Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Problems with non-standard closures at SPI[edit]

Bbb23 is an administrator with checkuser authority. I am a contributor who has been wikistalked by a hot-head for the last two years. Over that two years my wikistalker has made extensive use of sockpuppetry to disrupt my contributions. They have used 75 different IP addresses to make hundreds of edits to disrupt my contributions. I've made about 20 SPI reports about these disruptions - about one per month.

Bbb23 has closed 8 of them, officially at least. In addition they have made several non-standard semi-closures, where they simply erased my most recent report from the record. [1] [2]

I am afraid that Bbb23 has lost patience, not with the sockpuppetmaster, but with me, for reporting them.


  • I filed an SPI report, at 10:09
  • Bbb23 closed it, with a laconic "insufficient evidence", at at 11:55
  • The sockpuppet made two further vandal edits, so I filed a second report at 17:34. I included the diffs from earlier that day, on the grounds that "insufficient evidence" implies that if more evidence emerges the earlier evidence remains relevant.
  • Bbb23 excised my second report, at 10:51. This is a problematic, irregular, semi-closure. It's problematic because it doesn't show up in the SPI's archive. It's problematic because it means that other administrators, who might take my concern more seriously, won't have an opportunity to view it.

In my last comment on User talk:Bbb23 I noted their impatience, and the inflammatory language they used about me, and suggested they simply ignore any SPI reports I may make, in future, and let others address them. Bbb23 told me ":I don't want you posting on my Talk page anymore if it involves anything at SPI." That's why I came to ANI.

What would I like to see happen here? I would be satisfied if Bbb23 were to agree to not close SPI reports I make, and to refrain from quietly removing SPI reports I make. SPI's have a section, "Comments by other users". I am happy to read any civil comments they may choose to leave there. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I anticipate that some commentators might tell me to try to deal with my wikistalker through other fora, like requests for semi-protection, formal dispute resolution, or WP:LTA. I have tried requests for semi-protection, only to be told I should be using SPI, instead. Dispute resolution and LTA of course, would both be pointless with individuals who use IP addresses in order to avoid being held accountable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The first closure was quite apt. Also, why don't you use Twinkle to launch SPIs? And, don't ask for CUs on IPs.
Overall, this is an LTA. Revert and move on rather than consuming CU-resources. WBGconverse 19:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • WBG, you wrote "don't ask for CUs on IPs." Well, on March 4th, Bbb23 wrote, in part: "There is nothing wrong with your filing a report about IPs who have edited recently...
  • As above, really, is there any point in listing an IP at LTA?
  • With regard to the first closure being apt, are you defending the excision of my second report? Someone made four identical excisions of an edit I made [3], [4], [5], [6]. These edits follow the pattern of the previous several hundred disruptive edits this wikistalker has made. One of those edits was made by a newly created ID, that has just one edit under its belt. Are you really suggesting there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the newly created ID is a sockpuppet? Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between filing SPI reports on IPs and asking for CU on them. The latter is forbidden. Also, if IPs have made one edit in entirety (and have since hopped to another), why the heck do you want it to be blocked? The pattern seems like a LTA and we don't consume SPI resources over LTA identification. It's typical revert, block and ignore though I don't think a block to be appropriate in most of the cases given the throwaway nature of used IPs. And, please use Twinkle to file reports. WBGconverse 04:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand Revert and move on. "Move on" would be appropriate if Geo Swan were clueless or were acting frivolously, and "Revert" would be appropriate if Geo Swan were handling a user who really did need sanctions, but I can't envision a situation in which both would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert and move on simply means that revert the IP and then move to other productive tasks rather than opening SPIs and asking for checks. WBGconverse 04:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
You can't ask for using checkuser tools to compare IP, CU check only for registered user. I admitted SPI is not that effective on comparing IP by behavioral evidence (i.e. edit tone/wording/or compare exact diff), which sometimes those evidences are not that really clear cut and need a discussion thread, but in SPI usually only SPI nominator and the admin to participate. Also, for example in case, way many IP to blank the same discussion thread in Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)#IP edit, but since those IPs are from many different ISP as well as they are stale (stale IP mean may be 1 week or even few day of inactivity , AIV even consider a few hour as stale) after a while, SPI is not really an effective way to ask for a warrant to block the ip to prevent them on vandalism. It rather more effective to prove individual ip are disruptive editing "recently" and need a short block to prevent them to do so (if stale, no point to block). And other people had pointed out, if it is clear cut LTA, revert them and move on, nothing really able to do if the LTA is ip hopping and unable to predict the IP range. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
And for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b/Archive#28 April 2019, well, the new sock suspect only made one edit , so it seem "insufficient evidence" is legit, since it is insufficient for one single edit to be the strongest behavioral evidence. May be file again if he made at least a few edits? Matthew hk (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't see that. I don't see how a brand new contributor, who had never made any edits to the wikipedia before, is going to coincidentally decide their first edit should be a very obscure edit to a series of tables. While the basic WMF markup language, is much simpler than other markup languages, like troff and sml, WMF tables are not newbie friendly. No genuine brand new contributor's first edit is going to be to a table's title.
Please bear in mind that Bbb23 had already closed 8, or 9 earlier reports I submitted, so should have been quite familiar with the sockpuppet master's style. I didn't request a checkuser in earlier SPI requests, where he or she only used sockpuppets, only this one, where he or she employed a named ID. Is it possible for a reader here, who is a checkuser, to perform the checkuser test on VballJohnny? Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine any reasonable scenario in which a user complains about a contentious admin action and gets met with an immediate ban from said admin's talk page. Being a CU does not make you beyond reproach beyond reproach, but when you're making a subjective judgment call that has nothing to do with your access to classified information, you're no different from any other administrator in terms of accountability standards. Bbb's authoritarian attitude at his personal fiefdom of SPI is nothing new, but refusing to be accountable as an administrator crosses a bright line. Bbb quite simply can't continue to action Geo Swan's SPI reports after banning him from discussing said reports. One cannot act in an administrative capacity in any situation where one is unwilling to be open, transparent, and accountable for one's decisions, and willingness to discuss on your talk page is basically the entirety of what that entails. I assume Bbb knows this already, and would not be so brazen to continue to handle reports from a user he's banned from challenging him. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    You assume incorrectly. I must congratulate you for again demonstrating your cluelessness about SPI and this particular case (each case is different). I usually don't bother responding to you because I consider any discussion with you to be pointless, but this is one goad too many. BTW, I won't get to see your charming response because I'm going off-wiki. I'll defer that pleasure until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    Bbb23, on March 7th I suggested " If there is something about the SPI reports I have submitted that bugs you, but which you don't want to explain, or can't explain, perhaps you should consider simply letting someone else deal with reports I make?" It seems to me that Swarm concurred, and also thinks you should stop closing SPI reports I make.

