Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013

---

After just slightly more than 1 day of release from the user's block, 174.18.78.210 is attacking other editors again. The user was originally blocked for long-term abuse. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nate Speed. The user is editing in violation of their site ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=790555410#Site_ban_for_Nate_Speed. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's already taken care of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Could someone please rollback all edits from Cody2019? He’s a block evading sock of CodyFinke2019. I’m without usual computer for a bit. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

---

A "new", but surprisingly experienced editor DoctorAldebaran (talk · contribs) has joined Wikipedia apparently for the purpose of pointing out that antisemitism (or so-called "antisemitism" as DoctorAldebaran styles it), is not real, but merely "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby". As such he has been making edits that, in his view, help balance material that is " too pro-Jewish lobby" and that "favour a Jewish POV over an ethnic Catholic POV", and, in general, to clearly identify people and groups as "Jewish". DoctorAldebaran lays out some of his/her philosophy in this post. I submit that DoctorAldebaran's views and editing might be better suited to Metapedia than to Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Aaaand they've been CU-blocked by Bbb23. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 14:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as a sockpuppet of Ishbiliyya (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) - That makes Ishbiliyya's creation of certain categories (and their on-going deletion discussion more understandable. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Could Geraldo Perez and myself get some sysop help at this article, need the page semi-protected and the proxy IPs blocked. LTA is disrupting the page. Home Lander (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Only two IPs, not sure if semi-protection is needed at the moment. Bigger question to me, are those IPs on webhost ranges? 162.220.51.129 (talk · contribs) and 82.223.108.106 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, indicates they are both proxies. Home Lander (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the range for being web proxies and colocation hosts. Sasquatch t|c 03:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi. This is logged at WP:RFPP, but his article is going crazy at the moment with BLP violations, following some Indian cricket fans being unhappy with a decision he made today at the 2019 Cricket World Cup. I'd be grateful if someone could protect the page. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously admins, pull your fingers out. We non-admins haven't got enough fingers to plug the dyke. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Big thanks to @Malcolmxl5: for adding the padlock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Update from Doc James and decide whether further participation of The Rambling Man is beneficial for the discussion. To me, it clearly looks like harassment, but I am involved and possibly biased.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that anyone who criticises a board member is harrasing them. We might as well shut down the website now.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not what I am saying. I actually critisize a board member myself in a different thread at the same page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If telling Doc Jones that he isn't in charge of what constitutes being "under a cloud" constitutes "harassment", little wonder the project is in such trouble. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

:: Well, you replied to his every single post in this thread, all of your replies are extremely negative, and most are not to the point. This is harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC) ec with the closer (i) and with TRM (ii)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Time for you to leave it now, per above. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, IMO The Rambling Man is right. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• What I see in that thread is normal behavior from The Rambling Man. Not sure there's going to be a consensus to do anything, given there seldom is. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, normal focus on getting the discussion back on track and ensuring that some users don't believe they govern the community. Common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• ^^^ This is an example of why people email Trust and Safety or just leave Wikipedia altogether instead of trying to deal with incivility on wiki. This is the second ANI thread about TRM’s Framban-related participation to be promptly closed. TRM’s comments to Doc James, and his earlier comments to BU Rob, were out of line. They were not ok, and when editors brought it up here for discussion, the threads should not have been closed right away. It is arrogant to shut down a discussion within hours, presuming that you can make a decision without even giving your colleagues an opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter, as if your opinion is the only one that counts, as if you don’t need consensus to close a thread. – Levivich 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Levivich, You raise a good point. Tempers are short and nerves are frayed, and that can lead to a participant saying something or they wouldn't normally say. What's the best response? Some might counsel that responding early — nipping it in the bud — is the best way to cool things down. Others might feel it's best to allow someone to vent a little steam, don't take the remark too seriously, try to understand the motivation behind it rather than the literal words, and move on. I fear that the right answer isn't either one of those choices, or rather, I should say, the right answer depends upon the specific situation, the specific and individual making the comment, and (sadly) the individual making the response. This makes it difficult to identify a formulaic response to increased tensions.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• We can continue the discussion here, and I think it is important that we do because The Rambling Man's tone in the discussion linked was hostile, and there is concern about "hostile", "toxic", and non-community spirited ("monolith misnomer") behaviour on Wikipedia. People may (and do) have differences of opinion regarding what is uncivil, what constitutes harassment, what makes people feel unwelcome; and people may look at that exchange and have different views as to how appropriate or helpful TRM's tone was. But until we are prepared to openly discuss such behaviour to see how many people find it OK, and how many feel that they'd rather TRM tone it down; and to seek agreement on what is and what is not acceptable, then we stand little chance of resolving concerns that our community is toxic.

Do I feel that what TRM said in that exchange was sanctionable? No. Do I feel that his tone was hostile, and in the circumstances inappropriate and unhelpful? Yes. In the space of 30 minutes he made something like eight terse negative comments directed at Doc James such as: "Don't you dare come back with some boiler plate bullshit. You've already had three weeks to come up with something. Pathetic." "I'm sure Doc James' contributions have been historically marvellous, but if he remains a member of our community, he has to accept that this situation, and the ongoing malaise, is completely unacceptable." "If you really do still think of yourself as a member of our community, then you understand 100% why another week of waiting is unacceptable, right?" "while your opinion on the matter is interesting, it's not exactly relevant." "That is complete bollocks. It's not up to Doc James to tell us whether or not those admins and 'crats who resigned did so under a cloud. It's misdirection and utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand. " "As I said, it's not up to Doc James".

