text:
along with the 's post that informed me about my mistake)--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries! :-) Buffs (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose...only because this is the wrong forum. In a matter of days, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 will open. This is an appropriate topic to bring up there. I believe the solution proposed here has merit for behavioral guidelines/policy. Like it or not, as a primary source of information, Wikipedia IS a battleground for cultural dominance/ideas. Buffs (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll probably move it there when it opens. Meanwhile, I would be good to get as much feedback as possible. Regarding a battleground, anyway, even if it is, it needs its own "Hague convention".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope it doesn't come to that and we can just have cooler heads prevail. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment. Paul tells: "Accusations of Holocaust denial and antisemitism are totally prohibited everywhere, except at ANI or AE pages". No, this is wrong interpretation of WP:NPA. Making such claims without providing strong supporting evidence is prohibited everywhere in the project, including administrative noticeboards. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't know that there's an actionable proposal here, so my support or opposition is moot; but here's a comment. Wikipedia is plagued by fringe historical revisionism from editors who dislike the consensus developed by mainstream historians. Holocaust revisionism by neonazis and their ilk are an example of this, but they are far from the only example. We do not have the time and resources to define each of these forms of revisionism, and we shouldn't try, because it's far harder to provide a complete definition of a complex behavioral problem than it is to detect it by a smell test. A considerable number of administrators have engaged with contentious socio-political material on Wikipedia for a long time. We can recognize ahistorical revisionism when we see it, and sanction it when we do. By the same token, users who make false accusations thereof (and when I say "false" I mean that as shorthand for "unsupported by the evidence they have presented") will also be warned and sanctioned. The changes we need to make are a) to encourage more administrators to look at the substance, rather than the form, of rhetoric in contentious areas and b) to encourage more editors to bring these issues to administrator attention instead of engaging in slanging matches on article talk pages. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think views by people like Anatoly Fomenko are already covered by WP:FRINGE. More difficult would be dealing with views by people like J. Arch Getty who have been described as "revisionist historians" in multiple RS. One problem is that everyone criticizes everyone in this field. Hence, using views by an author who has been criticized in multiple RS could be fine, and not only on the page about him. Darwin was criticized a lot. Or let's consider someone like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. If some of his critics described one of his books as antisemitic, does it invalidate all his books about NKVD and Gulag? No. Or do the racial views by James Watson invalidate his books on Molecular Biology? No. But it is even more complex. Some views expressed by an author (for example Suvorov) can be accepted by nearly everyone, others are "majority views", others are "minority views", etc. One must also distinguish a scientific hypothesis (an unproven, but totally legitimate thing) and pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * All of that is correct, except one thing: there are no "false accusations" at ANI. Any accusations presented at ANI may be either supported by evidences or not, but they cannot be false. That means that a user making such accusations at ANI is safe (cannot be sanctioned). Of course, if a user posts too many non-justified accusations at ANI, they may be topic banned from ANI, and that is one of possible ways to prevent a wave of false accusations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Either you have misunderstood me, or you're not conveying what you mean very well. I'm talking about accusations such as "Editor X is an anti-semite", not accusations like "Editor X made this statement (diff)". The latter sort, obviously, can be true or false, and if false, are easily dealt with. With respect to the former sort of statement we have no way of finding the capital-T Truth; we must judge the evidence presented. Similarly, with respect to whether an editor is pushing a fringe view, we need to investigate whether the view is actually fringe; and again, we can only assess evidence presented, not the Truth or Falsehood. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do understand you well, however, I am aware of cases when users were reported to AE for making a statement "A user X made the edit that YYYYY", which was presented as a personal attack. To avoid this scenario in respect to the cases of Holocaust denial, we need clear rules that stipulate that an adequate description of that type misconduct (when the posts that deny Holocaust or attack Jews are described as such, using a normal human language, not euphemisms) are not considered as PA if that has been done at ANI, AE, or admin's talk pages. If that rule is adopted, then the method to fight with first type accusations is simple: a warning followed by a ban.
 * Regarding the rest, I do agree, admins should pay less attention to the form, and more attention to the content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Interesting idea. In general there's a lack of knowledge and guidelines on the subject. I've tried making a related argument here, but it wasn't received well so I withdrew it. François Robere (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while extending appreciation for the well-intentioned effort. For one thing, crafting a policy to "clearly define what is and what is not anti-Semitism" would be a nightmare in and of itself; it's not always black and white, but like Potter Stewart's pornography, I know it when I see it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a mental image I didn't need. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a universal definition that can be used, such as Defining Anti-Semitism. Perhaps an RfC at VP that simply asks the community to accept or reject that definition as the basis for claims of anti-semitism. Atsme Talk 📧 16:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to this discussion and wrong venue - Start a proposal somewhere on the Village Pump, AN/I is not the appropriate venue for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, we already have a de facto zero tolerance approach to holocaust denial. What we don't have is a mechanism whereby people can use an accusation of holocaust denial to get someone banned when the actual content only looks like holocaust denial when you squint at it from a weird angle. Guy (help!) 18:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Cultural sensitivity training
Closed with a topic-ban from the holocaust and anti-Semitism... on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year, one of two High Holy Days). Oy vey! This is like TBANing someone from Christian persecution on Christmas Day or Easter. I'm sure Primefac wasn't aware of the holiday (if they were, they obviously would have waited), but that's kind of the point. This website really does a poor job of handling antisemitism and Holocaust denial (and racism and misogyny and transphobia and many other things). Good intentions and following wiki policy will not make up for ignorance and insensitivity, especially among decision makers (admin). It could have been worse, I guess: it could have been closed on Yom Kippur (the "Day of Atonement"). – Levivich 04:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The debate is closed, this comment is out of order. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should start a thread to TBAN me from complaining about such things? That’ll eliminate all this unpleasantness! – Levivich 13:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparent harrassment of AFD participants
has been posting apparently-hostile messages on TPs of the nominator of Articles for deletion/List of Borderlands franchise characters and everyone who voted "delete" there (obvious abuse of bold-italics):. Perhaps it would be worth investigating. Pinging. ミラP 16:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like a bit of a WP:NOTHERE case to me, but I'm obviously involved as the AfD nominator...  Sandstein   16:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be rather reaching the point of tendentiousness, especially given that this editor was previously involved with an AfD closed as "merge" at List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters, which an AfD decided should be merged, and this editor was warned for attempting to interfere with the "merge" result of the AfD:   . Given that the article was ultimately merged, this editor should be clearly aware that, in fact, character lists are not special and can be merged, redirected, or deleted just like any other article via an AfD outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Roger Rabbit case was ultimately acceptable because the primary characters, whom there are only a few of, retained their own articles, which was not my expectation. Borderlands has a huge cast whose other characters don't need individual articles. Also, the fact that two of them actually do have articles while being only two among many other prominent ones is obvious indication that the list article has substantial enough information relevant to the series to be more than warranted.

I was being very assertive with my point because, from my experience and observation, people like this on this site, who delete information, have been ignorant to more passive assertions that what they are doing is wrong. Googinber1234 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me refer a similar case of huger scope to you. We have Soap MacTavish and Captain Price, and we have a delete outcome at Articles for deletion/List of Call of Duty characters (2nd nomination) that was based on WP:VGSCOPE 6. ミラP 16:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently now, I have received an "ultimatum". I must admit that I find this substantially more amusing than threatening, but I suppose it may be reaching a point where something needs to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "STOP VOTING DELETE OR ELSE!!!1!"
 * "Or what?"
 * "OR ELSE!1!!!eleven!!!"
 * Reyk YO! 17:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this editor for 31 hours for harassment. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is quite simply WP:NOTHERE behavior. There is no attempt at any sort of WP:AGF shown here, whatsoever, in the slightest. It is assuming bad faith of all other editors to whom he does not agree.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Continued harassment from Charles01
I might as well speak about what been happening before I blow a fuse with this user. As some know, there was a super lengthy and tiresome discussion over between me and Charles01. That discussion came to a conclusion with me getting a topic ban suggested by another user where I am unable to insert pictures taken by me or revert edits that includes them and if I want one of them to be added then I start a discussion on it. This obviously hasn't work because I'm just getting grief from this person, making condescending remarks about me and telling me and everyone else how insignificant and troublesome I am and that editors should just pay no attention to what I say.

This topic ban makes me feel like I'm at a gridlock when it comes to editing, if someone replaced a image I disagree with and it turns out it was my own image I can't intervene like everyone else, and if I do intervene via talkpage discussion as I was told to after receiving the sanction, I get harassed by Charles01.

- Him expressing that my request isn't worth my time or anyone else.

- Admits of snooping around articles or editor's talk pages that I posted on and accussing me of "trying to steer Davey like some sort of a "special friend"."

This is the main reason why I refrain from making talkpage discussion if all I'm gonna get is this? I got sanctioned, I learnt my lesson for self-inserting my photos onto articles without consulting other editors on here, why am I still getting this sorta hassle? --Vauxford (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Those diffs are hardly harassment. Charles is expressing continued frustration with you over images, as well as over your topic ban. I think Charles was explaining a reasonable consternation over your continued issues with car photos. While Charles should focus on content not contributors like we all should, I'm not particularly seeing the issue here.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Vauxford - I understand the frustration and anger you're feeling over this entire thing. Without going into "whose right" or "whose wrong", or if "said user is harassing said user" or not - images are important to you, and you feel excluded from being able to contribute to that area. On top of this, you feel as if the editor you've been in dispute with has been "poking and prodding" at you while all you feel that you can do is stand there and take it. Yeah... that would be kinda frustrating... I'd be a bit upset if I felt that way... :-)

 * In normal and usual circumstances, we'd accept and absolutely value your image contributions to Wikipedia very much. However, as observed, discussed, and enacted by the community - your repeated issues, disputes, edit warring, and disruption became so problematic that your involvement in this area on Wikipedia became a net-negative for this project, meaning that the issues you were determined to be causing made more of a negative impact on Wikipedia than your image contributions, updates, and changes made positive ones. This is why the community had to impose the ban that they did... you were determined to be causing more problems with disputes and other matters than you were solving with your image contributions. That's not good, man...

