Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Slugger O'Toole[edit]

I am raising a concern of WP:HOUNDING against User:Slugger O'Toole. On 9 May they directly reverted two edits I had made to the article on Brian Sims despite not previously being active on this article and this to change protest to prayer, and reciting to prayer. Only a few weeks earlier on 18 April I had raised concerns with them about hounding when they followed me to the article on the Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) to revert and change my edits [ here is just one of these). I have previously raised these concerns with administrators to flag how in October 2018 this editor (when called BrianCUA) reverted my edits to Reinhard Marx and admitted that they had never visited that page before admission on their talk page. It is my belief that this editor is passionately supportive of issues pertaining to the Roman Catholic church, and that they do not like edits which are critical of the Catholic church, its members of organisations - even if the material supports this reading. They are particularly defensive when the matter of homosexuality or gay rights conflicts with official Church teaching or actions. I feel I am constantly being inhibited from editing - I am trying to improve articles in good faith and accept instances of where things can be improved or errors corrected. But I am being chased around and being made to feel like I have to justify every edit I make until this editor is content with the outcome from their point of view. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is almost silly. If you read the conversation we had in August 2018 about Reinhard Marx, I clearly explained why I was there, and Contaldo responded: "That's great. No offence taken." Now, eight months later, he is using it as evidence that I am hounding him? As for the Lavender Hill Mob article, he linked to it in an article in which we are both very active. That's how I came across it. I wasn't monitoring his edit history and then chasing him around, trying to inhibit his editing. If you look at his edit history, in fact, you will see many, many articles in which he is active and I am not. When Contaldo adds relevant content that is reliably sourced, he gets no push back from me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Reinhard Marx and the Lavender Hill Mob are examples that show this is a repeat and sustained pattern. Would you like to explain why you visited the article on Brian Sims and changed my edits specifically? And I would ask that you don't dismiss my concerns as "silly". Your intention is simply to intimidate and WP:HOUND. Administrators I ask you to check the article on Brian Sims and consider whether it is acceptable for this editor to come and remove my wording after never having been at that article before. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
1) Regarding Reinhard Marx, you yourself said "I'm sure that it wasn't your aim at all to hound me and your edit changes seem a sensible one." 2) I have already explained how I came to the Lavender Hill Mob. 3) Yes, please check out the Sims article, and particularly the talk page, where I engaged in a civil and rational discussion and came to a consensus with another editor before moving the prose to the main page. Sims was in the news recently, which is how I presume you got there. 4) Your last 100 edits include Damares Alves, True Cross, Macarius of Jerusalem, Helena (empress), List of sexually active popes, Donatello, and Frederick the Great, all of which relate to Catholicism and/or homosexuality. I have not been active on any of them. That's a pretty weak pattern. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I haven't come to this board to have a debate with you (another example of your hounding style); I have come to make a complaint and have asked administrators to look into that. With regards to Marx it was clear to me that you were hounding but I decided to overlook it in attempt to reduce conflict (my comments were an ironic warning and should be read that way). You can say what you like about discussion on the Sims talk page but I think your argument that "it was in the news" is disingenuous and dishonest. You specifically targeted my edits because you didn't like them - that was your main motivation for visiting the page. This is hounding; this is not acceptable. There is a persistent pattern. And thanks for pointing out that you've had a good look at my recent editing history! I've made my complaint and I don't intend to justify it further to you. If people have concerns then it doesn't help to harass them and intimidate them in the hope they will simply shrink away.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators may also want to look at the edit warring noticeboard where Slugger is trying to intimidate again and risks abusing the process. Four editors have expressed a view contrary to Slugger on inclusion of material on the Lavender Hill Mob; despite this Slugger decided to report me for edit-warring as a way to silence me even though the overwhelming consensus is against them on this point. Are these sort of behaviours really the ones we want to see on Wikipedia? ( reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: No violation)) Contaldo80 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
When I reported Congtaldo for edit warring, the dispute was just between two people. Now that a consensus has emerged, I have abided by it. I would also suggest that the consensus emerged because I put out a RfC. I am not trying to silence anyone. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
You may suggest that but it has no bearing in reality. That consensus was there before your RfC. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you may wish to check the timestamps. I asked for the RFC at 10:49 am on May 14, 2019. After I hit save, I saw your comment and responded a minute later. At that point you Contaldo and I were the only people who had commented. I don't think I would call that a consensus. A few new people came after that, I presume that as a result of the RFC, and then a consensus was made clear. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally you removed the material again on 15 May at 15:00 well after your RfC had revealed a consensus against removing the material. As shown here Contaldo80 (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You have asked this question twice. I will answer it once below. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not easy to prove hounding from a limited set of diffs. The explanation for how they got to Sims might well be correct. But at the same time, did Slugger O'Toole really use the Daily Caller as a source in a BLP? And I am familiar with their supposed "civil and rational discussion" on talk pages from a minor dispute at Talk:Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group), where the talk page presents an editor who doesn't really care much about consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did use it. And then, if you read the talk page, you will see that I apologized for using it as I didn't know it was a prohibited source. Once that fact was pointed out to me, I didn't use it again. You will also see from that same dif that I explicitly told the editor who reverted me that I wanted to work with him to develop a consensus and then did exactly that. We worked out compromise language on talk and now the article is stable. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • HOUNDING allegation notwithstanding but I noticed the name come up and I have a slightly different concern that his username may be a WP:UPOL violation as it seems to imply association with the Slugger O'Toole newsblog. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That issue was addressed previously. A fictional character was the inspiration for both my name and that of the blog. Nice catch, though. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies @Slugger O'Toole:. I had missed that one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No need for an apology. I miss far more than that (as has been alluded to above!). --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
You are right to raise concerns The C of E. Slugger O'Toole previously operated under the username of BrianCUA - but changed it after it was pointed out that this implied association with the Catholic University of America. As you will see there is a pattern of far from ideal behaviours. Frankly I'd like to see some sort of topic ban in relation to articles on Catholicism.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Someone raised a concern about my username. Upon reflection, I determined that the concern had merit. I then took steps to rectify the situation. I'm not sure how this is poor behavior, much less demonstrative of a pattern of the same. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with the articles leading to the current WP:HOUND concern, but I concur with the need for greater attention to be paid to Slugger's tendentious editing on Catholicism-related topics. I have previously noted his tendency to edit against explicit consensus in this topic area and make false claims about the views expressed by other users, with the aim of pushing a non-neutral point of view. Contaldo posted on my talk page about this issue, but it's not what brought me here; I watchlist ANI.Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page for Talk:The Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) is a classic example of this frankly. Slugger ignored the consensus established by 6 separate editors concerning the mention of the death of Marty Robinson by AIDS (the individual was active in his opposition to the teachings of the Catholic church regarding the non-use of condoms); and continued to remove the material despite editors agreeing it should stay. User:Drmies quite rightly called him out. They then went to the trouble of creating a new article on Marty Robinson so that they could remove the AIDS-related fact from the earlier article - and making a very poor job of creating a new article at the same time and creating more work for editors such as User:Yngvadottir to fix. Highly disruptive and issues around neutral editing. I accept the point that it's difficult to demonstrate HOUNDING and not coincidental editing of a page on an item in the news - but the fact is that one of the immediate things Slugger did on the Brian Sims page was to specifically revert my edits in relation to Catholic religious practice. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I have stated multiple times on that page that I respect the consensus. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
And yet you removed material after such a consensus had been indicated and was in place. So why did you do that? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have explained multiple times on that article's talk page, it was at the suggestion of another user. He believed, as I did, that once "someone can write an article on him... it would more logically belong there." Drmies, who is to the best of my knowledge the only administrator involved in that discussion, then instructed me to "write the article." So, I created a new article and placed that information there. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Single-purpose editing / Conflict of interest?[edit]

This IP seems to be editing almost exclusively on behalf of a film critic Barry Norman. All of their edits except for one are adding his reviews into the Reception section of film articles. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Whereas this is likely correct, I do not see what could we do about it (and whether we should do anything at all).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way, as their edit count is small (albeit recent). That being said, persistent single-purpose COIs are usually blockable to avoid damaging the neutrality of articles (though in the case of IPs, escalating blocks are more appropriate if this continuously occurs over a short period of time). DarkKnight2149 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
They are all Youtube clips from an account called "VHS Vault", and look rather like they could be copyright violations- They are from old VHS tapes by the looks of it.Curdle (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This editor is going about things in slightly the wrong way by citing bare Youtube URLs rather than the original places where these comments were made, but there's nothing wrong with citing Barry Norman in general. He was one of the foremost film critics in the UK in the last decades of the 20th century. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly single-purpose editing. Please guide me to the WP in order that I can more fully comprehend why this would be a concern. My understanding is that single purpose accounts are only a problem if they push a POV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ret.Prof: WP:COI, most pertinently. The user edits almost exclusively on behalf of a single film critic (definite WP:Neutrality concern there), using unreliable sources from YouTube that go against WP:VIDEOREF. A user above also raised a copyright concern. DarkKnight2149 17:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That being said, I definitely agree that this is not the most dire situation ever brought to ANI. But nonetheless, something that administrators should know about (especially while the editor is just getting started, presumably). I'm not too invested whatever outcome is decided, and haven't been checking this thread often. DarkKnight2149 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, agree that it does seem dire. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want him to stop making false accusations against me.[edit]

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would get this Wiki Editor off my back. He has publicly libeled me with claims that I have engaged in DISRUPTIVE editing because I deleted an improper OR statement that was false and which was not found in the articles that were cited to support that statement. He also made the public accusation that I had done so out of a motive of REVENGE simply because I did not like him, that I have engaged in EDIT WARRING, and then also implied I might be a SOCK. He has posted on my own talk page twice, and I removed his comments twice. I do not want him putting anything on my talk page and I want him to cease making libelous accusations against my good name. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)







       "...the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.[5]" (This is the statement that I removed from the article)
   I removed it because it was pure OR from the editor that put it there. There is no such statement in those cited sources. It is entirely appropriate to remove statements in the article that are not actually found in the sources cited to support such statements. OR opinion of some Wiki Editor (in this case, in the form of a false statement) is contrary to WP:OR rules. 

It was improper for Editor Aron Manning to restore such an OR statement, that was not only OR, but also false. Higher aerodynamic forces on the elevator CANNOT PUSH the HS in ANY direction. The HS can move ONLY when the jackscrew turns in one direction or another. That requires electric power to the jackscrew motor. High aerodynamic forces cannot cause the jackscrew to turn all by itself.

I then politely requested Editor Aron Manning to "Please revert your own improper revert." EditorASC (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC). He did not do so, but other editors did revert his reverts, without my personally requesting them to do so.

