, this strikes me as a dispute over sourcing and content, which ANI usually doesn't get involved in. Furthermore, his last edit to the Falun Gong article was around 2 months ago. I'm not sure this situation warrants a T-ban. Non-admin comment by: Rivselis (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciated User Rivselis's fair comments to User PatCheng. However, sock puppet account is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please use a legitimate account instead.

I paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article Zhang Jianhong (a poet who died of CCP's human rights abuse). FG topic is human rights related and I did some research in the area, so it became one focus. But I did edit other pages as well, refrigeration is one example. In my sand box, i started to work on a new page. I am going to work on many other areas as well.

As I notice the reason that human rights related pages often were not following WP:5P2 and showed poor quality, was mainly because there were some users who always promoted Pro-CCP narrative while disregarding Wikipedia policies. Sometimes I discussed with users on Talk Page. User PatCheng's contribution history showed the user was heavily involved in pro-CCP narrative in FG topic, such as Epochtimes. His complain against me here seems not to follow WP:COI?

As the link provide by PatCheng showed, I did not call the named user CCP apologist. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Marvin, I have not edited WP for years, and I am not an employee of any agency, so WP:COI can be more apt describing your edit patterns, which shows a distinctly similar pattern to User:Asdfg12345 and User:HappyInGeneral who are both topic banned from FLG articles per WP:FLG-A and have left WP as a result. Furthermore, a check on your edit history shows that the majority of your edits revolves around FLG related articles, with refrigeration at the very bottom, and have also spent quite a time sparring with User:STSC.--PatCheng (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

PatCheng: I asked whether your complain against me here seems not to follow WP:COI. Your answer regarding you "not edited WP for years" is not relevant. Your editing history included many evidence that led to my question on COI. Here let me only name a few.

• Your heavy pro-CCP bias plus your attack against CCP critics without using a reliable source If you can read the Reporters Without Boarders report China’s Pursuit of A New World Media Order, you will find out that the CCP critics you hated so much were not wrong.
• you framed one user's comment as vandal comment and removed it twice But many reliable source (one example - Report Cites Concerns About China's Influence On American Institutions) shows the comment you removed is a basic fact - CCP did infiltrate the world. In recent years, quite a few Chinese oversea engineers have been sentenced for spying on behalf communist party. May I know Why you attacked the user who discussed about CCP's oversea spy operation and removed his posts on talk page? Both you attack and your removal of his posts were against Wikipedia policy.
• you used CCP's cult label to attack and praised CCP's brutal crackdown. CCP's brutal human rights abuse was well documented. Please check a recent media report: Undercover video reveals brutal treatment of Falun Gong prisoners inside Chinese labor camps Your views and behavior on Wikipedia are against the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression, those pillars of modern civilization.

okay, yes, refrigeration is at the bottom of my top edited page list. As i said i cared about human rights, you can see the page 2008 Sichuan Earthquake and the page Zhang Jianghong are at No. 4 and No.6 of the list. I am not a FG single purpose user as you claimed.

I have no ideas on the two IDs you talked about. If you check users contributed to most FG related pages, you can see, over the years, many IDs who edited those pages were blocked. Those IDs showed similar editing pattern as yours: adding CCP propaganda content defying WP:OR or WP:RS, arguing with users who preferred any reliable sources that did not follow CCP party line. Those pro-CCP users were banned because of disregarding multiple Wikipedia policies. The blocked IDs on an arbitration case showed the similar editing pattern as I just discussed as well. You asked another user on his talk page for CU of me. Ironically, it seems that you are a user that needs to be CU. In my opinion, Wikipedia welcomes everybody, Pro-CCP user like you, pro-human rights user like me included. But everyone has to follow editing policies. I did feel sometimes my reply on Talk page were a bit long and unnecessary. I will try to improve in this area. BTW you had long/unnessary discussions as well, here is an example.

Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user, WP:NOTHERE

The majority of edits of a new user account (Sparkle1) registered on 8 June 2019 have been to revert edits or additions made by me to articles. When warned about breaching 3RR, the person responded in bad faith, and went on to revert more of my edits (of things such as timelines, which are widely accepted practice across Wikipedia). I have no intention of starting an edit war with the user in question, so would appreciate advice about how this can be quickly resolved. The behaviour, and use of terminology such as OR suggest this isn't a new user per se, but rather a sock of an existing user here.

--RaviC (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute and RaviC simply dislikes the content the have added being removed or even challenged. The better place for this is the relevant talk page. The user also appears to be a bit of a pedant as they have not assumed good faith by waving around silly warnings on talk pages and running here as opposed to being constructive and engaging on talk pages for articles. Here is not the place for content disputes. I would also like to point out that simply pouting out issues as opposed to running around throwing warning and running here applies under WP:boomerang to the person making this absurd report where there should be talking in much more constructive places. There is nothing here. This is a waste of the time of everyone involved. I would also like to say talking about socks and alike neglects that I have been an IP user for a while before creating an account. The bad faith from this report stinks to high heaven. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've asked you to follow the procedures of WP:BRD multiple times and you don't seem to have started one discussion. When the admins review the diffs, they will clearly be able to see where the bad faith stems from. --RaviC (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

But this is not a simple content dispute. You are edit warring across multiple articles while making no use of talk pages, on top of having a generally insufferable attitude. You are going to need to rapidly improve the way you communicate with people, and learn how to use dispute resolution, or you're going to have a bad time. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It also seems like the user in question is precariously close to violating 3RR in a dispute with SportingFlyer on the 2019 Polish parliamentary election article. --RaviC (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RaviC is displaying dangerously close amounts of WP:ownership over this very specific section of information. There has been a grotesque overreaction here and a lot of hostility and tension shown towards another editor who has dared to challenge this information being on this encyclopedia. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221. Sparkle1, the edit warring across multiple articles, as well as your conduct, are not acceptable. Why such incvility? If you know and understand Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol as you imply that you do in your comment above, then you should've started those discussions peacefully and pinged RaviC to them so that he could respond. Why didn't you? Please, both of you, no more edit warring... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The same applies to RaviC here. Instead of running around with warnings how about opening a talk on a user page. RaviC here is the one with the insufferable and appealing attitude and I take great affront to the ridiculous comments made regarding that. RaviC should be told to open discussions with users as opposed to simply placing warnings and running to places like this. It is not collegiate and it is not collaborative. A user who has given a sensible explanation and has acted constructively is Impru20 [46]. They gave an actual rationale instead of going completely defensive which RaviC has done. RaviC should talk a leaf out of Impru20's playbook. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not a great defense, saying that you will engage in revert wars unless the other user explains something to your personal satisfaction. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not asking for that but I simply find it hard to bear the bare faced gall of complaining about someone else not starting a discussion when RaviC won't or hasn't opened any constructive discussion. Where was the Hello on my talk page. Non existent. Instead I get hostility with a warning and then this. I find RaviC to have acted very portly and I do not see why i should not point that out. RaviC should have simply started a simple discussion on my talk page. RaviC has demonstrated they know where my talk page is but they are more interested in process with warnings and here, than extending a friendly hello and a chat. RaviC has been very hostile. I think this is all overblown, out of proportion and silly. As such please lets talk on my talk page if there is something constructive to talk about as this is just politics. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You received your polite invitation to discussion here. Don't bother playing the victim card, it really won't work. --RaviC (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RaviC have you considered alerting the SPI noticeboard? Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've considered it, but I'm not sure there's much to work with at this stage. --RaviC (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sparkle1 - If you were bothered by the warnings and notes left on your user talk page, why didn't you open those talk page discussions, peacefully express your concerns, and try to discuss the issues with RaviC in a civil and respectful manner? Why do the warnings he left excuse you from the need to try and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol? If the warnings were mistakes or felt to be in bad taste, you should've done the right thing by peacefully starting a discussion and saying so. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because one person is (seemingly) assuming bad faith when they shouldn't be, doesn't mean that you get to throw Wikipedia's policies and guidelines out the window and do what you please in response... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: it seems that the user in question has decided to ignore the messages here. From their conduct in multiple articles today against Vabadus91, it seems that they have learned little to nothing about dispute resolution procedure here. I would like to restore content to the pages where content was arbitrarily removed; could an admin give me their insight into how I should go about this? --RaviC (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit war over twitter storm

