Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 7 June 2019

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Unacceptable behaviour by Ybsone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ybsone I can clean my talkpage. I am not estopped from doing so especially when the discussions are not active anymore.U _quattro TALK 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48 hour block for both users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vauxford complaining as always.U _quattro TALK 15:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Iban between U1Quattro & Vauxford

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

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

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

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

Support.U _quattro TALK 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iban between U1Quattro & Ybsone

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

Support YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

SupportU _quattro TALK 00:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shadegan

I've been trying to make him use the talkpage for his unjustified reverts. I've cleaned up the years long messes in those three articles, but he keeps reverting to a version which is based on dead-links and unattainable references. I can see in the talkpages on various sites that Shadegan has for years now ignored everyone (incl. admins) in his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Feyli Kurds, Feylis (previously Feyli Lurs) and Iraqi Lurs are all about the same people. I merged them to make one article based on academia, which he seems to have reverted now with no explanation. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Laks (Iran) too. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t expect the user to discuss his edits. He’a more interested in conspiracy theories --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really following what's happening (haven't had a chance to catch up), but I did protect the articles for three days. I also left Shadegan a warning about explaining their edits better and refraining from casting aspersions. El_C 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I know Shadegan has been around (because they had thanked me for the protection), but they have so far failed to respond to my note. So, I've taken the unusual step of editing the protected pages against their version. Hopefully, that will motivate them to engage in the discussion. El_C 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your reason for changing some revisions to some pages in order to nudge Shadegan's participation in a relevant discussion regarding the dispute. In fact, I've been tempted to do the same thing on numerous occasions where an editor involved isn't discussing the matter, and editing the involved page would certainly change that (though I've never acted on it and done so). Just be careful; you obviously don't want to be seen as "taking sides" or "favoring one revision over another". ;-) ~Oshwah~ 15:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know what the revisions are about or how they differ from one another, so no risk of that. But what I won't let happen is to have the Kurdish set of articles turn into a sort of free-for-all, which unfortunately, has been the trend lately. El_C 16:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Completely understandable. ~Oshwah~ 08:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no interaction with the rest of us. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've left a talkback notice that links directly to this discussion, to make responding as easy as possible. If Shadegan still does not respond here, I think the next step is a short block to stop the reverting and allow Shadegan to focus on responding. Jayjg 15:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, excuse me for my late. I was busy for a while. I am against anarchy and edit warring although I have been involved formerly. During last days I had a lot of communication and reasoning in talk page of disputed pages, excuse me I forgot here!!

A continuous conflict has been between two very interrelated Iranian ethnicities for decades, Kurds and Lurs. They are very similar culturally and lingually. As you know, Kurds are dispersed between some countries but a very strong independence tendency towards them is alive and blazing for decades. To achieve their dreams they are very active physically and in virtual world. Sometimes this includes an emotional-based edits to use it as a propaganda. I have tried in recent years to alleviate these trends. The recent edits by User:Ahmedo Semsurî is an evident example for this. I apologize for the current trend of edit warring and I hope to come to a good and appropriate conclusion. Best SHADEGAN (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment One thing is obvious, all these articles are quite weakly sourced and poorly worded, thus, they need a major rewrite. Also, there are many versions about the ethnicities of those peoples, some seeing them as being Kurdish and others disagreeing with this view. When i'll have some more time, i'll try to ask to some experienced editors who are aware of this topic to help me to neutralize that set of articles.---Wikaviani 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that there needs to be more admin involvement in Shadegan's actions. I will try to make it short: About a week ago, I started cleaning the Feylis page by first and foremost 1) removing dead links, 2) unattainable references, i.e. ("فرهنگ ایران زمین، جلد 20، ص 406-409"), and 3) unreliable sources.First edit, 25 May. Thereafter I removed unsourced files, removed unsourced segments and started finding academic references which the article really needed.

Then this happened: Repeated ethnocentric and vandalism edits by PAN KURDISM and an Kurd users are reverting all pages for their desire wishes, please have a look to the histoy of their planned ethnocentric edits. They should bring their reasons to the talk page. by Shadegan. After an edit war, the article was fairly protected and I continued editing from the version Shadegan reverted which he since reverted again.

Still no comments from Shadegan on what is wrong with the academia I have found.

Then we have the actions on Laki language. The user has been looking after this article for a long time, maintaining the claims that it is disputed language/dialect (as in, that academia profoundly disagrees). But this is not the case. Again, most of the info was either based on unattainable sources, dead links, simply unsourced for years or just lies. After a lot of cleaning, I started adding info based on academic sources.

Again, everything removed by Shadegan, This time it was: Ethnocentric edits were neutralizedRepeated ethnocentric and vandalism edits by PAN KURDISM and A user has changed the page identity to a determined path. Many sources and diverse contents have been deleted. Use talkpage and consensus for needed changes. No comment on what's wrong with the edits, but he keeps referring to pan-Kurdism despite most linguists referred to are westerners. I tried to make them use them talkpage, but nothing constructive: where other users have been involved

It's the same behavior at Iraqi Lurs, Laks (Iran) and Flag of Kurdistan.

I don't know what next step is when Shadegan always calls it 'ethnocentric vandalism' when I ask them to elaborate on the issues they have with the references. Nor does the user reply when I demand sources for his baseless claims. Looking at the talkpages, Shadegan has prevented any move towards reliable and sourced articles since 2016 at least And then we have the baseless claims which many users have confronted.

@Wikaviani:, I've pinged you since you just commented here.--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

dead links should not be removed. see here Misplaced Pages:Link rot 182.20.137.37 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And another revert despite everything being well-sourced. This is nothing but Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content and disruptive editing. He is keen on keeping the weakly sourced version of the article, since the info aligns with his owns views. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: I'm afraid with prior edits like you really need to watch your own editing conduct too. This is not an edit indicative of a proper effort to reach consensus-based neutral coverage. Claiming, in Misplaced Pages's own voice and in the very definition sentence of an article, that something is "the official flag of Kurdistan", when we all know that there isn't any politically constituted "Kurdish nation" represented by any unified political body that could possibly speak for it in an "official" capacity, is clearly tendentious editing on your own part. You need to dial it down, probably as much as the other parties in this dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thanks for replying. What was very clear in the article was that Kurdish nationalist movements in Syria, Turkey and Iran use this flag, while the autonomous Kurdistan Region in Iraq has recognized it as the flag. This was sourced. You have a fair point about whether there is a lack of a 'unified political body', but does that mean everything else should be removed? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the user reverts everything by everyone, including Firstorm's rewording of sections and my chronological section which again was not controversial at all. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect and others: I had corrected grammar and punctuation in "Flag of Kurdistan"; I understand Ahmedo Semsuri's anxiety that his writing not be corrected, but the unedited article is exceptionally awkward. The sole factual point on which there is disagreement (or incomprehension on the part of a non-native speaker) is the use of "Kurdistani Region" (or "Region of Kurdistan") instead of "Kurdistan". User Ahmedo Semsuri apparently wishes to believe that Kurdistan is an independent nation; much though I may sympathise with him, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to reflect facts, not sentiments. Firstorm (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstorm Using the official and recognized name of the region does not make me an irredentist who longs after an independent Kurdistan. Nevertheless, the reason I tagged you here was because the user Shadegan prevents any attempt to improve the article, which I argued includes your edits of the'Adaptation to international vexillological standards' and 'Iraqi Kurdistan region's flag day' sections --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by user SBS3800P

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

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

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

User Gmortaia vandalizing pages with guerrilla advertising

See this article for an explanation: https://adage.com/creativity/work/north-face-top-imagens/2174261

The users in question should probably be banned, all changes reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Gmortaia https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Adamjonnes80

I have not tried talking to them because they work for a marketing firm, and are not good faith editors.

These pages still have branded advertising in their photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/Guarita_State_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/Cape_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pico_das_Agulhas_Negras&oldid=894745899

I'm not sure if other pages were affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.47.11 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting removing decent photos because the people in the photo are wearing a particular coat a person could only identify if they know the manufacturer? Do you not believe that these photos are the editor's own work? I will admit the ADAGE article is galling. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Some links: Gmortaia (talk · contribs · block log), Fhpatucci (talk · contribs · block log), Flanobre (talk · contribs · block log), Gabriel F A Rodriguez (talk · contribs · block log), Adamjonnes80 (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The users have no declaration of their affiliation with the marketing campaign or the comapny on their userpage, on the talkpage of the articles they edited, or in the edit summaries. In direct violation of the Terms of Use as per WP:PAID. The edit summaries say things like "Add a recent photography that was taken last month". The Video in the AdAge article describes their actual motivation - "we hacked the results" and "we switched the wikipedia photos for ours". The images are indeed pretty. But they are undisclosed paid advocacy. The images should be kept on commons of course - we can be quite certain they're uploaded as free-licensed works by the copyright holders! - but the users who edited them into articles are in direct breach of the undisclosed paid advocacy policy and should not be allowed to continue. Wittylama 21:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention: "According to the agency, the biggest obstacle of the campaign was to update the photos without attracting attention of Misplaced Pages moderators to sustain the brand’s presence as long as possible.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Problem: I'm not certain these are, in fact, decent photos - I suspect there's some photoshopping going on. Compare File:Pico_do_Agudo_Santo_Antonio_do_Pinhal.jpg and File:Vale_do_paraiba_montanha.jpg, for example. If that's the case, that completely taints the photos as far as I'm concerned, and I have to wonder if they do in fact have the rights to those images. creffett (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They photoshoppped their backpack into the shot? OK, nevermind, they got to go. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Since these are freely licensed on Commons, we could keep the images, but subtly photoshop the text "Patagonia" or "Columbia" on the clothing or backpack over the "North Face" logo every time we find it. This is better than removing the image from the articleor cropping out the human, because (a) it disincentivizes the ad agency from doing it again, while (b) doing no damage to the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that the root issue here is the fact that the images have company logos on clothing or products within these images. The root of the issue here was the intended purpose that these images were uploaded and added in order to serve, which was clearly not to improve the encyclopedia but to inject advertising in a deceptive fashion and in order to avoid scrutiny and sneak it past the typical patrols and checks that are made in order to detect and remove such violations. Sure, we can use the licensing to remove the logos and we'd be completely fine in regards to copyright. I guess the questions that I'm asking myself are: Do these images serve an encyclopedic purpose? Would removing the logos serve to be beneficial? Are we rewarding bad behavior and inadvertently opening the door for more abuse in this area by leaving the images as-is and keeping them to use on articles? I don't think that we should keep the images as-is and use them on any projects by principle, because of the original reason that they were uploaded here (by "here", I mean to Commons) in the first place. However, it could be easily argued in rebuttal that we've kept content and articles that have been added by banned and blocked sock puppet users in numerous instances in the past and despite "the principle". Sorry... just rattling off my thoughts here... ~Oshwah~ 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Also at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#North Face product placement. This is troubling, but we need to not throw the baby out with the bathwater; I've had one or two companies provide us with good images of their products, and intend to try more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Too bad ADAGE does not take comments or we could add, "GOT YA! - Misplaced Pages editors" to the end of the article. The company rep sound so smug. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They do, however, have a facebook page where I've already left several comments on the thread about this article: https://www.facebook.com/AdAge/posts/10156105251185880. Wittylama 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See also this category over on Commons. I identified at least one additional accounts involved from pt.wikipedia, Ligiamendes04. --Krinkle (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We ran a CU in Portuguese Misplaced Pages and, as expected, all the accounts involved are sockpuppets. JMagalhães (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A note about Commons: Wikipedians should appreciate that Commons does not make editorial judgements about how, whether or where images are used on Misplaced Pages. Likewise, Misplaced Pages should not make curatorial judgements about what Commons hosts. By all means comment and vote on Commons, but do so as a Commoner, appreciating what that project is about and its different values, not with your outraged Wikipedian hat on. Commons is not just a repository for Misplaced Pages. I see people voting delete or recommending the images be blurred or cropped because some editors have misbehaved on Misplaced Pages. Commons has lots of photos donated by companies, organisations, agents, etc. Many will include a brand name or logo and we do not blur logos. Commons isn't censored for logos. If the files are believed to be copyvios then they'll be deleted by normal policy.

