Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles

Despite the fact that User:NadirAli was warned not to edit war by User:GoldenRing just four days ago at Arbcom [1], this man has continued to do so, ignoring consensus established by at least three to four users. The issue started when NadirAli blanked a large chunk of material from the Kalash people article [2]. He was reverted by other users, including myself, but then proceeded to continue edit warring and tagging the article [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. On the talk page of the article, he justified his inclusions by using story books and alt-right sources such as "raceandhistory.com". It seems that this individual suffers a major WP:COMPETENCE issue, which has been noted by other users before, like User:FlightTime [8]. Other users disagreed with the troublesome behavior, including User:Capitals00 and User:Anupam noted that two different held by scholars should be represented in the article and this was agreed upon. Nonetheless, NadirAli defied consensus in the talk page and gave more weight to his preferred view [9]. Countless users regularly waste their time telling this man not to edit tentenditiously on India-Pakistan articles, such as User:Joshua Jonathan [10] or User:Kautilya3 [11]. This man was banned for several years from India-Pakistan topics and doesn't follow consensus on other topics either, including articles about Star Wars, as noted by User:EEMIV [12]. Is it time for us to consider whether the project is wasting their time having to constantly block and coach this stubborn man? I'm mostly a WikiGnome but I can spot trouble when I see it. Two options - site ban or topic ban? Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war" across multiple pages. I have opened discussions on those two pages. The Kalash article is disputed, and as user:Mar4d pointed out, the vast majority of sources support for Animism. So mentioning most in the article, a basic fact you seem to ignore and openly reject in the article is going to be a problem for many users. The dispute is still on and I will point administrators to talk:Kalash and talk:Hindu at discussions I myself started for verification before simply believing Knox490's attack accusations. I have been on Pakistan topics for a year and a half.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thought I'd ping User:El C, User:Ohnoitsjamie, and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - 3 sysops who've blocked this man in the last year. If I listed all the sysops who've blocked this man, I'd get carpal tunnel - 17 sysops in total. Knox490 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not start any edit war with you. Check the article history. I pointed you to user:Mar4d's comments on the talk page and you left this comment in your edit summary. As such I placed the disputed tag. After that you suddenly opened an ANI. I request administrators to review the talk pages first and article history.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, this is a content dispute and should be treated as such. The talk page is the best venue to solve any inconsistencies, and I have already left my input there. I would not say the current article is perfect, but it is nevertheless somewhere on a middle road. Having studied the various WP:RS produced on the subject, the majority of the scholarly view suggests the Kalash religion is animistic. There are some sources which construct a link to pre-Vedic Hindu beliefs, but the connection remains vague and not as extensively discussed by sources. They are still incorporated in the text though, as they are theories. I have already indicated that the most reasonable rewrite would be one which primarily focuses on their animistic practices, and combines input from those sources which suggest a Hindu origin. The majority of the sources favour the former, so in terms of WP:WEIGHT, we should write it according to what the sources imply. I suggest that all involved users use the talk page to discuss this further. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been discussing the disputes, which you have ignored [13][14][15]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this is a content dispute at this stage. I don't think the description "blanked a large chunk of material" is entirely fair - that diff contains a lot of changes and the movement of a large slab of material to another place in the article. I would advise NadirAli to edit carefully; I'm rather concerned when an editor claims that the "vast majority of sources" supports their view, but what they've actually done is replaced text sourced to Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia with their own text sourced to [16]. If the vast majority of sources support your view, then back your text up with your best sources, not this. If this is actually the best source you have for your position, then I think it's time to back down a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor GoldenRing:, thank you for your comment, but that is not what I was referring to. Please see the links on the talk page which I posted as well as Mar4d posts. (talk:Kalash people). Those were the ones I was referring to. The other issue I had was the disputed tag removal in the article as in the case of Zia Ul-Haq's Islamitisation (that dispute was been now long resolved). Other issues were edits like these. I have been wanting to have this article to be receive arbitrary sanctions because it has been targeted by various nationalists from Greek to Macedonian to Indian. Your help in nominating it would be useful.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor GoldenRing: These were the sources I was referring to, in addition to the ones presented by user:Mar4d (some of them may overlap) [17] [18] [19] [20][21][22][23][24]. There's many more, but I think is is good enough. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion except that I looked at some of the edits, and the editors are warring with each other, making personal comments, within the Edit summaries. This is not the best practice for anybody and could be grounds for action. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, you just requested article protection because you said "Greek nationalists" and "Indian nationalists" have "targeted" it. This is exactly the reason I came here - your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated here and I say this as someone of Anglo-Saxon heritage. This is what got you banned from Wikipedia for years and from India-Pakistan articles. I don't think you can edit constructively here and think that sysops here should consider re-implementing that ban.Knox490 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles. I have not interacted with this editor to my knowledge, but a thorough look at NadirAli's edits seems to show a battleground mentality -- he gets into arguments with people accross numerous different articles. The discussion above also seems to show that NadirAli is willing to delete information backed by reliable sources to push his own POV, rather than accept the best efforts of other users who are willing to compromise with him. This hasn't happened once, but numerous times. Looking at his block log, NadirAli has been blocked over 20 times and I think other constructive users are annoyed in having to deal with his editing behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - What're your thoughts about much of that same problematic behavior -- e.g. battleground mentality, non-NPOV, non-AGF -- outside the India-Pakistan topic? --EEMIV (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note to admins Please take notice of these comments and several other instances past disruptive behavior as noted by others [25].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I requested arbitrary sanctions (something I accidentally myself got blocked for), not page protection. Big difference. It's already been semi-protected for months. Also look at this comment by user:Dbachmann, an administrator. WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? He's stating pretty much the same thing as I am. It's been edit warred over for years before I touched the page, even if my actions can be seen as "edit warring".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who has written the history section of the FA INDIA as well as the History of Pakistan page, I can say with some confidence that as far as the content dispute is concerned, it is not all Nadir Ali's fault. The Kalash people article is one of the many articles in which India-POV editors typically find some "academic sources" and stuff the lead of the article with Indo-Aryan, "Hindu", "Vedic," etc. I've seen this for over ten years. Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them. They are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference, the subtle POV pushing in the Wikipedia article in the service of WP:Lead fixation? Nadir Ali, should no doubt not engage in edit wars, but his opponents are not innocent, just because they are paying lip-service to Wikipedia etiquette and have access to academic sources, which they are no doubt misusing. Every one should be given a warning, a stern one. No blocks or topic bans required at this stage.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Fowler&fowler:, would you and others not agree that the WikiProject Hindu needs to be taken off that talk page? It's an article about an ethnic group, not a religious group. If I were to attempt to remove it, I would be libeled once again. As examples talk:Tajik people, Talk:Pashtun people, Talk:Uzbek people, Talk:Sindhi people, Talk:Tartar people. Despite these people being primarily Muslims, I do not see them tagged with WikiProject Islam. I see this as a move of deliberate appropriation, but again would refrain from removing it for the same reasons have been astonishingly accused of (WP:BATTLEGROUND?).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed WikiProject Hinduism banner, and I suggest no one add it again without substantial discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Fowler&fowler:, even if there was consensus that these people were followers of so-called "Hinduism", don't you and others agree that the article is about the ethnic group and not their religion? Tags go in topics about religious groups (ie. Muslims, Jews, Christians etc.) and as I pointed out, no article on Muslim-majority ethnic groups have WikiProject Islam tagged on them for the reason I explained.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Tban. I realize that people can and do change. On the other hand, people are very often creatures of habit. User: NadirAli has been blocked a great number of times and as recently as this month he was blocked. So he is stubbornly and persistently a problem editor. I realize that people have strong feelings about religion/country and often try to impose what they wish was true rather than base matters on scholarship and the use of reliable sources. But we have to keep up our standards and not lower them. A topic ban is appropriate at this point. We can't allow people to aggressively push the use of dubious sources such as the alt-right source and the other poor source that User: NadirAli tried to use. Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban After reviewing the case and evidence, it is clear that NadirAli continues to be disruptive. NadirAli hasn't demonstrated improvement even after blocks by numerous admins, including five in 2016 and 2017, some for repeat violations after coming out of a block. The extenuating arguments made above are unpersuasive. To say some or many "academic sources" are "allegedly somehow" bad does not make sense. That is asking for a license for POV-pushing and encouragement to abandon wikipedia's content policies such as verifiability, reliable sources and NPOV. We can't pick a side if and when there is a dispute in academic sources, we summarize the sides. If some sources are to be banned from wikipedia, don't selectively delete them in some articles and keep them in others; instead, nominate that source with evidence of wiki-plagiarism, then add them to WP:PUS like admin Utcursch has done with Gyan Publishing etc. If you can't provide evidence, please don't defame living scholars and please don't disrupt. NadirAli, as mentioned above by GoldenRing, removes tertiary source such as "Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia" by James Minahan (whose publications have been favorably reviewed), and adds questionable website sources such as kaleshwelfare.org. Again shows NadirAli hasn't cared to understand content policies after past blocks, continued disruption and WP:NOTHERE. An indef block, or one where NadirAli can appeal for an admin review after 1 year of constructive editing elsewhere, seems appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In Nadir Ali's defense, I would like to suggest that the problem of misusing what are putatively high quality academic sources in Wikipedia articles to further a POV is a much more noxious one than one of just edit warring, for which we can all facilely quote WP policy. If Wikipedia has evolved in the last ten years, so has the ability of Wikipedia's editors to access academic sources. With the sheer amount of published academic material available, it is quite easy to find academic citations for assertions that, in sequence, shift the slant of the article. As I stated above I have seen this in a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan related article, in which editors with access to academic sources introduce subtle ideological shifts involving "India," "Hinduism," and so forth, . Consider, for example, the WP article on the Hindu Kush mountain range, situated not far from where the Kalash people live. What do articles on mountain ranges typically have? It is not hard to see, by examining Himalayas, Andes, that they have sections on geography, geology, hydrology, climate, ecology, and then brief sections, if any, on local culture, economy. Indeed the extensive Britannica article on Hindu Kush has precisely such sections: physiography, geology, drainage, climate, .... In early November, 2016, the Hindu Kush, article (total word count 1600) was not quite the model, but proportionally had as much about the mountain system as it did about historical topics (by which I mean; political history, religious history, social history, etc in which the name of the mountain range occurs). Fast forward to the Hindu Kush article in mid-December 2016 (total word count 2800). What has been added? It is the history section, especially a subsection on "slavery," which expands on an old notion that the mountain name got its name "Hindu Kush" because tens of thousands of Hindu slaves from India died in its forbidding defiles, all abducted by Islamic invaders, and so forth. I haven't checked but I'm reasonably sure that what was added was impeccably sourced and prefaced with "according to Professor So-and-so, ...". But you can imagine that when editors from Afghanistan or Pakistan see such changes, they get irritated. There is often not too much they can do because the edits are sourced to scholarly sources, and WP discussion on UNDUE etc are often inconclusive. (It is much easier to add UNDUE assertions sourced to impeccable sources, than it is to show that such assertions constitute a minority opinion in the larger literature on the topic.) This is the sort of thing that editors such as Nadir Ali, admittedly in their characteristic way, are battling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

F&f: Edit warring about "undue assertions sourced to impeccable sources", without a shred of evidence that it is "undue" per reliable source(s), is disruption! If someone has a feeling / prejudice / personal wisdom that "a view may constitute a minority opinion", that is just a feeling/prejudice/personal wisdom unless that someone can provide a reliable source that states "view X is a minority opinion and here is the majority opinion". That is particularly true, in cases where the sources are stating that X is the majority view and the wikipedia article is already summarizing the majority view X. Your opinion and colorful language/assertion does not matter, nor does someone's OR with no source, nor source misrepresentations and nor 'citation pending request' which you seem to miss in this. Sockpuppets and persistently disruptive editors adding unsourced, unverified OR with gross source misrepresentations or pushing a particular POV do not "balance an article", they disrupt and push a POV. Nothing you state actually evidences any extenuating circumstances for NadirAli, since your edit diffs have nothing to do with NadirAli (which raises the question why are doing that). The evidence is that NadirAli keeps disrupting despite blocks by numerous admins, NadirAli keeps deleting reliable sources and edit warring with non-RS blog/website based content. GoldenRing, Knox490 and others are right about NadirAli's disruption, diagnosis and Tban proposal. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Welch: I already stated, and let me state again: Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them. They are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference? All the words Indo-Aryan, Hinduism, are absent in the latter article, which was written by cleaning up the Wikipedia article. Contrast the article Hindu kush that you've rewritten in large part—thereby conferring on it the honor of being the only Wikipedia article on a major mountain range whose history section (with notable slavery section) is bigger than its geology, physiography, palaeogeography, drainage, climate, and ecology put together— with Britannica's Hindu Kush. Do you see the difference? You, on Hindu kush, and other editors on Kalash people, are violating all sorts of Wikipedia guidelines, in spirit if not in the letter. Nadir Ali might be doing it more in the letter (of the law). But so what? Damage to these articles is being done by everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• F&f: You are mistaken about the history of the Hindu Kush article (the unsourced text on Soviet tanks there, cold war, Taliban was there in the November 2016 version; all that was neither added by NadirAli, nor I, nor you). This is not the talk page of Hindu Kush article, this is ANI. Nor has that article anything to do with NadirAli, nor this case! Please avoid irrelevant stuff. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch, so you call this and this "blogs"? At least it's more straight forward than the vague statements of "a form of 'Hinduism'" (an undefined term for a century and a half). It's the same as the joker who started this thread, persistently accusing me of using "a storybook" as a source, when Empires of the Indus is clearly a non-fiction book. That combined with the other sources I and user:Mar4d posted, along with most academic sources not referring to the Kalash religion as so-called "Hinduism". Using lies or misleading statements and false accusations to report a dispute on ANI should be given the strictest penalties--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• NadirAli: Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Please do provide edit diffs when you cast aspersions on what you label as "the joker who started this thread". GoldenRing and Knox490 have provided evidence, and they do have a valid concern just like the numerous admins who have blocked you in the past. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite Topic Ban across all Indian, Hinduism related articles Disruptive editing going on since 2006. There is no chance that this editor will not create any further disruption. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and comment Having seen ANI threads go down the drain as, essentially, mud throwing contests in the past, I'm dispirited to learn that this is going in the same direction. As Fowler&fowler noted, "subtle" ideological viewpoints and editing have characterized South Asian articles since forever. I see it wrong to squarely single out NadirAli, as that would imply he alone is responsible. Because that is simply not true, at least from how I have seen him edit constructively on several Pakistan articles. I cannot help but notice that everyone in favour of a topic ban here are mainly those who seem to have had a history with the user. This thread was started with a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli. And this is not to cast aspersions, but what is to say that those same users are foolproof clean from personal POVs, leanings and positions on certain issues, editing viewpoints (we all have one after all) and all else Nadir here is being accused of? I at least wouldn't place the odds very high, knowing this topic area and as Fowler&fowler eloquently put out. I think we'll defer the rest to an admin's judgement, but I must say I'm quite disappointed to see things go down this route escalating from what was originally a content dispute (and where I would still back my horses on Nadir's argument; the theory that Kalash have Hindu origins remains vague, and certainly not scholarly favored any higher than their animist origins; and the compromise version thus worked better than the previous revision). Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose TBan and comment – It is true that NadirAli appears as a compulsive edit-warrior. I face his edit-warring quite regularly, e.g., [26], [27] at Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization (April 2017), [28], [29] at Hindu (this month, even while the Kalash people dispute was ongoing). I have also seen him move war [30], [31], [32] at Iron Age in India even after RegentsPark told him to file a Request for Move. I have had to spell it out to him that any deviation from WP:BRD constitutes edit-warring, which shouldn't have been necessary for an editor with such a long history. But on the positive side, he does discuss on the talk pages, even if a bit late and even if his argumentation is rarely consensus-seeking, ignores RS, and keeps repeating points in a self-assured way. But beneath all his bravado, there is often a germ of a valid concern somewhere, which might need to be taken into account. Fowler&fowler tried to explicate that above in the present instance, even though I don't accept that the New World Encyclopedia is a better standard to follow. So, all said and done, his presence on the project might be beneficial in the long run for rebalancing articles, even if we have to put up with the annoyance of his aggressive editing occasionally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Kautilya3: would a limited Tban or 1RR restriction or some other approach on NadirAli be helpful to the project in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India space articles? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Sarah Walech, I have provided diffs and links, including the links to user:Dbachmann's comment (I hope you & Knox are not going to propose a topic ban against him for this), the book sources I shared as well as the link to Empires of the Indus which says it's a non-fiction book, while he repeatedly claims it's a "storybook" (already provided in the edit summary diff) and removed the disputed tag on that basis. Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences. GoldenRing already noticed some of the lies posted here. As for the admins who have blocked me, about half of them are gone (including one who was de-sysopped for blocking users who edit warred with him) or semi-active (as will be the case for all of us eventually).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• NadirAli: You write, "Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences." I searched your edit history and ANI page, Knox490 questions "raceandhistory.com" as a source. Why and how is that lying? Edit diff please! You did add raceandhistory.com here, Knox490 does have a valid concern with your editing here and here and etc (something admin GoldenRing notes above). Did one out of 12+ admins who blocked you get de-sysoped for blocking you? Did half of them become semi-active because of you? If so, please provide some evidence, some edit diffs. Otherwise, please see WP:NOTTHEM, avoid mentioning what happened to admins who blocked you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Sarah Welch, I never used it as a "source", just to present an argument. I don't ever remember claiming it to be a source, so to accuse me of using it as one is indeed a lie. I presented three links, two of them WP:RS and one for general arguments, but only one was linked here in order to deceive others and discredit me. Regarding the other admins, well you brought it up so I replied. If posted diffs to other admins retiring/semi-retiring because of me, I would just be advocating that I'm the problem in these disputes, rather than pushing for content to comply with the majority and more direct sources, which I am. Now if you'll please excuse me, there are pages I need to work on.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose any ban for Nadir Ali and Comment: I will stake my reputation on Wikipedia (including that of the editor with the most number of edits on the FA India, the author of its history, geography, and biodiversity sections), when I say that India- and Hinduism-related UNDUE edits are being made on on a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages. These are what Nadir Ali has to put up with. Sometimes it involves inserting "India," "Hinduism," needlessly, sometimes it is much more UNDUE. I have already mentioned the Kalash people article. The article quotes Harvard Sanskritist Michael Witzel to imply that the Kalash religion is a form of ancient Hinduism. But Witzel in his latest book is very careful to use only "pagan" for the Kalash religion. See here. He uses that word half a dozen times, once explicitly with "pre-Hindu." (See here.) In the Hindu Kush article, on a mountain range, on the borders of which the Kalash live: between 10 December, 2016, (total word count 1600) and 16 December 2016 (total word count 2800) extraneous material on history and slavery was added and the geology section was changed in a manifestly unencylopedic fashion. No amount of last-minute tinkering with rearrangement, done a few hours ago, in response to this thread, can hide the UNDUE edits, especially the spectacular insertion of "Greater India" ("Geologically, the Indian subcontinent was first a part of so-called "Greater India",[22] a region of Gondwana that drifted away from East Africa about 160 million years ago, around the Middle Jurassic period") in the opening sentence of the geology section in this edit with edit summary, "no youtube/personal videos/blogs please; replace with content from scholarly sources". Recondite geophysics journals are cited, (actually taken from the Indian subcontinent page), but the cited articles say that what drifted away was Greater India (including Madagascar and Seychelles), and Australia and Antarctica. (Parenthetically: "Greater India" is a highly specialized geophysics term that has gained currency in the last 40-odd years. It refers to the reconstructions of the Indian continental crust plus hypothesized northern extension of the oceanic crust which subducted under Tibet at the time of the India-Eurasia collision. Sometimes it is used to refer only to the northern extension. In fact, that is what the first cited authors say. They say, "We apply the common term Greater India to refer to the part of the Indian plate that has been subducted underneath Tibet since the onset of Cenozoic continental collision.") I wrote the article on Greater India on Wikipedia some ten years ago, before it was hijacked, and know what the specialist usage means. I wrote the geography section of the FA India. Do we mention "greater India" there? We don't. Is it mentioned in the Himalayas page? It is not (see Himalayas#Geography_and_key_features). Is it mentioned in the Karakoram page? It is not. See Karakoram#Geology_and_glaciers. Presiding admin: please take note. This is the kind of "cited to high quality RS" UNDUE content that people like Nadir Ali have to put up with. It takes someone like me, with vast experience in academics, someone who knows a thing or two about the geological formation of India, to dig out from under the UNDUE avalanche. Nadir Ali, very likely does not have the tools to access all these obscure articles. And, the editors who added the UNDUE content, please don't Wikilawyer facilely and tell me this is not the right venue for my post. It very much is, if I have to give examples of what Nadir Ali has to face. Granted he his not innocent, but neither are the others he has to encounter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