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

---

Oy. El_C 23:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
What a strange coincidence, I was just talking about these. cygnis insignis 23:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I am edit warring over the inclusion of a notice toward twitter regarding

• WP:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram‎
• WT:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram‎ at section Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Women in Red project accusing Wikipedians of "REAL CRIMES"

and

• the associated project, not named yet.

I think it is beyond the scope of this site and the related page. I am accused of having an agenda. I expect to be chastised for diffs, I get them. cygnis insignis 23:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• the tweet reply I saw when I got there was "...Aaaand this tweet has been mentioned on enwiki.. [Insert coming storm here]" cygnis insignis 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  Obviously the project you're looking to notify is WP:WiR, after all it's their Twitter account. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"I am edit warring". Well yes you are. Please self-report to WP:EWN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• I notified The Rambling Man here cygnis insignis 23:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There's really not an "edit war", more a "censorship" thing going on. Certainly I made an enquiry over an agenda. I just didn't understand why the external discussion of a Wikipedian including legal accusations in the context of WP:FRAM needed to be either redacted entirely or moved to a talk page. Whatev's. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

See notice at the top of WP:FRAM "Off-topic discussions and tangentially related sections may be moved to the talk page." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Cygnis insignis: Please stop. Even if you think the tweet shouldn't be linked or discussed, the strategy you are employing is counterproductive. Abecedare (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks, but I have stopped. That is why I brought it here, if someone agrees that should have been suppressed as potentially provocative, they could have acted. The damage is done, it is advertised. cygnis insignis 23:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight... You're reporting yourself for edit warring. What do you recommend then? A block? Or just a warning?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Cygnis insignis: - In a serious vein, could you explain how external discussion of Fram's ban could be considered not relevant to the page on Fram's ban? There's never been anything that said our discussion must refuse to even mention external viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In a serious vein, no, my comment would be dripping with sarcasm. cygnis insignis 23:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I've informed Women in Red about this thread, as it does rather concern them. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Anyone going to remove the offending item … cygnis insignis 23:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it reasonable to call this the project's twitter account? It has the same name as the project. And it seems likely that the people who run it are project members. But I don't think it is the case that all project members have access to the twitter account. And investigation of who on Wikipedia is associated with off-Wikipedia pseudonymous accounts is generally severely discouraged, per WP:OUTING. So I don't think it's appropriate to be complaining about what that twitter account might do in a way that suggests that all project members are responsible for its tweets. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As a notification, I have filed a statement regarding the tweets at the ArbCom case regarding the Fram incident. starship.paint (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

New user with spurious "blocks"

Could an admin please have a quick look at the new editor Moral Value who appears to be issuing "blocks" which are not? Thanks. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. Best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing: thanks for reporting. I was just about to swing by here to say HEY, I think it's that Indonesian vandal--can someone have a look and see if the underlying IP needs to be blocked as a proxy? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

At least one user was genuinely alarmed. I reassured them everything is fine. El_C 01:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

At least one other account had also been editing; all the other ones I looked at were new. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at ANI RPP

Not huge, but another pair or even quartet of hands would be useful (should this be here or AN?) Doug Weller talk 08:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Do you really mean ANI (which is this very board) or smth else?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Damn. RPP. 5, but I always think RPP needs fairly quick responses. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ivan Gundulić

Please block the user "Mm.srb" for a constant change of the page and write the falsehood about the Croatian poet Ivan Gundulić.Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gunduli%C4%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing conflicts are not decided by edot-warring and calling an opponent "vandal". They are decided by participation in talk page discussions and finding consensus. To help you to understand the point, I protected the page from editing for two weeks and reverted it to the pre-war state.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the editing page, but why did you leave the editing version that was not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not my role to discuss what is correct and what is not. My role is to push you and your opponent to look for consensus. Since you were changing IPs constantly and were blindly reverting your opponent calling his edits "vandalism", whereas they took the trouble to point you out to the talk page, this is the only way to push you going to the talk page. If, after the protection expires, I will see these edits continuing, I will start applying blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, but I have nothing to argue with him about his lies, everything is written in the article about who is Ivan Gundulić .Ragusa is an Italian name for the city of Dubrovnik, there is no nationality of Ragusian that does not exist as you left it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you do not have anything to argue, you will not be able to edit the article. As simple as this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, with a liar, there is nothing to discuss, let it continue to lie,I will not open and read lies on that page anymore.There is no justice here.Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.35 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is Croat and Croatian poet, you have to correct the page not to write Serbian propaganda and something that is not, here and proof https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-Gundulic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.107 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Read about why there is no "right version" when protecting a page.

Then read about our reliable sources rules for why we're not going to rely on Britannica as a source.

Then take your discussion to the Talk page and work out your issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to raise a couple of points here: 1) I was not notified about this thread, which is everything but okay. 2) I did not want and do not want to edit war with this IP adress. Most of my edits were constructive and neutral in nature, or at least that is what I gave my best to achieve. 3) A discussion about this issues was opened and opened on the same talk page for some time. 4) The neutral version, that is a poet from Ragusa, was the stable version for a lot of time. This can be checked when comparing histories of the article. 5) Most of other notable figures from the former indepenedent Republic of Ragusa are described in the same manner, per NPOV and historical facts (they had their own Slavic Catholic identity, separate from modern ethnicities). 6) I was labeled and insulted by the same disruptive unregistered user over several times... 7) I think that Ivan Gundulić should be made permanently unavailable for editing to unregistered useres prone to vandalism and offending other users. 8) The same page suffered quite a lot from editors like the one in question for quite some time and I have no doubt that the same behaivour will otherwise continue to take place. Thank you, Mm.srb (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