The suggested vandalism by Floquenbeam could lead to a block and could even result in a legal complaint by the rival firms they are suggesting to use -- trademark logos are not playthings for wiki wars. Commons policy on overwriting files disallows editors making controversial changes if overwriting. Blurring out a logo because you are pissed off about the ad agency is not acceptable. I'm sure you can find other images to use to illustrate articles. -- Colin° 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't ping me just to make sure I see your fuckwitted accusations of vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is an acceptable response, on any level, from an administrator. Next time you have a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons, or abuse a company's logo for revenge, please keep it to yourself. -- Colin° 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, agreed, that is absolutely not an okay temperament from any Wikipedian, let alone an admin. I'll also note that the proposed swapping is a terrible idea not just because of the Common's rules, but also because of Misplaced Pages's. The goal here is to be neutral, not to retaliate against any entity that violates our ideals, and not to introduce inaccuracies of any sort. - Sdkb (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the comment wasn't necessary on Floquenbeam's part, but I also don't see any evidence behind the accusation you made towards him with vandalism to images on Commons... where has he actually done this? Discussions or proposals regarding the modifications to images - even if the ideas are bad or even terrible - do not constitute vandalism at all. Please do not use such words to point fingers at other editors like this unless they've actually committed such edits and you have the evidence to show that they did so and with that intent or purpose. It only makes discussions like these become heated and angry (as it clearly did), which degrades everything that we're trying to work together as a community to resolve. ~Oshwah~ 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeahhhh... I have to step in and agree that this wasn't a comment that complies with Misplaced Pages's policy on civility and the principle with treating others with respect... The accusations of vandalism may be completely unfounded and silly (I haven't looked into it myself yet), but regardless - we shouldn't stoop to anyone's level and respond with incivility and heated remarks like this. It degrades the discussion as a whole and it puts a negative mark on everyone involved here. :-( Remember that this discussion involves an issue regarding a very large corporation and is gaining media attention and coverage externally... this discussion can easily be linked to from these external sources given some digging, and comments that are uncivil are definitely not things that we want to be adding to such an involved discussion... ~Oshwah~ 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah *sigh*. Do your homework before commenting. -- Colin° 11:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin ?? ~Oshwah~ 00:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, not one of the claims you make about what I wrote are true. I said Floquenbeam "suggested vandalism" and " a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons". The proposed changes "we" were incited to carry out, replacing the North Face logo with one of a competitor constitute COM:VANDALISM. Such an edit has the malicious (albeit naive and childish) intention of harming North Face and benefiting a competitor for revenge over the behaviour of one agency they use. It would certainly lead to a block on Commons if carried out at any scale or persistency. Please, do your homework, before criticising others. It is beyond tedious to have to waste time countering criticism that is clearly unfounded to anyone who takes some care to read. It distracts from important point, perhaps that is your intention, that any admin suggesting Wikipedians go to Commons to vandalise images for revenge, deserves the strongest possible criticism. -- Colin° 09:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin - Please accept my apologies. I believe I misread your statement, which led me to respond with the comment that I made. My intention is definitely not to try and distract people or pull them away from important points in this discussion by flooding it with non-important or non-relevant ones. Your response here has helped clear up what you were trying to say, and I appreciate it. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~ 09:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah thanks. -- Colin° 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask for a community ban for the accounts involved, given the comments about the pt.wp checkuser results above and the fact that they were doing this because nobody on any project was paying any attention. We can't sstop it now, but this should send a strong message to anybody else considering black-hat SEO: We will make your ability to edit Misplaced Pages very difficult if not impossible if you refuse to act ethically. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) \

I count six accounts that have been indeffed on both en and pt for WP:UPE violations, and one of them was also indeffed on Commons for sockpuppetry. - Eureka Lott 20:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy, that's not good to hear. I think we should keep an eye on this and see if more developments surface regarding sock puppetry and whether or not any of this continues. If it stops like The North Face said that it would, then it stops. If that's the case, then perfect... we can hopefully put this down as a really crappy incident on their part and begin to move on from this. If it doesn't and more issues surface, or if more accounts are created and used in this fashion, then that's obviously a completely different story and considering a formal ban would definitely be reasonable. ~Oshwah~ 19:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note to TNF spammers: I currently own several TNF products (two jackets and a sleeping bag). I can't say I was likely to buy more any time soon (I'm happy with what I have), but now I'm definitely not going to. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject of things that look suspiciously like promotional/advertising content, may I direct some eyes to review Honda Ridgeline? -sche (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Article on The Verge

North Face tried to scam Misplaced Pages to get its products to the top of Google search

The company published their own video about how they used these photos to manipulate Misplaced Pages as a way to promote their products. They're basically bragging about it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Register's headline is Egg on North Face: Misplaced Pages furious after glamp-wear giant swaps article pics for sneaky ad shots – and even brags about it in a video and the subhead is "'We hacked the results to reach one of the most difficult places: The top of the world’s largest search engine'". 92.19.26.27 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Coverage has spread to many other outlets today, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and opinion commentary at places like Fast Company. - Sdkb (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Community ban for Gmortaia and any other employees or subcontractors of Leo Burnett Tailor Made (and the North Face)

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

Considering the blatant breach of trust here and the fact that they did their damnedest to try and fly under the radar as undisclosed paid editors, alongside the sockpuppetry here (to say nothing of Commons and Portuguese Misplaced Pages) I am proposing that any and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made (and, per Javert2113 below, The North Face), including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. This is beyond unacceptable, and I don't trust them not to try it again given that it worked the first time around. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Support, with modifications: Quite frankly, I still believe our policy regarding any sort of paid editing (aside from Wikipedians-in-Residence) is far too lenient. If we are a volunteer project, shouldn't everyone be, you know, a volunteer? But that's a discussion for another time. In this case, matters like this indeed warrant a community ban. If I may offer an expanded version of the CBAN, as follows, as an alternative, perhaps: ny and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made and The North Face, including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. Is this acceptable? (Though it was Leo Burnett that orchestrated the ad campaign, it was done at the behest of The North Face, after all.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have little objection to it. After all, the North Face did specifically commission them for this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Close this thread and stop giving the ad agency more attention. They did the stupid thing, they got their 15 minutes, it's been cleaned up, it's over, let's move on. – Levivich 04:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No let's not. "Move on" is what politicians say when they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, while anyone else doing that would face consequences. There should be consequences here. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban, but I'd prefer a ban to be cover a) the miscreants here in any capacity, and b) any and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made and The North Face in an official capacity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban per BrownHairedGirl's line of reasoning. This is worth a community ban. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

• Support a ban. This was blatant, deliberate misuse of editing rights, done with no potential benefit to an encyclopedia. Simple COI posts often provide a useful inside view of a company or organization, for instance, and yet we routinely throw that baby out with the bathwater. Here, there ain’t no baby, and there never was intended to be. Qwirkle (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban, if only for the symbolism. We need to tell other PR agencies and the outside world that this is not acceptable behavior. MER-C 20:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Go further, nothing against the ban proposal but I'd want us to take other measures as well. The Ad Age article implied that Misplaced Pages and Commons images automatically got boosted to the top of Google image search. Does anyone know how that happened and how we can make it stop? If we can't, then Google is abusing us too. We started delivering external links with rel=nofollow quite a few years ago after we got sick of SEO linkspam but apparently there is a similar issue with images that stayed quiet til now. We should find out how to get images out of Google and do it. There will be tons more of this otherwise.

  I'd also urge deindexing (for at least some months) of any mainspace articles associated with those brands, like we now deindex new articles. Misplaced Pages's web interface is supposed to be wikipedia.org and not Google, so we should treat search rank in these situations as a toxic byproduct (perverse incentive, attractive nuisance) rather than a valuable asset. We should be willing to eliminate it when it gets abused like this, to disincentivize the abusers. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• The images are going to be on Commons' door, so there's nothing we can do on that front here. You'd have to discuss this at Commons. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 00:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Bori (or anyone), any idea how the North Face matter is being perceived over at Commons? I know they have more of an anything-goes culture than we do at times. Dealing with this search rank issue will probably make more difference than the (de facto symbolic) en.wp editing ban being discussed. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• It turns out that this dishonest bunch of spammers were, unsurprisingly, dishonest about the copyright status of the images as well. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face Misplaced Pages advertising campaign. MER-C 09:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support this proposal AND a Global Ban – The involved accounts are already Globally Locked for cross-wiki abuse (they targeted other Wikimedia sites as well), so might as well go for a Global Ban (though this will require a separate proposal on Meta wiki). The cross-wiki abuse and the extent of their manipulation/campaigning is absolutely unacceptable. The actions of The North Face accounts have completely violated the heart and soul of Misplaced Pages's core principles - there's absolutely no reason to let these guys hang around any longer. I support a Global Ban on this entity and any individuals associated with the likes of them. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Question does this proposal mean that any Wikipedian who is otherwise in good standing and an employee of either company is affected? Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  The ban would only affect them editing in their capacity as employees of LBTM or the North Face. In other words, they would be barred from editing on those companies' behalf or as part of a job assignment, but they would not be barred from editing in their personal capacity off company time. (And, of course, if those companies try to view this as a loophole, we'd be more than happy to topic-ban or block them once it became clear they were attempting to exploit it.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v 18:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Support as clarified. Also support a global ban. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  Those topic bans should be in place from the start. Otherwise the bans don't mean anything. They still won't, but at least they won't have such a huge hole. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Support also support a global ban And if we give them attention, fine. What we cannot do is ignore this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - so what if they are getting media attention, any benefit for the unethical company will be temporary and in any case should be irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. Blatant abusers such as these need to be community banned. --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wishful anecdote I sometimes look at a big forum about a certain niche tech sub-industry. Lots of users are there buying and reviewing the industry's products (some positive reviews, some negative, all influence buying decisions), lots of vendors are there, and vendors are free to pitch their wares as long as they identify themselves. Sometimes a vendor will conceal their affiliation, pretend to be a user, and post glowing reviews of their own products or get users to shill for them. If a vendor is caught doing that, all the positive reviews of the company's products get deleted while the negative ones are left standing. Once that happened a few times, vendor behaviour tremendously improved.