PS It is not lost on me that the Wikipedia article Greater India today has no mention of geology in its lead. It says, "The term Greater India is most commonly used to encompass the historical and geographic extent of all political entities of the Indian subcontinent and beyond, that had to varying degrees been transformed by the acceptance and induction of cultural and institutional elements of pre-Islamic India." How great does that look when referred to on Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages even when "Greater India" is not wiki-linked. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: Fowler&flower, with his usual WP:TEXTWALL, seems to be falsely implying that you edited Hindu Kush article and gives it as an example "what NadirAli has to face", along with "Granted he [NadirAli] is not innocent" but an excuse for you to disrupt that article, etc!! I do not see you ever editing the Hindu Kush article since 2013? Did you have an alternate account that we are unaware of? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't win any silly brownie points with that literal interpretation. You don't think I already checked whether or not Nadir Ali had made edits on Hindu Kush when I examined the history of all edits on that so assiduously. I gave that as an example of the more general point about what Pakistani and other editors have to put up with. I gave that as an example of the sheer scale of the sourced UNDUE that is being added to these articles, not to mention, in the passing, the UNDUE antecedents of the very people who are crying so piously for Nadir Ali's blood. Kalash people (not edited by you); Hindu Kush (not edited by Nadir Ali) and Indian subcontinent (edited by you and Mar4d, who has made a post above) were just three examples. I said, "This is the kind of 'cited to high quality RS' UNDUE content that people like Nadir Ali have to put up with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• In other words, now you stating "NadirAli never tried to edit Hindu Kush since 2013, but you know that NadirAli somehow got upset with "having to put up with" the "reliably sourced, but allegedly undue content" in Hindu Kush article; that you allege somehow justifies disruptive behavior by NadirAli in other articles." This "he can't put up with the content in our Mickey Mouse article, so he disrupts that other article" is unpersuasive for any ANI case. Strange but thanks for clarifying, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

In my very first post, I offered in comparison, the New World Encyclopedia article on Kalash, which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan." I then clicked on Wikipedia's Hindu Kush and the UNDUE edits were manifest. I then wrote in my oppose, "India- and Hinduism-related UNDUE edits are being made on on a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages." ANI threads are not just about the people whose name appears in the section title; they are also about the people who are pointing fingers, crying for blood, but themselves making edits in the same topic area that violate WP guidelines. If you think you haven't violated DUE at Hindu Kush take me to the WP forum of your choosing and I will offer proof. But before that you might want to consider how you managed to add to an article on the great mountain range of Central Asia the sentences, "Al Biruni found it difficult to get access to Indian literature locally in the Hindu Kush area, and to explain this he wrote, 'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed wonderful exploits by which the Hindus became the atoms scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. (...) This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares and other places'" (See here with edit summary, "add sources.") What is this if not a flagrant example of an "India- and Hinduism related UNDUE edit on a Pakistan- or Afghanistan related page?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles This editor has not learned from his previous mistakes, despite the multiple chances given to him, as shown in his extensive block log. Many of his contributions demonstrate aggressive POV pushing, such as those listed by User:Ms Sarah Welch above. --EngiZe (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban as direct party involved and also note the one proposing the topic ban also voted in favor of the same thing he proposed, an attempt to add more votes. @EngiZe, is this your first ANI post? It seems like it for a user only here a year and a half (how did you happen to find this board and specific topic?). Prior to that what disputes were you involved in before your "clean start"? You seem to have edited in this topic area too.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I also wonder if all the blocks in my log are ever cross examined in a review board or a review case, not that such a system exists yet on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Many blocks would turn out to be unjustified, especially Rama's Arrow, who kept blocking other users besides me that also opposed his aggressive edit warring and putting in falsified reasons in block logs. Some of them included User:Szhaider, a former Urdu Wikipedia administrator. Even now, as back then, while many users were opposed to me (many of which turned out to be sockpuppets/masters in the past month and others who had their own previous squabbles with various other users as user:Mar4d questioned and I pointed out, including the user posting above who went by another username before their "clean start"), there are many good standing editors with good reputations including administrators who agree with me on these topics, not to mention my valuable contributions to Wikipedia, including this area. Szhaider voluntarily left because he had no hope in the system as do I.[33] And I never really intended to stay here that long. But seeing Wikipedia is already on the decline, I thought I might as well fix it up as much as I can before my presence on the site goes away with the website itself.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I opposed desysopping of Rama's Arrow back in Feb 2007, I did mention some issue he had, that in my current view, made it all too easy for NadirAli and two other Pakistan editors to receive blocks. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There was more discussion on that on WP:RFA/Hkelkar-2, where RA was revealed to be using his rollback tools to dodge 3RR and team tag edit warring and then blocking the same user he edit warred with for edit warring. In my block log and other Pakistani users block log he put some strange reasons without providing any evidence for it or posting it on ANI, so I'm arguing to cite my block log without cross examination of each case is a deception. At least evidence should be provided to back it up. Another was Blguyans block of my in 2009 to indefinite despite me having been gone a full year and based on a decision where most of the "evidence" was twisted statements from the one side and the ability for the other side to break the very principle rules of Wikipedia and get away with it without even a warning. So how can half the blocks in my log even be taken seriously. But to add to Fowler and Mar4d's statements on WP:UNDUE, I think these are strings of cases of WP:Systematic bias, where some vague statements are being inserted in the lead and infoboxes to change public perception on the whole subject, when the majority of sources make clear cut statements for animism as in the case of the Kalash article, yet they're both being treated equally. Even the sources I posted in the discussion were never addressed and instead I was accused of "removing 'reliable sourced' content" when under the current compromise, I just made the factual edit that majority of scholars refer to the religion as a form of animism. But in the end, I am repeating that it matters less. Given the inevitable decline of Wikipedia -now from second website to tenth most viewed website plus the loss of over a third of contributors because of unjust treatment and favoritism, my repeated question is what will it matter what happened ten years ago or last month? Imagine looking back at these disputes in the next few years when Wikipedia will end up somewhere much further below.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD

Last year we had this discussion at AN/I. Please review that discussion, and then consider the same user's behaviour towards Cunard at this AfD. Personally, I think Light2021 is in need of further support and direction from our admin corps; your mileage may vary.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only applaud your delicacy of phrasing, S Marshall  ;) — fortunavelut luna 17:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and this discussion is another example.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: This thread appears to be disappearing into irrelevance, so let me revive it. I have seen Light2021 nominate a great deal of CSDs, some of which don't meet the criteria, and a lot of AfDs for not particularly significant companies. While many of the AfDs appear to close as desired, some don't, and a lot of the debates see a three-way Mexican standoff between Light2021, Cunard and SwisterTwister in the discussion. Light2021's standard of English is not great, and he does seem to be a "one trick pony" on a mission to delete all the articles on Wikipedia he doesn't like. I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion, S Marshall (talk · contribs).

I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. – Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), I have posted my observations of Light2021's actions below.

The close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 says, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous blocks

1. In April 2016, Light2021 was blocked multiple times by Randykitty (talk · contribs) and Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, personal attacks, vandalism, and abusing multiple accounts.
2. Light2021 was blocked for one month in November 2016 by Kudpung (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021.
3. Light2021 was most recently blocked for two months by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) on 31 January 2017 for "disruptive behavior" and "WP:CIR issues".

Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

1. Against Timtempleton (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote on 3 July 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi: "Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none."

   Timtempleton replied: "I did not create this article, nor did I add any promotional information, so I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that I'm somehow a paid editor. It's obviously clear that the deletion discussion is not going to be anything but a no consensus close at worst. Go with consensus and please stop making baseless accusations."

2. Against SL93 (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoneMinder, "You must be joking about such sources". SL93 responded, "Can you do me a favor and stop being so combative?"
3. Against SoWhy (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote:

   Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.

   Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks!

4. Regarding Light2021's hostility against my posts, this has happened multiple times in addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) and casting aspersions against me was a concern raised in November 2016 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021. I generally avoid replying to Light2021's comments to me at AfDs because of the hostility.

Canvassing

Kudpung (talk · contribs) warned Light2021 not to canvass on 20 January 2017:

Hi, you have been warned about not respecting policies and you have also been blocked several times. You will not get your own way by canvassing. Please note that any further abuse of editing privileges may result in an extended block, and without the necessity of a discussion at ANI.

Here are recent instances of canvassing:

1. 37signals was renamed to Basecamp (company). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination), Light2021 pinged users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals who had supported deletion (as well as several other editors that I don't know how he found). But Light2021 did not ping users who had supported retention at either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company). Light2021 did not understand why the canvassing was wrong after this discussion with Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) on his talk page.

   He also canvassed here, pinging editors, many of whom had no involvement in the article or AfD. One of the editors was a user he had given a "No Spam Barnstar" to. Light2021 wrote, "I need your help to know how we can make Wikipedia better. I am asking here as this article is going toward No consensus or Keep by baseless Press coverage."

2. At Talk:Keith Ferrazzi, Light2021 pinged users who largely had supported deletion at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bradberry. Light2021 wrote, "Need your suggestions on This one. Complete promotional articles getting protected and just going for No-consensus. Not even a single coverage is found on Notable media. Editing is clear Paid." The pinged editors later participated at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi.

Reverting AfD closes

1. Light2021 reverted Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airside (company) as "speedy keep".
2. Light2021 reverted Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans as "speedy keep".

Tag bombing

Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

1. Basecamp (company) (added eight maintenance tags)
2. Forever (website) (added {{BLP sources}} to an article about a website)
3. Sri Krishna Sweets (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)
4. Leonard Abramson (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)

Declined speedy deletions

The declined speedy deletions below are all between 28 June 2017 and 15 July 2017.

1. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Crowdspring two minutes after he nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination). The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs).
2. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Show-Score. The speedy was declined by Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) because "has rs coverage Broadway World, ABC".
3. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Ask Ziggy. The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) because there was a clear consensus to keep in 2013 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Ziggy Inc..
4. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Airside (company). The speedy was declined by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), who wrote, "BAFTA nominated?!!!!!"
5. Light2021 added a {{db-spam}} tag to 10,000ft. The speedy was declined by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), who wrote, "Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional".
6. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Thad Ackel was declined here.
7. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Sarkis Acopian was declined here ("decline A7, 'There he designed and manufactured the first ever solar radio' is enough")
8. Light2021's {{db-a7}} tag for Peter Barnes (entrepreneur) was declined here ("decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD").
9. Light2021's {{db-corp}} tag for Picaboo was declined here ("decline A7, name dropped in the WSJ").
10. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g1}} tags for Astro Studios were declined here ("decline A7, linked to notable products, trim puffery and unreferenced content").
11. Light2021's {{db-g11}} tag for Core77 was declined here ("speedy deletion declined since the entire article was not outright promotional; removed one peacock word").
12. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for Stanley Foster Reed was declined here ("Decline speedy delete, founder of a magazine and journal with articles is a claim to sginificance and not unambiguous promotion")
13. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Gamil Design was declined here ("Not quite G11, but could use a lot less 'product info'.").
14. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 23 Envelope was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid")
15. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Vaughan Oliver was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
16. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Rick Poynor was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
17. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 75B was declined here ("Decline speedy, don't really see blatant spam here. File at AfD if desired.")
18. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for RKS Design was declined here.
19. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Ravi Sawhney was declined here.
20. Light2021's {{db-repost}} tag for FlipKey was declined here ("you can not request a speedy deletion after you just started an AFD for this. It was also recreated three years ago and things have been added").
21. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for DragonLord Enterprises, Inc. was declined here.
22. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for AlchemyAPI were declined here ("'As of February 2014, it claims to have clients in 36 countries and process over 3 billion documents a month.' seems notable to me.).
23. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Active Collab was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
24. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Agnantty was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
25. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for JForce was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.").
26. Light2021's {{db-web}} tag for Mental literacy was declined here ("not in the appropriate class of topics for A7").
27. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for MindMapper was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.")

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I close a lot of AfDs within WP:DSI and in the process I go through most of the listed AfDs in detail, even if I'm don't close them or consider closing them and I've found Light2021's behavior at AfDs to be perplexing to say the least. On one article with a few independent sources they'll !vote delete and then on another with almost no sourcing they go on to !vote keep and question the credibility of the other participants. This is clearly a case of not showing the level of understanding of our policies, guidelines, and processes or something more fishy. An indefinite topic ban from any deletion process seems to be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have a ton to add other than that the one speedy deletion by Light2021 that I declined in the list above was not the only one. See [34], [35], [36]. I do appreciate that they later took the articles I declined to speedy delete to AfD. There are lots of articles that should probably be deleted but that don't meet the CSD; though Light2021 should have known not to nominate these three for speedy deletion, they were correct to take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence presented, I feel that a temporary topic-ban from deletion-related processes would be in Light2021's best interests. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, can we go with Spaceman Spiff's "indefinite topic ban" rather than Power's "temporary topic ban" and expand "deletion-related processes" to "processes related to content removal"? Would be nice to restrict the tag bombing and inappropriate merge nominations as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I support your expanded proposal, S Marshall, which will address the disruptive editing. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The editor's comments to me at the ZoneMinder AfD were frustrating. First, his response had to do with him thinking that I said that the self-published book showed notability (I didn't). Then, of course, the editor said that the sources that I was referring to do not show notability and asked if we were creating a directory. He is very combative in AfDs and it seems like he wants the last word. Magazines like Infoworld do show notability for tech and such sources definitely do not count as spam as the editor told me. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My Version

I understand all the above concerns, I have nothing but one thing to say. Judge me after April 2017 Events. Above you have mentioned 27

articles, but isn't it little biased where you missed how many were deleted, and many of them from 27 articles are on AfD and they will do their course. I do understand its a human nature to like or dislike someone, here its clearly a case where facts are presented selectively. Cunard is an admin, its good, but the way he makes and Keep argument with lengthy copy-paste job, does not look mature. second his Keep arguments gets less than 50% results, means he might be wrong also, but I am also not perfect 100%, I am getting closed to with my Afd. Whatever community decides, be independent, unbiased, and check the behavior after April 2017. I have not abused anyone, it is very normal to ask questions, some people get offended when they have been asked about their behavior or decision. It is also fine. Thanks. I am just making my part. Its obvious all Past arguments/ blocked will be brought again and again and again. It is irrelevant to judge the present by past! In the above discussion, its more about my past than present, where I am getting better. Admin makes so many mistake, I am also learning.

• As for fair investigation. Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources are exatly Press coverage or Corporate Spam. Isn't being Personal from Cunard ends, here also he selectively and cunningly mentioned sources as if I am the one holds all the fault. Now he will say, I am making comment against him. He has all the power being an Admin.

Be fair, and don't bite if you don't like someone. Light2021 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Deliberate attempt to prove my selection wrong. These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field. in his talk page, he commented on me, and made a perception about me. No body questioned such admins.

Here is the such example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipKey (2nd nomination) . On what ground he kept one paragraph articles? Just to prove my AfD wrong, and many such cases. No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia. Now he will have an option to Ban me. for speaking the blunt truth. That is correct, such articles are protected not by Paid editors but by such admins who are corrupt in doing their work. Speaking strongly will be deleted or banned by such Admins. Good Luck!

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans nominated by me, kept by admin, generally he relist all my article when delete is in majority till he gets many votes. here he kept it for no reason. later got deleted thankfully. my selection are not wrong, Non-consensus does not mean a bad nominations. It was definitely doubtful one. I am making over 95% good AfD (From last 200 only/latest). Not bad for making This wikipedia spam free, right? Light2021 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment We are getting out of the realms of disruption and into competence is required here.

• User:Cunard is not an admin.
• " Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources" Actually, even if I don't agree with him, Cunard is one of the few AfD regulars that does analyse the sources. So this is nonsense as well.
• "These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field." and "No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia". Apparently this means "they didn't agree with my opinion".
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans was kept because you didn't provide a valid deletion rationale. Not for any other reason. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ironically, sometimes I agree with Light2021, and there are too many editors willing to spam low-quality keep votes to any old promotional garbage that a paid editor wants to throw up, but there are limits to behaviour, and Light2021 has crossed them. Agree with the topic ban mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• On my behavior to straight forwardness, you are also simply stating what you feel like, as we all are free to say what we have to say. Shall we also judge your behavior on similar ground. Neither I have abused anyone here, but every-time this Ban, Ban and Ban comes in as if I am doing some non-sense here. My analysis are not random, they are Spam filled in Wikipedia. From the previous Ban I have learnt a lot, and I never went ahead to any of the contributors here, Yes, I can ask questions as we all do, as you did, and the language you used its simple and straight. Thats how people express. And I have never said everyone is corrupt here. There are many Senior admins Who agrees to me sometime and sometime do not, it does not mean I am just misbehaving, I accept their point as well. Every time this Ban will not be any good to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia will seriously become a PR Host/ another Blog where Paid editors known very well how to maintain these articles. Proudly I am just one of them who are tirelessly working on making Wikipedia Spam free. Other are just making money keeping just nonsense here.

• Can you state me Only one example after April 2017, where I have misbehaved with any one the contributors or discussed in any harsh manner? Simply Ban is not an option. people learn here. It is simply an attack and nothing else. i have learnt a lot. I don't just nominate articles I do not like. Its the global companies or products. It is baseless accusations and Ban is not right where I can learn things. and my AfD are not wrong, it is over 95% accurate (From last 200 only/latest), if you count No - consensus. As we all know how to make articles as No-consensus. By paid media or some contributors works for this.
• On Cunard detail analysis. What happen to KISS Logic? can't he just give the link so people can read going on the source, unnecessary making an discussion so lengthy that it repels the contributors, as it seems so authentic, whereas it simply copy-paste the Press coverage from the Blog, sometimes its from Good media, but most of the times its just Copy-paste, where in my opinion I doubt he even reads them. He just open the link, Copy whatever he gets and paste on Discussion. How come its a good analysis? His Keep votes gets No-Consensus where he gets the majority of success. Its not substantial ground for analysis. Eventually articles are kept even by means of No-Consensus. Light2021 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Request your advise and guidance on repeated Ban on me. How it is justify on my time and contribution here? How I can contribute fighting this Biased opinion on me? They drag me personally, makes a case like I am guilty, ignoring all my works, every one express here, when they express blunt, its acceptable when I do, they makes an Ban issue? I have never abused anyone after April 2017. Please analyse my behaviour after this time, as above discussion is misleading by quoting Past examples. Need Opinions and Pinging senior contributor here. Just for note they agree and disagree with me several times, but they teach me good things, and do not just become attacking me. DGG, David Gerard, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Grayfell, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Jimfbleak, Lankiveil , RHaworth, Brianhe, GorillaWarfare Light2021 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• One Suggestion from all of you. As I understand this discussion and Ban thing, these people have problem with my Language, but My selections are not bad for Wikipedia. I can just nominate AfD/ Speedy, participate in Votes. And I will not counter present my points, I will be as details on AfD as it should be. That way I can avoid the feeling for these people who got hurt by words. and that way we can make it work. Just my suggestions. you can track my activities, I will never make or ask any question of a any kind, I am doing simple task to contribute to Wikipedia. If that allows and accepted by everyone. I am happy to do that. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Light2021's recent and long term AfD stats are running better than 75% for exact match and even better for effective match. He votes Delete a lot and nominates a lot of pages. An analysis of his own noms shows a very good success rate as well. [37]. User:Cunard votes Keep an awful lot, nominates few pages, and is running around 72% match to the exact result. [[38]. The two editors evidently have very different approches to AfD and deletion. It looks like Cunard is trying to disable a pro deletion editor that does not fit their inclusionist viewpoint. I don't find Light2021's highlighted comments especially uncivil and have had far worse things said to me with no action taken against the editors who said it. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Light2021, let me make a blunt but polite observation. There are two problems that I see. 1. You get blinded by what you think is "right", and get sloppy with your rationales when voting and nominating deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans is a perfect example. It is insufficient to be right, you have to provide a policy based rationale to prove it. and 2. You don't know when to shut up. I don't say this to be mean, and in in my youth I also did not know when to shut up. Sometimes I still don't. But you really get off track and stick your foot in your mouth too much. As far as Cunard's habit of posting long, detailed "keep" votes, it is unusual, but when Cunard posts something, you know it is honest to the sources and is the best available material. He gives you something to either change your mind or it gives you something to refute, so he's kind of doing you a favor, even if you find it annoying. In a nutshell, sometimes you act like a jerk. You should stop doing that. I could easily call for a tban, but my singular opinion is that you need to voluntarily step away from deletions for a month and do some soul searching about how you communicate with others. If you don't modify this behavior soon, I would be forced to support sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Another last chance to change? Last time I checked, this user had exhausted several of his last chances, and got into escalating block territory. And now he's quite some way up the escalator. Do Wikipedians ever run out of last chances?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just one voice. Unless he says something below my comment to convince me he has had an epiphany, I wouldn't be that difficult to persuade. In the end, however, it is always my hope to rehabilitate rather than swing the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

* Just as you stated clearly the concern with my behavior. It is not with my AfD selections but how I write to them/ contributors. I Understand. I can change it, as I am quite good with your blunt observations. Yes! I might need to shut up, and that is what I should do for next 30-45 days (or probably more). 1. I will only nominated with giving Detail rationale to it for AfD. 2. I will not counter any of the contributors, no matter what they write, or how they write (To avoid any of the language or behavior problem). 3. I will only vote with my opinion, will not get on anyone's opinions. 4. That way I can be respectful to the community, as I am unknown to all, as they are to me. Nothing is personal here. I am happy to contribute with my rationale, right or wrong, its community work, and not individuals choice. I hope my points are clear. and you all are observing me, if by mistake I deviate from my promise, you have the rights. thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't stop another admin from taking action here, understand that. And understand that you are probably going to be under a microscope for a while. I think you have a lot to offer, it just gets drowned out with rushed replies that are more centered on emotion than fact. If you can do all that you say, everyone is better off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nearly echo Dennis Brown.While there are enough negatives about his/her contribs.--(specifically blatant canvassing along with ridiculous two-word nom statements--both of which seemed to flow unabated.), the sole reason I am opposing a Tban is that his/her work has not entirely shifted to a net-negative zone.I am inclined to offer a last-chance.And Light2021 will probably do well to abide by the self-imposed restrictions.And above all, please improve your communication skills, know how to bluntly accept a mistake(For one, I didn't even slightly buy your arguments rel. to ignorance of canvassing policies at your talk!) and cease to act like a jerk.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• "Last chances"
  
  I agree with S Marshall (talk · contribs) that "this user had exhausted several of his last chances":
  1. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 31 hours for disruptive editing.
  2. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. A number of sockpuppets were also blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive.
  3. April 2016: Boing! said Zebedee blocked Light2021 indefinitely for persistent vandalism.
  4. June 2016: Ohnoitsjamie unblocked Light2021 and wrote, "Given the exchange below, it's reasonable to give you another chance, though I would like to note some concerns."
  5. November 2016: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, Kudpung wrote in the close, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".
  6. January 2017: Ohnoitsjamie blocked Light2021 for disruptive editing.
  At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, when there was strong support for a block, Light2021 wrote in November 2016, "I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community" and "I will respect consensus decisions". These are broken promises. Light2021 also wrote:

  I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me.