28 November/Rotherham cleanup needed

A few weeks ago I reported a couple of IPs to AIV for repeatedly adding unsourced birth dates and birth places to articles, often choosing 28 November for the date, and Rotherham for the place. The affected articles are now on my watchlist, so I've discovered Specialwood (talk · contribs) doing the same thing. Exploring the history of some of the affected articles, I've found 31.49.25.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 31.51.95.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 84.92.218.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doing the same. The editing pattern goes back to 2012 at least. So please will someone block Specialwood; and if anyone would like to help uncover and fix the damage I'd be grateful. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ineedtostopforgetting and disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have given Ineedtostopforgetting a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, including lying about the warnings on their talk page. If the disruption continues, the next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's make some decisions, shall we? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal 1: Temporary ban/block per WP:CIR and/or WP:DISRUPTIVE

• Support, accused user is blatantly lying about "only being warned once" when their talk page history disapproves that theory. Multiple warnings have been issued, but to no avail. I feel like a temporary block is thus necessary right now. However, the ban should not be permanent as the accused user currently has a clean block log, and such edits would probably not warrant an instant indefinite block. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Let the accused user go with a final stern warning

• Oppose, for reasons stated in my reply to proposal 1. Maybe place the accused user under some surveillance after their possible future block expires? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Place the accused user under some form of surveillance so this would hopefully not happen again

• Support, and this would be even better if both proposal 1 and 3 are carried out simultaneously. Placing them under some form of surveillance would hopefully hinder any other bad edits, and it could make the accused user more competent. This could, in the end, lead to very good edits being made by the accused user. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 19:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Need admin warning

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

---

Karthikhar24 is keen on adding copyvio content, removing deletion tag, recreating deleted files and creating non-English pages. --AntanO 11:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have briefly blocked the user for copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Refbombing

• Bishunpur-Jaunpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Spallahabad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Bishunpur-Jaunpur is ... remarkable. It seems to be the work of User:Spallahabad, an unfamiliar name to me. I went to their talk page and was surprised to see more (old) messages from me than from anyone else. I don't want to give the user the impression that I'm hounding them, I don't seem to have been successful communicating with them in the past, it's near my bed time, and ... perhaps I'm just a bit lazy. Could somebody else take a look, and, if appropriate, brandish the mop? (Who knows, perhaps I sleepily misunderstand, this user should be praised for diligence in referencing, and the mop should be brandished at me.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable request. Probably an 'objective' admin. should look into it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Everything cited seems to be connected to the Union Bank, except for one which possibly would have made a reasonable source for supporting the PIN in the infobox. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• I put a notice on the user's talk page to ask them to improve the referencing. If the article doesn't get improved, I don't think any administrative action would be needed, but in that case it might be better to revert the article to a version such as this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Kuru has stripped the article of its junk sources (though what's left is unsourced, and isn't even comprehensible; example: It is a village have internal relationship with the village Ramapur from ancients days while), and done the same to a second article, Ramapur. Metropolitan90 has left a message on the user's talk page. So the immediate problem seems to have been fixed. As for longer-term problems, try Talk:Ramapur and Talk:Bishunpur-Jaunpur for the battiness surrounding these articles -- battiness that continues to bring up the name Vivek Kumar Pandey. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(NSFW) A user's unusual behavior

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

---

User:Crossdresser Chrissy has been uploading images of himself cross-dressing to Commons. Not only that, he is adding those images to articles about cross-dressing, including his own user page, in a manner unsuitable for Wikipedia. A list of his contributions can be seen here.

I don't know about you all, but I find this user's behavior to be gross and disturbing. So much, in fact, that I've temporarily came back to editing again just to write this. He has not been warned about this so far. I don't know if site policy has a protocol for this kind of activity, but I doubt that it's okay. I've therefore drawn attention about this to all of you admins, in case you aren't aware of it already. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anonymuss User - These actions, if exclusively being done to Commons and not the English Wikipedia, would need to be reported (and any necessary administrative actions taken) there. There wouldn't be anything we can do about it here. Aside from that point, Commons has... a lot of images uploaded there that one would find explicit, such as pictures of one's own genitalia, and other such images. I'm not expert on content policies on Commons, but I would imagine that the images that are being uploaded aren't in violation of any policies there. That being said, it won't hurt anything if you check and ask about it on Commons, though. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well, it's not "gross" (and probably not disturbing for most) but it's certainly a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and I see that another admin has deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You just posted a "currently engaged in an edit war" template on the talk page of a user that last edited article space four weeks ago? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Charles01 behaviour

Extended content

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" [47] Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [48] 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" [49] Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [50] The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [51] [52] His reply to the template message [53] Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [54] Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [55] [56] Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [57] One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [58] [59] 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. [60] [61] [62] The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me. I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC) It was archived as udea, and I am not sure that you deciding it should not be archived is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC) The archive was done by a bot. I provided diffs, evidences and everything, how can they not try and evaluate this? They can't just discarded this because it was created by me. This been going on way before anything else prior to that. I don't want to let this get sweep under the rug and forgotten. --Vauxford (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC) u|Oshwah I know I shouldn't really ping admins but I talked to you about this before. Please at least look at this, this is nowhere near worst then what I got myself into with the previous discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue with a sock puppet

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

---

Resolved

Hello, I've been having a issue over the last few days with a sock puppet, user 88.147.36.93. He is known as MySuperBelt85 who been consistently been vandalising my talk page and as well as CityOfSliver's talk page. In 2017, MySuperBelt85 was consistently vandalising the article Mafia III by removing sourced information, he been blocked multiple times but every time he quickly returns with a new sock account (a new account he created or another IP address). Mafia III has been protected multiple times but he will resume vandalising the page as soon the page becomes unprotected, the page has been protected for nearly two years and he been quite since until this last month where he has been vandalising my and CityOfSliver's talk page stating that he will continue to vandalise the Mafia III article as soon the page become unprotected in November. I'm hoping that an admin can do something to stop his vandalism, Thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Ongoing feud with U1Quattro

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

---

U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user is not only reverting my edits at whim, he now begun to vandalise every article that I edited.
Enzo 3R: Special:Diff/901991464 Special:Diff/902027129 Special:Diff/902033825 (Me adding this content: Special:Diff/889119454)
F50 3R: Special:Diff/901990874 Special:Diff/902027079 Special:Diff/902033792 (Me adding this content: Special:Diff/889119404)
MC12 3R: Special:Diff/901992160 Special:Diff/902027172 Special:Diff/902033875 (Me adding this content: Special:Diff/883958808)
His reason: "They need not to be mentioned. This is an informative article, not a technical guide in which technical codes are written. "
And so he claims wikipedia for his own and deletes every code I added, just because He says so:
Special:Diff/902034549
Special:Diff/902034568
Special:Diff/902034590
Special:Diff/902034633
Special:Diff/902034665
Special:Diff/902034734
Special:Diff/902034779
Special:Diff/902034800
Special:Diff/902034826
Special:Diff/902034855
Special:Diff/902034882
Special:Diff/902034960
Special:Diff/902034977
Special:Diff/902035011
Special:Diff/902035032
Is this a person who seeks consensus? Is this a person who honours other people's work? Please do something about it. Do not let him bludgeon another thread. More proofs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Unacceptable_behaviour_by_Ybsone
YBSOne (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For those who managed to miss the wall of text from the last time these two users came here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Unacceptable_behaviour_by_Ybsone. It's clear that these two users are not capable of civil interaction, and at least one IBAN will probably be necessary here. creffett (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Out of 8 references on FXX page He decided to "fix" only mine: Special:Diff/901228740 Special:Diff/901624330 Bias.