I am NOT seeking arbitration; nor do I want to negotiate anything with him. I simply don't want anymore conversation with Editor Aron Manning. I want him to leave me alone and to cease and desist from posting libelous statements against my good name. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of making "libelous statements" — we have a no legal threats policy which we enforce harshly. I don't see anything in those diffs that besmirches your good name. How can you possibly work to resolve this dispute if you don't interact? Who gets to edit the article if you two have, say, an interaction ban applied. El_C 23:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't immediately obvious what happened to the Reuters source cited (one possible match is now 404) but the sentence about aerodynamic forces is consistent with what I'd seen elsewhere, such as here: "As pilots would pull on the jet’s controls to raise the nose of the aircraft, the aerodynamic forces on the tail’s elevator (trying to raise the nose) would create an opposing force that effectively paralyzes the jackscrew mechanism that moves the stabilizer, explained Lemme, ultimately making it extremely difficult to crank the trim wheel by hand. The condition is amplified as speed — and air flow over the stabilizer — increases.". So EditorASC should also be careful about OR. (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not the venue to discuss article content. El_C 00:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I try to be sympathetic to everyone's complaints of ill treatment. Lots of people on Wikipedia are grumpy, cynical and not so nice. But, in my experience, editors are always talking smack about each other. It's part of internet culture. As long as it is not defamatory, it is best to brush it off and not take it so seriously. Or you decide you've had enough and leave (plenty of people do).
And how can anyone have a "good name" here when 99% of Wikipedia accounts are anonymous? Summary: Tell the editor not to post on your talk page ever and get on with editing. I know you didn't ask for this but forced apologies are meaningless and, at best, you can avoid each other. That's how most editors here get on with people they disagree with which is so common to almost be a cliche. Collaborative editing is not always harmonious. </soapbox> Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Liz and El C here. You are free to ask the editor to refrain from posting on your talk page, and they should respect that. (Barring reasonable exceptions like compulsory notices. And noting of course if you ask someone to stay away from your talk page, it also means you need to stay away from theirs and avoid stuff like talking about their conduct in places where they can't respond.) However there's no point demanding an apology or anything of that sort. You should also avoid using terms like "publicly libeled me" given our strong NLT policy.

Also while the editor should stay off your talk page, as long as you 2 are editing the same articles, you cannot expect no interaction. The editor can still revert your edits if their reverts are within our policy and guidelines. They can still discuss your edits in the context of improving the article on the article talk page (e.g. explaining problems they see, why they reverted, possible improvement). Noting though that all editors, even without such interaction concerns, should always avoid unnecessary references to an editor (whether direct or implied) and should keep editor conduct concerns out of article talk pages.

Further if you refuse to discuss improvements or concerns regarding article content on the article talk page, it's likely to be difficult to achieve consensus and so unless others share you view and express them on the talk page, it's likely WP:SILENCE etc will be mean consensus will be towards the other editor's POV. Note also even if an editor probably shouldn't have made whatever edits they made, if no one explains to them what's wrong with their edits because you're refusing to interact with them and no one else see's the problem, there's a fair chance a complaint to ANI will result in no action other than perhaps someone else talking to the editor.

In other words, if you want there to be no interaction at all, you will likely have to cease editing any articles they are also editing, but of course WP:hounding means they shouldn't be following you to articles or otherwise taking advantage of you voluntarily staying away from them.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've received an invitation to this discussion ;-) I'd like to make a case about the ongoing content dispute and questionable conduct. Please advise, how I should go further, whether I should present claims here, or in a new section? Thank you — Aron Manning (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Questionable conduct — right here. Content dispute — on the article talk page. El_C 05:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"So EditorASC should also be careful about OR. (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)"

Show me where I ever put any OR statement into the article? I never did and I never will. Like Editor Aron Manning, you are failing to see the crucial difference between stalling or "paralysing" the jackscrew and forcing it to move in the OPPOSITE direction (which is what the false OR statement said and was the reason why I labeled it "OR" and removed it -- in addition to the fact that no such statement was made in any of the cited articles, which claimed to support that false statement). Those strong aerodynamic forces can stall the jackscrew, but they cannot force the jacksrew to turn in any direction. It takes electric power to the jackscrew motor to do that. I explained that almost three years ago, on the Flydubai Flight 981 Talk Page. Manning's problem is that he seems to be trying to present himself as an expert on how the systems and SOPs work during the conduct of an Airline flight, but he gets it wrong time and time again and then when anyone quite properly corrects his erroneous statements, he launches into personal attacks, charging deliberate disruptive editing, edit warring, acting out revenge, and he may be a sock. All of those scurrilous charges amount to false, personal attacks and I think I have a right to complain about such personal attacks. EditorASC (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to hear about the jackscrew anymore. Any accusations of misconduct (personal attacks, socking, etc.) need to be backed up by evidence in the form of diffs. Thank you. El_C 16:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Response to El_C: I posted them above, but here they are again:
[[8]] In this one, at the bottom section ("2.3 Third message") [[9]] you will find all those false allegations in the form of insulting/pejorative phrases:
  • -- "...end to WP:EDITWAR;" ​
  • -- "...looks like WP:REVENGE aka;"
  • -- "WP:Overzealous_deletion;"
  • -- "Dislike_of_the_creator;"
  • -- "To justify the revert I added in the comment this is WP:disruptive editing;"
  • -- "One and a half hour later 2 anonymous IP addresses from the same network, that have never contributed to this article, reverted the 2 edits a 2nd time."
  • -- "This is WP:BRR ("Do not edit war."), and possible WP:SOCK:"
Every one of those insults are FALSE. I did not engage in any "EDITWAR," nor were my normal and proper edits motivated by "WP:REVENGE," nor by any desire to engage in "WP:Overzealous_deletion," nor were they done because I did not like the "creator." I didn't know who put those statements in the article, when I deleted them. By his own admission, Manning accused me of "WP:disruptive editing," as a means of justifying his reverting of my deletions. If any "Edit War" began, it was when he reverted my legitimate deletes. Since I did not turn around and revert him back, I was not guilty of engaging in any "EDITWAR." Other Editors then went on to revert him, apparently because they agreed with my reasons for those deletions. I do not know them and I did not consult with them, but he used that as a basis to level his scurrilous charge that I was acting as a "WP:SOCK." EditorASC (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Aron Manning, how do you answer to all this? (Briefly, please.) Because EditorASC, indeed, does not appear to have edit warred, nor is there evidence of revenge-motivated edits, or socking (the place for that latter claim ought to be limited to WP:SPI). El_C 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute: EditorASC[edit]

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

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

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

Edit war: SPAs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Conduct dispute[edit]

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

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

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

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

Per WP:NPOV my talks and article edits.

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

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

Look, honestly, this is all a little vague. They may not be especially touchy-feely, but Where is the evidence of edit warring or revenge-edits by the user? "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? Where is a recent SPI report? You're making a lot of assumptions that I'm not really seeing matched by the evidence. El_C 22:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
EditorASC effectively did not contribute to the article (2 sentences: +600 byte, -4 KB) until he needed to delete two sentences, added 1-2 weeks ago, not recently, that was part of the "Expert analysis" section being reviewed and discussed (Discussion: Analysis section) in the thread where he posted off-topic, distracting, strawman arguments in great length about parts of the source that was never cited. It was too much and disrespectful, which I pointed out. In response he posted his WP:ANGER post. He has not made editing suggestions, nor mentioned he challenges the deleted content. Nobody wanted to answer, 9 hours later he deleted the 2 parts from the section. He basically was not editing the article before, this was a WP:REVENGE. His destructive action was so destabilizing, that in a few hours it ended in the non-consensual blanking of the whole section. This sequence of events is against the purpose of wikipedia.
His delete (diff 1) was a WP:BOLD action (although the Bold policy supports constructive actions, not destructive), that I reverted (diff 3), which then was re-reverted within 2 hours (diff 5), this is when WP:BRR starts: Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". If my purpose would be to prove by all means this is editwarring, then I would have reverted, and another ip would have done it again, thus destabilizing the article even more. This was not my purpose, I prefer the WP:1RR rule.
The whole ordeal seems to be caused by a misunderstanding. The reasons he mentioned in his last post here, suggest he interpreted my wording as I'm stating a physically impossible event. I've written the explanation to the content dispute thread.
" "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? "
Search "third world" (diff).
Aron Manning (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
They are entitled to speculate that 3rd world standards may be more lax than in the developed world — that isn't discriminatory. I would appreciate sources for that, but as far as an article talk page comment, there's nothing wrong with that. Sorry, I might be a bit thick, but revenge for what? And edit warring where? El_C 00:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
1) Ok, not discriminatory in this community.
2) Revenge for disagreeing. In the "Analysis section" discussion, he's very forceful. I think his image and his influence of the POV of the article seems to be very important. He's been POV-pushing in his talks (eg. diff 1, diff 2) and attacking reliable sources when he disagrees with it (diff 3). The editing atmosphere in that aviation bubble is steered very strongly towards the status quo, working for a neutral POV destabilizes his influence, this is part of the reason for the revenge.
3) The re-revert is by WP:SPASOCKs/WP:IPSOCKs: look at the contributions (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs).
4) The article is edited 1-5 times a day by only a few editors. There are very few, occasional ip editors on the article, not involved in discussions or disputes. The SPASOCKs are very up-to-date with 2 hour reaction time, and seem to be strongly motivated to get involved in the dispute, and to prove a point in the edit comment. (history)
5) I believe I explained the disruptive edit satisfactorily, as that has not been questioned. The revert comment makes it clear the deletes are treated as disruptive edits, and include the link to the appropriate talk page discussion. Reverting a revert when a discussion is clearly pointed to, is editwarring. Not by WP:3RR rule, but by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others".
6) The re-revert is also WP:VAND: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content". The removed content has been present for a few weeks, reviewed and edited for conformance with WP policies. This also applies to the original delete, suspected OR is not a reason for deleting content. Suspecting OR after a week of passing reviews is a sign of bad faith imo.
7) The reason for suspecting OR is that EditorASC misunderstood the sentence, as I explained before: [content dispute] (diff). Storm in a teapot.
8) The [content dispute] is coming to a consensus with the contributing editors. The "suspected OR" sentence will be reworded to avoid such misunderstanding, the "Speculation" section will be merged to another section. No deletes are necessary.
Aron Manning (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
1. In what community would it be seen as discriminatory?
2. You fail to demonstrate revenge-edits, still.
3. Then file an WP:SPI about it.
4. What does that have to do with the user in question?
5. Still no diffs of edit warring or disruptive editing.
6. Re-revert by whom? That's not made clear.
7. Okay, so there may have been a misunderstanding — what does that have to do with misconduct?
8. Okay, I hope that all works out. El_C 04:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
1. Not in this one. In every community. Question is off-topic.
2. He deleted content that I created or modified, after he became very angry with me. If that does not sound like revenge, then please describe how to demonstrate revenge-edit.
3. Will do so, I was not sure where to start... May I assume, you see now, the editor of those re-reverts is intentionally hiding behind (07:45, 11 May 2019 (talk · contribs) diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 (talk · contribs) diff 6)?
4. It points out that only an editor of the article or the talk page would have it on watchlist, and have an interest to interfere. This editor is likely the very angry EditorASC.
5. All diffs are in the original post, systematically listed: WP:DISRUPT by EditorASC. 20:52, 10 May 2019 diff 1, 21:17, 10 May 2019‎ diff 2. Let's leave WP:EW aside for a bit.
6. You are just making this up :-D WP:WAND WP:DISRUPT WP:SPASOCK Re-revert by obvious (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) (07:45, 11 May 2019 diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 diff 6).
7. It helps to understand a misunderstanding in an effort to untangle the tangled mystery of who understands what, without misunderstanding what was understood by whom in this mysterious misery.His misunderstandings turn into uncivil behavior, resulting in this dispute.
Aron Manning (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Good luck with all of that. El_C 05:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I haven't really looked into this dispute but from a brief skim agree with El C on two major points. First the revenge accusations seem largely unsupported. EditorASC seems to be an editor highly interested in the topic area based on previous edits to similar pages and heck they've edited the specific article or it's talk page before this dispute. I mean even their name suggests an interest in the area. Accusing them of editing in revenge basically because they edited an article in which their interest was fully expected is just dumb. I suggest it is dropped because it's also very likely a personal attack as a claim made without evidence. Likewise for the IP edits, while I can understand editors naturally being suspicious when IPs show up supporting the "other side" in a dispute, in an article with as much interest as this, 1 or 2 IP edits are never likely to be enough to demonstrate socking based on behavioural evidence barring exception circumstances, especially in an article with as high a profile as this one. CUs cannot connect IPs to accounts. So while it's understandable to personally have suspicions, you also need to accept you may be wrong and in any case lack the evidence so should limit or just avoid any claims and drop them ones they are disputed. Continuing to make claims of socking without sufficient evidence can also be construed as a personal attack. Ultimately it doesn't really matter much. You should be concentrating on coming to a consensus what's best for the article, not on what 1 or 2 IPs may have done. In the event it comes to an RfC or similar, the IP views are likely to be given minimal weighting when it comes to accessing consensus remembering that such things are not a vote. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. One thing I would say is the discussion raised as "discriminatory" was actually IMO a minor problem. It comes across as WP:Soapboxing and off-topic since it's largely the editors personal opinion on various things, rather than concrete suggestion on how to improve the article. Some off-topicness is sometimes tolerated on article talk pages, and the editor is far from the only one to do so on that talk page, but still such discussion should be limited especially when it's divisive or could be offensive. (The comment was fairly questionable anyway since whatever flaws may or may not exist with aviation regulation in South Korea, it's not considered a third world country nowadays whether by the original definition of third world, or the more modern one.) So while such commentary should be cut out, I don't think anyone is going to support a block based on a few offtopic comments especially since as I said they're not the only one. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nil Einne:
1. "First the revenge accusations seem largely unsupported."
Is this how it comes down? Maybe I misinterpreted. Words read from a screen can be understood in many ways. No problem, not important to claim or prove it's revenge. It is how it felt, I'll let it go. Please investigate 2 aspects only: the disruptive deletions, which caused great setback in editing, and his talk page posts, which exhibit POV-pushing, offensive manner, strawman arguments, and gaslighting. Thank you.
2. "an editor highly interested in the topic area"
I'd like to note he contributed 2 sentences altogether to the article page. [see his edits]. He has no intention to improve it. I stand by this claim.
3. "drop them ones they are disputed."
Dropping claims of revenge, WP:WAND. I accept we have a different reading of WP policies. I'm new here, that's my source of guidelines. Practice and consensus might differ.
4. "Continuing to make claims of socking"
I never claimed "socking" by ASC, that was yet another misunderstanding by him. @El C: this is why it's important that this dispute started with his misunderstanding. Communication with him is a struggle because of his misunderstandings.
I reported possible SPASOCKs, in relation to this incident, without any kind of personal attacks. I'm not sure it was EditorASC. WP tooling should confirm or deny this.
5. "in any case lack the evidence"
Yes. I explained why. I hoped WP has its tools to compare user IPs to the ip range of the SPAs. I'm not 100% sure it is EditorASC behind those 2 ips. It can be some other editors too related to the article.
6. "even their name suggests an interest in the area"
Please elaborate, EditorASC means something?
7. "You should be concentrating on coming to a consensus what's best for the article, not on what 1 or 2 IPs may have done. In the event it comes to an RfC or similar, the IP views are likely to be given minimal weighting when it comes to accessing consensus remembering that such things are not a vote."
Thank you for the good advice.
8. I state again, a personal attack is not my intention. I'm asking for the resolution of disruptive editing, POV-pushing, offensive actions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aron Manning (talkcontribs) 07:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: How do I start an SPI if the puppeteer is unknown? — Aron Manning (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't. (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Aron Manning Go to WP:SPI, click on "How to Open an Investigation." Then, type the username (or IP) of the oldest of the accounts you think are linked into the field. You don't need to be able to say "X is the master, Y is the sock," just consider the oldest account to be the master. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: Provide the usernames of everyuser who has contributed to the page within the last week. This is known colloquially as carpet bombing here on Wikipedia. Also provide the IPs of the suspected puppets, as well as diffs purported to show the sockpuppetry. A CheckUser will perform his magic, and (hopefully) you will have been vindicated.

