Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925

Today on Google, i typed in a search for Julian Knight. The first search was for the article, but at the end, it had the term - "melbourne" attached to it. This image. Its a bug but why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.19.88 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not affiliated with Google, so we really can't tell you about anything that happens on their end. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was just able to repeat this. Even if it's not necessarily on our end, it's certainly odd. If it's actually an error there's usually a feedback button somewhere we can hit to report it. Anyway, I suspect it has something to do with Wikidata entries for the articles on the two subjects: Julian Knight and Hoddle Street massacre. What is interesting is that Julian Knight (politician) has no location next to it in the Google results. I'd be interested if this is repeatable with any other topics. I can't think of any test searches at the moment, though. Anyway this isn't an ANI issue, but it's something that probably should be escalated somewhere. Even if it's not a bug, it would be helpful to know why Google is displaying that since it would be helpful in editing biography articles and Wikidata entries in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

See previous March 18, 2016, report by EvergreenFir at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming. Result was this range block by KrakatoaKatie. Range block has expired and editor has resumed as

• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:A436:4913:F485:8B73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:D40D:855F:88D3:4EF1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:2852:2934:DF4C:711F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

basically same edits as before. Request that the range block be reinstated and extended. It appears that his editor is the only one using this /64 IPv6 range so there will be no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it's the same range. An admin should be around to re-apply the block soon. You can also report this to AIV and include the range so that it can be handled by someone there. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Did just that. A lot of admins are uncomfortable doing range blocks even with IPv6s where most of the /64 ranges are the same person. ANI may flush out admins who are willing to range block but don't see transient AIV reports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Administrators: The range of these IPv6 addresses is 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that a link to the previous block log was posted with the range already calculated. Haha, sorry. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• A longer history of the abuse can be found
  re
  }} 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• An IPv6 /64 subnet is almost never shared but it's always good to check. :) In this instance, it's obvious that there is only the one user. As they have continued where they left off and as this has been going on for so long, I have blocked the /64 range for three months for disruptive editing.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The user in question basically went on a racist temper-tantrum before being blocked. All of his edits have been removed except one Could one of you wipe the slate clean? HalfShadow 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. But in the future it is best to email oversight or contact an admin privately rather than calling attention to the problem on a high visibility page such as this. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant you're from Canada and you called that racist?

^Pocketed

22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Predict_1990&diff=723349111&oldid=723340669

• Two questions: is the source, a blog, reliable?

Bredehoft, John E. (2010-02-22). "Jim Morrison's Grave (the Steve Taylor song) and Kurt Cobain". Empoprise-MU. Retrieved 2016-05-31. --evrik ^(talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Should the tag be removed or restored with impunity? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The URL in the reference citation (here) is returning a blogspot page that says that nothing exists here. So I'd say that it's definitely unreliable from my perspective. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Try this: http://empoprise-mu.blogspot.com/2010/02/jim-morrisons-grave-steve-taylor-song.html --evrik ^(talk)

"Is the empoprise-mu.blogspot.com blog a reliable source for describing "Jim Morrison's Grave" as "a reflection on the cult of personality""? Don't think so, but there's bound to be a better source floating around such as an

WP:3RR, it's a silly thing to get in a lather about. Go and discuss it on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Take it to the talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jumping on the "agree" bus.

shake hands on an appropriate action plan. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• (We might wait 15 minutes or so before archiving closed discussions). Someone who knows what they're doing should probably nominated File:Violetnese New.jpg for deletion as having no encyclopedic value. I'm about to nom her other picture on Commons, but the procedure here is too complicated for me. BMK (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• IAR deleted under
  Iridescent
  19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is that there is no complaint here, particularly as the user has had almost 10 years' standing without any issue. And for gawd's sake, go and drink something decent like Westmalle, all of you.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I'm showing up here as my effort to solve this on user:Beck's talk page got no reply, while the user contiued editing. As far as I understand our policies there are the following issues:

• The username "Beck's" is the product and company name of
  WP:Username#Promotional names. (While they have edited the Beck's Brewery
  's article several times in 2008, but meanwhile refrained from it.)
• The huge (font-size:290px) and
  WP:!#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion nor WP:User pages. So does the user's signature ("BECK's
  "), also using the brand's colour and bold caps.

In my understanding it would be appropriate to ask the user to change their username and signature and to change or delete their userpage. What do you think? --Trofobi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(1) The username policy forbids names which "unambiguously" represent product or company names. "Beck's" is not unambiguous. Google search

(2) The green "Beck's" letter on the user's page looks nothing at all like the Beck's logo you reference. The only thing they seem to have in color is the color green and the letters BECKS and an apostrophe.