Administration has failed to punish him and now his behaviour is unbearable
YBSOne (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Chassis codes don't form part of an informative article. There is a reason why articles on other cars from other manufacturers do not mention them. It is clear that the user does not understand the purpose of why the article is there and continues to add information which might not be understandable to the general public. The user as also been involved in breaking the IBAN imposed as a result of a previous ANI discussion. Moreover, words like these "can you not read with comprehension?" and "Don't delete edits you know nothing about!" suggest that this user is implying the impression of "owning" the articles while failing to reach a civil consesous on a talk page discussion.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite and manipulator. The reason You deleted this content was and I quote: "‎Ferrari F50 ‎ That is the engine type."

"Enzo Ferrari (automobile) ‎ This is the engine code name. "

" Maserati MC12 ‎ Added short description. Removed content without source. "

It had nothing to do with being "too technical" but with Your pitiful lack of automotive knowledge. You have mistaken a chassis code for an engine code not knowing that on some Ferraris the codes are the same. And twhen I have educated You You have changed Your offensive strategy to "oh, it's too confusing..." YBSOne (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/902039332 As this is going on he is still reverting my edits. Replacing a primary source with a secondary one. Can administration see he is out of control?! YBSOne (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS. A fact needs to be verified by third party sources. About the codes. Yes the engine codes are same. The engine type used in the F50 is F130 while you added "Type 130" the same is for the Enzo Ferrari. These edits are confusing to the general public. Your recent frustration on this thread also indicates that you fail to understand that this site is not a court of law where people are punished for disagreement. As far as I see it, you're trying to force your way here.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @YBSOne:, @U1quattro:: Do not continue this argument any further. Neither of you is "in the right" here and your continued bickering does not help either of your cases. creffett (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Admins: Given that both editors have an IBAN already (missed that part) and they have both violated their IBAN (YBSOne has reverted U1Quattro's edits as "VANDALISM," U1Quattro has reverted at least one of YBSOne's edits within the past day), I recommend short-term blocks for both, plus closer eyes on both of them to enforce the IBAN since clearly they . Please. Before this gets out of hand again. (Before either of you say it: it's completely irrelevant which one of you violated the IBAN first. Saying "but he started it!" just makes you look like a couple of five-year-olds) creffett (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't hane an IBANS actually, it was "given" by a user and he closed the thread and it was reopened. As I understand he did not have any competence to do either. YBSOne (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We actually do. An admin agreed with it.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

READ: " @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)"

Enough. We are not going through this again. I am imposing a binding 2-way Interaction ban on you both, with great prejudice. Please stay away from and do not comment on one another from now on. El_C 03:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there was no consensus for an IBAN in that previous report (not enough users participated), and since I now realize that I'm unable to impose such a ban unilaterally, I'm reopening this report. Let the sniping continue, I guess. Unless both users agree to an IBAN, in which case, we're fine once again. El_C 12:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Stuff me wit green apples, enough, IBAN for god sake.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Two-way IBAN

I propose that both of the users be indefinitely banned from interacting with each other. Exact wording below:
U1Quattro and Ybsone are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions as stated in WP:BANEX. This ban is only appealable to the community after a period of one year at the earliest, and every 6 months thereafter.
With thanks. Editors participating may be interested in reading prior discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Unacceptable_behaviour_by_Ybsone. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nom. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging all past participants
@Floquenbeam, Eeng, Vauxford, HandThatFeeds, Sable232, Slatersteven, A lad insane, RandomGnome, and Rosguill: --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC) @Oshwah, Nyttend, EEng, and WaltCip: --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support FFS, either IBAN or nuke from orbit, since neither one seems to be willing to drop the stick, even after posting massive wall-of-text screeds here that have repeatedly drawn very little external interest because of them turning into massive extensions of the existing squabble that tends to discourage people from wanting to respond. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I am against. I didn't seek administrative sanctions against U1Quattro to "give myself an interaction ban". I can refrain, which I do, from interacting with this user. I don't delete his edits out of spite or lack of understending of the subject. My edits were reverted by him at least 45 times over past months. Out of spite alone. By brushing yet another of his outbursts under the rug You are all responsible for him being out of control. Mark my words. YBSOne (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Quoting WP:IBAN: A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. You both need to understand that this action is borne out of desperation and not because we feel like it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic

you are at 3RR as well, and some of the content you added appears to be unsourced. Thus it is down to you to provide a source (not edit war without adding one). Did you try add a source or discuss this at the talk pages?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC) It was not only sourced but I also took it to the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferrari_F50#Tipo_130:_both_chassis_AND_engine YBSOne (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Proof of source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_F50#cite_ref-ferrari.com_11-0 YBSOne (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Why can't You understand that I will never win with him. I add a simple fact, he reverts it and demands a source. I provide a source, he reverts it claiming it is confusing. I add it again, he reverts it claiming it is not needed here, etc... YBSOne (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Well this should sum it up Special:Diff/902081574, take care, I'm fed up with this. YBSOne (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Editors are allowed to remove notices from their talk pages. It's a non-issue. I'm collapsing this before it gets out of hand. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC) You know very well I wasn't talking about the notice. YBSOne (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Comment about my last revert of U1Quattro's change of designer source. Here Special:Diff/902207569. Yes I did it for the n-th time but I would like to briefly explain why. It is extremely hard to find proofs of some of the designers work as manufacurers and especially studios activelly mask who designed what. Pininfarina took great lenghts to redact design sketches from designers' signatures. To find a portfolio website is like a gold. And I have tried to defend this find. (Very simillar case was with Enrico Fumia's website that was invaluable because he also included exact dates of his designs.) `YBSOne (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I am tired of the wasted time wading through their endless arguments. I see no signs that they will learn to interact peacefully. - Donald Albury 14:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support They are not going to tolerate each others edits so this is overall a net drain.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support per my earlier comment - it's abundantly clear that these two cannot have a meaningful civil interaction, and for the sake of my sanity I would prefer that we get this over with quickly so as to keep their feud from spilling onto AN/I again. creffett (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom Schazjmd Talk 14:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is still going on? If these editors cannot drop the stick, then yes, they need to be separated. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. Have mercy and please end this. RandomGnome (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This has gone on long enough. Nearly 2 weeks of ANI's time have been wasted on this. This could of been resolved in a few days, but it lasted nearly two weeks and became a mess. The ANI thread above is proof that neither of them can drop the stick. Thus, a IBAN is the best course of action. Thank you. The Duke of Nonsense^{What do you request fellow editor?} 20:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in the previous discussions and the clear intractable issues above. (As an aside - my sincerest apologies for my error in the previous AN/I that exacerbated this.) --Sable232 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support Things like this get out of hand too quickly. Nip it in the bud, now. Blackmane (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Blocks