  We probably can't quite do that here on Misplaced Pages, but it would sure be nice. That's the general effect we should be looking for. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  This isn't a matter of improving their behaviour. This is a significant breach of Misplaced Pages's trust on par with what Wiki-PR did, if significantly more compressed. And, again, the campaign ultimately worked, if only briefly. (Their goal was to manipulate GIS, which they succeeded in doing.) It's highly unlikely the Misplaced Pages community writ large, and especially on pt.wp, Commons, and here, will ever have any significant level of confidence that they will actually adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies. The mea culpa is not enough, and to me comes across as "sorry we were jerks about it" as opposed to genuine contrition. We've seen this song and dance once before. We have no tolerance for a reimagining of a routine that pissed off the community so thoroughly the last time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 07:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah I understand about GIS--see my comment further up about wanting Commons to de-index those images from search engines. The point of the anecdote is that vendors who had their positive reviews nuked took a big enough financial hit that other vendors became far less likely to risk having that happen to them. We can't mess up our own content neutrality like that, but I'm all in favor of withholding search rank from TNF-related articles by deindexing them (that doesn't affect our content), as described above, to inflict some loss of search traffic on them. However, as you say, image search stuff apparently mostly has to be done at Commons, which confuses itself with Imgur enough to be unlikely to do anything. Oh well. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I would go further and say what it reads like is "sorry we were caught". It s also hard to see how we can have that kind of impact. Its not as if we can do anything that actually would hurt the company, beyond writing a really shiry article about them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Considering they boasted about it, I would not characterise it as a "sorry we were caught". —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I was referring to the subsequent "we are so sorry and will not do it again" comments.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oh we can, see further up. I'll write something more detailed tomorrow. I have to leave for the day shortly. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  If you mean a boycott I could not support something akin to politicsing Misplaced Pages. We should not try to influence the real world.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agree with Slatersteven. In the 140 months I’ve been here, there are four months where I made zero edits. They were just after WP had a one-day protest over SOPA. I discussed this politicization of WP with the foundation and they assured me it would never happen again. We document – we don’t interfere. O3000 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  While individual editors may choose whether or not to boycott The North Face over this, under no circumstances should we attempt to influence everyone else into doing so. Promoting a boycott of a brand is just as non-neutral as any other sort of politicking, and unlike SOPA this isn't an existential threat to Misplaced Pages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Of course we should try to influence the real world. And of course we already try to do that. We are an activist project with a radical agenda, to give a 💕 to everyone in the world, overthrowing the traditional gatekeepers' control over knowledge. We were founded as part of the free culture movement which itself was radical in those days (more accepted now). NPOV is mainspace only. The SOPA blackout was the right thing to do (not everyone agrees, but quite a few do). If the traditional publishing lobby got legislation introduced in the US Congress to ban 💕s, our articles about the legislation would have to stay scrupulously neutral, but it would be fine to repurpose the Main Page to urge people to march in the streets against it. Anyway I'll try to write a proposal tomorrow. Obviously it will have opponents, probably including you two. Maybe it will have some supporters besides me, maybe not. We'll see. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think 173.228's suggestion of de-indexing the TNF (and ad agency) articles so we do not contribute to their Google ranking (if I understand the effect of de-indexing correctly) is a very interesting idea that the community should consider. It does not alter the content or neutrality of the article. It may actually have a deterrent effect. (And it's better than an entirely-symbolic site ban of some accounts that are already blocked and who's owners won't care about editing wikipedia anyway.) – Levivich 03:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  Deindexing straight-up removes it from Google's (and all other engines that honour robots.txt) search results. And the main search wasn't what was being manipulated; Google Image Search was. Deindexing the article proper does nothing here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 03:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd be interested to know whether the TNF article gets much placement in searches for ski equipment, parkas, camping gear, that sort of thing. If yes, de-indexing would drain some traffic from them. Re suggestions below: no we should not write a non-neutral article or "hit piece". I wouldn't want us (institutionally) to call for a boycott either (as crappy as this situation is, they are two-bit hucksters and we have bigger fish to fry). I hadn't thought of writing an article at all, but now that you mention it, there might be enough documentation by now to write a well-sourced and neutral article about the incident that passes GNG. That might be worth doing. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  That there is enough sourcing is beyond question, but I would rather not have the article immediately, while everyone is still incensed about this, aince that will likely result in a hit piece. Hence my suggestion below to wait a bit before writing it, so there's distance between the event and the article, to allow people to calm down. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd rather have it sooner or later. I don't feel particularly incensed and don't particularly want to pound TNF out of anger toward them over the incident. They're just one more spammer (yawn), albeit one that discovered an interesting new vector. I want to pound them because I philosophically believe we should be more militant about this type of thing in general, and that showing our willingness to pound abusers will lessen the amount of such abuse we get. There was a similar thing with link spam (described further up), and implementing rel=nofollow some years back made a huge difference in lessening it. As Tom Lehrer once sang, "I am never forget the day". 173.228.123.207 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question/Suggestion Put special effort into making sure that North Face's gaming of the Misplaced Pages "system" gets well-documented in their Misplaced Pages Article], as a warning to other companies that might try it. The reason punishment is still around is because it works.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  We're not going to write a hit piece to spite them, nor are we going to make this an outsized part of the articles on TNF and LBTM. This falls into the same issues as issuing boycotts in Misplaced Pages's voice; it's completely unacceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 04:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspected something like that, so thank you for citing exactly where/how it's wrong. It's why I put the word "question" in there. Is what they've done just natually notable?Tym Whittier (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What they've done is already covered on Conflict-of-interest editing of Misplaced Pages, and frankly speaking given all the news articles it's likely it could become its own article once the emotions stop running so high, in the same manner as Wiki-PR editing of Misplaced Pages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 08:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Special effort" to emphasize a particular topic in a wider article is called WP:Undue weight and it conflicts with NPOV. We should not do that. The incident may be notable enough to deserve its own neutral article though. The relavant guideline would be WP:GNG, or maybe some more specialized related one. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-winded elaboration of the problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precedent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Count edits instead of editors?

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

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

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

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

Off-wiki attacks and meat puppetry by User:Fwaig

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

WP:PW has been the subject of various controversies both on and off Misplaced Pages. Many from have participated in wrestling discussions in the past. User:Fwaig has created multiple posts on recently attacking Misplaced Pages editors and encouraging others to do the same.

• • "Some asshole moderator on a power trip"
  • "Stop being cunts wiki mods, you've already wrecked plenty of the wrestling section you absolute wank pheasants."
• • "Give them pages you cowards!"

JTP 00:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Let them complain on - unless they do something beyond the pale, such as dox people, there's nothing actionable here beyond making sure the meatpuppetry doesn't become a major issue. (And there's a few people on those threads who are trying to be a voice of reason as opposed to just raging.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v 00:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody ever called me a pheasant before. Is that a compliment or an insult? I will keep an eye open for hunters with shotguns, at least during pheasant season. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

lol User:Cullen328 I agree it makes sense to ignore. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bring back Daz Simpson: NPA and ASPERSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reading just the above, it's clear to me that BbDS has made a habit of making personal attacks. I'd be inclined to re-indef, unless a reasonable counter case is made. ~Swarm~ 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've found this user to be nothing but a pain, to both myself and other editors. Serious attitude problem. I'd support an indef. GiantSnowman 07:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• For context, it's also worth noting that BbDS previously edited as Clavdia chauchat and exercised their right to vanish after being blocked for personal attacks – see this ANI report from 2014. Number 57 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's quite a lot to digest here and as can be seen, I usually only get chance to edit at weekends. I'd welcome the chance to type a few words in my defence then if I can have a few days grace? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Aqooni

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring at RT (TV network)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat made by editor who identifies as a lawyer

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

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

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

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

 Done. The diff of my warning message is here. ~Oshwah~ 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Request an immediate indefinite IBAN of Hijiri 88

I would like to get some help from the community and or administrators to get an IBAN in place for Hijiri 88. Hijiri has been following me, and harassing me, accusing me of copyright violations and now accuses me of racism. I do not follow this editor to harass - or stalk the editor’s articles and to vote against the editor's positions. I follow the editor only to defend myself. I do not revert the editors edits. I do not speak to the editor in my afd ivotes or comments, or in my edit summaries. This is a big encyclopedia - yet this editor cannot seem to resist following me, and stepping on my work here and now is casting WP:ASPERSIONS by calling me a racist to other users. Last week I asked for a block or IBAN. Then Hijiri 88 said they were going offline and made some ridiculous comments about me on their talk page about me being a stalker (this is also WP:ASPERSIONS). The ANI I opened was closed with no result and after just two days Hijiri 88 came emboldened to immediately follow my edits and make claims about me being a racist. I want to apply for an immediate IBAN.

If I were able to deal with the editor Hijiri's bullying and unfounded accusations alone I would not bring it here to the community. As I pointed out in the last ANI I filed- Hijiri has a long history of this behavior.

Here are Hijiri 88’s follows of me for just one day June 3.

• Following me
• Following me
• Following me and speaking to me in edits
• Following me
• Following me

Here Hijiri is now claiming I am a racist WP:ASPERSIONS for my WWII reference on my user page which has zero to do with Hijiri. I am a former history teacher and I have made no mention of this editor. Accusing me of racism on another user's talk page And accusing me of racism on Hijiri's own talk page

I will need to apply for an IBAN until I get some relief from this editor's WP:FOLLOWING, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:HARASSMENT.

• Support as proposer" Lubbad85 (☎) 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I fail to see how you are being "racist" by remembering the attack on Pearl Harbour, which was a sneak (unexpected)attack that came to the surprise of pretty much every nation at that time. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Oops I misread that. Better rescind this comment as I clearly have no idea what this is about. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 Petitioning a voter directly to change their vote doesn't seem right. Lubbad85 (☎) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Just gonna note that Lubbad has apparently been going around distributing barnstars to pretty much everyone involved in this and the previous ANI thread. I'm not going to publicly speculate on exactly what the motive for issuing mass thank-yous to everyone, regardless of how minimal their involvement in the thread has been, or which "side" they are on, except to say that it's pretty weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I say this as someone who's never interacted with either editor. I see Hijiri returning from Wikibreak and jumping into 4 more AfDs Lubbad85 participated in. Oldest / Longest / Kelly / Resistance with the opposite vote each time. There are many articles for deletion, why must Hijiri follow Lubbad85? starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Iridescent, Boing! said Zebedee, and Toa Nidhiki05: - what about these incidents? If Hijiri88 had a problem with Lubbad85, they could have attempted something like ANI. But here we have quite clear following. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

they could have attempted something like ANI I did. Lubbad was told to stop harassing me like he had been doing. He made a single bad-faith feint at "friendship" on my talk page before going right back to harassing me. He then opened an ANI thread and should have been hit with a boomerang for his harassment and personal attacks against me and other editors, but these were ignored because the copyvio (which was already at CCI and so, IMO, didn't need an ANI discussion) was taken as being more serious. After the ANI thread was closed and archived, he immediately went straight back to harassment and personal attacks (not just at me but also at other editors at the AFDs you link to -- at the 6.3 one he took a needless shot at Banner who had already withdrawn their nomination, and at the Gould one he repeatedly made bad-faith canvassing accusations and insinuated that Bearcat was a serial deletionist who was misrepresenting policy). There were already two ANI threads that failed to deal with this issue because of Lubbad's WP:IDHT attitude toward the advice of others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - so you took them to ANI on 16 May, but you still followed them on 3 June after you returned from Wikibreak. I don't see 6.3 as a shot at Banner, and even so, 5 others, including you, also commented later, 4 saying keep. Indeed, he shouldn't have commented on Bearcat at the Kelly AfD. So they may have had problematic responses in 1/4 AfDs in my view. Still, you followed them to all 4. starship.paint (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