 * If is making uncivil remarks and engaging in personal attacks at you in his conversations and comments to other editors, I will talk the user and put an end to it. From what CaptainEek said above, it sounds like the comments that Charles01 made might not be harassment, but just the continued expression of frustration and anger on his part. If this is true, that's not harassment nor is it considered the use of personal attacks. There's a difference between expressing anger and frustration toward a situation, and engaging in harassment and unacceptable behavior (such as grave dancing, uncivil comments about you or toward you, or the use of personal attacks). I'll look at the diffs here shortly and make a determination as to what behavior they constitute...  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   04:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I hope you are aware that there is a lot of (noticeboard and otherwise) history to this dispute. El_C 04:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * El C - Oh yeah, definitely. This goes back quite a bit... I even tried my best to step in and help, unfortunately to no avail... :-(  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vauxford - Unfortunately, I have to be the one to tell you that the comments made by Charles01 that you linked to in this discussion here and here are not uncivil, and are not personal attacks made against you. In fact, Charles01 was being very reasonable by politely requesting that Davey2010 review the entire situation and not carry out any more of your requests before doing so, so that he could become aware of everything that's going on first. The fact that he told you here that you "don't appear to have figured out why your topic ban was imposed" only speaks a bit louder given the fact that you filed an ANI report against him for his feedback. Instead of being receptive and understanding, you interpreted his comments as "giving you grief" and "making condescending remarks at you", and you filed an ANI report here in response. He was simply telling you what his thoughts were, and I find no issue with him doing so. I perhaps wouldn't have said "his chum Davey" in the response he made on the article's talk page, but that's something that is resolved with coaching and with experience. You need accept the ban that's been placed upon you, understand that it was necessary and needed in order to prevent further issues and disruption to the project, and you need to implement changes and improvements to how you receive and respond to feedback, as well as handle disagreements appropriately. If you don't do this, your ban will never be rescinded, and you'll be stuck at the level and place you're currently at until you do so....  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * "Continued issue", I haven't even done any replacement or edits related to my photos! If I did continue doing that now I would've been blocked already. I don't want to be pestered with comments like what Charles01 put every time I create a discussion. I did what I been told to, create discussion and wait for other feedback but what Charles01 is giving out ISN'T feedback. --Vauxford (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd say that Charles is giving out feedback. I have seen your recent "discussion" at Talk:Hyundai i10. What you're doing there is not giving understandable reasons why you would rather want to see a different picture in the article. All you have said was "Some user just remove the images of the facelift Hyundai i10". Please excuse my choice of words, but your post on that talk page is plain whining about your topic ban, as well as complaining about the fact that it prevents you from reverting someone else's edit. Well, what do you expect? If you had said that the blue car's roof is hardly visible, any reasonable editor would have most likely reverted that for you. Because that is a reason. Whenever you're giving a reason why your image is better, it needs to be understood by other editors. But the problem is that you don't even bother giving a reason. You are not even making a subjective claim such as "my image is better" or something. All you (used to) do is put your image in as many articles in as many projects as possible. And you would have an eye on (at least some) articles, and immediately revert anyone who would replace your image. That is, presumably, because you have failed to understand that a) other photographers are also allowed to put their images into articles, and b) that replacing your images is perfectly fine and acceptable if there is a good reason for doing so. I have used present perfect on purpse since your recent post on the Hyundai i10 talk page does not convice me that you have yet managed to understand the problem with your edits (and thus why you were topic-banned). And that is exactly what Charles is saying! "You still don't appear to have figured out why your topic ban was imposed. The fact that a picture was taken and then linked by you is not a reason why it can never be replaced by someone who is not you!" If Charles would not have been so quick with his reply to your post, I would have written something very similar, most likely. I do not see any harassment from Charles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I already know and understand the reason why I was topic banned and do want to prove that I won't be disruptive, it just frustrating with this limit thats all. The reason why that talkpage was more of me "whining" about my ban rather then the image itself, I got a bit exasperated with the quick respond, I admit I shouldn't of express that onto the talkpage and I'm sorry. I'm willing to start talk page discussions on things that I'm concern of, but can't it be less personal and more about the image itself, that is the problem that I'm having with Charles01, it that insert too many personal remarks about the user (me) rather then the actual image.

 * I'm determined to prove that I have changed and not did the same problematic editing like I did previously, I have no other clue of how to proven that to people, I refrain from reverting stuff that contain my image, I refrain from inserting images taken by me on articles and I start talkpage discussions! But my only form of editing related to my photos make it far difficult if I'm gonna get bickered more about me rather then the subject by people like Charles01. --Vauxford (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * but that's the problem you still don't seem to be getting. In this request [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyundai_i10&diff=prev&oldid=918007211] instead of concentrating on explaining why your image was better, you wasted everyone's time whining about your topic ban. It may be reasonable to mention you have a topic ban without whining e.g. 'just FYI, I cannot revert this change myself due to a topic ban on reverting my own images' just so others understand if it's likely your request will be mostly read by people unfamiliar with it, given WP:SOFIXIT etc. But whining is not helpful to anyone. You seem to acknowledge that but then you are complaining about Charles01 expressing some frustration with your behaviour [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyundai_i10&diff=918012252&oldid=918007211]. I'm not saying Charles01's response was perfect or even necessary but given the circumstances, it would have to be very very bad for us to consider action over it and it's clearly not that. So really your case starts to collapse. And just to be clear, whining about your topic ban is not your only form of editing. As we've said and even you seemed to acknowledge calmly explaining why your images are better without whining is an alternative and far better. Sometimes you will get reasonable disagreement over whether your images are better. Provided these focus on the content issues and not personal stuff, these are part and parcel of editing wikipedia a collaborative encyclopaedia where discussion is a key part of what we do. This is something you have to accept whether or not you have a topic ban. If you continue to make reasonable requests without whining and people instead always personalise the dispute whining about your historic behaviour then maybe there is some problem for us to consider.  Two additional points. One is that even if your requests concentrate on claimed advantages of your images without whining, they can still be problem if you continually make them but they are mostly rejected, especially overwhelmingly. While no one is expected to be right all the time, if the community disagrees with your assessment you have to take that on board and try to adjust how you approach things. It's a waste of everyone's to continually deal with requests that are going no where.  Two given historic problems with your editing, I think some following of your edits may be reasonable. If any single editor responds to nearly every request of yours because they are following your edits (and not because a similarity of interests) this may start to be a problem per WP:HOUNDING etc. IMO it's a problem even if they are nearly always right although not everyone may agree. But I think most would agree it's a problem if they are often wrong. But we seem to be a long way off that.  Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Okay, I admit that talkpage with the Hyundai wasn't the best of me, it was half-finished and got frustrated over Charles's comment and left it as it is. That doesn't prove that I "still don't seem to be getting". Maybe I should not let it overcome me too much. --Vauxford (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "was half-finished and got frustrated over Charles01's comment and left it as it is" - either I don't understand what you're saying or you don't understand my point. The main issue with what happened with the Hyundai example has absolutely nothing to do with Charles01 or your frustration over what they said (at least not directly). Your comment on the talk page came before Charles01 did anything, this is clear from the time stamps. But just to make sure I'm not missing anything I checked the contrib history and I'm right [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyundai_i10&action=history]. You first posted a comment which primarily consisted of whining over your topic ban without any real explanation of why your image was better before Charles01 had said anything. I don't know if Charles01 said something somewhere else that frustrated you, but whatever the case, from my POV, all I see is that you started off by whining over your topic ban. Maybe Charles01 didn't have to respond the way they did, but I can understand their frustration with your behaviour there.  This may not prove that you're not getting it, but going by that post you made it does seem awfully like you're not getting it. Please understand even if you had later explained why you felt your image was better while this would be better than what happened but it still wouldn't change the fact that you started off by mostly just whining about your topic ban and Charles01 appeared to respond to that.  I had a briefly look at some of your other discussions and it does seem that Charles01 responds to your comments a fair amount but ultimately even it may be better if Charles01 reduces their involvement with you, I don't think you're going to interest anyone in taking action when the example you highlight shows us you dug your own hole by whining about your topic ban and little else before Charles01 got involved.  Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and like I said, I shouldn't of started the discussion like that, I already admit my mistake for doing that and I'm sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Personally like User:Oshwah I'm just seeing frustration here, I'm certainly not seeing any sort of harassment here,
 * Inregards to Vauxford had posted a "request to close" on my talkpage hence that post - Admittedly in the past I did used to "close and replace" but that was long in the past.