• Comment I've blocked U1Quattro as clearly the aggressor here. I'm particularly focused on the fact that he has reverted Ybsone multiple times, but when Ybsone reverts him, it's an i-ban violation. No comment on whether anything needs done to Ybsone; it is 100% clear to me that U1Quattro needs a block, but I'm not sure what should happen to Ybsone. And support the 2-way i-ban, except I can guarantee one or both are going to game the i-ban about 3 minutes after it is imposed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Ybsone for the same duration as I do not feel this is one-sided. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption on the part of both of them requires a time out from the project. I thought we would try the IBAN without blocking first, but if you'e going to go that route, both parties' disruptive editing needs to be taken into account. El_C 15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as you're confident Ybsone is more or less equally to blame for the continuing disruption, I'm fine with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Zbgradina

Wikipedia policy says Don't bite the newcomers, but this newcomer has been biting me! He deletes my posts on his talk page and adds questionable information to articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Response

I’m so sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbgradina (talk • contribs) 03:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, please be aware that Zbgradina has every right to delete your messages from their talk page. The assumption is that they read and understood your messages. You asked them twice if they were from the Bowling Green area. You do not have the right to ask intrusive questions about another editor's personal information. That is creepy and unacceptable. Respect their privacy and focus on improving the encylopedia. As for the "questionable information", please provide diffs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Thunderchunder WP:NOTHERE

I'm bringing this back up again now the thread above has run its course and has been closed as a train wreck. Two of the proposals in that thread were created by Thunderchunder (talk · contribs), a user who has only 56 global edits on the project: [63] and [64]. I commented on the proposal here after reviewing Thunderchunder's contributions to the project and suggesting the user was not here [65]. I'm bringing this back up specifically because I checked to see what this user had done since I called them out for their odd editing patterns, and since then, they've gotten another user blocked indefinitely, have made a grand total of one arguably constructive edit, and have created a special userbox celebrating the number of WP:NOTHERE "allegations" against them. As I previously noted, I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the editing pattern here, but I have serious concerns about a user who has a relatively high percentage of their posts dedicated to indefinitely blocking other users (at least 2 of 56, by my count), and very few posts actually improving the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what is up with them. I would (at this stage) support a warning. I cannot help but wonder if he is a puppet of some kind, if so a ban would be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not !voting for anything at this point, but since their first visit at ANI I had the same impression. —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• If the community is not part of the encyclopedia, then I'll accept the warning to focus more on articles. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban. Obviously a returned banned editor. One doesn't mention "lede" in their first edit. [66] One does not post edit war warnings to other editors within their first ten edits. [67] One does not head to ANI quoting BOOMERANG and DUCK in their first fifteen edits. [68]. This wasn't a good try. starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a pretty bold conclusion to say "Obviously a returned banned editor." unless you're also going to say which one. Why not a WP:CLEANSTART? Sure, the pattern might seem suspicious, and disruptive is as disruptive does, and WP:CLEANSTARTs are supposed to avoid old conflicts, but still, if you don't know which old conflict this is... You can support a ban just based on behaviour regardless. -- Begoon 11:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Tip for anyone who's trying to CLEANSTART - ensure you make more than 10 edits to article space per year. No, I don't know which banned editor this is, and I don't particularly care. starship.paint (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This is why I am only really supporting a warning for now. There may be a number of reasons why this user may know so much about us (hell I believe there are even websites that tell you how to edit the project). I really would like to see a bit more evidence then a gut feeling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thunderchunder has acknowledged [69] that their edits were a botched WP:CLEANSTART, that they will commit to article improvements, and that they will stick to the Thunderchunder account. In that light, I'm willing to give them another chance, and have rescinded my vote to ban. starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Warning, could be a WP:CLEANSTART, like Begoon said. If the CheckUser is clean, then there is no need for a block. Maybe if Thunderchunder would kindly disclose his former accounts if need be. Would recommended they enrol in the adopt-a-user system in order to get better at editing. The Duke of Nonsense^{What do you request fellow editor?} 14:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. In the last few days, this user has gotten involved in thorny discussions like a proposed interaction ban for Hijiri 88. There's absolutely no way this is appropriate — undisclosed alternative accounts may not engage in internal discussions of this sort, and as noted above, clean-starts must step away from past disputes. Why would you get involved in such a thorny case if you didn't care about it beforehand? The only reason I didn't indef is the possibility that this is a CLEANSTART gone awry. Please continue discussing this case if you believe it useful (I'm not trying to shut down conversation), and feel free to ask questions here of Thunderchunder; at his talk I said if you wish to respond to anything there [this discussion], ping me and (assuming it's not grossly abusing) I will copy your statement to ANI. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Bad block – A preventative sanction would be an IBAN or a TBAN; this was purely punitive, with no warning, based on an admin's stated assumptions of bad faith. "You're editing the wrong parts of the encyclopedia, so I'm going to stop you from editing any of the encyclopedia for a week" does not make sense. – Levivich 16:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, it's logical. This is obviously not a new user, so it's a 99% chance it's either a blocked editor, a good hand/bad hand account, or a CLEANSTART. If it's either of the first two they should be blocked anyway, if it's the latter they shouldn't be diving into contentious areas (some of the other articles they've approached (i.e. Tartary, have been flagged up on ANI). I realise the account is over a year old, but it did nothing for the first 8 months of that. Waiting for CU data to go stale, possibly? I realise it's approaching ABF, but on the other hand if an account isn't going to be contructive there's little point in indulging it. Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• The way I see it, this block prevents further disruption in ANI discussions for 1 week. —PaleoNeonate – 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sure, and if the behaviour resumes, the sanction can increase, probably to indef. I support the block - it gives an opportunity to change course but makes it clear we won't be messed around. Good block, imo. -- Begoon 16:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Good block. A block is *never* not at all punitive. In fact, if someone didn't do something wrong, there would not be a reason to believe they will do anything wrong later (preventative block logic) in the first place. The editor needed the time away and it was enforced as administrators are allowed to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW I don't necessarily buy that this is just an accidental botching of a CLEANSTART. The fact that they chose to come after me specifically makes me suspect that they might be evading either a limited sanction or a site ban that their original main account was subjected to as a result of interactions with me. (Let alone the fact that a CLEANSTART account would be unlikely to remain dormant for eight months.) I don't mind if TC does not wish to disclose the name of their prior account publicly or to me specifically, but it would be best if he did so by email to Nyttend, some other trusted member of the community, or ArbCom, and said editor(s) could confirm whether the original account is subject to any unappealed blocks/sanctions, or "left the project" under any specific circumstances. (The editor I kinda suspect TC of being was not subject to any specific editing restrictions, but did storm off in a huff after being issued with a final warning about disruptive behaviour; such an editor making a "clean start" in order to avoid being subject to restrictions for violating said warning would be inappropriate.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn

The user acts as though s/he is a sort of moderator/ supervisor for the Gender article, and displays clear bias in supposed enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines to align the article with their personal opinion.