(3) Even the Beck's logo was very similar to the lettering on user Beck's page, such a logo would not be copyrightable, as it doesn't reach the threshhold of originality

(4) If the user was editing Beck's Brewery, or even beer articles in general, you might have the germ of a complaint, but I don't see a single edit in that area in the editor's contributions

(5) If I were User:Beck's, and you came to my talk page with such a ridiculous complaint, I'd be sorely tempted to ignore you as well, and to delete your comment

(6) In short, this is a problem of your own making, spun by your own imagination, and there is really nothing for admins to do in regard to it, in my opinion. I would suggest you drop it, go about editing the encyclopedia, and stop creating problems where none exist. BMK (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of problems where none exist, just wait until someone innocently asks, "Gee, are you sure Beck's can't sue Wikipedia about this?", and gets a swift block from The NLT Bulwark of Anti-Intimidators. EEng 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the substance of the complaint is that this account supposedly edited the beer company article 8 years ago? That's it? Astounding. No administrator action required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, besides, Becks is good beer! (j/k) The user doesn't appear to be editing the Becks article , nor any other beer article, so they may be calling themselves "Becks" in honor of their favorite beer. Further, they're not especially new. I agree that no admin action is needed here. KoshVorlon 11:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've got another requested range block for a prolific LTA vandal. Yes, I'm tired of dealing with this, too. Previous range block discussions occurred here and here. There are more details at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, including a list of active range blocks and more evidence.

The requested range is 2602:30A:2C95:8C0::/64. You can see that all the edits from this range follow the established patterns of the vandal: the composer is usually changed to James Horner, Liam Neeson is usually added to the cast list, and the same articles – usually animated children's films – are repeatedly targeted. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There are no constructive edits from this range to date. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I don't understand IPv6 as well as I'd like, can I AGF that you know what you're talking about and I'm not about to block an entire continent?--v/r - TP 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

TParis - Let me check the range. One sec... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Checks out. The range of these IPv6 addresses is 2602:30a:2c95:8c0::/64 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah, blocked.--v/r - TP 06:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Are they targeting anything specifically or are these target of opportunity vandals? HalfShadow 06:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the LTA report (which it isn't oddly enough) it seems they specifically target celebrities. More specifically Actors/Actresses and Films. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap; well that's not as helpful as I'd hoped. I was hoping it'd be something more narrow than that. 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:LTA. The targets are animated children's films and BLPs, in which hoax credits are added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 06:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I'm perfectly willing to AGF here. I imagine if I've goof'd up that I'd just get a slap on the wrist and won't do it again.--v/r - TP 06:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

In these edits Elockid (talk · contribs) reverts two editors - 86.191.126.192 (talk · contribs) in Norwich [6] and 78.145.23.96 (talk · contribs) in London. The Norwich editor has been reverted five times. No administrator should be blocking geographically distant editors as socks of the same master without giving both of them an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion. As a London editor (along with ten million other people) I have been blocked on numerous occasions and never once been given the opportunity to make representations [7]. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely no obligation to notify any account that they are the subject of a SPI for "an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion". SPI isn't AN/I, where parties must be notified. Doc talk 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The SPI page has a section for the "accused" and "third parties" to give evidence. Why should they be prevented from doing so? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to notify any accused party of a SPI. Period. Doc talk 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to prevent any person giving evidence in an SPI case, and if that happens a reasonable inference is that the administrator is pursuing a vendetta, which is the subject of this thread. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reasonable inference. You're a blocked editor, wasting our time. Thanks fer stoppin' by! Doc talk 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is why I removed the user's first report here earlier... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

On Jimmy Wales' Talk page, @Smallbones: has engaged in numerous defamatory falsehoods against an editor, which are delineated here. ArbCom, with an 8-0-1 ruling, has warned Smallbones not to engage in needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. Yet he's doing it once again. At what point is a stop put to him? - 2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's establish some facts, such as "Who are you when you're not editing as an IP?" BMK (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• You also need to inform a user when you file an AN/I complaint. I have done so, but next time you log on and want to file an AN/I complaint try to remember to notify the user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You were banned in October 2006, and aside from a three month unblock in 2009 (and a 1 day unblock in 2007) remained blocked throughout (unjustly in my opinion, but the fact of the block isn't in question). Yes, technically "more than 10 years" is a falsehood, but "nine years five months in total" is near enough that it isn't worth fighting over. There are serious issues with Wikipedia which need addressing, but "some people on a talkpage which has always been frequented by melodramatic goofballs are acting like melodramatic goofballs" is not a cause worth fighting over. ‑ 

Iridescent

19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure math errors (which I make too) necessarily qualify as "needlessly defammatory falsehoods" as per that ruling. Having said that, the comments do seem to perhaps be excessive. The exact phrasing of the warning to Smallbones says further misconduct may (emphasis added) result in sanctions. I guess the question here is whether the comments are sufficient to invoke sanctions of a kind Smallbones was warned he might face in the future. My guess, and it is just a guess, is that, given the nature of the page in question, the answer might be "No," although, under the circumstances, I suppose it might be possible that he be given some form of "final warning" and told that any further similar comments in the future will result in sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant link:

T|✝️|C

|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

On a recently created article, Faanya Rose, there have been incidents of different users (and one IP, FWIW...) who have contested the article deletion. The following accounts and their roles within the editing of the article are:

• Lynda Roy (talk · contribs) - Original article creator
• Alive2Dive (talk · contribs) - Other account whose only edit (at the moment...) is contesting the article deletion.
• 173.78.238.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - An IP who somehow got involved
• 71.243.250.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - An IP who somehow got involved

Thanks. Vensco (T | C) 02:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now I'm seeing a {{sockpuppet|Winterysteppe|confirmed}} template on

They placed it themselves. This is bizarre. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Vensco (T | C) 03:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that they clicked on User:Etimena's signature link and that led them to the sockpuppetry template. They didn't understand the template, and copied it to their page. That's all it was.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

--This is as said above new editor confusion about sock puppetry from Etimena's post on my talk page for speedy deletion. Just read policy. Apologies all. Lynda Roy (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

that is, I didn't understand why a user marked as a sock puppet was allowed to mark my article for speedy delete Lynda Roy (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lynda Roy: Hi! It appears that User:Etimena wasn't blocked as a sock puppet when they nominated your page for speedy deletion. They nominated your page for deletion at 12.14UTC on 20 May 2016, and weren't blocked as a sockpuppet until 23.59UTC the same day. I hope this helps! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly be much easier if sockpuppets owned up as esily as that!

^Pocketed

06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: Thanks Goldenshimmer. Appreciate the coaching. Hard to be new, and absorb everything. Lynda Roy (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• @
  blocked from editing. Please disclose any other accounts that you have used, and only use this account from now on. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk
  ) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector:I do apologize for the support of friends and colleagues who are anxious for the Faanya Rose article to remain. Their loyalty to this project, of posting a well-researched piece about the first woman to be president of the Explorers Club is getting me into trouble with a new community I wish to remain in, in good standing. Alive2Dive is an explorer. Not sure about those IP's, but probably someone who helped in my research. laceyflint is an archivist who advised on sources for me. If there are others, I cannot see them. None of these are sock puppets. If anything they are caught up in my passion for wanting to be a historian on Wikipedia. If this causes me to be banned or blocked I understand. Love Wikipedia! Want it to be available and reliable for all. Lynda Roy (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing here, I don't think this matter is of any huge concern, but since

meat puppetry, and is also in violation of Wikipedia policy. Though, you seem to be civil and honest with the community, which is one of the best ways to handle a situation like this, and it also seems as if this was out of good faith. Whether the other involved accounts/IP's do have correlation with you or not, just know that any sort of behavior regarding new accounts/IP's editing and/or contesting a new article's deletion is seen as extremely suspicious on Wikipedia, as said by Ivanvector as it is seen as dishonest, deceiving and downright malicious, which is considered as bad-faith editing/socking. (Although this specific case seems to be out of good faith and a general misunderstanding of the policies). Regards, Vensco (T | C

) 16:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Lynda Roy, glad to be of help. :) I'm not an administrator, so I'm not in a position to make any decisions, but in my opinion since you seem to want to contribute positively to Wikipedia, there isn't any reason to block you at this time. To avoid further drama, I suggest that you familiarise yourself thoroughly with the contents of the following policies:

• Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry
  (this is the one you fell afoul of)
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

I hope this helps out, and I wish you the best of luck in a pleasurable and productive experience at Wikipedia! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Indentation fixed Goldenshimmer (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

Also all, including the article creator, feel free to comment here: [8]. Vensco (T | C) 17:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I posted an ANI notice template at User:TJH2018's talkpage, as they were one of the initial article deletion nominees. (That was not indef-sock blocked). Vensco (T | C) 17:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I seem to be encountering a lot of articles like this lately. It seems as though we may need to clarify the

• Thank you all for these comments and advices. Good to know that so many good people are watchful and keeping Wikipedia the valued asset it is. I have lots to learn, and welcome the opportunity to do so. Cordially, Lynda Roy (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The same person who forced me to use my IP to edit rather than my Username because he was telling everyone I am someone from the UK is trying to name me here. Are there no policies about not trying to dig private information up about Editors here? I am not a public figure, I am a private individual and I am entirely unknown to User:Неполканов and his meatpuppets who have an obsessive compulsive fixation on trying to identify who I am and getting me to reveal private information about myself by irritating me to pieces calling me names of different people. The only piece of info I volunteer about myself (because I wish to assert that I am not someone that my harassers once said I am) is that I am an Israeli. Everything else is my own business and I do not want anyone to try naming me here on Wikipedia. please do something about it. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

More edits from the User's meatpuppets trying to guess who I am. [17] [18] It is very obvious who is using that IP if you look at the history of my talk page [19] This sort of personal Harassment should not be allowed. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as User:YuHuw (see [20]), why do you edit as an anonymous IP editor? Also, why do you feel the need to make abusive comments about other editors? For example in your post of 11:31, 14 May 2016:

• You described one editor (currently blocked) as "a rather repulsive person from the UK".[21]
• You describe other editors as "a team of meatpuppet sycophants hovering around him rather like the way flies hang around a dung-heap".[22]

Suggest block as

WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk)

16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clpo13 please. Toddy1 is some kind of User:Неполканов puppet. I notified User:Неполканов but Toddy1 responds. This is his typical behavior pattern. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) This harassment has been going on for 5 months now already. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Неполканов himself is the one who led me to believe that the UK editor was repulsive in the first place by saying he is a pedophile. Then they called me that person. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Toddy1's responses here (and his anon IP edits on my talk page) are a perfect example of how he buzzes around people who have issues with User:Неполканов, almost like he is a paid bodyguard or something. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he called Vaz as well?

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> 94.119.64.42 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Bbb23 and User:Someguy1221, as this appears to be a continuation of an SPI that failed to result in a block for YuHuw some months back. If the IP claims Toddy1 and Неполканов are still making accusations of sockpuppetry against him/her months after their TL;RD sockpuppet imvestigation didn't go the way they wanted, then this needs to be looked into. Note that I'm not endorsing YuHuw's side in the various edit wars these users have engaged each other in. The only user I have seen in looking through it who in my experience generally behaves in a reasonable manner is User:Ian.thomson, and he agreed with Toddy1 on the content (although I have only briefly examined the dispute at Karaite). Whoever is right on the content, edit-warring is never good, placing the blame for edit wars solely on the side one disagrees with for the sole reason that one disagrees with them is even worse than edit-warring, engaging in a vindictive war of attrition against someone who embarrassed you months ago by not being the sockpuppet you wanted them to be is worse still, and trying to dox users one disagrees with is the worst of all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat/Archive. As you can see above, YuHuw is still accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being puppets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So both sides have been throwing bad sockpuppet allegations at each other for months -- so what? In this thread the OP doesn't appear to have accused you of being a sockpuppet, but rather a meatpuppet/"paid bodyguard". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If people are accusing other me of making sock puppet allegations after the closing the of the SPI in late March 2016, they should provide diffs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You said, without evidence, that you were accused of sockpuppetry in this thread. You appear to be also attempting to link the OP to one or more named accounts, and defending several rev-del-ed doxxing attempts. I'm not calling anyone here a sockpuppet, so the burden of proof is not on me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the burden is on both of the IPs who have, for the past several months failed to prove that anyone was a sockpuppet of anyone. Since this is the case, I would suggest that if none of them can

oversight block. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss

18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI:

87.69.184.128 no one is making you edit under an IP. You should not be forced to reveal this information. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss

18:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If I do not edit using my IP they will call me a sock of that UK based editor which they do one way or another almost every single time I tried to edit any article since January. I am not accusing anyone here of being a sockpuppet I am not even calling for anyone to be blocked. I am simply asking that the edits of the editor I named whenever he tries to post a name which he hopes might identify me that those posts be redacted please. In fact I would appreciate the same being done to any editor who has tried/will try to do something similar. Wikipedia should be about content not about facing personal attacks. But some editors don't seem to have a clue on how to respond to content challenges except to harass those who challenge them. I have been harassed for far too long. Indeed I have lost my temper on a couple of occaisions over the months but I have always tried to make amends afterwards. But the constand hounding and attempts to identify who I am in real life are more than anyone should be expected to endure. I think I deserve at least one administrator to take my side and give me the benefit of the doubt once. Best regards. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You were cleared by the sock-puppet investigation. So drop

the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk)

18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It was more '

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my request to have all attempts to try and guess my identity redacted by someone with oversight privileges. No one should suffer this sort of harassment. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. Voidwalker, this [23] is an example of the countless sort of cruel and baseless edit summary insults which forced me to use my IP to edit instead of my Username. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to guess your real-life identity, but I do want to know your WP identity. Are you YuHuw or not? Yes or no, please. If no, please explain this edit [24]. EEng 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This talk page section probably puts that connection in context. Blackmane (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir, I am YuHuw. YuHuw (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And you have self-identified as YuHuw in the links I and Blackmane have given. You should be editing as YuHuw, and if someone's giving you a hard time, that will be dealt with. This has nothing to do with your anonymity. EEng 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It seemed to me that if wiki-abusers are claiming all sorts of IP addresses as me then the only way I can prove that I am not UK based is to edit from my regular IP. When I edit as YuHuw they try to guess my name and you can see from the redactions on my own talk page they have been pretty abusive to me there too. I do not know how many real life people they are but at least I would like someone to redact the places where they have tried to name me please. I understand it is my right according to wiki outing policies isn't it? After that I would like my own edits which reveal personal info about me (e.g. my IP edits) to be courtesy blanked and I will return to editing as YuHuw not to be tricked again by such people. This is all I am asking. If the harassment still continues after that I hope thew same measures will be taken to protect my identity from those obsessive compulsive trolls. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry that I mistakenly thought that this edit by an IP editor was an edit by you. Please accept my apology. I wish you would only edit logged-in as User:YuHuw. When you edit as an IP people get you confused with another editor who edits in the same area as you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It is easy to say sorry, it is not easy to clean up the fall-out of your **FIVE MONTHS** bad-mouthing. BUT in light of your apology I am certain that you will have no objection to having all of your edit summaries and talk page comments which try to portray me as someone else (or as based outside Israel when you knew from the beginning where I am) such as these ones [25] [26] redacted. Let's not forget Toddy1 that you used [27] as a base to WP:CANVASS calling me Kaz countless times so that people who have had no interaction with me before whatsoever were influenced by your badmouthing me. You set out from the start in discussion with your employer (I am not saying money exchanged hands but this is clear employment) from the outset only had one objective and that was to convince everyone that I am someone I am not. Nevertheless, if you are indeed willing to DROP THE STICK and go for a NEW START along with having your comments redacted then I am very happy to accept your apology. I do not bare grudges and have been willing to start over with you countless times. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Provided you have no active sanctions, then