That appears to me to be rather self-indulgent, as though it mattered more to TRM to vent his spleen, than to consider the cumulative effect such badgering could have on the person receiving it. Thoughtfulness and a reflective understanding of Doc James' position was missing. Such behaviour has a chilling effect, and can discourage people from speaking in case they will receive such treatment. In these already strained circumstances, being not just unappreciative of someone's effort, but downright dismissive, can lead to resignations. I can't speak for others, but I can say that resignation has been on my mind from the moment Fram's ban was announced, and it has been very close several times due to comments from Katherine Maher that I felt were dismissive and unappreciative of my efforts.

We can't pick and choose who is going to offend/upset/annoy/harass us - be it a community member or the CEO of WMF, so it's up to all of us to look to what we say and consider how it feels to be on the receiving end of such comments. Yes, these are heated times, and an outburst is somewhat understandable, but a half hour of venting, especially when several users are suggesting that such venting is not helpful, appears to me to be self-indulgent and non-productive. SilkTork (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I find a lot of good stuff in SilkTork's remarks. While I largely agree with the overall thrust of TRM's arguments, I think he goes beyond what is necessary to make his point. But this is not a normal situation. The community is extremely unhappy, and Doc James has been misused as a lightning rod. That is unfortunate, but DocJames is in a prominent and exposed position - and he seems to be robust. I think the best that can be done is a polite reminder to TRM that behind the account is a real person, with in Doc's case a quite significant life off Wikipedia, who is neither in complete control of his time nor of internal processes of the WMF board. Not everything that is less-than-perfect is a case for AN/I. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, in the very topic I linked I politely asked TRM to stop and was told to mind my own business. I was previously not involved in any way, and my only option left was to go here. Sanctions can mean anything, I am not insisting on a block or a topic-ban, but a message must be somehow sent that this behavior is not really acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork - Your timid response says it all. You appease unacceptable behavior and in appeasing it you condone it. In condoning it you directly promote and encourage others to believe in and sustain that behaviour. This is why we are where we are. You are literally afraid to take action against vested editors. It is a clear fault line and a particular group of you are willfully blind. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork is right - it's not sanctionable, but it's probably not helpful either. TRM is understandably upset, as are so many of us, but venting at Doc James isn't helping. At the risk of coming across as condescending towards an editor I respect (with massively more experience here than myself), I'd remind him of this pledge. I'd say the same to Leaky caldron - you're venting in the other direction. If TRM is harassing Doc James, how would you describe your own response to Silk Tork? Let's all just try to calm down and stop biting each other. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't the same thing. I haven't assailed anyone with 10 hostile, bludgeoning edits in 20 minutes. He is a high level functionary - I actually expect a response from him. Why is it not sanctionable? - because you don't want to invite another internal Framgate. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I've taken administrative action. Not a sanction. There is a difference between a newbie editor and "a high level functionary". The later voluntarily steps into a position of visibility (and influence) and must be prepared to handle more fall-out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz I think your administrative action was exactly what the situation called for, and very tactfully worded. More of that sort of thing all round would be a good thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Agreed S Philbrick(Talk) 11:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Leaky caldron has made a useful contribution here, as "Your timid response says it all." and "You are literally afraid to take action against vested editors." and "...you are willfully blind" are comments which step over from polite debate into something a little distasteful. Yet Leaky caldron was haranguing me because I wasn't taking a strong enough stance against such behaviour. I don't think we are always reflective enough to see when we have slipped into road rage. Leaky caldron, what for you is the essential difference between what TRM was doing to Doc James and what you have just done to me? Your answer might be helpful, as I suspect most people who are being hostile either don't think they are, or they think they are entirely justified for some reason. SilkTork (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Stephan Schulz: "with in Doc's case a quite significant life off Wikipedia" ah yes, of course, the rest of us have insignificant little lives. Of course you'll deny meaning what you said. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • You don't get that? seriously? A whole shitstorm about how those in power treat those without, you single out one of those in power as having a significant life and by implication denigrating the lives of the rest of us, and the "significant life" of that one in power being a reason not to express frustration honestly to him, and you don't get it? DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Come on DuncanHill, can we just quit with the snark and sarcasm? Doc James is an ER doctor - mentioning that he has an unusually time-consuming and important job is not the same as saying that everyone else is insignificant. There's just no need for all this negativity. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: If his job prevents him fulfilling his duties on the board in a timely manner he will, I am sure, do the honourable thing. Nobody forced him to be on the board. Nobody forced any of them. They chose. I am, I am sure many of us are, sick and tired of being patronised. Oh it's so so difficult for the board, they are all far too busy to actually respond in a timely manner! To be perfectly clear, I am not having a go at Doc as a person, he seems to be trying, unlike most of the rest of the board, and he does actually respond meaningfully, which the rest of the board could learn a lot from. But you don't take on a responsibility like being on the board without being certain you can step up when needed. A board that can't - or won't - step up needs to go. One can have enormous respect for Doc as an editor, and as a human being, and still criticise the board in strong language when it deserves it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you DuncanHill - it must always be permissible to criticise the board, and even to use strong language. I'm just saying that there's no need to read any slight of the rest of the community into Stephan's words. He was advocating that we cut Doc James some slack because of his job - you're perfectly entitled to disagree with that position, but you surely can do that without equating Stephan's words to an insult to the community? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

