Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914

Rickmartyfanclub (talk · contribs · count) and Neweditorintown (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed sock puppets of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection perhaps?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, no reason for page protection at this point. Nine edits in six days is hardly an "edit war". Lapadite should have attempted to use the Alice Cooper talk page prior to issuing warnings to people who disagree with his perspective - it helps prevent warring. Yes, I did the original edit. Obviously I see nothing wrong with it or else I wouldn't have done it. But now there are others involved, some revert to my edit, and others can't agree as to where to put the information included in my edit. Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi protection more specifically. It blocks IP's and new users not auto-confirmed. It stops sock puppetry. This situation doesn't pass the duck test.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Has been reverted by two other editors: [5], [6].

And obviously, has been un-reverted, by just as many because you included three of us in your "report".Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection requests should be made at

WP:RPP. But given Rickmarty's behavior, a short block might be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...}

05:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have asked Leitmotiv to stay off my talk page hereand here yet he continues to post here, this must stop. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

He, like myself, warned you about edit warring and not discussing on the talk page. It's a little in bad taste, considering he's edit warring right along with you, but it's not harassment. It's exactly what talk pages are for. Now go take your content dispute to the article talk page and discuss it out, or drop it and move on. Nothing actionable here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

either we all play by the same rules or we change the rules.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What are expecting here? The warnings were valid. If you don't like talk page messages, I recommend following the rules. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Users who have been asked to stay off others users talk pages are only allowed to post *required* notices, that warning was not *required* CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, worst case scenario, you're at "unrequired talk page message". Still miles away from harassment or anything requiring an ANI thread, especially when the easiest scenario, "don't edit war and discuss on article talk pages", still remains to be an unattempted approach here. If you don't stop wasting the communities time on this, you're heading towards a BOOMERANG block. Stop complaining about trivial issues and go discuss your content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

17:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting edit warring and 3RR aside for the moment, if I request someone to stay off my Talk page I expect them to do that. For them to then post to my Talk page is

WP:Ping the editor.DrChrissy ^(talk)

17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, not sure if you saw my reply to Oshwah so replying here. My intent to talk to CombatWombat42 was not out of disrespect or harassment of any kind, but quite simply forgetting that I got warned from an incident that was over a year ago. I would expect editors to assume good faith and not jump to conclusions. If you read the intent of my latest post on Combat's talk page, you can see my only goal was to work things out, which has not been reciprocated. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with

drop the stick and walk away if communication isn't going to be possible with resolving the dispute. But I acknowledge and agree with DrChrissy's response and his assertion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

17:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I won't be around much today, but yeah I honestly forgot about the previous warnings to stay off his talk page, because it was over year ago I believe. Honest mistake considering that talk pages should be used for talking, but CombatWombat64 refuses to do that with me anywhere. Which leaves me with a dilemma of editing alongside him. Combat chooses never to take things to the talk page. So what recourse am I left with, except for discussing the edits in the edit notations? I posted to CombatWombat42's talk page as an honest attempt to put whatever differences we have behind us, but as you can see the editor is unwilling. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll just ask:

working together. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

21:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Yeah that's been discussed already up above. I fully intend to stay off Combatwombat42's talk page. Nothing has ever been worked out on his talk page it seems. I would have stayed off before if I had recalled I was given a warning over a year ago. Simply put, I didn't remember because I don't think of CombatWombat on a daily basis, or barely a yearly basis. Everything that has transpired thus far is merely a function of lost memory regarding warnings and interacting with too many Wikipedians for me to keep them all separate in my mind. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So this is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I believe my behavior in this encyclopedia has a highly negative effect on the overall wonderful ambiance of this place. Some of my utterly despicable edits include:

• This personal attack
• Swearing in an edit summary
• Swearing in a peaceful talk page discussion
• Hell, my own user page is highly degrading to women

To conclude, I believe this encyclopedia will be better off without such disgusting people as me. So, for the betterment of this community, I hope I am permanently blocked. Thank you.

• This is not an incident. Either stay and edit constructively or leave. Simple choice. Tiderolls 16:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Could a CU please check if the account has been compromised? Because there's definitely something fishy going on... Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering the indef for vandalism, yes, something is weird, but I don't see what could be done at this point. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk)

20:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of the account being compromised from an outside entity, the technical data is consistent throughout. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Too bad. Almost five years, and more than 17K constructive edits, and then this, right out of the blue. Thomas.W ^talk 22:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that CU results only indicate that this was not likely to have been an external compromise. It doesn't exclude the possibility that they left their computer unattended while logged in, or that a family member/roommate didn't get a hold of their password etc. I supposed we'll just have to wait and see what Krimuk90's next move is. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• 94.201.215.177
• 39.50.213.29
• 212.183.140.54

Thanks. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Woah, there's a lot of editing going on with Nergis Mavalvala right now. Can you provide me with a diff that shows the content being removed that you have an issue with? Is it the "homosexuality" part (in the article summary paragraph)? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this person keeps on removing the homosexuality part from the article constantly even though it deserves to be in there, since it is a part of her personal life.