A note on verbosity: Admins don't like it. Try to be concise and to the point in AN/I discussions. You may omit vowels from your sentences, thy'r slss nywy. This is called wikispeak. Best regards, Guywan (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guywan: That's dreadful advice. You might want to take a look at the garbage Aron created in the list. The best advice he got was from the IP, who told him not to create an SPI without a master. As for the carpet bombing and wikispeak, you're not serious? The only thing useful you said was the concision, and that's hopeless for this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, first time here...

List of editors in one week: SPI listAron Manning🍁 [➕] 23:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: I'm impressed. That's very good work. I'm sure Bbb23 would be honoured to take a look at that for you, and carry out whatever actions they deem necessary.
Pong ball in flight.svg Bbb23: 'm vry srs. 'ls, dnt bt th nwbs. Rgrds, Guywan (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
With a pie chart that looks like this, I'm not sure Guywan is really experienced enough to be giving advice on ANI. --Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't bite the newbie's piechart. EEng 06:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


After a few days of silence, this thread seems to have run its course. I've realized these evidences were not presented in the way it was expected. These weren't supposed to be taken as accusations of 3RR and SPI, or another wrongdoing that requires immediate punishment against OP, but as observations of negative actions partly by OP, partly by unknowns, that need to be looked at. To give a chance to wrap this up, I do not ask for any action or judgment against OP in this thread. WP:DRN might be more appropriate to humanely resolve the conduct issues presented, without jumping to harsh punishments. To finish with, I will briefly answer OP's claims:

EditorASC (contrib) complains about words taken out of context. My intention was to resolve a dispute, thus in line with wp:conductdispute, [ I messaged ] OP 3 times to ask for a resolution. The messages were deleted without answer, even in the [ content dispute thread ] he does not answer to my request to "wp:negotiate", but continues off-topic arguing. The messages contain links to the preceding heated post, and the edits that necessitated a dispute.

 Aron M🍁(➕)  04:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"but as observations of negative actions partly by OP, partly by unknowns..."

That pretty much sums up the problem here: namely that he is incapable of admitting he was wrong in the way he responded to my edits of the article. There was nothing "NEGATIVE" or improper about my edits. It was proper for me to remove a statement in the article that did NOT accurately reflect what was actually said in the citation that was used to support that statment.
IMHO, my edits did improve the clarity of the article. If he did not agree, then it would have been better to try and rewrite it so that it became consistent with the citation article -- while improving clarity -- and/or discussing how it could be improved even more, on the Talk Page. Instead, he did a wholesale revert which he then tried to justify with a pile of false insults as if what he wrote was somehow sancrosanct; as if he owned the article and no one else had any right to seek to correct or improve the article.
That other editors appeared to agree with my initial action, by reverting his improper reverts, without my consulting with them, seems to imply I did not act out of bounds of Wikipedia's rules on editing. I see no rational arguments offered by him in his piles of commentary above. Which is why I think it impossible to "NEGOTIATE" with him. EditorASC (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting interpretation. @EditorASC: Could you show the Talk Page post, where You started a discussion on how to improve the parts, before deleting those? Thank you.
Aron M🍂(🛄📤)   00:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And now, I just found a scurrilous allegation by an Administrator on my Talk Page, which claims I made a post without logging in first. Turns out Editor Manning went ahead and filed a Sock Puppet report against me, even though he was advised not to do that.

Totally in BAD FAITH! He is just trying to vindicate and justify all the vicious allegations he has made against me, because I dared to edit his article. This is quite disgusting in my book. Payment for all the years I have spent in genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia articles?

I have asked that Adminstrator twice, on both his and my own Talk Pages to give me a link to the alleged post without signing in first, but I have not yet received any reply. I was not able to find any such post by searching my own IP number. EditorASC (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to tone it down, EditorASC. Arm yourself with some patience and conduct yourself with greater moderation. Hopefully, this all will be resolved soon. El_C 00:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I won't be able to answer questions for ca. 3 days, should any arise. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   08:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • EditorASC, firstly, I'm NOT an administrator. The message says "you may have recently made edits". If you didn't then please ignore the message. I pinged you on the SPI so you were aware. I'm sorry if making you aware has inflamed the situation between you and Aron Manning. Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "pinged you" means. All I know is that I did NOT receive any notice of a Sock Puppet investigation. I only found out about it when I saw your scurrilous, false and disgusting comments on my talk page. By then, the investigation was closed and I thus was denied any opportunity to defend myself.
You KNEW that you had found NO EVIDENCE of any kind that I had failed to sign in before I posted. AND, you knew that if I had made such a mistake, the IP would be far, far different than those two IPs in Great Britain that apparently agreed with my view about Manning's OR post and his excessive, confusing additional information posts too. You KNEW I could not have been sock puppeting with those GREAT BRITAIN IP numbers, yet you went ahead and put that vile, scurrilous allegation on my talk page!!! That is NOT a valid investigation objective; it amounts to nothing more than a Kangaroo Court where you deliberately smear the alleged perp for reasons I cannot fathom. YOU have to KNOW that putting false information like that on my Talk Page will cause many to believe it is true simply because it is there. If you have any kind of decency left in your soul at all you will immediately remove your garbage and knowingly false statements from my Talk Page. EditorASC (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
YOU have to KNOW that putting false information like that on my Talk Page will cause many to believe it is true simply because it is there. No, those warnings/reminders are not a badge of shame. Also tone down your rhetoric before some sysop chooses to block you. WBGconverse 12:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's exactly what I was forced to do. El_C 03:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. EEng 03:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wearisome accusations from at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit[edit]