  
  Continued canvassing
  
  In the November 2016 topic ban discussion, Light2021 canvassed seven editors.

  In this very ANI discussion about a topic ban, Light2021 canvassed 13 editors. This is despite Kudpung's 20 January 2017 warning to Light2021 to stop canvassing. This is also despite my post in this ANI discussion about Light2021's canvassing.
  
  Continued misunderstanding of speedy deletion
  
  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamil Design, Light2021 wrote, "Speedy Delete Blatant Promotions" even though Light2021's earlier {{db-spam}} tag was declined by Seraphimblade. Light2021 still does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. An article is not eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} once an admin has declined the speedy.

  Cunard (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cunard:--Well, I personally felt the ban-hammer to be a little heavy.Anyway, the speedy delete option is viable and I fail to see any policy violation in the quoted !vote.Many of the frequenters at AfD replicate the same behaviour at AfDs(incl. me) of subjects having a declined CSD.And I am unable to contribute on his relative knowledge/application of CSD without the log.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Light2021's support in the AfD for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} even after Seraphimblade declined the speedy deletion reflects a continued misunderstanding of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As Seraphimblade has said in the November 2016 discussion, "And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem."

Cunard (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

G11 is an area where there is a wider range of interpretation. Voting to Speedy per G11 after a decline only means that someone disagrees with the Admin's decline. I just had an MfD where an Admin declined a G11 and all three people that voted expressed surprise it was declined as G11. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC). Note the decline said "Not quite G11, but could use a lot less product info" so it is very unfair to say that Light2021 misunderstands CSD's based on that decline. You should know better Cunard - your examples are undermining your case here. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is not Light2021's !votes. I think he's erratic but he's entitled to his opinion and his !votes. This thread is about aggressiveness, his highly personalised targeting of Cunard, his tag-bombing and his canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that the key problem is not the votes--G11 especially is tricky to interpret, and the interpretation is often disputed. The standard for whether we delete or fix spam is similarly controversial. In practice I don't think Light is any more extreme on his side than some editors are on the other (but it must be admitted that I have a position myself which is fairly to similar Light's view of things) But I would consider it a COI to try to block someone who often opposed me at AfD. The key problem at this point is the canvassing. If that were to stop completely, I think that would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly active at AfD, though I agree with DGG that the most concerning behaviour is the canvassing there. The other issues raised about the way he contributes in deletion discussions I think can be overlooked - I'm not convinced of how much trouble he's really causing but I'll leave that to people who are more involved at AfD. What I can comment on is my experience with him at CSD, and a lot of what he does there seems similarly erratic and unpredictable. He nominates a lot of articles for CSD, particularly for G11, which is a difficult criterion to interpret and everyone's view will differ, but his nominations are very hit-and-miss. In addition to the list compiled by Cunard above I have declined G11 nominations of his on these three occasions. He has a particular habit of nominating articles which have been in existence for several years have been edited by many contributors. He digs up a lot of promotional articles which probably should be deleted, but floods the queue with a large proportion of poor nominations too. I'm not sure any of this really rises to disruption, but altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User continues to remove sourced material

Hello,

Joobo (talk · contribs) doesn't stop whitewashing the article on Germany's far-right politician Frauke Petry by removing the well-sourced assertion that Petry cited German law wrongly; a sample edit is

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. Explaining the mistake to the user has no effect; instead, Joobo falsely states that the inclusion of such material may violate WP:BLP (naturally without citing the specific guideline which my edits would go against, since such does not exist). A strategy is deployed which I met among various WP users who seemed to have a political inclination, namely a mass of meaningless verbal garbage is produced which is then taken to be an argument, even though it does not make logical sense. On the grounds of that, the article is then being reverted, with a remark to check the talk page (or whatever page it was deposited on) for a reason.

I should mention that this user has been noted for strange behaviour before, see for instance here. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to add that said user edits the Wikipedia full-time as it seems (see Special:Contributions/Joobo). --Mathmensch (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive346#User:Joobo.2C_User:_Peter1170:_reported_by_User:Nagle_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 --Mathmensch (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The BLP-claim is bogus (article statemen is sourced to FAZ) and seems to be a substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kleuske (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I will comment on this whole situation amply to give a broad and detailed overview of the situation.

Firstly, I never had any contact with the user Mathmensch before the quarrel at the BLP of Frauke Petry occured. By reverting the edit I followed the necessity of WP:BLPREMOVE. However, it is incessantly argued by the opposite that the content would be sourced and that reverting it would be "bogus" as user Kleuske now wants to state. I gave already detailed explanation to why (here on the BLP talk) the phrasing is not accurate and needs to be removed respectively rewritten as I did. It is about a hypothetical legal application of a law. The statement by the BLP cannot be ultimately labeled as "false" simply as under such circumstance statements can neither be qualified as right nor as wrong in an ultimate definition. This more detailed argumentation by me was basically ignored on the talk, simply by once again pointing out to the "source" which was claimed to be absolutely sufficient. My hint that the source also only evaluates the possibility of a wrong legal statement by Petry was simply ignored as well.

It seems that Mathmensch cherishes personally negative views on this BLP as well as on others he might categorize as morally unfit, why? Mathmensch wrote on my talkpage concerning a discussion with me and another user regarding the article Donald Trump this. It was about a revert by me which was adequate, explained and backed by other users on the main talkpage of the concerned article (see), however Mathmensch seemed to have a problem with this and calling it a "monarchy" like, weeks after the situation was already handled. He was/is obviously angry with the position by me and other users about the question of the inclusion of the point which was raised in the talk. To highlight the antipathy of Mathmensch for particular subjects respectiveley his approach to editing and other users a simple look on his user page is enough to read this:

 "I decided to put this up since there may be U.S. citizens here, who chose Donald Trump as their president.
 I have a foolproof criterion to sort out who is morally or intellectually compromised: Namely those who really think they're superior because of their race or ancestry. If I find out you think that way, I will react properly.
 I would like to express my solidarity with all Jewish, African-American, Hispanic and even Muslim citizens of the U.S. (although I am critical of all religions, including Islam). I am a white German, but I don't feel particularly superior to anybody else (at least not on the grounds of race), and I want to live without racism. I do not want to be associated with bigots of my people who are cruel and idiotic.
 I am sick and tired of seeing black people being ashamed because they are black. The greatest pianist of all times was black. The greatest living mathematician is an ethnic Chinese, while the greatest mathematician of all times was Jewish." 

This user apparently in any case he feels someone edits against his personal beliefs is automatically somehow against "him" or Wikipedia etc. will start to act inappropriately. He has as he says "foolproof criterion to sort out who is morally or intellectually compromised [...] If I find out you think that way, I will react properly." These statements really speak for themselves.

Furthermore I also like to point out to Matmenschs linking to an ongoing discussion on an admins talk me being involved he apparently found out by checking my history. The discussion was basically most likely initiated due to a misunderstanding of another user who viewed some of my edits and got misleading impressions. After i gave simple and detailed explanation concerning the edits brought up nothing anymore happened or was complained, neither by the original user who raised the point at the talk nor by the admin himself. It was eventually just about the behavior regarding me and the other user of the situation. Now Mathmensch for whatever reason jumped on the train at the discussion again without even trying to understand of what the situation there was actually about. Apparently he saw my user name and the topic and immediately tried to defame me, caliming out of nowhere I would be "counter-productive". Now Mathmensch is trying to scratch all kinds of apparent negative stuff together to portray myself in a somewhat bad light. That is also highlighted by the incomprehensible point by him that I would be editing "Wikipedia full-time". All my edits are reasonably explained, if needed sourced and adequate to WP standards and criterias. Any minor disputes, that naturally occur on Wikipedia are absolutely common and without any consequence so far since my unblock. Actually -

it looks like the same is tried to be done here once again as already it was some time ago when another user violated WP guidelines. It came to a dispute also at the ANI- and me and other users explained our ratio behind the reverts we did — finally it was being ruled in favor for me/us and against the other user, who in a similar nasty way tried to link aspects together and claim of POV etc. without any ground, simply as an automatic anthipathy occured due to content disagreements. Mathmensch has apparently an issue with me, and now wants an "admin become active in this case?" in order to "... react properly". This is everything but acceptable WP:Civil behavior.

It rather looks that Mathmensch, by reading his user page entry, has some very strong personal beliefs, and in any case something goes against that he is acting just like he does here. I hereby urge for an adequate solution to this absolute inappropriate behavior of Mathmensch as well as a review of the situation on the concerned page of Frauke Petry as the now by Kleuske reintroduced phrase of "false" is wrong and violates BLP rights, as the statement by Petry technically never can be labeled as "right" nor "false". --Joobo (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: I put an ANI notice on the user's talk page, but it has been

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

shortly after it was placed there. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, after I was noticed and I myself recognized the request here I removed it, so what now?--Joobo (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Discuss it on the appropriate talk-page? Just a suggestion... Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes... The statement in question was sourced to an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is, for all intents and purposes, a reliable source, as required by WP:BLP. Hence the revert. Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out repeatedly, it is not that the taken source it not "realiable". What was written in it was meant like that. It is simply a classic case of Non sequitur. You technically cannot call this statement as ultimately "wrong", but also not as ultimately "right". However, such a definite application was done — this is inaccurate and violates BLP.--Joobo (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a clear false claim. Quote Petry, as cited in the FAZ article: "So steht es im Gesetz." (So the law says.) - Factually wrong, hence a false claim. Current phrasing seems correct. (I did chuck out a doubled "falsely" though, that seemed a bit clumsy). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Wrong. Classic case of non sequitur as already pointed out. What she said is neither right or wrong. It all comes down to the actual situation. I gave the example on the talk with the police officer. If you say " A police officer can kill a person, that is what the law says" - This statement can be right and wrong at the same time. It depends on the actual circumstance, hence simply saying the statement would be "false" or "correct" is inaccurate. The mentioned FAZ article is merely evaluating her statement but has no legal analytical position to determine an ultimate "false" or "right" to it. That is why "possbly" is the correct term used there - and not "false" (or "right"). --Joobo (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Her statement was "The law mandates this." This is not the case, no matter how much you wiggle. And it's quite beside the point; the only people frantically scrambling for a "possibly technically correct if you squint just so" interpretation are her party and assorted heavily invested individuals, while the independent press and independent experts were pretty much unanimous in their assessment. It is not Wikipedia's conclusion to draw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again. You cannot say this is "not the case" - as a law is existing and stating for certain action. Simply stick to the perfect analogy of the example of the "police officer". Then you see that saying it is ulimately "right" or "false" is wrong itself. You simply personally put yourself on the same side of argumentation as how it was done in the news article, yet that does not change the fact that the statement technically never can be labeled as right or false. In particular in contnental european law systems with its Civil law those statements in most cases always have to be referred to actual situations which was not done here but a general statement was given. Bottom line is still the same. The statement only "possibly" is against the law as no actual case is given - hence saying it is in general "false" is merely one particular reading but has no universal validity.--Joobo (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There are also problematic edits regarding Immigration to Germany, such as

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

, where a completely unsourced statement was included into the article; Joobo claimed that in 2014, there were 8 million foreigners in Germany, whereas the source only gives numbers for the year 2011. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That's two years ago and stale. Digging up dirt is not productive nor conducive to any resolution. Discuss the issue at hand instead. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, the edit cited above supports the viewpoint that the given user displays the long-term behaviour of editing in a non-neutral manner, which seems to be of direct relevance. --Mathmensch (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It is, to put it mildly, unbelievable in what an inconsiderate manner and how recklessly it is pointed out to edits I did 2 years ago — and you Mathmensch blatantly lie about it. You write "where a completely unsourced statement was included into the article; Joobo claimed that in 2014, there were 8 million foreigners in Germany, whereas the source only gives numbers for the year 2011." The source I included was from 2015 and published by a German major newspaper ([39]). The newsarticle stated the number of migrants in the Federal Republic of Germany for the year 2014 according to official numbers of the federal register; it was not as you fallaciously claim from 2011 and the number used was also correct. This blatant lying is qualified as a Personal attack under Wiki policy as it states Personal attacks are but not limited to: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." --Joobo (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I mixed up the difflinks. I meant

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. --Mathmensch (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly it is also adequate to look at a

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. --Mathmensch (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Joobo now

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

despite

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You ever heard about something called giving a named reference? Apparently not. If you check the diff you gave here you would see that I included the source "< ref name="SZ" / >". So, I supplied the source for the number I included. The other source was referring to the distribution. You are either completely oblivious to Wikipedia editing, or once again blatantly lying about my actions. Regarding your last sentence of you - the admin referred to the situation between me and another user, not between you and me. The admin was right that my mentioning of Wikihounding was incorrect in the case between me an the other user. Yet, in this case you are without a doubt hounding, as you follow my talk page, edit there, follow my edit history and engage in the actions of those concerned articles. I give you one advice, stop doing what you do here as it just pulls you down more and more.--Joobo (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=11 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

seems inappropriate to me. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This ANI is still in ongoing. Unless no admin has taken action I advise you to stop engaging in any articles I am involved in, same as I am not engaging in any article you are involved in other than the BLP of initial concern. Do not make this a bigger quarrel than it already is.--Joobo (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Just because someone can be reliably sourced does not mean it is required to have it in an article. Seek consensus on the talkpage. If someone has a credible allegation that Joobo has systematically been whitewashing this, more evidence will be required than one diff from a couple of years ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I mentioned this before and am repeating here.

Joobo was blocked indefinitely back in January 2016 for harassing other people and personal attacks concerning List of Islamist terrorist attacks and Immigration to Germany, per this ANI thread.

They went from here to de-wiki, where they were blocked 7 times during 2016 and early 2017 per their block log there for disrupting topics related to politics. Block #7 was in Feb 2017 for 5 days per this report there, related to pro-Trump (including Melania), anti-Obama (including Michelle) POV_pushing, if I am reading the translation correctly. Block #6 was for 3 days for edit warring against 3 other users on the Alternative for Germany article there, per this report - Joobo was trying to remove sourced content about the party being anti-feminist (e.g diff). You get the point.

They gave up on de-WP and came back here to request an unblock in March 2017, and were unblocked on a WP:ROPE basis by User:PhilKnight per this thread on their Talk page. It does not appear that PhilKnight looked at their behavior in other projects during the time they were indeffed here (which is an easy thing to omit, and Joobo did not mention it either)

Where I got frustrated with them was their efforts to whitewash the Alternative for Germany and German nationalism article:

• Talk:Alternative for Germany-- (contribs there) where you will see that Joobo argued in lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood making the bizarre, strawman argument that German nationalism is the same thing as Pan-Germanism and so of course the party cannot be German nationalist, because the AfD does not advocate for taking new territories of german speaking areas in Europe. (oy). See diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc This is just repeating an unsupported distortion, and providing no sources to support that bizarre definition.
• [40] to the German nationalism article, which was all edit warring removal in support of the now-vanished Hayek/Wormwood, which somehow stopped when Wormwood vanished a month ago and then restarted when Hayek/Wormwood briefly re-emerged as you can see in the history. Lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood.
• contribs at German natioanlism talk page where you will find nothing meaningful from them justifying their removal of content - the individual diffs:
  • diff It is fairly questionable if "german nationalism" is viewed as taboo as put in the introduction.... (oy. just oy)
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff series -- nothing about content

And the ongoing effort by Joobo to completely remove mention of the Alt-right as a faction in the republican party per the history? This is beyond a content dispute, and right down the middle of the ongoing problem with their behavior. Just raw POV pushing with no basis in policy, but rather just making up reasons.

In my view, the lifting of the indef was unwise, as Joobo just carried their disruption to our German sister project, and came back to continue the bad behavior here in the topics in which they are disruptive - just adding noise and personal attack, and not helping build quality content in those areas. I still suggest minimally topic banning them from anything related to contemporary populism, immigration, or terrorism at minimum, or just re-placing the indef at maximum. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not even read all your ranting here Jytdog as just by browsing your text it appears to be the exact same type of nasty defamation you did couple of weeks ago in the other ANI - when eventually you were the one being told to be wrong with receiving a harsh warning. Well, at least you had one "achievement" going for you — one other editor gave up on this project partly due to your months long going incredible behavior. Now you have even the attitude to give examples of the edits I made in the article of "German Nationalism" albeit(!) you were the one editing there to your favour in order to influence an ongoing RfC. This is incredible once again - but it would have been too nice to see you change in this way or you having at least some kind of insight or reflection. You pull the (really exact) same kinds of points here as you did back in the former ANI - pointing out to the completely unrelated "sister"-project and giving edit diffs not showing anything - even when put in context - showing that you behaved wrong (either you believe the admins are stupid or you are oblivious to what you write here). One can see obvious parallels in how and what you write here and what Mathmensch wrote. Both of you have very strong subjective views on certain issues. In case you get the slightest feeling someone is against that view or would edit against that you start to do everything to obstruct the other editor - getting involved in my (possibly also other editors) various WP edits - ranting on the talkpage - threatening with ANIs - immediately claiming POV in everything and everywhere without even trying to understand the other persons viewpoint - using terms as "advocating" or "whitewashing" - and when finally an ANI is ongoing even contintuing with that and simply lying in the ANI with giving flawed edit diffs that show absolutely nothing. Not much more needs to be added on all of that.--Joobo (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes I acknowledged and cited my former posting, and there was no "harsh warning" (the close is here); you are again just making things up to justify your POV pushing. Your ongoing edits at Republican party factions are unjustifiable POV pushing and you are here arguing that your behavior is just fine, with no awareness that you were unblocked only per WP:ROPE. Pinging User:Dennis Brown; this is pretty much exactly where I expected we would be now, where Joobo has continued and indeed feels emboldened to continue the behavior that led to their indef here and their several blocks at de-WP while they were indeffed here. When does the ROPE under which they were unblocked reach its end? Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging User: Drmies who reviewed the unblock, and User:PhilKnight who did the unblock. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You believe POV in everything you see and do not agree with to 100% - plain simple as that. It seems so incredible hard for you to comprehend that merely because other editors are editing something you would not edit yourself, are reverting something by you (not even everything or the most of it, just anything at all) or are using arguments you do not agree with (or you do not even attempt to understand) that there is absolutely nothing behind and no "POV" is existing. It looks like the exact same pattern as by Mathmensch when initiating this ANI request - there are simply other editors with a different opinion and it is an instant battleground. You do not even listen to arguments, you do not talk in any civil manner, you do not discuss, you do not look for any consensus you basically do not do anything else than what was mentioned already extensively in the former ANI. You see someone you believe is editing not as you would and voilá "POV!" - "whitewashing!" - "the gang"(as you liked to label it some time ago) etc. Everyone can make the own conclusion about that. As already pointed out, I have nothing to hide on no single edit. However your edits, especially regarding those in the article of German Nationalism, were more than evidently showing what motive were there when out of a sudden you started to edit the page while the RfC was still ongoing and against your favour. That is why I am even more surprised that you are bringing this up here and truly believe this would help your case in any way, but that is your decision. Not much more needs to be said on this one, especially as this ANI request was initiated by Mathmensch and you now simply try to jump in and see your opportunity to finally get another user (now it is me apperently) out who you do not like for minor visceral personal motives. --Joobo (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that was just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims including personal attacks. That is how you operate across WP, per the the diffs provided by me and others above, and it is not OK here nor in de-WP. That is why you were indeffed here a year and a half ago, then blocked 7 times in a single year at de-WP, and why you should be reblocked here. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• User:PhilKnight unblocked per ROPE; I'm satisfied that this rope is not any longer. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked Joobo for an indefinite period of time for a number of issues, which are spelled out on this talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. It is nice to assume good faith and bend over backwards, etc. However, in some cases that approach is very detrimental to the community and firm action is required, as here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sioux City related issue