Here are the diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704792195&oldid=704786411
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704784604&oldid=704784416
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704769757&oldid=704761846

--39.44.151.39 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding with the diffs and the additional information. I checked out the source provided just after the "homosexuality" part, and it does not state clearly that this person is a homosexual (although it does appear to imply and perhaps assume so). It does state that she didn't know her sexual identity in her youth, and that she works closely with gay and lesbian students; it doesn't directly state that she is a homosexual. Per

reliable source that states that she is a homosexual, I'm actually okay with the removal of that part until the issue with directly attributing it to a source is resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

18:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how to use this but she does describe herself as "out, queer person of color": http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2012/06/just-herself

She is also certainly a

Here it is stated she is married to a woman and has a son with her: http://parsikhabar.net/individuals/mit-astrophysicist-nergis-mavalvala-wins-macarthur-grant/2708/

I believe these facts are very important to be included in Wikipedia profile. Some people in Pakistan find it offensive and are trying to censor it. Please do not give in to their efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.145.24 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what other way to interpret the "out, queer person of color" there is. However, at this point I suggest that the discussion needs to be moved to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as there is no admin action to be taken at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am Pakistani, and I am not offended by it. Whether she is homosexual or not, she is still a fellow Pakistani and a human being. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The part about her homosexuality has been removed again by user Spasage (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=705055162&oldid=704885682). Can somebody revert it, as the page has been semi-protected. --103.24.97.66 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I posted 2 sources on talk page to be visible and the user FkpCascais is removing them. Here: [7]. He has been accusing various people of being socks, and nationalists by trying to block them. He was reported several times and blocked for that behavior at least once. He was also topic banned from Serbs of Croatia article where he tried to block and IP, another user and personally attacked the third user. I don't feel like he is to be allowed to remove sources.I feel I should be allowed to post sources on talk pages, even if he doesn't agree with them. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 89.164.134.31 - You're required to notify other users about ANI discussions that have been started that involve them. I've gone ahead and did this for you. I assume that you're referring to this thread; the IP involved in the discussion appears to have been blocked and for block evasion. I don't see what the problem is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you were too fast. I'm in process of doing that. Oh, I see you've done it. Thank you. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm not blocked. I've been discussing for a few months with that user under those accusations with 2 RfC's that ended in my favor. [8] [9].

It's ridiculous to discuss with someone for months and keep claiming he is a sock and do not make a single report. No other of at least dozen editors in that discussions had any problems or complaints against me. They had agreed with those 2 RfCs that I had started and they had supported my opinion for changes. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Also to clarify the problem. In my past discussions with that user I found out that his pattern of discussing is to delete other people's posts, personally attack them and accuse them of being socks (you can read all that in the report I referenced). I don't think that he is the one to decide whether some sources should be stated on talk page. Anyone is free to post sources on talk pages and I don't see anything wrong there. He can't delete them only because he doesn't agree with them. You can see whet the admin had done on the talk page. He didn't delete any posts while this user is trying to push his POV by hiding sources that do not agree with his stand. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I should also not that he has a grudge over me because I'm the ip who started the RfC on Serbs of Croatia and finished it against his stand. [10]. He also tried to block me there, but I managed to bring that RfC to other editors who agreed with me. He was extremely rude in that discussion which had him almost blocked.

Here is that report by another user that he was extremely rude to: [11].

89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I note this post, added at 18:16 has had a false time added to it - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that can happen innocently in certain edit-conflict situations. EEng 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've searched ANI for other reports on the same user:

[12] "User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported [19] in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU ..."

[13]"Hello, the user FkpCascais (talk) had been POV pushing for quite some time now and since he went from POV pushing to personal attacks I'm making this report."

[14] " FkpCascais has gone from seemingly hating my guts to apologizing. The current problem is that I had added a "disputed" tag to one of the two main points of contention. FkpCascais removed it twice and then removed my talk page request not to do that (I see he has reverted that now, though)." -> removing other peoples comments

[15] "This is now the second time that I see FkpCascais misusing AN/I to get rid of an inconvenient user." -> I've seen it at least 2 times, on me and another editor on Serbs of Croatia article.

[16] "This user is being very disruptive."

[17] "Proxing for banned user User:Evlekis. [99] and other examples. Deserves block and topic ban thereafter. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"

Those are some of the reports. I've also seen a report where he was banned for a week or so, but I couldn't find it now.