    In your response, haven't you blown them off, insisting there is some complication that makes my SPI reports justify extraordinary measures, like removing them from the record. Well how come I am not aware of those extraordinary circumstances? Geo Swan (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

    @Bbb23: that is an appalling response to a real concern. I suggest you address that concern without the sarcasm and stop attacking other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of the following timeline:

  • My first interaction with Geo Swan at SPI was after they filed this report on December 24, 2018. The edit they said was "recent" had been made by the IP on December 23.
  • I closed the report on December 25 with this comment: "One edit two days ago? Closing."
  • Two days later GS filed another report about a different IP who had made three edits the day before and requested a CU.
  • Later in the day I declined the CU.
  • On December 29, GS filed a report against another IP that made two consecutive edits the day before.
  • On December 31, I closed the second report because the IP edits were too old.
  • On January 2, 2019, GS filed another report against an IP that had made two edits three days earlier.
  • On January 8, 2019, Sro23 closed the two open reports because the IP edits were too old.
  • Later the same day a clerk archived the reports.
  • On January 24, GS filed a report about two IPs, one of which had made on edit that day, and the other two edits three days before and one edit on the 24th.
  • Three days later I closed the report because the IP edits had gotten stale.
  • The report was archived a couple of days later.
  • On March 1, GS filed a new report against three IPs. The three had made one edit each, two the day before, and one two days before.
  • On March 3, I closed the report because the IP edits were too old.
  • On March 4, GS added another IP to the closed report with extensive comments and questions. The IP had made one edit two days earlier. GS's extensive comments were in response to another user's question. They were very hard (for me) to follow, but a principal point was that we shouldn't allow IPs to edit. Their comment about indefinitely blocking an IP made no sense. As to the questions, GS asked me (in the wrong section) how old is too old for IP edits. It was a simple question, but GS unnecessarily threw in numbers, some of which were on the surface silly.
  • A short time later I responded to GS's questions. I told them there was nothing wrong with filing reports about IPs "who have edited recently" but that often after the filing, the IP edits go stale. I said that this happens frequently, not just to GS, and that it would be good for GS to "adjust your expectations" if they continued to file such reports. I also said that SPI was not a venue for GS – or any editor – to express their "political" views about IP editing. Finally, I asked about the indefinite block of an IP.
  • Without comment, GS later in the day struck the word "IP" and replaced it with "ID".
  • The report was archived a couple of days later.
  • On March 6, GS filed a malformed report against an IP who had made one edit that day. The report was malformed because (a) it was filed as closed and (b) it had a stray word in the clerk/cu/admin section. I wasn't sure if GS had intended to say more. I undid the filing and in my edit summary called it a "mess". I believe it was at this point that I started to become annoyed.
  • On March 7, GS refiled with the same IP plus another. They complained that I hadn't had the "courtesy" to explain what the mess was.
  • I responded by leaving in the substance of the report but removing the complaint saying in my edit summary that SPI was not a "forum for "venting".
  • On March 8, GeneralizationsAreBad closed the report having blocked the "latest IP".
  • On March 23, GS filed another report but made a typo in the IP address.
  • A few minutes later I fixed the typo. This IP had made several edits in the last couple of days. (This was an improvement because not only were the edits recent but there were more of them.)
  • On March 24, GS updated the same report inexplicably adding an IP that hadn't made an edit for three days.
  • On March 27, I closed the report for the usual reason that the IP edits were too old.
  • That brings us up to the most recent problems at the SPI. However, earlier there were problems at my Talk page. The first was this discussion. It had to do with the "mess" and GS's use of the SPI Talk page for their own notes.
  • On March 7, GS complained that I had called them "obtuse" at the deletion discussion. This is where they also said I should let other CUs handle their reports. And this is where I told them to stop posting on my Talk page regarding SPI. Perhaps my limit is lower than other administrators, but I had reached it. It did not preclude them from making reasonable comments at the SPI itself.
  • Now back to the events that triggered this ANI report, but please bear in mind that I cannot divorce these events with earlier ones. They are cumulative.
  • On April 28, GS filed a report about VballJohnny (since I've been acting on this case, this was the first time GS had listed a named account) and an IP. Vball had made one edit, a revert of GS's edit. The IP had made one edit three days earlier. GS requested a CU. This report illustrates the problem here. First, GS doesn't learn; they are still filing reports about IPs that make too few edits that are either too old from the get-go or later become too old. No one is interested in a single edit by an IP at SPI. Second, there's no basis for blocking the named account based on a single revert. If GS wants to have an account blocked for socking, they need to have some behavioral evidence tying that account to the master beyond just "they're out to get me". By GS's logic, we would have to block any new account that reverted one of GS's edits. Now I'm not saying that GS is necessarily wrong, just that accounts cannot be blocked without more evidence. Finally, the request for CU was wrong. GS already knew that IPs cannot be connected with named accounts, and the case is  Stale so there's nothing to compare the named account against.
  • I closed the report for "insufficient evidence". I didn't address the CU request as it was moot.
  • The report was archived, but a few hours later, GS reopened the report with the same named account, the same IP, and one additional IP that had made two edits that day. GS again made a CU request. This was when I reverted. I suppose I could have modified the report to remove the named account and the repeat IP, leaving just the latest IP, but I didn't. That IP still hasn't edited since April 28.

As far as I'm concerned, GS can continue to file reports in this case, but they must not file them unless they have evidence and the disruption is significant and recent. This is not something that is true only for GS but for any filer. They must also stop requesting CU unless they have a basis for doing so. In this case, the only one I can see is if they were to list two named accounts so that they could be compared against each other. Even then, though, there has to be evidence. If they wish, they can file a report against IPs whose edits don't meet the criteria I set forth above, and note that they are filing the report "for the record", not for action. Nothing wrong with that, either. Finally, as for my "ban" on GS posting to my Talk page about SPI, I retract it as having been made when I was exasperated. However, there's no reason to post to my Talk page about SPI if it's something that can be raised at the SPI itself. (This post took me hours to prepare; if I've made a mistake in any of the diffs, let me know.)--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

At whatever point in time you decided there was a specific problem with SPI reports I was making, didn't you have an obligation to either (1) clearly and civilly explain what you thought I was doing wrong, or (2) walk away from closing SPI reports I made, and let some other smook deal with those reports?
Let's be clear here. You have offered zero reason why you took the truly extraordinary step of stripping a report I made from the record, other than an edit summary "Reverted to revision 894575627 by QEDK (talk): Don't do this again" which I could have easily overlooked? I did not realize, at first, that that is what you had done. It was only when I checked the archive, to see how that most recent report had been closed, it struck me, "isn't that how Bbb23 closed the second last report I made?" that I checked the report pages revision history more closely. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
You are repeatedly filing SPIs about IPs who have made only one or two edits, simply on the basis of them having reverted one of your edits? And you keep requesting CU, despite the instructions AND admins telling you not to? I think Bbb23 has been exceptionally patient with you. Grandpallama (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks to me like Geo Swan may have a wikistalker, but if that wikistalker is only making one or two reverts from an IP before moving on, there's really very little SPI can do. The time it takes to report and block that IP (plus the negative impact of blocking an IP which may later be used by an innocent user if dynamically assigned) far exceeds the time it takes to revert the IP's changes. I totally get that this would be really annoying, but I'm not sure I see a solution here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@BubbaJoe123456: - could someone who is good with such things let us know if a rangeblock would/would not work here? Nosebagbear (talk)
A quick look at three of the reports cited in Bbb23's list above shows five totally different addresses, so doesn't look like a range block would help. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've raised a query on solving above (which I'd love answers to). I also wanted to note that Geo Swan had a legitimate complaint - their actions probably were a bit OTT (though very understandable given the frustration they've undergone), but Bbb23 should have gently explained what Swan could do differently. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here. Bbb23 closed the reports appropriately: lone IP edits days ago aren't sufficient for blocks, especially if the range appears to have dynamic IPs or the alleged sockmaster appears to be changing IPs. In fact, a significant number of SPIs on IP "socking" is just dynamic IP addresses behaving dynamically. In these cases, individual blocks do nothing. This can be frustrating for users who file SPIs, but as I've said many times before SPI is not bloodsport, and what the SPI team does is deal with disruption from abuse of multiple accounts. If the disruption from a particular IP has stopped and it is unlikely to continue, we are unlikely to block that specific IP address.
    It has been discussed elsewhere, but we don't tend to give a quick response to IP only SPIs. This is a problem, I'll admit. Part of it is because CUs tend to shy away from them (it isn't a privacy policy violation to block an IP on behaviour, but speaking personally, I hate doing it unless it is an LTA, and I don't want my comments to be construed as technical analysis.) This is an area where we could very much use the help of patrolling admins who are familiar with our policy on the use of multiple accounts. The SPI team does our best to work efficiently, but there is a lot of work and only so many of us (and this doesn't include the non-SPI things that CUs often do that don't get as much attention.) The other option if there is actual ongoing disruption and it is a trend is to report to AIV with an explanation, which may get attention faster, but YMMV. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE account on a single-purpose mission[edit]