In 15 years editing I am yet to see a single case where someone stridently howling “censorship” was doing something that belonged on Wikipedia. What I see here is tendentious editing on the part of a batch of IPs — probably one editor but possibly meatpuppets — stylistically similar, promoting one point of view (Parisian anons, if you’re reading this, ‘’please’’ read WP:NPOV; if you are truly editing from a neutral point of view, it should be impossible to tell what your point of view is). I am semi-protecting both the article and talk pages for three months, for a start. Will see how it goes. XOR, CaptainEek, and others familiar with the topic matter (for I am not) please continue to clean up the article(s) as you have been, and include neutral content on the Janus model as appropriate using reliable sources. If another admin would like to hand out blocks, feel free — I don’t want to at this point. Antandrus (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP-hopping anon, who has a bizarre personal vendetta against me for implementing a consensus of an AFD is now at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit, openly lying about my actions. That article is, frankly, a mess of fringe science and almost certainly WP:BLP violations. I understand that nobody wants to touch that kind of thing, and I'd really rather avoid the drama-boards during the closing weeks of the semester, but the lack of outside involvement is really becoming a problem. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that they habitually edit their own comments after they've been replied to, which makes the simple task of having a conversation remarkably frustrating. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Why haven't you list the whole bunch of IPv4 adresses, XOREaster and asked to ban them all? Isn't your claim ridiculous when you mix and confuse things in order at the end to censor only sourced facts but opposed to your opinion ? Why is it so difficult for you to understand fringe science can be listed on WP when suitable criteria defined in WP policies are met (and they are met)? Why are you bringing wearisome accusations against me? -- (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you mention I edit my own comments only to correct typos? Isn't this typical of your misleading behaviour? -- (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Because that would be a lie. You edit your own comments to make your walls of text even bigger, this being the most recent example. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
An older example. And another. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
And despite your attempts to muddy the waters by insisting otherwise, I have no problem whatsoever with fringe science being covered on Wikipedia. (I have explained that to you explicitly.) I have never said, for example, that the article on Jean-Pierre Petit himself should be deleted. Nor do I think that an article on the man should omit mention of the "Janus cosmological model". Its occasional appearance in the pop-science media is enough to support that. The current state of that article is, however, an absolute mess. That in and of itself would be a content-dispute matter not suitable for ANI. Your conduct, though, is not helping. Whatever your problem with me is, I advise you to let it go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you precise that the edits you mentioned are simply in relation with the sentence I put in my beginning : "I'm going to add below sources to prove Notability of Janus model" ? Because you are not reading me seriously? Did you really expect I add all these sources in a single shot ? Who are you trying to misleading here (again) ?
If you have no problem (now) with the content of the "fringe science" section, please go back to the Talk page and write that again, and that you accept the creation of a dedicated article about Janus model. Will you do that? -- (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you precise that the edits you mentioned are simply in relation with the sentence I put in my beginning — because I was pointing out a long-term conduct issue of yours, which has persisted across three Talk pages now.
If you have no problem (now) with the content of the "fringe science" section, please go back to the Talk page and write that again — that's not what I said, and I'm pretty sure you know it. I have plenty of problems with the entirety of the article Jean-Pierre Petit, as do other people trying to fix the mess (pinging @Deacon Vorbis).
and that you accept the creation of a dedicated article about Janus model — your attempts at imperious dictates were entertaining, two Talk pages ago. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For starters, XOR'easter and the IP: stop bickering back and forth here. You're not helping anything by flinging attacks at each other. While we certainly can cover fringe topics on Wikipedia, I find Jean-Pierre_Petit to be very misleading and poorly written. I think it needs a major rework. Much of the fringe stuff is presented as fact, and the coverage is way past WP:DUE. In terms of the IP's conduct, the IP needs to not edit their comments, not level personal attacks on XOR'easter (or anyone for that matter), not try to WP:OWN articles and be civil. But considering that this has gone to ANI before, it seems the IP has not learned a lesson. I'd support a rangeblock for the IP. The level of disruption shows that the IP is WP:NOTHERE and is simply trying to push a WP:POV. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize for not managing my exasperation as well as I should have. (Stressful time of year, etc.) I'll take a trout on this one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You're chill, I understand how annoying it can be in these situations :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: That's very kind of you to say. I think I've said everything substantial on the topic that I can. I tried to find evidence of scientific sources and came up with pretty much zilch, which of course doesn't rule out writing an article based on pop-science media interest (French Gizmodo or what-have-you), but I don't think I'm the best person to do that. So, if others want to try, I'll probably stay out of the way. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You support a rangeblock for the IP, but you're not even sure I'm the same person than the previous ANI and you didn't even asked (anything "probable" is not relevant here). You do not want to consider XOR'easter's personal attacks, his violations of WP:OWN and civil, his record of total lack of useful contributions to enhance the contents (deleting full sections without consensus is not considered an improvement). Sad. -- (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I see no violation of NPA or OWN by XOR'easter, and they have been very civil given the circumstances. I see from their history of edits to the page and the talk page that they have been actively working to improve a very substandard page. IP, you should do well to remember that it is your actions that are being scrutinized here. Even if XOR'easter did something untowards, that doesn't absolve you of your actions. Work to defend your own actions, not attack XOR'easter. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please present diffs to back up all of these accusations. SQLQuery me! 22:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I haven't edited Jean-Pierre Petit at all, only posted on the Talk page. Back in January, I reverted Bimetric gravity to an old version per consensus at AFD. And I later reverted the anon's edits to that page because the anon was trying to override the AFD consensus — they said so. (The addition was also WP:SYNTH-y POV-pushing.) More recently, there was some back and forth on that page which didn't look very consequential and which I didn't pay much attention to (if I'm trying to own anything, I'm doing a pretty bad job). Also, back in January, the anon wanted to add to the semi-protected page black hole, to which I objected. @WolfmanSF said, The whole proposal comes across as a ploy to generate views of some of the "secondary sources". (It seemed to me that promoting Petit was a primary goal of the addition. Their habit of editing their posts after being replied to makes it harder to tell, but here's the original.) @DVdm wrote, I agree that this thing is based on bad sources (wp:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE), and the valid sources are abused to create a new synthesis ("This debate is not closed since...") and thus amount to wp:original research — see wp:SYNTH. The whole thing then kind of petered out. The only edit I have made to black hole had nothing to do with this and was to streamline some awkward phrasing and remove a link to a web forum per WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinged – sorry, been kinda MIA all day. So, XOR's fine, especially given all the craziness that's going on. A couple folks, including at least one IP (it's awfully hard to keep track of who's who here), have certainly been filibustering with mostly useless refs, often misrepresenting them. I tried to step in and clean it up a little, but this isn't really my strong suit and I don't know how much more stomach I have for this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I find the debate pretty clear, if we concentrate on the last edit of the IP, deleted by CaptainEek 1 mn later : given all the provided sources for NOTABILITY, does Janus model deserves a dedicated article ? If you think no, you would be required to explain why in details, not with a pretty limited "unreliable and/or primary sources" like XOREaster wrote. According to WP:NOTABILITY, these are secondary sources with diverse level of reliability, from weak to strong, and it is enough to create a new article on this topic. This decision will resolve any conflict. -- (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is clearly the same person (and top of the list of the IPs I noted already) making a transparent attempt to refer to himself in the third person. Can we close the sock drawer now? XOR'easter (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is clearly yet another attempt to avoid an embarrassing question for you, XOREasster. The question asked is the most relevant posted in this thread. You may find whatever counter-fire to avoid at any cost the creation of an article you hate as a professional physicist (according to your WP EN user page, whichh makes you a probable suspect of COI), this question is still on the table, and it will be there until it is answered by anyone who cares about creating an encyclopedia. We have perfectly understood the game you are playing here,
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
. -- (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Being a physicist doesn't give me a "conflict of interest". It means I'm knowledgeable enough to evaluate writing about physics. (I haven't accused you of having a conflict of interest, since I know that people can become avid promoters of their fandom even without a financial stake. I am, however, starting to wonder if your jumping to COI accusations is a bit of projection on your part.) The absolute best "source" you have ever offered is a passing mention in the reply-to-viewer-comments spiel at the end of a YouTube video. That's not a foundation for an article. Strangely, you boast that the "sources" you have provided include the unreliable. This is, at least, convenient, for it saves the rest of us the trouble of evaluating your walls of text. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I will add that I have (somewhat unwillingly) been following the Jean-Pierre Petit article - having become involved when I responded to an RFPP request by full-protecting the article for a few days. That talk page is a hot mess, with a dozen or more IPs chiming in, some of them evidently the same person with a floating IP, some of them quite possibly socks on both sides of the debate. And plenty of accusations and bad blood from the IPs on both sides. I have a list of possible suspects which I have shared with a checkuser, but I think it will be a day or two before they can get around to it. IMO User:XOR'easter and User:Deacon Vorbis are the two voices of reason and Wikipedia policy at that article, and I hope they stick around to improve it after we figure out, and possibly deal with, the tangle of IPs pushing one side or the other. I have considered semi-protecting the article and talk page, but I don't quite see the situation meeting the requirements for such a step. At least not just yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Now having seen the response above from, which was added while I was typing: this is another of the floating-IP combatants at that article talk page who has been aggressively pushing a particular POV. And a good illustration of the kind of problems that article has been having. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
XOREaster, being a physicist is not enough : do you work on cosmology, string theory, quantum loop gravity, MOND, or dark matter detection?
Why are you trying to avoid systematically to answer simple question : I provided 34 different sources proving NOTABILITY, and the only feeble answer from you is "a passing mention in the reply-to-viewer-comments spiel at the end of a YouTube video"... but where, which one? You're trying to dismiss the whole proofs with "wall of text" and bla-bla. We have all noticed that you have a strong problem with NOTABILITY. You still cannot answer what are reliable source for you :
You say the proposed sources are not enough. Please answer these questions :
1) where is written that the present article should be considered with different rules than others WP articles ?
2) to clarify Notability, give us a precise list of the minimum mandatory criteria (qualitatively and quantitatively) to add the proposed sentences in the article, according to yourself (for instance: the authors must received Nobel Price, one of them has to be named Time's magazine Man of the Year).
3) map each criteria with a WP rule (not a guideline)
If you fail to provide 3) in a few days, then this would mean your approach is arbitrary. Such approach, a.k.a censorship, has no place in WP. -- (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
And no, you're lying, I never boast that the "sources" I have provided include the unreliable. You're misleading once again. Really, how can someone here support and foster your blatant censorship behaviour, instead of banning you for life? All your past "contributions" on cosmology (Black hole, bimetric gravity) was to promote deletion of Jean-Pierre Petit peer-reviewed papers exclusively and entirely under false pretexts. You could very well promote a new AfD for the article about Jean-Pierre Petit because you have decided, alone, that nothing related to him can be notable. No need to argue on the deep, because any mockery is enough. I'm so sad for you. -- (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It does indeed look like there has been a sustained, concerted effort by a group of socks or collaborating IPs to promote Petit and associated POVs across a group of articles; in my view, using some form of protection on the articles in question seems appropriate. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Ouch - I've just looked at the article and it's an utter horror - huge piles of fringey original research built on primary sources - could do with a severe hair cut. I'd support blocking the WP:PROFRINGE IPs (and/or semi-protecting the article) so that there's a chance to assert some sort of WP:PAG-based sanity over this content. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --JBL (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
How can you say it is " fringey original research built on primary sources " without bringing any evidence?
May I remind you that fringe theories are acceptable on WP?
May I remind you that peer-reviewed articles are acceptable on WP as primary sources?
May I remind you, at least, that the question asked here is NOT about the quality of the current article, but on the proposed creation of a new article based on 34 (34!) provided secondary sources to proove NOTABILITY? This new article will help a lot to clarify the content on the current article. How can you dismiss all of the 34 provided secondary sources without discussing each of them?
Is censorship the new normal on WP EN ? If yes, please update the WP policy accordingly. If no, please answer my questions before doing anything else. -- (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Petits models are not widely accepted, are highly speculative, and are non-standard cosmological models. While they may warrant some coverage, the majority of the article being based on Petit's own works in pay to publish predatory journals is hardly a good foundation for an article. Beyond Petits works, the article has rather few reliable secondary sources. Fringe theories are acceptable for coverage, but must be covered in a manner which shows that they are fringe theories, and to not overstate their acceptance or notability. As written, the article grossly overstates the Janus model and the page has a great deal of puffery. This is not at all censorship, we are still covering the Janus model and Petit, but the coverage must be neutral and reliably sourced per WP:BLP. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
At least Captain Eek there is a first common basis : "Petits models are not widely accepted, ... and are non-standard cosmological models... they may warrant some coverage... Fringe theories are acceptable for coverage". But I'm sorry the question was more precise than that: "the question asked here is NOT about the quality of the current article, but on the proposed creation of a new article based on 34 (34!) provided secondary sources to proove NOTABILITY." Do you agree with this creation, yes or no? (The content will be discussed in the Talk page of this future article). If no, please explain precisely why.-- (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Content doesn't get discussed on ANI only conduct. You're asking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. The wall-of-text spam on that talk page is eye watering. --Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The answer to your question has been given by a number of editors : No. Far from splitting off a new article, the current article should be drastically reduced.
You don't need to keep asking. It's been answered. ApLundell (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
How can you say "it's been answered : No" and say "Content doesn't get discussed on ANI" and say this is not censorship? How can you justify to reject 34 secondary sources for NOTABILITY without a single word to discuss them and say this is not censorship?
How can you reject the question asked with "You're asking for the wrong thing in the wrong place" without explaining WHERE is the right place : am I talking here with administrators or what?
How can you simply call all relevant questions here supported with 34 secondary sources for NOTABILITY a "wall-of-text spam" without bending heavily towards censorship?
At least, be honest and show me the right page for launching a procedure against you for blatant censorship. -- (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no procedure because this is not censorship. Wikipedia is not a blog page for you to post whatever you wish.
This is not the right place because ANI is for behavioral issues, not content disputes. The place to discuss content disputes is the article's Talk page.
At least two admins have responded to this section, SQL and MelanieN. You never answered SQL's call to substantiate your accusations, and MelanieN has indicated your behavior is problematic. So I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that the 34 "secondary sources" to which the IP insistently refers include Petit's own publicity appearances, like promotions for his book OVNI et armes secrètes américaines (UFOs and Secret American Weapons). There is also this gem, which is as good as a confession of non-notability: For the very first time since decades in french science, a team of most prominent french experts on relativity and cosmology, including Thibault Damour, published a public paper dedicated to Janus model. A model that has been ignored for decades is not a notable model. (It also wasn't written by "a team". It's the sort of brief note that physicists write sometimes, when they get too many letters about the same perpetual motion machine and want to save time on replies.) This misrepresentation of sources, repetition of demands and general eagerness to waste the community's time has gone on for months, and has long since crossed the line from a content issue to a conduct one. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
XOR'easter at least you try to analyze the provided sources, thank you. But you're still misleading here, what a bad a constant behaviour:
1)Promotions of Petit's books were NOT PRODUCED by him, but by others, prominent journalists on french and Canadian national TV channels. According to the definition of secondary sources for NOTABILITY, they are valid secondary sources! At the opposite, no Janus videos on YouTube are included in the 34 provided sources because they are produced by him.
2)you say "A model that has been ignored for decades is not a notable model" : plain wrong. Instead you should have say A model that has been ignored for decades by Damour is not a notable model for Damour. The 34 provided sources proove Janus was NOTABLE for OTHERS than Damour. Whatever Damour might think, he does only participate to define what is NOTABLE from an academic point of view. But there are many others way to be NOTABLE, which you refuse to consider. JANUS is and was notable in others ways, as the 34 provided sources demonstrate clearly. How can you confuse these simple notions and be a physicist? (and you refuse to answer clearly to the question of your speciality: isn't that suspect of COI and a bad collaborative behaviour?)
3)you say the paper wasn't written by "a team" : plain wrong. It is signed by 1 author, but the last sentence says: "I thank Nathalie Deruelle, and Luc Blanchet, for their commentaries on the first version (2 january 2019) of this text". The final version took into account their commentaries and so we can say the paper was written by a team, even if Damour wrote the most part of it.
4)you say "It's the sort of brief note that physicists write sometimes, when they get too many letters about the same perpetual motion machine": please give us one single instance of such 7 pages (or more) paper written by a theoretical physicist (your domain as you claim) exclusively about the research of another person in the field, published only on the website of their own institution (not arxiv) in the last 20 years, anywhere in the world. If you succeed at least I would have learned something interesting from you. If you fail once again, you would have demonstrate you're a liar only interested in censorship at any cost.
Please don't forget: you have to make a rebuttal for each of the 34 provided sources for NOTABILITY in order to demonstrate Janus model is not notable. If you fail, Janus is then notable and deserve its own article. We will then move this discussion on the new Talk page to define content. I'm confident we will find a way to collaborate. You're a physicist, don't you? -- (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Giving someone a long list of nonsense and demanding that either they sort through it, or let you do what you want, is not civil behavior, nor is it a legitimate form of logical debate. ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree some admin action to protect the article and editors from disruption would be helpful here. Levivich 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel myself to be somewhat involved so I don't intend to take any admin action unless carrying out a decision by others. But I would really like a checkuser to evaluate the various players on that talk page. If someone is willing to do this I can give you a list, preferably by email, of the IDs and IPs involved and how they align, so that you don't have to pick your way through the talk page (what a nightmare). I suspect at least meatpuppetry if not outright sockpuppetry. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Reading the latest missive from (apparently a floating IP; this is the fifth incarnation from a range that has been fulminating at the talk page) prompts me to wonder: at what point is this kind of behavior perfectly described by WP:Tendentious editing? Example: Please don't forget: you have to make a rebuttal for each of the 34 provided sources for NOTABILITY in order to demonstrate Janus model is not notable. If you fail, Janus is then notable and deserve its own article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, other IPs posting similarly to this one include,,, and -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Also,,,,,,, and 2A04:CEC0:1052:2832:4259:8326:B8E:44AE (from the list here). These all geolocate to Paris or nearby. XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the number of IP's being used, would it not be better to slap semi-prot on the article and talk pages for a while? --Blackmane (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be good. --JBL (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest semi-protection for Jean-Pierre Petit and bimetric gravity, along with their Talk pages. Maybe for six months, maybe indefinitely — they've been trying this game intermittently since January. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it time for an admin to close this? Opinions seem to have crystallized. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