Please look at Sioux City Iowa page. User with IP added content consistently reversed by another user. IP got blocked. Can you please unlock IP so that she can continue to participate in what may be a valid discussion. The issue is that the page may be professionally managed -- dissenters have been either driven away or blocked from this page before. 24.217.216.63 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a mess. Material was moved from the talk page to an archive and then un-archived by an IP. I'm re-vetting the archiving and keeping anything in the archive that wasn't active in the last 30 days. Then I'll look at the active discussions and article history. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at many of the talk page contributions by 2600:6c40:1800:1f39:ec49:9398:4f0a:ef7f (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The last several could easily be viewed as harassment. The very last one before their block was so severe that an oversighter removed it entirely from history. Based on that, the block should stand. Talk page discussions must remain civil and without baseless allegations against other users. —C.Fred (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Harassment might be an overstatement. It is if one applies WP:AGF. Either way though, shouldn't there at least have been a mention on their talk page before a block? What was the last "severe" comment? It's difficult to opine, with out any info. Other comments seem pretty mild. And the IP's case does seem to have substance. There does seem to be a consistent attempt to remove any negative content about Sioux City - which seems ironic given how dreadful the place sounds in the lede, with that stuff never mentioned again. Also, why is the page locked to all editing, if the issue is solely IP-related? Though clearly the page needs work, there are most lists than text. Half the page is a list of notable people from Sioux City - gosh, there seem to be more notable people per capita (non of which I've heard of) from Sioux City than New York City! I'm surprised there isn't a list of parking lots. There's a note in the photo caption that the downtown is Indigenous, but not other relevant mention of First Nations in the article. Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm the harassed party here, although I would term it extremely bad faith editing. I've been repeatedly accused of paid editing by the blocked IP and the block was completely in order. The editor immediately above is so far off base (in multiple threads I might add) that his comments can be safely discounted. The OP in this thread seems to be calling for a block review of User:Ks0stm's block and he should be notified. I'm not convinced that all the IPs involved here are not either meat or sock puppets, but there is obviously no way to show that. There's been no substantive discussion since my initial post at the talk page, and none of the named editors have weighed in. Hopefully, this thread will bring more participants to the thread. I'd say the latest comment there from the editor in the 2600 IPv6 range is most likely block evasion, but I'll gladly leave that for those with the right skill set to decide. I cannot blame the other editors there for running to the hills. If the range blocked IPv6 editor comes back with the same attitude, I'll be joining them. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The good news I suppose, is that as far as I recall, the hills around Sioux City are loess, and quite close to town. Quite different geology than I'm used to. But if they are in the hills, it's not far to return from. :) Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Having run for the hills myself (all the way back to Calnevari, south of Idegon), to put this in perspective for newcomers, a major element of the dispute arose from the IP(s)'s insistence on adding non-WP:RS/potential WP:OR, certainly WP:UNDUE, ultimately unencyclopedic content to the article regarding... wait for it... a speed trap on the interstate highway. The IP(s) seemed to believe this information demonstrated that Sioux City was deriving a significant percentage of city revenue unfairly off the backs of out-of-staters cited for speeding through town, that Wikipedia was bound to mention same in coverage of Sioux City, and anyone who removed the expose must be a paid shill for the city. I salute User:John from Idegon's resilience in the face of exactly the kind of irrational minutiae-fixated abuse that I dread stirring up every time I hit the "revert" button. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The IPv4 address above and the blocked IPv6 range both belong to the same ISP in the same city, so with this request, it's abundantly clear that they're the same person. I've blocked the IPv4 for evading the existing block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually live in Sioux City. Notable people from Sioux City does not mean much when they have to leave the city to be anything. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers

I modified the section heading to "User:JJBers" from "Request intervention! Comment" per WP:TPO. Generic section headings that could describe 99% of the discussions that cross this page are useless. If I could discern exactly what behavior policy is alleged to be violated, I would include that too, but I don't want to presume anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Despite my efforts to be civil and courteous to the same editor as before, it appears rather clear that JJbers has no intention of ceasing deliberate targeting of my edits and reverting them. Although the 3RR rule has yet to be violated I realize it is inevitable. At issue now is the article Westport, Connecticut. In view of the past and in order to protect myself and to show good faith I voluntarily promise not to engage that editor further nor will I continue any further edits of that article until after this matter is resolved. I had hoped to peacefully resume my editing and contribute to Wikipedia, but it will wait. That JJbers is unrelenting in disrespectful behavior towards me makes no sense. I do not want another editing war!!!

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790698999
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790694008
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790686776

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTS42 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - given that both parties are currently topic banned from editing another city in the same state, this seems to be a "Connecticut" issue. Maybe an extension of the tban to involve any Connecticut location? Primefac (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What... I have no clue why I'm even here. I got reverted saying I didn't explain my edits, and while one of my edits was breif, he did revert that. He reverted the individual edits that I fully explained what I did. I even said that reverting him. The second and third edits isn't even from me, it's you reverting me. Here is my edit summaries where I removed the content that was reverted:

• From this edit: "infobox corrections" I removed the push-pin map (Which he reverted back, and I'm not even going to bother reverting back), and changed the title from New England Town, to Town, creating a pipe link.
• From this edit: "article cleanup" I removed a bunch of spam panoramas to save time to load the article, plus one was enough, plus I removed a copy and pasted section from another article. The part he reverted was me literally moving a image slightly lower in the text, to match the image's context. That was it.
• From this edit: "no, villages aren't synonymous of the town" I believe this is adequately explained. Villages aren't what the town is known for, unless it's a very large attraction. They have their own section.

I sincerely don't know why this is a issue. What I believe this is, is a over-blown reaction to something minor at best. —JJB^ers 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible this is just an overreaction, which started with the tban and/or personal animosity. I'm not necessarily advocating changing the current restrictions, just followed the edits. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict issue

Distracts from the primary issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deiced to separate this, because I feel it's a unrelated issue to the original point of the discussion. —JJBers 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Given that StephenTS42 is apparently unable to sign their comments, and has twice posted here today in a way that removed other's comments, I'm starting to think that it may be a CIR issue. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC) To: User:Timothyjosephwood Why did you remove my comment? I did not remove anyone's comments! What are you trying to instigate here? Yes, I forgot to sign one comment, but jeez I made a mistake and a few moments later I did sign it; then someone else removed it... but that is not grounds for CIR. Can't you focus on the subject at hand? JJbers just admitted to reverting 3 of my edits! What does that make me? The bad guy? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC) It's the other way around, you reverted three of my edits. Then I reverted you back. —JJBers 17:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Timothy, if this is the edit you are referring to, it could have easily been an edit conflict. It happens. WP:AGF? Also, he only posted once here (minus the filing of the ANI thread). Plus, CIR is not a reason to remove comments. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC) @Callmemirela: He's been here much longer. Maybe 15 or 20 edits here. —JJBers 17:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC) I meant on this ANI, not in general. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC) I did AGF, the first half dozen or so times this happened and was addressed, and explained. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC) For those unaware: [41] [42] [43] [44], and that's just in 15 posts at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Again, easily could have been an edit conflict. The user even says so with this edit back in June. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 18:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, thus CIR. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC) How does an edit conflict lead to CIR? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC) He has moved on to reverting my edits of West Haven, Connecticut. It doesn't matter what subject I edit this thing user above stalks my work, my contributions, then edits and reverts them all! Doesn't anyone else see what is going on here?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Do not call another editor a thing. --Tarage (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, I agree - please do not refer to other editors as "things" as you did above. It's uncivil, doesn't benefit nor positively add to this discussion in any way, and it makes a personal attack towards another editor. That's not OK. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I apologize for the use of the word thing.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC) It doesn't matter what subject I edit this thing stalks my work, my contributions, then edits and reverts them all! If you're going to call me a thing, then there's becoming a very good reason to block you for 6-12 months, or even indefinitely. Even though I'm technically involved, clearly you're still acting the same since we're TBANed from Norwalk. I took a cool-down after multiple issues back in June, and I think you should take a month long cooldown after this is over. —JJBers 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Regarding the above comment: The user who has been stalking my work, my contributions to Wikipedia has, and is, conducting a campaign to revert every edit I have made. Within the context of what is defined in the article Wikipedia:Harassment this behavior is clearly Wikihounding and has been going on for quite some time. When confronted with this the above user goes to no end trying to discredit me with any kind of irrelevant accusation with threats of blocking as though he, or she, has such ability. All of which has proceeded unchecked, unrestrained and overlooked in such a manner that may very well be regarded as some kind of tacit approval. I want to know; without any irrelevant, unrelated and inappropriate arguments or accusations why this continues in an environment that ought to disapprove and discourage such behavior. Has that user been granted some kind of privilege, some sort of immunity from the clearly spelled out policies of Wikipedia that renders that user above such policies?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC) @StephenTS42: You realize you're editing towns nearby Norwalk, it's kinda of easy to predict that without checking your contribs. I actually was looking at West Haven when I had found you had edited it (not so greatly), but I looked at it, but never bothered to fix it. This was a weekish ago. Then 2 days ago, I was patrolling some southern CT articles (after West Haven), when I found you had edited Westport. I fixed everything that was wrong with the article, and moved on to other things. See my own contribs for proof: link, I start editing on July 7, and don't edit a single article even related to the area until July 14. Also, really, harassment? If I did WikiStalk you, that would be the large pot calling the small kettle black. —JJBers 03:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Regarding the above comment: If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem——→StephenTS42 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC) What? What solutions are looking for problems? I have no clue by what you meant. —JJBers 06:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block for StephenTS42

Clearly since Stephen as now tried to forum shop (a light form of canvassing) at WP:AN3 (link); at this point Stephen is just trying to harass me, and get me blocked for no legitimate reason. So for competency issues and harassment, I'm requesting that Stephen get a boomerang block of 4-6 months for this incident (see his block log for why it's so long). I hope this resolves this issue. —JJB^ers 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, add spamming to that, Talk:Westport, Talk:Fairfield, Talk:Milford, and Talk:West Haven. —JJB^ers 16:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. —JJB^ers 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: with regards to the "spam" issue you listed: while his comments there are unnecessary, I don't think you needed to reply "stop" on 3 different pages plus his talk page telling him to stop. And considering the history between you two, it probably would be best for you to let others handle that kind of issue in the future, not take it upon yourself. only (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Only. I am less inclined to support since the nominator is involved. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• There's still other issues that aren't related to the spamming, which the WP:CIR is completely unrelated to me. —JJB^ers 2:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• It doesn't really matter. The report was meant for your conduct. You are plenty of involved. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - procedural oppose. I generally oppose sanctions proposed by an involved party, unless there is a damned good and sound reason for such. And not a reason that sounds good. Blackmane (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the recent issue with calling another editor a thing, I assume that calling that same editor a savage (who enjoys tormenting others no less) is no improvement. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Stephen's behaviour is truly appalling. I don't know if that's done on purpose or not. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 10:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

JohnThorne - years of copyvio, plagiarism, OR, etc

JohnThorne (talk · contribs) is a hard-working editor who I'm sure is trying to improve our coverage of biblical subjects, in particular articles covering chapters of the Bible, creating about 375 articles.[45] He is a sysop on the Indonesian wikipedia.[46]

I first encountered him in October 2011 when I found him adding copyright from an unreliable source.[47] My latest was this week at Fiery flying serpent[48] where I reverted him with an edit summary saying "Copied from obsolete sources, some copy/paste without attribution." Unfortunately almost six years later he continues to have problems with original research, copyright and plagiarism and at times NPOV. He has had a number of warnings/discussions about the issues and he always answers politely but then seems to carry on without taking account of them. An example of a typical discussion is here.

Some examples of warnings: [49][50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] from myself, User:Lucas559, User:DGG, User:Diannaa, User:Crow and User:Alephb Also see Various issues] from User:Jeffro77 endorsed by User:Fayenatic london.

A pov edit that User:Editor2020 reverted in May[59] and that he restored the next day.[60] I reverted it 2 days ago. It said "Tower of Babel Stele (604–562 BCE, time of Nebuchadnezzar II) depicting the "Tower of Babel" (Genesis 11) But the linked article just says that the stele is a representation of the ziggurat Etemenanki which might be the inspiration, even the actual, Tower of Babel, but not that it is definitely the Tower. Doug Weller talk 05:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said to him some years ago: "That it's PD doesn't mean it's reliable. What the article should have in short quotes, and they are permitted by fair use. You know the major commentaries better than I do. I'd guess you have a number of them to hand, for you cite some in other articles. " For the ones that are in fact PD, and just need attribution, the attribution should be added, but someone who knows the literature needs to add appropriate modern sources. Biblical studies is drastically different than it was one or two centuries ago, and any earlier source is of primarily historical interest, or--for the major theologians--of interest for its own sake. Even with the last century years, the interpretations have changed radically more than once, and will presumably keep changing- partly due to differing theological assumptions, historical methods, additional texts, and archeological data. (More generally, everything in WP based upon the old EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and the even earlier PD sources, needs to rewritten. _ DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

JohnThorne has been on a long project of creating articles about individual chapters of the Bible. He does these by copy-pasting material, sometimes with attribution, and sometimes without. He repeatedly relies on unreliable sources of various kinds. A look at his user contributions shows that this ongoing project of his takes up almost all of his editing contributions to English Wikipedia. Six years in, he is the kind of user who should, be, as his Userpage says, be "old enough to know better."

People have tried to discuss this kind of thing with him on various occasions, and while he occasionally will clean up a specific issue on a specific article, he has unceasingly kept up all the problematic practices right up to the present.

First, here's diffs of different people trying to talk to him about his problematic editing practices:

[61]

[62] [63][64][65][66][67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72].

The other editors who have tried to speak to him on his talk page about various aspects of his editorial process include myself, User:Fayenatic london, User:Jeffro77, User:Doug Weller, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Crow, User:Diannaa, User:Sir Joseph, User:Antinoos69, User:DGG, and User:Lucas559. Of course, their interactions with him very from very mild to somewhat more serious, so their own assessment of the situation might vary from mine. But I think looking at his Talk Page and his archives will show a pretty consistent pattern of how he concerns other editors.

I am certain that this will not include all the people who have interacted at him on various talk pages, because he is very prolific and has used his copy-paste methods to produce an enormous number of articles. Those discussions I have only encountered on an occasional basis, such as a discussion about plagiarism — not really a discussion because it doesn't look like JohnThorne responded, at least not on the talk page with User:FeatherPluma at Talk:James 3.

For a sampling of what the issues look like, see for example the page Talk:Ezekiel 1, where myself and User:PiCo discuss the use of sources. It's also another good example of the way attempts at constructive criticism go in one ear and out the other with JohnThorne. A similar conversation could each just as easily occur at almost every article he has produced, but for the most part people just haven't been following his work because he creates new articles on single chapters which aren't linked to much. I've only become aware of how extensive the problem is fairly recently, although I'd been aware of the issue in general for some time. See also his discussion with User:Antinoos69 on Talk:Romans 1 and Talk:1 Timothy 1.

The following list is very long (but not exhaustive, believe it or not!), and I would not expect anyone to read it all, but clicking a couple articles at random in it, and looking at their page history and contents, will give you an idea of what we're dealing with. These are biblical articles he started, and they mount up more quickly than other editors can reasonably be expected to keep up with. In chronological order, starting with more recent ones: Jeremiah 34, Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah 30, Jeremiah 29, Jeremiah 28, Jeremiah 27, Jeremiah 26, Jeremiah 25, Jeremiah 24, Jeremiah 21, Jeremiah 20, Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah 18, Jeremiah 17, Jeremiah 16, Jeremiah 15, Jeremiah 14, Jeremiah 13, Jeremiah 12, Jeremiah 11, Jeremiah 10, Jeremiah 9, Jeremiah 8, Ezekiel 47, Ezekiel 46, Ezekiel 45, Ezekiel 44, Ezekiel 43, Ezekiel 42, Ezekiel 41, Ezekiel 40, Ezekiel 39, Ezekiel 38, Ezekiel 36, Ezekiel 35, Ezekiel 34, Ezekiel 33, Ezekiel 32, Ezekiel 31, Ezekiel 30, Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel 28, Ezekiel 27, Ezekiel 25, Ezekiel 24, Ezekiel 23, [[Ezekiel 22], Ezekiel 21, Ezekiel 20, Ezekiel 19, Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel 17, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 15, Ezekiel 13, Ezekiel 12, Ezekiel 11, Ezekiel 10, Ezekiel 8, Ezekiel 6, Ezekiel 5, Ezekiel 2, Ezekiel 4, Ezekiel 3, Ezekiel 7, Jeremiah 7, Jeremiah 6, Jeremiah 5, Jeremiah 4, Jeremiah 3, Jeremiah 2, Ruth 4, Ruth 3, Ruth 1, Lamentations 5, Lamentations 4, Lamentations 3, Lamentations 2, Lamentations 1, Hosea 14, Hosea 13, Hosea 12, Hosea 11, Hosea 10, Hosea 9, Hosea 8, Hosea 7, Hosea 6, Hosea 5, Hosea 4, Hosea 3, Hosea 2, Amos 9, Amos 8, Amos 7, Amos 6, Amos 4, Amos 3, Amos 2, Zechariah 13, Zechariah 11, Zechariah 10, Zechariah 9, Zechariah 8, Zechariah 7, Zechariah 6, Zechariah 5, Zechariah 1, Zechariah 2, Zechariah 3, Zechariah 4, Malachi 3, Malachi 1, Micah 6, Micah 5, Micah 4, Micah 3, Micah 2, Jonah 4, Jonah 3, Jonah 2, Isaiah 66, Isaiah 65, Isaiah 64, Isaiah 63, Isaiah 62, Isaiah 61, Isaiah 59, Isaiah 58, Isaiah 57, Isaiah 56, Isaiah 55, Isaiah 54, Isaiah 48, Isaiah 45, Isaiah 44, Isaiah 43, Isaiah 38, Isaiah 37, Isaiah 36, Isaiah 35, Isaiah 34, Isaiah 33, Isaiah 32, Isaiah 31, Isaiah 30, Isaiah 29, Isaiah 28, Isaiah 27, Isaiah 26, Isaiah 25, Isaiah 24, Isaiah 23, Isaiah 22, Isaiah 21, Isaiah 20, Isaiah 19, Isaiah 18, Isaiah 17, Isaiah 16, Isaiah 15, Isaiah 14, Isaiah 13, Isaiah 12, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 10, Isaiah 60, Joel 3, Joel 2, Joel 1, Zephaniah 3, Zephaniah 2, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 8, Haggai 2, Haggai 1, Isaiah 3, Isaiah 4, Isaiah 5, Isaiah 6, Isaiah 7, Isaiah 41, Isaiah 40, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 51, Isaiah 42, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 50, Nahum 2, Habakkuk 3, Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 1.

Just looking over the contents and page history of a few of these many entries at random should be enough to demonstrate that there is an ongoing pattern here. That pattern does not constitute "creating articles" or building encyclopedic content in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Instead, we have the production of "articles" that consist of material from a variety of sources, thrown together in a manner that is often haphazard, and without a sense of coherence that summarizes the whole chapters in terms of reliable scholarship.

It's a mess.

To go into more specific examples, one of his ongoing practices is to produce "Structure" sections for his "articles", which simply plagiarize section headings from the New King James Version of the Bible. Compare this [73] to this [74]. The same thing (I can draw up the diffs if that helps) can be found for Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 3, etc. It's pervasive.

Another example is his repeated plagiarism of Matthew Poole's commentary. Compare this [75] to this [76]. I could easily get you a bunch more of those too, if you need them.

There are also extensive citations to unreliable sources, including John Gill's commentary, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, the Nelson Study Bible, Matthew Poole's commentary, the J. D. Davis Bible Dictionary, Holman's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Albert Barnes' commentary, Ellicott's Commentary, Halley's Bible Handbook, and a website called The Way to Yahuweh, etc., etc., etc. If you want explanations as to why these are unreliable, or where he has used them, I'd be happy to oblige.

If you want to know about unreliable sources, my recommendation would be this: pick three articles at random out of the giant list above (say, maybe Hosea 5, Jeremiah 12, and Zechariah 10, —or literally any other three you like, so that I don't get to hand-pick them — and I'll walk you through the various unreliable citations in each of the three to a level of detail that I think should be enough to substantiate the overall problem. I've become very familiar with his favorite unreliable sources lately — there's about a dozen or so that he goes back to over and over mostly because they exist in convenient form on a handful of religious websites. The problem is sustained enough that I'm highly confident you won't be able to pick three articles at random that aren't filled with unreliable sources.