"Wikiyazan" is a brand new account which became active on 24 April 2019, and is on a single-purpose WP:TENDENTIOUS mission:

  1. At South Azerbaijani Wikipedia he has made five reverts without edit-summary/explanation. Four different users have reverted him.[7]
  2. At Azerbaijani language he has tried on three occassions to remove well-sourced content supported by a quote.[8]-[9]-[10]
  3. At Tractor Sazi F.C. he has made two reverts without edit summary/explanation.[11]

This account has already violated WP:WAR, WP:CON, WP:VER (amongst others) on numerous occassions. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this account is absolutely not here to build this encyclopedia. For the record: I've also made a SPI case as its just too obvious that this is not a new user who's trying to pursue an IRL-agenda.[12] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

They are blocked. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's only a 31 hour block, so we'll see if that helps. I'd suggest a TBAN, but at this point they wouldn't have anything to edit on (not that there has been much in the way of constructive edits in any case). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Amin marin on Deaths in 2019 page[edit]

The mentioned user is adding deceased persons to the Deaths in 2019 page, but doesn't put them in alphabetical order per the page instruction. No reaction to my intial advice or subsequent warnings on the user talk page.

Diffs that the advice/warnings refer to:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]
  5. [17] (first warning)
  6. [18] (second warning)
  7. [19] (third warning)
  8. [20] (edit triggering this ANI report)

In hindsight I realise that using the vandalism warning template wasn't ideal from my side, as the additions are not vandalism per se. However I was not aware of the other templates and I was frustrated as the erroneous additions have continued. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the user has zero edits in Talk, User Talk, Wikipedia, or Wikipedia Talk namespaces. May be they do not know that they have a talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter Aren't registered users automatically notified by e-mail when they have posts on their talk pages? Meanwhile, this behaviour continues, so something needs to be done. I don't think it is a language issue, becuse the user is adding good content to other pages which indicates a suitable knowledge of English. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Have you tried a personal non-template message directed to them? Use their editor name and make it personal. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I started by leaving a normal message on their talk page. --Marbe166 (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Instead of leaving litany of "warnings" about mere ordering, it would be better to use that time and correct the alphabetization. As per as I can see their edits are clearly sourced and that's what is required by policy. If they alphabetize, fine, if they don't, then fix it. Actually I found the barrage of "warnings" more unconstructive than the edits in question. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Having to fix almost every single entry by a user is getting very annoying. People should adhere to the instructions. Fixing and pointing the user to the procedure is what I normally do, and normally they improve. In this case it has not happened. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Marbe166, it is quite possible that this editor's first language is not English, and also that it does not use the Roman alphabet, so alphabetical order wouldn't be quite such a simple concept as it is for you. I too find your vandalism warnings much more unconstructive than anything that User:Amin marin has done. Just live up to our claim to be a collaborative project and collaborate with an editor who provides sources (which is more than many do) by putting the entries in the correct order. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that knowing the alphabet of the language in question is an absolute minimum requirement for editing. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that recognition of when an editor is making good sourced edits that just need a bit of help with ordering is a minimum requirement for editing. Knowing an alphabet in order to understand a written language is completely different from knowing what order the letters go in. I can read the Cyrillic alphabet, but I don't know the standard order for the letters. Just stop whining about something so minor and either help this editor out by fixing the order or leave it to someone who can act in a spirit of collaboration. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And it continues: [21] --Marbe166 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Should CheckUsers fight sockpuppets or help them?[edit]

Two weeks ago, I was blocked for canceling edits of a newly registered user, for which my duck-test showed 10 out of 10. But at first my request on SPI was not considered for a long time, and then rejected with the justification: "I'm not going to block someone over creating an account after an IP block expired" while the relationship between the stationary IP and the dynamic IPs was confirmed, and the block of the permanent IP expired only in September ([22]). And only when the administrator decided that she had sufficient grounds to block me, did she recognize the fact of block evasion ([23]). When I recalled the rule that "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: <...> 3. Reverting actions performed by <...>sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." She stated that I could not know for sure that they were a sockpuppet. But listen, you reject requests with one hand and block with the other for the fact that "You did not know at the time that they were for sure evading a block." Now there is a two-week block in my block-list and, of course, now I will be treated accordingly. It seems to me that DeltaQuad strongly encouraged the sockmaster to continue in the same way. Today I submitted another request where I decided to finally clarify the situation with sockpuppets and their master, but it was closed - "There is nothing here but old history." So, two weeks and already "old history". What I want to say is that most good-faith users turn to SPI rarely and, of course, there may be errors in their requests. But if people write a requests, then something “got enough of them” and is it better to help them instead of looking for an excuse for refusal?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Help themLevivich 02:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • We obviously don’t help them, they’re inherently disruptive if they aren’t legitimate, but as I mentioned above, a lot of us don’t like dealing with IP cases. I didn’t consider the case particularly well put together at the time, so I closed it and didn’t report on any CU results for obvious reasons. Another CU blocked one of the accounts after I looked at it, which is fine. We’re all human and each of us has a slightly different way of dealing with cases. Again, I’ll mention that it would be useful for more admins to patrol SPI, especially cases involving IPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Successful recruitment effort on reddit[edit]

Please be advised that there has been a faily successful effort to recruit redditors to push a viewpoint here (archive at the time of posting this). While the subject page is already edit protected, seems that some further admin attention would not go amiss while the editors work out their differences. Cheers. Melmann (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

For reasons beyond the wit of mankind I just read through the entire thing. God knows why or what I planned to learn. I wouldn't have said they were being particularly co-ordinated, they were rather more cohesive about bitching about Wikipedia and the few editors challenging them. I do love Reddit, but it does weary me - though it has the benefit that their bickering threads are more understandable than ours! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I've watched the page and left some comments/replies to those who came to the talk page. I wouldn't say it's a "fairly successful effort", not much really happening here. -- ferret (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed[edit]

This IP hopper has a long history of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Admin Black Kite recently blocked IP manually for 1 month,[24] but clearly, the IP hopper is not willing to cease this WP:TENDENTIOUS editorial pattern. NB: These are just 5 of his IP's. Same target articles, same geo-location, same POV, same narrative (pro-Indian), trying to come across as separate users, etc. There should be many more IP's. Whoever operates these, he/she is clearly on a single purpose mission and trying to put wool over everyone's eyes. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