ZebraDX3.1 WP:NOTHERE[edit]

This user has used talk pages as a forum multiple times in the last few weeks. I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted.

  • Special:Diff/895089160 - "Btw 4 days to day till my b day"
  • Special:Diff/896983801 - "Holy Crap What a dream match! You guys ready for Undertaker and Goldberg to clash! Who will be Next or Who will Rest In Peace!"
  • Special:Diff/897038949 - "In the beginning it should say 'Goldberg vs The Undertaker is a dream match for some fans..' btw who do you think will win."

JTP (talkcontribs) 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • User:ZebraDX3.1, you need to shit or get off the pot. We're here to edit, not to chat about rassling or birthdays. This is not a gift-giving community anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Warn. Behavior is not malicious, or fit for ANI. @ZebraDX3.1: this isn't really what Wikipedia is for. Would you actually like to contribute to our articles in a way that meets our policies and guidelines? The WordsmithTalk to me 03:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Honestly if this continues they need to be blocked, the majority of their edits are forum-like talk page posts. The few to mainspace are unsourced for the most part. Probably needs to be warned once more though, only has one warning at the moment. StaticVapor message me! 05:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • User:ZebraDX3.1 Hello and I want to apologize for what ever I did is there anything I can do to get of this I just started editing and I did not know so please is there anything I can do to get off of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZebraDX3.1 (talkcontribs) 01:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@ZebraDX3.1: Do not worry, just do not post anything on talk pages not related to changes to a Wikipedia article and make sure you cite sources when you make changes. StaticVapor message me! 05:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by editor of Lenoir–Rhyne University[edit]

ArbCom has been informed and replied that they're on the case so I'll trust that they'll do with they can with the additional information that was shared with them. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please have a word with the editor who most recently used We are having a run-of-the-mill content dispute but he has sent me an off-Wikipedia e-mail threatening to "contact my superiors at [my workplace]" if I don't stop "vandalizing our Wikipedia page." He also includes his name and title in his latest edit summaries which also are also harassing and make clear claims of ownership over the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll leave this mainly to someone else (because I'm just going out now), but I've rev-deleted the personally identifying edit summaries, as we have no idea whether this IP really is who they claim and it could be damaging to the named person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it matches up with the information in the e-mail that he sent to me (twice, actually, to two different accounts; neither e-mail was sent through Wikipedia so he actually looked up several of my e-mail addresses). And the e-mail appears to be genuine so I think this is a case of harassment and not impersonation. ElKevbo (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, I was incorrect about this editor threatening to contact my employer; he did contact my employer. I overlooked the "cc:" line in his e-mail which includes two e-mail addresses of colleagues with whom I work. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this and warn this editor? ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned. All the best, Miniapolis 23:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Miniapolis: Thanks but I hope that someone has also warned this person about the e-mail that he sent to my employer accusing me of vandalizing his employer's article. If it's now acceptable for editors to send messages to other editors' employers, please let me know so I can update our harassment policy. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @ElKevbo: That sucks. I'm not sure there's much admins can do about off-wiki emailing. If I were you, I'd forward the emails to ArbCom, who are set up to deal with more private info. I'm not sure what more they could do beyond blocking the IP address, but it's probably more than we can do. Especially since it looks like that IP is for a hotel. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the expression of sympathy and the suggestion for additional action. I contacted ArbCom yesterday but haven't heard anything. The only administrative actions taken have been to (a) remove the harasser's personal information from his edit summaries (understandable as part of our policies against outing but still feels a lot like an action taken only to protect my harasser) and (b) to warn him against incivil comments in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, no one has said or done anything to at least tell this person - whose name and e-mail address we have! - that this behavior is unacceptable.
I work with great people and it's clear to them that this is just a crazy person so my career isn't threatened. But this is bullshit beyond the pale and I'm baffled that no one here seems to think it's even worth telling this person that this behavior is unacceptable. I know that we can't control what other people do, especially off-wiki, but we can control how we react and how or if we support one another. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • PSA: @ElKevbo: Email the Trust & Safety team (ca-at-wikimedia-dot-org) in cases of serious harassment (emergency, in case of dire emergencies) and legal-at-wikimedia-dot-org in case of legal threats made against your person. --qedk (t c) 10:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

IP block evasion/LTA[edit]

Not sure exactly who this is or what they're trying to do, but (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is clearly block evading from (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), which is cross-wiki blocked for vandalism/LTA. If it helps, (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) seems to be a compatible range. (Not notifying IPs of discussion.) Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I went back through 7-8 days worth of netblock's contributions, same pattern. I rangeblocked (more properly should be 121.140/16) for 72 hours. I think regular patrolling of the date / history articles they frequent may show them coming back after that (they're persistent). May need reblocking for longer if so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert, thanks. In doing a little searching, it could be related to Brookerbs (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who seemingly has an obsession with date-related articles. I could be way off on that, however. Home Lander (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation at AfD on John Smelcer[edit]

I have some concerns about the nominating statement Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) in the AfD re: John Smelcer, a living person a who may, or many not, be a member of a native American tribe, as he claims to be. Nom, User:Dennis Bratland calls Smelcer "a pathological liar or suffer of Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" accuses him of "crimes" and listed [10] the page as a "Crime-related deletion discussion. I BOLDLY removed the "crime" listing. Smelcer is a poet and novelist who claims to be a native American - his father denies it, but a tribe has registered him. His "crime" is to have published work that he claims has been written by a native American, himself. This may be a lie, but it is not a crime. The reasons I bring this here are 1.) I cannot find that any sort of criminal charges have been laid against him, let alone a conviction, and 2.) labeling a living person "pathological liar" with "Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" seems slanderous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty damn clear cut to me, I have now asked the user in question to read our polices on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, this is an article that has already been deleted once. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I've redacted the BLP violations, and revdel'd them too, although there are enough crumbs out there now that it would be pretty easy to reconstruct, and I'm not going to redact and revdel this ANI report nor redact other comments at the AFD. That was pretty unacceptable. I wonder if a topic ban from BLP is in order? At the very least I suppose I need to figure out how to issue discretionary sanctions discretionary sanction alerts, so if this happens again individual admins would have DS at our disposal. If I find out DB has already had a DS notice posted in the last year, I'm sorely tempted to issue a BLP topic ban myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Whilst a serious breach I am going to play devils advocate and point out they may not have been warned before. But it was serious enough for a warning to not be enough, I think a short block would (hopefully) send the right message.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I've issued a {{DS/alert}}, perhaps that's enough for now. In Admin 101 they beat it into our heads we're not supposed to issue short blocks to send messages... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I was hoping I left strong enough hints for editors to be motivated to fully research this topic. I didn't want to rehash the dirty laundry out on Wikipedia again, as in the previous AfD. The subject himself had become involved, and the whole thing was a trainwreck. Deleting the old article's talk page and the prior versions was a mercy. It looks like editors today are reading sources no earlier than around 2007; the ones easily turned up at Google. The issues date to the 1970s and 1980s, requiring digging in less easily accessible local Alaska and Washington newspaper archives. With Highbeam gone, finding those sources has become harder than it was in 2011.