At the "twins" and "marriages" AFDs Lubbad (and the other "keep" !votes) are arguing for the preservation of pretty blatant OR and SYNTH, and at Gould Lubbad not only argued that his insertion of trivia about how she was uncomfortable cursing on film when she was seven-ish made the article not just a list of films she was in, but said she wasn't "faking her notability", which is either speculating about the subject and her involvement in Misplaced Pages in a manner that arguably violates BLP, or is accusing the delete !votes of doing the same. I have no intention of arguing with you that I am in the right on the 6.3 article; that's for the AFD closer to decide, and I frankly don't care all that much one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I was party to that first ANI (where I agreed what they had said was a PA) and it did not say "stop harassing" anyone. The close was "stop bringing these petty disputes here" (And as you were the filer it was aimed at you).Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The close, as clearly indicated by the diff above, was "Stop doing that", which was directed at Lubbad, in reference to the blatant personal attack; it probably could have gone further and explicitly said something like "stop baiting Hijiri, and definitely don't stick a bunch of random jabs against the country he chooses to call home on your user page". Yeah, the demand that I no longer bring to ANI harassment and personal attacks like the one Lubbad made in mid-May, and like the ones he's been making in the past few days, did discourage me from opening more ANI threads about, for instance, the bizarre Pearl Harbor references; but it doesn't discount the fact that Lubbad was told to stop harassing me and he did not. Anyway, in the past year I think I've filed a total of three ANI reports on issues involving me (not including random trolls/socks/whatever I noticed and thought ANI was the best way to handle it) so one editor's opinion that I repeatedly bring every little "petty" dispute to ANI is just simply wrong on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The close said not to bring such trivialities to ANI,and for Lubbad85 to make no more comments of that kinds, it says nothing about harassment. Now maybe he has been warned not to harass you elsewhere, but not in that ANI. It says nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I responded to the first, inaccurate, draft of the above on your talk page, before noticing that you'd posted a more accurate accounting here. The above is basically a fair recounting, but it fails to take into account that the opinion that I have been bringing "every tiny little thing" to ANI simply is not backed up by the facts -- heck, it was noted further up by another user arguing against me that I should have used ANI to report the harassment, but frankly I've lost a lot of faith in ANI doing its job, and so have been just "bearing the cross" whenever something like this happens, and waiting for someone to notice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No it does not, as the point you made was it was telling someone not to harass you, which it does not (thus I take into account all relevant information, and just point out it was not quite as one sided as you imply). Maybe if you had reported them for harassment you might have got the response you did, rather then for PA's (when you did get the response you wanted, they were told not to do it). Indeed I find it odd that having raised a minor issue at ANI (and got the result you should have wanted) you claim there is no poi t in reporting a more serious matter. It is clear form this thread that you would have in fact got what you wanted, you just did not bother.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone reviewing this, have a good read of this thread before going any further. There's considerably more to this than meets the eye; as far as I can see, Hijiri88 spotted Lubbad85 engaging in cut-and-paste plagiarism, called them out on it, and Lubbad85 has spent the subsequent two weeks trying to needle Hijiri88. ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban for Lubbad85. The copyright violations and the harassment against the editor who remove his violations(making false ANI reports) is enough to get him indeff banned. I don't this editor have made any good faith edits, all are copyright violations. I am not involved in this but I have seen enough of harassment against Hijiri and I think admins should step up and stop this nonsense.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Excuse me? I said nothing of the kind; what's this per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban nonsense coming from? We don't indef people for being annoying, much as I'd love it if we could; I concur with those below in pleading with you to stop commenting on processes you don't understand as your attitude at ANI is just aggravating editors who are already upset. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Iridescent—I'm pretty sure SharabSalam meant they "oppose per Iridescent", not "support an indef per Iridescent". It's pretty common for people to misuse commas like this, and now we see why punctuation matters. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• And the diffs links aka "following me" drama, are laughable. ADF discussions. XDDDDDDDDDDDDD. "Following me and speaking to me in edits" wow that's awful, speaking to you in edits??!! How awful-- SharabSalam (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose after reading this thread, and suggest there might be bendy wooden things flying soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: what are we supposed to infer from the thread you link? It's old, in any case, dating to before the previous ANI report, which was closed without action. I'm not sure how it's relevant to this case. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Mainly that we've seen a very poor attitude from Lubbad85 towards Hijir88, that Lubbad85 responds poorly to civil critique of genuine (and serious) problems, and essentially that there's more backstory here than Lubbad85 is telling us. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: My previous request for help at ANI was closed - and one of the reasons was because Hijiri88 claimed to taking a wikibreak and that was mentioned by the closing administrator as a reason to not go farther with the case. Regarding my own editing here on WP, there is no plagiarism... some accidental paraphrasing which has already been fixed. Hijiri88 has accused many editors of copyright violations as I pointed out in the last ANI - it is a useful weapon. None of this gives Hijiri88 the right to call me a racist. My request is for the community or administrators to see that this editor harasses me and then cries victim. In ANI last week Hijiri88 followed and reverted user eggroll97 after a vote in support of my request, and now Hijiri88 has petitioned user kingerikthesecond to change their vote. I am asking the community for protection. Calling me a racist without proof should be reason enough to enforce an IBAN. An IBAN does nothing to hurt the community or Misplaced Pages. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No need to bring me into this again. I already removed myself from this discussion as I misunderstood it entirely. My points are null; I am not in favour of a punishment towards you or Hijiri. I am going to sit on the fence again. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, and this should WP:BOOMERANG back at Lubbad85. This is verging on harassment of Hijiri88 at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 17:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose—having read through this and the last one, and the discussion Iridescent links to, it's clear that this is just harassment. I don't know if Lubbad85 should be blocked or banned or anything, but there should be some sort of restriction on them bringing this back up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• A 2 way IBAN will not hurt anybody. No harm comes to Misplaced Pages from a two way IBAN. For my part I do not edit where Hijiri88 edits and I do not interact with the editor in any way. Regarding Hijiri88's claims that I am a copyright violator. The accusation was made by Hijiri88, and now it has stuck to me like glue. Editors have gone through all of my started articles and major contributions - as any other editor is welcome to do. The WP:following behavior started long before Hijiri88's claims of copyright violations. The WP:following by Hijiri88 began when I started helping the Article rescue Squad. As I pointed out in my only other request for help on this forum: Hijiri88 began following me and calling me out in comments, and edits and edit summaries, as soon as I began working with ARS. I ignored the editor until finally Hijiri88 was tendentious on a deletion review - I responded to the editor on the deletion review. Then Hijiri88 came to my talk page to extend their comments, and at that point (on my own talk page) I told Hijiri88 to "get out of the basement and take a walk". These were my first ever words to Hijiri88 after ignoring the editors tendentious editing, commenting and following. Hijiri88 took me to ANI for the comments on my talk page, and the item was speedy closed. Hijiri88 has had issues with other users on Article Rescue Squad. Most recently ARS contributor Dream Focus was granted an IBAN with this editor for the same reasons that I am asking for an IBAN: Hijiri88 accused Dream Focus of Copyvio and harassed and followed Dream focus. I became a target of Hijiri88 at the point that I started on Article Rescue Squad. In conclusion, like all of you here, I do not want to be harassed or to be accused of racism. I do not want to spend my time in here when I could be editing. I do not want to waste time on negativity. I want Hijiri88 to leave me alone, and for my part I will leave Hijiri88 alone. If a two way IBAN can accomplish this, I am all for it. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2-way IBAN. It is clear these two editors don't get along, and are intent on needling each other - I think there's a strong case that both have not acted well since the last ANI. Hijiri does seem to have followed Lubbad to the specific AfDs mentioned, given that all !votes were after Lubbad's and Hijiri did not visit any other AfDs on the day in question. But then again, the comment about Pearl Harbour on Lubbad's homepage seems to have been reasonably clearly targeted at Hijiri. These two just need to keep out of each other's way.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 way IBAN This has been going on for almost a month now, with one or the other filing ANI's. In all fairness whilst (as far as I know) the initial attack was aimed at Hijiri88 it's also clear they have no backed of either. No harm can come from a 2 way (if wither user genuinely is not going to poke the other), and achieved the aim (I would hope) of ramping down the drama.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The evidence presented clearly shows that Lubbad is disruptive in more ways than one, and they need to be monitored and coached at best, indeffed at worst. Hijiri's clearly acting in the best interest of the project here, and I'd be inclined to block unilaterally next time this user claims they're being harassed. ~Swarm~ 03:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you for your kind words regarding Hijiri's clearly acting in the best interest of the project here (and sorry to take an "is" 's and make it a possessive 's). But I feel the need to point out that Lubbad's been told all the above before (the thread linked by Iridiscent above shows me politely advising Lubbad that he was on his way to a block, which he later chose to interpret as a threat). WP:IDHT is perhaps the single biggest problem here, which is why I've proposed below that he be issued with a formal final warning that he can't wriggle out of like the last two times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Yes this is the best way to nip the problem at the bud due to issues with both users' editing.Eliteplus (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

...is it weird that I'm a little creeped out by this string of new editors suddenly showing up to ANI specifically to propose sanctions against me? (Yeah, I know the above account has existed for two years, but the above is its fourth edit outside the mainspace, and its first to the Misplaced Pages space. There were also those two that showed up last week, one of whom also showed up here again today.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: One-Way IBAN

Something needs to be done, and it is User:Lubbad85 who is causing the disruption.

I propose, as the first, and what I recommend, alternative, which is a one-way interaction ban without the usual exceptions, so that User:Lubbad85 is absolutely banned from interacting or commenting on User:Hijiri88. This will allow Lubbad85 to continue editing as long as they stay clear of Hijiri88 and recognize that Hijiri88 and other editors take copyright seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• I do not communicate with Hijiri88. Not in my edits, not in edit summaries, not on afds, not on any talk pages, I do not talk with other users about Hijiri88. So a one way ban against me seems like an inappropriate application of IBAN. It is me who asks for an IBAN because the user speaks to me in all of those ways, and now accuses me of racism to others and in public. I do not have a long history here on WP, however my history does not show me to be an editor who requires IBAN - not in this case, nor any other. I ask the administrators to close these two additional proposals and respond to my proposal regarding protection from Hijiri88's racism accusations Lubbad85 (☎) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) IBANS include opening ANI threads, and frankly we're all sick of the endless threads on Hijiri you keep starting. It also probably isn't the wisest idea to try to shut down proposals on a boomerang, but there's no explicit rule against it, so just know that ANI is a two-way street- you opening this thread opens you wide to criticism of your own behavior as well as Hijiri's. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support after all of this, it is now obvious that something should be done to stop Lubbad85 from doing what they are doing. They wasted Hijiri88 time and our time.--SharabSalam (talk)
• Support Per SharabSalam. This needs to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN; as worded, Lubbad85 wouldn't be able to respond if Hijiri88 were to request a WP:CCI, or nominate an article on which they've worked for deletion. I would have absolutely no issue with a broad "any more shit from you and you're no longer welcome" formal final warning; Assuming good faith is a fine policy, but it doesn't mean the rest of us should be expected to clean up messes indefinitely once it's been explained that something isn't acceptable. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't want my name to be mentioned on WP:RESTRICT. I have historically had one-way IBANs with two other editors -- one of them ended with a third party repeatedly claiming it was a two-way IBAN, and reading the singular "they" in the ban's wording as meaning an unrelated TBAN also applied to me, and me having to request the ban be lifted for that reason; the other ended with the banned party complaining how unfair the one-way IBAN was and it being upgraded to a two-way IBAN for basically no other reason. Also, IBANning Lubbad would not actually solve the problem (not just copyright, but also the habitual personal attacks and harassment of anyone who disagrees with him -- see what he's been doing to Bearcat on the Gould AFD), and would only make it easier for him to claim I'm "poking the bear" and making unfair actions to which he can't respond by not withdrawing my CCI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN, as per Iridescent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: BAN

If you don't like that, the alternative is a boomerang ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this was already suggest in here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding.. There was a consensus to actually sanction Lubbad85 for copyvio and boomerang. It was a mistake that the discussion was closed because Hijiri took a break. If the discussion continued there, Lubbad85 would have been sanctioned already.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support indeff block per WP:DCV for copyright violations, the editor was warned about copyvio and he constantly reported Hijir who removed his copyvios claiming that Hijiri is harassing him see user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds. this was already suggest in here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding.. There was a consensus to actually sanction Lubbad85 for copyvio and boomerang. It was a mistake that the discussion was closed because Hijiri took a break. If the discussion continued there, Lubbad85 would have been sanctioned already.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Some type of action should probably be taken. Not sure if it should be an indef ban or just a limited amount of time but this user is harassing people and making serious breaches of policy on Wiki pages. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose None specific sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, assuming that, per the definition at WP:SBAN, Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban, and that a site ban is essentially indistinguishable from a community indef. As I said at last week's ANI thread, I would have supported a final warning that any more copyvio or revenge harassment would result in an indef block. This really should be the last straw. I would also not be opposed to this thread ending in a final warning (not a slap on the wrist like last time but "you're going to be blocked for a long time on your next infraction"), similar to Iridescent's "any more shit" comment above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this is getting beyond a joke. Lubbad85 clearly is a disruptive influence on the project, as I said in the previous thread copyvio is a very serious matter and continually bringing Hijiri88 here for having the temerity to call them out on it only doubles down on the probllem and exacerbates it. Site ban Lubbad85 ASAP, please. - Nick Thorne 01:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as someone described it below, this vague, hand-waivy, "something something off with his head" ban. A site ban is way over the top. Begoon's advice below is excellent. Clear warnings identifying the problematic behavior, issued by an uninvolved experienced editor or admin, followed by closure of this whole thread, would probably be most helpful IMO. – Levivich 03:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't think either editor has conformed themselves to a high standard since the last ANI was closed, and I would support some sort of block for both of them, but, CCI report aside as that's serous and justified, I think the project would be better off at this point if the two editors involved can just agree to stop antagonising each other and wasting our time here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, because it's not clear what sort of ban individual people are supporting here and there's a general feel of "I support something but I don't know what". It was clarified below by the proposer, but obfuscated again by the "But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction..." addition. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Editor gets caught violating CCI by second editor and files a retaliatory ANI report full of bunkum as revenge." That pretty well sums up the previous ANI thread, and if things ended there, warnings and "let's do better" closures would be fine. But Lubbad85 has a stick, won't drop it, and is trying to use ANI to bash Hijiri for expecting Lubbad85 to adhere to really basic and significant rules of editing. I don't see how a boomerang isn't justified. Grandpallama (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  You don't see how a community site ban isn't justified for an editor who has never been (as far as I can tell) blocked, sanctioned, or even formally warned? Let me give you one potential reason why that's not justified: because we should try something less than the ultimate sanction as a first step. – Levivich 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I see how someone who has been on Misplaced Pages for barely seven months is quick to lecture others and discuss the community as if he were a longstanding part of it. I also see how a problematic editor here has engaged in copyright infringement, reacted largely in a very poor manner to being caught, and has repeatedly tried to get the person who caught him "in trouble" by filing numerous reports, which is fundamental bad faith and a serious misuse of these boards that goes beyond the initial CCI issue. Grandpallama (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Those might be reasons to issue a warning, or an IBAN, or maybe a TBAN, but a site ban, for someone who's never been sanctioned or even formally warned before, is way over the top. – Levivich 18:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nothing over the top for someone who violates copyright. Grandpallama (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the proposal based solely on the interaction between the two. Now there may be other reasons for banning Lubbad (e.g. I am seeing comments in this section alleging any or all of WP:CCI, WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE on their part; but those are topics to be tackled elsewhere, and I am not commenting on them here). But on the interaction itself, IMHO I see two parties who don't get along and seem intent on trying to wind each other up through oblique references on user talk pages and other prickly comments. But not to the point of warranting punitive action. That's why I recommend an IBAN which would ensure they can both continue to contribute without reference to the other, and be quickly blocked if one or other does infringe again.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but I'd say the ban should not be indefinite. Maybe six months instead? Rockstonetalk to me! 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Something has to be done, and a one-way interaction ban with the usual exceptions isn't strong enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have never been in trouble on Misplaced Pages, and I came here because there was not a resolution last week. My perception was that I still had a problem with the other editor following me. The issue I brought to this ANI is an issue between two editors. I came to ANI because it was the only available process, as I knew it. I did not intend to offend anyone here on ANI. I love to contribute to Misplaced Pages and I only want to be left to do that in peace. I have a long productive history on Misplaced Pages. This experience however, has been mind numbing and stomach turning for me. Reading through this ANI board, it seems many complaints often wind up with no consensus and a frustrated administrator who has to weed through the threads.