These IPs are all from Kuala Lumpur but I don't yet see enough evidence that they are the same person. (talk · contribs) was blocked for a month by User:Black Kite but they have not continued to edit since their block expired. (Also reported at AN3 back in February, with an explanation of their editing pattern. Out of all the IPs listed above, only (talk · contribs) is currently active and I am not quite seeing a case for blocking them. If we are sure this is a real problem, it might be possible to semiprotect a dozen articles. An interchange at an India-related noticeboard does suggest the IP could be pushing a POV. In the last month or so, it is possible that two of these IPs could be the same person, editing one after the other: (talk · contribs) (editing from April 14-17) and (talk · contribs) (from April 17 on). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I just became aware of this. I'm going to bed, but will post something in the morning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I suspect there might be two persons here - one clothing-obsessed and the other doing art & architecture. Or is that just a screen? I have been seeing these for months. Generally-accepted art history is all a European conspiracy - that's the line. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Let me make a preliminary observation: there are two sets of IPs: a larger one from Malaysia, and a smaller one from New Jersey/Delaware. They have appeared on pages in which Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) has been in conflict with me, all taking his side, though I'm sure there are other pages as well. Highpeaks himself once indicated that this IP from Jersey City, New Jersay, now banned by Drmies, was being used by him. The pages (including their talk pages) on which I've encountered these IPs are these: Kurta, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, Talk:India, Indus Valley Civilization, History of India, and History of domes in South Asia. I will make a more detailed post later this weekend. There are also red-linked new users, that had quickly sprouted in the instance of a vote: here, here (now blocked), and here. Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) is a recent example of a newuser who is battling in Highpeak's support. Whether all this is meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, or a spectacular conincidence, I can't tell. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
man, you seem to have got a lot of grudge against highpeaks, now accusing me of being his puppet, this is not the first time you have accused him of something, previously being towing a hindu buddhist agenda, indian nationalist agenda etc and now this. if mods are little bit concerned about your behavior they would take action. Hammy0007 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Example: Kurta

RegentsPark, can you please look at this non-sense. Look where Fowler&fowler is now stooping to? Stating me and Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) are the same person? Please check our locations, editing styles and log-ins, that can easily state we have nothing in common. I edited thousands of articles in Wiki; and I tended to follow Hammy's work. Mainly copy editing it. Please advise. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC))
I am saying no such thing, but rather than Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) is himself an example of an IP from Sabang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, with such contributions who after his last edit as the IP, appeared by his own admission as Hammy0007 on a page in which you have a dispute with me. He fits the pattern of IPs who have appeared on pages in which you and I have locked horns. I have no idea who the IPs are, but there's a pattern. I'm laying out the evidence for the powers-that-be to examine, not making any accusations. Several of these IPs have already been banned, so there is something going on with these IP addresses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, all of your recent edits of Kurta, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, Talk:India, Indus Valley Civilization, History of India, and History of domes in South Asia are result of you stalker me. There are diffs that users can see who edited first in recent history. Who started causing trouble at each article? Pilaf and History of domes in South Asia are examples of articles I don't see you ever edited. But, you appeared once I edited it. You are the stalker. I don't know how you are getting away with these non-sense. All you do is bicker and edit-war. I at-least have 100s of articles I recently edited without any edit war or conflict, but all your recent edits are just that, POV pushing, bickering, and conflicts, not WP:Compromise and constant attacks close to WP:NPA. Our edit histories speaks for itself. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC))
Notwithstanding the irony of the last line, are you serious that F&F is stocking as well as stoking you? FWIW, I concur with F&F that this needs a detailed look for the coincidences are too spectacular to be exclusive of meat-puppetry. WBGconverse 19:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Winged Blades of Godric, yes, I got the spelling wrong once, but I clearly wrote "stalker" on the later sentence(s). But, now fixed in both. You did not have to be "fresh" and frankly insulting. Also, to think I will stay up all night to "meatpuppet" someone from a completely different timezone is probably the most asinine thing I ever heard. I have a life besides wikipedia, like work and family. Staying up all night to "meatpuppet" someone from another country, sorry, not happening. Believe what you want to believe. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

I will leave the judgments to the experts, but meatpuppets do not have to be in the same time zone. I will note that there are New Jersey/Delaware IPs as well (see above); there is also a range of addresses which have been blocked, one of which you yourself used in January 2019: see here and the next edit. It may not mean anything, but the evidence needs to be explained in light of the POV pushing behaviour of the IPs, explained not by you but by the WP experts. You obviously are innocent, unless, and until, proven guilty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Ultimately, I can only do so much. If the Wikipedia community does not care about the reliability of its content, editors such as Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) and now Hammy0007 (talk · contribs)—recently registered from the IP ranks of Sabang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, which is the topic of this thread—will run riot on Wikipedia, promoting their peculiar brand of India-POV. Both have been warned by admins. Highpeaks35 has already been blocked by TonyBallioni (see here) with request to "take on board the concerns of Vanamonde93 in his AE report." The AE report closure is summarized: "I've blocked for 1 week as an AE action per BMK's diffs of personal attacks within the conflict area. Hopefully this time away from the project will also help them consider the other concerns that have been raised here. If it continues after the block expires, a new AE report can be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)" (See here) Vanamonde's AE report, see here, begins with, "Frequently, though presented as minor corrections, these edits have NPOV implications (they may or may not be violations of NPOV, but they do alter the POV of an article); .... There are a number of others, among which the unifying pattern is a tendency to add "Indian", "Indian subcontinent", or "Hindu", as descriptors for specific objects and customs. This, in and of itself, is concerning, as it appears to be subtle POV-pushing concealed by laconic and misleading edit-summaries," and ends with "In sum, Highpeaks has for several months now demonstrated an inability to use sources with the rigor necessary for a contentious topic, and an inability to work collaboratively, which required administrative intervention." Will someone on Wikipedia tell me if the mayhem that is being caused on just two pages: Kurta and Shalwar kameez and their talk pages, during the last two or three days, demonstrates that any lessons have been learned. I am tired. I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2006. But this is an all time low. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I must say that there is a troubling pattern here. Lots of WP:OR (what's this about zero slits and side slits?) and then there's this obvious content or POV or both fork History of domes in India. If you can't get your viewpoint into an article, seek WP:DR, don't just create a fork. I recommend a topic ban on South Asian history for Hammy0007. I'm reluctant to impose a ban on @Highpeaks35: but they do need to come up with a satisfactory explanation of the fork given their history of substituting India for South Asia in a wide range of articles. About the possibility of sock/meat puppets, perhaps an SPI is warranted. Fowler? --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
RegentsPark, I was not aware forking was an issue. I wanted to make a compromise, that is why I reverse the domes article version here and commented "bringing it to User:Fowler&fowler's version. Now, improve the article." Also, Indian domes have enough material to have its own article, as Delhi Sultanate, Deccan Sultanate, and Mughals are within modern-day India. Regardless, I don't have strong feeling for that article, as my main edits were copy-editing, as the diffs will show. I will not edit those articles for the time being until dispute is over. Cheers! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC))
  • A few quick notes:
    • I have indeffed Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing under both the current account and the IPs listed in the original report (I am convinced that they are all one person; can spell out reasoning if needed).
    • I don't believe Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) and the Hammy0007 are socks per se. But they were clearly tag-teaming to edit-war against Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) over multiple articles, which is troubling especially given the past history between Highpeas35 and F&f. I am not taking any admin action at the moment but if this type of battleground conduct continues, IBANs or topic-bans are not too far off.
    • I have redirected the newly created content/POV-fork History of domes in India to History of domes in South Asia. Whether the main article needs to be expanded, renamed, re-scoped, or split should be discussed on Talk:History of domes in South Asia.
    • I am skeptical that a rangeblock of the Malaysian IPs is needed/feasible but if the user returns (or other IPs, "now accounts" crop up) just ping me and I'll be happy to block the individual IPs/accounts or protect the affected article.
Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Abecedare:. @Highpeaks35:, and I'm looking at the link about forks from Hammy's talk page posted by Fowler below, you need to be ultra careful going forward. Any further attempt to use India in place of South Asia will lead to a topic ban of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) RegentsPark As for topic ban on Hammy, it will likely serve little purpose, as Hammy will go back to becoming just another IP from Subang Jaya Malaysia, just like the new user, 1337 siddh (talk · contribs), who appeared on Wikipedia to support and vote for Highpeaks, and then disappeared. As for Highpeaks, as you obviously will have seen, on Hammy's talk page, Highpeaks is very much aware that forking is an issue, why else would he also be feeding Hammy to change the name of History of domes in South Asia to History of Indo-Islamic domes, and then later attempt to do so himself here, and only after create the fork? The main issue for me is that Highpeaks35 he is exhibiting some of the same behavior that was described in Vanamonde's AE report, as well as warned about by you. There is "Indian subcontinent" everywhere in the new article History of domes in India, in most cases, the result of a simple change from "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" or "India." He was doing the same on the Kurta page earlier today: See here, for an example of how ridiculously unencyclopedic a WP page begins to look when POV pushers, by hook or by crook, top load the article with their POV; contrast that with the original Oxford Dictionary of English, Cambridge Dictionary, and a scholar's citations. The behavior continues unabated. See here for example, or here, more generally here, and ending with Kautily3's post addressed to both Hammy and Highpeaks, urging them to stop. I am looking into SPI, but, again, Highpeaks35, in my view, is violating the spirit of Vanamonde's AE report. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Yo, I have commitments in real life rather than involving in a stupid edit war here. Didn't know you would stoop to calling everyone as sockpuppets of one guy.
1337 siddh (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
How in the crowded hours of that glorious real life you received intimations of an obscure talk page conflict on Wikipedia is the million dollar question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you @Abecedare: for taking admin action against Hammy0007 (talk · contribs), and thank you, both you and @RegentsPark:, for warning Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs). I hope he understands that a return to the behavior of concern, which is described fairly clearly in RP's post, will lead to more punitive action. If the others who have weighed in here: @LouisAragon:, @EdJohnston:, @Johnbod:, and @Winged Blades of Godric: agree, perhaps some uninvolved admin could close this thread. I won't bother with the SPI now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with a close, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