The user initially reverted my edit on March 25, stating that the source l supplied was bad. l changed the source from an online article to an original academic research on which the article was based, then sent thanks for the reversion.

The user then began to self-represent as a type of moderator/ authority of the article, both on the edit summary and Talk:Gender#"In_the_traditions_of_cultures_dominated_by_languages_in_which_there_are_gender_pronouns." At this point, another user began to participate in the discussion. After some discussion, the other user User:-sche made edits without citation, which User:Flyer22 Reborn neither discussed nor took any action upon. l called this out immediately, and when no actions were taken, l took further action on the talk page after 1 week. Note that at this point, neither myself nor Flyer22 Reborn made any further edits. -sche then made a feeble defense for the lack of citation, and proceeded to make further edits and added 2 citations. One of those citations was restated verbatim in the body of the article (more than once). 20 days after this edit, l checked the source and found that it is not reliable. Flyer22 Reborn, who is presumably vigilant of poor sources, took no action in this case as well.

l then copied and pasted the content of the other citation given and gave notices as well as discussed -sche's actions and the information in dispute on Talk:Gender. Since that time, -sche has made no further edits nor responded to my statements on Talk:Gender. The same day l made the edit and gave notice, Flyer22 Reborn made an edit to delete most of the information, leaving one fragment; a few days later, made further edits and a long statement on the edit summary. None of this was discussed on Talk:Gender. Edits (vandalism) on other parts of the article based on the non-authoritative source remain at present.

The user displays personal bias toward the subject at hand, and consistent efforts to steer the information in this article to align with that bias. Ellesmelle (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

1. This isn't the place for content disputes. 2. This report lacks evidence in the form of diffs. 3. You've failed to inform the user about this report, which is mandatory. El_C 18:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy close:(edit conflict) Why did you post this here and now? Flyer22 Reborn hasn't posted to the Gender article since end of May. The article and talk pages have had very little traffic since end of May. It's not good form to bring a content dispute that has been quiet for at least two weeks, here without so much as discussing the problems on the talk page or with the other editor during that time (if not longer). You have only made 4 edits in the last two weeks. In addition to the poor timing, I don't see anything that rises to the level of needing an ANI. You are claiming bias but I'm not seeing it. Springee (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• The OP also failed to notify -sche, which I've just done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. :) I think we can cut Elle some slack: they notified Flyer on her user page rather than her talk page, it's clear they're still learning how Wikipedia works. I see another user has weighed in now. -sche (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at that article now. It's going to take a bit to get up to speed here, but one immediate observation is that there is a significant amount unsourced content, and I've already spotted inaccuracies and unencyclopedic writing. There is definitely synthesis going on, though I'll need to go through the history to see who added it. Having worked in collaaboration with -sche on these topics before, I don't think they're who added it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

DanWarpp and Netherlands IPs

DanWarpp registered a username today for the purpose of continuing the extensive pattern of edit warring from a number of IPs from the Netherlands. DanWarpp explicitly connects himself to the previous behavior by saying "even though you removed my message from your talk page..." following my removal of comments from Special:Contributions/190.2.144.131.

Starting on June 3 at Life After Death, IPs from the Netherlands began edit warring over references, with five reverts within a 24-hour period on June 3–4,[70][71][72][73][74] and three more on June 6.

At OK Computer, DanWarpp showed up to resume the edit warring of Netherlands IPs. The disruption started on June 13 over a header style decision involving parentheses and years, with six reversions by Netherlands IPs in a 24-hour period.[75][76][77][78][79][80] Yesterday, the IPs from the Netherlands added rateyourmusic and changed a Library of Congress reference,[81] then reverted back their preferred version three times, followed by DanWarpp to make a fourth revert in 24 hours.[82][83][84][85]

The behavior of this person is tendentious. The constant edit warring is disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

In almost all of your edits, you never provide an explanation as to why you reverted. I politely asked you every time to discuss any concerns in the talk page but you never did. I myself have discussed the disputes regarding Life After Death and OK Computer with the other editors in in articles' respective talk pages. How are my edits disruptive? DanWarpp (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 190.2.153.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.150.230 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.149.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.154.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.144.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.241.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.240.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.241.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.243.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.152.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.151.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.144.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.146.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.153.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.148.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.150.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.150.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.243.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.242.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.165.241.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.147.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.152.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.152.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 190.2.145.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Need a resolution of this ASAP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Surtsicna insists on removing the portraits of almost all Popes before the Early Middle Ages, on the grounds that they are "fantasy" portraits. He keeps going through these Popes, removing their images, changing their titles and so on. I have pointed out in a friendly way that employing "fantasy portraits" has been our practice for these popes, for more than a decade, and that multiple books and pages in this very encyclopedia have that practice, but he would not listen and keeps reverting changes without getting a consensus. Here are some of his changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Adrian_I&diff=prev&oldid=902106466 ...

He keeps doing these on several popes. Please, resolve this dispute as best as you can. Thanks. --76.64.129.247 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have seen those disruptive edits as well, most stubborn and not in good faith. I had a similar situation with the same editor on several other pages (on poets, no less), in which he was quick to threaten me with 3RR while in fact he was patrolling those pages. It seems that little has changed. I hope that this problem will be well resolved. Mm.srb (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, cry me a river. What you have seen is a dispute on my talk page and you rushed here to spitefully disparage me. Truly pathetic. "Not in good faith." Brilliant. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Surtsicna "Oh, cry me a river" and "Truly pathetic"?? WP:CIVIL - the IP editor has every right to ask for assistance here. And you have 4 previous blocks for edit warring, disruptive editing, and violating the 3-revert rule. Which seems a lot like what you are doing right now.— Maile (talk)

— Maile , my comment was not directed to the IP editor but to my talk page stalker. The IP editor has every right to ask for assistance, though I doubt this is the venue, but the talk page stalker coming here to spite me is pathetic. Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am quite sorry that you are yet again uncivil. Good Lord, nobody is stalking you, this was just a coincidence. My comment was in support for the IP editor who in fact showed good faith and manners, and that is all that there is to it. :) cheers Mm.srb (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you coincidentally saw my disruptive edits on an article which you had never edited before. What is the cost of lies, comrade? Your attempts to discredit me used to be better. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Having looked at the diffs and read through the discussion on Surtsicna's talk page, this appears to be a content dispute and should be resolved on a relevant talk page (perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, given the breadth of articles affected). Other than some mild edit warring which doesn't appear to have actually reached 3RR levels (at least based on provided diffs), both parties appear to be civil and acting in good faith, so there's no need for ANI. The consensus that IP alludes to with regards to using the images appears to be entirely implicit, which means that it's fair game to challenge it (consensus can change, after all, and unspoken consensus doubly so). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Rosguill. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography does seem like a proper venue. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Anomalapropos tendentious editing