We all have pressures and stresses and responsibilities off-wiki. Some of us put them on our user pages, some of us don't. All of us have significant lives. Stephan shouldn't assume that some editors deserve more consideration than others because of their off-wiki lives when he cannot possibly know the position of most of us. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And indeed I think we all should be cut a reasonable amount of slack. I also think if you only allow people on the WMF board - or indeed any board - who can spend all of their time and all of their energy on just the board duty, then you will have only millionaire playpeople and and bums on the board. For most people it's normal to have competing duties and to have to balance them. This would be different for Katherine Maher - she is paid to do this kind of work full-time. I also suggest you return your mind-reader to wherever you bought it and ask for a full refund. It's very bad on determining assumptions of other people. And if you have some spare time, take a look at both WP:AGF and principle of charity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

All their time and all their energy? I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that. I talked about stepping up when needed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are seriously, seriously comparing my single, considered accurate response to you here, to that angry tirade of repeated bile & invective, well I'm lost for words. The difference is this: I considered who the target it and why a response was necessary. I considered every word. I reviewed every word. I previewed how it would look in context. I stand by it as an accurate summary of repeated failures to deal with established editors. The fact that you are dangling a threat towards me ("stepping over....into something distasteful") entirely proves my point. IIRC you took NO action, not "not strong enough action". You've left that to someone else. :) Leaky caldron (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Silk Tork did take action Leaky - they composed and posted a lengthy, considered and tactful comment here, critical of TRM's behaviour, sparking this continued discussion, which led in turn to some further action from Stephan that might actually address the problem without needing to block anyone or have a massive fight. I can't think of a more appropriate action that Silk Tork could have taken. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron your comment was not a "single, considered accurate response", it was a rude and unpleasant attack on a respected admin trying to find a way through this mess. IMHO We all need to move on from this but yourself doing the very thing you're complaining about and demanding action on, is hardly the way to achieve that. Suggest a WP:TROUT for both TRM and LC for uncivil behaviour, noting that civility and harassment are part of enwiki policy, and reclose this thread.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Amakura You're wrong, it was single and it was considered. But I'll tell you what I will happily accept. If you believe that I was rude and unpleasant and therefore actionable in any way, make sure that approach is applied equally to everyone including those heavyweight, time served editors and admins who behave reprehensibly and circle the waggons for each other. I have been here 13 years. I didn't climb the greasy Admin pole pre-2010 when you just needed to be barely alive to get the tools, I'm pleased to say. But my contributions are as valuable in the limited areas I have worked as anyone's. Silk Tork could have addressed the editor directly, head on, on his talk page rather than here. No doubt had t been me, my TP would have been flooded with formal warnings. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view, The Rambling Man needs to take off his spiderman outfit and get down off the Reichstag. He doesn't like the WMF's lack of communication with the community. I agree. He doesn't like Katherine Maher's inflammatory tweet. I agree. He didn't like the anonymous Women in Red tweet making pot-shots at Fram. I agreed. Yet somehow I managed to make all these points without making an enormous spectacle of myself in the process. TRM, you've retired because you don't like developments on the project. That's fine, but when you retire you STOP EDITING. Otherwise you just become a drama whore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

He's not retired, he is still posting at more then just his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) He's by no means alone in that. I got blocked for pointing out another editor who claimed to be retired but was posting attacks all over the place. DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There's an ex-arb & admin who has also retired in a simiar fashion. ——SerialNumber54129 11:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Richie. TRM, I like and respect you a lot, you have the best interests of the project at heart and philosophically I agree with your points of view. And few deny that the work you do to protect the main page from errors and the library of featured content produced, are invaluable. But You promised at the last ArbCom hearing to rein in the aggressive posts, so please do make an effort to follow that. We all get emotional and feel strongly about our on wiki viewpoints, but ultimately it's other humans at the end of the wire and I'm sure you wouldn't like to be shouted at either. (And on the retirement issue, other editors have also posted templates to that effect recently, while still participating... I don't think it means very much, and I'm not aware of a rule against it) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is my point, any claim of retirement is utterly irrelevant nowadays at ANI, and should never be taken in to account. What matters is actions, not words.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Second Silk Talk. All of this WMF enthusiasm for the Engineering of Human Souls (A Communist concept) towards some Americanocentric notion of pernickety courtesy is artlessly laying a charged mine-field under editors, simply on the idea that an encyclopedia with 5,870,000 articles done without this über-bureaucratic finessing of etiquette, desperately needs a new, fussily Miss Manners culture to rope in those who feel intimidated by a bit of gruffness, or socio-linguistic obtuseness to nuance. For we already do have rules to sanction consistent bad behaviour. I’ll give you another example of the idiocy to which this Americanocentric obsession with euphemisms can go if left without a tight leash.