WP:CLEANSTART is an option. Blackmane (talk

) 02:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OUTING. I can not speak for those accounts who have been harassing me, but if I understand what you mean by sanctions then I can confirm that I personally have never had any sanctions against me. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk

) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When someone who has an account deliberately chooses to edit as an anonymous IP editor, then he/she must take some responsibility for the consequences. It looks like sock-puppetry. I accept that User:YuHuw did not mean it as sock-puppetry. It has helped that he/she has made clear which IPs were him/her. If you edit as an IP editor, people will wonder which user you are. And some of the time, they will get it wrong.

I advise against a

WP:CLEANSTART

. It is sometimes very hard to distinguish between YuHuw's edits and Kaz' edits. I honestly thought they were the same person. However, there has been a sock puppet investigation, which cleared YuHuw, and established that they are apparently different people. If all the edits by the Israeli IPs that we believe to have been by YuHuw were by YuHuw, and none of the very similar UK IP edits were by YuHuw, one has to wonder who that person was.

YuHuw, please carry on editing - but please do so logged in as YuHuw, so we know it is you, not Kaz. And stop calling me a "meat puppet".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated above that you knew from the start I am not that UK based editor but tried everything in your power to portay me as him. You say one has to wonder who those non Israeli IPs were but perhaps some of them were from your team. You have not been cleared of meatpuppetry yet. Your continued stepping in to help the accusef only adds to the substantial evidence against you. As demonstrated above, you and your team (especially the person you always step in to fight for including here) continued to attempt to portray me as that editor until long after I started editing exclusively with my IP which is my right by the way and is easy to identify me as I always make clear this is me YuHuw. I am well within my rights to edit as YuHuw exposing my IP and will continue to do so until the redactions begin.

I will try again to get back to the topic of my complaint. Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Where in that diff is there any sign of them naming, well, anyone? Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

THE VERY FIRST WORD!!! YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If there is no one here competent enough to deal with this, is there a place to post to get the attention of genuine/real administrators who deal with

See User_talk:YuHuw#Accusations. User:Liz who posted the message there, is an admin.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1's comment ^ is completely irrelevant. The association between my IP and YuHuw ID has never been hidden, see [28] long before the most recent

Per

WP:OUTING: "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." For help requesting oversight, see WP:Requests_for_oversight. Or read the pink box at the top of this page when editing. Mysticdan (talk

) 20:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have written but I don't think that email address is working and the irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-revdel link is dead too. Since I do not know any administrators I can ask privately I am asking any other administrator to delete the revisions (including those pertaining to it in this ANI request) in the meantime. YuHuw (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw can check the list of admins in wp and ping as many active ones as possible because outing is serious business that should be deleted with outers banned for months, if not indefiniteFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You just appeared 5 days ago and tried to create a Request for Admin. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't stray off topic. You can talk to FAMASFREENODE about your concerns about him on his wall not here.

I've read through the edit logs and I believe I have a reasonably clear picture. This user, as noble as their intentions may be, is not relenting and insisting on imparting their own intimate knowledge. As they have good intentions but won't heed, I propose a topic ban.

talk•cont

21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Two reverts within the past hour, which may or may not put this editor in breach of 3RR. Five reverts in the past 24 hours. This editor has been granted a great deal of slack because the editors on that page uniformly admire the subject and are intrigued by this editor's claimed personal history. But he has taken that as a green light for carte blanche. Last year he was pushing some kind of conspiracy theory concerning his dad's death. now it's puffery plucked from an FOI request. It's not ending and the "pretty please abide by Wikipedia rules" phase is behind us. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. This isn't meant as a comment on the topic ban idea; please continue to offer opinions on that suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Let it be clear that my proposition of having a topic ban is what I consider to not only be the most ideal solution, but the minimum in this case. I don't want to see them indefinitely or extensively blocked, (at least not yet), but I feel as though it is prudent to prevent them from touching this topic until they have time to get a hold of themselves. They could use the restriction to focus on learning about and improving other Wikipedia content.