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

---

I am reporting this user for tendentious editing on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Facilitated_communication_articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia. The noticeboard is highlighted for convenience.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As per the other conversation on this page, I will again suggest that a person's competence cannot be measured by a random editor on Wikipedia by pointing at data sets for the method of communication that they used, that the competence of all people can be unreliable in controlled settings, and that the qualitative evidence for FC means that the only neutral action is to use reliable sources about the specific person. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess we should just shut down science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We are talking very specifically about the competence of a person and its measurement in controlled settings. The proposal that competence can't be measured by observation in controlled settings is not anti-science. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If Anomalapropos wants to bash the scientific consensus that Facilitated communication (FC), supported typing, or hand over hand, is a scientifically discredited technique that attempts to aid communication by people with autism or other communication disabilities. he/she is well advised to find another venue for the promotion of WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Promoting a fringe theory" continues to be an interesting interpretation of what I'm doing. However, I've made it clear several times that your claims of there being a consensus on FC are not supported (due to the clear conflicting evidence), and that it does not qualify as a fringe theory, because it is not a theory or a medical claim. It is a technique invented to help people communicate. You have, indeed, provided evidence that it doesn't work sometimes. I've never denied this fact. Meanwhile, you have denied the evidence (in peer-reviewed academic journals) that it does work based on the standards of criteria for biomedical information.

So, again, determining a person's competence based on context-less data sets and ignoring any qualitative evidence to the contrary, and then relying solely on this interpretation of the data to govern what can be considered "fact" on Wikipedia is inappropriate. (e.g., I believe that to completely blank Amy Sequenzia's article with no evidence of her competence apart from her inability to speak is far more contentious than removing the information she produces via FC). --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I offered you a source about a woman who cannot speak, cannot write, isn't potty trained, but somehow earned a Bachelor's degree in the Netherlands due to FC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Being unable to control your motor functions does not mean that you are incapable of understanding anything. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

And the evidence that she understands something is...? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

References

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

Big Brother 21 (American season)

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

---

Hi,

There has been what seems like coordinated, though fairly childish vandalism to Big Brother 21 (American season) by multiple IP users for a little while now. Also a couple BLP issues (mostly insults and slurs). I've reached 3 reverts, so I'm not sure what to do now. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Forgery: Other editors write fake message alleged to be from me

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

---

Wikipedia users Sam Sailor, LauritzT and Dicklyon are engaged in forgery. They start a discussion that they know is doomed, but instead of their own signature, they use mine.

Here is the first diff.

• Signature reads: 5.219.86.66 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Actual editor is: Sam Sailor

Here is the second diff.

• Signature reads: 5.219.86.66 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Actual editor is: LauritzT

And here is the last diff. While perhaps the other two are just lazy and don't want to verify that I never wrote the original message in the talk page, Dicklyon actually knows this message is copied and pasted from elsewhere.

If anyone wants to start their own discussion, they are welcome; just use your own and your own sig.

5.219.86.66 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no "forgery" here, it is a contested RM/TR. Best, Sam Sailor 05:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And I never said the it was a money forgery or other forms of forgery. Do not start disscussions on my behalf. Start you own, use your own sig. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: User Baffle gab1978 has joined the harassment and forgery party. Diff. If anyone wants to move a page, they are more than welcome to start their own discussion, with their own words and their own signatures, not MY signature. 06:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Update 2: User Sam Sailor continues to harass me by posting template messages in my talk page, despite his knowledge that this discussion is in progress and the legitimacy of the message I am deleting is in question. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Here is the diff: [86]. Notice the time stamp. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @5.219.86.66: – Sam Sailor was transferring your original post from RM/TR to the article's talk page, which is where requested moves are usually discussed. Your comment, including your signature, was copied along with it. Apart from uncontroversial fixes (e.g. spelling and grammar, reverting vandalism), requested moves are generally discussed on article talk pages to determine whether or not there is a consensus in favor of renaming. RM/TR is intended more for situations where a page move is prevented by some sort of technical issue, such as the destination page being move-protected or already existing. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

• I forgot to add that moving pages is not technically restricted for editors to do without discussion, but if a page move is contested, a talk page discussion becomes mandatory. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  Personally, I think that's wrong. It would be better to just inform that person who filed the RMTR request that if they still want to move the page then they need to open a discussion. In this case, he did not want to, as it will clearly lose. Dicklyon (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  You'll get no disagreement from me. With only a handful of exceptions, I always favor getting people's thoughts on something before taking action that will affect multiple parties. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone's been trying to hack my account

Over the past few hours, I've received several notifications – both here and via email – that someone from an unknown server had been trying to log into my account. I've gotten multiple "15 failed attempts" notices, and they also tried to do an email reset on my password (which I've changed as a precautionary measure, despite my original password being strong). The IP address from which this suspicious activity originates has never edited and geolocates to the United States. I can send the IP to an administrator via email if necessary.

Is this something I should be worried about? Thus far my account doesn't appear to have been breached, and my password is strong enough that anyone trying to hack it would have an extremely difficult time. It's not something that anyone could just guess. Even so, I feel a bit uneasy, so I'm bringing it here for advice. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Its most likely someone who has forgotten their username and is using yours by mistake. Actual hackers would only bother doing an email password reset if they have access to the email account. Just make sure your email account is secure as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. My email and Wikipedia accounts both use strong passwords, so there shouldn't be any concerns. Thank you. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There are also idiots who try to do a password reset, too dumb to realise it will be sent by email. And there are trolls who just want to mess with you. Someone trying a password reset is no reason to change it if it's already secure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Eh, my password was overdue for a change anyways. It's no big deal. Now it's even stronger than before. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can send details to WP:FUNC if you don't want to post them publicly. You can also enable two-factor authentication, but you'll need to request a special user right from Meta. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at 2FA before, and it seems like it would make logging in a bit of an ordeal. Then again, it probably just takes some getting used to. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Kurtis: I would take this seriously, and not ignore it. While it may be someone who has forgotten their user name, as Only in death suggests, the explanation offered by Boing! said Zebedee is just as likely. That has certainly been known to happen; for example, some years ago it happened to me, and I know who it was who did it. (By that I mean that I know what Wikipedia editor it was, not that I know their real life identity.) Even if your password is secure, it is likely that someone who has tried to hack into your account will hack into other people's accounts too. You said you would be willing to email the IP address involved to an administrator. If you are still willing to do that, email it to me, and I'll check for things such as edits from other IP addresses in the same range. You may also like to consider whether to ask a CheckUser to look at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's a pretty good idea. I'll email you the IP address shortly.

Disruptive editing

Sourcerery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edit-warring on multiple articles stopping just short of 3RR. In the three articles below, the editor attempts to force their text in opposition to multiple editors – usually all other involved editors.