Here are some guarantees regarding my own behavior which I can make going forward:

1. I will not perpetuate the problems or the controversies submitted on this ANI.
2. I will treat ANI regarding the other editor as off limits, My only request is that I am not followed by the other editor.
3. I will not respond to the other editor and I will not interact with the other editor.
4. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were copyright violations in the past: it will not happen in the future.

In conclusion, the goal of ANI should be to solve a problem (and it has for my part). If discipline should be required it should be progressive and corrective, not punitive and destructive. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia together and we should ask how a resolution on ANI will contribute to that mission. I hope to work with you all in the future under better circumstances.

I am interested in fixing the problem, not fixing the blame. To that end: A dual IBAN is acceptable to me because it likely fixes the problem between me and the other editor. I sincerely apologize to all concerned, including Hijirii88. 02:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Lubbad85 (☎)

• Oppose - definitely, the wrongdoing as presented here isn't at a level to warrant an immediate site ban, the harshest punishment out there. In this case, escalation is warranted. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In no way is this merited. Would the person who proposed this please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian and unnecessary, a discretionary indef and the subsequent appeal process should be allowed to work like normal, jumping straight to a proposed CBAN is out of process. ~Swarm~ 03:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3:One-Way IBAN with Usual Exceptions

Something has to be done. I think a one-way interaction ban with the usual exceptions may be gamed, but we need to do something. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This proposal is that User:Lubbad85 be banned from interacting with User:Hijiri88. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: - it's likely you're referring to Lubbad… you should explicitly say so. starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  My omission. Thank you for calling it to our attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing sufficient to warrant this has been provided or demonstrated. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Final warning for Lubbad

As I said above (and said at the previous ANI thread, and thought was implied by the thread before that) I'd support a formal final warning of the kind Lubbad's disruptive behaviour (which consists of violation of copyright on both text and images, bludgeoning AFD discussions, badgering editors who disagree with them, factual misrepresentation in noticeboard reports, posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past, generally behaving in an uncollegial manner, and refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters) has been noted by the community, and they are placed on notice that they may be blocked without further warning by any uninvolved admin should this behaviour continue. and so I might as well propose it at this juncture. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Iridescent, who said (no diff because the edit has been revdelled because someone posted something they shouldn't have before it, but it's the one time-stamped 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)) who said something similar (I would have absolutely no issue with a broad "any more shit from you and you're no longer welcome" formal final warning). I'm not sure if a broad "any more shit" would work, since I thought that was what he got three weeks ago from Floq, and it's definitely what he should have taken away from last week's ANI, so I think explicitly including a reference to his IDHT behaviour (refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters) would be a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: I'd support this if you voluntarily agree to stay away from them as part of the proposal. After your wikibreak, only !voting opposite the way Lubbad85 voted in, and only picking AfDs that Lubbad85 had previously voted in, didn't help any of this. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: If I haven't made my deep-seated desire to do just that clear over the past week, I haven't done my job right. :P

That being said, such an agreement would assume as its primary prerequisite that Lubbad now has more eyes on him, not just regarding the copyright issues but everything else (note that in the AFDs you refer to, Lubbad was engaged in the behaviour alluded to above, and I could have easily seen that because of the ARS posting; I !voted the opposite way to Lubbad because virtually everyone would have !voted the opposite way to Lubbad, not just to undermine him). The CCI also needs to remain open (even my critics seem to agree with me there), and if anyone wants to add more diffs (including ones from the permalink to my sandbox, which also includes ones that probably don't need to be added, hence why I never got around to doing it myself) they should feel welcome. Also, if anyone pings me back into the CCI for whatever reason, or Lubbad edits a page on my watchlist (or Lubbad has repeatedly edited a page linked to from a messageboard on my watchlist), and I notice the same pattern of behaviour being repeated with absolutely no change, I might message an uninvolved admin (not, I need to stress, edit the same pages as him just to intimidate him). Under those conditions I wouldn't be violating a voluntary agreement to stay away from him, anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - I find this statement of yours extremely questionable: I !voted the opposite way to Lubbad because virtually everyone would have !voted the opposite way to Lubbad, not just to undermine him).

(1) If it really would be the case that virtually everyone would vote the opposite way, why is your vote needed? Here's the number of people weighing in before either of you: 7 at Longest, 6 at Oldest, 5 at Kelly, 6 at Resistance. It wasn't as if those AfDs were not receiving attention, you could have simply left them alone if virtually everyone would vote against Lubbad.

(2) It was actually not the case that virtually everyone would have voted the opposite way to Lubbad. Let's see how many editors essentially voted similarly to Lubbad. 4 at Longest, 2 at Oldest, 4 at Kelly, 7 at Resistance. If you're telling me virtually everyone would vote the opposite way, frankly, I expect 0 or 1 to vote Keep. This was never the case here.

As a result of your inaccurate statement, I have no confidence that you are able to interact with Lubbad properly. starship.paint (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Please stop haranguing me.

(1) I explicitly said I wouldn't !vote the opposite way to Lubbad if I noticed him !voting disruptively in multiple AFDs going forward, so repeatedly questioning me about my !votes in AFDs that have already been closed or are about to be closed anyway is irrelevant.

(2) The fact that some other disruptive editors who have themselves been called out multiple times for disruptive AFD !votes agreed with Lubbad in those cases is irrelevant. Your repeatedly emphasizing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/6.3 Resistance movemnet when I have asked you before to just let it go is noted.

I have no confidence that you are able to interact with Lubbad properly Your personal opinion doesn't matter all that much to me. I don't want anything more to do with Lubbad (or you, for that matter) and have already stated multiple times, including immediately above, that I would be all to happy if he never darkened my doorstep again, so why are you badgering me about how you think I shouldn't be interacting with him?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the least disruptive, most drahamah-free solution. The "last warning" should apply to behaviour such as the "Pearl Harbour" stuff as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past was meant to specifically cover the "Pearl Harbour" stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - not until substantial evidence of every charge listed above is actually provided here (best to collate it in one post, this is a mess), and even so (if such evidence is provided), it should be a package deal with Hijiri88 agreeing to stay away from Lubbad unless there are copyright violations, because Hijiri88 is clearly not faultless in this matter starship.paint (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Vote will be updated below. starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Substantial evidence has been presented; you have ignored it because of some weird hangup you have about believing everything Lubbad says and ignoring everything everyone else says. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Collate it please, even as a reply to this very post, and I will check it out. starship.paint (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Okay...