purely vandalistic IP needs nuking.[edit]

blocked by User:Ymblanter. --Jayron32 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been nuked. In the future, simple cases like this should be taken to WP:AIV. --Jayron32 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Real improper behaviour[edit]

Blocked for a week by Boing! said Zebedee. SemiHypercube 16:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Made indef for an 'I'm right/you're wrong' unblock request and transparent socking. Nate (chatter) 04:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After multiple reverts and final warnings (all removed form their talk page) for adding unsourced content, user Somebody356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) comes —again— with this edit, re-introducing an error in article Gluon, now providing two sources, none of them supporting the added content. The second source doesn't even mention the article subject. See also the above section Wikipedia:ANI#Improper behavior. Can this person be somehow stopped? - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've given them a week off for their persistent disruptive editing. I almost went for indef as I'm not convinced a set time block will make any difference, but one last chance and all that. Feel free to let me know if the same kind of thing continues after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
For the record, after what looks like a trolling unblock request, I have upped the block to indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits by HCube 1963[edit]

Nothing to see here. --qedk (t c) 15:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This person has spent the last 3 months adding their "name" to the list of producers on mostly hip-hop albums. While some of their edits have been reverted and several warnings left on their talk page, I have now gone through every single one removing the HCube from these articles. One only needs to hover over the diffs on their talk page to see their M.O. and while they were sometimes reverted on the more popular articles, they managed to let quite a few slip through on the lesser watched ones. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thank you. Robvanvee 07:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Clearly NOTHERE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
And I've deleted his self-promoting subpage as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Indef troll[edit]

Shasla1 Indef blocked as WP:NOTHERE by The Blade of the Northern Lights.Rivselis (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Also, you just insulted all those living and all those dead soviet history scientists and soviet media/propaganda workers. ... So, by insulting USSR you insult Russia, [25] — that's highfalutin rubbish from a WP:TROLL. Would someone indef him? See also And yes, you can't just go an scare me with blocks and bans. I registered here only to point out to the fact that the article contained blatant anti-russian lies, not to continue being a part of the wikipedia community. So I give absolutely zero things about those bans., [26]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you say that if I claim that your words 'soviets lie like dogs' are insults, I'm a troll, or what? And yes, you were behaving very rude, and giving zero arguments, while constantly threatening me with bans. You already tried to twist WP rules, by saying that I will be banned for IRL threats, but I pointed out to you that I didn't give any threats (and you know that). Also, you ignore all my arguments, while giving statements in the likes of "all western professors always tell the truth and believe in freedom of speech", or the mentioned above statement about dogs. So, it is you who are the troll here and you should be indefed.
What I have said was And no, we don't consider Soviet propaganda as reliable fact-based knowledge. More like something between wishful thinking and lying like a dog. Btw, I don't know why you find this offensive: the Soviet regime is gone, it has been dethroned, therefore it no longer has any real power. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, block, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)----
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated copyright violation[edit]

Azifjason has ignored the messages sent by HickoryOughtShirt?4 and repeated the addition of large volumes of non-neutral text at Rhode Island Republican Party copied from [27]: Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I flagged the other two times it was added for revdel. It looks like the user is gone for now. Maybe a warning with the big scary stop sign this time? Alpha3031 (tc) 10:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I've added another warning to their talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding a commercial site[edit]

Anna.Tsolidou (talk · contribs) is adding a commercial website to articles as well as images from the commercial website which she says are her own work. I should have logged off already so am leaving her to others to see if it's all ok. I'll let her know now. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian[edit]

Arianewiki1 is being subjected to continued personal attacks and ignoring policy (even when pointed out to them) by Lithiopsian, whose current post here[28] is problematic.

These current issues stem from these two reverts on the star Rigel here[29], which I reverted again here[30] and discussed why on the talkpage here[31] and on their talkpage here.[32][33]

They again reverted these edits under an IP[34], justifying this is the edit summary because they were "uncommented reverts" (which are no required, as I advised them under H:FIES and H:ES.) Under this same revert, they state "Lithopsian here before anyone goes mental about sockpuppets." LightandDark2000 again revert Lithopsian's edit here[35], which was restored by Lithopsian here[36], admitting they were the IP "not a troll, just me not logged in, re-instate."

This is blatant omission of using multiple account to enforce a POV is against policy, specifically, logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. (Stated as badsock in Sock) There were previously warned about this here.[37] Worse, they previously likely used again an IP before ( as badsocking.

Also Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1[38] saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish."[39] is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack. I've explained my uncontroversial reasoning here[40], which has not be refuted (hence consensus.) Lithopsian making unfounded statements that Arianewiki1 "...abuse, and threats to individuals"[41] without evidence is clearly vilification. I feel this isn't true. I've never threaten or abused anyone in these current disputes.

Frankly, this behaviour looks like avoiding scrutiny and degrading/dismissing/undermine others who dare to question them.