To generalize, the sources tend to prioritize a particular sort of Protestant conservatism, even at the cost of contradicting well-founded conclusions of mainstream biblical scholarship. Of course, I fully support the right of anyone to believe whatever version of things they want. But Wikipedia sourcing is another matter.

To summarize, the user is prolific, shows no signs of adapting to Wikipedia norms about sourcing, and shows no signs of effectively listening to the repeated concerns of other editors about the subject. Given his known tendency to plagiarize from sources that can easily be found online, I am concerned about the amount of plagiarism which could potentially be occurring with books he cites which cannot be found online. We cannot all spend our lives at the library working to double-check his edits, after all.Alephb (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Joining Wikipedia is an honor based on the encouragement to contribute to make is significant in the world. As I am aware of my own lackings, I rely on good faith of all users to contribute to the articles I started. I do take the criticisms seriously, but I also uphold neutral point of view, not to lean heavily on one side of opinions (e.g. different sides of Biblical criticisms) and maintain the middle ground as much as I can. Please check the timeline of the articles to see that I immediately adapt to many good advice from various users (as much as I could) in my subsequent articles. Nonetheless, admittedly I could not keep up when certain editors keep adding the "limits" of what must or must not use as references. In most cases, I would wait until certain editors completed the edits before I improved them for neutrality, instead of doing multiple revertable edits that hampers the eagerness to move forward with adding more contents to make Wikipedia more complete. Contrary to the allegations, I respect the authorship highly and never intend to take credits on others' works, therefore each citation is carefully noted and, in my opinion, kept as close as possible to the authors' intent as far as permitted. I am willing to keep learning to contribute, by adjusting my writings according to good instructions, and correcting any mistakes, without being condescending to the narrow views of some editors nor feeling already good enough, so I keep studying resources that could be acceptable to most users, and improving the articles to be informative, useful and easy to read. However, I also plea to be assisted in dealing with some pressures to sway the neutrality of the articles. Let's make Wikipedia fun, educational and social place to contribute as it should be. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you do not realize that the sources you use are almost every one of them based on one general line of interpretation--the 18th and 18th century orthodox Protestant viewpoint,which essentially regarded the Bible as a trustworthy document that had to be explained, but not analyzed--that difficulties and contradictions should be explained away by interpretation, rather than seen as indications of the complexity of the documents. This viewpoint needs to be included among others, but it is not in line with the current informed consensus to make it the basis of an article. Using a variety of such sources is not including all views or NPOV (though there are differences between them thought significant at the time); it is if one were to write an article on a current political proposal using many sources, but all supporting it (however much they disagreed in detail.) I know some of the criticism you have received objects to using such sources at all, but I think including the traditional Protest and Catholic interpretations is essential, because of the cultural and historical influence. But it needs to be indicated (the simplest indication is to give the date in the text, not doonly in the footnotes). And equivalent modern commentaries must be included, representing not just the current view but the most significant views through time. I am not even altogther sure that you understand the diferences over the centuries, or today.

and another point , there do not seem to have ben any Jewish sources used for the OT books. The prophetic books in particular are understood very differently by Jews and Christians, and there seems to be a recent emphasis on those books. J (And Islam also regards both the OT an NT as inspired scripture, and has its range of interpretations as well.)

Additionally, it is not sufficient to just use a range of miscellaneous sources without grouping them or indicating in some manner their nature., As an analogy, "Most Republican commentators say ... " DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a very serious problem, which needs to be addressed. It might be best if JohnThorne were prohibited from editing in mainspace, until such time as he can convince the community that he understands, and is willing to adhere to, Wikipedia policies. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at his response I agree. His response doesn't seem, well, responsive. It's more or less what he's been saying for a long time and that's not good enough. I'm not convinced he's capable of the sort of change in his editing required, or that he understands the issues. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Although this editor responds politely, I have not seen him taking notice in practice of the advice given and requests made to him. Moreover, his poor level of written English (as shown above) does not qualify him to contribute usefully in English Wikipedia, except perhaps on topics where local knowledge might be helpful. He would not be able to rewrite his sources to a good standard, and does not make a practice of giving attribution where he should.

(I do not accept the suggestion that his sources are necessarily unreliable. They are not up to date, but nor is Easton's dictionary on which many of Wikipedia's Biblical articles are based. However, I agree that a broader and more representative variety of sources should be quoted.)

I suggest a topic ban for a period of time on Bible-related articles. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not every source he uses is unreliable, almost all the sources I listed as unreliable I listed not because they are old, but because they push various fringe positions. They would be in a different category from, say, the Encyclopaedia Biblica, which is old and sometimes outdated but does not devote itself to the fringe in the same way. And some of the bad sources he uses are from the 1960's-1990's. Anyhow, we're in agreement that there's a problem here, regardless of exactly how we'd frame some of the sourcing issues. I would also support a topic ban. I just wanted to make it clear, at least speaking for myself, I wasn't judges the sources strictly on age. As for any source I've mentioned, I'd stand willing and ready to show anyone the specific places where it teaches [WP:FRINGE]] positions. Alephb (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Requiring a user to cover a theology topic from Muslim, Jewish, Catholic and various Protestant viewpoints is far beyond resonable. Only very accomplished scholars would be able to do that single handedly. In an ideal world articles on every chapter of the Old Testament would reflect all major view points but Wikipedia is a work in progress and someone needs to start the page with something. I disagree that 18th/19th century Protestent commentary is all junk to be ignored. Many people still believe the Bible to be a reliable document that is internally consistent if understood properly. In addition to the 'I don't like his theology' tone, some of the specific charges here ring false. Section headings are not copyright protected generally for example. Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether 'Many people still believe the Bible to be a reliable document that is internally consistent if understood properly' or not is true, it seems unlikely that those with such beliefs are writing from a NPOV. Nor would I think most Christians be writing about these Hebrew fables from a NPOV. But you have to start somewhere (assuming that we actually need articles for each section of each chapter). Presuming the answer isn't to simply merge a lot of this, perhaps simply tagging the article that it isn't NPOV, or some kind of tag noting that the POV is from a particular Christian sect, and other POVs must be added is the answer. Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the conventional 19th century view can and should be used--either it or the tradition Catholic view could be used effectively as a starting point (or the traditional Jewish view for the OT), with other views then presented in an organized manner. Obviously not all of any article like this should be done by one person. In organizing the view, I'm not sure that the verse-by verse technique is the best, because it make presentation much more clumsy that a discussion that covers the while chapter--I think this would help clarify the presentation (of course thereare some individual verses that do need special attention). DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Legacypac, taking just the section headings issue, the section-heading problem illustrates an issue with this editor's approach even if we grant for the sake of argument that there is no copyright problem. For all I know you may be right, and perhaps there's a special exception in copyright law for section headers.

For the article Habakkuk 1, you can see that the article has a "structure" section, which splits the topic up into parts. There is no citation to any scholarly work whatsoever on the structure of Habakkuk and where this chapter fits into it — although any reasonably comprehensive commentary would have that. Instead, the user opens up his New King James Bible, pulls out the section headings that are there as a convenience for readers, and copies them without attribution into the article. He also types something about "cross-references" into the the Structure section that doesn't quite make sense.

Then he copy-pastes that section from the Habakkuk 1 article into other articles, changing the section headings to copy the appropriate ones from his NKJV each time, each time doing so without any indication to the reader that he's doing so. He does this for Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 3, Nahum 2, Haggai 1, Haggai 2, Jonah 1, Jonah 2, Micah 1, Micah 2, etc. etc. etc.

And that's just the structure sections. Similar techniques, with varying degrees of copy-pasting, attribution, misattribution, or plagiarism are used to build the entire article, for hundreds of articles in a row, no matter what people keep telling him.

Speaking just for myself, Legacypac, I feel some sympathy for your claim that 18th/19th century Protestant commentary isn't all junk. Biblical studies owes a lot to some very astute 18th and 19th century Protestant scholars who helped found it as an academic discipline. My objection to the improper large-scale copy-pasting from some particular 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st-century sources does not reflect an opposition to all early Protestant work.Alephb (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"18th/19th century Protestant commentary isn't all junk" -well, I guess not, but there is no reason on WP to use 100 or 200 year old sources, one of the best things about WP is that it is easily updated to summarise recent scholarship. Accepting the advice to randomly click on one of the articles listed above, I chose Zechariah 13 and find this exegesis on vs 7, copied (with attribution in a footnote) from a book written in 1884- "The envy and hatred of Satan, the blind fury of the chief priests, the contempt of Herod, the guilty cowardice of Pilate, freely accomplished that Death, which God had before decreed for the salvation of the world. The meaning then is, (Ribera), "the sword shall be aroused against My Shepherd, that is, I will allow Him to be smitten by the Jews." You would not find Christian scholars today blaming "the Jews" for Jesus' death, or taking it as a given that a verse in a Jewish scripture is referring to an event in Jesus' life. Both blaming "the Jews" for Jesus'death,and reading Jewish holy texts solely as "prophecies" of Christianity could be taken today as extremely anti-Semitic. I think it is wrong for these antiquated, and possibly damaging, attitudes to be perpetuated here on WP. On the other hand, looking at the page view statistics, that article has an average of one view a day, so it could be felt that it is not very important. My feeling is that if these articles are going to exist at all they should not be based on such out of date sources, Biblical scholarship, even by committed Christian scholars, has utterly altered over the last hundred or two hundred years.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to take the Zechariah 13 case, let's run through the elements of this post, which with little variations here and there resembles the bulk of this editor's output. First, we have an obvious statement, like, "Zechariah 13 is the 13th chapter of Zechariah," which is then cited to two thoroughly fringe sources, dated 1962 and 2012. Next is another generic sentence, cited to the Intrepreter's [sic] Bible and a fringe source dated to 1960. The lead in no way summarizes the contents of Zechariah 13, nor does any part of the article. The "Text" section simply tells us that the chapter is in Hebrew and tells us how many verses are in the chapter -- other than the verse number the whole section is copy-pasted. The "Translations" section is likewise a copy-paste job. The "Structure" section is created by unattributed copy-paste from the NKJV Bible. The rest of the article, the only part which discusses the actual contents of the chapter at all, is all about a single verse, verse 7. This final section opens with a quotation from the KJV Bible, but the name of the translation is nowhere given to the reader, who must simply guess where the quote is taken from. After the quote, it consists of four bullet points, each one discussing a phrase in the verse. The first is copied from the commentary by Albert Barnes, who argued against the academic mainstream's ideas about the authorship of Genesis and believed that Moses had written it. Without quote marks around Barnes' quotation, the article would appear to the casual reader to be presenting the "Zechariah is about Jesus" viewpoint as a simple fact, rather than as one theological viewpoint. The second bullet point copies and pastes from a similar source (the Pulpit Commentary) from a similar period, with a similar viewpoint likewise present as if it were simple fact. The third bullet point copy-pastes from John Gill (circa 1750), who is problematic for the same reasons, and whose views are simply presented as fact without quote marks. The fourth-bullet point does the same thing with yet another nineteenth-century source. So there's not even really an article about Zechariah 13 here -- just a series of quotes, presented as fact, telling us that one particular verse in Zechariah 13 is definitely all about Jesus. Rinse and repeat, 375 times. Alephb (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I think that is very very bad. Thanks to Doug Weller, DGG and you for bringing this to wider attention. WP is not here to promote outdated Christian theology from hundreds of years ago that even Christian scholars do not believe anymore. Presenting Jewish scriptures as being "all about Jesus" is considered extremely anti-Semitic and offensive today, even by committed Christians. Obviously I have not looked at all those articles, but you seem to have done, and my feeling is that they should all be deleted and the editor who created them topic banned.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seem them all, but I've looked pretty closely at about one hundred of them, and I haven't seem one yet that doesn't have the same problems. As for the other three hundred or so, given that I picked a lot of the articles pretty much at random from the 375-ish that the editor has written, I'm confident there is a low chance of there being a large number of decently-written articles hiding in there somewhere. Alephb (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I see the original poster and soem writings above are expressing a non-neutral point of view. Just because an editor write with a point of view is not a reason to ban or block. What you will see here is a stronger point of view from conservative Protestant from previous centuries because they are the ones who have published and have material available under public domain on the web. Modern critical scholarship should be reported as well, but not as the only sources. And we cannot expect JohnThorne to have access to this material or to be forced to include it in articles. My earlier complaints to JohnThorne were about the lack of depth in the articles, certainly nothing to complain to here about. The articles mostly were not useful because of minimal specific content about the topic, but are OK as starting point stubs. JohnThorne is "creating articles", and I think much of the original poster's complaint can be ignored. Legally Matthew Poole does not have to be credited, but under our policy must be credited with material copied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I'm puzzled by your response. NPOV of course doesn't apply to anything but "encyclopedic content", and certainly not here. As an Admin you must know that. You also suggest much of my complaint can be ignored, but most of it was about " problems with original research, copyright and plagiarism" carrying on for almost six years despite warnings, which I don't think are things that should be ignored. I will however say that I've received a reasonable explanation as to why he reinserted a post related to the Tower of Babel that had been reverted, so I'm not particularly concerned about that although his edit still I think failed NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article about a political or religious dispute and including only one POV is advocacy. One doesn't have to give everything in full, but one must write the article to make it clear that there isn't just one position. As a minimum an encyclopedia article must indicate that something is controversial. Using references only from biased sources representing one position similarly is advocacy. I am not sure the ed. recognizes to what degree these interpretations are disputed. Obviously one cannot include all views, but the idea of writing about the OT using only Christian sources of any vintage is appalling. I do agree that we do not privilege in matters like this the current general POV, but consider others equally, and the suggestion we omit the orthodox POV was biased also. But this is not really a ANI problem, since the contributor does seem to show some understanding by now. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My main concern with the editor has never been POV. While I'm concerned about the copy-pasting from fringe sources, I would also be concerned if he started making his articles by copy-pasting without proper attribution from a balanced variety of pre-critical religious and academic religious and secular sources. As far as the issue of attribution goes, I'm not encouraged to see in his response, "Please check the timeline of the articles to see that I immediately adapt to many good advice from various users (as much as I could) in my subsequent articles. . . . Contrary to the allegations, I respect the authorship highly and never intend to take credits on others' works, therefore each citation is carefully noted and, in my opinion, kept as close as possible to the authors' intent as far as permitted." That strikes me as evidencing denial, and a continuation of a long copy-paste problem which he hasn't acknowledged. If it was made clear to a reader when, say, an 18th century source is being quoted, then we might have an occasion but very fixable issue with undue weight or something like that here and there. His talk page, and it archives, show people repeatedly trying to explain attribution. He says something like, "thank you for your positive contribution. I always attribute correctly, and will try to take your good advice into account." and then cranks out another ten articles by copy-paste. It's not just a POV thing -- it's several problems all mixed together in a virtual cut-and-paste assembly-line article factory. The impression he gives that he "does seem to show some understanding by now," is, I think, part of why he's managed to continue to be able to crank these articles out this way for years despite people repeatedly talking to him. Alephb (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Some clarifications:

1. Timeline: Many articles listed here labeled as "bad" have been made a while ago, and since then a number of them underwent improvements. The most recently created articles already incorporated various inputs from other users. I think this should be taken into consideration as how far the contributions have evolved to improve throughout the years and will still be enhanced further for sure! Objectionable sources have not used anymore (for the sake of civility), because there are more other sources available (from many POVs). Nonetheless I wish to stay clear from controversies that distract the attention from the common goal to make a good article in Wikipedia. Throughout the years, I have consulted Wikipedia readers (not limited from certain thoughts, but also not of wide range of denominations) about their opinions, and the choice of contents is basically based on the gathered information, forming a decent start for other users (who would be as eager, naively I thought) to modify and improve. Now as the articles gain more attention, obviously more materials could be integrated. This reflects the expansion and evolution of the sources I used to start new articles, cognizant of many more shortcomings to overcome.
2. Process: In the past few months there has been a pattern of working together (in "good faith", not to count unnecessary rants and ever growing list of "questionable sources") as follows:
   1. an article was created by a user
   2. the article was edited by a second user (at the moment, mostly by deleting parts that don't suit the personal POV of the particular user)
   3. the first user added more information from other sources to improve the article
   4. all users to add more information, corrections, comments to the article

The steps could be polished and oiled to work well in an amicable environment of Wikipedia, while allowing every user to develop the necessary editing skills, with mutual respect despite the diversity of educational backgrounds. This is what I hope to enliven in contributing to Wikipedia. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you perhaps point to some examples of articles that you think you have raised to a satisfactory standard? I looked at some of your recent edits; some were at least heading in the right direction, but they did not achieve anything like a worthwhile article. The most generous outcome that I might support would be to ban you from creating new articles, to be reviewed after 12 months, so that you should concentrate on improving the many existing poor-quality pages that you have started. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to suggest an indefinite block from en-WP with a standard 6 month offer, the reason being years of not listening to people telling him that his editing violates COPYVIO and NPOV and him responding politely and not changing a whit. I cannot know if it is a CIR or a IDHT issue, but this person is systematically harming WP. If, when they appeal, they can show evidence that they have added non-COPYVIO, well sourced, NPOV content that completes a thought, at some other WMF project, well that would be great. But the section header says it all and their responses show no real lights coming on. The OP did a solid job of legwork, in showing there is a problem, and doing nothing is not a good option. This is not a happy thing, but it is what should happen, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

As my last created articles are not yet up to satisfactory standards, per recommendation, I would like to focus on improving the poor quality articles I have started, instead of creating new ones. Given the time, I will remove the unacceptable materials and replace them with the appropriate ones to achieve the proper article standards. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing you keep saying but you have not acknowledged the problems nor shown that you understand them by editing differently. You seem very well intentioned and that is what makes this unhappy, but when someone edits for years as you have, we need to take action. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog and Fayenatic London that some sort of block would be appropriate. The indefinite one with the six-month offer seems reasonable that we're several years into this problem. If this were only the first or fifth time someone were trying to discuss the issue, I wouldn't recommend such a measure, but we're a few years and about 400 articles into this problem. I regret suggesting such a thing with an editor as polite as JohnThorne, but I don't see any realistic alternative. Alephb (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, I also agree that some form of editing restriction is needed. @Jytdog: do you want to make this a formal proposal? Paul August ☎ 10:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block with 6 month standard offer

Proposing an indefinite block from en-WP with a standard 6 month offer, the reason being years of not listening to people telling him that his editing violates COPYVIO and NPOV and him responding politely and not changing a whit. I cannot know if it is a CIR or a IDHT issue, but this person is systematically harming WP. If, when they appeal, they can show evidence that they have added non-COPYVIO, well sourced, NPOV content that completes a thought, at some other WMF project, well that would be great. But the section header says it all and their responses show no real lights coming on. The OP did a solid job of legwork, in showing there is a problem, and doing nothing is not a good option. This is not a happy thing, but it is what should happen, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support a TBan and (hence) Article Creation Ban for a period of no less than six months on Bible-related articles.With a heavy heart but I too don't see any realistic alternative. Looking at his standard replies to numerous users at his talk and here at AN, coupled with the impenetrable evidences aginst his quantity-over-quality work-style, using fringe sources as references and copy-vios (and to a extent-POV) nails the deal. I remain utterly un-convinced that he even understands the seriousness of the issues and of his capability to implement the community expectations in his future editing. But without doubt, Thorne's politeness is truly remarkable!I truly hope you will come back as a much better contributor!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:--An indef is not needed!The problems are concentrated in a single area and a TBan suffices enough.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per Jytdog's reasoning. This appears to be the only way to bring the copy-paste editing to a halt. Warnings haven't worked, and we're now several years and about 400 new articles via copy-paste into this editor's career. Alephb (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC). Alternately, I would also support a TBAN. This seems reasonable too. Alephb (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• A block seems punitive and overkill for an editor that has no block log and doesn't appear to be editing in malice, and I would strongly oppose it. A topic ban is supported by the evidence here and would be preventative rather than punitive. I would say indef, but it can be appealed after a year. Perhaps editing in other areas will give the editor the tools they need to return to biblical topics at that point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support a TBan and (hence) Article Creation Ban per Winged Blades, and per my earlier comments. The case made by Doug Weller, DGG, Alephb, and Fayenatic is serious and compelling. Paul August ☎ 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I do not oppose the bible TBAN as an alternative. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for biblically related articles, to be appealed after a year. I agree with User:Dennis Brown that a block would not be appropriate here. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Alephb,Doug Weller and the others above.Smeat75 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support article creation ban, but I would advocate allowing a limited window for a narrow sub-topic within a Biblical topic ban, e.g. permitting JohnThorne to work on the Book of Zechariah chapter articles over the next six months. This will allow for constructive focus of his effort, monitoring of his output, and mentoring. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User harassment