Article Fascism:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3
• Edit 4

Article Carl Benjamin:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3
• Edit 4

Article Alex Jones:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3

Plus page blanking the FAQ for that article TP:

• Blank 1
• Blank 2
• Blank 3

This last article brought to AN3[87]. Closure was: “Declined, no 3RR violation. Sourcerery's conduct on the article and talk page might be worth a trip to ANI in the future, but Bishonen has already warned them about it, so no further action is necessary at this time." This comment was in reference to the article TP where the editor argued against seven other editors (I believe) with no support.[88]

Copyright problems:

• There is also a copyright investigation request concerning the editor’s contributions to four articles.[89]

• Also, this morning three copyright violations by the editor were revdeled at article Postmodernism. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For Carl Benjamin, the editor did not "stop short" of exceeding 3RR... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If I'm counting correctly, I think they actually go past 3RR at Carl Benjamin - I was looking at the history there just as you posted this, and the diffs you've posted above show four reverts within a 24-hour period. To be fair, this editor does use the talk page as well as just edit warring, but the discussion at Talk:Alex Jones (now hatted by Guy Macon) descended quickly into WP:SEALIONING. This editor needs change their attitude towards collaboration and consensus-building, perhaps by spending a bit of time editing in less contentious areas.GirthSummit _(blether) 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They also substantially over-tagged History of the Jews in Italy and when I reverted on the basis that it was clear over-tagging, they just reverted their tags back in. The article could use a few more refs, and I didn't want to kick off an edit war over something as trivial as over-tagging, but it's yet again part of the same disruptive pattern.

See also Call-out Culture - where there was more of the same. Particularly noteworthy was this edit, where they erroneously accused me in the edit summary of having broken WP:3RR after my second revert. (I was getting frustrated as they'd been showing up all over my watchlist and was tired of them ignoring WP:BRD and logged off for the weekend shortly thereafter, otherwise I would have likely not even done the second revert.) Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

With regard to fascism, they misinterpreted a key source, and when consensus on talk was clearly against their inclusion of their preferred edit, they just inserted it anyway, stating the sources supported their position .Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Good luck seeing that as disruptive editing when I'm just following what sources say, if anyone is being disruptive it's those reverting to versions not supported by sources.Sourcerery (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcerery Would you care to explain why you just restored WP:COPYVIO content that was rev-delled earlier today here? Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's properly attributed and therefore not a copyvio?Sourcerery (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Even with a ref in the middle, we don't copy entire paragraphs from somebody else's book. I urge you to self-revert that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's couple of sentences, on Populism entire book is in the article Mudde, Cas; Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The copyvio issue I'm referring to is in Postmodernism and has to do with a youtube-popular philosophy professor's discussion of Heidegger. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And I'm telling you there is no copyvio with proper attribution, in regard to "we don't copy entire paragraphs" I'm noting examples of entire books, so that appears to be false claim.Sourcerery (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If an administrator has reviewed the content and revdelled it as copyvio, reinserting it without discussion with the deleting admin might not be a good approach.GirthSummit _(blether) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think this is a case of hounding, they have never edited certain pages yet now certain editor appear there only to revert my edits with very weak claims.Sourcerery (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You should be specific about which editor you mean, and which article you are talking about, if you are going to make an accusation of WP:HOUNDING. As for the strength of the claims, you have demonstrably gone beyond 3RR in the diffs above, and the material added to Postmodernism has just been revdelled for a second time as COPYVIO - these are not 'very weak claims'. You seem to be getting into a lot of conflicts at various different pages in very quick succession - instead of pointing the finger at other people, you might want to think about your own approach to editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They're probably referring to me, as I have challenged their edits on several articles. But I should note that this is because they have edited several articles that I either am a regular on or have been passively watching due to my participation in WP:NONAZIS or due to my interest in existentialist philosophy. I have plenty of pages on-watch that I would only edit if they become a hot-button. However when the same name that I know is causing disruption at Fascism also turns up with multiple edits related to Postmodernism and Call-out Culture - I don't have to go to their user contributions to see a pattern. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I should note that Alex Jones is also on my watchlist though I've not involved myself there, as the drama on that page largely passed before I got involved, thanks to the efforts of other editors.Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are lying so much it's not even funny. Why are you not editing Modernism, where were you when discussion was raging at Frankfurt School, when was last time you edited anything related to existentialism and philosophy? Disgusting, but here you are now to revert my edits on all page, I would like interaction ban between me and this liar. O3000 as well, do not want to hear from me or his spams of my talk page.Sourcerery (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please strike through the claim that I was lying. It violates WP:CIV quite unambiguously. And no, I don't actively edit existentialist articles, although I occasionally toy around with doing some work on Simone de Beauvoir, but as I said previously, I don't actively edit the majority of the articles on my watchlist. Postmodernism is on my watchlist rather than other articles related to philosophy because, thanks to popular far-right public speakers like Jordan Peterson a lot of white supremacists are weird about postmodernism. Now when a user shows up, tries to revise the definition of fascism and then inserts a copyvio breaking paragraph about Nazi-party-member Martin Heidegger into the article on Postmodernism which fits Occam's Razor better, that I am deliberately hounding you or that I saw a disturbing edit pattern that ended up with an obvious copyright violation and intervened? Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not striking factual claims and was involved in Fascism article from my Wiki start, so that runs counter your dubious claims. Was involved in discussions on Postmodernism but again, you were nowhere to be found, Frankfurt School as well.Sourcerery (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Since you've been spending so much time in my edit history you should notice that until the Fram situation blew up I'd been almost entirely inactive for several months. As my user page notes, I tend to regularly take extended breaks from Wikipedia before returning to an active state. Now, yet again, this is WP:SEALIONING and I'm done here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, be your usual self and when exposed for lies you peddle say "I'm done here". Postmodernism article had major rewriting, not only you didn't take part in it, you didn't even discuss it.Sourcerery (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I see no evidence of hounding. Many editors, including me, do watch what eother editors do. Sometimes they do that because they are friends, other times because of the reasons given at WP:HOUND "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Doug Weller talk 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've warned Sourcerery on their talk page about personal attacks, including bad faith accusations of lying against other editors. freshacconci (✉) 15:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Thpeeni and MOS:ERA

Thpeeni (talk · contribs) appears to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of converting BCE to BC and CE to AD, in contravention of MOS:ERA. He has been advised that this is inappropriate, but has indicated that he intends to defy this advice. I submit that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Already indeffed by Doug Weller. Deor (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That was their only purpose here and it was clear they were not going to stop. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley again, & more false charges

User:Andy Dingley made this claim, evidently about this edit. Do I even need to call this a lie? Not to mention apparent stalking, since he's turning up to comment every time I'm involved in any kind of dispute. Can I expect something to actually be done this time, or is that still a forlorn hope? Or should I just expect to be falsely accused by anyone for any reason forever? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• This goes back to 2008, and the very first time I recall encountering you on WP: Talk:Land_speed_record/Archive_1#Why_not_rail?

You have some problem with the idea of Donald Campbell having set a land speed record and you persistently remove it (as you've been doing here). This is simply false, and there is vast sourcing to back it up. But once again, everything else, on and off WP is a conspiracy against you and you demand freedom to spout off your inaccurate nonsense here (search ANI for his record of howlers). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)