Two examples are:

  1. In the discussion on their talkpage here[42] Where they said "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation.", but when I modified the text to "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni (ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori.", they reverted it, removed my correction, then claimed the whole sentence was then not needed. When given the reference showing it does have a variable star designation, they say instead of admitting the initial statement was wrong, their response becomes: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1."
  1. Another discussion on the Rigel talkpage here[43], which do not have significant differences except more cite sand the statement "Depending on the stellar mass mass and composition of this initial red supergiant, Rigel may execute a number of so-called blue loops, caused by variations in energy production occurring in the shells.[74]" According to Lithopsian this is all 'fantasy' as justification for reverting it, but bizarrely when you read Blue supergiant star it says "Depending on the exact mass and composition of a red supergiant, it can execute a number of blue loops before either exploding as a type II supernova or finally dumping enough of its outer layers to become a blue supergiant again, less luminous than the first time but more unstable.[6]" Extraordinarily, Lithopsian cites this same text here.[44] so they are reverting my material based on "revert the whole fantasy explanation of supergiant evolution, based on a book about red giants."[45] when they've already endorsed and cited the exact same Maeder (2001) themselves on the Blue supergiant star (Rigel is a blue suergiant star) article. [46]. Perhaps some of this could be reworded, but Lithopsian repeatable using various tactics to remove everything and point blank refuses to discuss it.

Their edits, apparently, seems to superior to others regardless of the facts in front of them - even if they've already been shown to have made incorrect edits or endorsed legitimate cites.

I do feel they have now show a pattern of gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior, and which they have been previously repeatably warned about disruptive behaviour here[47][48][49] Regardless of the PA, it is plainly evidence of disruptive editing. Furthermore, the back-up response by Attic Salt here[50] is clearly grave dancing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK unless they were evading a block. I'm not sure why they were editing logged out but it doesn't seem to have been a clear attempt to evade scrutiny, perhaps they were using a different device or don't trust the device they are editing so always log out after editing. (To put it a different way, there's little difference between a clearly declared edit from an IP, and an edit from a Lithopsian-alt account.) Of course, the edits from the IP will be treated the same as the edits from the account, so 3RR violations etc could be a problem. That said I'm not seeing a bright line violation either, 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert and it's also been about 2 days too. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I consider it very bad practice to refer to yourself in the third person in these sort of complaint, it seriously harms your complaint suggesting it shouldn't be taken seriously. It makes it sound like you're pretending you're only a third person interested observer when you aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Also HTF is this [51] gravedancing? No one has been blocked or decided to leave wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I hate to pile on more but.... I have some agreement with your view that a lot of the stuff in the Rigel talk page raised by Lithiopsian in the thread were you complained about gravedancing, concerns user conduct rather than ways to improve the article, and so should be dealt with on user talk pages and not the article talk page. But while I still agree with that, having looked at the talk page it doesn't seem that Lithiopsian is the only one. I'm seeing a lot of comments from you which also concern user conduct and not ways to improve the article. I.E. pot, kettle, black much? The more I look at this, the more it seems to me to be not something for ANI. All of you need to cut out on the personal chatter, put aside the animosity and whatever differences and disagreements you've had and instead concentrate on how you can improve the article. Use whatever form of WP:dispute resolution you need if you can't resolve this by yourselves. None of you should want this at ANI, since don't be surprised if you are the one who ends up blocked because of it. (And to be clear, this is directed at everyone in the dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Clarification: "If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK ", but how do you know if they are the editor or different sock? LightandDark2000 Illegit explains that.
The gravedancing was by Attic Salt not Lithopsian
As for pot, kettle, black, Well the full statement is "The only thing that is right is this statement: "…because we'd be imposing our own interpretation of "right" on the world." Pot . Kettle. Black." but Lithopsian is also imposing the same interpretation of "right". Pointed out above.
The reason why there is a problem here is Lithopsian refuses BRD. When they say: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." How do you get consensus then? I've attempted to change the text again to avoid edit warring, and I have followed such changes with extensive info on the article's talk page. If they knowingly don't respond after a while (a few days), then it should be OK to reinsert the text. Expecting the edit summary to "explain" the change is not engaging in consensus building. (I mat have this wrong, but that is how I interpret policy. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Um I never said that the gravedancing was by Lithopsian. I was fully aware when replying that it was by Attic Salt. WTF does that have to do with anything? The point is that there is no way this can be considered grave dancing. They are simply agreeing with what someone else said in an ongoing discussion which in part is on article content.

And I still fundamentally disagree with you about socking. If Lithopsian says the IP is not them it should be blocked for impersonation not for socking. If they say it is them and it is them, then it's not a problem since they've already said is them and so they're not try to evade scrutiny or otherwise use logged out editing as a way to get around restrictions. To be clear, this means they're not "suggests they are multiple people" nor are they "give the impression of more support for a position" nor "editing while logged out in order to mislead". Those can't apply when the edit was clearly disclosed as coming from the same editor, just like with an alternative account. If you disagree, please explain clearly how a clearly disclosed edit as an IP violates some aspect of our socking policy. You still haven't and nor has LightandDark2000.

Remember that while the general suggestion is that people should edit from both accounts to confirm it is them before starting editing with an alternative account, and we may sometimes block an account if it's uncertain, this is done to protect other editors not for socking reasons. If I start an account "Nil Einne (public devices)" and don't do so it doesn't make my alternative account illegitimate. Heck in this case, even if I fail to specifically mention on my talk page the existence of the alternative account, I question whether this is any significant violation of our WP:SOCK policy. At most, what should happen would be someone would mention on my talk page "hey you should mention it on your userpage" and I will say "you're right" and do so. I don't think it's worth getting into details on what would happen if I refuse to do so in a case like this.

Also I think you're missing my point about the pot kettle black thing. I don't really care about your arguments over right or wrong since you haven't given me a reason to care. I do care that editors are misusing article talk pages to engage in petty squabbles between themselves over user conduct. So you have a point where you said "The rest of this response is quite unacceptable, and really should be made on User talkpages but not here." (Well I'm not saying the rest of the response bit is accurate, but some of that content definitely seems better suited for a user talk page, or no where.) The problem is a quick read of the article talk page shows they're not the only one of doing so. You seem to be well guilty of it as well.

The key issues that you still seem to be missing is that ultimately we deal with user conduct issues here on ANI and our willingness to spend time analysing a complaint is going to depend on a lot of things including our perception it's worth it. In this case you're not giving the impression that your complaint is worth a cent since you start off with foolish referring to yourself in the third person, you then complain about socking for a clearly disclosed edit from an IP (to be fair the previous one was not but the time between edits was so short it's not really an issue) and you top that off with the silly grave dancing comment. If we then actually have a quick look at what's going on in the talk page, it becomes clear that you are right, there is way too much personal commentary that belongs either on user talk pages or nowhere. Except you are guilty of it as much as any other editor.

And I now find from the comment below that you are refusing to use edit summaries. While you're right there is no clear requirement to do so, and in fact it's far better to open a discussion on the talk page then to try to discuss via edit summaries, it's still often helpful to do so. Especially when making major edits. I mean heck even leaving a edit summary like "see talk" will tell editors there is a discussion on the talk page they may not be aware of. Completely refusing to do so does you no favours. It gives me even less reason to think any one editor is at fault here. Instead a bunch of them are causing problems. It's possible that these problems are severe enough to suggest multiple editors should be blocked (i.e. including you) but frankly I can't be bothered looking into it in detail.

To be it a different way, the best way you can ensure any complaint is taken seriously is to be on your best behaviour. If another editor is really a significant problem, you countering by also behaving poorly rarely helps. Instead try to be an exemplar of perfect behaviour. Yes I understand it can be hard when another editor's behaviour is very poor, and in fact I'm very often guilty of behaving poorly in response to behaviour I perceive as poor, I do understand that I should try and avoid it. Since to an outsider, it just means it's easy to miss the other editor's poor behaviour.