I don't think he should be allowed to remove the 2 source I posted on talk page. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• An indef-banned User:Asdisis has been openly violating his ban by admitingly using IP accounts, a situation admin User:HighInBC, me and some other long standing editors have been strugling to find a mechanism to cope with this. It is him using the same old arguments and sources, he simply doesnt disengage. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I just caught that this IP looks to be within the same range as the IP that was blocked per block evasion in the closed thread linked here. This makes a lot more sense now. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I participated 2 RfC that lasted for a few months and you hadn't reported a single time. That's quite a struggle. I'm allowed to post sources and if you find you have to delete them I can only say, tough. It's not up to you to determine which sources can be presented on talk pages. If you don't agree with what they say, go and find sources to support your stand. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, same guy, another IP. Once again engaging in the same tactics they were blocked for. There are 4-5 other ANI posts in the past exactly like this. Blocked for evasion. HighInBC 19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Posting sources. That's really a tactics to get blocked for.141.136.219.204 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC ^^ Is that another one? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

About a 98.5% chance. HighInBC 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There a reason y'all are just pontificating about how this guy is probably a sock instead of taking it to checkuser? Jtrainor (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkusers can't really tell us much when a person is using a wide variety of IPs. This guy changes IPs every time they get blocked. HighInBC 00:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

user:Natsume96 continued disruptive editing and edit warring after two previous blocks. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A - You need to provide actual diffs and edits that show exactly what you're referring to. Where exactly is he being disruptive and where is he edit warring? Beats of Rage? I need more information before I can help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Diffs and stuff are on the Edit warring report. -Einstein95 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was stupid of me to ask. I should have looked there first :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah,How about actually reading his contributions. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, how about... give me a minute, will ya?!! :-) ~Oshwah~^{::(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the user's block history and contribs, it looks like this person has been blocked for

AN3 report will just need to run its course. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

19:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It looks as if the complainant here is an IP address set up less than an hour ago.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy - Good call. Noted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Consider the following edits, that is not vandalism. Just type "Metro-Active X OpenBOR" in Google. The first link will take you at RuTracker with this game on board. Natsume96 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I am having a grumpy evening, I don't know. Whenever the edit section of this page opens, editors are requested to provide diffs. Oshwah was correct to request those in the very beginning of this thread, but we have not seen a single diff in support or opposition yet. THis is extremely frustrating for those trying to help. Furthermore, if there is an active AN3 regarding this complaint, then there is the possibility of forum shopping. The complainant might consider withdrawing their complaint here (i.e. striking) until AN3 is settled.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• No need to
  WP:FORUMSHOP it here since it's already opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Natsume96_reported_by_User:Einstein95_.28Result:_.29. An Admin will review it in due time and take the actions they feel necessary. It looks here though that we may have a possible sock using an IP account.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk
  ) 20:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both

AN3 discussion, I'm not seeing anything that warrants action here at this time. I'm considering this case closed at this point. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I am leaving it to you guys to look through the edits and find out which ones are in support and which ones are in opposition, I am not going to do it for you. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is another IP address registered about an hour ago.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR and the report, but I'll leave that for another pair of eyes. Anyways, these are my findings and I think that no action is required from anyone here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I know, my ip address changes often. I don't know why. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks a whole lot like a duck. Think if we should do anything here at ANI we should archive the top and bottom.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am not a sock puppet, and do not even go there. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I do not care what you guys expect from me, I left you the report so you can do all the work, and I can just get the results. I got better things to do on a Saturday afternoon than looking for evidence. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is that this has already been opened up in the appropriate location and there is no need to

WP:FORUMSHOP it here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk

) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I was attempting to start an article, Highfalutin. I went back today, and all my work is gone... this has happened twice. I have to type in everything again - am I doing something wrong? 400 Lux (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you and Bkonrad are in a conflict dispute about this page. Your edits are in the page history. I suggest you start a conversation at Talk:Highfalutin regarding this. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

She never said anything to me. I will edit the talk page. Thank you. I was worried that I was not formatting much - I don't edit often, but I read alot of the help pages. 400 Lux (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Do you know where I can find more help pages on starting articles fresh... and some pages on the wiki formatting? 400 Lux (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

400 Lux - Lets take your question to my talk page :-) -- Do you mind leaving me a message there? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response - I will stop by your page later to talk about that article. And I'd like to pick your brain about the two areas I mentioned above.

p.s. that archive thing makes it difficult to continue talking. 400 Lux (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 400 Lux - Yes, I was hoping to close this ANI thread, since no administrator action is required. If we move this conversation to my talk page, I can close this thread and I continue assisting you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh - I posted on the wrong forum. Please close - I apologize! 400 Lux (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