 * I have no idea on a way forward tho ... don't really wanna support blocks tbh. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Issues with User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Regarding User:<IP_ADDRESS>, this IP address seems to be persisting in making unhelpful, non-sensical, unsupported, and at times disruptive edits and proposals to several pages and Talk pages, including the Denisovan and Neanderthal pages and often seems persistently unwilling to listen (either to me or to the other users who have attempted to engage in discussion with them) regarding the problems with their edits no matter how often they are explained (WP:Listen), often defending their edits and proposed edits with bizarre and incoherent responses in the edit notes and talk pages of the relevant articles. Again, more recently, the IP/user (after making two unexplained and seemingly unjustified/unsupported edits to another page (Homo sapiens idaltu, which I reverted with explanations, is making incomprehensible and incoherent posts to the Talk page of that article. I have tried to respond, but their responses to me are similarly incomprehensible and seem not to take into account or address what I have said (I simply do not understand most of what they say, and clarifications and explanations on my part do not seem to help). Resolution appears very difficult with this user and I fear a conflict with them that could continue indefinitely (I, of course, wish to avoid edit wars). Here are links to the Talk pages in which they have engaged in the above described behavior: especially see: Talk:Neanderthal, Talk:Denisovan, and Talk:Homo sapiens idaltu for reference. Also linked are the History pages for the Neanderthal and Denisovan articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neanderthal&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denisovan&action=history Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw it :) <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I've left them a message asking if they want to try editing their native language's edition of Wikipedia. If they insist that they're a native English speaker despite posts like this, this, and this, a WP:CIR block is necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, except I would worry that they might make disruptive edits even in their native language's edition of Wikipedia as well, as it seems to me likely that difficulties with English may not be the only problem. Skllagyook (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that'll be the other WP's problem. Right now the issue we have to act on is their ability to contribute in this Wikipedia's language.  I can't begin to comment on content because, well, I can't really make out what they're trying to say.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi guys do you know where to get virtual mashine with wikipeida? best if it will be based KVM libvitd with Arch or Gento? I did installation but not every future work on my servers? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to find an edition of Wikipedia in your home language. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't specified language. I would like to get the virtual machine for all languages which already are (or were) used on wikipedia.org. maybe you can forward my request up? Please. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about virtual machines, this thread is about the fact that your English is not good enough to contribute here. You need to find an edition of Wikipedia in your home language. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK but since this page may be viewed by knowledgeable audience and if You can help me with that VM project please post my talk page. or text/call me [number redacted]. I will provide infrastructure and being busy on this VM project would have (probably) less time to interfere with dumbing down knowledge base as i see is done for while on this website. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FFS... Blocked.
 * Although it's listed as being for a year, it should be considered indefinite. It would be indefinite were it not for the technical issues of indefinitely blocking an IP.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson, you may want to disable their talk, as they have posted their phone number again.  He  iro 09:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 1-year duration, the IP address appears to be dynamic and from a possibly shared range, so I think you'd need to be confident that it is allocated long-term to this user to justify a 1-year block. If it's likely to be reassigned to someone else within a shorter period than that, then a year is excessive and possible damaging (There's a good reason we don't indef block IPs - not just "policy"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've shortened to 6 months, although the block log would suggest that this user has been on this IP since 2014. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by the talk page comment, and block warnings, the same individual has had that IP for a minimum of 2 years and looks like probably more like 5.  He  iro 09:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's good evidence of just one user here, then 1 year would be fine - I just wanted to be sure we were being careful about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding to users as sockpuppet templates.

 * Moved from WP:AN (I accidently put it in the wrong place. Apologies) Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! User:Shoolvandcomp is adding the sockpuppet template to a few user pages (mine included). It could be test edits, assuming good faith, but more likely trolling/bad faith. Is this something I can just remove from my user page? I'm a little resigned to do it myself, as it's clearly about me, but I can't imagine it being a real request. Could someone have a look at the user in question for me? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit - looks like someone already cleaned up my page. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