talk•cont

00:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The block was purely for edit-warring, not for COI editing or anything like that. Given the existence of this discussion, it would be disruptive if any admin issued a short-term block on such grounds without heeding the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Would this be a good case for COIN to take up? It seems like they'd be better quipped than ANI, since COI-related POV seems to be the issue here.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the problem is disruptive and POV editing by an SPA, so the COI guideline, while applicable, is secondary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I posted some comments on the earlier ANI thread. I think you guys are being too bitey. I oppose the topic ban for now. We haven't engaged CIC7 all that constructively earlier or now, so we still have room to do so. COIN seems like overkill. Figureofnine also is edit warring in my opinion, reverting 3x in less than a day[34][35][36] and seems to be wp:owning the article to some extent over its history. Figureofnine, could you ease up a bit? CIC7 seems to have some good resources to bring to the article, and we should accomodate him to the extent we can, working with him to fix issues with his contributions that are incompatible with our approach to content. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. "Bitey"? You've got to be kidding. CIC7 has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have. He has been editing Wikipedia for six years. His sole and entire focus has been to edit the article on the man he says his father (I believe him, though it is not verifiable), which in the main is the addition of original research, conspiracy theories, and, most recently, material that is both original research and outright puffery. He knows the rules, he doesn't give a damn and never has. He has been treated with the utmost courtesy and knows perfectly well what

WP:OR is because it has been pointed out to him multiple times. In the most recent situation I raised the issue on the talk page and he ignored it. The other editors on that page are not trying to add negative content; on the contrary, we are all interested in the Manhattan Project

and rather admire Uanna and have worked to build it up to GA status. He has been given extra-gentle consideration because of his claimed family connection but enough is enough.

I favor a topic ban for now but only as it applies to the article itself, not to the article talk page. It's his behavior in the article proper that is objectionable. Lastly I agree with the IP that there is an

WP:OWN situation. CIC7 created the article and has dominated the editing of it. The last two of his five reverts yesterday were reinstatement of unsourced trivia removed by another editor[37][38]] including "One piece of advice his mother gave his new bride Bonnie shortly after they were married in 1948 was 'Keep him out of the sun, he turns black.' " I think that after six years this editor is aware that such material is not acceptable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs

) 12:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it's late here and I can't stay long right now, but I'd be interested in seeing some diffs of CIC7 being treated with the utmost courtesy, especially by yourself. Hawkeye7 made some constructive suggestions on CIC7's user talk page, and Jytdog left a note about COI that looked like copypasta but was at least polite. But the remarks I've seen directed to him from you looked at best pretty brusque. He has contributed a lot of content to the article, some parts of which had problems and got reverted, but other parts of which are perfectly good and are in the article. So the article has benefited from his participation, which speaks in his favor. Yes he's been around for a number of years without yet having gotten the hang of editing neutrally, but he has a total of 180 edits which is definitely still in the newbie phase. So I think this can be handled more gracefully than what's been going on here on ANI so far. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We can handle it "gracefully" by invoking

WP:COI, enforcing it, and keeping him off the article and on the talk page. Simple, despite your efforts to complicate it. Done here. Over and out. Figureofnine (talk • contribs

) 12:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Favor site ban. Clearly
  here to rectify the great wrong that was done to his father at some point in the past, including murder (according to some mumbo jumbo posted on his talk page). The problem with a topic ban is that he'll go back to working his magic at John F. Kennedy or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Editor is refreshingly free of anything resembling clue, as evidenced by his appealing a ban on editing the article that I don't believe has been imposed. Yes you can make nice with him and drop him love notes and he'll continue to keep on keeping on. Coretheapple (talk
  ) 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand the problem with the first Kennedy diff above (I didn't check the second one). It looks like it restored some reasonable content about a well documented issue at the time (whether Kennedy's Catholicism would divide his loyalty between the Church and the US). It mentioned a speech that Kennedy intended to give at the Dallas Trade Mart, and quoted from a civil rights announcement. Those could have used citations--is that the issue? It took about 2 seconds to verify each with web searches[39][40] so I don't see it as a basis for banning.

  Does Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) have anything to say about this? Hawkeye7 has made substantial contributions to the Uanna article so I'd assign more weight to their view than to the others in figuring out what to do about this. Figureofnine has made a number of edits to the Uanna article, but they're all reversions, tagging, and a few minor copyedits as far as I can tell (if I missed something, I'd appreciate diffs). Coretheapple has made around 7k edits in article space to over 2000 articles, but almost all of those edits are reverts, and zero of the edits are to the Uanna article. So this seems emblematic of the bureaucracy that's given Wikipedia a bad name in recent years.

  If CIC7 is causing hardship to other people writing the article, I'd like to hear that from the writers themselves, i.e. those who have added substantial informative text rather than only reverting or rearranging, before going forward with a ban. CIC7's editing is far from perfect, but he has obviously contributed more value to the article than Figureofnine or Coretheapple, so if we're going to ban anyone we might be better off choosing the latter two. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Since your own contribs are hidden by your editing logged out, it's hard for me to determine the extent to which you may have edited this article yourself, apart from this[41] less than constructive edit restoring crap to the article, and with an inaccurate edit summary as the ANI was two years ago. What is the user name that you utilize when not trolling the drama boards? Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As part of my push to get the Manhattan Project, I made edits to the William L. Uanna to shepherd it through the GA process. CIC7 has made twice as many changes as I have, but between us, we have contributed 95% of the text of the article. I think the article is in pretty good shape. CIC7 has been a good collaborator, and has always responded helpfully and collaboratively to my requests, mainly for sources to back up claims in the article. I have had hassles with athletes editing their own articles, but not from CIC7. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, readers have a right to expect that articles not be written in collaboration with the subject or their offspring; I note that the original GA nom failed because of OR and also that this editor has edit-warred to keep OR and puffery in the article, which you made no effort to remove, over an extended period of time this week. I see that he was blocked for that. I note too also that his efforts to place a reference to his father being murdered, sourced to a fictional film and without a shred of evidence beyond that, also did not bother you one bit.[42]

I just looked at the sourcing of that article. Significant parts of the article are sourced to primary source documentation uploaded to Commons by "CIC777" which I assume is the same as this editor. The "sources to back up his claims" appears to be material he personally obtained and "published" on Commons. Looks like

WP:COI. I could not disagree more that an article relying for extensive text on self-published documentation, provided by a COI editor, is in "pretty good shape." The article reads like a memorial to this rather marginal figure, and given that his son is a principal author I am not surprised. Coretheapple (talk

) 13:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The article passed GA, so that's evidence that other editors do consider it to be in good shape. You sound like you want to eviscerate it anyway. Maybe you should find another hobby. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it means that one editor considers it in good shape. That is the weakness in the GA process. Why do you continually make false statements? Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the movie end credit, I posted in the previous ANI (yeah, August 2014 rather than last year, big whoop) why I supported using it. There's no overpowering policy basis for either including or excluding it being mandatory, so it's a matter of editorial judgment, on which reasonable people can disagree. I myself see it as an informative contribution, good to include per NPOV (with reduced WEIGHT compared to the official explanation of Uanna's death), communicating that there's an alternative claim out there that has gotten some traction. As a reader, I'm skeptical of the claim, but I appreciate being informed of its existence.

I can understand someone else weighing the subtleties differently and deciding "nah", but the wikilawyering and confrontation that I see from Figureofnine (and now CTA) are what I described earlier as WP:OWN. In any case, CTA removed it again calling it "garbage".[43] I think that's excessive and shows a lack of objectivity on CTA's part.

CTA's whole approach to this comes across as monstrously belligerent to me. I'd support administrative intervention against him if he doesn't stop that. WP:CIVIL and collegiality are supposed to still be a thing. I'll be away from editing for the next few days but will see if I can find out whether Thomas and Morgan-Witt's book (the one the movie is based on) says anything about William Uanna's eventual fate.

FWIW, I don't think I edited the article before. I supported including the movie credit but someone else (probably CIC7) put it in. Bye for now. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN? The subject's son created the article and [44] is responsible for four out of ten edits to the article on his dad. Hawkeye7 has another 23% of edits. Figureofnine 10%. No other editors on the page to speak of. I've added two tags and made one edit. Your continual false statements are disruptive, so please stop. Yes, this article passed GA despite violating site policies on sourcing. If I had a nickel for every time that happened I could probably start my own Wikipedia. This article should have been speedily failed, since the majority of footnotes go to documents uploaded to Commons, and I've commenced a community reassessment. Mr. 50, judging from how you have tenaciously disrupted a simple COI situation with false statements, personal attacks and trolling I assume that the user name you're not disclosing has quite the colorful history. Coretheapple (talk

) 11:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to impose a topic ban on CIC7 (talk · contribs).

I have no previous involvement in this, but it is clear from the evidence set out above that:

I hope that this will prevent CIC7 from continuing to edit in breach of policy, but will encourage CIC7 to help other editors to improve and expand the article(s) relating to the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WithdrawnPer my comments below[50] in response to Jytdog, I am withdrawing my proposal for a topic ban, on the understanding that this will be re-opened if CIC7 doesn't uphold the assurances[51][52] which zie has given to Jytdog.

• Support provided it's clearly understood that edits like this are encompassed by the topic ban. Not sure it is, as drafted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Coretheapple: my intention was that edits like that should be clearly covered by the ban, because if we only ban from the one article then content about William L. Uanna could be splatted across a whole range of articles. What I didn't want to do was to ban CIC7 from for example editing an article about somewhere his father lived to add content unrelated to his father. I hope that it is clear enough that adding such material such as that in your example to any another article would fall within the narrow construction of "related", but I am open to any suggestions for alternative wording to make things clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Understood. Perhaps "narrowly construed" can go. I'm just looking ahead to the future, as compliance is unlikely. This editor seems intent on his quest, which is why I advocated a site ban. In my experience such editors can be a terrible drain on the project, and you see aspects of that in the mucked-up discussion above and in the COI editor's comments below. I've commenced a community reassessment of the unwarranted GA status of this article, but it really needs to be gutted and properly sourced. I see no constructive contributions by the COI editor on the talk page, which he has used mainly to push his OR, and no effort to provide reliable secondary sources. A Google Books search shows at least two books discussing Uanna. Neither is even mentioned in the article, presumably because one of them, in a footnote, dismisses his son's conspiracy theory. This is the book, plenty of stuff on Uanna[53], published by the Naval Institute Press, some quite complimentary, but not a word on it in the article but plenty of tangential OR uploaded to Commons by the COI editor. That is what happens when editors rely upon COI editors for sourcing, and it belies Hawkeye7's comments as to what great shape the article is in and what a wonderful contributor the COI editor has been. Yes, wonderful if you ignore a COI's edidtor's agenda and are indifferent to the quality of an article's sources. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think it is completely unfair to accuse me of not using a book that was not even published at the time I upgraded the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Huh?
I didn't mention you, either directly or indirectly, let alone accuse you of anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

He was responding to me. Hawkeye7, you have acknowledged that there are multiple books, some quite old, dealing with his notable service on the Manhattan Project, none of which are utilized in the article due to overreliance on a COI editor with a fringe agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to request some outside arbitration here. I have acknowledged my COI. But many of the things that were taken out of William L. Uanna are verifiable through newspaper articles or FOI documents. They are not just my memories or those of my relatives. CIC7 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think what I want is mediation not arbitration. CIC7 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

CIC7, you can request dispute resolution on this page. Bishonen | talk 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

• Support. Wikipedia is not a Web publisher. CIC7 needs to look into one of the inexpensive services offered by Google. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now First, let me say that I agree that CIC7's behavior has been unacceptable and that he has been unresponsive to templates and requests in the past. My sense is that his attention has now been focused by this thread and the TBAN proposal, and by his 24 hour edit warring block.

Sometimes people do respond when you get their attention. I opened a discussion with him about COI, and he has acknowledged his COI, and he has promised to stop directly editing the article and instead propose changes on the Talk page. I've also given him advice about how to participate on the Talk page.

I recommend that this be closed, and if CIC7 turns out to be unrelenting/disruptive on the Talk page or goes back to directly editing the article, that this be re-opened and a series of escalating blocks be given. But let him try now that he is talking and appears to have the beginnings of an understanding of what it means to be a Wikipedia editor. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: congrats on engaging CIC7 in dialogue, and in the progress you have made, especially in getting a commitment[54] from CIC7 to stop editing the article, and start proposing changes on the talk page.
It's also clear from that discussion that CIC7 has a very limited understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so it's great that you have helped out with a very comprehensive set of explanations. I see that CIC7 has also agreed to follow those guidelines[55].
Given all that progress, I agree that a topic ban is inappropriate at this stage ... so I will withdraw my TBAN proposal, on the understanding that this will be re-opened if CIC7's assurances are not upheld. --User:BrownHairedGirl, 09:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a workable outcome. However, I think that input would be desirable from @Figureofnine:, who commenced this discussion, has had to bear the brunt of this particular editor, and was forced out of this discussion by a particularly aggressive IP troll. Coretheapple (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

However, I'm not seeing any recent contributions by FON so it may be pointless to keep this open. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: forgot to ping you. Adding pings doesn't work. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Coretheapple. I had actually spotted your comment, but it was kind of you to add the ping just in case.

It would be nice to hear from Figureofnine before this discussion closes, but I don't think any further comment would make much difference now. FON made a good case above, but since nobody else is now supporting a topic ban of CIC7 at this stage, I doubt that further comment from FON would alter the outcome.

AFAICS, there is consensus at this point to give

WP:ROPE, and let CIC7 decide how to use it. I can see that CIC7 has a lot of learning to do wrt to en.wp policies and principles, but I hope that there will be a serious effort to learn and act on them. If CIC7 ends up back here again, I reckon that sanctions would happen quite quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem unfortunate that these kinds of discussions are even necessary at all, since our guideline is quite clear that COI editors are not supposed to be editing the article, much less edit-warring over it, much less editing warring over puffery and OR. I think this article seems to suffer in general from a lack of eyes on the content, which is how we got to this point. P.S. am signing your comment above, BrownHairedGirl, hope you don't mind. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: if all editors consistently upheld Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then there probably would be no need for ANI or any of the other dramaboards. But we live in an imperfect world, so these things happen, and we have ways of dealing with them.

I hope that CIC7 is able to follow through on the assurances given here, and that the discussion will have drawn more eyes to the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)