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

---

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

I want that user Aaimran and his IP address 47.185.217.3 banned. That user has been harassing me from those accounts ever since I reverted his edits on Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and I don't want even say to him because he's trying to provoke me. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide evidence for your claims. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I had a quick look through the reported party's contributions and found this. The reported party might want to read WP:SPOILER. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you at ANI, Amauri ;P Anyways... I have put the article on my watchlist. I'll be on the look out for more violations about spoilers. As for the supposed harrasment, I wouldn't call 4 edits on a user's talk page (unless reverting in an edit war) harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown gave that user a warning and posted WP:SPOILER on his talk page, which he is clearly ignoring and is being hostel towards me for reverting his edits & harassing me. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, their "Lord" messages are odd, but I don't see the harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

He used his IP address 47.185.217.3 at me too. I must advise that he should not harass me from both his account and the IP address. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see what would constitute harassment by the reported user and the IP above. The talk page edits made by the user (other than this one) appear to be attempts to explain their rationale, albeit the rationale isn't a sufficient one. I believe that Dennis Brown did the proper thing already; he left a message on the user's talk page and provided the relevant guidelines so that they'll learn and understand. Sure, the talk page messages seem like this person was defending a person opinion or belief, but we should try and educate them regardless. If disruption continues, we'll at least know that we attempted to be cordial and message the user and such attempts were ignored. I think we should leave things at that for now, and keep an eye out. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur, although I'm always a bit concerned when editors justify their actions with the deity of their choice [77]. A lot of problems in the world are based on that same excuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but if we could figure out which edits God prefers, it would take a big load off Arbcom. EEng 13:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have the hierarchy slightly wrong there, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC) ,

Well, maybe God is on ArbCom? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I recall deliberately not voting for him after that three day blocking in a tomb business. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was the same. I was concerned about the unconventional penalties he wanted to introduce for policy violations.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

His attitude at me and how he justifies his actions is not excusable in my opinion. I don't think he even read WP:SPOILERS clearly. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This does not exactly constitute harassment. I am not an admin, so my knowledge is pretty basic with stuff like this. As Oshwah and Dennis Brown have indicated, it's not what you claim. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think he is just a bit clueless and lost. I linked him over to the Teahouse. We will see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia values harassment free environments yet doesn't have a bock per User email function AFAICT, should the whole load of manual coping (or clue coping) be dumped on an editor? Technology exists, though priorities vary. Neonorange (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't harassment, it is a clueless but (I think) well meaning editor. WP:AGF until there is a reason to not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just found out he/she will not be editing Wikipedia anymore on his talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a he, goddamn it. Aaimran (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Aaimran has reverted the edits on his talk page as you can see in the diff here. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I don't know if Aaimran's message is concerning? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 10:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just now saw this. WP:EMERGENCY has the proper guidance, even if you don't think it is serious. I've already taken the appropriate action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

User:AnimeDisneylover95 repeatedly edit warring and refusal to get the point and conform to general consensus

This user apparently has his own ideas regarding contributing to VA articles, but for whatever reason, he insists that every additional voice credit be added in their filmographies, even though the general consensus in WP:anime suggests otherwise. The user also apparently can't stay calm in expressing his own stance, as evidenced in the discussion linked above (in WP:anime) and here. The way this user is behaving is very concerning and may prove a threat to the prosperity of WP:anime, so I suggest that he be sanctioned or be imposed some sort of editing restriction within the project. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Express your stance below (should User:AnimeDisneylover95 be sanctioned/imposed an editing restriction?):

• Impose T-ban in WP:anime and WP:BLP: Reasons are noted above. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Prince you just had your own T-ban lifted 4 days ago... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal my TBan (unarchived for admin closure). I know it is unrelated but you are already entangled into a dispute with an editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As you've already noted, that's unrelated to the issue at hand. The restriction is gone, so it doesn't apply here (even if it wasn't, that still wouldn't affect how I report other users, as my T-ban was deletion processes, not WP:anime or WP:BLP). Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It just bothers me is all considering some of your past comments towards IPs and the like. Here is a recent example: [78]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't directed at an IP user, and the incident with another IP user was a long time ago, and it has already been resolved. Anyway, the focus isn't me, but User:AnimeDisneylover95. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

When you bring a report here the focus is on both parties involved. The closing admin is going to look at the conduct of both sides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• No action - Sk8erPrince should be admonished for the pre-mature close of a discussion. Going forward this should be worked out via other venues such as Mediation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid97. —JJB^ers 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid87. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Imposing interaction ban with Sk8erPrince and User:AnimeDisneylover95

• Impose two way interaction ban permanently: I have no interest in interacting with this user, and seeing as he can't stay calm when interacting with me (and doesn't conform to logic), nothing good will ever come out of any discussion between him and I, so I'd rather just avoid any interaction with him altogether. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95, but not in reverse. —JJB^ers 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I had hoped that mediation would be a way out for Prince but it looks like he has no interest in the likes of dispute resolution. The edit summaries are also just too much for me, these snide remarks have got to stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I don't know what Sk8erPrince's issues are but he can't seen to stop trying to being unnecessarily aggressive. I'm very close to recommending a block because he won't leave AnimeDisneylover95 alone. --Tarage (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Considering Sk8erPrince's history of interactions with other users (he was given a six-month ban from nominating articles for deletion last year), and considering his attitude in the previous discussions, I agree that some kind of interaction ban is needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  The way I see it working is Prince would be allowed to report User:AnimeDisneylover95 in the case of harassment on ADL's side. This would make it so Prince isn't a potential sitting duck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. IBans have no correlation with harassment, so just because I won't be allowed to interact with said user in the future, that doesn't mean I can't report them. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice for other editors to weigh in here but if you are okay with a one way IBAN then I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what an IBAN means. Reporting a user who you have a one-way IBAN with is an instablock. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN - described in the above votes. Although I also believe his behavior deserves more sanctions. Hey Sk8erPrince I'm very disappointed to see you re-implemented the list of deleted pages you apparently deleted (even though you aren't an admin). As I recall, you removed them during the appeal of your tban to prove you have changed. I guess that was far from the truth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that Prince is on a very thin rope here, I would not object to something like a block if these kinds of things continue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I am having troubled issues with an user by the name of Sk8erPrince, This user has snapped at me by all accounts all over an issue that has been going on for years since 2015, when it comes to additional voices on voice actors all thanks to a "consensus" from WP:anime just today. I have been careful when I put in information, as they need to be cited with a source otherwise it will be rejected and I have been citing pages and actor's confirmation of the particular character they play with reliable sources, resumes, everything made by a voice actor, ever since 2015. Yet, I still encounter the same arguments that they still continue to "beat a dead horse on by users such as Sk8erPrince regarding "additional voices are unecessary" "Notable roles for voice actors are ONLY allowed", the "reliable sources do not help much" etc, etc...,etc..... I reverted most of the edits to have it back to it's original format today, but Sk8er replied with this message: "Remove additional voices, per consensus in WP:anime. Go on, keep reverting my edits and obstruct the progress of this project. I'll see you in ANI." I refuse to reach an agreement and I'm just conflicted that he's threatening me to report me to you, I'm just frustrated!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A few corrections: One, I am not an admin. Two, I went ahead and reported you; it's no threat (look right above you). This isn't a joke, bud. You aren't upholding the spirit of Wikipedia (in the sense that it operates on consensus), so there is definitely a need to impose a sanction on you (besides the fact that you aren't keeping a level head as an editor). If you think I'm a problem, you might as well think everyone that was involved in that discussion is a problem as well. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would I also report everyone else if their views/opinions are a lot different than yours, as they said the additional voices are allowed if "notable" or cited with "source"!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

'If "notable" or cited with "source".... [with the prioritization of named roles]'. Please don't just read the parts you like; read the whole thing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that Sk8erPrince opened an RFC, closed it himself, and is now trying to enforce it on another user. Opening one is fine, that's the proper way to go about content disputes like this. But you shouldn't have been the one to close it. I also have issues with the fact that you called out a specific user in your RFC. There was no need for that. This feels like wikilawyering. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was open for less than a day. What the hell are you doing closing it that quickly? --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I felt like the user in question was raging too much, and it wouldn't be beneficial to keep the discussion going. However, I agree with Knowledge that the discussion should be opened longer. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not be the one to close it. That is horrible form. Let someone else close it. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)\

That's perfectly reasonable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Christ the more I read about this the more it seems like Sk8erPrince is WAY out of line. You are being horribly aggressive here where it isn't needed. Calm the hell down and stop attacking other editors. It was a mistake on your part to bring this report. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am noting that the "consensus" on WT:ANIME Sk8erPrince is referring to is from a discussion that is less than 24 hours old and involves only five editors other than himself casting a !vote in a straw poll that affects a large number of biographical articles. Much of AnimeDisneylover's comments were made before most of the "consensus" had weighed in. At the time, Sk8terPrince also tried to prematurely close the discussion at WT:ANIME after the discussion went for less that 24 hours(oldid). While it is like that the trend of the discussion is going to continue as is, Sk8terPrince's assessment is premature and is misrepresenting the order of things. AnimeDisneylover, it seems to me, made only two undos during the course of the discussion (Kyle Herbert,Cassandra Lee), and while it's probably wise that touching anything on any VA articles should not be done by either party during this discussion, I very much want to attempt to give a fuller illustration of the situation, because I'm quite alarmed at how fast Sk8terPrince dragged AnimeDisneylover here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the non-biased assessment. It's accurate. Closing the discussion prematurely was my fault; I'm sorry. I'll wait until someone else closes it. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issues, I just feel bewildered to see this issue continue to being brought back up and whether or not reliable sources (e.g. articles, end credits of a movie, show & video games, resumes, and convention bios) are necessary for these voice actors?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are always needed for verification in VA BLPs. The issue here is whether or not the inclusion of additional voices is necessary. That's the whole point of the discussion here; to settle content disputes like this. When the discussion is over, there is no more room for argument. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop arguing with every post he makes? You made your point, there's a talk page discussion that now has many eyes on it. You are still being overly aggressive to the point where I'm starting to wonder if perhaps you need a break. --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering both users have had a history of actions like this, I agree with the above statement that some kind of action (either a temporary interaction ban or meditation) is in order here. I agree with some of Sk8erPrince's points but his attitude above and in the WT:ANIME discussion has a lot to be desired. As for the discussion itself, while I agree that closing the discussion (and by the proposer no less) was premature to say the least, given its nature and how many articles are to be affected, a discussion in a wider venue (i.e. in a different WikiProject's talk page or even at the Village Pump) might be necessary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection with an interaction ban with User:AnimeDisneylover95 (preferably permanently), seeing as he clearly hates me. I, for one, would not like to be on the receiving end of his uncontrolled outbursts. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry I outbursted myself but honestly their is no reason to act in the same situation at me, especially in regards to a 2 year old issue that continues to be brought back up over and over again from not only you but also to anyone that continues to have this conflict.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I continue to have concerns about Sk8erPrince, in light of their continued edit warring without using the talk page even though that was requested by an administrator and failure to cease making edits regarding notability while the RFC is still open. This is not collaborative behavior. --Tarage (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Sailor Moon article alone for now, unless unsourced info pop up. I have no intention to edit war; but I don't appreciate the fact that my edits are repeatedly reverted without a valid reason. Seeing as another editor has explained why the tags are relevant, I have no reason to take any further action. However, I must clarify that I made a mistake in John's article regarding the edit summary - it wasn't a notable issue, but an issue regarding RS (IMDB is NOT RS; that's a known fact). Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ad Orientem who was the one who initiated the protection. --Tarage (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If additional protection is required or someone is engaging in nakedly disruptive editing let me know. That said, I'm not going to jump into this dispute for a variety of reasons, chief among them that I am not familiar with the subject or genre so there would be CIR issues. And beyond that, it looks like there is a (gasp!) fairly constructive discussion going on above and I don't want to rock any boats. But if something comes up that obviously requires admin action, or a strong consensus favoring some sort of action that requires the tools develops, just ping me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Kinuko Y. Craft spam

An anonymous editor has been adding Category:Picture books by Kinuko Y. Craft and other related incorrect information to various articles on novels where Craft drew the cover art. See: [79][80], etc. (check the cat for more - too many to list). For most of these, the "picture book" category is incorrect, as is adding Craft in the other places. The editor appears to be jumping IPs, so I thought listing specific users or notifying them would be pointless. Advice? I cleaned up one or two, but I wasn't sure how to handle the bulk. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Chernobog95...again

It seems as though Chernobog95 has not learned his lesson on his actions the last time he was reported onto here. He continues to try to insert/spam controversial information regarding the Hwasong-14 on all pages that mention it. He attempts to insert this information by means of spamming as many as 7 links, some of which are unreliable and/or copyrighted, just to "prove" one tiny piece of information. He takes his information WAY too seriously, inserting the "theoretical" range rather than the confirmed range, which he refers to as "outdated". The sources only suggest that the missile has a maximum range of what he specifies (at first 8,000 km., then 9,700 km., and finally 10,000 km.), but he inserts this information as though he is suggesting that it is the confirmed range. He has attacked several users over the last week+ alone, calling four users (myself included), insults such as "Unprofessional", "Hypocritical", "Preferring Outdated Information", and even criticizing us for defending other users over just one measly piece of information that is not confirmed. In addition, he has admitted on the revision history for North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, that he was intentionally edit-warring and violated the 3RR just to get the information that he wants. He has violated a number of rules since he began editing these particular pages. He has been blocked once, for 31 hours, but he continues to make these edits after being given both the final warning and the warning given after the initial block. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I was blocked for "unsourced/poorly sourced" information for placing references from sources used extensively by wikipedia which were unjustifiedly removed for reasons such as "unreliable sources" and "seems copyrighted" despite extensive use on wikipedia. Information which I placed are labeled as controversial not because they are not confirmed since all ranges for are theoretical as SamaranEmerald takes initial theoretical estimate of its range as confirmed. It is due to denial of more recent by experts/veterans in missile technology who in latest arms control wonk podcast complained about inaccuracies of wikipedia and denial involving range of Hwasong-14. SamaranEmerald for example claimed in his reverting previously that sources I used were unreliable which included 38 North. I decided to restrain from criticism which is mislabeled as attacking/insults for pointing out their actions. Andy Dingley restored couple of my edits which I am thankful for such support. Chernobog95 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't been following this closely and I have not yet had time to study the sources adequately to know who is right here. But tonight we have this unedifying set of removals: 97.43.128.38 (talk · contribs) which I was busy reverting myself, although Chernobog95 beat me to most of them. This was followed by similar pushes from 74.134.135.109 (talk · contribs).

I cannot say that any one set of edits is better than another here, as that's a hard task in evaluating credibility in a very grey area and I've had no time to do so. But Chernobog95 is far from the only editor involved here, and at least two IPs are pushing clear POVs in an unacceptable, unexplained and unsupported manner.

Did I really wake up for just this? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

All I did was placing more recent information as most/majority of references are from sources that are heavily referenced in wikipedia, I did my research to be confident in using and really annoyed at excuses that were used to remove it. We already went through this and he had time to prove it which he did not for previous one on this AN/I that he made. Andy, today is not your lucky day apparently. :-/ Chernobog95 (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• You know what, I am getting tired of both you AND SamaranEmerald. Both of you make strong points to your causes, but fighting each other over something such as a disputed missile range is not how you two should settle page disputes. Wikipedia has 31+ million users, and a good portion of them are either vandals or just fight over the stupidest things. Samara (if you don't mind me calling you that), I did initially support your side of the argument, but after seeing what you did over the time, I have grown more and more skeptical of my standing, and when quiet for several days to think about my new approach before returning just the other day. And now, like Andy, I am on neutral ground now, and I am no longer supporting your objective of proving Chernobog95 wrong. As for you Chernobog95, I have looked over your sources, and I have noticed that your source for 38 north is legitimate, and thus reliable; however, one of sources is in fact a copyright infringement while another is in fact not reliable under WP:RS because it contains original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Ultimately though, but of you are acting like a bunch of childish users, fighting as though both of you are in a sibling rivalry, and thus, the two of you are not, I repeat not assuming good faith. If you ask me, the best way to settle this conflict is to just find common ground, and make a compromise of some sort, something you Chernobog95 attempted to try before, right? --Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By copyrighted you mean the diplomat? Why is there issue referencing just by link? Isn't NK News allowed/used extensively? The original research you mean by Norbert Brugge is referenced/used by NTI, also Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk and contributor to 38 North seriously considered his opinion about Hwasong-13's design. Yes, I attempted compromise and was denied. Chernobog95 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

North Korea has a long history of making exaggerated claims in its news broadcasts. For example, have you heard the story about former North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il being born in a similar fashion to that of Jesus? Well that is often believed by many North Koreans to be true, but by the rest of the world, it is nothing more than a laughing joke, in fact, a Soviet officer actually made an actual claim that he was actually born more naturally in a Soviet camp in the late 1940s. In addition, a couple of years ago, they made a controversial claim that they had found evidence of the existence of a mythological horse similar to a unicorn. As for the missiles, many of their test they have conducted in the past have been claimed by them to be successful, however experts from South Korea and America researched the test and many of them where actually failures. There's a lot of silly claims that they have made over the years, you can look it up thought out the internet. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

South Korea has a long history of making exaggerated claims in its news/media based on rumours and parodies while you should have checked Media coverage of North Korea article, I recommend you to read it as Unicorn claim is disproven as false among other claims be it parodies taken seriously to misinformation by National Intelligence Service of South Korea. Your reply to mine does not make sense by going off-topic about a subject you have now demostrated that you know little to nothing, meaning you are uninformed and misinformed by your belief in supposed claim of unicorn discovery by them when that was proven false as it involved Gogukoryo kingdom. I can not have any trust in you with that kind of lack of knowledge and political bias that you have demostrated as it seems that your reply to mine is that of denial about the missile. You should check last two podcasts by Arms Control Wonk to inform yourself rather than be in state of ignorance. Chernobog95 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be willing to compromise with Chernobog95 and allow some of his edits, on the condition he accepts some form of proposal in return. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That solely depends on your suggestion, though I find it unlikely involving range thus for now listen to two latest arms control wonk podcasts as it is informative/educational. 6700km estimate is declared flawed by David Wright who made it. To be honest we should wait for a more detailed analysis, Jeffrey Lewis believes it might be capable of hitting New York based on detailed simulation. Today some new information surfaced up about 2nd stage burning up close to 5 minutes thus might involve just verniers. Latest estimates all put maximum range 9500km and over. Chernobog95 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Theroized information ≠ Confirmed information, and even if the estimates from these sources are made by experts, they are not ultimately confirmed, which is what I am trying to prove to you. What I want to see is the use of information that is true, not information that is thought to be true, which is why I reverted your edits. The sources you used, while I don't doubt by your persistence that they could be reliable, are only a small collection of sources describing the supposed range. I'll make you a deal, I'll allow you to insert your information in some of the areas you want it to be inserted, but you cannot treat it like it is fact, thus you must state a form of counter-evidence. One area you could do this is at the description of North Koreas confirmed and alleged missiles. If you notice the description about the Taepodong-2 on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, it states that the estimated range of that missile is between "4500 km. to 10000 km.", but notes that most sources only put it at only "6700 km." What you could do is put the the estimated range (theorized of course), on the description about the Hwasong-14 as being "between 4,200 to 10,000 km." but that most sources put it at only 6,700 km. - 8,000 km., as that is what the majority sources across the web cite, whether based off of an expert or not. In addition, on the page about the missile itself, you could put your findings in the description box below about the missile supposed range, but you must state in some way that it is only an estimation or a theory, not a confirmed fact of reality, I will not stop you from editing that. SamaranEmerald (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to decline as I already stated previously numerously about the range and your double standards involving that as I have to yet again repeat it to you. David Wright is the source of 6700km range estimate that was referenced by media early on which he later one acknowledged that he did not take into account Earth's orbit and that missile would have flown farther thus that (theoretical)estimate of 6700km is unreliable that you tried or still are trying to force as confirmed as you talk about sources(media) who reference his estimation thus it is echo chamber thus it is unreliable to rely on multiple sources referencing a single source. Again, all estimates are theoretical and there are three sources that estimate range well over 9000km as maximum, all 9500 and above. John Schilling increased his estimate of 8000km to 9700km, you are forcing his older estimate and estimate of David Wright who noted serious flaws in his initial estimate. I put theoretical as compromise and is accurate description of all range estimates for it while also tolerated out dated estimates as a compromise to you and others.You assumed and or force older estimates as confirmed despite being theoretical as ones for older North Korean missiles like Hwasong-10 and Hwasong-12. Their estimations are based on computer simulation of as accurate as possible characteristics of missile that model of it is used to match result of the test consistently. Chernobog95 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

persistent addition of uncited material despite several warnings

HoldenV8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed a lot to rugby league articles he was previously blocked in April 2016 by @Michig: for persistent addition of adding uncited material. since that time, Holden's citations have improved but has gone back to this pattern of adding uncited material. I gave a warning in May 2017 [81] and a final warning in June citing 3 examples of uncited material. [82]. despite warnings, Holden persists, adding this today. it's got to the point of blatant disregard of WP rules. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Another GNAA sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked.Lone edit reverted.Page protected.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Becometheflower is creating GNAA disruption. Please stop this person and reverse the damage. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you know the account of the suspected sockmaster, you may take the case to WP:SPI. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I know the SPI process. I'm looking for administrator action, not advice from others. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see that you got your answer now that the user is blocked for LTA. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocking the sock is just the start. Reversing all of their edits is the next step. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional behavior by OPamuk1967b