    I won't participate in this topic any further. I'd suggest digging a little before reaching conclusions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Read our polices on BLP's, you do not get to call people names, at best you can call them the names RS have. You can never say anyone is a criminal unless they have been prosecuted (even if RS do). But I am glad you are going to disengage, but I really do advise you to take this all on board and not use the same language about others. If you do I am going to suspect you will get a TBAN on BLP's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
For someone who has been around so long, this is a pretty amazing misunderstanding of WP:BLP. I'm particularly unimpressed by your saying that you should get to make really serious unsourced claims about a living person, and when called on it, complain that others need to do the research to follow up on your hints(?!) That's a ... really ... amazing thing to say in public. I'm grudgingly OK dropping this for now, as long as this is not a long term pattern of behavior, but @Dennis Bratland:, if you do something similar again, you'll be topic banned from BLPs for at least a month as an WP:AE action with little or no further discussion. And if others think a community-based topic ban is already justified, I specifically do not oppose that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
All editors interested in protecting BLPs should add John Smelcer to your watchlists. This person is both notable and highly controversial. Dennis Bratland, I truly hope that you now understand that you cannot state anywhere on Wikipedia that a person is a criminal unless that person has been convicted in a court of law. Period. End of story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This person is both notable...
Not based on his article he isn't. Did a whole bunch of actual evidence of notability get redacted or something? --Calton | Talk 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, "state anywhere on Wikipedia that a person is a criminal"? Did I state he was a criminal? Now this is just going overboard. I referred to the WP:PERP notability criteria because they relate both to accused and convicted criminals. Not to mention that there is an actual conviction in this story too, if one were to look, but I see that ain't happening.

    But why exactly the need to belabor this? Everyone keeps repeating the same assertions and utterly ignoring the reasons I gave. I get it: nobody will research this themselves. And I'm not willing to re-post the precise list of allegations and facts behind it. Because I'm as concerned with the spirit of BLP as the letter. We have an author whose books don't meet WP:AUTHOR and someone whose alleged and proven transgressions, while somewhat scandalous or salacious, are ultimately very local and minor in scope. The broader world didn't take much notice, because the actual impact was zero, other than on the life of the person himself. So now it's certain that someone who is essentially a low-profile individual will be immortalized and made more notorious by Wikipedia. All out of strict obedience to the BLP policy.

    So you won't trust that I know what I'm talking about, and you won't go research it yourself. Great. That puts us at an impasse. The bottom line is that I have been firmly warned that I'll be topic banned if I do anything of the sort again. Fine. If one wants to go on lecturing me, perhaps find a way to say it in a new way with new facts. Facts are out there if one cares to find them. Otherwise, it's wabbit season. I got it the first time so it doesn't need to be repeated. I understand what I've been told not to do and what will happen if I do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that mention a crime that the subject was accused of or convicted for, by all means, share them. Saying "do your own research" will get you nowhere. Nanophosis (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"do your own research" isn't precisely what I said, is it? I said I wasn't going to post the details of the earlier events behind all this, but that if you wanted to know what they are, you can find them with a little more work than a mere Google search. Because if you did that you might better understand what motivated me, even if you don't agree with my actions. If you're only going to skim what I say and respond with flip rejoinders based on a crude, oversimplified interpretation, where exactly do you think that will get you? It mostly wastes everyone's time as we have to keep going back and correcting misstatements about previous statements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Nanophosis—you can't suggest by the use of quotation marks that you are quoting another editor when you are not. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
You listed the deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime which says "This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Crime. " so if he did not commit a crime how is his article about crime? I think a Tban is in order now, the user is not listening (and I am being polite).Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I reckon a topic ban for Dennis Bratland is not needed. He says that he "understands what he has been told", and per WP:AGF, I see no reason not to believe him. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think their last reply here indicates they do not get it. I think what they have said is "fine I know I will get banned, you all wrong but I have no choice". OK lets AGF and I withdraw my request of for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We can drag on this debate if there is some purpose to that, but for now all I'll say is that you should try reading my words more closely. I didn't say "you are all wrong". Not even close. I didn't explicitly deny the accusations against me. I explained what my reasoning was, and suggested one might understand better by fully researching the bio topic here. Because the alternative is that I've completely lost my marbles and forgotten everything I've learned about BLP in 15 years. How plausible is that? If you don't care to explore the basis for my reasoning, fine. You have better things to do. But please refrain from hysterics and hyperbole. I've been officially warned, acknowledged receipt of the warning, and affirmed I'll steer clear of any further possible violations. What more do you want? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


HelpMeStopSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) The user is an SPA claiming to be with VICE who has left a couple of bizarre messages on User talk:HelpUsStopSpam's talk page (including a request to interview them). I'm not sure what to do about it - definitely looks like WP:NOTHERE, but I don't know if they've violated any specific policies yet. creffett (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Have they only made a couple of edits? But, yeah—both usernames suggest WP:RGW even if they mean well with it. ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
What the hell is VICE?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe it's a magazine or online publication of some kind. Reyk YO! 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This all looks a bit stale, why raise it now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, 10 hours is stale?? Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I was looking at the talk page discussion as is, the ones you are referring to were removed, diff would have been nice. Yes these edits look like the user is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry, didn't think about that. For other editors' reference, diff of the talk page commentary is at [11], and VICE refers to Vice Media. I agree, HelpUsStopSpam is here to WP:RGW and probably should be looked at closer, but HelpMeStopSpam is just WP:NOTHERE, I'm just not sure what the correct approach is to deal with it so I raised it here. creffett (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Well as its an SPA, that clear has an agenda (and this a history) relating to digging up dirt I think a block, indef of coarse. Normally I would not go for the block straight away, but there is history here, and I doubt this is a new user.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Since he (HMSS) explicitly claims to be editing for vice there are conflict of interest and UPE issues. We are contacting suggests shared account issues. But... having not got the interview he was after, I guess we've probably seen the last of him. Cabayi (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Would it be possible to see if either of them HMSS would be willing to explain just what they're doing here? I can get if you're asking for an interview with someone, but I would imagine this should have been done far more discreetly and would be targeted to a specific known editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks creffett for already bringing this here - I would have done this myself now.
The whole "vice" thing is likely just fake. The "bizarre" requests already indicate that he is torn between trying to insult/attack me and trying to dox. Obviously, anyone looking into Wikipedia spam would be interviewing about the big cases such as Orangemoody and Wiki-PR, and I have no knowledge of these beyond what is written in their Wikipedia articles.
Most likely, -wrong suspicion removed to protect the innocent- HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
So based on this, he should be blocked for harassment and/or being a sock? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It clearly is a SPA to harass me. I cannot prove it is a sock, a checkuser may or may not. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Then my suspicion above was wrong. I do not see any connection between these two and aforementioned accounts. There is a third account spamming "open genus" to Wikipedia: Algo open. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Something came up and I couldn't comment earlier, but I've blocked all three accounts. As NinjaRobotPirate said, they're all three on the same IP address. Given that the messages on the userpages of the older two accounts (I am a PhD candidate at Harvard University... and I am a PhD candidate at ITMO University, Russia...) are at odds with each other, that the IP address is nowhere near either of those institutions, and that all three accounts are technically indistinguishable, they're NOTHERE at best. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you DoRD. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Cam Howe[edit]

1subwoofer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User was edit warring trying to insert non-RS material citing his organization's website at Patterson Lakes, Victoria. This resulted in a posting by duffbeerforme at WP:COIN#Cam_Howe. 1subwoofer has a history of creating autobiographical articles even after they'd been AfD'd and generating linkspam (further detail at the WP:COIN post). 1subwoofer declared the issue "resolved" and blanked[12] the whole WP:COIN entry. Not sure if a block or TBAN is the right approach, but something's needed here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@1subwoofer: do you intend to edit anything on Wikipedia besides topics relating to Cameron Howe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Like you, I am here to contribute to Wikipedia as whole. I was making a change to an article on a suburb. Duff said that there weren't enough references. It was ONLY then that I added a reference to that site, as it supported the paragraph noting the date the community group was established. What transpired next is that Duff repeatedly engaged in malicious changes to revert the paragraph. It's no low level group either, this community group is regularly featured in state media. I actually removed this single reference, reverting back to the original to finally appease Duff and this should resolve the matter. It's disappointing that someone has been vindictive, focussing on a single line in an article when the majority of the article is not referenced. I have been here for almost a decade, contributing to many other areas, thank you 1subwoofer (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting one-way IBAN for user:M-J[edit]

I am requesting a one-way IBAN for User:M-J, as they currently abuse their writing access for harassing me on English Wikipedia. I've told them to stop harassing me on my talk page, and to stop abusing the Special:Thanks function, (they thanked me twice in a disruptive manner), yet they continue and even tell me that I "lie". This must stop. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

two thanks, wow. [13] are you abusing special:thanks too? --ɱ 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There is continued harassment at user talk:Johannes Maximilian by user:M-J to pursue a conflict from German Wikipedia. Please stop this user. --Icodense (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm discuss about a enwiki edit from Johannes, not about a german wiki conflict. Don't lie. --ɱ 09:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

M-J is now edit-warring on my talk page. Please stop this editor. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Icodense99 is edit-warring on Johannes talk page. Please stop this editor. --ɱ 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I just deleted foolhardy harassment. --Icodense (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not your disc and it's not harassment to correct a wrong statement --ɱ 10:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Whilst not a policy as such if a user asked you to stay of their talk page you should, continuing to post there (or reinstate deleted comments) is harassment, I however always have disliked one way Ibans, in this case more so as I am not wholly sure this is all one sided.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is one-sided. Neither have I contacted M-J before, nor have I had any conflicts with them in the past. They decided to show up and harass me for no good reason, telling me how embarassing my edits are, that they are looking forward to see other editors vote against me (in German), that I "lie", and they even keep saying that I "lie". It must stop. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something but this [[14]] is not really harassment (which has to be ongoing and long term, this appears to be the first post on your talk page), a user is allowed to ask for another to be blocked. Hence why I thought there was more to this. Now when they continued, then it became harassment, but you made the accusation after (as far as I can tell) their first interaction with you here. So can you see why I thought (and think) there is a history here we are not aware of?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This has spilled over from DE-Wikipedia...and got a bit spiteful and personal here too. M-J, Johannes Maximilian I advise you to just go out of your way to avoid any sort of interaction with each other, be it directly, by e-mail, via edit-summary or any other sort of interaction you might come up with. Otherwise, this back and forth on- and inter-wikipedia sniping will not end well for both of you. Lectonar (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I never intended to get anywhere near this editor, they started attacking me for no reason, posting a message how embarassing my edits are. This is harassment at its best. I want them to leave me alone. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Then how about a two way IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
M-J has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring in the meantime. And, to Johannes Maximilian: it always takes at least two to party like that. And: you have been given rather good advice over at DE-Wikipedia, in the thread about above. Lectonar (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no need for a two-way IBAN. I have never contacted this editor before, I never planned contacting this editor before, and I do not plan interacting with this editor in the future. I want them to leave me alone. They simply showed up on my talk page and told me that they consider my edits embarassing, and that they are looking forward to see other editors be against me (Special:Diff/897466852). This statement is disruptive already. There has not been any conflict on German Wikipedia before. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: I don't edit on German Wikipedia anymore. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This appears to have spilt over from WP:ANI#User:Atomiccocktail / Einfach machen Hamburg, considering M-J‘s original edit to Johannes’s talk page. So long as M-J now stays away from Johannes, which as M-J rarely edits here ought to be doable, there’s nothing more to be done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want M-J to leave me alone, and as long as they accept that and as long as they don't attack me anymore, it's all good. You can go ahead and close this request. But could an admin please tell M-J that they ought to leave me alone? I'd really appreciate that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