Dear Victoria

On your recent scholarship application, members of the review committee noticed the inappropriate use of the word "chairman" . .of course, it is especially inappropriate to address a woman as "chairman" unless she has specifically requested such a limiting language. .Soon you will be entering the corporate or media sector as you begin your career. There, too, you will find there are expectations that women not be made invisible through thoughtless use of language . . there are a number of books I would be happy to recommend. Please let me know if you wish a list.' S.Scott Whitlow, University of Kentucky cited Robert Hughes, The Culture of Complaint, 1994 p.23.

It is not an intelligent move to suggest that a perceived inadequacy of one regulatory body can be fixed by creating or empowering another, esp. one that has secretive powers invisible to the accused and the 'community' at large. That is typical bureaucratic turf-grabbing, avoiding the simple approach - internal reform. What we are doing here is a digital version of the Enlightenment's Encyclopédie, and the prioritizing of legislation and star chamber council redress to those with a grievance, above any consideration of the fundamental encyclopedic aim, reliable top-quality coverage of every imaginable topic- looks like trying to adopt the social media models (they produce nothing but chat) to create a stringent behavioural model of who should be encouraged in recruitment - polite, impeccably mannered people, acutely aware of discrimination and social hurts. It is rather like suggesting that the French model would have been even better had it been placed under the jurisdiction of the Congregation of the Faithful, and have Diderot, d'Alembert et al., subject to inquisitions judging their work in terms of the criteria governing the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. For every over-sensitive person a 'cosy family environment' engineered by rigorous word-monitoring might recruit, there would probably be someone with topic competence and a short temper who will be pissed off by the impression that, before rolling up their sleeves to actually turn on the jack-hammer and work the rockface, they have to keep thinking about never letting off steam if they encounter technical inefficiencies, inexperience, the odd nervous nellie among their mates who might feel harassed by sledging or expletives.That is, even in Darwinian terms, a sure-fire recipe for not recruiting the kinds of minds, with all their varied characters, capable of producing reliable articles. There are other options. Most people are decent. TRM in context (an extraordinarily good committed wikipedian in ther unenviable position of trying as a minority of one to talk sense to a clique) was utterly inept. Other editors pulled him up by the short and curlies, which is the way to go. Politely telling in adequate numbers someone to pull their finger out is far more efficient than endless haranguing over aggrieved reports. Shame is a better sanction than tribunal justice.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just give it a break all of you. I told Doc James if he still felt part of the community he would agree this was completely unacceptable. I also told him he wasn't the one making decisions on who resigned under a cloud. That's it. Now please give up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• ANI is the right place to discuss TRM’s comments at BU Rob, Doc James, and possibly others. It is a chronic problem, and I think it’s urgent, too. I agree with much of the above, including that while TRM’s participation has been problematic, it’s not necessarily something that’s block or ban worthy. However, as can be seen from TRM’s latest post above, there is just no indication that TRM is going make any adjustments going forward in response to this feedback, so I worry, simply put, after BU Rob and Doc James, who next will be on the receiving end of a personal attack. I am also even more worried about other editors, including the admins who keep trying to close this thread, who outright enable this behavior, which is a common pattern on WP and one that should stop. “Nip it in the bud” is far better than letting it fester. (That doesn't mean bring down the ban-hammer, just state clearly what the community’s expectations are.) – Levivich 13:45, 29 June 2019

There are at least 5 Admins that I can see in that section who will simply shut this down. As I mentioned up there, circling the wagons. This is an utterly pointless venue. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If you honestly believe these posts to be harassment of such a magnitude to continually re-open the discussion, I would presume that I'll be next in line for a WMF-based secret year-long ban. Let's see how that goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing constructive is going to come of this conversation. I'd be the first person to say that The Rambling Man's mode of conduct undercuts whatever usefulness he contributes in project space, but that's neither here nor there. There are other parts of the encyclopedia to set on fire. Let it go. Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

On 12 June 2019 this article was nominated for AfD by The Banner.

A day later on June 13 the User account Verabo was created automatically. The first edit the Verabo account makes is a vote in the above mentioned AfD.

Verabo posts a huge block of text. From the start Verabo personally attacks another wikipedian and accuses the editor of sockpuppetry. Furthermore Verabo claims that the actual subject of the AfD is "unmasked". The rest is mostly filled with groundless opinion and proof by assertion. But when ending the post Verabo claims to write on behalf of multiple people and industries. Wanting to project the image that there is some sort of team operating the Verabo account.

One point of discussion was imdb. Since i am a Gold level imdb-pro contributor i thought i'd help. And after doing my own research, i posted my reply here. .

My post was followed by wall of disruptive text with the same personal attacks, tone of voice and accusations of sockpuppetry as Verabo's previous post.

Other Wikipedians started warning Verabo.

I also replied, asking Verabo to stop with the personal attacks and groundless accusations: "(...) please do not attack the person but listen to their arguments. Do not attack me." And i closed with: "We should not base research on assumptions and should be open to change our views if shown the opposite to be the case. Please do not personally attack other users again Verabo".

An hour later Verabo ignores every warning and continues with personal attacks and groundless accusations. It showed Verabo was not replying in good faith. Verabo's tone of voice becoming increasingly more hostile.