• OPamuk1967b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pastoes777 pointed out to me that OPamuk1967b appears to be using Wikipedia to promote Franz Lidz and his works. The user's 5 year tenure here appears to be solely for promoting Lidz. I reverted Pastoes777 thinking their edits were POV, but upon review of OPamuk1967b's edits pointed out by Pastoes777 on my user talk page, I agree with them. I am asking for admin review of OPamuk1967b (which I think may deserve a block as NOTHERE or SOAP) and consider restoring Pastoes777's removal of the materials added by OPamuk1967b (i.e., reverting my reverts). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a tough case EvergreenFir. This user is not an obvious spammer because he actually uses reliable sources, even though they are of the same type. Therefore, admins, or editors, cannot make the editorial decision of mass reverting this editor's sources. I would suggest contacting this user and, based on his response, proceed further. But I can't see a case for mass reversions, based only on the fact that his/her sources are of the same type. However, if he resumes another mass addition of this type of sources to more articles without explaining the reasons, then, perhaps, he can be asked to stop until he explains himself. Another approach would be to take these sources to RSN for a closer examination. I just hope this editor is not trying some kind of SEO. Dr. K. 00:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please look more closely. They're not just sources of the same type they are by the exact same person in the same format.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Irwin

In an exhaustive 2015 feature story on Irwin, his family and their crocodile research, Smithsonian writer Franz Lidz quoted the Australian writer Germaine Greer, who accused Irwin of tormenting animals and using them as a sideshow to his own showmanship. “There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies," she said. "There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress.”[84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeRoy_Neiman

In an exhaustive 1985 feature story on the artist, Sports Illustrated writer Franz Lidz wrote: "When he was six, Neiman was drawing comic strips for fun. He always crayoned in a tall, black figure in a top hat. It was Abraham Lincoln. Years later, while researching Lincoln photos for a magazine cover, he came to the conclusion that the Great Emancipator was 'a vain, p.r.-oriented kind of guy. He was the first public figure to exploit photography. He created the persona of the good guy. He created Abraham Lincoln! Because of Lincoln, I realized you could develop your personal image into a positive thing.' Neiman has gone on to build his own image with mustache and cigar. Everybody assumes the mustache is modeled after Salvador Dali's. 'If anything,' protests Neiman, 'it was inspired by Clark Gable's.' But Dali had something to do with it. When they posed together for a picture in a New York restaurant, the photographer asked Neiman to get rid of his smoky stogie. 'Don't do it!' Dali advised him. 'It's a great prop.'"[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hopkins

In an exhaustive 2002 profile in The New York Times, Hopkins told journalist Franz Lidz: "I was a poor learner, which left me open to ridicule and gave me an inferiority complex. I grew up absolutely convinced I was stupid." His only real talent was for drinking India ink, which impressed his school chums but not his teachers. In desperation, his parents sent him off to boarding school, where the headmaster told him he was "hopeless" and he developed a "sheer contempt for authority." He stumbled into acting at 17 with a YMCA group (his one line: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"), studied in London at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and, in 1965, joined Laurence Olivier's National Theatre.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_urchin

In an exhaustive 2014 feature story on sea urchins, Smithsonian magazine essayist Franz Lidz wrote: "In the brave new world of fine dining, the roe of the humble urchin—a shellfish once cursed as a pest to lobstermen, mocked as “whore’s eggs” and routinely smashed with hammers or tossed overboard as unsalable “bycatch”—is a prized and slurpily lascivious delicacy. Unlike caviar, which is the eggs of fish, the roe of the urchin is its gonads. Every year more than 100,000 tons are consumed by people, mainly in France and Japan, where chunks of salty, grainy custard are known as 'uni' and believed to be an uplifting tonic and aphrodisiac. The Japanese exchange urchins as gifts during New Year celebrations."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokusai

In an exhaustive 2017 feature story on Mount Fuji, Smithsonian magazine columnist Franz Lidz wrote: "Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji juxtaposed the mountain’s calm permanence with the turbulence of nature and flux of daily life. The long cycle of Fuji views—which would expand to 146—began in 1830 when Hokusai was 70 and continued until his death at 88. In the first plate of his second series, One Hundred Views of Mount Fuji, the mountain’s patron Shinto goddess, Konohanasakuya-hime, rises from the chaos and mists of antiquity. She embodies the center of the universe, emerging from the earth during a single night. Hokusai shows us glimpses of Fuji from a tea plantation, a bamboo grove and an old tree stump, framed by cherry blossoms, through a trellis, across a rice field, in a snowstorm, beneath the arch of a bridge, beyond an umbrella set out to dry, as a painted screen in a courtesan’s boudoir, cupped in the claw-like fume of a wave reaching its grip over fishing boats.”[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov

In an exhaustive report from the World Chess Championship 1987 in Seville, Spain, Sports Illustrated writer Franz Lidz wrote: Karpov, who's 36, is a brilliant if colorless tactician, whose cautious game is predominantly positional, relying on an accretion of minute advantages. Kasparov, 24, prefers risky attacks, wide-open gambits, movement. He subverts traditional ideas of defense, dazzling and seducing the opposition by whipping up assaults from seemingly innocuous positions. In moments of crisis he seems to pluck brilliant moves out of his sleeves like silk scarves.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov

In an exhaustive report from the event, Sports Illustrated writer Franz Lidz wrote: "Karpov, who's 36, is a brilliant if colorless tactician, whose cautious game is predominantly positional, relying on an accretion of minute advantages. Kasparov, 24, prefers risky attacks, wide-open gambits, movement. He subverts traditional ideas of defense, dazzling and seducing the opposition by whipping up assaults from seemingly innocuous positions. In moments of crisis he seems to pluck brilliant moves out of his sleeves like silk scarves."[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling

. In 2000, an exhaustive 6,500-word essay by Sports Illustrated senior writer Franz Lidz revealed that Sterling had a 99-year lease with the Mayer estate that required him to pay a relatively small annual fee and 15% of any rental income. Which was why for many years Sterling remained the sole tenant. "With no other tenant," Lidz reported, "the Mayer estate faces another 75 years with virtually no income from its Sterling Plaza property. By sitting and waiting, Sterling may force a fire sale."[7][18] As of April 2014, he owned 162 properties in Los Angeles.[19]

It's farcical. Pastoes777 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

Certainly, it beggars the imagination that everything the man ever wrote is "exhaustive" of the subject, so I have removed at least that from all the examples given above as WP:PEACOCK words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So, User:OPamuk1967b has 50 edits in their 4 1/2 years of editing here, and every single one involves Franz Lidz. This is either a person with a real thing for this writer, or this is paid promotional editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've asked them directly on their talk page why they only edit about Franz Lidz, and if they are paid to do so, or have a COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well i for one consider him a genius composer, not to mention one of the greatest concert pianists of all time. EEng 15:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a long time ago now, but in 2010 on the Franz Lidz article talk page there seems to have been a bit of a dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franz_Lidz

From the talk page (2010):

"I am a staffer at a publishing house in the United States. Part of my job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries of our authors. One of the entries that I am in charge of is the author Franz Lidz."

And I couldn't help but laugh at this from the same talk page

""When Lidz came to S.I. for a job interview during the summer of 1980, he wore black Converse hightops, a wool sport coat and a hunted look. His résumé read like a picaresque novel. He'd been a DJ, a soda jerk, a substitute teacher""

Pastoes777 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

Some other accounts:

• DrakeAvers 13 edits. All Frank Lidz.
• Waikieau437 7 edits. All Frank Lidz.
• DetroitPistonsPR3 5 edits. 4 Frank Lidz
• Hypendicular 1 edit. Frank Lidz.
• Hariman256 5 edits. All Frank Lidz
• AramingoTai 1 edit. Frank Lidz.
• RebeccaCenter34 2 edits. Both Frank Lidz.
• BlogginHead 1 edit. Frank Lidz.
• QuanticoMadness 1 edit. Frank Lidz
• Wentround2RR 2 edits. Frank Lidz
• Tamerland23 2 edits. Frank Lidz
• Damcad95 2 edits. Frank Lidz.
• MedArts 4 edits. All Frank Lidz
• SingleDay66998 16 edits. All Frank Lidz
• SunRa51 21 edits. 20 Frank Lidz

There are more! Pastoes777 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

I mean, I'm convinced the WP:DUCK test has been satisfied here with regard to both the COI and socking. But given your last post, maybe you should consider taking this to SPI. If you get a positive checkuser report on him, the block will be quickly implemented, making it the most efficient route. You could of course debate the likely COI issues here and maybe, with the sheer volume of diffs you're unearthing, you'll get an admin to act on it, in a few days. The community here can always be your back-up plan, but please let me gesture you towards....the path of least resistance. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser needed All of these accounts should be blocked for unregistered WP:PAID editing, and the oldest one marked as the sockmaster. Per WP:BURO, does a formal SPI really need to be filed given the evidence here? User:Pastoes777, why don't you listed the additional socks you are aware of? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a formal SPI needs to be opened.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That list alone was from a single page. I believe there are hundreds and naturally most are historic and dormant. Here is another recently active one that's been promoting Lidz in the introduction to articles varying from the boxing promoter Don King to the Blobfish. (both still current, go have a look) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wernick882K

For me sorting out the socks shouldn't be the priority here. That should be the entries. Literally every subject or person Franz Lidz has ever wrote about in his fairly long career has him on their wiki page promoting said work either as an entry or a reference.

In July Franz Lidz did a new piece for Smithsonian on Hannibal and now he's on multiple Hannibal pages including the main where he was fighting to be in the introduction but was stopped by other wiki users and eventually settled for lower down.

When he releases his August column in a few days on, let's for example say, Queen Victoria, this wiki user whether on *OPamuk1967b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or a different account will show up and bulldoze the standard "exhaustive" report sentence followed by a 3 or 4 line quote from the sourced article into every Queen Victoria on wiki that he can find. I can say this with certainty as he's been doing it for years. This isn't acceptable and I'd like permission to delete them (the promotional entries). Pastoes777 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

I for one am for it; some might argue that his edits can't all be harmful and that they ought to be considered on a case by case basis, but A) I trust you or other editors repairing the damage can use common sense as to that, and B) given the sockmaster's cookie-cutter approach here, and the numerous examples already supplied, it's hard to imagine that many of these additions are truly neutral, WP:WEIGHTed appropriately, and necessary to the articles they have been shoe-horned into. Plus, this being a case of socking, once that is established, you have a pretty airtight argument for removing them as disruptive. You might still run into the occasional WP:LOCALCONSENSUS argument from an editor working on one of those articles, so you might have to explain why you are removing a sourced comment and provide context for why and how its relevance has been overstated. But if you get the SPI resolved, you can then reference back to it (and this discussion) in your edits summaries as you remove the detritus. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What User:Snow Rise said. And props to Pastoes777 for pointing us to the unintended amusement provided by shameless boosterism. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a number of gratuitous excerpts from Lidz' writing that had been inserted into articles -- usually in the lede -- with no necessity for them to be there, as they generally add nothing except Lidz' opinion about the subject. I have not removed his stuff in a knee-jerk way, as some of it was useful, but the stuff that appeared to me to be there simply to promote Lidz I removed as "rem promo". I also added a COI notice to Franz Lidz, and CSD'd as "no context" a sub-stub which was nothing but the quote from Lidz' writing, with, literally, no context about where, specifically, it was about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work BMK. Thanks. Dr. K. 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Link hijack issue

Resolved

 – All cleaned up -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. We had a few reports at OTRS overnight of link hijacking involving the site GNAA.press, including on the Amazon.com and Comcast articles. See also this and this, plus this and this on Twitter (thanks to Samwalton9 for finding these links). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently this was fixed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes that was it. It was reported above in the #Another GNAA sock section above. I've also blacklisted the link. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. I suspected it was related, but couldn't tell that it was exactly the same issue because of the revision deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey All

Basically all nearly 1,000 of these articles need to be refreshed for the issue to be resolved completely.[83]

The malicious code can be seen here

Is there an easy way to do this? By bot to make a nul edit? I remember someone mentioning a way to force pages to refresh? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay checked some more and it appears to be good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of this which I believe I mentioned recently in a discussion we were both involved in. (edit, I lie, it was here and I was confusing you with Iridescent) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the vandalism used here the common kind for this LTA? If so we can use the spam blacklist and/or an abuse filter to stop it. Sam Walton (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It happens from time to time (in various forms) - GNAA have been trying to vandalise Wikipedia for more than a decade. I've blacklisted this link, but there should be a template filter around somewhere which also tackles it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a few deleted filters, but Filters 139 and 740 would be the ones to look at. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM

PBS has converted an RfC to RM (here), despite the fact that the discussion, which is indeed about article title, offers no specific new article title to discuss. Such an RM is pointless, and I don't like it being in my name. PBS should raise his own RM if he wishes.

I have requested help in finding a venue to discuss the RfC/RM question at WP:EAR, but would like to see PBS's edit reverted, pending discussion. I reverted once, but he reverted back. (1RR applies). Thanks, Batternut (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The action I took as a neutral administrator was taken under the community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War. See User talk:Batternut#Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 18 July 2017 for more details. -- PBS (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

To fully understand my the reason actions one has to look at the history of Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the previous requested moves.

When I hatted a related section on the talk page I added the comment "I have converted that RfC to a RM because most people do not want to have to take part in two discussions and if there is a different outcome between the RfC and the RM there will be discord and conflict. So use the RM above to decide the issue." (see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Qualifier for Islamic State article title. --PBS (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What in WP:GS justifies converting an RfC into an RM? Certainly nothing explicit. Being an Admin doesn't turn you into a power user that change anything anywhere, or does it?

NB surely there is a better forum for discussing the RfC/RM choice than the ANI? Batternut (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

OK I will join the dots for you.

1. community decision -- same as Wikipedia:ARBPIA
2. Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions includes a section "Motion: ARBPIA (December 2016)" which states "Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply." as my revert was made as an administrative edit it is not subject to 1RR. I suggest you read that section thoroughly.
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions includes Page restrictions. It says:

"Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator."

When you initiated you RfC it includes the sentence: "Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the consensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier. In my judgement as an uninvolved administrator, that is either a Machiavellian sentence (because if the RfC consensus is in favour of your proposition, then it will be argued at an RM that the move is already agreed, all that needs to be decided is the bracketed disambiguation extension); however that would be to assume bad faith, so I put it down to naivety. Which ever it is, if the outcome of the RfC and the proposed RM were different it would most probably lead to conflict and disharmony. So rather than let it go that far, it is better to close the RfC and run it as a RM. Changing the RfC into an RM save those that have already expressed an opinion for and against from having to repeat themselves. I can re-list the other advantages of using RM for moves, but that should not be necessary

Up to now I have assumed you were acting in good faith, but if you persist in arguing in favour of re-inserting the flawed RfC then I will assume that you are acting in bad faith (be aware of Boomerang. -- PBS (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree with the conversion Using discretionary sanctions int his case is, in my opinion, overreaching. The only instruction on this page, regarding discretionary sanctions, is to observe 1RR, nothing else, discussion was civil so there was no need for admin intervention. Could this have been introducted as a move request? certainly, but was it necessary to turn it into one by Admin fiat ? Definelty not. I would say revert, and intercede only if it's needed, right now it isn't.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• To be fair, it's not malicious or anything, but it certainly is pointless, for one, RM is more procedural and less far-reaching with opinions than a RfC and there was no reason to convert it in whatsoever manner. Also, I do not appreciate how the admin is being intolerant of suggestions and is hasty in assuming bad faith, even though it's them who are clearly the cause of controversy in this affair. Furthermore, using ARBPIA/DS as a rationale is pure fluff and hence, essentially makes the entire reason for the conversion, baseless. --QEDK (愛) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• As the last contributor to arrive via the RfC notice before the discussion was converted, I will say that I'm not 100% following PBS' DS reasoning, but putting that aside for a minute, it's worth noting that this was not the most ideally approached RfC of all time, even before they arrived on the scene. RfC's are meant to be A) concise and B) as close to completely neutral as possible. Instead the OP here (Batternut) opened the RfC with a massive list detailing how all of the objections to their preffered approach had actually been addressed already. I AGF that the editor does not have much experience with the process and was not meaning to do anything improper, but that puts the RfC off on the wrong foot to start with.

I don't know that this non-neutral framing would have had a huge impact in this case; I think had the RfC been allowed to continue, the regular editors local to that page (who seem to have settled on an idiosyncratic approach that is not, in my opinion, remotely policy consistent) would have voted one way, and other veteran editors arriving via the RfC would have voted as community consensus on such matters dictate. So if anything, PBS actually seems to have done a huge favour to Batternut's position when he closed the RfC as he did. Whether the RfC being poorly formed had anything to do with the decision, I do not know.

What I do know is that it would be much simpler to restart the RfC, either by reformatting/restarting it, or just re-adding the tags and restarting the 30-day clock. RM or RfC, the discussion should be promoted in a variety of lists and forums to save editorial time down the line, because here's what I see in this discussion: this is one of our most high-profile articles right now, and for some reason a collection of editors there want to ignore the most basic community consensus regarding our article naming policy (particularly WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRECISE), and they want to do so for a pretty much moral reason that is explicitly disallowed by WP:TITLE.

Now, I don't mention all of this because I want to transport the content discussion here to ANI, where it of course does not belong. Rather I mention it because it seems to me that the mess that has been created here means that, if the discussion ends where it is now, Batternut may feel he is entitled to claim a consensus on a matter that, in my opinion, does not have a chance of surviving broader community scrutiny. Even if the article is moved, all it is going to accomplish is to cause the many, many veteran editors who might be reading that high-traffic article on a given day to flood into the talk page trying to figure out how such an important topic got divorced from COMMONNAME. And when the mess that lead to this WP:OR outcome becomes known, somebody is definitely going to take the matter to WP:Move review, given the procedural nightmare here.

I think it would be easier to simply restart the RfC (ideally reformatted by a neutral third party), rather than waste all of the editorial time that will be sapped up by two (or more) additional threads in multiple forums. The discussion can be highly promoted to get decent community turn out, and the larger community can give what I think is the inevitable verdict here: just because we don't want to use the term "Islamic State" because some fear it will legitimate a nightmare group of extremist thugs, doesn't mean we can ignore the WP:WEIGHT of WP:Reliable sources when they choose to do so. That's just the reality of the world right now, and on this project, we attempt to accurately reflect reality, not shape it. Just my two cents. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS's intervention on Batternut's R?? was fully justified. The whole Batternut effort was really bothering me from a process point of view but I could not quite articulate why. Either Batternut is trying an underhanded way to achieve dozens of page renames at once (against many many failed RPMs) or he is process inept. Given has posts here and on User_talk:PBS trying to bully PBS... I'm leaning toward the first. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is going to get moved without an RM, and there no way that any RM for this article is going to quietly sneak under the radar! Given the heat that previous RMs have generated, testing the water (/boiling oil) before jumping in seemed sensible. Re bullying, please compare PBS's postings on User_talk:Batternut with mine on his. Batternut (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything that outwardly shouts a nefarious intent in Batternut's approach. Granted, I just arrived via the RfC and don't know the history here, but I nevertheless AGF as to that. I do think the RfC effort was a bit of a mess (over what is probably a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of success, as I don't think the community will allow a change of the title for an article as important as ISIL's for purely ideological reasons, taking it out of lockstep with the vast majority of sources).

As to "bullying", I don't think the behaviour of either party on the other's talk page has been especially problematic. Obviously they disagree, but the discussion, if not exactly rainbows and sunshine, is civil. I will say that maybe the only inappropriate part was launching this ANI without first discussing the matter; PBS's conversion (regardless of whether review holds it as advisable) was accompanied by a polite explanation of his reasoning and an offer to discuss any challenge on his TP. Batternut may have thought he had dubious odds of convincing PBS to reverse his decision, but not even trying before launching the ANI is just not the wisest way to deal with any difference of opinion, let alone a challenge to an administrative action. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The top of the ISIL talk page details how many previous move requests have failed. It's not some local consensus, its had hundreds of editors input. Batternut is being disruptive and sneaky here. He's no new editor, trying to bully PBS with mention of Arbcom appeal on PBS talk. Legacypac (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Being a general sanction, admin are empowered to do "...any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." They have a great deal of latitude. Of course, they are accountable for their actions, which is why we are here, and it seem to me that his actions are within policy and both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is the source of the authority for his actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS has set me three challenges, by way of request to revert back to an RfC:

1. Why was my RfC not neutrally worded?

In hindsight, a title Should this article be renamed "Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier)" would have been more RfC compliant than This article should be renamed "Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier)", likewise my subsequent lengthy arguments should have been placed after some brief statement and signature, as per WP:RFC. I concede Snow Rise's observation "the editor does not have much experience with the process"!