sockpuppet Shoolvandcomp (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This user is a sock puppet of a vandal. Please don't unblock him without consulting me.  I already blocked Shoolvandcomp before JzG, but JzG overrode my block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine the override was an accident/conflict, it happened in the next minute. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it happens sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:Locke Cole
Two days ago, I noticed this file has been imported to Wikimedia Commons. I was going to tag it as a Commons duplicate but I noticed that it has a {{tl|Keep local)) tag. I've seen only sensitive files have this tag (files that are widely used locally / or used in sensitive templates etc.) So I thought that it is not necessary to keep the local copy and removed the tag. They reverted my edits. I know that keep local tag doesn't require the reason parameter. So I reached out to the uploader talk page. And I asked them the reason for keeping a local copy. Apologies if my wording was too strong, I didn't really mean any harm or harassment. So they replied on their talk page and told me the discussion "is over". Now I'd like to point out that they didn't provide any "reason" for keeping the local copy. So I assumed it as "invalid" and I apologized for that. They answered that they are under no obligation to to tell me the reason and told me to move along. Note that the keep local tag states that it is allowed to nominate a file with this tag for a deletion discussion, provided I notify the uploader. I nominated the file for FFD and notified the tagger. Then they removed all of my previous messages on their talk page with a clear hostile and incivil manner. I didn't react, because it's their own talk page. They replied on the FFD discussion page and labelled my messages as "blatant harassment". So I tried discussing with them. But after some time, they closed the discussion with the following edit summary "WP:BOLD". I am pretty sure that WP:BOLD doesn't apply in discussions especially in a deletion discussion. I'd also like to point out that they were not uninvolved. I reverted their edits because their closing didn't meet WP:NAC. Then they started to blank the whole discussion section. They tried it a couple of times and I reverted their section blanking. I've no idea why they are fixated on closing that discussion. After minimum seven days, it is going to be closed by an admin anyway. I don't really care if the file is deleted or kept. But their behaviour is becoming disruptive. See the permalink of the discussion. Not sure for how long the current version will stay on that page though. I want to resolve this matter as soon as possible. I've nothing against Cole, in fact I never interacted with/heard of this editor before. Some editor on #wikipedia-en IRC channel told me that I should report it to ANI. So here I am. Thanks in advance for your help. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{tlf|u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it. Masum Reza 📞 22:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To pick the low hanging fruit here, Locke Cole should not have removed the FfD notice nor closed the discussion. The discussion appears open. I have restored the deletion notice on the file and left Locke a reminder about all this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Barkeep49}}, This interaction was non-ideal as well, but I don't see anything rising to the level where action is required at this time. SQL Query me!  23:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree {{u|SQL}} that I am not seeing anything beyond the reminder I've given that is requiring action here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, especially given the history. This is a chronic problem user who has been repeatedly blocked for incivility, edit warring and harassment, which culminated in a site ban in 2009. They have only been very minimally active since then, but in spite of that, they were blocked again in 2013 and earlier this year. This is a user who should know better by now, and who certainly shouldn't be subjecting editors to this kind of abuse over what is an exceedingly minor exchange. I think it's evident that this user's long-running behavioral problems have not improved, and the fact that they've been flying under the radar does not mean that we should not treat this as a continuation of a long-term pattern of abusive behavior. I've articulated this to the user already, and warned them that if this level of conduct continues, they will likely be blocked indef. If the behavior hasn't improved since 2005, it starts to become a CIR issue. ~Swarm~  {{sup| {sting} }} 00:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I disengage myself and try to find productive ways to contribute and your very first reaction is to cast aspersions about my behavior? For things I did over ten years ago? For fucks sake, at what point is it good enough for you that I've managed to keep myself out of trouble? And then you threaten me with an indef block? I should be glad that those decisions aren't yours alone to make, and that you're just one admin amongst many, hopefully the others aren't as jaded and quick to judge as you are. I do so enjoy getting harassed by the reporting editor over my decision to keep the file I uploaded locally, which deprives nobody else of reusing the content or also uploading it to Commons, and merely keeps the rug from being pulled out from under me for files that are used in articles and that you appear to be helping their efforts along by pointing out my distant past as some sort of current problem... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you so much {{no ping|Barkeep49}}. And {{no ping|Swarm}} as well for pointing the stuffs out that I didn't know. I just hope he stops falsely accusing others. I don't want anyone else to suffer because of this. Masum Reza 📞 00:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also would like to know why they are adding all those keep local tags. But they won't converse with me about it. Maybe you guys can suggest something? Masum Reza 📞 01:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many people, including a lot of prolific content creators, use {{tl|keep local}} because they have been bitten before, as follows:
 * They upload file locally, it is automatically added to their watchlist
 * Someone moves it to Commons
 * It is deleted here as redundant
 * Someone nominates the file for deletion, or overwrites the file, or changes the description, or messes with it in some other way on Commons, and the uploader never knows about it; they aren't notified on Commons, and their en.wiki watchlist shows nothing.
 * I think it's reasonable in about 99% of cases to just let them use the {{tl|keep local}} tag, as it does no harm, eases their mind, and keeps them from getting so fed up that they stop providing images. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the frustration of someone who's not active on Commons not paying attention to that watchlist when something is changed, and the rationale you're giving is a rational one. I'd be curious to know just how often it happens, though, that a file is edited inappropriately and isn't noticed by anyone. I've uploaded an awful lot of images used in a lot of articles, including some that get a lot of traffic, and the only time anyone's ever inappropriately edited them, that I can think of, has been to overwrite it with a crop or an "improvement" that's actually just cranking contrast up or adding an instagram-style filter (i.e. pretty minor things)... and even in those rare cases I think they were caught by other people who patrol for that kind of thing. Maybe it happens more than I realize?
 * On the other hand, it seems like most times I've seen templates like this used in ways that aren't actually necessary (i.e. not used because of a fair use claim or other form of incompatibility with Commons), it looks to have been in connection to some personal "just don't like it" perspective about Commons. It seems like a fairly regular occurrence that an experienced Wikipedian uploads something in good faith, doesn't know the finer details of freedom of panorama/de minimis/country-specific rules/derivative works/license types/whatever, sees the file get deleted, gets frustrated, and decides Commons users are a bunch of jerks. I sort of get the frustration. Most of us probably remember what it's like to be a new Wikipedian and get your edits reverted for reasons you have to work to understand, and those rules for images are a pain to learn. But personal dislike for Commons isn't a good reason to circumvent how we use Commons.
 * Sorry, I know this is kind of a tangent and perhaps better for an RfC on use of that template, but looking at Locke Cole's comments surrounding this discussion just seem very much along the lines of the JDLI-driven template use rather than the simple concern that someone will vandalize it or something. To be clear, however, I think the evidence above, especially given Swarm's context, is highly problematic regardless of reasoning behind it. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of the main reasons I tag files I upload, even files that are presently marked non-free, as someone may decide to come along later, change the license to PD or non-copyrightable, upload it to commons, get the local file deleted, and then I'm stuck trying to figure out WTF happened. Not worth the headache. Commons is more than welcome to reuse all my content, as it's all been made available under CC BY-SA 3.0/GFDL, but I will not be chasing forest fires down at that project. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I regret commenting here. The inappropriate hatting of the section below and canvassing on Commons are deeply concerning, and I've since learned a bit more about the keeplocal template. None of this is to say there's no merit to this thread or that I'm sold this kind of use of keeplocal is a good thing, but just that I'd like to do (and should've done) more research before jumping in. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Masumrezarock100 is performing edits at the behest of indef blocked user Calvinkulit
See here. Acting as a proxy for a blocked user is usually frowned upon here, and is in fact the act that set this whole thing in motion. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, I would like an interaction ban between myself and Masumrezarock100, and myself and Calvinkulit. I would like this to include nominating files I've uploaded to WP:FFD. I do not think this is unreasonable given the edit (and the very next edit) at Commons... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also your IBAN request is way to broad for my liking, and honestly not needed at this point. CodeLyoko buzz  05:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Holy crap, after reading whats been going on I retract my statement. CodeLyoko buzz  05:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They also said I currently do not plan to nominate their files on FFD. But that may change in future. And then there's all of these. And then solicited another Commons editor  to remove Keep local from the content I've uploaded. Finally, Calvinkulit is trying to get a Steward to globally lock me at Steward requests/Global... I don't think an IBAN is at all out of line here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He also repeatedly asked, via commons, to delete your files locally. have you ever had interactions with Calvinkulit anywhere? I can't see that the two of you ever crossed paths on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I know I've never interacted with this user. They appear to be very hostile towards me though... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He has now asked another editor to help him evade his block and remove Keep local from my uploaded files. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask Calvinkulit for a reason and links as I found the request odd, but I was busy. I had also already noted he asked DannyS712 the same thing, which was also odd. I don't recall ever crossing paths with you, Locke. I'm not even going to bother looking at your files. You guys figure it out. - Alexis Jazz 08:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not performing edits on someone else's behalf. I know that he is a banned editor. I saw very problematic keep local tags so I thought I'd remove them myself. Non-free files should not be moved to Commons. He just happen to post on my talk page. He has nothing to do with my edits. Masum Reza 📞 07:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, he requests on your talk page, and you're on here making edits he wants. But what do I know. Also, there's nothing problematic about "keep local" tags. And you don't get to remove those yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And about adding that non-free reduce tag, I did it per our non-free fair use guidelines. I've no idea, why you are desperately trying to prove that I am harassing you. Oh, and that use of rollback is clearly a missuse. I've given summaries why they should not be tagged. But you didn't provide a reason for reverting good-faith edits. Masum Reza 📞 07:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're already WP:HARASSing me, now you're upgrading to WP:STALKing me. I told you to stop the first day you came to my talk page, but you keep digging. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at other users edits is not called stalking. Many users track others contributions. I see no disruptive behaviour in that. Masum Reza 📞 09:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Without weighing in on the substance here, I undid a completely inappropriate hatting of this thread by User:Wekeepwhatwekill. (see also inappropriate edit summary, and a 124-edit account mostly active on noticeboards...) — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is canvassing other editors to harass a user on multiple projects, which could be construed as crosswiki harassment. I urge any editor asked by Calvinkulit to do something to entirely ignore them, as obliging their request is assisting, by proxy, a blocked user harassing the contributions of an actively-editing contributor. I've left a note on the request to lock Locke Cole, as it's disruptive, and if this continues I will request the lock of Calvinkulit for crosswiki harassment. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, this all looks really bad, especially the meta request for a global lock., I'm trust that your goal isn't to harass Locke Cole, but effect matters as much as intent sometimes. And what you're doing is adding to the pressure felt by someone who is, by the look of things, being targeted. I'd like to ask you to do the kind thing and walk away from this dispute with Locke Cole. Plenty of attention has been drawn to the issue, and if it's a pressing issue, there are lots of people here who can help sort it out. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Odd things: c:User talk:Masumrezarock100, c:Commons:Requests for rights. - Alexis Jazz 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I've no such intention to harass Cole. But I agree asking for a global lock was too much, Cole isn't even blocked on multiple Wikimedia projects. I usually just wish to stay away from disputes and complicated stuffs. But in my opinion, this is something that needs to be handled quickly. I fear that other editors may get into trouble with Cole in future. I don't want anyone else to suffer the same thing. But I won't oppose if someone just closes this discussion. Masum Reza 📞 11:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is fascinating to me... what is it you believe you suffered? If you hadn't acted to edit on behalf of an indef blocked user, literally none of these things would have happened. Your behavior caused this situation, and only your behavior can stop it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You falsely accused me of harassment. And you were the one who continued to blank that discussion on FFD. Now you are accusing me that I am the one who performed edits on Calvin's behalf. I was very interested in what kind of contributions you have made. And most of your taggings are wrong, non free images do not require keeplocal tags and nor those files that don't exist on Commons. Free files with PD or other issues can be tagged with Do not move to Commons tag instead. I checked your edits before Clavin even messaged me. I was going to remove those tags even if he hadn't messaged me. Like I said, this all is just a coincidence. I didn't even know that Calvin is requesting others to perform edits on their behalf until he posted on my talk page. And yeah literally none of these would have ever happened if you didn't acted that way on your talk page and on the FFD page. Masum Reza 📞 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Check my talk page history on Commons. Calvin requested me to perform edits on his behalf after I reported you to ANI. Masum Reza 📞 18:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you could have came across my files except through Calvinkulit. And the nexus appears to be on c:User talk:Magog the Ogre:
 * 2019-09-08T20:14:18 – You previously edit c:User talk:Magog the Ogre which likely also puts it on your Watchlist (this point not completely relevant as I'll make clear further in).
 * 2019-09-22T02:31:21 – Calvinkulit imports File:Nikon.Z-series.logo.svg.
 * 2019-09-22T04:02:28 – Calvinkulit requests that Magog the Ogre delete all my local files, including ignoring Keep local.
 * 2019-09-22T07:17:53 – You remove keep local from the local copy of the file.
 * 2019-09-22T07:56:31 – After removing the template, you leave a message on my talk page containing Why you are adding keep local tag to files when it is clearly not a valid reason? where you assume my reason is invalid.
 * 2019-09-22T09:38:19 – The very next edit to c:User talk:Magog the Ogre is an edit by you.
 * I believe you saw his request to Magog the Ogre at c:User talk:Magog the Ogre and took it upon yourself to pursue the matter. As Calvinkulit was the user who imported the file, you had no other way of knowing about the issue except through him. And no, you have been harassing me. Saying you haven't doesn't change the facts whatsoever. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, it did put on my watchlist. My conversation with Magog was about entirely different matter and has nothing to do with this mess. I don't usually check my watchlist and I edit 90% of the time by mobile (check my contributions with "Mobile edit" tag if you don't believe me). It is worth noting that the current mobile watchlist is very bad and doesn't necessarily show all of the changes. You won't be able to "see" some previous changes if there is high volume of editing going on your watchlisted pages. Also Magog's talk page is very long and I am not supposed to read the full page. I just scrolled downed automatically using the TOC. That said I can not really prove that here.
 * I sometimes patrol new files on Commons (including the import log). You can see my edits on Commons. That's where I could have found it.
 * I also sometimes export files to Wikimedia Commons and patrol the NFUR rationale unchecked category backlog. And I could have found it from there.
 * Your evidences are not strong enough to accuse me. You appear to be very fixated on proving me guilty and I've no idea why you are so obsessed with it. Instead start contributing already, and try to learn how to collaborate and interact with other editors. You could have just tell me the reason on your talk page and if you did this whole mess never would have happened. I also suggest you to learn how to identify harrasment. Your behaviour is still the same from when you joined. And it is clear that there is no improvement. I wish that you pay heed to my suggestions above, though I am not so sure if you'll do so. Masum Reza 📞 12:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From the "contributor" who pre-judged my reason for using keep local and elected to remove it before asking me why, I'll take your suggestion that I "learn how to collaborate and interact with other editors" with a gigantic grain of salt. Every other editor contacted by Calvinkulit has dropped this matter but you. That really ought to tell you something. And FWIW, IBAN or not, I want nothing to do with you now or in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Calvinkulit has been blocked for a week on Commons. - Alexis Jazz 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The inappropriate meatpuppetry targeted at Locke being requested off-wiki is well inappropriate. I don't think, however, that these requests are any kind of mark against the editors who Calvin contacted. I have asked Masum to leave Locke's files alone, outside of future deletion requests, which he has done since requested. Without any comment on whether there should be an IBAN or not, I would like to think that the Calvin part of this ANI thread is hopefully at a close. That said I am recusing myself from further participation as an admin in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't hold the editors he contacted accountable for their actions (if anything, they are likely victims as well). The only editor I am still having problems with is Masumrezarock100, who as of this writing is still pursuing the deletion of one of my uploads with no valid reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is still trying to deny being here because of Calvinkulit. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Close this subsection with no action taken: It's pretty clear to me that Masumrezarock100 and Calvinkulit were interacting with Locke Cole out of different motivations. p  b  p  13:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by Wildlover22
has been warned since early August not to add wikilinks in section headers, yet, in late September, he is not stopping, neither is he learning. His edits are focused almost exclusively on adding wikilinks to nudity-related articles. Several of his edits are disruptive and he has been warned about them. He has vandalised several cruise-related articles such as Carnival Cruise Line, Cunard Line, Celebrity Cruises, Holland America Line, Paul Gauguin (ship), Windstar Cruises, and Royal Clipper calling members of such cruises as belonging to the "bare necessities club". I think we need a block for this user. Dr.  K.  02:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Another usless editor. Get rid of him.  Move on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I just blocked Wildlover22 for 36 hours for disruptive editing before seeing this discussion. If any admin wishes to extend that block, that is fine with me. - Donald Albury 13:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Frank marine
The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article (, among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine and User talk:Frank marine from ).

You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I second Grandpallama's opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. -- Darth Mike (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ a little while ago. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:MIHAIL
, after being caught red-handed with original research at People's Salvation Cathedral, now deletes WP:Verifiable chunks of the article. Instead of acting calmly and rationally, he took WP:NOTESSAY as a personal offense and now destroys the article. He seems to have the alternate account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Note MIRAIL.MIHAI's last edit was on 2017-06-18 and MIHAIL account was created (and first edit was made) on 2017-06-21. I'm guessing they lost access to the former account somehow (lost written-down password, normally stayed logged in but got logged out and didn't have record of password, zapped browser autofill database, etc.). —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 05:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * He seems to have edited logged out: Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>. That would be a 3RR violation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by the emphatic nature of the edit summary, the IP and the named editor seem as though they're possibly the same person. There seems to be some WP:OWNERSHIP issues, too, based on this edit summary ("I created 90% of the article"). Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User attitude

User:Cinadon36 is hunting me and keeps reverting everything that i am writing. I can't contribute in EN:WP. I am getting reverted in few minutes cause he constantly finds excuses to revert me at once. This is something that he keeps doing it for many months.