• violation of copyright on both text and images Do I need to present more evidence of this? I guess the "images" thing hasn't been discussed much. As of January 27 (I was not the first person to raise this issue, by a long shot) 11 out of 21 of the threads on his talk page were about orphaned non-free images and other image copyright problems.
• bludgeoning AFD discussions The Kelly Gould AFD should be enough, but see also Kelly Meighen. That's just the BLPs on women named "Kelly". There's also the Jean Mill AFD.
• badgering editors who disagree with them The above AFDs count, but see also the Kelly Meighen DRV and the previous ANI thread. There's also this string of bogus accusations and already-answered questions directed at an AFD closer.
• factual misrepresentation in noticeboard reports Virtually everything he wrote in the previous ANI thread was bogus. The choicest examples, including the claim that I was still subject to an IBAN that I had successfully appealed in January 2013, are highlighted here. (See also below, where he accuses me of "still needling him" and gives a diff that's a week old, accusing me of addressing him in the edit summary when I did nothing of the sort. 03:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC))
• posting content on their user page that is clearly meant to cause offense to editors with whom they have conflicted in the past
• generally behaving in an uncollegial manner This thread was linked to near the top of this discussion. It shows Lubbad, having been told off for an extremely offensive and unprovoked comment telling me to "get out of the basement", pretending to drop the stick and offer me friendship, me agreeing and offering him some friendly advice, him pretending to take the advice, and then him suddenly, two days later, showing back up and accusing me of not "assuming good faith" (when in fact that was exactly what I was doing -- compiling evidence for a CCI and specifically going out of my way to prevent him from being blocked because of the assumption that the copyvio was a good faith mistake) and then repeatedly escalating things without reason.
• refusing to listen to and/or take on board the advice of more experienced editors regarding these matters See the above -- I offered him advice, he pretended to take it, and then turned around and repeated the exact same behaviour as before. Also the first ANI thread, where he was told not to do "that" anymore and apparently took a very narrow interpretation of what "that" was, and the previous ANI, where a bunch of editors told him a boomerang would be coming his way, and then he jumped right back here at the first chance he got. Also, his response immediately below indicates he still doesn't recognize any problematic behaviour on his own part, and this pretty flagrant IDHT regarding the copyright problem: I am not a copyright violator.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that if your interpretation of any of the above differs from my own, I'd be happy to hash it out and amend the proposed wording to accommodate you, or to get more evidence to convince you of anything you might be on the fence about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for striking. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support final warning only for copyvio. Support first warnings for badgering opponents, misrepresenting facts (even if unknowingly), possible offensive content on talk pages, needing to listen to other editors. Support reminders (assuming good faith) to not to bludgeon discussions and to edit collegially. I'd also advise both editors to steer clear of one another, though copyvio is an acceptable exception. starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, I'm curious, which diffs persuade you a final copyvio warning is needed? – Levivich 05:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: - - showed multiple issues with copyright, whether images or articles. starship.paint (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Thanks for the quick answer. That diff is from January, though. This May 28 edit is the only recent example of copyvio I am aware of (source). In the last ANI thread, Diannaa said "Spot checks going back to May 10 reveal no new copyright issues." The WP:CCI#Lubbad85 investigation does not appear to have completed yet, and the reported diffs there are all from September 2018 – January 2019 except for that May 28 one. On the image side, the most-recent (May 23) orphaned fair-use image file is no longer orphaned. Before that are a couple images in April that seemed to have been worked out amicably with Marchjuly (see threads here). Lubbad has said above (on June 6) that "it will not happen in the future". Just the May 28 diff alone may merit a warning, but I was wondering if you had seen something else recent. – Levivich 06:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: - thanks for informing me. Your earlier question actually prompted me to ask Hijiri88 for a more recent diff, and the same diff you provided (which I hadn't seen at the time) was also provided to me by Hijiri88. No, I haven't seen anything else recently, but the earlier behaviour is still concerning. starship.paint (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I thank Levivich for looking into my recent editing to show that most of my deficiencies have been corrected. Growing as a Wikipedian is my goal! And I want to thank Starship Paint for being thoughtful about my future on the project. I have never been called out as bludgeoning or many of the things listed by the other editor. If reasonable minds think I have been bludgeoning I certainly need to listen to that and will stop. In regard to my discussion on the Jean Mill afd.. that should be called out as straight up ignorance. lol. (regarding the copyvio allegations in the past - a CCI was filed by the other editor so I will be awaiting that). Thanks. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The other editor is still needling me as of today. I started an article called - Jean Mill - and today 6/6/19 while this ANI is still open, Hijiri edited the article and spoke to me in the edit summary While we were in the other ANI - Hijiri reverted one of my edits and spoke to me in the summary as well. Perhaps the other editor enjoys poking me, but I do not enjoy this. As to the editor's list of grievances presented here..it is fiction. Really I have no energy to defend against all of these accusations - but they are quite hurtful to me, and they are WP:ASPERSIONS presented with no proof. I think this 4th proposal for a final warning to me, is because Hijiri already has had 6 IBANS and yet the editor refers to me as not-collegial? The 6 IBANS likely helped solve a problem and make Misplaced Pages a better place, which should be our goal - and which is why I asked for one. Anyway, sorry for bringing that up again. I do not wish to throw stones at Hijiri, but again, I just want to be left alone by this editor. I am going to log off and take a break to collect my sanity. I am not going to interact with the other editor as I have said yesterday. My hope is that an administrator mercifully closes this whole miserable thread soon. A 2 way IBAN is appropriate if I am harassing Hijiri, then Hijiri should want it too. And it will help us get on with the business of building this amazing encyclopedia. My best to you all. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FTR, I have no idea who wrote that section of the Jean Mill article; the "you" in my edit summary was a generic "you", not specifically address Lubbad. I could say the same for this edit, but that was a week ago. I guess in the spirit of good faith I'll add on to my above promise to steer clear of Lubbad a promise to avoid editing articles I know Lubbad has been involved with in the past to avoid any potential misunderstandings, and that if I absolutely must edit such pages I'll engage in due diligence to make sure I'm not directly reverting one of his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: The revert of my edits during the last ANI was called out as a bad idea by an admin and my guess is the edit from 6/6/19 would be called "poking the bear" - but I am over this argument. It is less than truthful to say the editor did not know it was my edit. The editor seems to be throwing everything at me to see what sticks. I have apologized for whatever part I have played in this drama and for bringing this thing to ANI. We should ask how is Misplaced Pages best served. How can a result on this ANI serve the building of this encyclopedia? My assurances to the community are above in one of the many proposals. Regarding the other editor, I am sure that without all of this grinding the other editor must have great value here. Otherwise the other editor would have been banned for the many fights and discipline the editor has received on the project. So I have been steering clear, and will continue to do so. I hope to continue to contribute and grow as a Wikipedian. If the other editor could stop trying to get a pound of my flesh, and agree to a 2 way IBAN will likely solve this problem and serve Misplaced Pages, maybe we can put this ugly ANI to bed. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hijiri is clearly still messing with Lubbad, in spite of assurances that he wouldn't, as seen in this edit from less than four hours ago. I don't think anything is going to work except either a one-way IBan imposed upon Hijiri, or a two-way IBan. One does have to wonder how and why Hijiri keeps collecting IBans (either one-way or two-way) like a bee collects pollen; clearly there is some problem with the way he interacts with a lot of editors. Misplaced Pages has very clear procedures for dealing with (and reporting) problem edits; and stalking, hounding, and antagonizing editors are not part of any of them. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I never made any "assurance" -- I offered to voluntarily steer clear of him, assuming this proposal passes; and the edit you are referring to was made not "less than four hours ago" but rather more than thirteen hours before I said that, as can clearly be seen here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not sure it is quite as black and white as is being presented, neither user has made real efforts to steer clear of the other (for example going to a user page to see what they are up to and then commenting on it is not steering clear). I would agree to a warning, but not a final one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral - Unfortunately, it appears that there is no such thing as a final warning in Misplaced Pages, because an editor who has been given a final warning will be given another final warning every few months. Maybe a four-day block with a final warning? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Two way IBAN

As you can see above, this conflict between the two editors is continuing in spite of many proposed remedies, none of which are getting support. Let's just get this IBAN on the books and get this over with!

• Support As proposer. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 05:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Note that the above new editor came along last week and proposed banning me from the site entirely. I would appreciate a one-way IBAN against Thunderchunder whereby he is immediately blocked if he ever comes anywhere near me again (and would also appreciate his user page, which consists almost exclusively of POLEMIC about me, being deleted). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I was being facetious. That being said, I would like someone to speedy-close this subthread, warn TC about his recent behaviour, and tell him to go build some articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang 5.6% of ThunderChunder's edits to Misplaced Pages (2 of 36) have been to try to ban or punish Hijiri88. 11 have been to ANI. Only 5 have been to actual article space. I don't know quite what's going on here, but this seems a crystal clear WP:NOTHERE to me. SportingFlyer T·C 07:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and BOOMERANG. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang As I have said above this seems to be the fairest proposal. Both users have gone out of their way to look at what the other is doing, and comment on it. Oddly I am also leaning towards a boomerang as well, but I dislike one way IBANS. But this is the suggestion of the main thread. So not sure what the boomerang should be.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thread discussion

• I have no idea what kind of "ban" is being proposed. A limited block? An indefinite block? A community ban?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I meant a community-imposed site ban. But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction that will at least stop Lubbad85 from filing these stupid reports. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nor me. Could be any of those things, including a topic ban. Anyone? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• It says boomerang ban. I don't know maybe ban from reporting to this ANI. Or for the copyright violations. I don't know what type of bans that a copyright violator deserve see this discussion user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  So you support it but you don't know what it is? -- Begoon 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support a boomerang ban, I don't know how that sanction is imposed but I believe the ban should be applied because it is boomerang. It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction. Whether it is 72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc that's something up to the admins.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Ok. "the ban should be applied because it is boomerang", but you don't know what ban (or what one is, really) and "It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction". It's an opinion, I guess. Not one I understand, but an opinion, nevertheless. -- Begoon 18:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• "72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc" are not bans - if you don't know what a ban is, you should not be supporting one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well I thought that a 72 hours is a ban. So I am now puzzled. I think there should be a suitable sanction for all of these reports and the waste of time and copyright violations. Whatever that sanction is. I said 72 hours blocked. Maybe topic banned from this notice board. Or indeff block for copyright violation. In any case I support, just to stop this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• 72 hours is a block, not a ban (or, at least, a 72 hour ban from something would be stupid). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Something something off with his head. 2001:4898:80E8:8:3A83:2DCD:7473:53F2 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that means... Support. -- Begoon 18:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It means there's a quick race to block, any block, by SharabSalam. That is concerning. 2001:4898:80E8:A:C648:CDEE:794:B9B7 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I do know what is WP:BOOMERANG but I don't know the sanction against it. I am not really familier with these policies. I supported when I saw WP:BOOMERANG ban.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What is WP:BOOMERANG, as you understand it? And how are you specifically "applying" it here to reach a "ban but I don't know what ban (or what one is)" conclusion? -- Begoon 19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That an editor is making a report when it's him who should be reported and the sanction will turn against him. In my support vote I said the editor should be sanctioned for copyright violations and for constantly making reports against the same editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You said. "I do know what is WP:BOOMERANG but I don't know the sanction against it.". That doesn't make any sense. WP:BOOMERANG isn't an offense, it's a description of a common outcome and a reminder that all behaviour will be considered - including a filer's, so how can there be a "sanction against it" (and what is "it") ? -- Begoon 19:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the vote for better.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You also said: "I am not really familier with these policies". Given that, do you really think it is a good idea for you to be supporting sanctions on editors? I wonder if you might consider that easing off on your recent, heavy participation at these boards until you are familiar with policy would be a good idea? -- Begoon 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I made the vote with a good faith. I read what that policy says and I thought the editor deserve it. I just didn't know what is the suitable sanction. Anyway this discussion is time-sinking and it might make editors not see the survey. I am here to learn about these policies as stated in my userpage. I have been here when the editor made his first report, I saw all of what was happening between them. I knew that the editor who made the report should be sanctioned and then again another report today and again with completely baseless accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So "no"? Fair enough. Now, please go back to your vote and use strike-through to make it clear what the original comment was, and where you altered it, and never change comments that have been discussed or replied to. Thank you. -- Begoon 19:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the strike-through. Now, I really would be grateful if you'd consider the advice I gave above. There are a couple of reasons. One is that comments on this board have the potential to influence the ability of other editors to edit this site, so commenting here is a serious thing that requires knowledge and experience. When you comment from an ill-informed position it is detrimental to the fair and policy-based discussions and decisions that need to be made here. The second is that if you do this a lot it reflects badly on you, and this board is highly visible. I know you have the best of intentions, but the impression you make on others can be lasting, and it would be a shame if that was a poor impression. Sorry if you found any of this harsh - my genuine intention is to help you. -- Begoon 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That I don't know all of the banning and sanctioning policies doesn't mean I shouldn't be here. I would be here voting what I see right. The above vote was corrected. everyone make mistakes, and the rationale of my vote is still the same which is copyright violations. I just didn't know what would the sanction be. That isn't a good reason for me not to be here. Just because I made a wrong comment. Thats asinine. I have made a lot of contributions here. Made a lot of good votes. Now I should be kicked out because of that small issue?. Also it's just these days I am active in this notice board mainly because I am fasting and I wanted to waste my time with something that is effortless.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, please listen to what Begoon is telling you, before you get yourself in trouble. The very fact that you're talking about "voting" shows you don't understand the purpose of ANI. We're neither an electorate nor a judiciary, and we don't do votes, we discuss whether people have violated policies and if so how that violation can be prevented in future. If you don't know the policy on which you're commenting, then by definition we don't care about your opinion on this board. That's certainly not to say that your opinion isn't valuable elsewhere, but ultimately this is the administrators' noticeboard, and uninformed commentary just disrupts us trying to do our job. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, anyway, it's already the end of my fasting but I am interested in this particular case. Editors like Lubbad85 should probably get banned for this type of behaviour. Constantly reporting an editor and harassing them. I have sent to Hijiri wikilove for deleting reverting his copyvios. This is the only case I will be participating in.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I received this message on my talk page. I do not appreciate such a direct message from the subject of an AN/I thread and and feel that it is entirely inappropriate. - Nick Thorne 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Both users have been posting comments on users talk pages about this ANI. I am not sure either party is exactly whiter then Gabriels knickers here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I messaged you because you made an inaccurate statement above, which implied you had misunderstood the nature of the dispute, and then blanked your own message -- would you have preferred that I restored your message in order to respond to it? The circumstances of me messaging Erik are similar: he owned up to his mistake and struck his comment. That's about it on my end; Lubbad has been systematically messaging everyone.