Verabo receives another warning from an editor.

At this time Verabo was harassing editors to the point that an spi case was issued against me and other editors. The result of the spi case confirms that all of Verabo's personal attacks and accusations are untrue.

Verabo is again warned about the disruptive behavior on his or her own talkpage.

It has become clear to me that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior and personal attacks.

Verabo has been warned multiple times by multiple editors to stop. Then Verabo's behavior disrupts the AfD to a point an spi issued. And when the spi results show that Verabo's accusations are untrue, Verabo continues with personal attacks and proven-to-be-false accusations of sockpuppetry.

At this point I believe that the single-purpose account Verabo account had no intention to handle in good faith and was created to attack editors with an opposing view with the purpose to disrupt the AfD.

I am requesting account Verabo to be blocked. These patterns of harassment need to stop. Thank you. SimonRichter1337 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am a very correct and decent lady and you seem to be the only one who calls it "disruptive". Everyone else calls it constructive. Everything discussed was essential for the completeness of the case. You are the one who constantly refused to discuss the content. All other editors did. Have a good day. Verabo (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

There are some IPs (presumably socks) repeatedly posting copyvios and trolling at WP:Sandbox. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

IP 108.161.169.19 at and . Ifnord (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Portbase can't seem to defend their removal of scholarly references by linguists in Kurdish languages when I ask for an explanation in the talkpage and continues to remove templates I added next to sentences that are outright lies and cherrypicked. Also, it has been a common trend for sock puppets on new accounts to start editing this article after a dozen or so edits on random pages. Delegitimation of Kurdish scholars (even though none are used has also become too common. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

lol you have reverted my edit and the source two times and you claim that the page Kurdish languageS is about a single "Kurdish language". This attempt and effort is totally ethno-pov. We should here be neutral. The article is literally called Kurdish languageS so it deals with several languages spoken by Kurds. Portbase (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

How are you neutral when you remove an article by the respected Iranica Online written on the basis of oeuvres by linguists? Nevertheless, I'm not here to discuss with you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

User 2001:D08:D9:7FEA:A5F5:E665:3A31:DC1E keeps on removing content about MH17 on any page that mentions MH17 happening, saying that it was "unrelated". Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for removing this report twice. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI I blocked the range, since he's been doing this for months at least. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

94.67.133.161 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) (OTEnet S.A., Greece) is indulging in a little vandalism (block-ready), but as it's complex and subtle, it's unlikely to be tied to just one IP, or to stop with a block.

Large paragraphs of semantically-valid boilerplate text, heavily over-linked and without valid sourcing (some inlined ELs) are being added to existing articles. They make apparent linguistic sense, except for being meaningless. Either someone with an obsession and a finely-sharpened green crayon, or else someone polishing an AI script. Keep an eye out for more. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Since reporting this IP user here, it looks like things have staled out... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• User:Palauanboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Special:Diff/904196612, Special:Diff/904201573 —PaleoNeonate – 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Block now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Iistal was previously indefinitely blocked and was unblocked with a topic ban from making any edits related to a living person (diff). Iistal has been skating around that ban for a while now, adding information on dead celebrities' marriages and information about their children, most of whom are presumably still living. Even worse, the edits, when Iistal even bothers to add a source, are cited to the IMDb (diff and restoring it) or self-published blogs (diff 1 and diff 2). Some of these edits are completely unsourced (diff and restoring it). I think it's clearly time to restore the indefinite block. I've been reverting Iistal across several articles for months now and trying to explain why these edits are problematic, so I'm too "involved" to do it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked indefinitely. Please feel free to unblock or modify the block at your discretion. This seems a perennial issue with this user.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Editing since 24 May 2019. 11 Edits with a clear pattern of vandalism, POV pushing, and defamation. Overall, the contributions of this editor appear to indicate that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Editor Nenoniel is engaging in disruptive editing on the Richard Pervo article, inserting wisecracks about the subject's surname, despite several other editors removing these jokes and leaving warnings on his Talk page. Nenoniel has also left inappropriate WP:NOTSOCIAL comments on my personal Talk page. Muzilon (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Nenoniel for 48 hours. Any administrator is free to block them for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks. Please also note the anonymous Finnish IP addresses vandalizing the Richard Pervo article, which are likely to be WP:SOCK. Muzilon (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I've put the page on my watchlist. If they resume editing and I'm not on-wiki, you should contact another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi

In 2017, some IPs have added links to websites of Al-Bayan_(radio_station) and Amaq. The websites have been blacklisted in Meta-Wiki. Since September and November 2017, we have not IP who add terrorist links to the articles. Now, should we purge the history to remove links to terrorist propaganda? I don't know if some links are still valid (it is also possible that some links who became invalid could be repaired by the terrorists).