Simple and last facts: First time he reverted me cause he was thinking it was due and then a third user reverted him cause he was just saying just nonsense simply to find an excuse and revert me. Yesterday he found that a book from famous historians like professor of University of Grenoble Pierre Broué was not a RS and in the same time(!) when i did the same and i deleted a fringe and conspiracy theory from a militant amateur anarchist Abel Paz "historian", today he is saying that this section was for too long in English WP and i am doing for revenge so he reverted me again!

I fear that this attitude is something that we can find it in Greek Wikipedia, where many users think that he is constantly chasing users. I am banned from English Wikipedia from this user for many months to contribute. Please do something, cause if you don't then you accept my permanent ban from this user. I just want to show that i can contribute and i am not for a permanent ban from English Wikipedia: this ismy last contribution in Greek Wikipedia, an article with the most uptodate historians and not fringe theories and propaganda claims. I want and i can contribute, please help me

I have informed already the administrator User:Bishonen and the other user. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The multiple discussions on the talk page, starting with this one shows yourself and User:Cinadon36 in a discussions about this. Cinandon36 looks like he's saying that although the source is reliable, the items mentioned are being cherry picked. Typically, that's not a good thing. I notice you never responded to that.

Frankly your discussion on the talk page doesn't look promising either. I had an issue similar to yours over at this page and I actually read what was being said to me completely, that lead to me changing my mind as to what was right for the article, even though I came into it with the argument that what I wanted to add in was common sense. I would suggest you actually read, carefully and fully, what's being said to you rather than accuse someone of wrong doing. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Necromonger... thank you for your answer. This user is just making excuses to delete my contribution, the same time that he claimed that [Pierre Broué wasn't a RS, the same time he claimed that Abel Paz was a R.S. He was just making fun of me. I didn't answer in his Due accusations cause it was obvious -at least for me and for a 3rd user who reverted his contribution- that he is constantly making excuses to delete my contribution. What i can write about such simple facts? The same time that anything exists about Durruti is written in the article from rock bands(!) to a single terrorist, i can't even write simple facts after his death. Ok my talk page isn't promising, cause when he was deleting everything i didn't handle with presence of mind.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I am not hunting no-one, disrespects WP:BRD and on top of that (or because of that) he accuses others for hunting. Let me set the record straight, even though it is not an easy task.

In the last episode, at article u|Buenaventura_Durruti, Αντικαθεστωτικός added a very strong claim, using a weak ref. After having a look at the publisher's article (Haymarket Books and a review saying that it is a radical publishing house (not mainstream), I reverted him asking him, explaining my reasoning.  ( Haymarket Books---> not RS, for such claim you 'd need more than that

Αντικαθεστωτικος didn't use the Talk Page, but he reverted, showing no respect to the well established policy of WP. ( edit summary:Stop hunting me. If you revert me once again i will go to ANI ). Because of a revert, he is accusing me of hunting! Note that I am watchlisting the page and anarchism is within my range of interest. So I reverted once more and I was ready to go to ANI if that would continue. ( edit summary:"Not hunting, go to ANI. As I ve said, not RS, plus it is too old source. Strong claims need strong refs. Discuss it at Talk Page." )

Next day, Αντικαθεστωτικος decided not to re-add his material, but remove material that was in the article for too long. He cited a reason (weak RS) which is correct, but the a) claim was not too strong, b)the text has been in the WP since at least 2012 ( as far as I could find out and c)it was obvious that he was removing staff as "revenge". I did reverted, asking him politely to go to Talk. He decided to re-reverted. I stopped the reverts (didn't want to break 3RR rule and to avoid creating a messy edit war) so I posted at article's Talk Page.

Bottom line: Αντικαθεστωτικός is refusing to use the Talk Page, not initiating a conversation at Talk even if he has the burden to gain consensus. More to that, when I opened the discussion at Talk, he didn't contribute at all. I find myself accused of hunting because of this specific incidence. I am not hunting anyone, Anarchism and figures of anarchism are within my range of interest. I have also noted that Αντικαθεστωτικός has not the firmest of the grasps of WP policies and so I check his edits whenever he pops up on my watchlist. Cinadon36 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * So you just admitted that removing Abel Piaz's conspiracy theory (Wikipedia Voice was for years was conspiracy theory!) was a correct action for me to do, and you just admit that you reverted my contribution cause you was thinking it was revenge. Ok i will wait administrators to say the last word. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd suggest it is hasty to assume a source is WP:FRINGE just because it's published by Haymarket books. They are a pretty significant publisher of leftist non-fiction, especially anarchist non-fiction. As such, the works should be treated individually - some may in fact be fringe, some may not and may be valuable resources for articles about Anarchism and closely affiliated ideologies. As for this source? I am unfamilliar. But I'd suggest that WP:RS/N might be a better place to start than WP:AN/I.Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I admitted what? Don't put words (or admissions) in my mouth, pls. Cinadon36 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Haymarket is not such a strong source to support such a definite claim. That was my opinion and still is. Sources reliability come in many shades. For a strong statement, we need a strong source. Haymarket, esp in 2008, was not a strong source. But we getting oftopic. We should have discussed this at Talk Page, but Αντικαθεστωτικος is reluctant, to say the least. Cinadon36 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Your mistake is in treating Haymarket Books as the source rather than the book in question. Haymarket is a publisher; any given book they publish is a source which may or may not be reliable. Again, would admonish and yourself that this is a matter best settled at WP:RS/N. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Haymarket is a publishing house and as such it affects the credibility of the book. That said, I agree with you that the subject should be at RS/N, not AN/I. Actually, the flowchart should (is) B-->R-->STABLE VERSION-->DISCUSS AT TALK PAGE --> Go to RS/N or 3rd Op or RfC. Coming to RS to talk about "hunting" is not the way forward. Certainly it poisons the discussion attempts and it is quite disruptive.Cinadon36 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you object to a NAC and opening up a discussion of source reliability at WP:RS/N to resolve this dispute? That way we don't have to waste any admin time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Dear friend Simonm223, this book was first published from M.I.T in 1970. What to discuss? This article of Buenaventura Durruti contains 1)Abel Paz an anarchist militant who wrote history *2 times 2) The Toronto Daily Star of 1936(!!) 3)Hugh Thomas of 1966 4)2 heavy metal webpages. I wrote for the first time of Wikipedia what 2 historians wrote (Beevor and Ruiz)as i have done for a long time in Greek Wikipedia. Have a look please just translate from google the bibliography section. Is it possible to discuss if a publication of MIT from University professors is a RS when in the same time this article contains newspapers of 1936 and heavy metal webpages? Is it possible Wikipedia voice is the voice of Abel Piaz a militant anarchist who promotes a conspiracy theory? This is just excuses to delete my contribution. But if you wish i won't reject in NAC. It is obvious that noone except this user will say that this source isn't a R.S, but this is exhausting. I am writing a single sentence, and then he keeps reverting me, and i must write again and again in ANI, in NAC in Talk pages just to have obstacles in my road in Wikipedia. I can't contribute like this. I am de facto banned. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Can you provide evidence that the book was "first published from M.I.T in 1970"? Because as I see it, it was first published in 1961, not by MIT. Also, I do see some whataboutism in your respond, (ie heavy metal bands) but wont comment any further on that. It is worth mentioning that you disregard Thomas book of 1966, while you consider a book of 1961 is unquestionably RS. And an advice: jumping into controversial topics and in the same time disrespecting BRD, your road wont be too long in en.WP. Respect BRD and everything will sort out. Cinadon36 21:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * It is more than enough that it was published from MIT (first time in Engish as i wrote here).Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Had you engaged in Discussion, all this would be avoided. You just mentioned "Haymarket publications 2008" as ref and that 's why I reverted.  Cinadon36 21:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Look folks I'm just trying to help. But again, I'd suggest this is a content dispute and would be best resolved by consulting some third parties regarding the reliability of the source. Cinadon36 thinks it's too old and is suspicious of anything published by Haymarket. Αντικαθεστωτικός thinks the book is a reliable history that helps dispel what they characterize as a conspiracy theory. This is a straightforward content dispute. Stop sniping at each other and go sort out what the consensus is on the source. (For my part I think it looks well reviewed and the fact it keeps getting reprinted speaks in its favor.) Simonm223 (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Simonm223 many thanks. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Heymarket books are RS beyond any doubt; cf. my comment recently posted @ Talk:Buenaventura Durruti. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing IP vandalism at Skid Row (Irish band)
User:<IP_ADDRESS> and User:<IP_ADDRESS>, who are either the same person or close friends, continue to add a patently false fact at Skid Row (Irish band), i.e. that this little-known band that broke up in the mid-1970s has re-formed with a different line-up in 2019: The page was protected for one month on 25 May. Pending changes were configured for one month on 15 August. User:<IP_ADDRESS> was blocked three times, on 11 May, 11 August and 18 August, after being specifically warned about the Skid Row article on 4 August. User:<IP_ADDRESS> also has three blocks, the most recent on 10 June 2019.
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 10 May 2019
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 10 May
 * <IP_ADDRESS> again on 10 May
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 25 May
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 4 August
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 10 August
 * again on 13 August
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 12 September
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 26 September.

Both IPs edited Draft:Skid Row 2019 Tour, which had this long-forgotten band playing all the most prestigious venues in Ireland and Britain, supported by Van Morrison, from May 2019, none of which, amazingly, was reported in the media. After I linked to this page at RFPP on 15 August, it was deleted at the request of the creator!

I have no idea why they are doing this. I have not asked them on their talk pages because it is clear that neither of them ever responds to anything on their talk page (I am, of course, notifying them both of this discussion).