This means discuss, use edit summaries, don't misuse article talk pages, think carefully about whether your complaint is dealing with actual issues etc etc. If you are having problems coming to consensus, even if the other editor is only engaging in limited discussion, remember that ultimately if you have consensus they're going to fail so do consider using forms of dispute resolution if necessary, even if you feel the other editor hasn't given an adequate explanation for the problems, but it is clear they still disagree with your changes. Over time, if an editor keeps rejecting your changes, but consensus is always against them, and they keep refusing to engage in any real discussion you should be able to build up evidence to open a good case. (But please for the love of everything, don't refer to yourself in the third person!)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A few final comments. Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [52] so any impersonation issue is not an issue. Note that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with LightandDark2000 thinking the IP was someone trolling/impersonating rather than Lithopsian. As I indicated before this is a risk people take when they don't properly declare. Any doubt was cleared up by Lithopsian. Yes it is slightly more confusing than it should be, but it isn't a socking problem since that's to do with editing in a way where you are trying to hide you are the same editor in circumstances where it isn't allowed.

Also while looking at the talk page, I uncovered that Arianewiki1 had a 1RR and further was unblocked with the proviso they should walk away if an IP starts editing disruptively. I've read the details briefly but frankly they don't matter much. If Arianewiki1 is worried that Lithopsian editing from an IP would require them to "walk away" they should clarify this with Ritchie333 since I'm certain it was not the intention that it would apply here.

As for the 1RR, while appreciate Arianewiki1 may feel this places them at a disadvantage, ultimately as I indicated before, the best way you can ensure your edits survive is by ensuring they have consensus. Also since there being no justification to revert simply because of a lack of edit summary came up in relation to the block, I'd implore Arianewiki1 to ensure they aren't violating WP:POINT by refusing to use edit summaries.