And I am not able to check if the websites are down or not because I wouldn't like to have problems with authorities.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The one that was on Al-Bayan appears to be down . Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is a crime to merely link to terrorist propaganda. I guess this is a question for the oversighters. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

After taking a look into the details and the information reported here, I can conclude that the revisions in concern do not contain content that the oversight policy approves the use of suppression for. While the addition of URLs that contain terrorist propaganda can definitely be considered disruptive editing, be removed from the article or page in response, and actions taken against the user as a result, the visibility of those revisions can remain as-is. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I would like if an administrator could look into this. There were previously blocked sockpuppets doing similar edits at the Sukavich Rangsitpol article and talk page. I think that the other editors including myself have tried to be patient with this particular incarnation and there is an ongoing RFC. When the RFC started, I archived the messy talk page. However, the same spam gets reposted there over and over like used to happen before, even as the RFC is in progress. Similarly, contested edits at that article are restored. Although I could provide diffs, looking at Special:Contributions/Yosakrai, page history and talk page history are probably obvious enough. Previous warnings were also posted at their talk page as well as at WP:BLPN#Sukavich Rangsitpol. The possibly related SPI page but CU results were inconclusive. Considering the previous socking and IP address editing, page protection may also be needed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to what I see the consensus on the talk page is and protected it for now. Sasquatch t|c 19:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I have just upped it to extended confirmed protection to allow more experienced editors who have been working on the page to keep doing so. Sasquatch t|c 19:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Ashafir (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)
• Flixbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Suspected biased administration of the FlixBus page

User appears to be an WP:SPA with the sole purpose of adding as much "dirt" about this bus company as they can. In the previous ANI they groundlessly accused SoWhy of "biased administration". After having a couple of massive dumps of trivial incidents removed from the article for POV, RS and COPYVIO they argued interminably on the talkpage, complete with backhand insinuations that I am somehow protecting the page due to some affiliation with the company.

When I pruned their latest contribution of trivial content concerning timetable/booking disputes etc their reaction was to directly accuse me on the article talkpage, and my talkpage of having an "affiliation with Flixbus". Some assistance would be appreciated. -- Begoon 11:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is indication of "PR style" actions on the Flixbus page:

a) the Flixbus is a German company. The wiki page officially monitored by WiKi Germany. But now the Flixbus operates intensively all across Europe and in the US. The incidents published on the page was outside of Germany and than this info was deleted quickly. b) the user SoWhy initially took attention of the changes on the page is a lawyer in the region of the Flixbus HQ. c) just instantly after the comment of the user there was another anonymous user started "fixing" the page to look more positively. So there is a clear connection between the users or possible the same person act with 2 user ID. d) the whole page was 100% positive for the company service even there is a lot of controversy found.Ashafir (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, there are approx. 14,000(!) lawyers based in Munich and another circa 7,000 in the surrounding areas. But while I am one of them, I am not one working for this bus company, a conclusion Ashafir has clearly made by ignoring WP:NPA and WP:AGF as much as possible. As Begoon has previously pointed out, this user seems to be interested in righting great wrongs by adding non-notable and trivial "controversies" that are entirely sourced to user-generated social media platforms. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

lol. Well I'm not a lawyer, and I've never played one on TV or even on the internet. I did visit Germany once, in the 90s, and very pleasant it was. -- Begoon 12:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• What is clearly visible here, that both users (SoWhy and Begoon) are using "the lawyer style" of defending Flixbus. There are only favorable for their viewpoints policies listed. But not, for instance WP:BOLD. The grammar errors listed was not corrected but the whole data erased. There is no any visible attempt to help but it is a very clear indication to erase non-PR looking data from the FlixBus page.