I am asking that both editors be blocked indefinitely, since is clear that they are going to continue their disruptive editing no matter what else is done. Scolaire (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked both IPs and semi-protected the article, both for a period of 6 months. The IPs have a number of recent edits that have not yet been reverted, but which are also unsourced and possible hoaxes in this same style, please help revert where needed. ST47 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have G7'ed a few of their drafts. I, too, had suspicions that they were the same person based on the Geolocate data, and based my speedy deletion tagging on that. Why they're blanking their own drafts I have no idea. Jalen Folf   (talk)  20:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They deleted their Skid Row 2019 Tour draft because it was a daft draft. They thought nobody could see it, but once I linked to it at RFPP, admins could see how daft it was, so they took it down. Thank you for your prompt action.  Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kemalava seems to be WP:NOTHERE
has been creating the same articles for several months, and they're deleted under A7 every time. Seems like they're only here for promotion. For example:

 * Special:Diff/918472564
 * Special:Diff/892766574
 * Special:Diff/886836466
 * Special:Diff/883357253
 * Special:Diff/918472564
 * Special:Diff/892766574
 * Special:Diff/886836466
 * Special:Diff/883357253

Basically all of their edits are to promote one of those two people. - Frood (talk!) 21:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is more like WP:CIR, but in any case they need to be blocked, and I am tempted, looking at their talk page, to make the block indefinite.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They've also been editing while logged out as well, as Draft:Marco Fortuny also exists. Jalen Folf   (talk)  21:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also adding WP:SOCK to this thread because edited exclusively to the draft.  Jalen Folf   (talk)  21:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ngoc Cens seem to be WP:NOTHERE
Special:Contributions/Ngoc_Cens. Their contributions seem to be entirely trying to use article space to argue about the subject; they've been contacted repeatedly on talk, and their responses seem to make it pretty clear they're not going to change. See eg here for an example. Their most recent edits might require some explanation - they're essentially editing an article about a conspiracy theory to say that it's true (and run by the UN, I think? It's hard to say because they also have WP:COMPETENCE issues.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Not entirely in article space: occasionally they've posted ranty messages on talk pages, too . --JBL (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * These might be too stale for a checkuser, but I suspect that this user has been doing the same thing under one or more IP addresses:
 * An Illinois-based IP address got reverted at 11:35 on 5-14, Ngoc Cens was created 10 minutes later, and then made this edit at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
 * Another (now blocked) Illinois IP address also made very similar edits at Angry White Male: compare (IP vs. Ngoc Cens)
 * Regardless of whether this is an IP hopping vandal, I don't see any indication that this editor has tried to learn the rules of Wikipedia or engage in a constructive dialogue, and edits like this don't point toward someone who wants to build an encyclopedia. Nblund talk 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * That replacement conspiracy seals the deal. The rest of the edits fall in line with them. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Recurrent deletions and problematic edits of VFS Global

Hello. I am still a novice when it comes to submitting this type of Incident report, so my apologies in advance if I make a mistake or if my post lacks proper formatting. Although I understand both the importance and necessity to assume that all edits are conducted in WP:GF, there does seem to be a prolonged and concerted effort from multiple IP addresses to erase all criticism from the VFS Global article and to transform the article into a favorable advertisement for the company. There are recurrent deletions of sourced content. These deletions have been occurring for at least a year and date back to 2016 and earlier. Even negative comments from the article's Talk Page have been targeted for deletion.

A sample of the contribution histories of various anonymous editors:

 * Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:65B:B2D2:5F16:9259:E41C:58DD
 * Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>
 * Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>
 * Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:601:E027:2C60:4B57:E23C:918D
 * Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:66D:AC5B:9E3D:1496:478B:7F0D
 * Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>

In addition to these anonymous edits, there appears to be a constellation of editors who registered Wikipedia accounts in order to blunt criticism of the company and to blank sections with flimsy rationales or even no rationales whatsoever. For example, please glance at the user histories of Gckarot83, Georcher, Icelander07, Pjiterwal and others who created accounts solely to edit the VFS Global page and to expunge or to mute criticism. (I should also mention the VFS Global article was previously tagged with a WP:COI template due to the connection of certain editors with VFS Global.) Please Note: I am not requesting these users be blocked, I am merely drawing administrative attention to the pattern of their edits.

Given that this concerted effort to expunge criticism has been sustained for over several years, it seems likely that these issues will persist in the very near future. In fact, the last mass deletion was September 28th. -- Flask (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of these problems might be handled by semiprotecting the article for a long time. As you have noticed, there is also some bad editing from registered accounts. User:Flask has already notified the four named editors that they're being discussed here:, , , and . EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Regarding semiprotecting the article, I assume one submits a request via the Requests for page protection board to do so? (I had considered doing this previously, but I was uncertain if I should do so without first soliciting administrative attention and guidance about the overall problem.) -- Flask (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected the article for one year. This leaves the four named accounts free to edit, but you can let us know if problems continue from those accounts. As to how to request admin help, you can always go to WP:RFPP if you can clearly describe the pattern of edits that you believe are violating policy. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Flask (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition of potentially false information by a user
Hi. Recently I have been receiving reports by users on Turkish and Persian Wikipedia that User:Physo172 has created articles on English Wiki with false attribution to a number of history books, the PDF of which are available on the Internet. I want this issue to be investigated by the administrators because we don’t want to end up having fictional articles about historical figures that did not exist. Thank you. Keivan.f Talk 16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked Binnaz Kadın, Mihrişah Kadin, and Tiryal Hanım, and while they have inline citation issues, non-Wikipedia / non-mirror site WP:RS verify they were real people with the backgrounds indicated in the leads of the articles. I did not check further into the biographical details beyond proof of mere existence and I make no conclusion as to their suitability under WP:N. If there are specific articles you can point to as examples of articles on non-existent people created in mainspace by the editor it might help. Also, please notify the user on their Talk page that there is an ANI discussion about them. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC); edited 16:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Sehzade Osman. I'm not an expert in sfn citations, but they appear to be garbage as there is no publication for any of them. In addition, I couldn't tell in a Google search whether Osman was an Ottoman prince because so many of the "sources" seemed unusual. Even assuming there was an an Ottoman prince named Osman, the article, as crafted, is a misery to read. The English is awful, both poor and blatantly unencyclopedic, and the claims of what he did are promotional and lack credibility. Yet, I know of no easy way to disprove them. Some of the other articles created by this user suffer from the same defects, e.g., Atike Sultan (daughter of Mahmud II). Even assuming the article are not hoaxes, I don't see the user as a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, the articles I've seen are in very rough English, the one you cited particularly so. The book that's used to reference the entire article seems to actually be called The Ottoman Lady, not The Ottoman Man . That said, I can't see any evidence these are WP:HOAXes or the result of much more than an overly enthusiastic, young editor (though I stand ready to be corrected). Perhaps this would warrant a discussion leading to a community restriction to submitting articles via AfC for the time being? Chetsford (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't easily read The Ottoman Lady, but the blurb indicates it's about Ottoman women, and, according to the user, this was an Ottoman prince. I find the claims in that article, particularly the section on sexuality, to be incredible, and I believe the user is obsessed with homosexuality to the point of clear vandalism. In any event, I've blocked the user as a sockmaster. If you want to get more insight into his behavior, look at his two socks and the two deleted articles they created that were deleted as hoaxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Chetsford (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking over some of these, the problem is not that there is something weird about sfns, it's that an sfn is supposed to be associated with a fuller citation. In the cases I spot checked, either the authors don't seem to be people who exist, or the citations are so vague it's impossible to know what's being referred to. For instance, WorldCat lists 3400 publications, including over 500 books, written by a "Pierce" in 2009. However, zero of those are about the Ottoman Empire or any sultans. Further, the digital previews of The Ottoman Lady on google books and Amazon list no mention of Sehzade Osman. I suppose it's possible that just as the text is some botched translation, that perhaps the citations themselves are horridly translated. But even in the most generous of outlooks, the content contributed by Physo is utterly unverifiable and the citations useless. I think it would be appropriate to simply delete it all. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "I think it would be appropriate to simply delete it all." I would endorse this. Chetsford (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are in doubt about the credibility of these articles, why should we keep them? They all need to be deleted in my opinion, especially since they provide wrong information about historical figures. Cases like this can badly damage Wikipedia's reputation. Keivan.f  Talk 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Another rangeblock for Latin trap fan in Florida
Two weeks ago, rangeblocked 2601:582:C100:5EF:0:0:0:0/64 because of "extensive edit warring, disruption, unverified edits, socking and hopping." This person has made a few good edits on Latin song articles, for instance creating the "Adicto" song article from a redirect, but far too many of the other edits are unreferenced and unverifiable stuff about the Latin trap genre. This person has their own ideas about the genre, and inserts their own analysis.

Recent disruption has occurred in the range 2601:582:C100:3DC0:0:0:0:0/64, especially with copyright violations at Rosalía (singer). Today's disruption is from the range 2601:582:C180:39A0:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get at least one more rangeblock on the person? Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes ma'am. It really doesn't stop. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive and aggressive behavior from and

This issue is about the interaction with 2 users, and, over the span of 2 days (29th to 30th September 2019). They both regularly contribute to similar entries. I am currently facing a disagreement and 2 nearly simultaneous edit war warnings from these 2 editors. This started yesterday (29th September) when, after stopping contributing for 1 year, I came back to update intermittent fasting according to the latest high quality scientific evidence. At first, I tried to add a RCT study, but as it was considered a primary source by Zefr (which is not per se unacceptable per WP:MEDRS), I subsequently only worked with systematic reviews. I try to always assume good faith and simple misunderstanding to explain conflicts, and I strive to find a common ground.