German Wiki is German Wiki, they have different standards. Now have they continued to harass you after they were asked (here) not to?Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Just adding.... it isn't what we would consider a ban here....M-J is only advised to avoid contact, to be blocked for 6 hours if not complying. I will try and have an eye on the situation here. Lectonar (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay official URL - possible linkspam or malware attack[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Got a problem here: From Talk:The Pirate Bay "Re this edit: the "official url" template is currently redirecting to which is most definitely not There are characters in Chinese (Green Tea News according to Google Translate). I'm not sure why this is happening and would welcome suggestions on this. Anyway, we can't link to something that is obviously not the official url." Please could the article be semi-protected until this is fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also happening at 1337x and several IPs repeatedly changing the underlying data at WikiData. O3000 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This is why enwiki shouldn't rely on the spam-prone {{Official website}} parameters from Wikidata. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Posted about this on wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Edit war on Q22663. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I've put some semi/PC on the Pirate Bay page. As noted, this is not the only article affected. Any Wikidata or meta admins might want to help out with some blocks and blacklisting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
We definitely shouldn't rely on Wikidata for this type of official site. By "this type" I mean the kind of legally ambiguous (or unambiguously illegal in some cases) site that winds up switching domains regularly. There are a whole lot of efforts to trick people, hijack, duplicate, etc. The dark net drug markets get a ton of spam, which can be even harder to detect as in addition to the official site frequently changing, the url is a mostly random collection of characters so it can be hard to tell one from another. (of course, whether we should be including any such url at all is a separate conversation). For the safety of our readers, we need to have tight control over urls likely subject to abuse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think we should be using wikidata for anything. Reyk YO! 14:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I hear ya. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: If only you would let a WD admin like me know first before you write off the project's ability to fight spam. Semi-protection is all that's needed here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: A fair response. The issue isn't that Wikidata has no defense against vandals, though. I like Wikidata and see it as having a ton of potential, including developing mechanisms to protect against problematic edits. When it comes to fighting vandalism right now, though, enwiki is really very good most of the time, with lots of people and lots of tools that I just don't think Wikidata has yet. For example, if someone becomes autoconfirmed (a low barrier) and edits the url on Wikidata, how many people see it? If it's changed on enwiki, 617 people have the page watchlisted. A semi-protected Wikidata item may be more protection than many projects currently have, but it just makes less sense for sensitive content than a page 617 people are watching. Unless it's full protected, but I doubt anyone really wants that (I suspect you'd hear objections from those who see having material on Wikidata too much of a barrier to editing Wikipedia). Something that could work is that for particularly sensitive and/or likely vandalism targets, perhaps there's a way to full protect/lock just that statement? Or, more broadly, to lock anything that's actively in use by templates on another project, with something stronger than semiprotect on it? I'm just spitballing now, I suppose, in a way that's probably not suited to ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The WD community is quite distrustful of pegging any local access of any sort to the actions of another community (on the principle that we are not bound by the policies of other projects). Our autoconfirmed threshold is significantly higher than Wikipedia’s for a reason, and we also are pretty good with making abuse (edit) filters for this purpose. Anyone who is this concerned about these popular items should request that I protect them, not merely complain that we don’t do as much about the problem—especially as we have more items to watch over than articles here and more edits in 7 years than this wiki has had in 18 (yes, Wikidata has surpassed Wikipedia’s size in those metrics).—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This incident has made me wary of allowing parameters in enwiki articles to be changed on Wikidata. The problem is that enwiki editors may not be watching everything that happens over at Wikidata. Template vandalism is a serious problem, and templates on enwiki often have full protection so that IP or newly autoconfirmed users cannot vandalize them. I always remember this incident in 2015 which led to media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"Military action"[edit]

User: just threatened to "hunt you down and take military action" against someone if their AFD is not "deleted". My apologies if this shouldn't have been brought here, but I wasn't sure what the protocol is in these cases. aboideautalk 12:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Threatening to "hunt you down and take military action" is not appropriate. Trying to intimidate our editors is not good for Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: User: has now been blocked. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As threats go its pretty empty, but for the childlessness alone I agree with the block.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is just schoolchildren silliness. If there is any more silliness, I will be inclined to remove talk page access too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have to admit when I read this my first thought was I would have responded "you and whose army".Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
More silliness[15] and talk page access has been removed (by administrator DoRD). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I am almost thinking nuke the account form orbit..08:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious user paying someone to write an article for their company[edit]

User:Lekaralius has sent me a message on my talk page and requested me to get his freelance job of writing an article for an aviation company and said that he has all the secondary sources ready and just wants a qualified user and an aviation lover to "be able to submit it successfully". I suspect him for sockpuppetery since he had only one mainspace edit on en wikipedia as shown in Xtools but he is familiar with the Wikipedia policies. I also suspect him to be a company bribing me to write an article. I think that this account should be deleted and its IP Address should be permanently blocked. Here is the message copied from my talk page: "Article about aviations services companies Because You write on aviation topics, I thought maybe it would be interesting for you to have cooperation writing articles about international aviation services companies. I have prepared texts and all needed secondary resources. Now I need Wikipedia experienced editor to review the article and successfully post it.

Could You help me with this freelance work or maybe you have someone to suggest?

Thank You in advance for Your help. I am looking forward to Your answer."

For more details please visit my talk page and message me. PS he also messaged the same message to several other users. WikiAviator (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

They do seem to have posted the same message on a number of pages. I am not sure form the wording if they are offering to pay you, or is only they will get paid. I also do not think (looking at it) they they may mean exactly what they say, its standard of English seems low. I think what is needed is just a warning, and maybe an admin to verify exactly what they meant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Lekaralius, how much are you paying for this? If it's over $500, I'll do it before Gilliam snatches it up. But you better have all the text and sources ready; I have a reputation to defend. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This seems a bit too on the nose. Perhaps User:Lekaralius is an account created to troll for attention. bd2412 T 16:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Bijnorlion, shared ac, and possible UPE[edit]

Bijnorlion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The userpage states that the username is of a local newspaper. Given the speed of user creating new articles, it is evident that the account is being shared. There are also very high chances of UPE. Feedback/advice of experienced users is requested. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Tabbed browsing can also explain the speed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) This should be reported at WP:UAA, not ANI. JTP (talkcontribs) 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Not appropriate for UAA. Per WP:ORGNAME, it is not a violation of username policy unless the username unambiguously represents the name of a company, group or product, along with edits promoting said organization. I think this may be more appropriate for WP:COI/N or perhaps a WP:RFCN. NJA | talk 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry didn’t read this clear enough the first time. I thought the issue was about potential promotion or a COI. If the account is indeed that named for a local newspaper and may be of shared use by said newspaper, then that is against the username policy. If the name were “Jan at Bijnorlion” or “Fan of Bijnorlion" those would be OK from a username POV. It would not excuse concerns about editing such as COI, etc. Anyhow, I am deferring to another admin as I have stuff to do, but as a reminder if it’s not serious or a blatant violation where you feel comfortable doing an immediate block, then WP:RFCN is still appropriate. NJA | talk 20:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I recognised the issue with their username, and left a message on their talkpage suggesting a change via WP:UNC. I've also asked them to read WP:NMUSIC, and go through one of the tutorial options to learn more about editing. They haven't edited since my talkpage post, and so it might be worth giving them a chance to review and improve their editing; I agree though that the rate at which they have been creating articles is disruptive - I expect NPP patrollers are spending more time reviewing each of their unreferenced and/or non-notable articles than they are spending writing them. GirthSummit (blether) 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The articles are mostly single sentences with a bunch of grammar and style problems, about subjects of questionable notability like local politicians and non-English-language songs. It feels like these stubs are saying "Here's a youtube video or a couple of other sources. Someone else do the real work of putting it all together and writing a coherent article". It's one thing to post a skeleton with an attempt at outlining a skeleton of an article, but these seem to be over the line. Their limited English (e.g., here) would seem to be a WP:CIR problem that will keep them from being able to collaborate effectively. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I had the doubt about English fluency as well. Thats why I was elaborative when I posted a notice to their talkpage regarding this ANI discussion. Later I saw they were editing after the notice was posted, so I added a comment on their talkpage in Hindi language. They edited even after that, but havent commented here. Maybe a 36 hour block is in order to get their attention. @Bijnorlion: Would you kindly comment here? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Compromised account - GretLomborg ?[edit]

Closing at GretLomborg's request. El_C 16:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GretLomborg (talk · contribs)

Been here quietly for a couple of years. Tonight they're putting AfDs and CSDs all over the place. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

My account hasn't been compromised by a vandal, and that's a pretty spurious allegation. I've been active in AfDs for quite some time, and the CSDs were all for pretty blatant copyvio articles that I confirmed with copyvio tool. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
To be a copyvio, the claimed "source" has to be older than the WP article, not newer.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry if I missed that. Could you be a little nicer [16], please? I was acting in good faith, and I feel like you just went nuclear against me, by for instance making this (false) allegation and nominating my articles for deletion. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Whoa, Andy Dingley. Just chill. El_C 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Apologies to El_C, I was a little overheated in my comments last night.
Should the article be kept? The Stockton and Darlington railway was the world's first steam locomotive-hauled public railway. And this is an AfD on a list of those steam locomotives as it's "too old". What part of WP policy does that fall under?
The Hull and Barnsley is a little more obscure. Few people even know there was such a railway. Yet it does of course pass the letter of WP:N and (per many other similar articles) the project's typical and appropriate structure is to have separate articles listing the locos (partly because the locos, post-Grouping, often had wider careers around the rest of the network). A strange place for an editor with no interest in railways, no past interest in railways, and no recognition of the S&DR's historical place to pick just these two article to AfD.
Except of course that they've both had past trouble with an I B Wright (talk · contribs) sock (OK, possibly a Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) sock, because those two generally appeared in pairs and could be hard to tell apart). Trouble which was clearly targetted at [17] [18] at Biscuittin (talk · contribs). See the IP contrib logs.
And if you've seen some of the past issues with those two, you'll understand why I'm so angry at any hint of their return. Especially from an account created at the same times as the events above. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
As to their CSD of Edward Borrows and Sons, then that would carry more weight if the WP article wasn't older than the supposed source. Borrows is an incredibly obscure topic in British railway history, I'd never heard of them. But Biscuittin had – it's another one of their created articles. Perhaps GretLomborg might explain how they'd alighted on these three articles in particular to seek the deletion of? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
As this is now getting repeatedly CSDed, I've AfDed it instead to permit a proper discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Borrows and Sons Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This was deleted as a copyvio (I can't check the text of this deleted article, but once again, the age of the supposed source sites isn't easy to trace back older than the WP article either.). It was then partially recreated as carbon buildup, which I AfD'ed on simple grounds of it being a lousy article. But who'd created the original? Biscuittin. User_talk:Roberttherambler#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Diesel_engine_problems (Roberttherambler was a later sock by Biscuittin)
So that's four deletions here by GretLomborg, on obscure articles, one of which is a complete outlier from the others, and their common factor is their creator. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's the timeline: I read the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diesel_engine_problems) for Diesel engine problems which was headed for delete, so I decided to salvage a topic from it that seemed notable per the other voters, but they still wanted to delete because the creating account was banned. Maybe someone could expand it later. Then I noticed that Diesel engine problems didn't read like a Wikipedia article, so I verified that suspicion using the copyvio tool and it came back as a high percentage to what looked like technical newsletter. I then checked some of the other articles that account created using the copyvio tool, since if he did one he may have done others, and found the other one (and tagged it so an admin could check it out). I also noticed to other aticles that stuck me strongly as WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the style of a "Exhaustive logs of software updates" akin to the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Java_EE_version_history. If I was off base, I expected feedback in the votes or to my talk page, not as a personal inquisition against me and being told to "fuck off" [19]. This accusation that my account has been compromised is false and baseless, and seems to be mostly motivated by anger (and maybe to bias the AfD's by creating the impression that my account is illegitimate, since it's getting mentioned all over in the passive voice). I think it should be closed. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Ongoing WP:DE by User:Cynistrategus at Murder of Hae Min Lee[edit]