2. Why does the sentence "Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the consensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier" not have the capacity to sow discord?

That is an impossibly high bar... Everything about ISIL and its name produces discord. However, having read the previous renaming discussions, I had hoped that the issue would be easier to deal with one piece at a time, ie be more focussed, and generate fewer tirades.

3. Why I used 'biased' language in the ANI section title "unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM"?

Without an objection to this conversion there is no incident. I think the term "unwelcome" is a milder descriptor than the average in these woods.

Batternut (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attack by SecretSquirrel78 warned and disregarded.

There's a editor SecretSquirrel78 who, in a space of all of 4 edits, used 1 to accuse me of bias, the 2nd to undo a questionable edit which would almost be immediately undone by another experienced editor, and the 3rd and 4th edit to conduct a personal attack on me and another editor, Wrigleygum, accusing us of biased editing. Which is amusing because I barely even edited in the page on the subject he was talking about, and have obviously never interacted with him prior to his first edit. And somehow managing to also accuse me of accusing him of being another editor [User:Cmr08|Cmr08] when all I asked was if he had another account, due to the comments attached to his first edit of his first edit. Can someone weigh in on this? Thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning everyone! I'm just simply warning others that this editor has done edits that are questionable and were plain biased. Thankfully, their antics were stopped after other non partisan editors came to stop them. Look at the edits they've done to Lee Kuan Yew article after his death or look at the talk page.

I hope Wikipedia administration take note that we've editors in Singapore that always trying to surpass and remove content that are not in line with the incumbent. Look at the page Hamilah Yacob, information about her Indian decent was well substantiated but was removed as these editors claim the sources were poor. You can see local forums mocking Wikipedia being infested by pro incumbent editors. I hope the administrators can actively monitor these censors. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned in the other Talkpage, unfortunately certain articles are prone to activism from any side, and most of my edits have in fact been to revert vandalism on these pages. Even in the most recent edits for the Lee Hsien Loong article have mainly been to either correct formatting or to remove unsourced info per BLP. Since your edit history shows you are only active on the Lee Hsien Loong page, plus I cannot speak for Wrigleygum, but you are welcome to point out any edit I have made on the Lee Hsien Loong main page or talk page, which you feel shows bias and has been made against wikipedia policy. You are of course welcome to point out any other edits from other articles, but then that would raise the question again: You seem to have a lot of experience supposedly tracking my alleged bias that goes well beyond your limited edit history. Do you have another account you are not disclosing? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Surely you can do better than some random allegations. You will be more productive justifying content rather than personal attacks because wikipedia frowns on the latter. As for Lee Kuan Yew - the last I checked, most of my contributions are still there and we had proper engagement. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wrigleygum:----Well, the question was valid enough and wasn't directed at you! Chill!:)Winged Blades ^Godric 17:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

yes your contributions to [Lee Kuan Yew]]'s page are still there but they had to be modified as it sounds something like from North Korea. Let's share with everyone the wonderful stuff you added in a wikipedia article:

"Lee is often described as an conviction leader, incorrupt and of high intelligence. He eschewed populist policies in favor of long-term social and economic measures ...... There is no better strategic thinker in the world today. Two generations of American leaders have benefited from his counsel" Maybe can anyone else check the Lee Hsien Long why both of them are insistent on the suppression of the word "ABUSE".? when everyone is reporting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

SecretSquirrel, I see that you are continuing to distract from the topic.

1. I made this report specifically about your behavior on the Lee Hsien Loong topic, and
2. about your personal attacks which is against policies. If you wish to make a formal complaint about alleged bias, you are welcome to create your own topic rather than hijacking this.

That you are so interested in other pages, even though your edit history only shows participation on the Lee Hsien Loong page, raises red flags, especially coupled with the comments from the very first edit you made with this account. And now, I see you nonchalantly replacing words like "use" from the original reference with "abuse" even though its quotes from living persons, and used in different context, even when I have explained it very clearly to you they should not be mixed up. Yet you try to explain it as, and I am quoting you exactly "They don't have to say it word for word in the Wikipedia article as that it's plain plagiarism." is an explanation made in either very bad faith, or poor understanding of editing policies here. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it a Vandal or just some SEO?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.124.103.194 This user appears to be a vandal. Some of the incorrect information that was added is innocuous (but incorrect) while others seems quite out of place. Really not sure what to do with this...

Such as claiming that pedagogy is teaching children rather than teaching (in general). https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedagogy&diff=prev&oldid=791265365

Replaced President of India with "Akash agarwal" https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Greatest_Indian&diff=prev&oldid=788991680

Added a spurious reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Organizational_culture&diff=prev&oldid=778469170

Said that the whereabouts of the criminal are unknown, yet the article linked said he was not in the courtroom due to illness, so was in his hospital bed. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jorge_Glas&diff=prev&oldid=778441082 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twocs (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• That is a Linksys router on a static IP, very likely open to the public, but not an open proxy to the internet. It is also a mismanaged one. I'm tempted to block it on that alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Softblocked. ie: logged in users can still edit, but no anonymous editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

POV editing

Over the last several months there have been issues with Das osmnezz (talk · contribs) regarding WP:NPOV violations. I think this is mostly an issue of a language barrier. Their grasp on the English language is too poor to realize that there is a problem. They've received numerous warnings, and have been blocked several times for this. After coming off their most recent block a few days ago, the problems with their editing promptly resumed. One of the first things they did was to create an article on Phathana Phommathep with undue weight problems, since Das osmnezz based the article primarily on a puff-piece published by FourFourTwo. They also reverted my attempts to fix these problems. They've continued to use needlessly flowery language, describing football matches with wide margins of victory as an "obliteration" in Phathana Phommathep, and as an "annihilation" and a "demolishing" in Eric Williams (football coach). In Sam Schweingruber, they describe the start of a corruption scandal as "Phnom Penh Crown had been torn asunder". This editor is clearly well intentioned, but unable to write from a neutral point of view. I'm left with the impression that an indefinite WP:CIR block is called for here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Support indefinite block They were blocked for 3 months for this (and some other issues) before. WP:CIR and WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've had to deal with this issue for a while and it has been brought here at my suggestion as the most recent incident did not strike me as rising to the level of an indefinite block. See the most recent discussion of this on my talk page. All of which said. Sir Sputnik has some fair points. There are CIR issues here that go back a ways and there needs to be a limit on the extent to which experienced editors should be expected to hold a new editor's hand, especially when the same problems continue to come up. I really hate blocking editors who are clearly not engaged in malicious behavior. But this may be one of those situations where it needs to be done. In any case this is the right venue to resolve this since previous blocks have resulted in endless appeals. Perhaps an experienced editor serving as a mentor might work, but otherwise I think this is not going to have a happy ending. For now I am neutral on an indef block, but only barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

CommentJust saying, when I wrote that "Phnom Penh Crown had been torn asunder" I was quoting the article → [84] itself, not using my own words. Would it have been okay if i used quotation marks? As for the unnecessary flowery language when describing football matches, those were completely over-the-top and I even knew that it qualified as POV editing when I wrote it. Since I did a lot of articles on Word without putting them on Wikipedia, I will revisit them and erase all the unnecessary words and information on there - like I did on Angel Alfredo Vera. Das osmnezz (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Ronalditos58815738 has been creating articles, mainly football-related blps, for the last couple of years. There have been many warnings left on their talk page (Talk:Ronalditos58815738) for disruptive editing and lack of communication. Ronalditos58815738 does not seem to have responded to any of these messages. I moved some of the blps, with an external link, of dubious notability and no clear sources - mainly one sentence long - to draftspace and asked Ronalditos58815738 to work on them there and submit them via WP:AFC. Unfortunately, Ronalditos58815738 just copied and pasted them back onto the mainspace, e.g. Óscar Vera. I've brought this here because I've failed to engage the editor in communication. I am concerned that after creating more than 1000 articles (please feel free to double-check exact amount, it wouldn't show using my usual tool), Ronalditos58815738 is still making very poor articles, which are creating lots of work for other editors and refusing to work on them in draftspace. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this ANI was initiated, Ronalditos has created more articles like this, see Isaac Moreno. Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion. The editor has never used either a talkpage or a usertalk page. My inclination would be to topic-ban them from creating any article except in draft space (this would include moving draftspace articles to mainspace). If the articles are good enough, they can be submitted via AFC. Usually, persisting with editing like this would be grounds for a block, but the editor does have many hundreds of constructive edits as well. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree That sounds like a fair solution. It is the article creation that is the main issue (although the refusal to communicate is also disruptive). Ronalditos58815738, can you please comment here? Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a link to WP:Communication is required. If they refuse to communicate, I'm not sure that a topic ban is going to be anything more than a gateway to an indef block, although I wouldn't oppose it simply because it is at least an attempt to get them to be productive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• The topic ban could even be restricted to BLPs. Their other creations, mostly football stadia etc., are less problematic. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

He has about 20 edits, including one new BLP, since he was notified of this discussion. I'm getting the feeling we may be forced to block just to get him talking. :/ Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think a block due to communication and a possible topic ban on creating all articles looks best at the moment. I don't agree that his non-blp articles are any better, for instance [85], a stadium article created yesterday with no refs, one 'external link' and little info, and within a day redirected due to lack of notability. They just aren't taking any care and won't even discuss it. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the chances of a topic ban having any sort of impact on an editor who has never engaged with the community in any way are somewhere in the region of 0%. Given how active he is, a short-ish block of a few days is likely to get his attention (if anything will) and I think we should go straight to this. Either he'll play ball or he'll sock and we'll have to decide if we're prepared to take the good with the bad. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to block him a week, to make sure we get his attention. Any admin is free to unblock once it is clear they get the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing by User: Khaled Abolaynain

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

---

This user is advertising his service to help people on various freelancing websites, including deletion discussion. His MO is help and demand payment or result in a negative outcome. Based on his LinkedIn and Upwork profile, he has written a couple of articles and none of them were declared to be paid.

• He has also made private his Upwork page but searching his username on Google will be enough to reveal that he has an Upwork profile that advertise his paid services but he has not declared his payments ever once.

Hsypark (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

These are very serious accusations. Can you substantiate via diffs the alleged blackmail? Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hsypark: Note my question above and I have another one for you. I note from your contributions that you are a new editor, and that your contribs have been largely confined to two fairly obscure commercial subjects. A totally friendly query: are you a paid editor? Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: What are diffs? Did you see those links? And no, I am not paid. I have contributed multiple edits to other articles as well such as Uber and Lee Hsien Loong. I chose to write about errund because I have read their news and used their service and am extremely happy with it and I know a person working there.Hsypark (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hsypark: Please email ArbCom with your concerns: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org Please do not continue this discussion on this forum, and do not provide links on Wikipedia to what you feel may be their real life accounts without their permission, or their having previously done so on Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Similar statements have been made, a couple with similar links posted, by the same editor on multiple pages today besides this noticeboard: [86]; [87]; [88]. If this rises to the level of WP:OUTING that needs to be oversighted, those pages should be addressed as well. TJRC (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've RevDel'ed one of the threads, others got the rest I think. You really can't make those kinds of claims publicly here, Hsypark, true or not. As SilkTork told you, email evidence to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org and they will take it from there. Please don't leave messages like that in the future, just contact ArbCom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Lyoness

Wikipedia's article about the Lyoness pyramid scheme has been repeatedly edited by the subject of the article, under the not very subtle username User:LyonessGroup as well as other single purpose accounts and anonymous IPs. There seems to be little protection of the article and some of the previous whitewashing edits have gone unreverted for over a week. Isn't there a template somewhere that warns editors that the article tends to be edited by its own subject? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked the LyonessGroup account as an obvious username violation. I haven't got time now to check the edits, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've added some protection to the article that should reduce future problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Outing attempt and talk page vandalism

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

---

Swan11jf has not created a userpage, User:Laocoön just created User:Swan11jf, with "(alleged name)" I blanked the page and then Laocoön added "I am ∈ (name of school)" plus some other content, I reverted this with the edit summery "stop messing with someone else's user page" and was reverted by Laocoön, so I reverted and warned Laocoön, and so far have not been reverted yet, although Laocoön has deleted the warnings from his talk page. In addition to this, Laocoön had replaced a welcome template at User talk:Swan11jf with "Hello, (alleged name) who frequents (name of school)." Tornado chaser (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment:Have req. oversight.Well, I won't be surprised if these 2 UAC's are linked to one person!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Courcelles:--Lightning fast!And as a side-note what are the requisites for an oversight block?Just outing or something more?Winged Blades ^Godric 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT might answer your questions. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does really. An oversight block is simply one based on evidence that no normal admin is capable of reviewing, because the relevant information has been oversighted for whatever reason. WP:OSBL and WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE probably have more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Laocoön is blocked but that there is no block template on their talk page, is this for a reason or did someone simply forget? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to ask the blocking admin. The user will see the block message template every time they attempt to edit, so they are not exactly uninformed. It isn't always necessary to advertise the block reason on the user's talk page - I would suggest especially in the case of oversight blocks that a presumption is made that it's probably intentional. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It was specifically an Oversight block, by Courcelles, all options ticked, which is kind of rare. No admin can overturn anyway. I'm pretty sure the lack of template was not accidental. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, quite intentional. WP:DENY, among other reasons. Basically an oversight-block means "stuff disappeared such that the block may not make sense without also having oversight access". Of course, this time, I didn't notice the ANI... I think the reasons for a block are kind of out of the bag here! Courcelles (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, I was wondering if the user would mistake the block for technical difficulties but it sounds like that isn't an issue. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

RD1 request

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

---

Could an administrator please hide revisions of Visakhapatnam police prior to this one; content was clearly copied and pasted and the page creator has now removed it from newer revisions. Home Lander (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

International Project Management Association

Since the above page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. Can any admins shift the following to the main space after review it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MADRASS2014/The_International_Project_Management_Association

Regards.MADRASS2014 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not, IMO, remotely ready. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:MADRASS2014 - Please explain why you think that that stub is worth wasting the time of the administrative community and other experienced editors to ask to have a stub accepted that is completely unworthy of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the IPMA one of those scam certification-mills which will basically hand out a professional certification to anyone who pays the necessary fee? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And looking at their contributions, MADRASS2014 appears to be an undeclared WP:PAID editor/PR person. They created Kenneth K. Hansraj, who appears to be a non-notable surgeon, and then edited nothing but that article for the next few days. Then, a month later, they created in their userspace Paul Mason (producer), who appears to be a barely notable TV producer, and edited that for a couple of days, before stopping and picking up two months later and doing a flurry of edits in one day before moving it to main space (a bunch of these edits have been rev del'd or oversighted). Finally, this month, MADRESS2014 started working on IPMA article in their userspace, and now wants to move it into mainspace. This stinks to high heaven of undeclared paid editing, and I suggest MADRESS2014 be indef blocked, and their three articles be sent to XfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference to my Talk Page question: Why on earth you should suspect me whether I am a paid editor. If every one who had initially created an article on Wikipedia, he would have some interest of the subject, does that mean, he is biased? Then the total Wikipedia project's mechanism is suspected. Or do you think Wikipedia editors as volunteers, should be strictly without any interest over articles? Then why they should create an article, on which basis? MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And here is what I answered on your talk page:

I didn't ask about your interests, I asked if you were paid, a question you have not answered. Why do I ask the question? Because of your pattern of editing, which fits the pattern of a WP:PAID editor. You create an article, edit it (and nothing else) for some days, then don't appear again until it's time to create another article. The articles you've created are about widely disparate and disconnected subjects, and are all of fringe notability, at best - just like someone who is paid to create articles would do. You look like a paid editor, and I'd like a straightforward answer to the question: were you paid to create and edit the articles I listed above? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My response to the above on my Talk Page: I am not a paid editor whether you believe it or not. Yes, my interests and involvements are mostly unrelated.MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you outright deny being a paid editor, but you're doing some pretty damn fancy tap dancing about why you created the articles you did. So far, you're basically repeating the mantra "They came to my attention, and I thought they deserved an article," but you won't say how they came to your attention, and why you thought they deserved an article. Especially with the case of IPMA, you really need to explain why you thought it was a good idea to re-create an article about this organization when the previous article(s) have been deleted and salted. Until you can explain these things, I remain unconvinced by your denial of being a paid editor, since your editing pattern is like the ur-fingerprint for paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop questioning me anymore, I don't want to give every other details of my intention to you.

If a Spanish Wikipedia can have article on International Project Management Association, why English Wikipedia can't have one?

I am not going to waste my time anymore answering your borderline stupid questions; let other administrators handle this issue. If they wish let my account get it blocked. Bye.MADRASS2014 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

MADRESS2014 has been unable or unwilling to explain the reasons he created these specific articles, instead relying on generalities such as the above. Since their pattern of editing is so distinctly that of a paid editor, and they cannot explain their motivations behind creating articles about disparate and disconnected subjects, there really is nothing for it but to reiterate my call for MADRESS2014 to be indef blocked as an obvious undeclared paid editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Paul Mason looks to barely clear the notability bar if the sources check out. I'd also be looking at Chitranjan Singh Ranawat as well, which, like Hansraj, looks like it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Chitranjan Singh Ranawat article was not created by me.MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That article's creator is still active, and could be asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

On the one hand, I find the reasoning of User:Beyond My Ken to be persuasive that User:MADRASS2014 is an intermittent undisclosed paid editor. On the other hand, if we are to take them at their word that they are not a paid editor, then, in thinking that the community would think that stub was worth bypassing protection, they have a competence problem. Incompetent editors who are often indeffed, but here we have an editor who is merely making a very stupid request (unless, of course, they are being paid). In that case, I suggest that MADRASS2014 be topic-banned from making any administrative requests until the year 2038. (No, that isn't quite the end of the world, except for some computer operating systems.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert, I don't think you are an administrator or CU to come out with such a chaotic conclusion that I should be topic-banned until the year 2038. If I think, it is relevant I should disclose my real identity, I will do it via ArbCom mailing list, there they will be convinced, I am not a paid editor. I have contributed and created many more articles which are sensitive geopolitics concerned via my other accounts since 2005.MADRASS2014 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What's this about "other accounts"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, MADRESS2014, what are your previous accounts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Since they are geopolitics concerned, I have abandoned, but still I can disclose them to ArbCom.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting to be a sockmaster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Let the ArbCom decides whether the personal safety or having alternate accounts is more important.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about personal safety for editing here, your best bet might be to abandon Wikipedia altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @MADRASS2014: If you do disclose your previous accounts to ArbCom, make sure that you also point them to this discussion, so they understand that the question of your previous editing is not simply a theoretical one, but has importance as evidence concerning whether you are or are not a paid editor -- as well as the usual questions about whether you changed accounts for your safety, or were acting to avoid scrutiny of your edits, which is forbidden by WP:Sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You alone can't force that on to someone, the entire community should decide that. I know well experienced editors have left Wikipedia or become inactive, even some ArbCom members.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the community should decide, but it can't because you won't give it any information to base a decision on, such as why you created those articles about those specific subjects, or who your previous accounts were. You say we must decide, but you refuse to answer our inquiries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeated personal comments in AFD

Would an admin please review the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridiron Developmental Football League? Please advise next course of action in discussion between myself and User:Niteshift36. I'm most concerned about continued personal comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with edit-warring user

Help. A little over two days ago I made | this edit to Dacha, which I thought would be completely uncontroversial, only to have it reverted almost immediately by User:JesseRafe with a personal attack on me. I restored it, calling on him to make his objections, if he has any, on the talk page, only to have User:FlightTime falsely claim that WP:BURDEN, which explicitly refers only to the burden of providing citations for content, instead requires anyone who wants to make any change to a WP page to discuss it first. Rather than edit-war, I then opened a discussion on the talk page, explaining what I'd done and why, and inviting the two editors who had reverted me, or anyone else who had some argument to make against it, to make it and discuss what should be done. I then let it be for more than two days, to give plenty of time for discussion, and hearing no objection I restored my edit. Within a minute User:FlightTime had reverted it, and posted on my talk page with no attempt at argument, explanation, or anything else, but simply a warning that I faced being blocked for disruption, which as far as I can tell is exactly what he is doing. I need some help here. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't see what else I can do when someone refuses to discuss, indeed seems to have no opinion on the content at all (which is why I think this is not a content dispute), but simply reverts, apparently out of some sort of grudge or something, I don't know what. Maybe a prejudice against anonymous editors? As I understand it that is explicitly contrary to WP policy. Anyway, could someone please inject some sense here? And if someone actually has some comment on the content of my edit, I'd appreciate any good-faith discussion. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: While I'm about it I'd appreciate any contribution anyone can make to this discussion about another edit that User:JesseRafe repeatedly reverted but refused to discuss. I'm going to leave that one alone for now, just so as not to escalate this any further, but if I don't hear a reason not to by Sunday I'll restore it then, and will expect not to be reverted again without discussion. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)