Here is my experience with these two editors:

 * Adding content failing verification or with weak sources according to WP:MEDRS. When I tried to fix these issues, they were reverted (thus reinstated) altogether. Zefr admitted he chose to retain such a weak source but agreed if we removed it. Alexbrn not only admitted the same but also tried to push it despite disagreement and reverts by multiple editors (see below).
 * Opinionated incoherent reverts:
 * - Alexbrn reverts sentences backed by systematic review sources (the highest grade in WP:MEDRS, but push forward to qualify the entry in fad diet, using either no source or outdated opinion papers and non-scientific sources such as the Medical Daily. He did so twice on an edit that was already disputed and forcefully pushed by another editor and in a similar sense to which Alexbrn tried to push since 2017 despite the multiple revert by different authors. He is also reverting other contributors who made perfectly valable contributions according to WP:MEDRS and who later complained about the apparent impossibility to contribute to the article. Alexbrn already got called up on using non-scientific sources on other entries. In our instance, this is being currently clarified by a question on the project (on an idea by Alexbrn), but the fact remains that this should not have been pushed until clarified: I had to ask the question on the WikiProject after the fact, when he should have since the first revert by another user, as he was the one trying to insert disputed content. Alexbrn's reasoning is that it's not a medical information, so that it does not need to follow WP:MEDRS. However, he removed aliases, sourced by the NHS and the systematic reviews, which is incoherent with the reasoning he argued. Furthermore, Alexbrn removed altogether a section about religious fasting, despite some strong sources (including systematic reviews) linking religious fasting with intermittent fasting, which was the result of several months of collective work by various editors, for a dubious reason.
 * - Zefr never reverted Alexbrn's dubious sources (nor his own), and also pushed a general public article about a RCT study (whereas he refuses RCT studies as valid sources). Zefr reverts without even reading the source, providing a nonsensical comment of «speculation and synthesis, WP:SYNTH; unencyclopedic» when literally everything written in the sentence can be found in the linked source, which is BTW a systematic review on about a thousand human subjects, almost the highest grade per WP:MEDRS. Another example where Zefr removed a valid source (narrative review, it's written "REVIEW" in the first paragraph). After trying to discuss with Zefr about what I thought was an honest mistake, he did not reply and instead a few hours later reverted again and issued me an edit war warning (see below).

 * Accusations and not assuming good-faith: To justify his reverts, Alexbrn accused me of POV-pushing and later of cherry-picking.
 * Wikihounding (harassment): I also updated another article for which I contributed a lot one year ago and got an award for it (in the sense that I am familliar with this entry): NAFLD. The day just after my contributions on intermittent fasting, Zefr followed me on NAFLD to revert me. He did not contribute there since a year. I asked him to stop (and gave more details), and he "noted my rant", then proceeded to delete the section promptly from his talk page.
 * Abuse of edit war warnings (harassment): Both of them are now ganging up and issued me 2 nearly simultaneous edit war warnings for edits where they are involved. These feels hardly justified:
 * - 1st warning (Zefr): it is true I reverted ONCE Zefr removal of a perfectly acceptable source after inviting him for several hours to discuss (which he did not do but continued to work elsewhere instead and issued an edit war warning once I finally reverted what I thought was an honest mistake from him). He thus did not follow BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle which he invokes in his warning. Note also that although Zefr issued me an edit war warning, he did not to Alexbrn who reinstated his dubious source backed content (as described in a previous point) pushed at around the same time.
 * - 2nd warning (Alexbrn): No explanation yet, and the timing seems quite strange (only a few minutes after Zefr's, during which time I did not contribute to this entry). Of note, Alexbrn has been issued a recent edit war warning elsewhere.

 * Refusal of discussion: Zefr pretty much avoided most of the discussion, whereas Alexbrn replied but never directly to the questions pertaining to the justification of his editorial decisions. I proposed multiple solutions, including adhering strictly to WP:MEDRS by keeping only the scientific works of highest grade (reviews and foremost systematic reviews), to which they never replied (and even reverted edits backed by systematic reviews while providing nonsensical reasons).

=> TL;DR: after only 2 days of collaboration with them, I get insults (Alexbrn) and avoidances from discussion, reverts of perfectly legitimate and valid edits with sources of the highest scientific grade according to WP:MEDRS, edit pushing of weakly sourced arguments, wikihounded on other articles (Zefr) and 2 nearly simultaneous and unjustified edit war warnings from each to attempt to block my account. Zefr is not even reading the sources before reverting. Alexbrn reverts perfectly legitimate and sourced bodies of work.

Can Zefr delete properly sourced content without proper justification according to the editorial rules, and then, without discussion, issue me a warning if I disagree (strangely after I ask him to stop wikihounding me)? Can Alexbrn delete properly sourced content with dubious reasons, insult me and issue me a warning for no explicit reason when he was the one trying to push weakly sourced content?

I find their behavior to be utterly anti-collaborative and disruptive to the construction of the article (I added most of the sources and content since its creation! It shouldn't be like that! I should not be the only one to construct, with these users trying to block me at every step I take, it's not a collaborative mindset).

I won't ask for a particular sanction other than reminder of the rules and cancelling of their 2 abusive warnings on me, but I would like to remind that they went as far as trying to make a user blocked for simply contributing according to the rules and highest quality standards.

Thank you for reading. I will refrain from replying as most infos on this issue should be contained above unless administrators ask me for clarifications. --Signimu (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Last update: --Signimu (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Update: another editor (that I do not know, histories can be checked) has been reinstating most of the removed content that I disputed aboved, with agreement from Zefr. BTW, Zefr still did not read the source and misrepresented its content (the study shows systematic energetic errors, what Zefr has written is nonsense!). I am still open to a peaceful resolution (as I always was), if you agree to apologize, remove the 2 abusive warnings and agree to work together (and I am NOT asking that you agree with me, simply that you reply to my requests for discussion!). --Signimu (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MWOT here and on Talk:Intermittent fasting. Ignoring a talk page request to first post, discuss, and obtain consensus from other editors, Signimu added substantial, disputable text - including primary and otherwise questionable sources that were edited out - then engaged in repeated edit warring with no consensus reached on talk. The Intermittent fasting article is actively and appropriately edited and discussed. How does one respond to a verbose warring editor? Enough said here. --Zefr (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 * This is largely a content dispute but arriving at an article, proclaiming "There seems to be an anti-fasting editor out there", and then deleting criticism of that diet while adding unreliably-sourced bold health claims is not a good look if you're going to complain about behaviour. I am concerned however to see I am accused of "Adding content failing verification" - where did I do that? You have brought some good sources to the article and it is improving, slowly - but we need to avoid painting an unduly rosy picture of a diet that mainstream sources take a wary view of. (Note that this is being discussed at WT:MED - trying to "win" a content dispute here that isn't going to plan in another forum, is not an appropriate use of this noticeboard.) I am sorry for my redundant edit-war warning, I didn't realise you'd already had one! Alexbrn (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to both since I am accused:
 * * : That's simply not true. Following first revert by Alexbrn, I stopped and initiated the talk page discussion. You later asked to first post on talk page (which I already done) before any edit, the latter being obviously abusive contradicting WP:BOLD, and in any case my subsequent edits were totally different and using much stronger sources. Coincidentally, you are now using WP:MWOT (an essay), same as Alexbrn used to avoid replying to editorial questions. My answers are extensive not for fun but to give the sources and citations, to discuss on precise points rather than "you say this, I say this". Please link to the "primary and otherwise questionable sources", apart from 1st edit which I never reinstated following the first revert, I never subsequently added any primary source, whereas it did not bother you to use news article founded on primary sources, contradicting your own statement just 30 min before and that you repeat here. Note that you consistently accept weak sourced content when it's negatively biased, when you don't simply misrepresent what a source says (the source says nothing about the efficiency of diets, it's only about whether any intervention, be it diet or overeating, can produce weight change, so called "energetic errors" --> you change it into "the diet cannot work"). These changes you did today are intriguing: if the info you write is not in the sources, where is it coming from? May also I remind you that a consensus of 2 vs 1 is not sufficient to be qualified as a consensus, and furthermore not to justify the rejection of systematic reviews (almost highest quality WP:MEDRS source), else it would mean that consensus can choose lower quality sources over higher quality sources. Consensus is about discussing, which you did not.
 * * I agree this should only be a content dispute (although you systematically refused justifying your editorial decisions so I had no way to dispute nor agree with them!), but this request is due to your behaviors: insults (and not assuming good faith), wikihounding, issuing abusive warnings. I am NOT trying to win content (remember I only asked for stronger sources, which you guys seemingly require only when it's in the "positive" direction, whereas I added content in both directions), but your actions is preventing me from participating on the page, risking a block, and you guys are even following me on other entries now (so that I get a third warning?). If you are sorry for your edit war warning, please remove it to prove your good faith.
 * May I remind you both that up to the very end, I tried to find a common ground by discussion, which you did not respond but instead issued me 2 warnings. That's simply not how collaborative editing works. My peaceful resolution proposition above still stands (although none of you acknowledged it). --Signimu (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I explicitly wrote that good faith was not at issue though now I am beginning to have a few doubts about that. I note you have not answered my request for evidence to justify your claim that I was adding material to the article that failed verification. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is how Alexbrn responds to my peaceful resolution propositions: by WP:Wikilawyering. Everything is described above and on the talk page (hint: the harvard source not claiming what was written, and the 2013 opinion paper not being great either - but I now found better source for your claim FYI, what you should have done). Great method to not read what I write, then ask me to repeat, to then accuse me of WP:MWOT. --Signimu (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think at this point I'll bow out of this filing. Others with the requisite wiki-endurance can try and piece together what is going on. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) I haven't looked into it in depth, but I'm confused why this is at ANI. It seems to mostly be a content dispute. I'm not saying behaviour from either side was ideal, but it doesn't seem like it's enough to justify administrative attention. I see plenty of discussion on the article talk page including from people not named here. As always, if you cannot resolve a content dispute, please use some form of WP:Dispute resolution (which is never one of the ANs). In fact, I see one editor already suggested you take something to WT:MED. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A few comments on specific issues: We do not cancel warnings. If a warning is unjustified, then you can just ignore it. And justified or not, you could just remove the warning yourself per WP:OWNTALK although I wouldn't recommend it. (Among other things, if you remove it then someone else may give you a warning in the future.) Two warnings in quick succession seems a little unusual but from your own description it sounds like this could be an edit conflict. Remember the important thing from any warning is that you understand our policies and guidelines including our willingness to block you if you persistently or egregiously violate them. For minor errors, we're willing to tolerate some mistakes especially when you weren't aware of our policies and guidelines. Ultimately it's your responsibility to understand our policies and guidelines and to take on board any help and advice offered and if you persist in causing problems you will be blocked for it.  If you edit war, and end up in WP:AN/EW, I don't think many admins are going to let you go because you had been warned but that warning was unjustified, no matter how true that statement. (To be clear, I'm not commenting on whether any of your behaviour is blockable or even wrong. Simply pointing out you should concentrate on the information of the warning and not your, justified or not, annoyance at receiving one.)  We are all volunteers here, editors have their own lives and can choose how they want to contribute provided they don't violate our policies or guidelines. Unless it's something extremely urgent, "inviting him for several hours to discuss" is a bit meaningless even if the editor is editing related things. WP:Silence is a thing, but a few hours is generally way too short to assume no one is going to respond.  Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Targetted Edit Reversion and pushing of POV by Aman.kumar.goel

Hello,

I have recently become aware of a user specifically targeting me to revert my edits as they do not conform to said user's POV. The user in question is

If you take a look at their contributions page, you will see how all of their recent edits have been reverting my own. This user seems to also has a history of pushing POV in articles centric to their personal interests and background. Unfortunately, it is almost as if they have been allowed to do so as they have been at large since December last year according to their registration date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aman.kumar.goel

Here are some diffs for evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjab_Province_(British_India)&diff=prev&oldid=918861811

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro-Asians_in_South_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=918860755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest_mountains_on_Earth&diff=prev&oldid=918860032

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=prev&oldid=918858792

Comparison of both our contributions pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aman.kumar.goel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>
 * Responded

== hi there ==

Nice to meet you.

It has become apparent you are targetting me by reverting or challenging my edits specifically, oft without proper standing. It would be helpful if you could avoid doing so.

Thanks

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually once reverted one of your edits (Regional power where talk had concluded Pakistan as rather a sub-regional power) and coincidently opened your contributions where I witnessed a series of disruptive edits with no reasons or actual summaries rather complete PoV pushing. As those articles pertain to the topics I'm interested in, I exercised my rights to revert the ones I don't agree with a summary. I hereby, reject all your accusations of targeting "you" specifically and maintain my nature of surveillance of article. I rather propose WP:DR to reach consensus for those edits and not the accusing me of attacking you to keep those edits alive. Mine & those talk pages are open. I had proper standing in what I reverted instead those edits didn't have any ground. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The filing IP, has never posted to an article talk page so is possibly not familiar with how disputes get resolved on Wikipedia. See WP:Dispute resolution and try to follow the steps outlined there. Since there is no attempt so far to negotiate, this complaint should be closed without admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki harassment

A WP:LTA multi-IP handler in :es:wiki in es:wiki just like yesterday is moving here to en:wiki to reengage into the same harassment pattern. WP:NOTTHERE. Some gross verbal abuse too ("son of a whore" yadda-yadda). See analogous incident above these lines reported yesterday at 14:25, 2 October 2019.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Wisest Expert and their obsession with age 19
This appears to be an account whose sole purpose is disruption/trolling via subtle vandalism. (Even their username is trollish.) Namely, they have a bizarre singular focus on naming "19" as the legal age for various things, with no valid basis.

At Voting age, they changed three countries' ages from 18 to 19, with no source given.

At Age of consent, they changed "most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18" to "14 to 19". I reverted them, and they reverted back appealing to the color coded map on that page. I pointed out that only Indonesia sets it at 19, and they latched on to that in their next edit, leaving "14 to 18" and adding "(19 in Indonesia)". They then reverted two more times to that phrasing. They thus violated WP:3RR in their attempts to get "19" specifically mentioned in the article. (And they had already been warned about edit warring and invited to discuss on the talk page, which they ignored. )

At List of countries by minimum driving age, they changed Canada from "16 in most provinces" and "14, with parental supervision, in Alberta" to "14, with parental supervision, in Alberta", "16 in most provinces (with parental consent)", and "19 (without parental consent)", again with no source given.

That's all of their editing in the 1 day or so the account has existed. I am reporting here because it seems to require too much explanation for AIV, and the problem goes beyond edit warring, so AN3 isn't enough. When looking at their behavior as a whole, it seems to me like trolling and a case of WP:NOTHERE. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indef'd the user for the repeated addition and modification of content without references.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -Crossroads- (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Block evading Joseph kargbo IP
Block evading IP is making the usual edits seen from this long term abuser here and here.  Rob van  vee  14:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Thank you for finding this.  In the future, the best place to report socks of Joseph kargbo is WP:AIV.  Other noticeboards tend to be backlogged and take too long to act on obvious cases like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks NRP!  Rob van  vee  15:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki harassment

A WP:LTA multi-IP handler in :es:wiki who just received the daily sweet block in es:wiki is just keeping a harassment pattern here in :en:wiki WP:NOTTHERE.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by Ca2james
I am new to this so I apologize in advance as to this process, but a friend recommended I come here because I am confused about a recent number of edits on pages I have started, but really it is about a repeated pattern of behavior of a fellow editor. So here goes. I started two different pages recently and because the subjects are not very well known, I was confused by the fact that one editor,, somewhat aggressively deleted content on both pages here and here. Beyond the deletions, which I can wrap my head around, it was the fact that it seemed strange that this editor seemed to be following the contributions I had made on two very disparate subjects. On the page where there were the most deletions, the Talk page discussion has displayed concerning behavior where there seems to be a lack of regard and a definite lack of willingness to be constructive and help me. Instead this editor has seemed to spend a lot of time listing policy but not focusing on helping me construct or improve the page. I am coming here because the amount of what seems to be the start of a lot of filibustering and the repeated focus on editing pages I started felt like harassment and bullying, which surprised and to be honest upset me a bit because it seemed targeted. I wanted to bring this here in case I could get some assistance. Because as a relatively new editor I am now afraid to contribute further because I am worried this editor will follow more of the pages I might work on and I am uncomfortable now. I am grateful to any editors who help improve anything I have added, but this behavior seemed unusual. I don't know if this is a pattern of behavior and don't know enough about this process to have the skills to figure that out, so thought I would come here where hopefully you experts might have an ability to evaluate this. Again, I would really like to continue editing but have stopped for now. Thank you for your kind assistance with this matter. 1940CStreet 14:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * is that you? In one article I made changes to remove an UNDUE unsourced list of unsourced very minor roles, the statement that they were guest starting roles (they were not), the statement that was unsupported by the source that she graduated cum laude, along with . I did revert once and immediately opened a Talk page discussion justifying my changes; in my second message I suggested 3O, only to be taken here, which seems a little over the top.
 * In the other article I removed paranthetical COATRACK remarks naming other people unrelated to the article. This is a content dispute that shouldn't be here.
 * But comparing and  (who is globally banned) I do see some similarities.. edit summaries like "nits" and "smoothing" are common to both, as are many many many small changes to an article, as is the addition of lists of unsourced minor items, as are the reference naming formula, as is removing "accessdate" parameters from references (and not using that parameter ever), as is the overreaction when faced with changes.  It looks like 1940CStreet started editing about 3 months after BrillLyle was globally banned, which would be enough time to evade checkuser data. Ca2james (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this response illustrates and illuminates my concerns here. I feel personally targeted and unsafe even moreso. I am not talking about the deletions, as I understand that this is not the place for that. This editor seems to not be able to focus on the issue I describe here. Or answer the question as to why they followed me from one page to another. 1940CStreet (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For Ca2james to check out your contributions is not harassment, nor are you being "personally targeted", 1940CStreet. It's common, both for admins and other experienced users such as Ca2james, to look at a user's total contributions if they are concerned about the quality of some edits by the user that they have come across. Wikipedia provides a link to a user's contributions for a reason. I don't know whether you're a sock or a genuinely new user, but I don't see anything wrong with the actions Ca2james has taken in relation to your edits. Ca2james, please take your socking concerns to SPI if you feel you have sufficient behavioral evidence. (If you haven't, you shouldn't be making sock accusations at all.) It can be evaluated even if it can't be CU'd. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC).

Suspected use of <IP_ADDRESS> by banned user
Disclaimer in advance, some of my methods may be unorthodox as I am not familiar with all policies in this area, but I wanted to be confident before making a serious accusation. I have not placed this on the sock puppet investigations forum instead, because my understanding was that there is a general policy of not linking IPs through such investigations for privacy reasons. Note however, that this IP appears to be an open proxy see spam alert so that might not be a concern in this case.

It's rare that there is a need to thoroughly investigate large content removal by random new users, but something like this does require a bit of extra scrutiny to see if the change was bad. Among other things, a closer look revealed a passing similarity to this and a few others. Not by itself a red flag as IPs and new users routinely mimic edit summaries that they have seen earlier. But a review of editing history between the two Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS> and Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS> revealed a broad overlap in interests relating to Hong Kong Way or just Hong Kong topics in general as well as Celtic topics. This was still hardly clear and convincing evidence, so I cautioned about misleading edit summaries, and moved on to other problematic edits elsewhere.

Somewhat later while following a recent changes patroller's history to see what right looks like, I saw a rollback, which had been sneakily reverted sometime later. First appeared to be just a novice editor making the common mistake of inserting redundant material which gentle guidance often fixes, but when that was itself reverted without explanation a closer review was necessary.

I quickly recognized the edit history. Yet despite some bad new edits there were some constructive ones as well. Could be the work of a banned user, but far from vandalism only, and possibly a net positive to the encyclopedia.

Since the user did not seem the type who liked to engage civilly on the user talk page. I opted for the indirect method by pushing back a little on edits were there was room for discussion, that is to say not obviously unconstructive nor a clear improvement, to see what kind of engagement occurred. After this was initially unsuccessful at yielding anything but unexplained reverts, I applied a little pressure by employing the users own words against the user in an edit summary. The idea being that good-faith editors usually at least try to follow their own rules whereas bad faith editors tend to game the system.

When the response was these, , not only was I convinced of general bad faith, but the similarities to the banned edits , , , more or less provided sufficient evidence for the link to be all but certain.

I'm under no illusion that any kind of ban will slow down this user for more than a moment, given the facility with which the user has employed numerous open proxies in the past, and let's face it, a script kid could hijack as many IOT devices as they wanted to disrupt Wikipedia from IPs around the world if that's their lark.

Nevertheless, the correct procedure for this situation seemed to be to report suspected socking to a noticeboard.

Possibly this was not entirely correct so I take full responsibility for any/all of my actions and I'm ready to accept the consequences of such.

<IP_ADDRESS> has been notified but given current inactivity the user may or may not show up.

Also, I may disappear at any moment as this is a dynamic IP so cross your fingers on any pingbacks, best. 2601:5CC:8301:FD00:501E:F2B5:AF3A:C27F (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked as an open proxy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)