User:Cynistrategus has 97 mainspace edits. All are to Thiruvendran Vignarajah and Murder of Hae Min Lee. Vignarajah is the former state's attorney who defended this conviction before multiple courts. The user edits the murder article from a pro-prosecution standpoint and has repeatedly used non-RS and violated WP:NOR and WP:BLP. The user is continually reverting to a particular version of the article. At first, it was "sourced" to police reports and other documents that do not remotely meet WP:RS or WP:BLPSOURCE. After I complained, the user re-reverted to the same version, this time sourced to various WP:RS which did not contain all of the information in the user's favored version. After I complained again, the user has added one additional source which he says does contain the information, which would make it WP:SYNTH as best. My thread at WP:COIN does not appear to have drawn attention from anyone other than me and User:Cynistrategus. I have asked at several related articles for more watchers, with no apparent impact. Would an admin please take a look at this situation.[20][21][22][23][24][25]Adoring nanny (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that several of the above diffs amount to a near-rewrite of the entire article. The user's version puts a WP:Undue emphasis on portions of the police investigation and, prior to the filing of this complaint, repeatedly removed portions that were uncomfortable for the prosecution, such as the 2:36pm phone call and the tapping. A user who is new to the case and wants to understand why this is important would have to read the before-and-after versions to make sense of it, I'm afraid, and possibly listen to the podcasts, or at least portions of them, as well. Part of the problem here is that the best sources are podcasts, and listening to them takes time, so it's hard for someone who hasn't listened to see what is WP:DUE and what is not.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mass reverts of User:Cptmrmcmillan by IP users, hostile behavior[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Cptmrmcmillan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The former IP mass-reverted a number of Cptmrmcmillan's airport article edits, characterizing them as "vandalism" (see Special:Contributions/ and left a rather unpleasant note at User_talk:Cptmrmcmillan#WP:CIR. I suspect the latter IP is the same editor based on similar edits and tone of comments. Cptmrmcmillan has demonstrated some WP:OWN tendencies with the airport articles but I'm inclined to say that the IP users are the problem in this case. creffett (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone can probably make a coherent argument and discussion about Cptmrmcmillan's edit style and content, but they're constructive. The IPs weren't; I've blocked both for 48 hours. They really need to explain as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Account blocked and tagged. Good catch. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YoshiFan160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Normally an editor making various vandal edits to a page would draw various levels of warnings, but this account made 10 dummy edits, then successive page blanking edits to Hermione Granger and Rubeus Hagrid. Then the real clincher, they then went and page blanked Wikipedia:Protection policy and most tellingly Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. A good faith account with less than 25 edits would certainly not know about the Protection policy much know where to find a LTA page. Obvious sock is obvious. --Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unless his MO has drastically changed this looks more like a bad Joe job to me. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yup, re-tagged. There are several vandals who regularly do grawp stuff, while JA has moved on to other things. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Spamming of Astral Airways[edit]

Accounts connected at SPI via CheckUser. Closing as no more action is needed (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several accounts have been spamming Astral Airways (related content and wikilinks) in articles. They are Astralair778 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Sweety9909 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Flyastralairways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). They have focused on linking the article from Air transportation in the Philippines (i.e. Sweety9909 and Astralair778), Template:Airlines of the Philippines (i.e. Astralair778, Flyastralairways and Sweety9909). All accounts have edited this article.

There have been IPs and editors reverting this. According to the edit summaries of the reversions "Removed Astral Airways after vandalism was revealed.", "Removed Astral Airways, which is a fake airline company", "Removed Astral Airways. It is a non-existent airline and doesn’t have a CAAP Airworthiness Certificate." and "Removed Astral Airways. The airline never existed. It was just a fake airline created on Facebook to scam people.". There have been editors and IPs adding warnings in the article (e.g. IP with edit summary "Put a disclaimer warning people about the fake airline and their scams.").

It seems that the accounts are linked. I suspect that the person who controls the accounts are creating new accounts to avoid detection. Although this is not necessarily sockpuppetry (as the accounts are not editing at the same time), this is something which needs to be dealt with. It is debatable whether the account move from Sweety9909 to Flyastralairways was a valid clean start (as they went back to their previous editing area, after editors had reverted them), but I still chose to report here instead of SPI. Furthermore, the actual airline is a massive hoax due to my reasoning over at the in progress AfD for this article. I am reporting here now, as I investigated further the contributions of these accounts and discovered the spamming. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Astralair778 was the first account and was soft blocked. Sweety9909 was created after Astralair778's last edit and has exactly the same userpage content. Flyastralairways was created after Sweety9909's last edit and has a very similar username to the first account. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Also adding Jackjil667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), as on further investigation they have editied this draft and created another hoax airline in the Philippines.
This is now moving to the realms of sockpuppetry, as this account was editing at the same time Sweety9909 was (and on this same article). Jackjil667 edited Astral Airways three times in succession (e.g. start diff). Jackjil667 created Draft:Divergent Air, which is yet another hoax (Google search brings nothing (except facebook page)). This supposed airline has a similar Facebook page to Astral Airways (i.e. pasting their logo on airplanes). Marked for G3 (hoax). Both the draft and article share similarities (mainly the fleet section on both Astral Airways and Divergent Air. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Opened SPI. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

IP Hopper[edit]

IPs blocked by zzuzz. AIV is thataway. --qedk (t c) 17:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I want to let you know that there is a vandal hopping between user: and user: CLCStudent (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked those two. One might expect more to turn up at some point. This is WP:LTA/MRY. Just throw them at AIV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

False music certifications[edit]

Hello. Ahasan0028 (contrib) voluntarily introduces false music certifications in the articles The Works (Queen album), Hot Space and Made in Heaven. The British Phonographic Institute website here confirms my claims, it's a search engine so you must type the name of the album but this quick operation is enough to confirm that I'm right. What can I do against this kind of sneaky vandalism because this contributor does not want to listen to reason and tries to reverse the roles ? Cheers. Olyvar (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If its so easy you could have linked to it yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Linked what ? Olyvar (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
These certificates that prove your right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a search engine, so there's no direct link, you have to type each time the name of the album to check that (for example, if you type "hot space" here, you'll see that the highest certification is "Gold", and not "Platinum" like this user claims). Olyvar (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Lets do a test. [[26]]...
Yes you can link to one album or song.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
search engine pages are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I didn't know this functionality, thank you. So here is the proof that i'm right with direct links for Hot Space and The Works. Olyvar (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
For the UK yes, but I suggest you use this link.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I added direct links to the reference on the 2 articles. I hope he won't insist anymore. Olyvar (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You should have notified them of this ANI, I have now done so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not familiar with your procedures. I contribute mainly on the French version and it's my first problem here.
By the way, this user just revert me again without any discussion or adding a source. It's tiring. Olyvar (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is time for a block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can also confirm the false information that Ahasan0028 has been adding comes across as vandalism. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have given this relatively new editor a 31 hour block. In addition to the edit warring on album certifications, they made two really bad edits to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which is a Featured article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and vandalism by ‎[edit]

Blocked by Acroterion, this stuff is for AIV. --qedk (t c) 15:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A quick look at their most recent edits says it all really. --Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Deletion of sourced content[edit]

There's been a weird series of interactions with Qwirkle (talk · contribs) on Yuri Aleksandrovich Panteleyev, currently on the main page - history here. He first removed the word raglan with the somewhat hostile but rather meaningless edit summary "WTF!". I'd orginally made an error in writing the article, using raglan for collar, rather than the coat as is mentioned in the article. Not knowing if he didn't understand the word 'raglan', or was reasonably objecting to the mistake of raglan collar, I restored raglan this time in its proper place as the type of coat. He reverted, saying yes, some of those have raglan sleeves, yup. But there is no such thing, in english, as a “raglan collar”.. Assuming he'd not checked the revert and thought the 'raglan' had just been reinserted into its previous place, I reverted, pointing out that this wasn't about a raglan collar any more, but the coat. He reverted again claiming Yes, that was precisely my intent, that is not, despite the occasional zoolanderoid magazine, a common English term. When I asked on his talkpage if he was saying that there isn't such a thing as a raglan coat, he replied "Pretty much". Google returns 119,000 hits for "Raglan Coat" - rather too many to pass off as an "occasional zoolanderoid magazine", and whether it was or it wasn't, it is in the Russian source of the article that that's what it is. I'm not sure if he has some objection to the term, doesn't like being reverted, or what. But he is removing sourced content on the grounds that its not a term in use in English, when the evidence suggests that's nonsense. Spokoyni (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Russian material is, not surprisingly, in Russian, and uses an English loanword in a manner which English itself generally does not. There are many forms of coat with raglan sleeves, ranging from windbreakers to trenchcoats. It has no particular meaning aside from a sleeve design, and a search-engine dredge will rapidly confirm that for anyone with any doubts. (The dominant image that comes up on the Russian word appears to be a lady’s sweater, oddly enough. I’m sure the Admiral looked fetching in his.)

The objection, in short, is not to properly sourced material, but to a calque translation, which is to say, the work of a wikipedian, not a reliable source. Qwirkle (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Raglan in English, Реглан in Russian. Whether he had been wearing a Chesterfield coat, Duster or Ulster coat, if that was what it says in the source, that's what it should say in the article. Certainly Реглан to Raglan is just a part of Wikipedia:Translation. As to English not using Raglan in this way, there are plenty of dictionary results happy to define a Raglan, as well as all those google hits. Wiktionary for example has Raglan (n.) "An overcoat with sleeves of this type." The Russian wiktionary as an identical definition for Реглан. If it will help matters I'd be happy to drop the word 'coat' for just 'Raglan', but "Raglan" is more specific than just coat, and there's no justification on removing it, and certainly not because you think its a "occasional zoolanderoid magazine"-term. To deny sources in other languages from wikipedia because they rely on translations by wikipedia editors and thus can't be accepted as reliable is an astounding suggestion to make. Spokoyni (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Since April 26, the IP has been constantly editing the lead section of 1824 United States presidential election. But, with most their edits largely being unsourced and unexplained, and going against the MoS (specifically MOS:LEADLENGTH and WP:DETAIL), I tried to restore the April 17 version twice. They suggest that the new introduction of a page that already had insufficient inline citations is fine, even though it's not. They were warned by another user on May 6 for making unconstructive edits to the same page. Of all of their contributions, only three of them have explanations, two of which are about the reverts. With that said, I am given the impression that the IP has been making disruptive edits. --Wow (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)