400 Lux - No apologies needed; it's perfectly fine :-). I'll await your message on my talk page with your questions, and we'll take things from there. Thanks, 400 Lux. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, SPI reports are not submitting properly for me (see here). Is there any way to fix this? I am unsure of what exactly is wrong. GAB^Hello! 00:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• There was an extra bracket in a diff. I think I fixed it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. GAB^Hello! 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: the transclusion subbed my signature for yours when I fixed. Do you mind going in and replacing it with your own sig? I've used the {{unsigned}} template in the meantime.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, done. Thank you for fixing that. GAB^Hello! 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Recommending page protection for

Doesn't seem to be much a reason yet.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need for page protection yet. If major BLP issues or vandalism occur where protecting the page becomes the best way to prevent policy violations, you can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I made a mess trying unsuccessfully to undo that move. His behavior seems bizarre and aimless as it is disruptive: the user he "blocked" is imaginary, as is the "administrator" (Tim Calrissian) he signed the page as; he even acted out the blocked user requesting an unblock. —  Rebbing  talk  05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's recent contribs, I'm suspecting a serious

WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Will wait for a response to this discussion before deciding to block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me}

) 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

[[18]] I don't know. I'm seeing a response like this and thinking its vandalism.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked for blatantly going above-and-beyond in demonstrating

WP:COMPETENCE, or both, and from their history on their talk page the high probability that the notice for this discussion would simply be removed and the disruption continued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

10:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Could I request an admin to oversight an edit that is outing me. Obviously don't wish to draw attention to it here, I did try emailing oversight last night but got no response. WCM_email 09:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk)

09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The issues at

This definitely was not vandalism. Initially it appeared to be an ordinary case of yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute, which is a common type of

However, the following post to the talk page requires attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeopolymer&type=revision&diff=704589367&oldid=700248137

In particular "For several years, we thought that this disarray in the community by which geopolymer at large was a synonym for alkali-activated materials was a matter of misunderstandings, or an over simplification of a polymer chemistry by some civil engineers. In fact, we were surprised to discover that it was a deliberate attempt done by a small and yet defined group of people to use the word "geopolymer" as a cool marketing wording without any consideration for the real chemistry behind it. With all the evidences gathered now, some members of the Geopolymer Institute are thoroughly thinking of any legal complaint and will definitely inform their peers about this situation. The original text represents our knowledge dating back to 2012. We shall update the new current article with any new scientific data acquired since that date. Please, be patient. Prof. Joseph Davidovits (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)" This looks like a

Yes, this is a legal threat. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. Blocked. Sad situation. That talk page post makes for fascinating reading, of course; I wish my conferences were this exciting. It it entirely possible that Johnprovis shouldn't be editing this article because of a COI--but that is a different matter. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter O'Conner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a sort of slow-motion edit war. The editor makes an edit (typically sourced poorly, or with a source that is not in accord with the added text,) which is subsequently reverted by other editors (at least, I have been doing so.) A few days, weeks, or months later the editor returns and makes nearly the same edit again - sometimes with a change of sources, again poor.

The editor's edits for Chengdu J-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are examples of this.

Aircraft range

• 6 August 2015, unreliable sources.

Adding aircraft varients

• 6 August 2015, unreliable sources.
• 7 August 2015
• 12 August 2015
• 10 September 2015, unreliable sources.
• 12 October 2015, no source.
• 29 October 2015, unreliable source.

Varient properties

• 22 August 2015, no source.
• 24 August 2015, unreliable sources.
• 10 September 2015, unreliable sources.
• 18 October 2015, not in sources.
• 23 October 2015, not in sources.
• 30 October 2015, unreliable source.
• 6 February 2016, no source.
• 12 February 2016, unreliable sources.

The editor is also making substantial edits on Type 99 tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which are also being reverted, again over several months. The editor's history contains other, perhaps lesser, examples.

The editor does not use (refuses to use? avoids?) talk pages, so it is impossible to come to any "concensus" on matters. I have attempted to use the editor's talk page, but it seems not to have had any effect; the editor has continued to use non-expert sources as sources (particularly chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com.)

Peter O'Conner's behaviour is identical to Tamlinwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/AChig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (accounts abandoned shortly before Peter O'Conner's creation) and I believe they are the same editors, which would suggest this has all been going on for a lot longer than Peter O'Conner's record suggests.

I am at a loss at how to proceed since there seems to be no way for me to get the editor's attention. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 08:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

edit war at all. It just looks like edits that you don't agree with. Have you spoken to this user at all and tried to discuss your concerns with this person? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

09:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, fix your signature. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

As mentioned in my initial post, I have attempted to contact the editor on their talk page, and received no reply. Invitations to discuss matters on article talk pages also went unanswered.

The editor does not use talk pages; there are no instances of talk page edits in the editor's contributions list. In fact, the user has, in the past, blanked their user talk page after receiving messages. Whether they bothered to read the messages first I cannot say, but obviously the messages have had no effect.

And thanks for the heads up about my sig. I'm quite embarrassed that I didn't notice it myself for so long. :o - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)