BTW, anyone considering taking Lubbad's requests for friendship seriously really needs to read up on what happened when he tried to pull the same thing on my talk page: I accepted, offered him friendly advice on how to be a better Wikipedian, he pretended to listen to my advice, and then two days later showed back up and started complaining that I hadn't stopped sweeping his edits for the copyvio he was still engaging in despite my advice.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmm so you contact two users who had expressed doubts about your actions, in order to correct them. And Lubbad contacts everyone (regardless of what they said).Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85 posted a star on my talk page as well, but not as specifically as on Nick Thorne's, though I don't consider the post on my own talk page inappropriate as I did go through to fix any copyright edits they had introduced, see . However, the post along with the fact that Lubbad85 claims "I am not a copyright violator" on Nick Thorne's talk page extremely concerns me, as I looked through the articles they created and the vast majority of them had at least one potential copyright issue, along with some blatant copy-pastes which I fixed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree something needs to be done, but its clear that solo sanctions for lubbard is not going to swing it. The only thing I can see passing is the Two way IBAN, and continuing to try and find a way to sanction Lubbard alone is just dragging this out without getting anywhere. I think either this needs to be closed now as no action or the Two way is put in place, and we see where it goes from there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• I know the intent is good, Robert, but this sort of spamming proposals and seeing what will stick is not a productive means of resolving AN/I threads. ~Swarm~ 03:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment- did anything come of the CCI? Reyk _YO! 07:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk: It's my understanding that almost nothing ever "comes of" CCI. There's a CCI I filed over a year and a half ago still languishing in the "accepted, and open" section, and another I filed five months ago that's received no attention. The backlog is massive, and receiving hardly any of the attention it needs (I actually noticed a very serious problem once, and emailed the filer, expressing my concern that the filing might have retroactively become bad taste due to events that happened during the years it has been open). Basically what I'm saying is that it doesn't actually mean anything for this ANI thread one way or the other that the request I filed a little over a week ago is still open and awaiting attention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I now note that Lubbard is not on a wikibreak ].Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 behaviour

Charles01 condescending and bully-esque attuide towards me

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

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

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

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

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

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

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage His reply to the template message

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

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

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

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me

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

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

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

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

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

Reference falsification at Cantonese

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

Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) believes that Cantonese has over 100 million speakers, but instead of finding a sourced figure, continues to replace a figure that has a supporting source, thus misrepresenting the cited source. I would like them to stop doing that. Kanguole 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

He seems to revert every day or two. I've edit-confirm protected the page for four days, in the hopes that that will bring him to the Talk: page (or here) to discuss this. Jayjg 15:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify that that is extended-confirmed. I've no idea if the two are usually synonymous, I just went to look for my own clarification. Nosebagbear (talk)

I dropped him a bit of advice, perhaps they'll listen to a fellow Cantonese speaker. Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding false information to articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK,Thanks ~Oshwah~.Forest90 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, your suggestion is wayyyy far off as El C said above... :-) ~Oshwah~ 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Obsessive SPA on a Hulk crusade

The user User:Hhggtg3279 has been here for 48 hours and has made 50ish edits and counting. They are a single purpose account focusing on the article The Incredible Hulk (film). Their goal is to prove that the actor Edward Norton, who portrayed Bruce Banner in the film, also portrayed Banner’s alter ego the Hulk. They added it to the article three times, plus probably another four times while logged out. After I protected the article they took to the article talk page (as well as my talk page). They posted dozens of notes proposing sources which they said proved their point. Their sources were either nonreliable or did not say that Norton portrayed the Hulk, or both.

I warned them yesterday, on their talk page and the article talk page, that their obsession was becoming disruptive. Their response was to continue trying to prove their point, posting another seven notes at the article talk page. IMO at this point they have exhausted Misplaced Pages’s patience. I am not advising any particular action because I am WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't make that editor angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry. Dumuzid (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, I needed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think you're involved and would invite you to take action as you see fit. El_C 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But since I have discussed content with them, I do feel involved and would like someone else to handle it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I gave the user some words of advise. If they continue to act as if this issue is their raison d'être, then perhaps some sanctions would be due. El_C 03:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but let's not close this just yet. Let's wait and see how they react. They've been advised before. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see what the user does since the warnings and notes have been left on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~ 09:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, it's very likely that any post-2012 sources that say Norton portrayed the Hulk are confusing Norton's Hulk with the supposedly-sharing-continuity-but-otherwise-completely-unrelated character portrayed by Mark Ruffalo. The Incredible hulk is a relatively obscure film (and appears to have been a box office disappointment) that is most notable for a Robert Downey, Jr. cameo kinda-sorta tying it in to another film that was released the same year and virtually nothing else connecting it to the later "MCU" films. I can totally imagine unreliable fan sources just forgetting about it and getting it confused with the more notable Avengers and Thor films in which the character appeared. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You are overplaying any disassociation of this film from the rest of the MCU. We've seen William Hurt's Thunderbolt Ross in three further MCU films. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't wanna say it in advance of someone making that comment, but I figured someone might. He's essentially a completely different character. As far as could be gleaned from the films themselves, the two might as well be twin brothers who share a surname and a face. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

IMDB lists Lou Ferrigno as the voice of the Hulk in this film. I therefore choose to believe it exists in the same cinematic universe as the 2009 film "I Love You, Man." Now please imagine the sad piano line from the television series while I log off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the most sensible ANI comment I've seen in months. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was summoned to this anticrusader tribunal on account of my username. Contrary to popular belief, I'm a currently unauthorized reproduction of a formerly unauthorized reproduction of the man who Lou Ferrigno and subsequent replacements legitimately pretended to be. Totally different character witness and completely useless to this case, just want to sincerely apologize for any confusion or disillusionment I may have recklessly inflicted here over the last thirteen years. But if it please the court, I'll remain wholly remorseless for my supposed role in any jewel theft, sexual assault or prison break, as I'm not the one on trial here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, June 7, 2019 (UTC)

Absurd case of citation bombing by Pr12402 over the last month

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

Note: this was originally reported on WP:CCLEAN.

On and off since 2017, Pr12402 has been citation bombing (WP:REFBOMB) a handful of articles to a height of absurdity I've never seen. Single sentences have up to 30 citations apiece, and this article about a Belarusian band has 327 citations, almost 50 more than the article on the American Civil War. It's almost surreal how bloated the citations in these articles are. See also: Cyruĺnia Svietu; Gentleman (Hair Peace Salon album); Open Space (band); Bristeil; beZ bileta. I was going to speak to this user myself, but I feel something like this warrants an intervention from an administrator. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 - I don't see anywhere on Pr12402's user talk page where anyone has attempted to notify them or even educate them in good faith about over-adding citations to articles where their placement aren't trivial, relevant, or useful. I see one warning left for this user in January 2019 about overlinking, but that's completely different from "reference bombing." I think we need to start at square one here: We need to assume good faith on the user's part (I'm sure that he/she believes that their edits adding references are helping; any user doing this would...) and talk to them about their edits, and try to educate the user in a positive and encouraging manner. Just leave them a custom note and help them out. :-) ~Oshwah~ 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a nice word may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pr12402 (talk · contribs)'s reaction to the problem of refbombing Hair Peace Salon was to offer more refs (Special:Diff/872893540 at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon). This needs more than a nice word. Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could someone please restore William Cussans while it is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Cussans? I'm not going to argue with this editor... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae - You did not notify Cygnis insignis about this ANI discussion you created. I left a notification on his user talk page for you. Just remember to do this next time, okay? ;-) ~Oshwah~ 15:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I was hoping that this was going to be a quick housekeeping action rather than an extended exercise (i.e., I was trying to avoid "a discussion about an editor") - but you are right, I probably should have. Sorry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Which one, I removed the redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Which leaves us with a blanked page with an AfD banner; just as undesirable as a cross-space redirect. The article should have been left in place until that AfD was finished. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorted by Oswah, thanks; restored AfD banner. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I should point out I did not remove the article, just the redirect. The article content was cut and pasted to user space.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware, sorry if this was unclear - just thought it wasn't a good solution to the original C&P. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept it was not the best solution. I have never been confident with doing page moves, and was not sure if a cut and paste would work. But I did know that a back door AFD avoidance like that should not be permitted (and that is how I see it, move the article to user pace and keep a redirect in main space). It does not help I find the user...trying at times.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The article was moved from the mainspace to Cygnis insignis' user space, then somebody tried to make a copy of the article's content and paste it to the article's original location after it was moved. I performed a histmerge while moving the article back to its original location in order to resolve any issues created with the copy-and-paste attempt. ~Oshwah~ 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of thing I thought I would screw up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven - No big deal. It's all fixed; nothing to worry about. ;-) ~Oshwah~ 15:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've moved the article and talk page back to the main space and under its original title while the AFD discussion is open and ongoing. Both pages are also move protected for one week. I've also left the user a note on their user talk page here regarding the page move they made. ~Oshwah~ 14:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD and deleted the article. Quite apart from the fact it almost certainly qualifies for speedy deletion per A7 and it's copied verbatim from a book, it's snowing already and there's no point in wasting anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox Fixation Sonicfan200530/JohnSmith13345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:WikiUni - WP:CIR issue?

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

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

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

Yngvadottir - Whoops! Forgot about that other article... Yes, please do! :-) ~Oshwah~ 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Actresses" in "actors"

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

I apologize, is the mass replacement of "actresse" for "actor" approved?

Earlier, I opposed a similar replacement at the request of a Third Opinion here User_talk:DalidaEditor#Dalida_actress/actor_revert. But I doubt the validity of my opinion because English is not my native language..--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't harm the encyclopaedia in any way; in English, a female actor is more likely to be called "actor" than "actress", though different national varieties of English may differ. It is not incorrect in any case. To me, that kind of systematic change doesn't seem to fill any function, but again, no harm done.

And it is not an administrator issue, since it's a content question, not a behavioural question. --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Nicoljaus! The word "actress" is typically associated with a person who self-identifies as a female, and "actor" is associated with those who self-identify as males... but I'm also getting into "gender identity territory" as well as "national varieties of English" territory, which I'm by no means perfect at - especially in specific areas like this ('actor' vs 'actress'). In fact, I'd trust Bonadea's response over mine... :-) See Wikpedia's manual of style sections for established norms regarding gender identity, gender-neutral language, and national varieties of English for more information. ~Oshwah~ 19:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Account compromised and User Should be checked clearly.

At first, to be frank, here this user was last active in 2015 and he directly appeared on 2019 and try to delete Editor of Naya Patrika and tag undisclosed paid on Naya Patrika like he knows everything after four years? and after that, he started to edit on the editor page of Naya Patrika and then he moved a draft himself by thinking that he is moving it to namespace but moved to wiki talk page than after that he/she himself put COI Tag and he again removed COI by telling that he doesn't know anything than he moved vidfish five times and you can see more on the history and again he voted delete and arguing another editor by telling him that Nepal News Network International is non-reliable to be on Misplaced Pages ? seriously? this is one of the oldest news portals of Nepal. Then again he was not stopped by that he started attacking more Nepalese journalist pages like Ganesh Dhungana , at first he proposed it for deletion than after one editor removed prod he again put afd on it like he did on other many writers who are international from Nepal I really thinks that this guy has some serious issues with Nepalese media network and reporter and I am amazed that he knows everything without being active on Misplaced Pages and appear after few years being inactive. so, we can directly see that the account is compromised and I request to review and block this account. Owlf 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The diff linked above shows that Justlettersandnumbers added the undiscolsed-paid tag, not Usedtobecool. If fact Usedtobecool removed the COI tag.

I am confused by Owlf's claim that Usedtobecool moved the page five times. I see one apparent misclick moving the page to WP namespace, and seconds later moving it to draft space. This is most easily visible in the edit history of article_talk.

Owlfs outrage over the AFD for Nepal News Network International is also rather over the top. Coincidentally, I commented there yesterday with no position yet. On one hand my first impression is that a company with apparently significant multimedia operations would be Notable, however thus far no one has been able to locate any independent sources to support Notability. This is clearly a case for reasonable AFD debate on both sides.

Regarding Owlf's charge that Usedtobecool is "attacking more Nepalese journalist pages", I suspect that this refers to certain open-AFDs.... but I assert that Owlf is required to substantiate this charge by identifying their exact allegations. I suspect the consensus here will be that Owlf is "unreasonable" in bringing any of this to ANI.

And as a final note, I came across this ANI notice because Owlf reverted me and slapped me with a "test edit" template (lolz) after I removed an unreliable source from an article. (The about page of that "online newspaper" declares it has a "staff" of two people, plus two international "correspondents". A third party just reinstated my edit.) I don't think I ever met Owlf before a few minutes ago, but I'm beginning to question their qualifications for NewPagePatrol userright.