Moreover, the initial "fix" of the FlixBus page was "complete cleaning" so there was not even a trace in the "history"! Also it is easy to check that the page with the correction initially stayed for many hours but when user SoWhy noticed it the "complete erase" by an unknown user happens in a very short time, nearly instantly. Whenever there is any connections between user SoWhy and FlixBus there is a community interest involved.Ashafir (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Anyone who looks at the diff can see that I corrected your poor grammar in the content which I retained. Ashafir - when you are in a hole you really ought to stop digging. -- Begoon 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And I have honestly no idea what you are talking about. I only edited the page five times at all, three times to revert vandalism/unsourced changes and once to tag copyright violations you added for deletion. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, SoWhy i will explain. 1) I initially added the data to the page at 15:59, 16 June 2019. 2) You wrote to me at 05:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC). 3) soon after this the FlixBus page was edited that there was no trace of my initial submission in the history at all . Unfortunately i have no screenshot of this but I am sure the server logs have it. 3) Than, after I raised concern over admin page, the history got magically updated and now it shows user Praxidicae deleted the info (btw without notifying on the talk page). 4) another time user Bonadea reverted the edit. 5) now user Begoon is fighting to remove many of the published in the newspapers data as "trivial". Of course all it can be a coincidence. You are the lawyer. When you see so many coincidences around a case how it looks for you? I understand and agree that some of my work was (is) not properly formatted or spelchecked. But the claim that the very detailed data from non-anonymous customers of FlixBus is and even the data from the newspapers is "trivial" and "useless" looks quite strange. The same story happens around FlixBus on many places. IMHO for good PR need to support customers etc. There are many business models that incorporate this. But just cleaning up "uncomfortable" data does not solve the situation at all. As the lawyer you must know.Ashafir (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashafir, the content you tried to introduce was removed by three different editors: Begoon, SoWhy, and Praxidicae. When your edit is removed, it's not okay to keep re-adding it. That's called edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing it. Instead, per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you are supposed to visit the talk page and make a case as to why the material should be included. All three of these editors are long-time Wikipedia contributors who have good policy- and content-based reasons for removing the material, so it's likely that they are correctly removing it because it's not suitable for inclusion (rather than removing it because they some personal connection to this company). Having to wait for a bus is not something you would see in a paper encyclopedia, and it's not the kind of content we are looking for either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, please check the initial submission and especially the reverences/links added. () The situation is far from "Having to wait for a bus". Even after the wait the company has not provided any replacement buses, no accomodation and tried to object plainly the bus no show-up at all. This is the exact reason why the 15 ticket holders contacted the newspaper and the story was published. And this is not an isolated and not a worst case of the FlixBus related incidents. This case is listed alone just because all the other incidents listed on my initial submission was deleted and this is one of the few that has formally verified source. I also added a related question to the talk page but it is ignored up to now: Based on the discussion above it makes sense to clarify "triviality of incidents" to avoid further edit wars. Let's imagine a situation, when a group or family is traveling as usual. It knows the transportation laws etc. It expects a bus on a stop ... but it does not stop. It expects to solve the incident with a transport company ... but it plainly ignored. It reads the relevant reviews and finds out that it is a very stable pattern of the company handling. Is it a "trivial incident" for the family/group? Certainly not. Since it disrupts the whole holiday plans, costs more than most of the trip etc. Is it trivial for a company? Certainly yes if it care only about court cases but not about the customers. The question is it a "trivial incident" for the readers of the encyclopedia. I assume, not only a company and it's fans reads it by regular readers. So, as i stated above, if an accident has been noticed and published by a news agency it is more than "merely being true, or even verifiable". I can say that "true and verifiable" is applicable for the way more incidents than published in the news. So a news publication can be a trashhold level for "non-triviality". How does it sounds? Is there any specific policy for such "triviality"? -- Ashafir (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what it is that you're accusing me or SoWhy of and I'm not going to read the diatribe above but I didn't think my revert needed explanation as blatantly unreliable, and frankly garbage sourcing. I don't know anything about this company and I'd never heard of it until several filters were triggered via COIBot for adding Tripadvisor, which is not a reliable source, ever, for reviews, nor is a Facebook group or any of the other original research you added. I'll also note that the content you added was sourced to Gethuman (unreliable and should probably be blacklisted), Tripadvisor (explained above) and checkmybus (unreliable), so in addition to the no original research policy, you should probably take a read of WP:RS, cause this ain't it. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You are the lawyer. When you see so many coincidences around a case how it looks for you? IANAL but it's time to put the tin foil hat away. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Very nice try to change the point. This starts looking like an old FIDO style flame. But the point is: whenever you wearing a foil hat or not there was serious incidents with the FlixBus that started from a very minor issue and than with the negligence of the FlixBus HQ converted to a "noise" and appeared even in the newspapers. There are many "bureaucratic" lawyer-style objections that allows exclude this data to the encyclopedia. Why there is no a single attempt to fix it? Just clean-up. Better without a trace.Ashafir (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I spent considerable time on the talk page of the article attempting to help you to understand that, quite aside from poor sources and copyright violations, you cannot use the article to "aggregate" individual complaints about timetables, performance, customer service, booking problems etc to try to establish a pattern, because that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, but rather need to find reliable sources discussing the matter as a whole and cite their conclusions, along with any reliable sources which might conclude otherwise.

In return you have basically accused both SoWhy and myself of being "shills" for the company. This is disgraceful behaviour, particularly when the only person who seems to have an axe to grind in this situation is you, as you appear to be an WP:SPA with no other purpose here than to "dish the dirt" on this company. Instead of realising this and backing off, you appear to be digging yourself even deeper and accusing even more people.

Initially I had a certain inclination to help you, as I try to do with all new users, but you seem hell-bent on destroying any goodwill. -- Begoon 13:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Begoon, it does not matter helping you me or not. The encyclopedia shall help the public. If there is a verifiable data about FliBus that can help passengers it shall be presented. According to the policies, of course. And this you certainly can help as the way more experienced contributor than me.--Ashafir (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashafir This sounds like something you have an issue with personally, that needs to be dealt with elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae "Sounds"? It is very strange, especially in the view of your previous comment on this page. Have you read the article by the link(s)? All the links are still in the history (after it was fixed). Can you clarify why it is my personal issue? --Ashafir (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Because all of your complaints here are seemingly about the company and thus irrelevant to Wikipedia. They're the equivalent of "this company did this bad thing that sucks" but it's unsupported by reliable sources. If we allowed TripAdvisor or similar site reviews in articles, we'd be a directory of spam and puffery. But this is also irrelevant because the current policy and consensus is that the sources you added are not acceptable. Simple. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And if your argument is that this is the "news source" well yes, it might be a newspaper but this particular piece holds the same weight as a random op-ed. It's from a reader submitted tip and based on, shocker, internet reviews that are not verified. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeForget about tripadvsor. Can you use the same line of the arguments for the latest revertion related to the newspaper articles? Please check the FlixBus page history. Thanks.--Ashafir (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeOK, now you say rzeszow.wyborcza.pl is the same as TripAdvisor, right? What next? --Ashafir (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me back to this discussion. I reverted you once. But for the record, I agree with Begoon's revert as this isn't a soapbox and it is trivial. Adding every single time a bus malfunctions, misses a pick up or has an accident is trivial. Shit happens, unless it is chronic and reported in such a way that abides by Wikipedia's policies, it shouldn't be in the article. And no, I didn't say it's the same as tripAdvisor, I said it's the equivalent of an op-ed because it's a reader submitted tip based on tripAdvisor reviews, which is exactly what their clarification note says. Now drop the stick, please. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PraxidicaeI am very sorry but you are again twisting the point. For the record: the reason why this article was published on the newspaper because it was not "shit happens" but totally wrong handling by the German (Bavarian) company FLiXBUS which is managing the customer support. According Praxidicae and Begoon it must be "chronic and reported". And in fact it is. It is CHRONIC indeed. This is not an isolated case. Hundreds reports with the booking IDs, names, pictures, videos across Facebook, Tripadvisor (yes!) and other sources are clearly indicating it. Keeping it from the enciclopedia will make more passengers in troubles since there is no indication that the way FlixBus will handle it will change.--Ashafir (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to ask - I said my part, stop pinging me here. You are either not getting it or willfully refusing to. TripAdvisor and Facebook are never suitable sources for content of this nature. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

It's clear to me that Ashafir has no intention of dropping the stick and doesn't seem to quite understand what Wikipedia is for, so I'd like to propose either an indefinite topic ban from this article or an outright block for WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, as well as blatant personal attacks where they have accused multiple editors of bad-faith editing or "shilling", with the condition that it may be lifted once they exhibit an understanding of reliable sources, verifiability and the general purpose of an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I should add my preference is for an outright block as they've edited nothing else and don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block per WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. Editor seems clearly to be a WP:SPA and persistent bad-faith accusations (such as ) show a lack of mature behaviour and ability to engage in proper discussion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a block due to IDHT, NOTHERE and SPA. - Donald Albury 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT. Further, I would suggest a topic ban regarding public transit articles for a minimum of 6-months after any block is lifted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion

An encyclopedia or encyclopædia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge from either all branches or from a particular field or discipline.

I don't know what is going on here. Possible I am wrong that I am trying to add this data from the verifable sources. I see only reason to block it - it is not adding a good PR for the company. I don't know how many incidents need to change the editors mind. Another trivial one today: . --Ashafir (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

[Comment moved here from previous section] 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• One more "trivial incident". Of course "it is not a system". Another "dirt" about this bus company.. "fake news" almost...--Ashafir (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the proposal, other than proving the point above, Ashafir? Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for the records. You can find many policies not to list this information on the encyclopedia. It is easy for you. You are anonymous. No shame. But for me it is a shame that i can't help people that clearly needs help.--Ashafir (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You do realise that every time you post in this thread you prevent it from being archived with no direct sanctions imposed on you, and increase the chance that someone will get bored or irritated enough by your continued refusal to drop the stick to either topic-ban or block you? Just checking. -- Begoon 13:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Done with this. The editor doesn't get it, has an axe to grind with the company and is only interested in righting great wrongs. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

---

• Louismuyalde012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Louisivan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The various incarnations of Louis have a bad case of WP:IDHT. User talk:Louis00012 and User talk:Louisborromeo12 have already been blocked. Please also semi-protect Manchester Arena bombing‎.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)‎

I've reset semi-protection to two months after KrakatoaKatie and I hit the buttons at the same time. She's working on it...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

---

• Jeremy9192 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

User copy/pasting swathes of copyvio to various articles, after final warning and faster than I can revert and stick on {{copyvio-revdel}}s. -- Begoon 10:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Update - they appear to have stopped after I posted this, so perhaps the message is getting through now. -- Begoon 10:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Could an admin please kindly have a quick look at User talk:DuvellsCat where the more recent edits appear to perhaps breach WP:NLT? The sad thing is that it looks like DuvellsCat has failed to get any attention for their concerns because they are doing it all on their own Talk page, not the talk page of John Christodoulou, which article is where their concerns lie. They may or may not have a point, I wouldn't know, but at the moment it just looks like a textbook example of BLP issues not going well for an angry newcomer. Hoping for a peaceful resolution, 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:DuvellsCat has been blocked indefinitely by User:NinjaRobotPirate. See . AryaTargaryen (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

In fact, it looks like I did that 7 minutes before this report was opened. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you entirely sure you should have? That looks like something that should have been placed elsewhere festering, leading the frustrated writer to keep escalating his rhetoric. rolling back the last couple of edits with a brief explanation of where he should have expressed his concerns might be better. Qwirkle (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the timing. Obviously he wasn't already blocked when I started, but by the time I'd faffed around looking up NLT and reading his essays and what have you ... yup. I won't comment on the rest – it's now moot (AmE sense) and I'm not an admin. Thanks, all 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Further oops - I regret that I forgot to notify the editor. Sorry: I'm not a regular at ANI. Should I do so now or just "let it lie"? it does seem a bit stable doorish etc ... but if I should, do say, and I will. Thanks 2A01:4C8:103B:9A86:5DB4:8990:E94F:B4AF (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d let it go now, things have moved on. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)