Earlier when I said that if you keep finding consensus, the obvious flipside if you frequently find your proposal lacks consensus. And especially if there is consensus against your proposal. In that case, it appears that you've misunderstood what the community expects and you need to learn what it is. Remember that we are volunteers and no one should be expected to teach you. It's understandable if someone keeps proposing stuff which doesn't improve the article, that other editors may get frustrated and bored of explaining why. I'm not saying this is happening here, I have no idea. I'm simply reminding that you should always be prepared to accept that perhaps you're the one in the wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow. This is a nightmare. This recent response about are all about me and not the issue in the ANI. What is are saying that it is OK for an editor to refuse to engage on talkpage, and revert anything they disagree with, but if I do not write an edit summary, which I am not required to provide via both H:FIES and H:ES. (A lesson that was used to enforce the 1RR.)
Saying that "Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [53] so any impersonation issue is not an issue." is plainly wrong. They must of used the IP address to declare that, and plainly it was done for other reasons. I clearly cannot revert again under 1RR, so they are either doing it to either entrap me or look like they are reenforcing consensus. My only choice was to go back to the talkpage, which I did, and explained my position.
Again, regardless of my rights or wrongs, is it acceptable that: " Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1 saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack." I you require consensus, how do you actually achieve that then? Where have I attacked an editor to such a degree that I have to "get use to it."? Is this normal editing policy? Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't have an opinion on this at the moment, but it doesn't look good. First off, socking (including the use of IPs in this manner) is never a good thing when content disputes are involved. Secondly, editors need to respond/engage in discussion when there is a clear disagreement on edits, and consensus needs to be taken into account. Ignoring said consensus or continuing to restore the same disputed version(s) of an article is counterproductive, and even disruptive. Now, I'm not all that familiar with the current content dispute, but if Lithopsian continues to avoid the discussion (at the article's talk page), this could easily escalate into full-scale edit-warring. (I made one revert on the article, assuming that the IP was a troll or an LTA sock, but apparently, that wasn't the case.) My point is, all involved editors need to engage in discussion instead of blindly reverting or attacking each other. Circumventing the discussion process is harmful, and is definitely grounds for sanctions if this kind of activity continues. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of discussion, I'd like to point out User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. To me, that raises questions about WP:NOTHERE, since it precludes a major avenue of communication. I briefly participated in the discussion on Rigel, but left once Arianewiki made it clear they were going to be involved in a big way. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: there has been alot of discussion on the talk page - walls of text even. Trying to negotiate with Arianewiki1 is very difficult. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I will just note that I have interacted with User:Lithopsian on a number of occasions and never had an issue with policy, civility, or content decisions. The editor has been and continues to be a most useful and helpful contributor to Wikipedia. OTOH, I am going to avoid posting my opinion on Arianewiki1 due to WP:CIVIL and the desire to avoid a massive time sink. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple of posters have noted WP:NOTHERE issues and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [54] and the attitude displayed at User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. Is there a general feeling that community action (such as a requirement to always use edit summaries and a 0RR restriction) is warranted at this point, if the user's 1RR restriction isn't adequately preventing the disruption? Neither option really directly addresses the editor's behavior towards other editors (which is, I think, the core of the issue), but it'd be a start. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Explanation: Sorry VQuakr. I stopped writing edit summaries after reading from an admin Tigraan who said "As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary."[55] Aother was Nick-D "As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this."
I felt I got into trouble for one edit here: [56], saying "No explanation in revert. Discuss talkpage please." and said: "I've have made a big mistake making that single revert, which was simply momentary lapse of judgement. I thought I was protecting the IP, who had no explanation to why their edit was reverted within the edit summary. (They may have necessarily not have been needed to be advised, but that might have helped avoid this.)" I stopped edit summaries so I didn't do this again.
Silk Tork advised me "Most editors who are not vandal fighting can get by quite productively without ever (or rarely) making a single revert, so asking someone not to revert good faith edits, but to engage in a discussion instead, doesn't seem that onerous, especially when that person has a history of problematic reverts. A quick glance at Arianewiki1's contribution history will show a particularly high number of single reverts, often accompanied by an edit summary such as "Use talk page", "Please get consensus", "Nothing wrong with this cited text. You'll need consensus to remove it. Sorry.", " Not a valid reason for revert here.", etc - all of which are indicative of a situation in which discussion would be helpful. Not all of Arianewiki1's reverts are inappropriate - there are times when Ariane's edit is the preferred one; it is the editing model of "revert first, discuss later" that is the problem." To correct this, like on the Rigel article, I now properly discuss or explain the problems on the talkpage before reverting. (This explains "Future comments and discussions will only be placed on article talkpages or on my or other talkpages."[57] I've stated this in User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries
If it is required to write edit summaries again, please advise, as recent experience and policy says I don't have to do that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:FIES H:FIES that you just cited states right at the beginning, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit". Your conclusion from that that you will never write an edit summary again shows, at best, a severe lack of judgement on your part. To be clear, for editors with the judgement and/or good faith to be able to tell when edit summaries are warranted, they are optional. I believe they should be mandatory for you in particular, because you have exhibited a severe lack of at least one of those two essential ingredients. VQuakr (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, but how does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? When they say: "This is getting tiresome. When I attempt to discuss content with you, then I get accused of violating any and every policy going, acting in bad faith, am met with walls of words that are almost impossible to follow, and you maintain your bizarre interpretation of the subject in the face of any editor who dares to disagree. When I don't engage then I'm accused of violating any and every policy going and being "vindictive". Whenever it looks like you can't batter every other editor into submission on an article, you try to pick them off with threats and warnings n personal talk pages. Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it. But just one final time: I'm not modifying your edits because I'm being vindictive, or because I'm trying to game the system, or because you forgot to dot some imaginary i or cross some obscure policy t; it is because you write a lot of rubbish."[58] and choose to ignore me. Is this acceptable response or WP:PA? Forcing me to write edit summaries will not solve this, and they'll revert anything, regardless if there is an edit summary or not. An editor on 1RR will be trumped to those on 3RR. If I slip up, I'm dead.
Also even if H:FIES is true, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1: budding consensus is that to "fix the ANI on Lithopsian", we look at you. If you are uninterested in common sense or suggestions, relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries are WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Fine, but there must be balance too. If Lithopsian is happy to make reverts but intends not to discuss it, we have a problem. Also WP:EPTALK says " If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." I'm doing exactly that. WP:CAUTIOUS says: "If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. On 1RR, I have too. Again, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. I am following the "...relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I am worried about this recent statement of "…and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [59] . How is this disruptive exactly? I explained how the User could avoid issues (they were not explained), I said "... I'll respect your wishes." and advised a solution "to avoid all my edits." The response: "I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page."[60] I don't think I implied (and certainly didn't mean) to bargain anything, and was only a way to reduce the angst. I had no knowledge for the reason for this request.
It is also interesting to mention this User. An example of edits with the star Deneb. They made this edit here[61], saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor.". I responded on their talk page 18 minutes late here[62], explaining 'dredging' was a technical astronomical term (they archived the discussion without response) , and I modified to text correctly here[63] outside the 24 hour required if 1RR was applicable (it was 34 hours). They made another minor modification here[64]. This is surely a model example of HERE.
Yet 10 days later, they want to ban me from their talkpage? (There are other examples of overwriting context with their interpretation for the sake of grammar. (e,g. Western world versus western world, discussion here[65] other context problems are discussed here[66] or here.[67] This suggests extensive use of talkpages to solve editing issues. If there is any attitude here it is from frustration is the dismissive tone. Reading their response here[68])
Another is getting accused of "Revert errors introduced. Arianewiki1, it is probably a good idea not to revise other's comments." [69] I replied that this was "... petty and trivial. Really, when I modified it I said "I've fixed your reference(s) above for clarity."[70] What harm did it do? If anything it strengthens your own argument." Is this another example of "general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only does Arianewiki1 not use edit summaries, he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable. Furthermore, Arianewiki1 rather regularly harasses other editors -- see my talk page (which is about 50% aggressive contributions from Arianewiki1 [71]. And to top it off, when I banned him from my talk page, he quickly felt the need to continue with his provocation: [72]. Attic Salt (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what this means: "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit." ? How is this done? Please present evidence of this behaviour with links. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
See edit history: [73]. No Section indication, no undo indication. Attic Salt (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information…" I haven't removed nor deliberately removed anything at all. Clearly, an omission doesn't mean removal. If I "undo of a previous edit" it is tagged 'Tag: Undo' by the system.[74] (I've made 16 undos in 468 edits, the majority were for vandalism, since 30 January 2019.) According your edit summary[75] "Complete blanking of edit summaries" So how is this done? Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how you are doing it. I'm just saying that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary, along with your own description of your edit. That's what most of us do. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Attic Salt? What policy is being violated by removing the "default" info from edit summaries? John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, this is an ANI, where the accusations have to be backed up with difs and facts. Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." is false statement, and worse there not provided any proof that I'm doing that. Further saying: "... that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary... That's what most of us do." is also false. The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us." You've also said "no undo indication", but your own earlier given link here[76] does have all the tag:undo e.g. here[77]. Consider kindly striking (out) these wrong accusations. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @John from Idegon: Not the person you're asking, but I'll observe it's not a question of a strict violation of policy, just obnoxious behaviour making life difficult for other editors. The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, I'll suspect Arianewiki of being disingenuous (my AGF burned out a while ago). Starting with their second edit in 2008, their edits had those markers. Maybe they have indeed changed to making all edits as raw edits to the article and never touching the undo or section header edit links, but I suspect it's more likely a strategy to keep reverts from showing up in their edit history as such (and generally, make an analysis of their edit history excruciatingly difficult). The question is not whether they have made a specific rule violation at this time, as much as are they here to collaborate on an encyclopedia? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
In saying "The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. " Editors of course matter, and I see any declaration that they don't matter - an inference not fact. (I've explained my reasoning above.)
Then saying that "As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, ", but I said "The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us."", which says the exact opposite. I am unsure what Attic Salt is saying, but they claim that I am somehow "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." Does Attic Salt misunderstand that I cannot actual remove this information because it is generated by the operation system that I have no control over?
If there is any strategy here, it is for me to avoid edit warring at all costs, because if I do, I won't be editing here. With individuals applying other pressures by refusing to discuss issue on talkpages and claim: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." or now want to "ban" users from their talkpages, appears as alternative strategies to make my demise certain. Two examples here[78] to make even the simplest edits survive take this to a new level difficult. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
While I think concise and informative edit summaries are essential, people should realize that Arianewiki1 is not necessarily removing *any* automatically generated text. The text generated depends on how you got there. If you just "edit the page", almost nothing is generated. -- Elphion (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Attic Salt. You've made a false accusation, which you should retract. You should consider the principles under etiquette Principles of Wikipedia etiquette, especially "Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so." "Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so." Edit summaries, especially, are not the place to do so. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I have already restated the "Edit summaries" 'problem' here[79] to remove the angst. As explained above, I now use the talkpages, and won't revert edits, but do try and reword them if necessary. Concern is why. Attic Salt has ignored any reasoning, but still won't back down using any lack of edit summaries. e.g. Here[80] saying "Note: Arianewiki1 is still not using edit summaries" or "As I explained in my edit summaries (see, I use edit summaries)" to me here.[81] They have been advised: "WP:PARTR, and know: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." They also have been advised about WP:EDITSUMCITE recently here. (This appear under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section, and highlights the level of effort to 'discuss' even simple changes, finally admitted by them against the simple evidence[82].) I will consider their advise in due course, but they are seemingly using a lack of edit summaries as a kind of weapon to justify reverts, when policy is specifically against such actions. How a false accusation is not redacted by them, especially in an ANI, is shows more about issues with reverting of articles than missing edit summaries. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTTHEM. Policy recommends the use of edit summaries; systematic disuse of them is disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
No. By your own omission. It is recommended NOT mandatory. e.g. Policy you point too says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring." I've said above. PARTR says: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." This is avoid edit warring. This is following policy. It is not disruptive if edits are being discussed on talkpages. Regardless, some etiquette is clearly needed to be followed.
Again. How does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? They have categorically stated they will not engage with one user on talkpages, and now Attic Salt thinks it fine to somehow "ban" Users from their own talkpage.[83] Do they have legitimate complaints or is it a tactic of avoiding scrutiny? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: Article edit summaries mandatory for Arianewiki1[edit]

User:Arianewiki1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:VQuakr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Proposal: Arianewiki1, in addition to editing restrictions in place as of September 2018, is required to use a reasonably descriptive edit summary for all article-space edits. Administrators are encouraged to use discretion when enforcing this restriction with regard to occasional omissions of edit summaries.

This user quit using edit summaries in January 2019. Systematically avoiding edit summaries entirely is inherently disruptive. As evidenced by [84], they have no intention of voluntarily following normal editing practice regarding edit summaries. This refusal to voluntarily follow best practice is, in my opinion, a symptom of a broader WP:NOTHERE problem that others have mentioned in the section above. But. Sometimes treating the symptoms can address the root cause, and it is my hope that a consensus here will make clear to Arianewiki1 that this is a collaborative environment and they are expected to work with, not battle with other editors. If nothing else, this proposal will help editors understand what Arianewiki1 is trying to do in article space and facilitate both communication and review of their contributions, without placing any additional undue restriction on Arianewiki1's ability to edit. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I've explained multiple times in my reasoning (above) and I had already modified my User page here[85]. I've honestl