Oh, back to the ANI topic: I see no meaningful indication here that anyone's account has been compromised. I don't recall encountering Usedtobecool before two(?) days ago so I'm not familiar with their old behavior, but I see nothing unusual about their current edits. Alsee (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this SPI page, started by Usedtobecool, and referring to Owlf, may be of relevance here... 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Being an wikipedia editor everyone has right to start an ANI discussion and yes, ofcourse i didn't slapped you or created any personal threat to Alsee cause when i created Draft: Prakash Neupane few editors removed articles which doesn't follow WP:RS and the article which he previously removed was kept and according to that i reverted his changes and really this is related to New Page Patrol right? And another thing that usedtobecool is attacking the page you can see the sources of Naya Patrika and Annapurna Media Network which is one of the oldest and National Newspaper of Nepal? We are free to express and put our views on wikipedia. And yes IP boy you can check the sockpuppet investigation and my article creation style and articles that i have created on wikipedia. I am happy to leave wikipedia if i declared as sockpuppet cause i am amazed that the dansong account was created 8 or 9 years ago when i even dont know what wikipedia was LOl Owlf 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Slapping someone, threat or otherwise, will not help your case. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

For starters, Owlf you have not notified the user your reported on their talk page, as is required and is mentioned in Bold red letters atop this page. Second: I reccomend you stike any mention of slapping another editor, that will get you blocked under WP:NPA very quickly. Captain Eek ⚓ 23:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not slapping anyone here with personal issue neither giving threat to anyone and i am aware of WP:NPA oh and yes sorry i forgot to mention the guy and i will ping about it thanks. Owlf 04:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know how I am supposed to proceed here. If there is any other similar discussions that I can take as guidance, I'd appreciate to be directed thence. I can defend myself on all allegations with evidence but I want to know how to proceed first. For now, all I will say is Owlf was nowhere to be seen when those pages were being discussed at AfD and despite that I uncovered his involvement in those pages and added him to the SPI. Then, yesterday, two of the suspected sockpuppets were banned by an admin. All I can guess is, having had both those accounts banned for a week, Dansongg22 had no choice but to come at me with this account, as this account is by far the cleanest, having amassed a fair number of edits in other unrelated pages across wikipedia in the past year and even achieved some user rights that I don't have or didn't seek. I will only respond to what other users involved in the discussion want to know from me until the SPI is completed and a verdict rendered, unless directed otherwise. I hope everyone smells the stink of undisclosed COI from Owlf and an emotional stake in this. I recall seeing on one of those a discussion, years ago with another editor about COI, by Azkord, which now redirects to Owlf. For me, I am sure some of my first articles might deserve an AfD themselves in which case I will silently copy the text to sandbox and improve upon them as I am creating articles on dead people, books, famous actors, and most recently trying to create a 1:1 gender ratio in article creation by making women blue (I came across the project after I had already started working on women related topics). I think it would also be helpful to see if any of the articles I nominated actually survive the AfD. As a starting point, my MO has been this: I have subscribed to a suggestbot and I work on those articles. Vidfish was suggestbot suggestion, IIRC. I made a lot of mistakes in the beginning and I'm sure that's nothing new. I commented on AfD articles listed on Nepal related discussions page which is also quite unsurprising, I expect. TIA for any guidance.Usedtobecool  05:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer

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

Editor Interaction Analyzer doesn't seem to be working. I need it for something. Is there another bit that's working? - CorbieV ☼ 22:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I imagine it probably has something to do with the recent schema changes. Seems to be open on the author's talkpage here: User_talk:Σ#Editor_interaction_too SQL 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark says it worked earlier today. But now it's not for me. No idea why. - CorbieV ☼ 22:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, In that case, I have no idea. SQL 22:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have also pinged Σ. I guess we just wait, for now. Thanks anyway :) - CorbieV ☼ 22:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan if the Editor Interaction Analyzer isn't working you can try Interaction Timeline. It duplicates mostly the same functionality, but it was built by the WMF. It's nice in that you can click on a listed edit to pop open a diff right on the page, on the other hand (in my opinion) it suffers from the WMF's standard habit of overblown web2.0 design and low information density. It's good for tracking the interactions between two people over a short timespan such as harassment, but poorly suited to larger quantities of longer term editing examination. Alsee (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. There is a problem, however. It doesn't seem to register new accounts. I'm putting in the account of the person who's doing the WP:FOLLOWING, and the program isn't recognizing the account. I'm assuming because it's a new-ish account, which has 113 edits. To put it all in in diffs would be very time-consuming.

Never mind, the second bit is working now. Thanks again!

But I'm not figuring out how to make it show the overlap in edits the way EIA does. When one person is editing a lot, it doesn't show the relationship, that I can see. I see what you mean about it being best for short-term, intense interactions. - CorbieV ☼ 22:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

EIA is working again. Maybe it also had an edit threshold? - CorbieV ☼ 22:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You might want to reread WP:FOLLOWING because my edits don't seem to fit the criteria. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You just followed him here though. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Addendum: I've blocked SolarStorm for 24 hours as they did not keep away as promised. (Edit was to Talk:Indigenous intellectual property). El_C 02:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

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

New, but experienced-acting account, SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) initially came into conflict with myself and Indigenous girl on the Indigenous intellectual property article, editing under a few different IPs. He then followed some of my edits with those IPs. He did not edit in direct opposition, but it was a bit discomfiting to see him following me around the 'pedia like that, editing in my wake. More recently, he has followed over to conflicts on Order of the Arrow. Now he is following myself, and Indigenous girl around the 'pedia to totally unrelated articles, editing shortly after us.

Editor Interaction Tool: CorbieVreccan followed by SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd)

Editor Interaction Tool: Indigenous girl followed by SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd)

The edits are not in violation of the strict letter of WP:HOUNDING, in that he is not reverting either of our work. Most of the edits so far are filling in references. Filling in refs is helpful, so initially I said nothing. But it really has become excessive and now it's crossing the line. It is creepy to be followed around the 'pedia this way, especially by someone who is currently in active conflict on other articles. Someone else's contribs should not be a user's watchlist. Today, he followed both of us to an essay that a small handful of us from the Indigenous wikiproject are building - a page that isn't even in mainspace yet - as well as to obscure articles like Leslie Feinberg where a small group of us are sorting out pronoun issues on the 'pedia. None of this would be known to him without hounding our contribs. I think all of this violates the spirit of WP:HOUNDING and he needs to stop. I also think we should put something in the policy about this kind of WP:FOLLOWING, while technically neutral editing, still feeling like surveillance and potentially stressing out other editors.

I went to his talk page and asked him to stop. He not only refused to stop, but promptly escalated the behavior, played dumb, and then wikilawyered. I would like an uninvolved admin or other experienced editors to step in here. - CorbieV ☼ 23:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm, maybe don't follow those two around from article to article? It's just a bit much. El_C 23:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just like any other policy or guideline that exists on Misplaced Pages, we follow the spirit of the rule, not just the letter of the rule. SolarStorm may not be violating the letter and written form of the policy by reverting edits in a disruptive manner, but is definitely violating the spirit of the policy by following others around. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles constitutes gaming the system, and users can be held accountable and blocked for this. ~Oshwah~ 23:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll stop going through the contribs of these two. But next time I want to improve an article and it happens to be one that CorbieVreccan or Indigenous girl edited earlier, should I not touch it or should I just go ahead and improve the encyclopedia anyway. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) - Edit the article as you would and improve the encyclopedia. Just don't actively follow editors around from article to article and edit them because they're doing so. That's where you're crossing the line... ~Oshwah~ 23:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was just looking for articles that needed improvement. I was using their contribs history as a list of random articles to check for errors/possible improvements. I wish there was some feature where I could be redirected to a random page without having to use someone's contribs history. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) - You're in luck, because there is a feature that does that! See Special:RandomPage. :-) It's also a link located on the left navigation labeled "random article". It will take you to a random article every time you go there. :-D ~Oshwah~ 00:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it's in the left-hand column of every page on the 'pedia. Fifth hotlink down from the WP logo. - CorbieV ☼ 00:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Or just a little further down, the "Recent changes" link. Meters (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"Recent changes" (as Meters said) definitely works too if you want to shoot around to random pages from a list of changes that happened recently. :-) ~Oshwah~ 00:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Even better and more random than anyone's contribs! Don't know how I missed that link on the side of the page. Thank you! SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) - Now that you have some links and resources to explore Misplaced Pages on your own, can we consider this matter closed? Will you promise to keep out of trouble and stop with the shenanigans? :-) CorbieVreccan - If SolarStorm1859 agrees, would you also consider this matter resolved (with the condition that SolarStorm1859 doesn't continue of course)? ~Oshwah~ 00:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

yes SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am wary... SolarStorm has been like this for quite a while. With the initial IP editing, he would seem to be implying he was different people, then when I saw the same patterns, make an about-face and admit it was him and pretend he'd always admitted it was all him. He has been very difficult to deal with. I don't think this is the last time we'll be here. I hope he'll listen to you, but he hasn't listened to anyone else he's disagreed with. As long as other admins help us keep an eye on him, I'm willing to move forward with caution, BUT...

I actually forgot to put the ANI notice on Indigenous girl's page until just a few minutes ago. She doesn't seem to be on the 'pedia right now, so I've dropped her an email. As this has effected her, too, I would prefer we wait to close this until she has had a chance to weigh in. I think she will make an effort to get online before too long. - CorbieV ☼ 00:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to close it, but okay, I'll wait. I'll tag it as resolved in the meantime. El_C 00:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I just got home and read an email from Corbie directing me here due to SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) following us around. I have not gone to see which or how many articles they did this with. In going through our contribs I'm sure they at least looked at the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women article where they would have seen that this week ended a long term investigation into the treatment of indigenous women in Canada and the release of a very long, indepth two volume report. It is so unbelievably disturbing that they would time this creepy behavior pattern at this time. This isn't simply looking for random articles to edit. One can easily come up with articles if one is unable to find the random article generator. How about harpsicord, cordoroy, Air Force, Ford Motor Company, meteor shower. That was pretty easy. This to me feels like very intentional intimidation on order to harass and potentially drive two editors from Misplaced Pages. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing you're both made of sturdier stuff! Anyway, they promised not to do it again. If they do inexplicably continue, please let us know again on this board, or drop me and Oshwah a line, personally. We will deal with it post haste. El_C 01:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I second what El C said above. If this unambiguously continues at any time from this point on, file another ANI report or let El C or myself know and we will be happy to put a kibosh to it. :-) ~Oshwah~ 01:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request

Two successive issues have occurred with Lithopsian that have issues with OWN or a |NPOV. (Everything corresponded here)

• Changing sources and dropping them into a reflist. Policy is clear, as stated, but it is deemed by them as "...a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. " and asserts that: "If you seriously think I'm contravening the policy, now or two years ago, you know where to go. Discussion over, here at least.". (then closing the discussion with an archive template.) CITEVAR is clear and concerns stated appear justified.

• A response to Talk:Antares on magnitudes here, being transferred from their talkpage here and described as "moving content-related whinge to mainspace talk page" The response is problematically saying: "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Misplaced Pages, and neither should you. We're not here to change the world, or right great wrongs." No support for this and nothing to be able to achieve any consensus, where the question arose with this edit. They did a similar set of edits to the star magnitudes in Crux for nine instances here This was explain to them and notified here. They didn't respond.

Usage needs to be applied so the pages like the recent significant edits like: Photometry (astronomy), Apparent magnitude, Magnitude (astronomy), Photographic magnitude or Absolute magnitude can be further improved. Discussions like here have been very positive.

Yes. Their own contributions have been greatly improved the project on astronomy related articles. No contest. But there seems a growing tendency of intolerance by this editor towards other obvious POV that differs from their own views. These two issues seem to support this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Lithopsian on the usage of language in the arugment above. I recommend any uninvolved admin look at the size of Talk:Rigel and its contents and draw their own conclusions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh good lord. First bullet - L's (very minor) tweak of the ref location is precisely per WP:CITEVAR. No issue there.

Second bullet - editorial issue, take to article talk page.

Neither one of these has any NPOV implications whatsoever. Quit spamming ANI with asinine complaints. VQuakr (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65.222.251.100 - COI

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards